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

[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.