(no subject)

[fpb]

Anyone who thinks that I was too harsh about Jonah Goldberg's repulsive and politically motivated rewriting of my own country's history ought to read today's Thomas Sowell column, where it is taken entirely at its own valuation and highly recommended as summer reading for the children of conservatives. This unhistorical, culturally imperialistic propaganda, that distorts my country's and my continent's history in the service of provincial American concerns, is going to enter the bloodstream of a whole American party, If it has not already done so. This will increase further the mutual incomprehension between USA and Europe, because you cannot stand on your two hind legs and inform anyone who knows anything of continental history - France, Italy, Germany, etc. - that Nazism and Fascism were "left wing". This sort of rubbish, especially if spoken with the arrogance of Goldberg and Sowell, will increase European contempt for American viewpoints and culture. Do we really need this sort of trash further complicating our already difficult relationship, and all for the sake of a few Republican votes in the next election?

Comments

Re: You have not actually read the book, have you?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

What nonsense. And I have already answered it. You do not seem to remember the very passages you praised only a few weeks ago. And frankly, I am tired of trying to make you understand that water is wet and that the sky is blue. You are like the proud mother at the parade who claimed that everyone else is out of step except for her Jimmy. For your information, if America disagrees with the rest of the world, it does not prove that the rest of the world is wrong. Especially when it is only one part of America that does.

Re: You have not actually read the book, have you?

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

Since you have not yet begun to explain your position, I find it hard to believe you are already weary of it.

But since I am finding it difficult to follow you, perhaps you could explain to me in simple terms, as simple as telling me water is wet, by what logic a political classification scheme puts, let us say, Reagan, who stands for limited government, the Rights of Man, rule of law, and free trade, in the same classification ("on the Right") as, let us say Mussolini, who stands for absolute government, secret police, political thuggery, centralized economic planning. Explain in simple terms, as you would explain that water is wet, how you place Mussolini in the opposite classification as Stalin ("on the Left"), when Stalin stands for absolute government, secret police, political thuggery, centralized economic planning.

Explain that to me. Keep it simple, so I can understand.