What Jonah Goldberg Would Say About Pasollini’s Salo or 120 Days of Sodom (Hint: It’s Not What You Think)

Not too long ago, I am made aware of this politically conservative bestseller by contributing National Review writer, Jonah Goldberg called “Liberal Fascism.” The historical research/evidence Goldberg offers in his text is totally contrary to what many of us will normally define as Fascism, i.e, a far-right wing ideology, very often synonymous with all things conservative, even Christian… BUT…, given the scholarly insight Goldberg offers here, Fascism is anything but conservative, let alone Christian; in fact, much, if not all of what early 20th Century Fascism proposes is essentially Communism, principally Marxist ideology, possibly custom-tailored for more capitalist inclinations(?)! I suppose this Western, “Communism-lite” is not too different than what is seen in today’s limousine liberal, collegiate Leftist culture, found normally in the likes of America’s coastal elite, The Sorbonne, and maybe even SoHo!

In many ways, Goldberg states that the policies of today’s self-described “progressives,” liberals (outside of the classic liberal context of the 18th century, pre-modernist variety) have much in common with Hitler’s Nazism, Franco’s/Mussolini’s Fascism! Things such as collectivism, abolishing class distinctions, universal physical fitness (think whole foods advocacy/strict dietary legislation), even the highly controversial issues of euthanasia, abortion, gun control, and yes, atheism/evolution is shared by the same, “ultra-right-wing” types, that many of today’s Leftists routinely take potshots at!

With this in mind, I will like to take this liberal fascism context into the political implications behind Pasollini’s controversial, final masterpiece. The film, transplanting (the story from) pre-revolutionary France to WWII-era Northern Italy, describes the unbelievably sordid epic of aristocratic depravity, involving 4 noblemen types, consisting of a duke, a priest, judge and army general, abducting a significant contingent of highly attractive young men and women, possibly around their latter phases of pubescence, where they will be subjected to–as the film title suggests–120 days of Sodom, much of which I don’t have the strength to describe in (graphic) detail!

But depraved sexually violent content aside, I will like to comment on how the four noblemen reminds me a lot of the social milieu, the aforementioned National Review writer contends with. If Fascism is technically left-wing in theory and practice, then what does it say about the Duke, General, Priest and Judge? Are they more in common with the affluent, chardonnay socialist/caviar gauche kind, like say Ted Turner, George Soros (both of which could qualify as latter-day, “industrial/Wall Street” aristocrats), or even New Hampshire’s openly gay bishop, Dr. Eugene Robinson… and I haven’t gotten into the controversial statements by Robinson’s chief supporter, Nevada female bishop, Katherine Jeffords! In regards with the General, I am immediately reminded of one, retired, openly gay Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, who had his 15 minutes of “newsworthy” fame, as a then-Hillary Clinton supporter, embedded during some CNN-sponsored, campaign/debate(?) event, questioning all things gay rights, alongside the then-still-polarizing Iraq War. In addition to Brig. Gen. Kerr, I am also reminded of some past blog by African-American conservative, Bob Parks, when he commented on what really goes on in the officer class of the military–having been a Navy veteran himself. During the then-political scuffle between the Bush Administration and retired military brass (i.e. Adm. Jimmy Fallon) over Iraq, pre-troop surge phase, Parks recalls how many of the 4-5 star generals, admirals seem to have this group think attitude of arrogance, set apart from the “squids,” “grunts,”–maybe even with the non-commissioned officers too! And with this superiority complex in mind, what’s our sure bet that even the top brass too, shares the same sort of liberal to leftist views as Adm. Fallon and/or Brig. Gen. Kerr, given how much money and power they had/have? While I don’t have the immediate research data on homosexuality in the officers’ ranks of the military, I do have some hunch on how that may be integral to the overall political inclinations of the same General/Admiral class of the armed forces, “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policies not withstanding!*