silliness

Submitted by matt (United States), Jan 24, 2008 at 14:48

"The author, hitherto known as a smart, sharp-elbowed polemicist, has proven himself a major political thinker."

I assert that one can not be a "thinker" and a polemicist. That is to say, to practice polemics is to avoid (and attempt to convert others against) thought. Thinking means to produce thoughts, which always entails a self-criticism; polemics must avoid self critique and must always speak from a position which is never in question, that is from authority.

This book, Liberal Fascism, is such a text. It conflates two generalities, which is an intellectual strategy of the simpleton; as any child can conflate generalities. This is viewed as "smart" and a major political thought? What? Liberal of course looses its classical meaning, rooted in the Enlightenment and Fascism looses its specificity to 20th century regimes (particularly the Fascist Party). The text is an analysis from the point of view of the banal, a hollow critique that convinces the reader to avoid historical specificity in favor of ideological generalities. I agree that the author is a polemicist; and see no honor, or interest in such drivel.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".