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!*

*…and I haven’t even commented on the culture of hazing! But given the sort of sexually grotesque content found in Salo, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the General forcing some of his cadre of pretty boys to do onto each other, as what was done onto him–if not to others back in the basic training days!

In concluding this thesis, I am once again reminded of a recent National Review article, describing how Wall Street as of late, are more in the tank–or shall I say, (literally) banking on The Democrats than say, The Republicans of the, “Decade of Greed,” 80’s; hence, the article title, “Losing Gordon Gekko (which in my honest opinion, is a VERY good thing!)!” Coupled with another article describing the political tide for affluent, gated communities turning more towards The Left (given the exit poll numbers of the ‘08 elections), I’m not only surmising that the middle-to-upper classes are more left-leaning nowadays, but also surmising that Pasollini’s 120 Days of Sodom are somewhat, prophetic of what’s to come in this current phase of political cultural history!  The noble/big money class often stereotyped as part of the party of the rich, are increasingly more and more like the types that will cavort with the likes of Hugo Chavez and even Hezbollah (as useful idiots, nonetheless!)! Especially with Salo’s gory climatic end, I am constantly reminded of the French costume piece/sex comedy, “Le Libertin,” which features a bunch of pre-French Revolutionary-era nobles, frolicking in godless abandon with various forms of atheistic, sexual shenanigans. It’s almost ironically funny to suggest that given the period setting, is it too much to suggest that these godless orgies/immoralities are also the same reason why France had its bloody revolution (against the over-pampered, corrupt/tyrannical royalists)? I mean, doesn’t God-spiting debauchery requires a lot of positive cash flow, which very often requires God-spiting efforts to obtain that kind of positive cash flow (presumably to fund another night/week of wretched, depraved excess), especially via corrupt, backdoor deals (no pun intended…)? And with the recent news events of Wall Street/corporate corruption (see the tasteless home videos of convicted, ex-Tyco CEO Ted Kozlowski), and George Soros’/Bernie Madoff’s contributions to The Democrats, maybe the same leftist film snobs that routinely give glowing praise to Salo, should be shaking in their Pravda boots, knowing full well that these champagne socialists are also metaphorically the same Fascist ones depicted in forcing pretty young boys and girls in fecal eating and homosexual acts, a la Abu Ghraib!

I guess that’s why at my current age, being a proletariat is more and more of a Bible Belt, conservative label than before (see Pasollini’s notoriously party-bucking epiphanies regarding the riot police as the true sons of the proletariat–as opposed to the middle/upper class-oriented, student leftists!)! With this in mind, maybe I should be able to work up the naturally internal, liquid courage to watch Salo: 120 Days of Sodom, knowing full well that the pervert Fascists are actually a bunch of Stalinists in Gordon Gekko attire!

Oh yeah: Viva La Revolucion!

Well Stewart coming out and saying that it was a sixteen-minute interview that had to be edited certainly let me know there was going to be some quibbles coming up.

I haven’t read Goldberg’s book so I don’t want to be too critical of the book but I have read his Blog. I couldn’t pick up much of what the book was about but apparently because the Nazi’s were environmentalists and ate organic food and liberals are environmentalist and like organic foods, that means that they are leading us to fascism?

I don’t really understand his position on much of anything. Does he really believe that unity is fascism? He writes about Obama’s message of unity saying, “But united toward what end, exactly? Or does it all boil down to being united about being hopeful and hopeful about being united? (Goldberg)”

I’m not sure maybe he hasn’t noticed that we are in the middle of a war, likely to be starting a new one, have an economic crisis, an environmental crisis, an energy crisis, social security crisis, national security crisis, nuclear proliferation crisis, middle class crisis, I could probably keep going but for brevity sake ill stop there.

Ok so he probably would deny most of those crisis’s, but he would at least have to acknowledge the Iraq war and I believe he has. Well I ask you is it better for a basketball team to be angry at each other over why they lost the last game or to be confident and united in order to win the next game?

We need to be united in our values, our goals, and our vision in order to be united in our plans for all these problems. He doesn’t seem to like that. He wants to do what we always do and agree to disagree and let nothing get done. George Bush leaves, Bill Clinton comes in and undoes everything he did. Bush strikes again, undoes everything Bill did. Now what Clinton strikes again undoes everything Bush did (this may be more of a necessity than it was with his father)?

The point of democracy is not to disagree. The point of the democracy is to give the freedom of speech and thinking to the people that a healthy discourse requires. That healthy discourse, will than lead us to our theoretical agreement. I am sorry but it is somewhat mind numbing to me to have any system that’s purpose is to pull people apart and put them at each other’s throats. But no I guess I need to read the book to learn that agreement is actually fascism.

According to wikipedia he, “supports finding an “Iraqi Augusto Pinochet” to bring stability to Iraq, stating that “Pinochets abuses helped create a civil society”. (Wikipedia)”

Well isn’t that what was there in the first place with Saddam Hussein, minus the anti American sentiment? If Goldberg believes trying to give democracy to Iraq is honorable than how could he say that the Iraqi people need a Pinochet. Because, Pinochet helped us in the cold war that makes his abuses ok? I mean I can’t understand any of this it makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

If anything it sounds like he is the fascist. Pinochet was a military dictator who persecuted all people who believed in socialism. Isn’t that one of the most anti democratic ideals: to be persecuted because of an idea that you believe in. I don’t know I was under the strange impression that when the military tortures and persecutes its citizens that believe differently than the government that is closer to fascism than Hillary Clinton. In fact that’s what I thought fascism was: submission to what ever the government believes because the military will torture you if you don’t agree.

There is one thing that Goldberg said on the Daily Show that I agree with. He said that when fascism comes, it will come with a smiling face. This may be so but that will have nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. That will have to do with the state of our culture and world. That will have to do with science and technology as in the book Brave New World.

I feel as though I don’t even need to read the book to know that there is no other point to his book than putting down so called “liberals” (apparently they are fascists though). It is my belief that, with all the crisis’s in our country and world that we need to be working beyond liberal and conservative democrat and republican. What exactly is he trying to accomplish by comparing Democrats to the Nazi’s? Why is he so obsessed with the whole “I hate liberals”. I think he should focus more on solving problems than creating them we already have plenty.

Anyway I don’t want to be to harsh on a book I haven’t read and a man I don’t know other than from Blog entries and Wikipedia. I don’t deny that he may be a very intelligent guy but these ideas I don’t agree with and believe that we need to some type of agreement. Or is that fascism?