Comments on: Further thoughts on Liberal Fascism http://collectedmiscellany.com/2007/07/further-thoughts-on-liberal-fascism/ seemingly random thoughts on books & ideas Thu, 17 May 2012 14:12:15 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Bradford Short http://collectedmiscellany.com/2007/07/further-thoughts-on-liberal-fascism/comment-page-1/#comment-983 Bradford Short Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:02:08 +0000 http://collectedmiscellany.com/2007/07/further-thoughts-on-liberal-fascism/#comment-983 Ah, yes! Mr. "Christopher M." (why, I wonder, is it that these people never give their full names? could it be that they are cowards?) shows once again that the Left is always good for a nice brain burp. Thanks for living up to expectations, Chris. It is nice to know that some things never change. Ah, yes! Mr. “Christopher M.” (why, I wonder, is it that these people never give their full names? could it be that they are cowards?) shows once again that the Left is always good for a nice brain burp.

Thanks for living up to expectations, Chris. It is nice to know that some things never change.

]]> By: Christopher M http://collectedmiscellany.com/2007/07/further-thoughts-on-liberal-fascism/comment-page-1/#comment-982 Christopher M Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:27:32 +0000 http://collectedmiscellany.com/2007/07/further-thoughts-on-liberal-fascism/#comment-982 Wow. Bradford W. Short is an awesome hilarious parody man! Except real. Wow. Bradford W. Short is an awesome hilarious parody man! Except real.

]]> By: Bradford W. Short http://collectedmiscellany.com/2007/07/further-thoughts-on-liberal-fascism/comment-page-1/#comment-981 Bradford W. Short Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:41:42 +0000 http://collectedmiscellany.com/2007/07/further-thoughts-on-liberal-fascism/#comment-981 Mr. Holtsberry: I too have read part of "Liberal Facism"-but only one chapter for Jonah. And I've also argued/discussed with Jonah how he will discuss a certain 18th century French-speaking philosopher in the book (as of now, I do not know what his final conclusion on this was/is). All of this was done either over email or by using the U.S. Postal Service. I am friendly with Jonah, but also I have never actually seen his face. From my limited reading of LF, every word of praise you give it entirely justified. Readers should know that I too am trained in historiography (I was the valdictorian in history in my High School, majored in History & Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and was taught at Fordham Law School by the important legal historians Martin Flaherty-Ph.D. student of Edmund Morgan; Bill Treanor-Ph.D. student of Bernard Baylin; Rachel Vorspan; and Bob Kaczorowski, maybe America's leading expert on Reconstruction legal history; I am the only Fordham lawyer I know of who ever took more than a year of his classes on legal history itself, or on constitutional law classes where I did nothing but write about legal history; I have been a member of the American Society for Legal History since I graduated from law school in 2004, and I attend every annual national convention/meeting). And Jonah has already-in just this one chapter I reviewed-taught me very, very much about just how Woodrow Wilson was a "liberal facist"-and Jonah's view of Wilson, which I was leaning to in the past, admittedly, I have now entirely adopted as being completely correct. In my own version of full disclosure I'll also say that I was very involved in Ramesh's "Party of Death" and my peer reviewed writings on philosophical/legal history are cited in the book and I am listed in the acknowledgements. I consider Ramesh about as good a friend as a guy can get. Having disclosed that I will also say that I think every word you write on Ramesh in the posts linked to here is correct. To say that Party of Death was treated "unfairly" is to engage in gross understatement. Mr. Holtsberry:

I too have read part of “Liberal Facism”-but only one chapter for Jonah. And I’ve also argued/discussed with Jonah how he will discuss a certain 18th century French-speaking philosopher in the book (as of now, I do not know what his final conclusion on this was/is). All of this was done either over email or by using the U.S. Postal Service. I am friendly with Jonah, but also I have never actually seen his face.
From my limited reading of LF, every word of praise you give it entirely justified. Readers should know that I too am trained in historiography (I was the valdictorian in history in my High School, majored in History & Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and was taught at Fordham Law School by the important legal historians Martin Flaherty-Ph.D. student of Edmund Morgan; Bill Treanor-Ph.D. student of Bernard Baylin; Rachel Vorspan; and Bob Kaczorowski, maybe America’s leading expert on Reconstruction legal history; I am the only Fordham lawyer I know of who ever took more than a year of his classes on legal history itself, or on constitutional law classes where I did nothing but write about legal history; I have been a member of the American Society for Legal History since I graduated from law school in 2004, and I attend every annual national convention/meeting).

And Jonah has already-in just this one chapter I reviewed-taught me very, very much about just how Woodrow Wilson was a “liberal facist”-and Jonah’s view of Wilson, which I was leaning to in the past, admittedly, I have now entirely adopted as being completely correct.

In my own version of full disclosure I’ll also say that I was very involved in Ramesh’s “Party of Death” and my peer reviewed writings on philosophical/legal history are cited in the book and I am listed in the acknowledgements. I consider Ramesh about as good a friend as a guy can get.

Having disclosed that I will also say that I think every word you write on Ramesh in the posts linked to here is correct. To say that Party of Death was treated “unfairly” is to engage in gross understatement.

]]>