This is a tad nuts even for the likes of me. I disagree with Hillary, but then stating like you would leave the U.S. if Hillary's elected would make you no better than the folks who stated they would do the same under Bush, though I am no longer supporting Bush, I just believe the whole fascist term is just being exploited to be a meaningless term.

Although I do agree that certain elements within the health movement is kind of hypes the sort of dangers of various diseases, viruses, outbreaks, etc.

Tom,

I don't know about D.C., but Whole Foods in Manhattan has MASSIVE quantities of prepared foods -- from deli-style behind-the-counter stuff to bodega-style scoop-it-into-a-plastic-container goodies. There's a huge selection, a lot of it is really good, and it's mostly pretty healthy. You should check it out.

(Oh and yeah, the book title sucks.)

Bretigne

Apparently someone at Doubleday realized it might not be fair to link Mussolini with Hillary Clinton, though this subtitle beats even it in the non sequitur department.

Mackie is a libertarian, not a liberal. In a Reason roundtable a couple years ago, he cited Milton Friedman as one of his idols. As for Hegel...if he's "liberal" in the Hillary Clinton sense, what does Goldberg say about a certain Hegel-flavored book by a conservative named Francis Fukuyama not long ago? To be fair, perhaps it was a bit nuanced for the likes of a man who'd okay a cover like that for his book.

The Amazon description mentions antisemitism too. So that makes two perfectly good words that have been painfully eroded by morons over the years. It is sad that Goldberg apparently does not see how literally making a cartoon character out of Hitler might fairly be characterized as, if not antisemitic, then bizarrely thoughtless.

The bottom of the barrel, though, is probably scraped by this line, from the Amazon description: "...calls for campaign finance reform echo the Nazis' suppression of free speech...." Look closely, Jonah: If I give more than a certain amount of money to a politician, I'll get fined. When Sophie Scholl distributed anti-Nazi fliers, the Nazis decapitated her and her comrades. Literally. They put them in a guillotine and brought down the blade. I'm stunned that Jonah couldn't take the Metro to the E Street Cinema and catch that film, or if he did that it made so little impact.

Hi, Jonahfan here. The mistake Tom and the two commenters are making is in assuming that Jonah is trying to use the term 'fascist' as an insult, or as a tool to discredit any of the things with which he associates it.

One could agree with a ban on smoking in cars with children in Bangor Maine, and simultaneously call such a ban 'puritan in derivation.' Someone might mistake your assertion as a criticism on the ban, when you only meant to make a historical observation.

Jonah doesn't mean Whole Foods shoppers and people in the industry are sympathetic to national socialism. He's pointing out how Nazis were at the forefront of modernity's urge to go back to the land.

The point is that National Socialism (which did self-describe as 'socialism,' after all) was originally conceived as a leftist movement, and forgotten aspects of fascism are still current in today's left. He would surely admit that well known aspects (such as nationalism) are current in the right.

You won't find him saying "the Nazis romanticized nature, and so do the Greens, so the Greens are bad." Jonah doesn't do ad Hitlerum arguments.

You are literally judging a book by its cover. Why don't you read the book first and found out whether or not it backs up the title?

Shouldn't one of the first rules of civilized discourse be to refrain from commenting on books one has not read? I was taught something like that in school, anyway.

Goldberg's response is at http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjBmYmNmN2Q0NjkyYTNmOWQzNjU4YWJiOGRiZmM4NTk=

It's pretty lame. The Nazis were into organic food, so if you're into organic food, you're a Nazi. Fish can swim. Jonah can swim. Jonah is a fish. That is pretty stupid.

Anyway, it says "the totalitarian temptation," but were the Communists into organic food? Not that I recall.

"If I give more than a certain amount of money to a politician, I'll get fined."

And if you don't pay the fine, you'll be put in jail. And if you try to break out ... That's the old Nozick two-step.

Is judging a book by its title the same as judging it by its cover? If the title was something like "Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism," isn't that pretty obviously a stupid title? Isn't the title pretty bad, just as a title?

Anyway, Palmer didn't say that the book was stupid. He said that the title was stupid. So he wasnt' even judging the book, since he was judging the title.

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1980). So what's the problem with Goldberg's title? Sounds about right to me, although "...Hegel to Hillary" is probably a better fit.

Ok, Simon. So what's "Fascist" about a grocery store? Is it true that Whole Foods "exalts nation and race above the individual and ... stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"? If not, what's it doing in the title?

Another thing that's wrong with Jonah's title: What would he have thought about a title like "The Fascist Movement from the Third Reich to National Review"? Or "The Nazi Temptation from Himmler to Goldberg"? Are those reasonable titles for a book? How would that shoe feel on his foot? Or would he agree that those would be "stupid" titles?

Yeah, Peter, judging a book by its title is pretty much like judging it by its cover. The title is only going to make sense (or not make sense) in light of the argument laid out inside the book. Neither you, nor Tom, nor I know what Jonah is going to say about Whole Foods in his book, so it's tough to determine the title is a poor fit until the book is out. There will be plenty of time to critique it then, so why spend time on it now?

That's a bit of a tempest, which shouldn't be too surprising, since I called the title of the book "stupid," which is certainly a harsh word. I'll ponder the responses (including Mr. Goldberg's) and, after I get over my cripplingly painful sinus headache through steam and Advil, I'll respond this evening.

Hold it. Are we still allowing the non-leftists to write books? Why!?

Well, where to begin? I think that Marna’s question is a good place to start. A book about “Sexual Perversion and the Pursuit of Pain from the Marquis de Sade to Jonah Goldberg” would certainly have been provocative and, given that I have no reason to think anything about any proclivities that Mr. Goldberg may or may not have, very, very stupid. Pointing out that the Nazis (not “the Fascists,” by the way, nor even “the Totalitarians,” which would include the various flavors of Communism, as well) were fans of organic foods and mineral water and tried to suppress smoking is a weak reason for connecting “the Totalitarian Temptation” with a firm that sells organic foods. The National Socialists had a strong “naturist” (aka “nudist”) tendency, too, but it would be truly bizarre to connect totalitarianism with the Federation of Canadian Naturists.

So, Mr. Goldberg’s bit of libel rests on the connection between one species of totalitarian ideology, National Socialism, and organic foods, in order to suggest that a seller of organic foods is connected to the genus, totalitarianism. As he writes,
----
Palmer is surely smart enough to know that fascism is a more complicated subject than he makes it sound. "I know John Mackey, John Mackey is a friend of mine, and he's no fascist," is a pretty vapid argument, to the extent it's an argument at all. It's even dumber as a retort to a book Palmer's never read. Indeed, one gets the sense reading his post or some of my libertarian-reader email, that because Mackey is a libertarian, and perhaps because he's a libertarian sugar daddy, anything having to do with him, Whole Foods or the organic food fetish is beyond criticism. Palmer might want to read, for starters, the writings of Ludwig Klages, Hitler's Table Talk, The Nazi War on Cancer or How Green Were the Nazis before he flies off the handle like that.
----

That paragraph contains much confusion:

1. I did not make Fascism “sound” like anything. I wrote:
----
Now, I should admit that I don’t shop at Whole Foods, not because I think it’s “fascist,” but because I don’t like cooking, so I pay other people to prepare my food. (I’m a regular at the “Health Bar” around the corner from my place and I get 15% off the meals; that and my microwave do me fine.) If I liked to cook and if I had more time, I think I just might shop at Whole Foods, since the food’s really good. (It’s a bit pricey, but the quality is superb.) And I’m not afraid that the eggplant will be “totalitarian.” I’ve met John Mackey a number of times and I know for a fact that he’s not a “fascist,” nor does he distribute “fascist food.”
----
So I did not characterize Fascism, in either a simple or a complex way, at all.

2. I think that I probably know a bit more about the history of national socialism and fascism than Mr. Goldberg (I wonder if he has read the works of Ernst Nolte or Avraham Barkai), and I suspect that I also know a bit more about logic, as well. Connecting a grocery store chain with totalitarianism is simply, well, stupid.

3. Mr. Goldberg interprets my remarks as suggesting that “Whole Foods or the organic food fetish is beyond criticism,” which is most certainly not implied in my remarks above. I’m sure that Mr. Goldberg can make many criticisms of both, but none of them have to do with totalitarianism The "organic food fetish," as he calls it, is no more connected to totalitarianism than is “the kosher food fetish," "a sweet tooth," or "the Atkins Diet." If people want to spend more money for organic or kosher foods, that’s fine with me. I don’t really care about the tastes of others.

Kent Guida very reasonably suggests not commenting on books one has not read. Fair enough. I commented on a remarkably asinine title of a book, much as if (to return to Marna’s suggestion), I had seen a book on “The Nazi Temptation from Himmler to Goldberg.” Were I Mr. Goldberg and were I to see such a book, I think I would be incensed that my name was connected as the end point of a succession from Himmler to me. And if the defense was that both Himmler and Goldberg were omnivores, or that both of them liked to dress up, I would laugh at the absurdity of it.

Gyrd has attempted the best defense of Goldberg: “Jonah doesn't mean Whole Foods shoppers and people in the industry are sympathetic to national socialism. He's pointing out how Nazis were at the forefront of modernity's urge to go back to the land.” Ok, so what? The National Socialists were also at the forefront of gymnastics, swimming, and stamp collecting (the Third Reich was very, very big on stamp collecting), but it would be very, very strange to connect “the Totalitarian Temptation” to stamp collecting. And it would be even stranger to connect it with an innocent stamp collecting firm.

The title that Goldberg has chosen (or accepted) to advance his thesis (whether I would agree with elements of that thesis or not) is simply a form of defamation of a firm that delivers value to its customers through voluntary transactions. Mr. Goldberg should apologize to the shareholders and employees of Whole Foods. But first he should beg his publisher to put a different subtitle on his book.

Amen Mr. Palmer. What is incredible is that Goldberg wants it both ways. It is clearly a book title that suggests liberals are fascists (i.e., a title to goose book sales to the knuckledraggers), yet he whines about how people are judging the book by its title, saying the title really doesn't convey what's in the book. He is such an intellectual lightweight it defies logic how anyone, anywhere, takes him at all seriously.

There is no mystery. Jonah was forced to do a paper in school on Hegel, he's been determined to have it mean something since, aka make money. The generic granola diss was hail mary eyecandy trying to snag some discretionary dollars from the foodies when they drift in the bookstore.

Frankly, Tom, Whole Foods probably would have sounded pretty good to Jonah, had he visited our IRI Baghdad compound a few years ago when you did, to speak on Democracy, (not incidentally when head severing was still the fetish du jour in Karrada and every other district of the city.) You showed up in Sam Patten, Chris Hobbs and I's office in our IRI red zone compound. It was chicken and rice, Chicken and Rice, Chicken and potatoes, chicken and rice...did I say Chicken and rice and lots and lots of tomatoes....lol, The Iraqi Christian lady cooking for us, didn't have much to work with, but even on the other side of the world you still had someone preparing your food ! Although I seem to recall you had a huge stash of powerbars.

I don't know much about Hegel, but Whole Foods...HELL YEAH ! Once Baghdad experiences one, the fascists are finished, and Jonah will have his linkage...o.k. I still believe.

Jebb

Henry: "Neither you, nor Tom, nor I know what Jonah is going to say about Whole Foods in his book, ..."

However, we can inquire just WTF Whole Foods has to do with Fascism.

Mr Palmer, I must respectfully disagree. Goldberg's is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

Rogert -- what argument would that be?

Sorry, make that Roger.

Sam, I believe this is what Roger is referring to:

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/free_book_help.html

Hahahahahaha.....

I admit that I don't take any pleasure in the discussion above. Mr. Goldberg may indeed have many interesting things to say. But he really should consider whether he is defaming perfectly innocent and decent people by linking them to "fascism" and "the totalitarian temptation." Even Ms. Clinton shouldn't be linked directly to "fascism," especially in conjunction with an image that is intended to remind us of Adolf Hitler. She's fairer game than a grocery company, simply because she is a politician and, in fact, quite authoritarian in her views. (She seems quite convinced that she knows what is good for the rest of us and is determined to give it to us good and hard.) Still, it's way over the top to associate even her with Hiterlian images.

C'mon, Tom! Lighten up! Check out these Rockin' Goldberg-Bashin' sites

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/06/28/6708

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/06/jonah-goldbergs-shining.html

One of the most interesting books I every read some 20 years ago has the very odd title of 'Anyone Here Been Raped and Speaks English?' by Edward Behr. In these PC times I doubt if that title would be used now.

Dude! Like here's ANOTHER Rockin' Goldberg-Bashin' posting

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/06/29/6712

Ya just gotta love it!

Never trust a man who can't cook. More importantly, don't listen to fools who hate books they haven't read.

The Chef may be right about cooking, but not about the titles of books. I don't "hate" this book, nor do I "hate" the author, nor have I given any reason to think that I do. I think that the title is both absurd and defamatory and doesn't reflect well on the author. That's rather different.

Love the way all these dodos screech about no one having read the book. That's half the point, he's been putting it off for about two years, w/ stuff like the brilliant title change.

The cover is also homophoboic. C'mon, a "smily face" on the cover? We all know what that means.

Plus we also know that the charge of homosexuailty in the national socialist party will be addressed. Goldberg is a fascist homo-phobe and should be ashamed.

Bernard: You neglected to mention that "Anybody Here Been Raped and Speak English?," in addition to being a book title, is the direct quote of a question that was once actuallly shouted at a crowd of women by some dipstick foreign-correspondent "journalist." If I recall correctly, its use as a book title is intentionally ironic. In Goldberg's case, no.

In fact, it would be impossible for anyone to have read and hated Goldberg's book (yet), as it seems he's not yet even written it. Look at the Amazon ad: Pre-order for DEC. 26! Sadly, it's won't be ready in time for Christmas gifts! What a national tragedy that will be. (That was sarcasm, by the way.) Maybe by then he'll have tortured the title into something that makes sense. I won't hold my breath.

I agree that Hillary shouldn't be considered "Hitlery," either. She's not my favorite candidate, but she's no Hitler. And the grocery schtick....

Is Jonah going to rethink this? I know it's generating publicity and all, which is usually good for book sales, but is anyone going to go out and buy the book when they learned about it because people were laughing at him?

And yet Palmer signs praises for the title "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."

Nope, nothing absurd and defamatory about that title.

Whatever. Everyone's tastes for sacred hamburgers are different.

Snore: Palmer didn't "sign (sing?) praises" for the title of the book, but for the contents (http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/042200.php):

I’m about done with Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. It’s got some flaws (including a number of errors, none of which — so far, at least — have been central or very important to his case), but it’s also one of the best books on religion I’ve read in a while. Hitchens is a really fine stylist (he seems to write very quickly, which accounts both for his wit and his occasional errors of fact) and his assault gives no quarter. He addresses metaphysics, arguments from design, textual integrity and history, arguments from utility and morality, and more. I recommend this book especially to the religious; if anyone can keep his or her faith in revealed religion unshaken and intact after reading this book, then, well, it’s a testament to something.

As I noted in a comment to another odd response at that essay, the Hitchens book seems to deliver what it promises. I wonder if Jonah Goldberg will deliver on a promise to connect Whole Foods to the holocaust.

To my best understanding, these two titles can't be compared, since the "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" just reflects the personal opinion of author on certain issues, while the first one directly insults persons for doing something that coincides with what 'Nazis' used to do. Well, I'm pretty sure majority of the Third Reich officials admired beer, liked Mercedes cars, had Swiss watches, used telephone, etc. Let's go out and put screws on Budweiser, Daimler, Omega and AT&T...

FWIW, Lewrockwell.com bashed this same article a couple of days ago and did a far better job.

Both titles are obviously personal opinions, as are all book titles.

Pretentious people pretend otherwise.

Ok, Still Snoring. A title is not an opinion. It's a title. "The History of Alabama" is not an opinion; it's a title. "God is Not Great" is a title that announces a substantive opinion. Is Jonah saying that shopping at Whole Foods is giving in to the totalitarian temptation? If so, then by his own admission, he's guilty! Jonah's glib title was written for marketing purposes and is just causing him grief. He should back down and change it. Or he'll just be laughed off the stage.

Titles are chosen by authors. They are opinions.

People who don't see the shock value created by Hitchen's marketing team are just drinking the Kool-aid (in other words, the title wasn't chose to market to them, as they are already buyers/suckers).

Let me add something to this active debate.

The Hitchen title is supposed to get your attention. But it is a strong statement about a familiar debate. It is not saying that, for example, 'all religious people are pedophiles,' which would be brainless. Smearing whole foods with the charge of fascism and totalitarianism is brainless.

Maybe all the titles are opinions of authors, but that's not what I mean: I mean that title insulting persons is an offence in all meanings of this word. It's as simple as this.

I don't think that Tom considered the title of Jonah's book ridiculous because it gives offense (which seems ture of Christopher Hitchen's book), but because it was just plain ridiculous. Saying "You are dead wrong" usually gives offense, but it's then up to the person saying it to show it. But writing 'The Totalitarian Temptation from Homer to Home Depot' is ridiculous.

..."National Socialism (which did self-describe as 'socialism,' after all) was originally conceived as a leftist movement..."

What a load of crap.

North Korea self-describes as a "Democratic Republic". Doesn't make it any less of a totalitarian dictatorship..

Being ridiculous does not prevent thing from being offensive. I wonder wether you would like title: "Totalitarian Temptation from Hitler to YOU(namely)". I certainly would not like it.

This is for the last writer. A bunc of the people in this thread made the point that the "totalitarian temptation from X to Y" is dumb/ridiculous when Y is a grocery store. If Y were Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, it would not be stupid. But a grocery store?

If an book makes a really strong claim, whatr does it really matter if it's "offensive"? The title "All the nonChristians are going to burn in hell" is pretty strong, but so what? Christians believe that. (At least most do.) If the book defends that point of view, so what? Why should anyone be offended? The issue isn't offensiveness, but stupidity. Most of the people in this thread think that connecting totalitarian politics with groceries is pretty dumb.

Dear Just Stoppn By,

I know what the most of people in this thread mean, and I fully agree that the title is stupid. And I agree that title wouldn't be stupid if Y were Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein. But I fully disagree with the idea that offensiveness of the book can be justified by the fact that it " makes a really strong claim". "Mein Kampf" (although not the title, but the book itself) is quite offensive in its contents, although makes really a storng claim; well, history clearly showed that it mattered a lot. Of course I cannot compare the book under discussion with the mentioned. First of all because I have not read it, and it's really doubtful that it can have the similar consequenses, but the idea that making a strong claim releases author from responsibilit from being ofensive seems a little odd to me.

The most recent comment is interesting for what it says about standards of civil discourse today. Being told by someone that your deepest convictions are wrong and even harmful is hard to take. Most people don't like it. Indeed, they are offended when told such things. Is it offensive for someone to say you are wrong? If so, then most of the religions in the world are inherently offensive, since they say that those who don't follow their path are doomed, damned, cast out, and so forth. But...it's authentically what they believe. It's not offensive for them to believe it or to proclaim it. I find the mentality that says that exclusive claims are "offensive" far too sensitive, not only for my tastes, but for the persistence of civil discourse. "The Earth Isn't Flat and Those Who Believe It are Wrong," or "Flat Earthism Poisons Everything" may hurt the fellings of some, but if an argument is offered, I don't think that people should find it "offensive," just as "X Is the Only Path to Salvation" shouldn't be considered "offensive." Stupid is one thing; offensive is another. One can be both, of course.

Well, "offensive" might be not the exact word to use here. Since I am not the native English speaker, I might have used the wrong term. But I think there is clear difference between "The Earth Isn't Flat and Those Who Believe It are Wrong," or "Flat Earthism Poisons Everything" and what "Mein Kampf" claims with regard to Jews.

Yes, of course. But "religion poisons everything" is a claim that the author can sustain or not. It's not a blood libel. People who take religion seriously (as I do) should take the time to read serious criticisms and to think about them. The same is not true of pseudo-scientific anti-Semitic rants.

Absolutely, this was exactly the point that I've been trying to make. The title "Religion Poisons Everything" is just an opinion of author, and he tries to justify his claim in the book. While accusing anybody (either through title or through the contents of the book) of things he/she did not do and did not even intend to do (however hillarios or stupid it might sound or read) can be pretty offensive.

Although he will mention fascism has in common with modern day liberalism, I doubt he'll mention all the similarities between fascism and the neoconservatism that he and his NR warmongers espouse. I doubt Goldberg will mention much about fascists affinity for preemptive wars or executive power or concentration camps for example.

Whole Foods isn't fascist (necessarily) but the company is extremely conservative in some surprising ways. CEO Mackey is an avowed "conscious capitalist", which is the kind of forward oxymoron you'd expect from a longtime vegetarian who makes quite a bit of money selling dead meat (and adds to the profit margin with "grocery lit" descriptions of the ideal settings in which the animals were raised and killed - it's all about the ad line no doubt).

Also WF has a policy towards unions that makes Walmart seem liberal. A good part of the holistic image of WF is directed outwards at the consumer; much less of that towards the employees, who often would have financial problems actually shopping at the store in which they work. Difficult to imagine why a company built upon the interests of what were counter-cultural ideas would be so fearful of collective bargaining.

Not to be overly negative, the company has helped create an international market for conscious food consumers, and for that I'm thankful. They've done a lot of things well.

To go forward however they really, really need some honest competition. Buying all of it actually won't help either their long term service to the general public or their employees either.

Cheers!

Now that is a remarkably obtuse comment. Mr. Goldberg's use of the term was not to complain about union relations (unions were, in fact, a major component of fascist movements, by the way), but -- it seems -- to suggest that organic foods are somehow fascist. The comment immediately above is nearly as strange as Mr. Goldberg's title.

Now that the book is out, do you feel dumb for judging it by it's title?

The last commentator should try to read with more care. I did not judge the book by the title; I judged the title by the title:

"I know that authors don’t always come up with the titles or covers of their books, but they do get to veto them. This one is so utterly stupid that I hope that Goldberg is ashamed to show his face in public."

The author of the book evidently was convinced that the title was absurd and changed it. So, no, I don't "feel dumb." But perhaps the commentator should.