Once again, A CURSE ON THE PARTY SPIRIT

[fpb]

Is there anything else that would lead people to accept and defend complete rubbish, to hold up stuff that demeans their own intellect, to insult anyone who disagrees, and, worst of all, to completely abandon any shred of critical attitude, insisting that that which flatters our party positions is therefore sacred and untouchable?

I have come to the edge of a break with people I really like, and that is not the first time. But damn it to Hell, what do they expect me to - falsify my own life experience and the history of my country (on which every Italian alive or dead would answer as I do), accept a thesis that is not just false but obviously false, not just politically motivated but obviously politically motivated, and that for no reason except in order to preserve a personal relationship? If that were the case, that would be emotional blackmail. And yet I see no other reason for the rabid and repetitious attacks I have been subjected since I attacked a certain instance of American pamphleteering. It is as if someone were telling me that no peaceful relationship with them is possible unless I give in to their delusions. And that I not only will not, but cannot do.

Edited in: I imagine that the lurkers and wankers who were still following this LJ only a few weeks back will decide to hold back on this argument. It is the sort of thing they love, is it not - FPB arguing with someone? Only in this case it is not the kind of argument they want to present; it would not answer their prejudices, and might even lead their fans to wonder who is in the right after all.

Sometimes I really get tired.

Comments

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Aww, bb, what was it this time?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The old Jonah Goldberg affair.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Oh, that old debate. Heh. I try to stay out of it because I can't imagine how it really matters whether facism was right-wing or left-wing; isn't it enough to know that it was bad? There are similar debates in the US about what to call the Civil War. I can't contribute anything other than "Who the fuck cares?" so I stay out of it.

Well, for once you seem to be arguing from a liberal perspective.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I am arguing from an Italian perspective. And as Fascism was an Italian movement, we ought to know what it is about. And there is no disagreement whatsoever: ask any Italian, Fascist, Berlusconian, nationalist, League, Catholic, Radical, Green, Democrat, Left (these are all the major parties), or non-political, they will tell you the same thing.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Well, I have heard quite a lot of debate about this point.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

From us?

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

From ... I don't know, Americans.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Quite. No Italian would listen to the Goldberg thesis with anything but hilarity. Remember that I have known and spoken with people who were there, who knew Mussolini and Fascism in the flesh. One such person is still alive in Rome today, a friend of my father's, and I talked history with him no more than a few months ago. Don't go telling me about my country's history.

What is happening is the common historical phenomenon that current events tend to create their own past histories in people's minds. What is happening now in America is as follows. First, the greatest threat to freedom of thought, speech and association in America today decidedly comes from the left, especially from the likes of the ACLU, whose activities tend to silence anyone whose views they find offensive. There is also an uneasy and unpleasant kind of fellow-travelling between such people and extreme Islam. This is a fact. And therefore, because people who are sensitive in matters of freedom of speech today see the danger as coming from the left, therefore they conceive that it has always been so. They flee to the right as the defence of their freedoms, and it does not occur to them that there have been times when the danger came from the right. And because they have identified left and assaults on liberty, by an invalid syllogism everything that assaults liberty becomes left to them. Except that at this point one has to invoke a reality check.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I don't see it happening just like that. I'd say that this is just a way of pushing the blame around. The right wants to blame the left for everything that went wrong in the last century's politics, so they claim that Nazism, Facism, and communism were all leftist ideas.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It's not just wanting to blame. It is actually believing it that is the trouble - and not listening to those who know different.

[wyrdwood.livejournal.com]

I just have to step in here. I think the "threat" perceived from the ACLU has been overblown for some time now. But I don't deny that political correctness is a bullshit means of shutting up those you don't want to listen to. I realize that the university scene might be more contentious on this than life outside academia, but I just haven't seen evidence that the ACLU's legal maneuvering has ever lived up to image of the terrible specter the American Right has raised -- with David Horowitz being perhaps the most offensively overblown of the bloviators.

In the last eight years, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the threat to American free speech and civil liberty has come from the Right. Oh, they didn't start if perhaps; it was a natural response to 9/11. But their politicians deliberately exploited it, some actually believing it, but many just seeing a perfect justification for power.

Threats from authoritarian sources in America have come from both Left and Right at different times. It's like a game of whack-a-mole -- hit one anti-liberty mole back into its hole and another pops up elsewhere.

But this "fact" that the ACLU and its "like" are the prime threat, and that they're fellow travelers for extreme Islam -- it's so easy to levy these charges, but what's the evidence? And please bear in mind that most court cases usually don't represent the culture's view, and they rarely cause the earth-shattering realignment of society that the media tends to imply. The activities of the Bush Administration, however, have done grievous harm. And Bush may not be authentically Right, but the Right in this country whole-heartedly claimed and embraced him -- up until they couldn't even convince themselves any longer that he wasn't a loser. Only now do we begin to see the op-eds about how he was never really conservative anyway.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I wish I believed that court cases were as insignificant as you make them. And while Bush is no friend of mine - and I made my view of such things as waterboarding abundantly clear - what he does does not amount to a climate of opinion. Of the two, the climate of opinion is infinitely more dangerous than any government enactment, and if you think that is overblown, I suggest you try taking a really unpopular stance some time. Or, alternatively, go to ffnet, take out the fic "Gay Bar", and read the reviews. I think you may be surprised.

[wyrdwood.livejournal.com]

Okay, I admit that I believe that Supreme Court rulings (Federal, that is) are important and have vast and reaching effects - often unpredictable - on our lives. But most lower court rulings simply don't live up to the constant hype the media builds, not just the news when a high profile trial is building or commencing, but the zillion court dramas riddling network television. To watch any of those, you'd think human beings could never settle differences with one another without resorting to high-priced lawyers like William Shatner's Denny Crane. Cases usually take years to work their way through appeals and are often overturned or mitigated on the way.

As for climate of opinion, try having lived here between 2001 and 2005, when even the slightest criticism of Bush got you thrown into the "stupid hippy, won't don't you move to Iraq if you love it so much" category. That's always been around, certainly during the Reagan years, but to see otherwise sane people that I knew and worked with converted to that kind of spewing... that was something else.

And I think the Internet is a wholly different climate than "real" life. Something about this medium simply generates arguments and bile that would never arise in interpersonal conversation or even the more measured correspondence of letter writing. As Clay Shirky has noted, the Internet and social networks have allowed fringe cultures to band together, and this strengthens their sensitivity rather than mellowing it. Before, a misunderstood loner could always doubt that he was in the right. Now, he's got a bunch of people to back up any inane thing he says. I'm not bashing fringe cultures here -- I have a lot of sympathy with them, and consider myself part of some of them (comics, gaming, etc.). But their members are -- understandably -- oversensitive in the first place. Give them strength in numbers, and the Mob begins to grow.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

So there is no such thing as a left-wing persecution mind? Sorry, mate, you cannot tell a man hanging from a tree that he has not been lynched. And it pre-dated the internet: I caught the full blast of its delightful atmosphere in college, at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, in the years of the lord 1989 and 1990. Check and you will find that there was no such as World Wide Web at the time, and all the witch-hunting that was to be done was done in person. There were even horrifyingly sneaky things such as a person actually encouraging me to write a controversial essay on homosexuality when people, behind the scenes, were looking for excuses to lynch me. After that kind of experience, a little sneer to your face, believe me, don't hurt. What you want to look out for is the smiling, superficially civilized character who thinks history justifies them and therefore can excuse any betrayal with a cheerful heart.

[wyrdwood.livejournal.com]

I certainly never said or implied there was no such thing as Left-led persecution. It's just not a major factor here in the States. I'm sure it's quite different in Europe. In fact, from my encounters with Europeans, who I dearly like, I can see a certain, well, _conviction_ that anyone not adhering to Left-oriented ideas still has a lot of evolving to do.

But all that aside, in case I didn't say it earlier (and I guess I didn't), I do appreciate your take-down of Goldberg. The fact is, most people in America understands Socialism or even has a clue what it us. I've got a lot of Libertarian friends (who in the sci-fi community here doesn't?) and have had to argue against this point before. I'm glad to have some actual historical ammunition now.

It really comes down to the tempting symmetry of simplification. The Right loves to pigeon-hole the Left as collectivist and the Right as individualist. Facts don't matter -- those just get in the way of a nicely simple argument that can be ranted via radio (Neil Boortz, for instance).

[wyrdwood.livejournal.com]

Oops. That is, most Americans _don't_ understand Socialism. It's an evil catchphrase used to scare Americans: "socialized medicine"... oooh....

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And that reminds me. The American right is pelted daily with horror stories about the British National Health Service. However, you may notice that there are no such stories about the German, French, Italian, Spanish, Scandinavian or Dutch health services (apart of course from the unfortunate Dutch habit of killing the old and sick and calling it "good death" - a habit which, in spite of much rhetoric, has nothing to do with socialized medicine, and whose most famous proponent is an American doctor). Why is that? Is it because American journalists only speak English? Not really - that is a charge you may lay against the English, not against the more adventurous Yanks. It is more that such horror stories are much, much rarer on the Continent. And why is that? Because the British Health Service has been subjected, since the days of Margaret Thatcher, to a series of disastrous market-obsessed experiments and to increasing privatization. Contrary to freemarketeering wisdom, this has led to a marked increase in waste, overspend, bad practice, and corruption. If you want data to support this claim, get back to me or try to get hold the various dossiers on NHS privatization published by Private Eye magazine.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry you're going through this hassle.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Heh. Trouble is my middle name. But it is rather hard to be fighting people I like, and who have often praised me, because they insist on misrepresenting the obvious facts about my country's history. (And sometimes even of their own.)

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Honestly? I'm just hugely amused that you're allowed to talk about American politics, but we can't talk about what you view as Italy's, and only Italy's.

You may feel that you're being attacked because every time the topic comes up, you explode--which makes folks rather unfriendly.

Kind of like reading Mr. Derbyshire-- whose mind I also admire--when he was writing about Expelled.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Now you're talking like a fandom-wanker. NObody is allowed or unallowed to say anything. Say any nonsense you damn well like. But when it is trash about things I know of, especially when they touch me personally, I will damned well say that it is trash, and do my best to make it stick. That is not to say that anyone should be forbidden to talk trash: as I already said in another context, let the trash stand in all its glory, so long as my rebuttal is also allowed to stand. That, my friend, is called freedom of speech. Of course, if I am not allowed to, then what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

If you have had no such gut reaction to anything I said about the US as I have had to Goldberg's nonsense, that means I have never said anything so stupid and outrageous about the US as he has about Europe and Italy. You have to learn to distinguish indignation from a desire to silence people. Since synthetic indignation is in fact the favourite tactic of censors, prigs and persecutors, that may be difficult at first. The key is: when did I ever say that Goldberg should not have written, or even that he should not have been published or read? Never. Work it out.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Now you're talking like a fandom-wanker.

Charming.

NObody is allowed or unallowed to say anything.

However, most decent folks were taught manners, and when someone has an embarrassingly emotional reaction to a topic, they tend to avoid it. Doubly so when they respect the intellect of the person, or just like them.

If you have had no such gut reaction to anything I said about the US as I have had to Goldberg's nonsense, that means I have never said anything so stupid and outrageous about the US as he has about Europe and Italy.

Not true; first off, that assumes that my emotional reactions are identical to yours-- highly unlikely, at best--and it would assume that I, as someone replying to your post, would display my "gut reaction" in the same manner that you, as the host of the blog. (The latter is implied, because how else would you know my gut reaction?)

Emotional response is no measure of truth.

Besides which, have you yet read this "stupid and outrageous" writing? Often a synopsis simply leads you wrong.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I find your attitude hard to understand. What is "embarrassing" about getting angry about a crass abuse of your country? I would be embarrassed if I were not willing to stand up and be heard.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

What is "embarrassing" about getting angry about a crass abuse of your country? I would be embarrassed if I were not willing to stand up and be heard.

I find your actions hard to understand-- you use words like paint elsewhere, but on this topic you take the can, slam it against the ground and jump in the puddle. It's clear you disagree, but beyond "nuh-uh!" and insults, it really isn't much.

When someone attacks my country or something I believe in, I stand up-- and I take their attack, slice it, parse it, destroy it; if I can't do it myself, I find someone who can and make dang sure it gets spread around.

If there has been an actual slander on your country, take the words and show how they're wrong; the purpose of the book is to sway-- if it offends you so deeply, then counter it.

Go borrow the book, take his arguments and disembowel them; you'll feel better, and the folks who admire your skill will have something to read that doesn't make them blush.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Have you even read my first two articles on this matter? http://fpb.livejournal.com/286650.html and http://fpb.livejournal.com/290645.html. I have now checked, and I don't think you have - at least, there are no comments by you. I suggest you have a little look first, and you may find that I have done a bit more arguing than you seem to think.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Yes, I did read where you did the Nazi routine against someone with a Jewish name.

I was too embarrassed to reply much; when someone pulls out the Nazi comparisons without a *damned* good reason....
http://fpb.livejournal.com/286650.html?thread=2153914#t2153914

You start by claiming that conservatives are prone to "group-think"--i.e., disparaging a group. Rather than addressing arguments, you "poison the well."
This is along the same lines as those who disdain all "organized religion" or "conventional science" simply because many people believe it.

You then go on a long rant that never actually touches on his arguments; you say "Let me explain what is wrong with Goldberg’s thesis."-- yet, you never state the thesis you are refuting, or how your statements contradict the unspoken thesis.

If your argument were solid and you had at hand what you're trying to refute, you'd be able to take a statement:

"The major flaw of all of this is that fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left. This fact--an inconvenient truth if there ever was one--is obscured in our time by the equally mistaken belief that fascism and communism are opposites. In reality, they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to dominate and control the same social space. The fact that they appear as polar opposites is a trick of intellectual history and (more to the point) the result of a concerted propaganda a effort on the part of the "Reds" to make the "Browns" appear objectively evil and "other" (ironically, demonization of the "other" is counted as a definitional trait of fascism.) But in terms of their theory and practice, the differences are minimal." (page seven)
and just utterly tear it apart.

But you don't *do* that...you do two-three pages of reply to what you *believe* he's saying, and don't actually reply to what he *said.* Is your belief accurate? Who knows?

I think that you are perfectly able to respond, and make a rational argument about it--which is what bothers me to no end; on other subjects, you read what they say, quote it, and then argue against that. Here, you wave in the direction of what they said, and go on your own route.

In the second, you state as a starting place that "Fascism is a not right-wing phenomenon I am not even disposed to argue." This does not counter an argument, any more than my saying "nuh-uh, you are!" worked in arguments with my brother. That, actually, is what tipped me towards Mr. Derbyshire's Expelled posting.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If you cannot see that I am stating in as plain English as I can THAT FASCISM IS NOT, HAS NEVER BEEN, AND CANNOT BE, A PHENOMENON OF THE LEFT, BUT THAT IT IS DESIGNED TO APE WHAT SEEMED TO THE RIGHT TO BE THE LEFT'S SUCCESSFUL SELL, then one of us has a problem. And if you do not think that is an answer to Goldberg's trash, then we have an even bigger problem.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

FPB, I never said you weren't stating that; I have been saying that if you are so pissed off with Goldberg--as you clearly are-- then argue directly against his words. Not some kind of "sweeping meaning" of them-- the *actual words.*

If YOU can't see that making an argument that requires someone agree with you at the outset, rather than convincing them as you go, then I must agree that one of us has a problem.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If a book claims that water is dry and that grass is pink, do I need to engage with the subtleties of its argument? Godlberg's claim is based on the American superstitions about "collectivism", as if all political activity were not collective. I may in time deal with that rubbish, but the statement that FAscism has more in common with Socialism than with nationalism and extreme conservatism is a creepy joke whose popularity among the American right only shows that they are completely isolated from the real world. I have paid this crap far too much respect, and that is because I was so furious at feeling his paws all over my own past and my own memories. The proper response to this kind of book is to throw it across the room, or into the recycling bin - or just to laugh and laugh and laugh. It has all the credibility and intellectual seriousness of the Flat Earth Society or of the average creationist. Have I made my point clear enough? It is not something that deserves debate, but the document of a weird and cultish mindset that can deny the obvious. Have I made my point clear enough now?

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

"Answer the fool according to his folly."

[goreism.livejournal.com]

The thing is, Goldberg seems to advance a set of theses in his book without clearly distinguishing them. From his blog it's apparent that he thinks the claim that fascism is left-wing is the primary or central claim of the book. (It's also the one even sympathetic reviewers, like Michael Ledeen, find most unconvincing.)

But in the last few chapters he leaves off intellectual history and begins a sort of guilt-by-association spree: the Nazis were obsessed with organic food! That seems like a dangerous game for him to play as well. After all, which side of the American political spectrum frets more about declining birth rates?

Then there's the stuff about how the progressive movement in the US did a lot of nasty stuff while praising a lot of the nasty stuff Mussolini was doing. It would have been nice if he had just focused on this thesis, since it happens to be actually true.

And finally, at the very end, there's the admission that the sort of "guilt-by-association" stuff can be done against conservatives too, with respect to "national greatness" conservatism and the rest. We are all fascists now and all that sort of thing. Well, fine, but that and similar qualifications spread throughout the book seem to muddy some of the previous chapters so much that it's hard to even extract an argument from them any longer.

So I think the difficulty of arguing against Goldberg stems more than anything else from his sloppy argumentation. The "fascism is left-wing" trope can be done a lot better. In fact, it has been, by people like Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

You don't like it, take the exact quote and say why they're wrong.

From your writing, it's clear what your *impression* is--given that I've been called a "Nazi" for opposing everything from abortion to no-fault divorce, impressions aren't that useful.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

Well, I left the book in Chicago, so I can't. And the point I was trying to make was that Goldberg writes in such a muddy style, with qualifications thrown all over the place, that it's hard to find a clean summary of his argument. (The passage you quoted isn't an argument.)

Nevertheless, parts of your quote are questionable. Fascism wasn't a "historical competitor[] for the same constituents" as communism; as Ledeen points out, Mussolini didn't come to power by winning the support of left-wing voters. Hitler's rise to power was facilitated by conservative business owners like Fritz Thyssen, Emil Kirdorf and Gustav Krupp, and the main Nazi constituency was always the middle-classes, not the urban proletariat.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

...You're saying he writes about a broad, complex topic in carefully qualified terms, so it's hard to summarize?

That's pretty much the source of my objection-- *because* it's an entire book--and he didn't make huge sweeping generalizations--when folks are trying to counter points, they should just quote the points.

Otherwise, you're just talking to a wall.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but you are playing with words. A muddy style and a self-contradicting argument are not the same thing as a broad overview. Read Shirer on Nazism or (if you cand find it) Kolnai on the Nazi ideology: those are broad overviews. Shooting oneself in the foot because you have gone too far with an unsupportable point and you have to make some sort of obeisance to facts does not count.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

FPB, the entire point of contention is this: you two say he has said X, and that X is wrong; yet you never quote him saying "X"--a very important thing when you're talking about a text-based statement--so much as say "well, I view the fact that he said X as an abomination unto my history, because QZY."

I doubt there is a thinking being *breathing* that doubts your views; I am simply pushing for you to use the skills you've shown before and do a half-way decent argument against the precise words!

It's the same way that I can't stand "Christian" cartoons-- not because I object to the message or the medium, but because they're so poorly done, compared to what they could be.

It must be some flaw in how I am trying to explain it, because you're simply *not* stupid-- your posts would not convince anyone who did not already agree with you; your format assumes the reader has the same view; you're not arguing or persuading, you're shoring up a perspective that must already exist.

I'm at wits end, here! Your posts object to things I am not saying, and it seems that what you read is not what I write; I've seen this in verbal conversations, but never in text. (barring the occasional troll who is pulling an O'Reilly)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Look: if you can prove to me that he has said something different than what he is reported, and his book sold as, having said - that is, that socialism and fascism are the same kind of thing - then you may have a point. If not, then what the Hell are you talking about? I should, on top of such a moronic idea being in the marketplace, subject myself to the pain of having to go through hundreds of pages merely to refute a thesis that can be stated in two sentences? Is life really that long to you?

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

To start-- I believe I told you over a month ago that you might want to consider what "left-wing" and "right-wing" mean, in an *American* context. Seeing as the explicit point of the book is that the modern *American* left are the intellectual heirs of fascism and socialism.

That said:

A particularly infuriating instance is Jonah Goldberg’s recent book pretending to show that Hitler and Mussolini were “left-wingers” – a book whose indefensible thesis has gone through bloggerdom and columnist-dom like lightning, like a spreading epidemic.

The closest to a thesis he has in the opening chapter is this:
"Bill Maher to the contrary, fascism is not "when corporations become the government." Ironically, however, George Carlin's conclusion is right, though not his reasoning. If fascism does come to America, it will indeed take the form of "smiley-face fascism" --nice fascism. In fact, in many respects fascism not only is here but has been here for nearly a century. For what we call liberalism--the refurbished edifice of American Progressivism-- is in fact a descendant and manifestation of fascism. that doesn't mean it's the same thing as Nazism. Nor is it the twin of Italian Fascism. But Progressivism was a sister movement of fascism, and today's liberalism is the daughter of Progressivism. Once fouls strain the comparison and say that today's liberalism is the well-intentioned niece of European fascism. She is hardly identical to her uglier relations, but she nonetheless carries an embarrassing family resemblance that few will admit to recognizing." (first para, page 2)

Thus, he is NOT saying that Hitler and Mussolini were "right wingers"--he is saying that the modern American left drew on *them.*

The Jefferson Memorial draws very heavily on Greek buildings; that does not make it Greek.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And it still is crap. What he is saying is that progressivism and Fascism come from the same root. THEY - DO - NOT. Will you, this late in the day, finally understand the bearing of my statement that Fascism was artificially created by the extreme right, people who hated modernity with a passion, people who wanted to see unrestrained State power, to derail all features of modern politics, including parliamentarism and Socialism? If features of Progressivism, of which I had no good at all to say in my two articles on "Socialism vs. Progressivism", it is because it tried to hijack that rather loose and vaguely mindless adhesion to "progress" for its own sake, in order to "progress" it back to despotism and autocracy.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

What he is saying is that progressivism and Fascism come from the same root.

Please, show me where he says that; he does say that the *American* left draws on them both, but makes no comment on their source; the closest he gets is observing that Mussolini called himself a socialist in high school and joined a socialist organization while he was a sub. teacher (page 32) and that he wrote socialist tracts in Switzerland. (page 34) ((there's a bit more, but it's mostly other folks' view of him))

That they appeal to the same desires/goals? Yes. But the American Left and Right both appeal to the same goals--by wildly different routes.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Mussolini did not "call himself a Socialist in high school": until 1914, he was the acknowledged leader of the Italian Socialist Party's radical left, a politician of national importance, and a committed pacifist who personally sabotaged the railway tracks for troop trains going to the colonial war in Lybia in 1912. I said that very clearly in my post on "Fascism", the second of the two I linked you to upthread. Are you sure you have read what I had to say?

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Mussolini did not "call himself a Socialist in high school":

We have one guy who is willing to put his name on the line in a published book, saying that the kid said he was a socialist in high school and that he became the secretary of a socialist organization at 18, after being raised as a socialist, and that he joined the socialist party at 17; then we have you saying that he was the "acknowledged leader" of the socialist party's far left about ten years later, but that he never said such a thing while in high school.

Are you saying he didn't join the Socialist party while in high school, or that he joined and never called himself that?

Goldberg has the note:
"in 1913 Sorell said "Mussolini is no ordinary Socialist. One day you will see him at the head of a consecrated battalion, greeting the Italian banner with his dagger. He is an Italian of the 15th century, a condottire. you do not know it yet. But he is the one energetic man who had the capacity to correct the weakness of the government." (Kirkpatrick, Mussolini)
He also notes Mussolini as writing:
"That which I am...I owe to Sorel...he is an accomplished Master who, with his sharp theories on revolutionary formations, contributed to the molding of the Fascist cohorts." (A. James Gregor, the Ideology of Fascism)

In 1911 he became the editor of "La lotta di classe (class war)" which was the voice of the extreme wing of the socialist party, and in 1912 at the Socialist Congress joined extremists in accused some folks of being bad for congratulating the king for not being assassinated.

Alright, we've proven Mussolini's socialist kudos just fine; this shows that fascism is TOTALLY different from fascism...how, exactly?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

READ MY GODDAMN ARTICLE BEFORE YOU WASTE ANY MORE BANDWIDTH.
And my point was that Mussolini's Socialism was not a teen-age infatuation.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

READ IT; READ THE BLESSED BOOK BEFORE YOU WASTE ANY MORE TIME, THEN ARGUE WITH THOSE POINTS INSTEAD OF THE REVIEWS!

For the love of all that's holy, if you'd just STOP obsessing over it and posting AGAIN and AGAIN, maybe people would stop "bothering" you by bringing up the book!

There are tons of books that bug me, but you'll notice I don't post on them obsessively; do you see me doing a monthly on the "Golden Compass"? How about "The da Vinci Code"? Those both seem to fit the level of sheer rage you have, but after I post a rebuttal, I move on! Yes, there are still folks that think Dan Brown is a historian-- WHO CARES?!?!?

How many F*ing points do you have? Your point is that socialism and fascism don't have the same root, your point is that "Mussolini's Socialism was not a teen-age infatuation", your point is that the blogosphere has group-think.... I'm sure there are some that I've missed.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

READ
THE
ARTICLE

That is, if you really are interested in this at all. For your information, it's not I who is keeping this going.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

I.
Already.
Did.

Remember, back when you accused me of not reading it because I hadn't posted and I linked to my reply in that very topic?

Yes, it is you who is keeping it going-- you just KEEP bring UP the bloody topic, you equate it with the most famous anti-Semitic text known, you slander everyone who disagrees with you as being a nasty political hack, and you can't even be bothered to refute the actual book; I say once again, this is like Mr. Derbyshire's ( http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk= ) amazing refutation of a film he had not seen.

This will be my last reply to this topic, because I'm sick and tired of re-typing portions of the bloody book. For all I know, you *might* even be right--but, given your refusal to respond in the rational manner, by doing a refutation of the actual words, we can't know.

I'm not even all that interested in the bloody topic, I am simply interested in the skill you USUALLY have when writing and a bit disturbed to see it seem to flee you on a topic the deaf can hear your views on.

You SHOULD be able, if you are right, to write a da Vinci Code style, point by point refutation with quotes--then, when people "accept and defend complete rubbish, to hold up stuff that demeans their own intellect, to insult anyone who disagrees, and, worst of all, to completely abandon any shred of critical attitude, insisting that that which flatters our party positions is therefore sacred and untouchable" you can simply send them to that refutation, rather than wonder if they expect you to "falsify my own life experience and the history of my country (on which every Italian alive or dead would answer as I do), accept a thesis that is not just false but obviously false, not just politically motivated but obviously politically motivated, and that for no reason except in order to preserve a personal relationship." That will serve several purposes-- give you a chance of convincing folks, get this off your chest and be one heck of a read to boot. My mom once told me that if you open up with "shut up, you ignorant idiot" you're not going to enlighten anyone, and you'd better serve your side with silence.

Folks who have a personal relationship with you--if that's the correct phrase for knowing you online? (not really sure)-- know that you hold strong views, and that you're usually really good at defending them. I know that I accept that, and heaven knows I don't expect you to agree with me on most things, but watching you launch an attack for an insult not even delivered offends my sense of style and makes me wonder what topic there is that unhinges my writing skill--and if anyone would be able to tell.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

As I stated in points nine and ten of my summary.