In the new journalistic series "Political Animal", a book by Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism. A History of the Left from Mussolini to Obama, which is not just a history of fascism as a political and social phenomenon, but explores the inextricable link between "classical fascism" and modern liberalism ruling the West.
A few notes about names and titles. Although the translation of this book as a whole is quite adequate, it remains beyond common sense why is the author's name spelled "Jonah Goldberg" instead of "Jonah Goldberg" and declined as some kind of fictitious woman's name- A book by Jonah Goldberg.
It is difficult to say why the biblical name of Jonah did not please the publishers, but nevertheless, the translation of the original subtitle leaves much to be desired: The Secret History of the AMERICAN LEFT from MUSSOLINI to the POLITICS OF CHANGE.
This is important point. The author examines the concept of "liberal fascism" in relation to the American "left", which - in the American sense - is the so-called. "liberals" and, accordingly, the Democratic Party. However, according to the author, the American right, in its desire to benefit the people of the United States (in particular, George W. Bush!) enlightened fascism).
And then to say - the word "fascism" and for the Russian, and for the European, and for the American ear sounds harsh. Fascism since World War II has been synonymous with universal evil, the devil with horns, the most primordial anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, Mussolini's "classical fascism" is something completely different, containing features of a state religion so attractive to contemporaries that its worldwide popularity could only compete with the popularity of "ideas of communism."
Actually, communism and fascism are twin brothers, born of the Enlightenment and the Great French Revolution. The author pays a lot of attention to the genesis of fascism, since without this it is impossible to understand in what form it flourishes to this day as neoliberalism triumphant over conservatism.
Goldberg's work is remarkably unbiased. Although in America he is known as a flamboyant polemicist. He writes precisely the "phenomenology of fascism", and not a pamphlet in his condemnation or justification. The most surprising thing is that a lot of enthusiastic responses to this book come from the camp ... "Left"! Like, thanks to the author for "pointing out the dangers" and "deviations" of our beloved liberalism. Well, as you know, "fighting deviations" is one of the favorite activities of the totalitarian system.
So, the author's definition of fascism:
"Fascism is the religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the political space and needs a national leader who supports the will of the people. The totalitarianism of fascism consists in the politicization of everything and the conviction that any actions of the state are justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including the health and well-being of all members of society, and seeks to impose unity of thought and action on them, either by force or through regulation and social pressure.
Everything, including economics and religion, must be consistent with its goals. Any competing views are defined as hostile. I assume that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism."
And for an example of a chapter of this book as "stages of a long journey":
Mussolini: Father of Fascism
- Adolf Hitler: a man from the left
— Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of Liberal Fascism
- Fascist "New Deal" by Franklin Roosevelt
- 1960s: Fascism takes to the streets
- From the Kennedy Myth to Johnson's Dream: Liberal Fascism and the Cult of the State
- Liberal racism: the specter of fascist eugenics
- Economics of liberal fascism
- Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism
- new era: we are all fascists now
Afterword to the latest edition: "Barack Obama and long-familiar changes."
Let's try to understand how liberal fascism threatens Russia, the Russian nation, and who finances it. Are the recent events in France, the attack of sexual minorities on the social foundations of the people of France, a blow of liberal fascism? Will France survive? Who imposes juvenile justice on us? Who imposes liberal values on us, the essence of which is hidden fascism directed against Russia, against Russians, against the Russian nation? Be vigilant, friends!
Golderg quotes from the writings of historian Richard Pipes: "Bolshevism and fascism were the heresy of socialism." He puts forward the following arguments in favor of such a combination:
First, he suggests reading the "secret history of the American Left":
- Woodrow Wilson's Progressivism *) was a "militaristic, fanatically nationalistic, imperialist, racist" program, the need for which was caused by the plight created during the First World War.
- Franklin Roosevelt's "Fascist 'New Deal" **) was created on the basis of the Wilson government and expanded it.
- On the basis of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' program, the modern 'welfare state' was created - the 'ultimate enjoyment' (for now) resulting from the concentration of economics and politics 'in hands" of the state.
- The young revolutionaries of the 1960s, the so-called 'New Left', carried out an 'Americanized modernization' of the European 'European Old Right'.
- Hillary Clinton hopes to "drive the state deep into family life” is an essential intention that will be a step forward in the process of working on [her] totalitarian project.
Let us summarize briefly the story of the events of history that have taken place in our country for almost a century. One could say that while America's political system has traditionally encouraged the pursuit of happiness, "[now] more and more of our citizens want to stop seeking happiness and [finally] have it."
Second, Goldberg analyzes various American liberal agendas - racial, economic, environmental, and even "green cult" - and shows their similarities to those of Mussolini and Hitler.
Additional Information:
It must be said that this unconditional and radical Westernism of our liberals is reminiscent of the anecdotal desire to be “holier than the Pope himself”, because in the same West, the attitude to the arguments about the “freedom of a capitalist society” and the “charms of the Western way of life” in intellectual circles is often very, very critical. Of course we are talking not about unambiguously politically biased intellectuals like the political strategist Brzezinski, who are actively working to implement a certain political idea as part of the relevant state-funded organizations, by no means, I mean critically thinking, oppositional intellectuals who stand aside from the state-biased “politics”, generously paid for by various funds, and which seek to analyze certain aspects of the life of Western society without starting from those ideological panegyrics that pour from the lips of semi-official politicians. Them " specific gravity” in the “intellectual mosaic” of the West is very, very significant. Without the concepts of such nonconformist thinking philosophers as Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Jean-Paul Sartre, Louis Althusser, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva, Jean Baudrillard, Slavoj Zizek, Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Carl Schmidt, Ernst Junger, Alain de Benoit, it is impossible to imagine modern foreign thought. But this is only the “tip of the iceberg” - philosophers, who are considered by the official, academic tradition of the West, both because of their significance, and because of the half-hearted, compromising nature of their protest, and there is also the underwater part of the iceberg - “irreconcilable nonconformists” , theorists of extreme forms of protest, leaders of the "sixties" movement and small underground groups (Guy Debord, Tony Negro, Ulrika Meinhof, Claudio Mutti, Hakim Bey, etc.)
The author of the book is the famous American publicist Jonah Goldberg. He does not hide his conservative views, and dislike for liberals and Democrats has become the main theme of this book. Goldberg's book was published in the United States in January 2008 - before presidential elections that Obama won. The book retained its provocative relevance before the 2012 presidential election.
The author precedes his most interesting study with a large introductory article, designed to clarify, first of all, the terminology, and it is called "Everything you know about fascism is wrong." Although the label "fascism" certainly needs clarification and a more precise definition. After all, the word "fascism" and for the Russian, and for the European, and for the American ear sounds abusive. Since the Second World War, fascism has been synonymous with universal evil, violence and anti-Semitism.
Goldberg argues that "classic fascism" was not a right-wing movement at all, but an offshoot of and overcoming socialism. Goldberg's entire extensive book is devoted to trying to prove the idea that "modern liberalism remains close to fascist ideas," and the first fascist dictator of the twentieth century, according to Goldberg, was the 28th US President (1913-1921) Woodrow Wilson. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was fascist, then the cause of fascism was continued by Kennedy and Johnson. Al Gore introduced "green fascism" into the United States, turning the ideas of ecology into a political tool. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are developing left-wing fascist ideas, and as a result, now all Americans live under fascism. The author urges his compatriots not to lose vigilance, although America is not threatened by cruel fascism, like the one we saw in the first half of the twentieth century. Another danger threatens: "soft fascism", the fascism from Aldous Huxley's dystopia "Brave New World".
It seems to me that despite all the controversy, Goldberg's book is remarkable in that it shows, using the example of the freest country in the world today, how close the ideas of the common good for the majority are to totalitarian ideologies. And how far they are from the idea of individual freedoms of a person, endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Unfortunately, in the Russian edition of the book there is no ironic intonation, signaling its presence in the American edition already on the cover. And the dialogue between the two American comedians George Carlin and Bill Mara, with which the book begins, contains almost no humorous intonation, since they are not well known in Russia. “Essentially, fascism is when corporations start running the country.” We should listen carefully to this serious phrase in the mouths of American comedians.
John Goldberg. liberal fascism. History of the Left from Mussolini to Obama (Liberal Fascism. The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Change). / Translation: I. Cloud. — M.: Reed Group, 2012. — 512 p. - (Series: Political Animal. "Political Animal"). – Circulation 3000 copies.
Liberalism, from my point of view, is a great utopia. As a system, it has never existed anywhere and, in principle, could not exist. Man does not exist outside of society. Society always imposes certain restrictions. The beginning of society is the introduction of the first taboos. Historically, the ban on incest as an act of introducing the first taboo gives rise to society. Liberalism proclaims another program, directly opposite - detabuization.
Freedom is always subjunctive. It suggests the question - freedom from what? Freedom for what? Freedom itself, outside the context of these questions, is absurd. Freedom, taken as a pure idea, as it was brilliantly shown in A. Camus' "The Rebellious Man", leads to the suicide of mankind.
Liberalism has historically developed as an ideology of removing social bonds - religion, the state, the people, in the future - the family. Mother and father are the same restrictions on the freedom of the individual, just like the state.
Liberalism carries the idea of negation. It does not contain any positive program. This is an idea that puts a minus. Historically, liberalism could only exist by mixing with other ideologies. Known political options for mixing it with socialism and conservatism. The genesis of liberalism was its divorce from other positive ideologies. Initially, there was a divorce with national teachings, then with social ones. Today we are witnessing a divorce of liberalism from democracy, classically understood as democracy.
So, liberalism as a pure model has never existed. But why then was this liberal cover needed?
Liberalism has always existed in a paradoxical combination. The freedom of some presupposed the lack of freedom and exploitation of others. Outside of this dichotomy, we do not find liberal practice anywhere. The clash of the minority with the majority constituted the social paradigm of the affirmation of the liberal concept.
A brief historical digression confirms empirically this thesis. ancient world: The Greeks put forward the idea of freedom. But it is in the Hellenic world that slavery flourishes. A slave, as you know, was not considered a human being by the Hellenes. According to Aristotle, this is a living tool, a beast of burden. Freedom, therefore, was not meant for everyone. In any case, it did not apply to slaves.
Slavery did not disappear in the Middle Ages. The most prosperous, free trading posts of Genoa and Venice were the leading centers of slavery and the slave trade. The Venetian trade in slaves was carried out throughout the Mediterranean. How did it fit - urban freedoms and the slave trade? The concept of a person, again, did not apply to everyone. Not being a citizen of Venice, the slave was not a man either.
Modern times are characterized by the development of the idea of political freedoms. But at the same time, the formation of a system of world colonialism is taking place. In total, during the period of colonial expansion, more than 80 million slaves were taken out of Africa. It is significant that many theorists of liberalism figured among the slave owners. The owners of slave plantations were, in particular, the founding fathers of the United States - Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison. The value of freedom was surprisingly combined in their view with the commonness of lack of freedom. The concept of "man" was still selective. The paradox of the Russian feudal liberals had the same basis.
Only in the 19th century a ban is introduced in Europe, and then in the United States on slavery. But it was at this time in the process of becoming colonial system the colonialists learned to use the mechanisms of exploitation through indirect coercion. Direct physical slavery is replaced by economic slavery. The freedom of some - resource owners is still combined with the lack of freedom of others, who are now formally free.
In the light of what has been said, the nature of the combination of the liberal party of the 1990s becomes clear. with a sharp social degradation of the majority of the Russian population. This, in fact, was the meaning of the implementation of the liberal concept - the robbery of the majority ("cattle") in favor of a group of free individuals. The freedom of this group of new masters of life was built on the lack of freedom of the rest of the population. It could not be otherwise with consistent movement along liberal patterns.
To summarize: today liberalism is a variant of neo-colonialism, it is a mechanism of non-coercive economic slavery. Fascism and liberalism are related phenomena. They reflect two historically manifested variants of Western expansion in the world. At one time, one of these options was condemned - fascism. The time has come to raise the question of liberalism as a phenomenon related to the fascist ideology.
In the new journalistic series "Political Animal", a book by Jonah Goldberg, sensational in the West in general and in America in particular, was published in Russian translation "Liberal Fascism. The History of the Left Forces from Mussolini to Obama", which is not just a history of fascism as a political and social phenomenon, but explores inextricable link between "classical fascism" and modern liberalism, ruling in the West.
A few notes about names and titles. Although the translation of this book as a whole is quite adequate, it remains beyond common sense why the author's name is written as "Jonah Goldberg" instead of "Jonah Goldberg" (Jonah Goldberg) and declined as some kind of fictitious female name - "the book of Jonah Goldberg".
It is difficult to say why the biblical name of Jonah did not please the publishers, but nevertheless, the translation of the original subtitle leaves much to be desired: The Secret History of the AMERICAN LEFT from MUSSOLINI to the POLITICS OF CHANGE.
This is an important point. The author examines the concept of "liberal fascism" in relation to the American "left", which - in the American sense - is the so-called. "liberals" and, accordingly, the Democratic Party. However, according to the author, the American right, in its desire to benefit the people of the United States (in particular, George W. Bush!) enlightened fascism).
And then to say - the word "fascism" and for the Russian, and for the European, and for the American ear sounds harsh. Fascism since World War II has been synonymous with universal evil, the devil with horns, the most primordial anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, Mussolini's "classical fascism" is something completely different, containing features of a state religion so attractive to contemporaries that its worldwide popularity could only compete with the popularity of "ideas of communism."
Actually, communism and fascism are twin brothers, born of the Enlightenment and the Great French Revolution. The author pays a lot of attention to the genesis of fascism, since without this it is impossible to understand in what form it flourishes to this day as neoliberalism triumphant over conservatism.
Goldberg's work is remarkably unbiased. Although in America he is known as a flamboyant polemicist. He writes precisely the "phenomenology of fascism", and not a pamphlet in his condemnation or justification. The most surprising thing is that a lot of enthusiastic responses to this book come from the camp ... "Left"! Like, thanks to the author for "pointing out the dangers" and "deviations" of our beloved liberalism. Well, as you know, "fighting deviations" is one of the favorite activities of the totalitarian system.
"Fascism is the religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the political space and needs a national leader who supports the will of the people. The totalitarianism of fascism consists in the politicization of everything and the conviction that any actions of the state are justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including the health and well-being of all members of society, and seeks to impose unity of thought and action on them, either by force or through regulation and social pressure.
Everything, including economics and religion, must be consistent with its goals. Any competing views are defined as hostile. I assume that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism."
And for an example of a chapter of this book as "stages of a long journey":
Mussolini: Father of Fascism
- Adolf Hitler: a man from the left
— Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of Liberal Fascism
- Fascist "New Deal" by Franklin Roosevelt
- 1960s: Fascism takes to the streets
- From the Kennedy Myth to Johnson's Dream: Liberal Fascism and the Cult of the State
- Liberal racism: the specter of fascist eugenics
- Economics of liberal fascism
- Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism
- New era: we are all fascists now
Afterword to the latest edition: "Barack Obama and long-familiar changes."
Polaris Store Locations
Shopping center Origo (Statiyas laukums 2, tel. 7073909)
Shopping center Damme (Kurzemes avenue 1a, tel. 20017489)
Shopping center Domina, coffee shop (Yerikyu 3, 20017488)
Shopping center Mols (Krasta 46, t.67030337)
House of Moscow (Marias 7)
st. Gertrudes 7
st. Dzirnavu 102
Shopping center Alfa (Brivības gatve 372)
Shopping center Dole (Maskavas 357, 2nd floor)
Shopping center Talava (Sakharova 21)
Information to think about:
On liberal fascism - from Mussolini to Obama
This is the name of the book by the American journalist Yona Gold, who compares and analyzes the similarities and differences in the ideology and politics of the left - European and American - throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. The work is fundamental, a real "brick". What is called, if you hit it on the head - you can kill. And actually it is possible. And without any physical application - just read it. Not that the author reveals any special secrets. The fact of the matter is that there are no secrets there and are not expected. Gold uses open sources and tells what is generally known. At least at the moment when the events described by him took place, these facts were known. And then they were completely forgotten. Why, after reading, there is a feeling of sensationalism. And after all, all you had to remember yourself and remind others ...
The author was not so worried that much of what he still did not like and seemed suspicious in the Euro-Atlantic democratic space has direct and immediate roots in fascism - that very classical one. At the same time, the fact that seven decades have passed from the era of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Schicklgruber to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, not to mention Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, David Cameron, Silvio Berlusconi and others, smaller, does not change things. But to imagine that juvenile justice and the state, climbing into the relationship between parents and children, including phantasmagoria such as introducing into the preschool and school education system redundant even for many adults ideas that gender relations necessarily include same-sex love, date back to the time of the Third Reich , he could not. It turns out in vain. Moreover, the top leadership of the SA had everything in order with homosexuality (which his competitors caught on).
The same applies to a comprehensive and all-encompassing fight against tobacco - in full accordance with the widespread opinion in the time of the Fuhrer that a person has no right to dispose of his own body, and even more so his health. And his body and his health belong not to him, but to the nation. According to what she has full right blow his brains out, ruin his life, ruin his career, get into his house and ban everything that local or federal authorities want to ban to the extent of their inherent idiocy by definition. So that only he remains healthy - how this nation (or rather, its elected representatives or appointed themselves as such) understands health in accordance with the spirit of the era. Or does not understand - in accordance with the same spirit. But who and when was worried about the opinion or suspicion of some individual person that the authorities were fooling around and that’s why they were spinning everything spinning for him (not without benefit for themselves and their own - whoever these “friends” were) ?!
It brought and brings funny results. For example, at the time this book is being written, American lawyers, who set smokers against tobacco corporations, and producers of soft drugs - the same marijuana - used the prohibition of tobacco smoking with considerable profit. As well as drugs that have never been easy: heroin, cocaine, crack and all other poisons. Because if people do not want to understand that two and two equals four and the legalization of drugs, starting with soft ones, goes hand in hand with the prohibition of smoking, why should the drug mafia explain this to them, hacking own business? Did she not work on lobbying the relevant decisions of legislators? Didn’t it create a fashion for “nonsense” among young people and among the intellectual elite while simultaneously spreading the opinion that tobacco sucks, smoking of which is not worth even next to marijuana? And so on and so forth…
And, curiously, the ban on tobacco smoking has spread far beyond the boundaries of the "civilized world". Something like: to Turkey, Russia and other countries, whose top officials decided to be mischievous, not understanding what to smoke on the street in European countries heated by the Gulf Stream, or in the United States, where, in addition to Alaska, it is warm or even hot all year round, is one thing. And in a country where it’s not Murmansk, it’s Arkhangelsk, Magadan or Norilsk, not to mention Anadyr and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, it’s different. We will keep silent about Irkutsk, Chita, Novosibirsk, Tomsk, Surgut and Khanty-Mansiysk or Krasnoyarsk. As well as about Oymyakon, Abakan, Nizhnevartovsk, Tyumen and Labytnangi. Cold in Russia in winter. Highly. And if the mention of a person actually causes him to hiccup, as he says folk tradition, then all those characters whose crazy idea is described above will hiccup for life. And their children, as well as their grandchildren, will have a supply of this exciting process for years and decades.
By the way, in Russia it was introduced by President Medvedev, who for no reason was perceived by the domestic press as a liberal. He certainly did not suspect that with his good intentions, with which, as always, the road to hell was paved, he was copying the German Fuhrer. And if he had known, it is possible that he would not have mocked the people to such an extent. Although ... The incongruous change of time zones, in which not only the population, but, it seems, he himself got confused, is also Medvedev. The reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was limited to the fact that the police were renamed the police for some unknown reason - he is. And "zero ppm", which does not exist in nature and cannot be, was his invention. So one can only hope for the sobriety and objectivity of his decisions only theoretically.
However, is it only a matter of forcibly replacing harmful tobacco with deadly drugs? And in the replacement of traditional family values (not in the church - where did the church hierarchs get their families from and what do they understand in them, but in the normal, human sense) what the hell. Including brilliant French ideas about "parents number one and two" instead of mom and dad. And other equally senseless, harmful and stupid. Not in reproach to Western Europe, which cannot understand what a reserve of fearless idiocy it looks like from the outside, and American ultra-liberals, whose views are so close to Hillary Clinton that if she becomes US president (and she most likely will), American conservatism is at risk this presidency will not survive. What tobacco! How about healthy food? Including the medical mafia, with all its nutritional supplements and complex vitamins, which are stuffed into the average American, extorting decent money from his pockets - theoretically solely for the sake of his health ...
The press, which can tear apart anyone and advance any topic into the public consciousness, is also from there, from the first half of the 20th century. Benito Mussolini himself was a journalist and orator from G-d. Although Hitler, who was gifted with an equally brilliant oratorical talent and possessed genuine charisma, did not do well with the written word, and he had specially trained people for these matters. So what about the "fourth power" - this is from there, from totalitarian societies. “To equate a pen to a bayonet” for them was the very thing. The people from these feathers died in due time - not to count. Including Jews, Gypsies, and other victims of Nazi propaganda about whom this book is written. However, remind today's journalist or editor there about the true roots of his profession - he will eat him alive. Encroachment on the freedom of the press, this, that ... And you will be a tyrant and dictator for the whole world. Given that, for example, the idea that famous people in society have nothing that the press has no right to delve into destroys the idea of privacy as such. The harm from which is much more than good.
In fact, under the premise that the life of a public person must be transparent to the population, a lot of vile and impartial things are being produced. Because peeping and eavesdropping with noble goals is not done. And it serves as a base for the paparazzi with their surveillance of a huge number of people who are not at all obliged to serve as a source of their income. As well as the justification for espionage and the organization of smear campaigns designed to destroy those who were ordered as their object. That is, the driving forces of this kind of activity are, as a rule, political and business competition, personal enmity, xenophobia, revenge - but not everything that is implied when it comes to freedom of the press. That this very freedom of the press is compromised in a way that its most fierce enemies could not do. As, however, is the fact that the press is happy to organize for dictators the full range of services they need, from ensuring their coming to power to maintaining total control in the society they rule.
People who lived their lives in the USSR remember all this well from various domestic campaigns in the press. From the fight against deviationists of various persuasions and "enemies of the people" to the persecution of cosmopolitans, Zionists and people who kowtow before the West. The parallels of what in the States and all other states of the "free world" lie on the surface. Moreover, in the long list of manifestations of anti-American activity, the struggle against which “in the name of democracy” destroyed thousands of lives in the most democratic country in the Western world, the fight against Nazism, especially after the end of the war, occupied far from the main place. Rather, on the contrary. What do Evgeny Schwartz and Grigory Gorin have about “Kill the Dragon”? The same case. Without any Stalinism and fascism. Within the framework of universal suffrage and democratic freedoms, which by no means excluded the persecution of dissidents, the intensity of which the German Nazis and Italian fascists could envy.
We somehow got used to it from Soviet times that fascism is a movement of ultra-right and reactionary circles. So the stamps are ingrained - you can’t get it out. However, in fact, it is no less, if not more, widespread in the circles of the left - as evidenced, generally speaking, by its name: national socialism. Why did the Nazis draw reserves for their parties in the communist movement. Radicals, they are radicals. And what their radicalism of color is not so important. That proves the history of our own country, including its post-Soviet period. You look at another current domestic communist with his cave nationalism and you understand: a typical fascist. To which, as a rule, he will categorically object, while using fascist rhetoric and professing a typically fascist ideology. What the author encountered too often to be considered a coincidence. Although the domestic situation has not yet been described by anyone, Gold, as a connoisseur of America and a citizen of America, wrote about it.
At the same time, he wrote well. He unearthed the deep roots of American fascism - its forerunners from the 19th century. He described the struggle of "native" Americans - white Protestants - with the Catholics and national minorities of the United States who arrived after them, at one time the most cruel, but unknown to the world. And America itself is practically unknown: who needs to stir up dirty laundry and pull skeletons out of the closet. Finally, he worked from and to the history of the United States during the First World War and the post-war period, sparing neither Roosevelt, who became an icon of his time, nor his predecessors and successors as President of the United States. Everyone got it. Moreover, the Roosevelt “new course” described by Gold is so reminiscent of the corresponding economic and political systems that dominated in the same 30s on the opposite side of the Atlantic that one involuntarily becomes uneasy. And this is far from the only parallel.
There is no need to talk about McCarthyism. It turns out that this was not only a struggle between conservative republican patriots and the influence of democrats who leaned towards the USSR. On the contrary, party affiliation played almost no role in how this or that American politician behaved during the witch hunt. No matter how important it is in our time, when in the fight against Russia, Republicans and Democrats literally compete in what sanctions can be applied to it. What I could not have imagined for last quarter century, not a single Russian politician. And this, perhaps, explains why the temporary alliance against Nazi Germany collapsed so quickly after the victory over it and, most importantly, over Japan - after the US and Great Britain ceased to need the Soviet Union. It's a shame - especially for those who seriously believed that Moscow could find a serious partner in Washington. However, as is.
And by the way, no longer relying on Gold, it becomes clear why the American left has such a dislike for Israel. Which they not only do not like, but act against him in the same ranks with his sworn enemies, including the states of the Islamic world - primarily the Arabian monarchies. President Obama and his struggle with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, open pressure on Jerusalem under the pretext of resuming Palestinian-Israeli "peace" negotiations and dialogue with Iran, opening the way for the latter to successfully complete its nuclear program and obtain the A-bomb, created thanks to the support of Washington and the left establishment of the anti-Israel Jewish lobby - "J-street" and much more is to the credit of this course. Despite the fact that until recently, despite a lot of evidence that this is the case, the Israelis refused to believe their own eyes, considering the United States an ally for all time. Moreover, America's rhetoric on this issue is unchanged.
The advanced reader, apparently, has an idea of how much the African American community - they are American blacks - have advanced in protecting their civil liberties since the days of Martin Luther King. And this is how it really is. Which, from the point of view of its orientation in the described issue, does not mean anything. It is clear that Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, the most famous leaders of "black America", from the ideological point of view - including in relation to Jews and Israel - are real fascists and, by the way, racists. Racism is by no means a privilege of whites - among blacks it is no less and is even more cruel. This is evidenced by the situation not only in the United States, but also in South Africa, and in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. So the mention of Gold in the title of the book of President Obama is not accidental and quite justified. America's first black president absorbed and implemented all the prejudices characteristic of liberal fascism that developed in the United States for decades after the last fascist country in Europe ceased to be one.
Hence, most likely, Obama's sympathy for the Islamic world in its most radical forms. Ties with Qatar explain his open lobbying of the Muslim Brotherhood both in Egypt, where he tried to prevent the overthrow of President Morsi, who represented this religious-political movement, and in Tunisia, Libya and the Gaza Strip (Hamas is nothing more than a Palestinian an offshoot of the Brothers). Saudi Salafists with their Al-Qaeda are not the best partner for the US President. A historical chain can be traced: the European "Muslim Brotherhood" are the direct heirs of the post-war "fuhrer's mufti" from the Munich mosque. These imams of the Wehrmacht and the SS were in the period cold war taken under the patronage of President Eisenhower and for decades kept sympathy for Nazism and the memory of the Third Reich. In the post-war period in the countries of the Arab world, they were pushed aside from power by military dictators. However, the Arab Spring became their finest hour- after they seized power in Egypt and the Eastern Maghreb with the support of Qatar, President Obama took an active and quite sincere part in them.
However, anti-Americanism in the Middle East is so strong that it did not bring dividends to him and his country. Suffice it to recall how the Arab press reacted to his Cairo speech - even before the revolutions and coups that cost the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen and almost destroyed Syria. In the most polite way, an overview of President Obama's speech in the Egyptian capital can be reduced to a quote: "White dog, black Dog“It’s still a dog.” This contrasts sharply with the expectations of the American leader, who did not understand that in this region he can be used and tolerated - no more. Whether it be groups professing ideas common in his own country, going back to the corresponding sources (we repeat - America of the first third of the twentieth century admired the Nazis of Europe and copied their achievements or what they considered their achievements). Or we are talking about Islamofascism, which is a Middle Eastern synthesis of Islam and Nazism. Which would certainly please Hitler with his adherence to racial theory ...
From the book Adolf Hitler - the founder of Israel author Kardel HennekeInformation for Thought For Heneke Kardel's book "Adolf Hitler - the founder of Israel", most of the information was collected by Professor Dietrich Bronder. Who is he? Jew living in West Germany, professor of history, general secretary non-religious Jewish communities
From the book Russia and the Middle East [Cauldron of trouble] author Satanovsky Evgeny YanovichFood for Thought About the Benefits of the CIA The table below will allow the reader to compare some of the indicators of Russia and the countries of the Middle East. It is based on statistics from the 2010 CIA World Factbook (“CIA. The World Factbook”) – the most
From book Literary Newspaper 6389 (№ 42 2012) author Literary NewspaperFood for Thought Maghreb The Islamic Republic of Mauritania currently plays the role of Iran's main foothold in West Africa, especially significant after the conflict of Senegal, Gambia and Nigeria with the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) due to the supply of Iranian
From the book of Satan's Satraps author Udovenko Yury AlexandrovichFood for Thought Mesopotamia and the Levant civil war"all against all". Kurdish paramilitaries
From the book Islam and Politics [Collection of Articles] author Ignatenko AlexanderFood for Thought Iran as a Superpower Modern Iran is not only the Shia revolutionary-theocratic state that it has been for the three decades that have passed since the 1979 revolution, but also a country whose ideology is based on the imperial past and
From the book Once upon a time there was a people ... [Genocide Survival Guide] author Satanovsky Evgeny YanovichFood for Thought AfPak It is no coincidence that the US military-political doctrine of the Middle East considers Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single entity - AfPak. Closely related historically, these states, if Afghanistan, representing the totality of not
From the author's bookInformation for Thought Diasporas in the West Significant influence on the foreign and domestic policy of Europe is exerted by diasporas from the Middle East countries living in its territory. The largest of them are the Arabs (more than 6 million, including a million Algerians and 900 thousand Moroccans in
From the author's bookInformation for reflection Information for reflection DISCUSSION In Moscow, the RIA Novosti press center hosted an expert media seminar "PR in the interests of integration", organized by the Standing Committee of the Union State with the support of RIA Novosti. Discuss problems
From the author's bookCHAPTER 2. INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION. Something has become with my memory: everything that was not with me, I remember! Robert Rozhdestvensky began to think about what was happening. Reflections began with the fateful for my Motherland - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of the April Plenum
From the author's book From the author's bookInformation for reflection: Those who were nearby are gypsies In the Third Reich and in the occupied territories there was a people whose belonging meant death as inevitable as Jewish origin. The Nazis persecuted the gypsies just as cruelly. At the same time, the chances of
From the author's bookFood for Thought: Children of the Reich Why is it that in today's Europe, the Europe of 2015, the national bureaucracy is so willing - with the full connivance of official Brussels - to review the results of the war? No, we are not talking about the official rehabilitation of Nazism. At least
From the author's bookFood for Thought: Building on the Bones Well, suppose you managed to survive the Holocaust and return home. The Red Army liberated your concentration camp, you escaped from the ghetto, you sat on a farm with peasants or spent a period of occupation in a partisan detachment - it doesn’t matter.
From the author's bookInformation for reflection: The fruits of anchar The current Islamic world does not like Jews. He loves Israel even less, but at least he is afraid of it. But the Jews... When Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, defending Hamas, attacks Israel, it is more or less clear: he is protecting his own people.
From the author's bookFood for Thought: Müller's heirs to the Gestapo and its head, the famous Müller, have, in their relatively short history, earned a reputation—with a negative sign—to which few can compare. About some SS men like Otto
From the author's bookFood for thought: What is the truth, brother? There are such films in the domestic cinema - "Brother" and "Brother-2". A product of the 90s, when everything in the territory former USSR, until recently considered a superpower, did not fall apart and was not put up for sale,
