Don't Look Now ...

But David Neiwert is kicking the Pantload's ass.  Besides showing Jonah to be the petulant little fact-challenged wiener that he is, David plays unfair by quite academically showing how Jonah's sources are not only suspect, but that some of them embrace the very holocaust revisionism that Jonah falsely accused David of falsely accusing him of.

I do have to admit, though, what I find most amusing is that Mike Harris would so tightly embrace the idea that holocaust revisionism is a *good* thing if it makes the people who annoy him look bad.  Dave Budge is at least more contemplative in his incessant cries that we must take Jonah's argument seriously.   I am left wondering, though, exactly why Mr. Budge has never shown the moral value of Jonah's playtime scribblings, or what the consequence of 'taking the Pantload seriously' would or should be.

I really have to shake my head in wonder at many of the comments that David Neiwert garners at Orcinus.  Too many of them foster all sorts of rational expansive theories of why Goldberg would have written such a "provocative" piece.  I dismiss such musings with disdain.  Jonah wrote the book for one function and few purposes.  The purposes are all readily discernible and mundane.  Even Steve figured out right from the get-go that Jonah wrote his fictions to make money.  It's also easy to see that Jonah wrote the book so that he could act the BMOC among his sad and pathetic peers.  They set up a website just for Lucianne's afterbirth to be the special little snowflake.  But the function ... that's a touch more simple.  400+ pages devoted to Jonah granting himself the right to say "neener neener, you're  a fascist!".  That's right, it doesn't need to be any more complex than that.  It's name calling, pure and simple.  Goldberg certainly didn't write it for the academic debate; Neiwert is engaging him and he sobs like a two year about it.  He didn't write it to add to the body of history.  He admits brazenly that it's "revisionist" history.  Yeah, kind of like the Sword of Shanara gives a different historical perspective of the medieval period.  Nope.  Jonah's book can't be taken seriously, and I'd love to hear a moral or practical argument for why it should be, given it's obvious inaccuracies and all.

(And before anybody falls back on the lamest of arguments that I haven't read any of Jonah's book so I'm not allowed to comment {such argument usually coming from the book's defenders who also haven't read it} kindly keep in mind  that I work at a bookstore ... hint.  No Steve.  Jonah ain't gettin' one red cent from me.  Heh.)

Comments

[Craig]

If anything, you might argue that Sword of Shannara was revisionist history of LotR.

Just sayin'.

[Dave Budge]

I am left wondering, though, exactly why Mr. Budge has never shown the moral value of Jonah's playtime scribblings, or what the consequence of 'taking the Pantload seriously' would or should be.

Maybe because I don't see any moral conflict in study. WTF?

[Dave Budge]

And to remove all doubt, let me ask you, have you read the book?

[Wulfgar]

Yes and No. I've read an advance copy. Make of that what you will. Most of his references I was more than happy to have left to people like Neiwert. But his 'logic' or lack there of is laughable.

And you're sidewise wrong, Dave. There may be no moral value in "study", but there sure as hell is in accusation. So please do tell, given his poor reading of history and blatant inaccuracies, what is worthwhile in 'studying' Jonah's work?

[Dave Budge]

Yes and No? Wasn't the advance copy the same as the final? If it wasn't then are your heroes at SadlyNo reviewing the wrong book inasmuch as they used an advance copy? What kind of weasel wording is that?

I said, however, that there was no moral "conflict" in study - and I hold to that. If my intellectual curiosity ever leads me to the place that I find moral conflict in reading that with which I disagree please put me out on an iceberg.

As for Jonah's accusations, well, tell me of what he's accusing people and I'll put it in a moral framework. The key is, it would seem, semantic differences in understanding his use of the word "fascist". But let's not let language get in the way of understanding, shall we?

BTW, I don't believe that you've read the book. Make of that what you will.

[Wulfgar]

Wasn't the advance copy the same as the final?

It's certainly supposed to be, Dave. But I and others have learned quite well your ability to may hay with the most insignificant of facts, so I figured I'd hedge my bets.

As to whether you believe that I've read the book, I'd match my credibility against yours any day, when regarding Jonah's novel. I've no real idea why you are so invested in promoting a work you've never read, but it's led you to some strange twists of the truth. When the SadLynauts started posting critiques of the work, you dismissed them out of hand, and subtly insinuated that they hadn't read it (a tactic you rely on well). Steve picked up that insinuation and ran with it ... right into that wall built by their scans of the work (that had to hurt). And that showed quite plainly that certainly Steve, and most probably you hadn't bothered to read what Bradrocket and Gavin were posing. Your critical view of their work was based quite obviously on Jonah's reactions, reactions shown time and again to be dishonest, waffling and ignorant. The truly jaw-dropping part was when you claimed that you weren't going to deal with the criticisms of Jonah's book until you'd read it ... all the while you are dismissing the messengers as 'unserious', 'dismissable', and 'priggish'. It's easy to overlook Jonah's reliance on insult and Ad Hominem; he doesn't have much else to rely on at this point (except when he begs his *readers* to help him support his so serious and scholarly published work) . But for you to follow his lead on that, while claiming the intellectual high ground? For shame. Yet here you are again, boldly labeling Jonah's work a "study", a work you still haven'
t read. I'm not certain which is more amusing to me, your lie, or your hypocrisy. Either way, I wouldn't be touting credibility as regards this subject, if I were you.

Truth is, I have read the book. And I remain mystified about one thing. Why? I understand the previous efforts of revisionist history that I've read. Coulter, Irving, Malkin; they all have agenda and offer a 'call to arms' of sorts. I really want someone to explain to me exactly what I'm supposed to take away from Jonah's book, save his efforts at playground name calling. He attempts to draw a historical line of coincidence between historical fascism and liberal thought, but to do so, he begs us re-define the word "fascism", and requires that it be done if we are to grok his thesis. No, it doesn't need to be done. You consistently mirror Jonah's plea, and call deem anyone who doesn't accept his attempt at revisionist meaning 'unserious' about the topic.

First off, the unbroken line of coincidence breaks constantly. Second, coincidence of thinking does not lead to coincidence of action. There is no causal relationship, no matter how many times that Jonah simply assumes it. I'll even give the Pantload that there are times through the last century, where historical fascism has embraced liberal values, and relied on liberal argument. So what? What is his point? What value can be drawn from far too malleable redefinition of fascism other than justifying pointing at 'liberals' and giggling while calling them 'fascists' (which only matters to those who still embrace the historical content and definition of fascism)?

Call me slow, but I'm just not getting it, Dave. I don't get it any more than I understand the people who try and come up with extravagant theories for why Jonah's work should be taken seriously, or what his motivations and intellectual values are. It's childish name-calling and accusation. That's all it is. There is no consequence or higher value to be drawn. It's not empirical study, or flat history. It's not philosophical critique (at least not good as such.) It's only value is to those who are desperate to follow Papa Hegel of the cliff and claim that historical motion is effective cause in and of it's self, and modern liberalism will give rise to fascist dictators in the future. Jonah himself doesn't take that claim all that seriously, so why should I?

So, I repeat, what is the value or consequence of Jonah's book? 'Cause I ain't seeing any.

[Dave Budge]

I don't think you've read the book and you've said noting here makes me believe you have.

I should have the book by Monday and will finish it by weeks end I think. But I have been looking at this issue long before I even knew of Jonah's book and so this is not about Jonah's work which, by the way, I don't think I've ever said was a "serious" study - I've said mine is a serious study. Stop putting words in my mouth.

And I'll tell you another thing about myself. I think Jonah is smart, well read, and made his bones on his own effort. I think you're relegating him to just another fortunate of a legacy is bravado bullshit. I think he's forgotten more about political philosophy than you've ever learned - evidenced by your incoherent comment about "Papa Hegel" above.

This, from the guy who tells me that there is little difference between Hobbes and Locke. This, from the guy who tells me that the modern Democratic Party is born of Jefferson. This, from a guy who dismisses moral arguments because they don't fit into some existential or, at times, Machiavellian ethos.

I'll finish the book and write a review. I've never said anything different.

[Wulfgar]

Dave Budge:

I'll finish the book and write a review. I've never said anything different.

Dave Budge 11 days ago:

I’ll deal with those criticisms after I read the book.

Dave Budge Earlier that day:

(well, unless one thinks that Sadly, No has the chops to really be taken seriously.)

Dave Budge less than 2 hours after claiming he isn't going to comment on criticisms:

(Sadly, No!) brought up weak and, perhaps, even wrong parts of the book (parts they scanned and posted for all to read - W) concerning homosexuality, vegetarianism, organic foods and a few other things. I never said they were wrong but I refuse to comment to them much without the greater context in which those few pages were written.

But you've never said anything different, have you? No matter how ignorant or shallow you want to pretend others are, Dave, you're never gonna be taken seriously when you hand them dogshit and tell them it's ice cream.

[Dave Budge]

Gee Wulfgar, when I said "brought up weak and, perhaps, even wrong parts of the book " I was talking about Goldberg's being potentially weak and/or wrong. Sorry if I was unclear.

I don't see you made an argument here at all. In fact I think you support my position.

[Wulfgar]

And by way, Dave, next time you want to tell me all about how much more smarts Jonah is than lil ole me, perhaps you'd care to explain why I was right come Jonah Goldberg Day, and he was so tragically, colosally wrong. Care to give that a shot?

[Dave Budge]

No, I don't and your being diversionary. I never said he was right on the war and that has noting to do with whether he's smart or not. It just makes him wrong on that issue and unwilling to say so.

You want to admit you were wrong on me in your last little diatribe?

[Wulfgar]

Dude, he was catastrophically wrong, about issues of nation building and political philosophy. I wasn't. But he's forgotten more political philosophy than I ever knew, right? Oh he's forgotten it, all right. He promoted and agitated for an experiment gone horribly wrong, at a huge cost in dollars and human life. You compare me, a little ole Montana blogger to a guy who was seen as an authority and resolutely committed to an entire fiasco which he helped create. He was so desperately wrong about the very thing that he, being as important and informative as you pretend he is, should damn well have been *right* about. So I'm certain you can see how it's pretty tacky to accuse me of being diversionary after your pompous little tirade about how I'm not worthy to even comment on Jonah Goldberg.

Now let's see if I get this part right:

I misunderstand (because you were unclear) that you are agreeing that Brad and Gavin may have valid critiques of weak or incorrect parts of Jonah's book. How very magnanimous of you. Only one problem with that; you'd already dismissed those critiques, the one's you weren't going to comment on. "Ha, hah!", say's Dave. "No serious person would think seriously about the unserious critiques of the chop-less Sadly, No! save me, of course when I get around to critiquing the unserious critiques from the chop-less Sadly, No!"

Nope, Dave, I wasn't wrong. But I do have to admire the fact that you've already followed Jonah's lead in defining which critiques you can comment on (though you are but you won't) just as soon as you get to make the call of who is serious and who isn't. That might be seen as 'priggish', (another critique of a critique you weren't going to comment on, and a bullshit Ad Hominem response it was.) And, though I respect the fact that you admit there are facts about which Jonah may possibly be not-right, you've still followed Jonah's lead in setting up the 'wrong on particulars, but right on thesis' defense, based on who you've established as 'serious chop-having' and who is Sadly, Not!

I thought I'd made it fairly clear, but perhaps not enough for you. I don't give a damn whether you think I've read the book or not. I've no real concern over whether David Neiwert makes Jonah look the fool. I haven't a single pre-occupation concerning what the Pantload (or you) thinks of me. I just have a simple question: Why should I care? Even if one swallows the Load whole, and accepts that 'fascism' is 'of the left', so fucking what? I am (online) surrounded by persons such as yourself, left and right, who tell me that I should take this book at least as seriously as Coulter's Treason. Coulter had a point, that we should revisit the idea of a panel on Anti-American Activities. Goldberg has no such point. Sorry, Dave, but even you can dumb it down enough to realize that something pointless shouldn't be taken seriously.

Though this may admit to a grudging respect, I actually expect that if anyone can answer my question, it might be you. So I look forward to your review of the book, insomuch and only as it answers the question, why should I care?

[Dave Budge]

Listen, I've given due respect to people that disagree with Jonah; Matthew Yglesias and Micheal Ledeen (who,BTW is very conservative and an NRO contributor.) But what I read at Sadly, No didn't seem to be at all objective (hence my questioning of their chops.) And I have read all of the back and forth between Neiwert and Goldberg as well and I think Jonah puts up a good defense - but I haven't had the time to assess who has the better historical gravity. I can't until I read the book.

I don't know what your problem is - that it's clear that I'm sympathetic to Jonah's case because it loosely conforms with my own study or that you think it's just irrelevant. If it's the former you've made it painfully clear that you think the pretense is ridiculous. If it's the latter, I don't know why you spend so much time on it. (Me thinks thou doest protest too much.)

As for me saying that you're not worthy to comment on Jonah - stop putting words in my mouth. I said pretty clearly that I respect his knowledge of political philosophy and I do. But I also disagree with much of it (like his support of the war on drugs, parts of his position on immigration, and even many parts of his adherence to Kirkian conservatism. Those disagreement don't make his knowledge valueless. But since you think that most ideology is subsumed by reality - which is your argument to make - then you arguing about such things is a waste of of both our time. Why do you bother?

And if his pretense that progressivism was born of the left is so irrelevant and absurd, and he's the dumbass you portend, than why take him seriously at all and even comment on him.

I don't read Ann Coulter because I think she's absurd and doesn't usually have the intellectual grounding to make her case. I don't read Michele Malken, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'reily because I think they're all vapid ideologues. But when Jonah makes a comparison between Rousseau and Hegel it comes grounding in his significant study of them. I think he's serious even though he makes fun of Heyak and Von Mises for who I have such great respect as well.

So it's up to you to criticize my curiosity. I don't care about that. But it seems to me that for someone who professes that the truth is important you dismiss any serious investigation of it on my part. I think that's intellectually dishonest.

[Wulfgar]

Hmmm. I've just reread this comment thread, and discovered this oddity:

Dave Budge -

I don't think I've ever said was a "serious" study - I've said mine is a serious study. Stop putting words in my mouth.

That's funny, I never used the word "serious" in the manner you find quotable. Could it perhaps be *you* who are putting words in my mouth? Sure looks like it.

(Don't think of it as needling, Dave, think of it as acupuncture ...)

[Wulfgar]

So it's up to you to criticize my curiosity.

I've never criticized your curiosity, and defy you to show me where I have. I do criticize your pompous dismissals of the curiosity of others ... exactly as you've done in this post of mine.

I'm sympathetic to Jonah's case because it loosely conforms with my own study or that you think it's just irrelevant.

Once again with your projection. I don't think your study is irrelevant. I think Jonah's is, quite clearly. I ask, quite honestly, for some justification for the view that Jonah takes, and you've accepted. I didn't denigrate your delving into the topic, did I? No, in fact I asked for it. But you certainly did mine. How odd ... not.

But it seems to me that for someone who professes that the truth is important you dismiss any serious investigation of it on my part. I think that's intellectually dishonest.

Once again with the word "serious". It seems to be a favorite of yours. I have to ask, are you arguing with me, or some phantom of who you think I am? Right now, my money's on the latter.

[Dave Budge]

Yet here you are again, boldly labeling Jonah's work a "study", a work you still haven't read. I'm not certain which is more amusing to me, your lie, or your hypocrisy. Either way, I wouldn't be touting credibility as regards this subject, if I were you.

Say what you want, but this seems to me that you say here about me what I have not represented.

You call me a liar and a hypocrite. You're entitled to you opinion of yourself.