Many people – such as Avedon and Instaputz and peter ramus and Frenchy Lemieux and Pinko Punko – are starting to understand the groundbreaking nature of my book, and saying eminently fair and gracious and typically thoughtful things about it. These people have shown themselves to be serious intellectuals, capable of following a careful, detailed, highly thoughtful argument about Liberal Fascism without resorting to cheap name-calling and childish baby-food slinging hysterics as my liberal critics do. The Institute salutes you.

Many others have written in with eminently fair and gracious and typically thoughtful comments. This is one of my favorites:

Hi The Editors,

I just finished reading your book, and it has changed my life forever. I have ordered 50,000 copies of your book to stock a new library I am building with my life’s savings, a library which will contain nothing but your book. The library will be called The Liberal Fascism Library, and will be built of 50,000 bricks, where by ‘bricks’ I mean ‘more copies of your book’. And no one will be allowed to borrow a book from this library because they should buy their own copies, as well as one for everyone they know, as well as a few backups in case of flood or fire or Rapture.

Your book did, however, imply one important point, which I didn’t see you address directly, and I wondered what you had to say about it. You argue very persuasively that liberalism is in many ways the modern re-imagining of fascism. This would imply that today’s so-called ‘liberals’ are, in fact, the modern version of fascists. However, Jonah Goldberg has argued equally persuasively that George W. Bush, the leader of the country, is quite clearly a liberal. Now, if a liberal is like a fascist, and a liberal leader is therefore like a fascist leader, doesn’t that imply that George W. Bush is like Hitler? I await your thoughts.

Bonah Joldberg

Yes, indeed. Now, why can’t my liberal critics put together sophisticated arguments like this instead of being a bunch of a leftwing remoras attaching themselves to my whale of a book?

Here is a typical example of the kind of ridiculous hate-speech that has filled my inbox since Liberal Fascism was published:

DEar Moron,

You are a joke. How someone who thinks the government should be allowed to imprison and torture people without any accountability, who supports a President who makes people pledge loyalty oaths to him, parades his militarism around in phony military outfits, subverts the free press, and believes that he has essentially supreme and unchecked power to do anything he wants and answer to no one – and, oh, yeah, started a war under false pretenses – how someone like this gets off calling the people who are against all this “fascists” is completely beyond me. If you want to talk about ‘totalitarian tendencies’, why don’t you try looking in the mirror?

Some Hippy

This is typical of the mindless “Bush = Hitler!” temper tantrums which serious conservative intellectuals have been forced to endure for seven-plus years now. Trying to explain why this is nonsense makes about as much sense as trying to explain quantum physics to two-year-old, so I’m not going to waste my time. However, I would like to use this opportunity to dispel the myth that my book somehow equates liberals with fascists. This is a rank distortion and simplification of my very serious and thoughtful argument, which has, I will admit, been made before, albeit never in such detail, never with such care. This is my argument, in a nutshell:

• Liberals are fascists.
• I never said that liberals are fascists! In fact, if we were to face a real fascist threat, it is conceivable that liberals would oppose it, or at least possibly not actively aid it.
• … However, it must be noted that liberalism is really an awful lot like fascism.
• I never compared liberalism and fascism! Why are you distorting my argument?
• … But it is interesting that Nazis and liberals both like whole grains and vegetables. Hmm… what does it mean when two supposedly distinct groups in fact have so much in common? I wonder …
• … Also, the Nazis wore brown shirts, and Al Gore liked earth tones …
• Wait! I have to stop you there. That’s completely outrageous! All I’m doing is saying how unfair it is that conservatives – ‘classical liberals,’ really, the kind the fascists really hated – are constantly compared to fascists. Such comparisons are childish and insulting, and cheapen our discourse. That’s my whole point! Now, go ahead and say what you were saying.
• Oh, dear, I feel a cough coming on …
• *coughcoughgcoughFASCISTcoughcoughcough*
• What?!?! What?!?! That’s ridiculous! Look, you obviously have no interest in engaging my very serious and thoughtful argument in any intellectually honest way, so I’ll let you get back to saying “Heil Hillary” or whatever it is you people do when you’re not distorting people’s careful and detailed points.
• Nazi.

How hard is it to understand? And you know, if I was really such a joke, why would people spend so much time laughing at me and making fun of everything I say? No, the simple truth is that my book is brilliant, and people fear the terrible truths contained within. They mock me because they fear me. You mock what you fear.

John Aravosis:

According to AP, congressional leaders have reached a deal on those economic stimulus checks. And rather than being geared towards helping the economy, they’re apparently geared towards redistributing wealth (that would be our wealth) to the poor. What a surprise. Folks in the middle (i.e, those who are not rich or poor) are screwed by the Democrats (and Republicans) yet again. Let me give you the details that just leaked, and again this may not be the final deal, but it sure sounds like it:

Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.

That means that if you make $75,000 or more a year, no check for you. Forget that fact that you live in NYC or DC or San Francisco, where prices from property to food are outrageous. [...]

That’s because far too often the Democrats don’t give a damn about anybody who isn’t a minority or starving to death (both valid causes to be sure, but are they the ONLY causes out there?). If you’re in the middle, you’re on your own. [...]

The Republicans ONLY want to help the rich, and the Democrats ONLY want to help the poor. Screw everybody else. I am so sick of these people.

I’m glad that well-off white liberals are finally beginning to wake up to the fact that liberalism and the Democrat party has launched a blitzkreig offensive against them, the first stage in a “Final Solution” to the ”problem” that everybody isn’t a poor minority on welfare.  Government handouts do nothing to allieviate poverty.  The only way poor people can improve their situation is to pick themselves up by their bootstraps by having their mom hook them up with some right-wing media gigs, and then parlay that into paid public appearances and a fabulous book deal.  Optionally, one could enter the jet-set world of professional blogging, with salaries starting at $75k and up.  It’s pure laziness that keeps these people down, and we pay for it.  Via.

One of the more controversial assertions made in recent books about Liberal Fascism is that “The White Man is the Jew of Liberal Fascism“. That this should be controversial at all is itself an indictment of how insidiously Liberal Fascism has perverted our culture and our discourse, but never mind. The truth of this statement is self-evident: as the Jew was persecuted in Nazi Germany, so is The White Man identified and denounced as the cause of all misfortune and evil in the world. Now, of course, I’m not saying that Whitey is literally being herded off to concentration camps or anything like that – I’m just making an analogy. And it is a very serious, thoughtful, and careful analogy, one which conforms in every important detail:

Now, will somebody please engage my serious arguments seriously?

Major Woody has eminently fair and gracious and typically thoughtful review of the book, which he has undertaken seriously, with detail and care. Obviously, there isn’t as much care and detail as went into my book, and it’s not as thoughtful or serious, but to expect that of a mere book review is to set the bar for seriousness, thoughtfulosity, etc. far too high. Also, Eric Martin and Jim Henley have reacted positively, although they haven’t actually read it. Hardly anybody has read it, actually, but the thing about books is that you can often judge how good they are just from the cover. More people should review it in order to combat liberal fascism in all of its oppressive and responsibility-absolving forms.

Sadly, the real liberal fascists refuse to tackle my arguments head-on, preferring instead to pretend like I didn’t just totally figure out that they are fascists and totally prove it in a groundbreaking book which takes care and thoughtfulness to completely unprecedented levels. Additionally, my book is not available in any bookstores, a ludicrous situation which can only be explained by the nefarious doings of liberals, and gives a further measure of how desperate they are in their dead-end struggle against my remorseless logic. If I’m not on top of every NY Times bestseller list by the end of the week, I’ll know that I’ve struck a sound – and perhaps fatal – blow against the Chardonnay Reich.

Now, I’m basically done fuming about how victimized I am, but I but I liked this email from Jeff from Protein Wisdom:

The Editors —

I understand you have written a book, and that you hate liberals. Me too, except the book part. In addition, I resent the following people, and would be honored to aid you in resenting them, perhaps by offering moral support to your resenting efforts or by scowling at them when your face starts hurting:

1. Dave Neiwert
2. Glenn Greenwald (times fifty!)
3. Professor Rick Caric
4. So-called ‘libertarian’ Jim Henley who isn’t as libertarian as he would have you believe and once stood near a COMMIE
5. Stanley Fish
6. My thesis committee
7. Michael Keaton and all the bastards who made “Mr. Mom”
8. People who finished their degrees
9. People who got the jobs I wanted
10. Liberals

None of these people ever managed to actually hurt my self-esteem, of course, as they are too pitiful to ever truly challenge my lofty intellect. The very thought is ridiculous. Some people collect seashells, some baseball cards, some collect records – I happen to collect grudges. It relaxes me. That’s all.

Take care,
Jeff G

I will take Jeff up on this offer, and I propose that we work in shifts: I will resent #1-5 from the hours of 9AM to 5PM, seethe about #6-10 from from 5PM to 1AM, and sleep from 1AM to 9AM. You can shift this schedule 8 hours to the right or left (whichever is more convenient), and I will have one of the interns here at The Institute take over loathing during the third shift. This way we should manage 24-hour bitterness coverage, while still being able to focus our vexation somewhat. Begin.

A reader writes:

I am a famous historian. I am also a pirate and a helicopter and a ninja, and I have to say that your book is by far the most awesomest thing ever! I’m so jealous! Your book certainly proves that everybody you don’t like is a total fucking douchebag and that you and everybody you do like farts fancy French perfume! As proven by history! Which I know!

Anyhoozle, I just wanted to say that I think it’s totally unfair how people are treating your thoughtful and serious arguments. When I see things like this, I just want to cry like a wee tiny girl. This is worse than the Holocaust, and totally proves your central thesis. And I don’t mean they’re being mean like how Crooked Timber is being mean to Jonah and making fun of him – I mean being really, really mean, and pretending you haven’t even written a book when it’s already been out for 4 hours and has already broken so much ground it’s fucking ridiculous. When the revolution against liberal fascism comes, every motherfucker who doesn’t have a dog-eared copy of your book in their bathroom is going up against the motherfucking wall.

Prof. Cap’n Airwolf Ryu

 

I agree with this, and would only add that you forget to hold down the SHIFT key. But don’t worry about me. The fact that I’ve been totally ignored is a sign that I’ve hit on something real. If I really didn’t matter, if I was really an idiot, people wouldn’t be afraid to buy fifty copies of my book and get the front cover tattoo’ed on their forehead. Logic tells me so. So, no, this being ignored shit isn’t fun, but it sure is amusing. This is a distinction which smart people like ourselves certainly appreciate.

UPDATE: It is here!

Coming later tonight:

People better engage my serious arguments seriously or I’m going to call them names.

… OK, when I get out of work today. Promise.

LA Times:

Although the Patriots have won all 17 games this season, they’ve struggled to cover the point spread since they won at Buffalo, 56-10, on Nov. 18.

Since starting 9-1 against the spread, New England is 1-6 against the spread over its last seven games, including last week’s 31-20 win over Jacksonville (the Patriots were favored by 13 1/2).

Quick quiz: which team was most effective at stopping NE’s ‘unstoppable’ defense this year? That’s right – the 4-12 NY Jets, who (in the Spygate Revenge Bowl where the Pats were going to throw up 700 points) held the Patriots to 20 points, one offensive TD, and let Terrific Tom Brady light them up to the tune of 14-27-140-0-1 (compare to Crappy Chad Pennington’s 25-38-184-0-0). Game conditions: 30 degrees, gusting winds, some rain.

Game conditions today: 22 degrees, gusting winds, Shawne Merriman.

They’re going to win – the Chargers have to play in the same weather, and I’d take Pennington over Phillip Rivers any day – but, if the wind picks up, it will be closer than Vegas thinks.

Pats 27-17.

UPDATE: Gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat.

1. John McCain will be the Republican nominee. I know, I know, but remember: it’s always the guy (or guy’s wife) everybody thought it would be when they weren’t really paying attention, because that’s how people vote.

2. But what about Mitt Romney? Imagine this debate question:

Mr. Romney, you belong to a religion which – while accepting the Christian Bible in a limited sense – believes that it has been made obsolete by a later revelation involving polygamy and exotic dietary restrictions. So, wait: are you a Shitte or a Sunni?

Yes, please: let us discuss the unity of faith. That always works so well.

3a. God, thank you for Mike Huckabee. And especially for his supporters. Because – good, God-fearing Christians as they are – they got together and asked themselves “What Would Jesus (were He in Our place) Do?” And, after much prayer and study of scripture, they came to the only possible answer: He would anonymously accuse John McCain of treason and miscegenation.

3b. All of which is McCain’s just deserts. In 2000, Bush pulled this same exact shit against him, and he acted all outraged that anyone would stoop to such low tactics, etc., etc. In 2004, Bush pulled similar shit against Kerry, but I guess the maverick McCain had his mouth too full of Karl Rove’s cock for him to voice much disapproval. Now – presumably to work around the writer’s strike – they’re reusing the same script they used eight years ago. Har-har.

4. Here’s to a long, eventful, and inconclusive Republican primary race.