The 20 Best Quotes From Jonah Goldberg

[Oswald Bastable]

This one hits home well:

8) Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common goal. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism.

The rest are here: http://conservativeread.com/the-20-b...onah-goldberg/

[LAGC]

Ah yes, Jonah Goldberg, that paragon of the right, trying to divorce fascism from its ugly far-right-wing roots.

Tell me... which contemporary ideology (conservatism or liberalism) emphasizes an aggressive nationalism and often racism amongst its ranks?

Champions business interests vs. regulating them to death?

Advocates rampant militarism including imperialist warmongering abroad? Asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations?

It was no accident that, when push came to shove, German conservatives in the 1930's sided with Hitler and the Nazis against the liberals and Communists, just as Greek conservatives are increasingly supporting the fascist Golden Dawn movement today as well.

But hey -- if you mean that so-called "liberals" are being caught up in corporate politics and becoming pawns of big business interests like Hitlery, then yes, I suppose you can make a case for creeping "liberal fascism."

[N/A]

As usual, little Marxist changes the subject from the quotes to examine them, to insulting the person who wrote them. The reason you are a useless idiot, is you can't come up with an original thought, only what the socialist/marxist regurgitate for your consumption.

[Oswald Bastable]

Ah yes, Jonah Goldberg, that paragon of the right, trying to divorce fascism from its ugly far-right-wing roots.

Tell me... which contemporary ideology (conservatism or liberalism) emphasizes an aggressive nationalism and often racism amongst its ranks?

Champions business interests vs. regulating them to death?

Advocates rampant militarism including imperialist warmongering abroad? Asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations?

It was no accident that, when push came to shove, German conservatives in the 1930's sided with Hitler and the Nazis against the liberals and Communists, just as Greek conservatives are increasingly supporting the fascist Golden Dawn movement today as well.

But hey -- if you mean that so-called "liberals" are being caught up in corporate politics and becoming pawns of big business interests like Hitlery, then yes, I suppose you can make a case for creeping "liberal fascism."

So, you're saying that only the right end of the spectrum can become totalitarian, savage, murderous, genocidal monsters?

You know, aside from that whole "socialist" aspect of fascism...

It would appear Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot would take exception to that belief...but hey, whatever floats your revisionist boat...

But perhaps Mr. Goldberg has a quote that applies to you...possibly?:

18) Everywhere, unthinking mobs of “independent thinkers” wield tired clichés like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question “enlightened” dogma. If “violence never solved anything,” cops wouldn’t have guns and slaves may never have been freed. If it’s better that 10 guilty men go free to spare one innocent, why not free 100 or 1,000,000? Clichés begin arguments, they don’t settle them.

[LAGC]

So, you're saying that only the right end of the spectrum can become totalitarian, savage, murderous, genocidal monsters?

It would appear Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot would take exception to that belief...but hey, whatever floats your revisionist boat...

No, what I'm saying is that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were left-wing, anti-corporate authoritarians ("Communists").

Whereas Hitler and Mussolini were right-wing, pro-corporate authoritarians ("Fascists").

They may have all been totalitarian, savage, murderous dictators, but their political ideologies were distinctly different.

During the Great Depression, German conservatives and industrialists sided with the fascists, whereas the liberal social democrats sided more with the communists.

The first thing Hitler and the Gestapo did when they assumed power was start rounding up communists.

There's a reason why Hitler and Stalin were mortal enemies to the bitter end, and why most Nazis tried to surrender to the western Allies and not the Red Army.

But hey, if it makes you feel better calling them all "fascists", so be it. All I know is that Mussolini is spinning in his grave.

[Oswald Bastable]

Please explain how the end result of fascism under Hitler, differs appreciably from the end result of socialism under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Under both, the end justifies the means, and under both, the end is the same...the death of millions.

Your argument is a distinction without a difference.

[Kadmos]

Please explain how the end result of fascism under Hitler, differs appreciably from the end result of socialism under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Under both, the end justifies the means, and under both, the end is the same...the death of millions.

Your argument is a distinction without a difference.

What was the distinctive difference of millions of Native Americans killed for capitalism?

Or millions of blacks enslaved for it?

18) Everywhere, unthinking mobs of “independent thinkers” wield tired clichés like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question “enlightened” dogma. If “violence never solved anything,” cops wouldn’t have guns and slaves may never have been freed. If it’s better that 10 guilty men go free to spare one innocent, why not free 100 or 1,000,000? Clichés begin arguments, they don’t settle them.

As though conservatives never throw around tired cliches or pummel at those who dare question the party line...you've popularized a term for people in your own party who don't fall in line quick enough...RINO's.

And by the by, Blackstone's Formulation did put it at 10 guilty go free rather than one innocent suffer, but he said it 600 years after Maimonides stated "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death"

However Pol Pot agrees with you in saying "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape"

[Oswald Bastable]

It's always good to see you two lovers in sync...really warms the cockles of our hearts...ya know?

Moral equivalence test fail...by the way.

[Kadmos]

It's always good to see you two lovers in sync...really warms the cockles of our hearts...ya know?

It not being our particular brand of self congratulatory bullshit makes it rather easy for us to see through.

BTW, didn't you in another thread mention how not attacking the messenger......

Moral equivalence test fail...by the way.

Great. Now that you've managed to label it "fail", perhaps you could make some sort of supporting argument that might help prove that. Otherwise you just look like a bitter little man who got his ass handed to him.

By my reckoning every system of organizing people has some historical sins, be that Communism, Capitalism, Republics, Monarchy's, or theocracies. Each and every type has abused and murdered his fellow man, each and every one claiming it was done for the common good.

Don't get me wrong, some are way worse than others, but all have blood on their hands.


Also, most of those quotes really do apply to both sides, as I stated.

8) Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common goal. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism.

Drop that last sentence and democrat reading this will say "Yep, sounds like republicans", and a republican the opposite. And from their point of view both can make the logical argument as to why.

If calm and reasonable enough they could make that argument to the other, hear them out, and likely both walk away thinking they each were right in the first place.

And neither would be wrong.

[Oswald Bastable]

Don't get me wrong, some are way worse than others, but all have blood on their hands.

And as usual, you come to the defense of those with the most blood on their hands, rather than the least. Predictable as a stopped clock.

[Kadmos]

And as usual, you come to the defense of those with the most blood on their hands, rather than the least. Predictable as a stopped clock.

Sorry, I'm going to say conservatives have way more blood on their hands than liberals.

Whatever you choose to call "left" or "right" makes no difference, but that statement I'm sticking with. The Nazi's weren't liberals, the massive communist murders weren't done by liberals.

[Oswald Bastable]

Sorry, I'm going to say conservatives have way more blood on their hands than liberals.

Of course you would. No liberal tard would ever admit that approximately half a billion people have died due to socialism, when they could credibly argue a few million were killed by conservatives.

The dialectic does not allow for such admissions.

[Kadmos]

Of course you would. No liberal tard would ever admit that approximately half a billion people have died due to socialism, when they could credibly argue a few million were killed by conservatives.

The dialectic does not allow for such admissions.

Word a day calendar?

You got to look out for those things, you aren't using it correctly.

BTW, I said nothing of deaths from Socialism, my statement was liberalism vs conservatism.

[Oswald Bastable]

BTW, I said nothing of deaths from Socialism, my statement was liberalism vs conservatism.

Sorry, I'm going to say conservatives have way more blood on their hands than liberals.

Of course you didn't...

[Kadmos]

Of course you didn't...

If you chose to equate socialism with liberalism than I'd say we are working off of different definitions.

I was careful with my wording, and I stand by it. The communists, the socialists, who killed millions, were not liberals

[Oswald Bastable]

If you chose to equate socialism with liberalism than I'd say we are working off of different definitions.

I was careful with my wording, and I stand by it. The communists, the socialists, who killed millions, were not liberals

Then why do so many liberals champion each and every socialist/communist agenda they can, over and over again, despite the fact the ideology has never worked to produce a thriving society?

[Kadmos]

Then why do so many liberals champion each and every socialist/communist agenda they can, over and over again, despite the fact the ideology has never worked to produce a thriving society?

Because not all "socialistic" or "communist" things are evil or murderous. And many of them are in fact rather successful.

Again the issue is a matter of degrees. Public roads are socialist, as are public schools. Public works in general. Most people would say many of those things enhance life. The fact is you rarely get a thriving society that's worth living in for the common man without something that could be called socialism.

As I said in the other thread, consider early Egypt, you essentially have communism that created one of the worlds original superpowers. It wasn't until they added in a supreme leader, the Pharaohs, that it became a despotic authoritarian state.

Even ancient Rome had bread rations for the poor, certainly socialistic, and they thrived for a long time doing this. Sure you can decry "bread and circuses", but it lasted a really long time.

To say these things "never worked" is simply wrong, or trying to use way to narrow of a definition.

Even if you look at the bad examples you can't honestly say they "never worked", Russia went from being the backwater of Europe to putting the first man in space. Literacy went from damn near zero to damn near 100% and life expectancy increased overall.

Was there blood spilled? Yes. Horribly? Yes.

But was there also blood spilled here in the US between the writing of our Constitution and when we put a man on the moon? Hell yes. Not just the murder of millions of natives, but also a rather bloody civil war. We can choose to romanticize it, but it was bloody and harsh and we killed plenty of our own people.

Does that make America a failure? Not in my eyes. But I would bet a lot of Soviets thought we were ridiculously horrible people for allowing such to happen. Obviously Soviets didn't exist during the American civil war. Sad that I have to say that, but someone would twist my words to make it seem like I thought they were contemporaries.

[Oswald Bastable]

Ahhh yes...the blood spilled for advancement paradigm...it's always about how much blood must be spilled for advancement of the cause among liberals, isn't it? Isn't that the ultimate calculation of societal success for socialism/communism? How much blood must be spilled to achieve our utopia that never happens? And history has shown it will be every liter that opposes leftist rule, from Stalin's purges to England's death panels. It really isn't, ever, about how little blood must be spilled to achieve said dreams of the ever elusive utopia. The ideal outweighs humanity, experience, life, death...all, just to say "we've made the dream a reality"...

And that has never come to fruition...has it?

While you revel in the blood shed by capitalism, most of the world still attempts to recover from the blood shed (whether through lives lost in war, revolts against oppression, or murders of their relatives) that socialism/communism has inflicted upon it. And the inherent outcome is now poised to give us a caliphate and theocracy, all because it would be "racist" to not accept such a theocracy...

Please, continue to champion the works of socialism/communism...they've been ever so effective in raising the human condition so far...

[Kadmos]

Ahhh yes...the blood spilled for advancement paradigm...it's always about how much blood must be spilled for advancement of the cause among liberals, isn't it? Isn't that the ultimate calculation of societal success for socialism/communism? How much blood must be spilled to achieve our utopia that never happens? And history has shown it will be every liter that opposes leftist rule, from Stalin's purges to England's death panels. It really isn't, ever, about how little blood must be spilled to achieve said dreams of the ever elusive utopia. The ideal outweighs humanity, experience, life, death...all, just to say "we've made the dream a reality"...

And that has never come to fruition...has it?

While you revel in the blood shed by capitalism, most of the world still attempts to recover from the blood shed (whether through lives lost in war, revolts against oppression, or murders of their relatives) that socialism/communism has inflicted upon it. And the inherent outcome is now poised to give us a caliphate and theocracy, all because it would be "racist" to not accept such a theocracy...

Are you thick or just playing at it? I am in no way stating that blood spilled is in any way good or worthwhile, I'm simply saying it's happened under all sorts of systems. Our own hands are far from clean.

While you rail against the savagery of whoever you choose, you should at least be aware enough to know they rail against yours as well.

Please, continue to champion the works of socialism/communism...they've been ever so effective in raising the human condition so far..

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing where you proved otherwise.

[Oswald Bastable]

And I've yet to see you've proved they have...except, oh wait...that imminent economic collapse of the entire socialist order, US/UK/EU...October 2015 is when you can witness it for yourself...

Wait, was that proof of your argument, or against?

Just for you...because it can't happen in your unicorn world...