Goldberg links

So that was a long time between posts. In the meantime, Doughy Pantload's well-researched argument that has never before been made with such care has come out. It makes me cry inside. Here's a quick link list of some of the more effective takedowns:

In which Jonah asks his readers to research for him.

Followed by a Spencer scholar who actually responded to DP's request... and was rebuffed when the answer didn't suit what DP wanted. Bonus quote: "Where to begin? YOU ARE A BAD JEW . (Sorry. Just slipped out.)"

This guy also shows the problem at the heart of the Pantload's book: the fallacy of the undistributed middle:

All [animal rights activists] believe [in animal rights].

All [Nazis] believe [in animal rights].

Therefore all [animal rights activists] are [Nazis].

Logic is fun! I want to do more!

All [liberals] believe [orgasms are fun].

All [Nazis] believe [orgasms are fun].

Therefore all [liberals] are [Nazis].

Over here, Matthew Yglesias discusses why it's so hard to take the Pantload seriously.

"It seems that nothing gets conservatives off nearly so much as writing obviously unserious books with patently offensive titles, designed in every way to not be taken seriously, and then get huffy when people make fun of them without having given their precious works the deep consideration they deserve."

Sadly, No! has done the most work on this, from even before the thing came out. They note that DP says:

"For many socialists and progressives, socialism was racism and racism was socialism. Nazism was socialism for a race. The Nazi view was uglier and more extreme than anyone else’s, but it was not philosophically so distinct from the views of many progressives in America and socialists in Britain."

So what does it then mean that DP's own publication, the National Review', has its own long and distinguished history of racism. Doesn't that make them Nazis? Or at least "socialists" of some kind?

Sadly trashes DP's performance in a Salon interview. The best part: "the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I". Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that he, uh... FOUNDED THE FASCIST PARTY.

Teh stupid. it hurtz.

Rather than fry brain anymore right now, I'll just link to Neiwert's definitive review, his correct description of how fascists' occupation of the right in both voting patterns and financial support, and his bibliography of books where you could actually learn something. DN also comments on some specific factual errors resulting from mistranslations (see Sans Everything on the lack of research and linguistic knowledge that went into this, contrasted with how conservatives used to practice scholarship).

THIS is the definitive post on the substance of DP's book. Followed by the appendix with real sources (Orwell, Payne, Paxton, Eco, Griffin). Good work, Dave! You're a trooper!

And finally, he directs to John Emerson's review, which discusses how hard it is to respond to tripe like this.