Whiskey Fire

Screams for Contact and Clue

It seems that Jonah Goldberg has wanked himself into a corner.

As for the criticism that I equate statism with fascism, I owe a longer response to this question as it comes up so often. But a short answer is no, I don't think statism is synonymous with fascist.

Uh-huh. Let's recall for a moment the definition of "fascism" from his dumbass book:

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 that common good. 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 the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy.

This ought to be fun. He'd have better luck trying to thread a fart through the eye of a needle.

For extra giggles in this same post he tries to explain how Edmund Burke isn't a fascist and only manages the feat by forgetting what he said fascism actually was, which is exactly the sort of moronic predicament you get yourself stuck in once you've decided to dabble in ahistorical history.

If Jonah Goldberg were any more of an ass, he'd have Jesus Christ on his back on the way into Jerusalem.

UPDATE. Heh. Jonanism.

Weep, Sad Freaks of the Nation

Over at the Liberal Fascism blog, where intellectual self-respect lies dead in a shallow grave well manured with obsequious e-mails, the ghastly, mournful parade of pathetic correspondence slogs on through the mud and the dung:

I've finally figured out what I find so unsatisfying about the complaints of Tomasky and others.  It seems to me that the standard practice when reviewing a book that is allegedly derivative or unnecessary is to recommend the acknowledged authoritative book on the subject.  Funny that in all the reviews I've read of LF I haven't seen a single one that suggested an alternative book to read on the subject of Progressivism and fascism.  To me that says that those amongst the left who do know about this history don't want it talked about.

Uh, I believe I can clear up this poor little lamb's confusion.

There is no "authoritative book" on the "subject" of "Progressivism and fascism" for the same reason there are no "authoritative books" on the "subjects" of Huguenots and Japanese cuisine, nationalism in India and ice hockey, or paganism and the Manhattan Project. Namely, such "subjects" don't fucking exist and it would be tendentious to suggest more than an analogical relationship between the two phenomena.

Christ, you'd think that someone who'd read a negative review of the book would have picked up on this, since Goldberg's weaseling on precisely this point is, you know, precisely why the reviews are in fact negative in the first place.

Tanks Corrode and Airplanes Dissolve

Jonah Goldberg, in sackcloth.

In the next few days, there will be a wave of liberals — Frank Rich comes particularly to mind — who will use WFB's memory to beat up on today's conservatives. Ramesh and I wrote a piece about this tendency last year. Liberals today bemoan how wonderful the conservatives of yesteryear were solely to lament how terrible they are today. The recent bout of Goldwater nostalgia on the left was a perfect example.

Yes, we sure do pine for the days when "conservatives" weren't complete assholes, a concept that appears to elude Mr "Party of Death" and Mr. "Liberal Fascism."

Or when they weren't complete waterheads, either:

The  strange new respect liberals have for Ronald Reagan would be another.

That would be a very strange phenomenon indeed, were it to exist. Reagan is "respected" by liberals only to the extent that he was no George W. Bush, which is like saying that snot is "respectable" because it's not diarrhea.

Moreover:

That said, I'm delighted to have conservative heroes become simply American heroes.

Hero worship? Sniff. Myself, I leave that to the fascists.

The Old Grunt

by Molly Ivors

Courtesy of the NSA and the FOIA, we here at Whiskey Fire have acquired footage of John McCain having dinner with his family. Enlightening.

That dog needs to go to Gitmo, stat!

Contact the Empire Solutionaries

Michael Bloomberg has taken to the editorial pages of the New York Times, where, reckless of consequences, he boldly challenges the fearsome forces that are arrayed against the brave, lonely champions of bipartisanship. Hark to his proud defiance.

More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream.

Childe Mayor to the Dork Tower Came. Anyway you know it's not empty rhetoric and that he's proposing controversial specific policies because he doesn't actually mention any, which is in and of itself sort of a brave move, in that he's not afraid to be praised to High Heaven for spouting obvious mindless bullshit that will get him soundly fellated by nitwit fossils with opinion-page sinecures. Talk about your desperate last stands.

He also issues an ultimatum, or diktat, or commandment, or some similar class of Haughty Pronouncement:

I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.

In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.

Right. Because Michael Fucking Bloomberg commands Armies of Voters and thus needs to be courted, and if you defy him, FEAR THE WRATH OF HIS HORDES OF THREE DOZEN MEALYMOUTHED CRETINOUS ASTHMATIC FLYING BRODERITE MONKEYS!

The prospect of which, I'm sure, intimidates somebody.

(Below: Michael Bloomberg, Mighty Nonpartisan Sorceror.)

Somehow Tediously Broken

Dave Neiwert has nice things to say about my discussion of Liberal Fascism, which is clear proof that Dave Neiwert is worse than Hitler. Anyway, I wouldn't expect Goldberg to reply to my dissection. But he has to reply to Tomasky's. Which is OK; Tomasky and I say about the same thing, though I do it with more panache. ("Panache" being definable as a fondness for the word "fuck.") Anyhow, Goldberg's initial response to Tomasky is comical.

Tomasky (much like Tim Noah and Matt Yglesias) uses a debater's trick of sorts by basically saying there's nothing new in the book and everybody who knows anything about liberalism knew all of this stuff already. This is, quite simply, untrue.

Tomasky said that anyone who knows anything about history knows all this stuff already, and that such anyones also know that Goldberg is citing the record selectively and dishonestly. He also said, as did I, that nobody who knows anything about liberals today will mistake his caricature of modern liberals as accurate.

Tomasky may in fact be precisely the sort of liberal who rejects the fascistic or collectivist strains in contemporary liberalism. But it is silly, hypocritical and has the appearance of dishonesty for him to speak of "liberalism" and how I know "nothing" about it. The liberalism he defends is not liberalism as lived in America. Indeed, by his own account, most self-described liberals have little association or understanding with the (allegedly) grand intellectual project he is defending. The notion that the typical liberal — or even the average well-educated one — knows the history I've laid out in my book is complete and reckless nonsense. Indeed, if liberals know the history I've laid out, I wouldn't have so many quotes from liberals getting their own history so spectacularly wrong.

What a petulant boob. This has nothing to do with anything Tomasky actually said: it's diversionary crap.

He's pounding the podium, in other words.

Release Every Bad Seed

I can't really express how much contempt I have for Andy McCarthy ordinarily, but on this he's correct:

Good for Hil getting the name of the new president of Russia right (more or less).  Catty of Russert to ask.  She got the essential part of the question right — he's Putin's marionette.  Did she really need to know the guy's name off the top of her head to convince us she understood what's happening in Russia?

Nobody, left, right, center, anywhere, wants Tim Russert to be the star of a presidential debate in the sense that Alex Trebek is the star of Jeopardy. Russert is ridiculous and embarrassing. Mean Gene Okerlund would be preferable. Far preferable and a lot more professional.

Good Luck, Sailor

The following is a Day By Day cartoon by Chris Muir. It is real. He seems to be saying that now that Cap'n Ed has been voluntarily committed into the Hot Air asylum, women will sprout penises. These female penises will be known as "little captains."

That's really, really... frickin' weird.

Cap'n Ed's post is about how Barack Obama owes everything to million dollar bribes from Saddam Hussein, which sounds about right as far as Hot Air-standard material goes. So, you know, bon voyage & all that.

I've Seen Your Plan and It's All Wet

If Occam were alive today he'd trade in that razor for a meat ax. Over here, a burning question:

Why is "neo-con" such an attractive epithet for those who enjoy slinging mud?

Well, I dunno, Mr. Bones. Supposing you tell me.

For the liberal public sphere, conservatives are wrong-headed, but "neo-cons" are con men, faithless and untrustworthy. Just as they were not true to the conservative movement (as if liberals cared about that), they become figures of ambivalent loyalty in general. This rhetorical slide explains the way the critique of neo-conservatism has sometimes taken on an antisemitic tone, one rhetorical point where the nativist right and the antiwar left too often converge. This allegation of betrayal is multidimensional: because "neo-cons" departed from liberalism to become conservative, and because their conservatism was only "neo," lacking in authenticity, the insinuation of insufficient patriotism always lingers in the air, the accusation of dual loyalty.

Ultimately though the real scandal in "neo-con" is the "neo"—not the specific principles or the doctrines, with which one might agree or disagree, but the very fact that someone might rethink and come to a new position. The guardians of regimented mind-sets, across the political spectrum, fear nothing more than the haunting specter of creative thoughts.

I think the hundreds of thousands dead for no sane reason might perhaps be more germane, personally. There may be someone out there somewhere on The Left who laments that Paul Wolfowitz is a turncoat -- perhaps this is the fellow? But overall, as a Man of the Left myself (like Hillary Clinton, FDR, and Hitler), I remain unpersuaded.

This line of argument is revolting. Since when do good intentions get you a discount at the Gates of Hell ticket booth, step right on in, see all the attractions? Because you had the proper -ism, all your deep thoughts lined up in a row, it's wrong or declasse or anti-intellectual to hold you in contempt when your Grand Ideas undergird a human disaster?   

You know, this class of stuff is exactly why curses were invented, and I hereby invoke them: fuck you, Russell Berman, you fucking asshole. Fuck you to Hell, you preening self-righteous shit.

I'm not going to apologize for knowing the truth of any -ism by its trail of dead.

Now That's a Hit!

Michael Tomasky tries to steal my thunder with his review of Liberal Fascism: Lookit, I Jes' Done Wet Ma Britches.

His review is inferior to mine in that his is a lot longer and doesn't use the word "fuck." Moreover, he comes to pretty much exactly the same conclusions as I do, though my review came out a full day earlier. By current rules, this is prima facie evidence of wholesale plagiarism. I strongly urge you therefore not to vote for Tomasky in any upcoming primaries.