front_cover_mini.jpgI feel like I’m spending most of my time on this blog responding to attacks to Jonah’s book on Liberal Fascism. On the one hand, I don’t mind – my book is meant as a companion piece to his, fleshing out certain arguments as well as chronicling the creation of his Liberal Fascism. And it seems that Jonah is too busy handling more intellectually weighty critiques. Still, I had hoped by this point the Liberal Fascists would have attacked me directly. It seems they are still too scared.

No matter. I will now take on a scurrilous complaint by the ever-scurrilous Dave Neiwert who, in a pathetic and desperate fit of inchoate hysteria, broadens his shameless attacks to include Jonah’s impeccable sources and scrupulous historical methodology:

One point that has already raised eyebrows is his depiction, on pp. 378-379, of the Nazi attitudes toward homosexuals:

[...]Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams write in The Pink Swastika that “the National Socialist revolution and the Nazi Party were animated and dominated by militaristic homosexuals, pederasts, pornographers, and sadomasochists.” [...]

[... N]ote who Goldberg cites here: The Pink Swastika and its authors, Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Bob Moser at the SPLC has the rundown on this text, which is nothing less than a work of Holocaust revisionism [...]

But Lively and Abrams are hardly the only dubious source Goldberg indulges. Indeed, another — historian A. James Gregor, known for his contention that fascism was an ideology of the left — is almost certainly the chief philosophical mentor of the book’s central thesis, which makes the same claim. Goldberg cites him twice in the text and several other times in his endnotes. [...]

We can further assess Gregor’s reliability by noting that he has played a role in the past in similarly muddying the waters of public discourse — particularly, as it happens, on the subject of race and racial segregation in the South.

DO NOT read the whole thing, because Mr. Neiwert is an arrogant liberal fascist who has no serious intellectual interest in the subject of fascism. Additionally, there is no point in reading this.

I should add, before Mr. Neiwert attacks my sources and methodology, that I have based my arguments entirely on primary sources such as Hitler’s diary and The Protocols of the Elders of Haight-Ashbury, as well as back issues of The New American.  Any complaints about my methodology are therefore elitist ivory tower nonsense.  And everyone who agrees with me on everything agrees.