Posted on 03/21/2018 5:38:35 AM PDT by Scooter100
I am posting this because I was completely taken aback by an ex-professor friend of mine, (a HISTORY professor at that!!) who actually suggested that a public figure, with whom he didn't agree, be silenced. That's right, SILENCED, simply for not agreeing with his particular worldview. Astounding.
Good Lord, what happened to the free expression of ideas, freedom of speech? To freely express ideas, no matter how reppellant, is the cornerstone of a free society. Once we venture down the road of censoring and silencing, we could be finished in short order.
It only took Germany, and Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' (NAZI) Party, 22 years to go from a classical democracy, to a fascist state hell-bent on the mass genocide of millions.
That's right, 22 years. If the perverted sentiment of my esteemed professor friend is commonly held in today's society, we are well on our way to perdition. I pray not. And dear professor, smarten up and THINK before you utter such unmitigated garbage. If that's what you were teaching your students, we need a recall to instill in them what democracy and freedom and freedom of speech really means.
==============================================================================
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
PROGRESSIVISM, phase 1:
“I disapprove of what you say, and I will publicly harass you, lobby to have you silenced, demand you be fined and/or fired from your job, place you under 24/7 surveillance, and record all aspects of your life.”
PROGRESSIVISM, phase 2:
“I disapprove of what you say, and I will actively hinder your work, censor and change your words, omit you from participating, filter and block your media, and organize violent protests where you will be threatened, shouted down, roughed up, and Mace sprayed in your eyes.“
FASCISM, phase 1:
“I disapprove of what you say, and I will make your words illegal, burn your books, shut down your media, ban your public engagements, revoke your passport, restrict your movements, and pay an army of thugs to beat you up, rape your women, and destroy your property (if I decide you can own any).”
FASCISM, phase 2 (the march to a final solution):
“I disapprove of what you say, and you:
a. Are sentenced to 25 years in prison and forced into hard labour.
b. Disappear one night, and are found in a park with two holes in your head.
c. Are sentenced to death in a rigged show trial and hanged for treason.
d. Are lined up with a dozen others and shot to death by drunk soldiers.
e. Mass-murdered by the thousands, tossed into long trenches hidden in the woods, and covered up with bulldozers.
Where have you been?
This has been going on for A GENERATION at least.
So gorgeous was the spectacle on the May morning of 1910 when nine kings rode in the funeral of Edward VII of England that the crowd, waiting in hushed and black-clad awe, could not keep back gasps of admiration. In scarlet and blue and green and purple, three by three the sovereigns rode through the palace gates, with plumed helmets, crimson sashes, and jeweled orders flashing in the sun. After them came five heirs apparent, forty more imperial or royal highnesses, seven queens–four dowager and three regnant–and a scattering of special ambassadors from uncrowned countries. Together they represented seventy nations in the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last. The muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled nine by the clock as the cortege left the palace, but on history’s clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.
Five years later they were machine-gunning each other, killing 10,000 men a day, for over four years.
I was just shocked to hear it from a friend.
-- British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey on the eve of the United Kingdom's entry into the First World War.
BKMRK
The next very morning, Germany invaded Belgium.
His great-grandchildren would not see the lamps re-lit in their lifetimes.
Another great read about the Great War is Siegfried Sassoon’s autobiographical trilogy highlighting his experiences in the trenches. A perspective from “the other side” is Ernst Junger’s “Storm of Steel”, Germans in the trenches.
Yeah, a lot of today’s professors are totalitarians and they do not countenance dissent from the leftist orthodoxy. They are mean and they are dangerous. (And apparently aren’t that interested in showering very often.)
It is more a matter of liberals branding their worldview as morality, that one must agree with their ideology to be smart, kind, love, rational, educated.
It lets them smear everyone else as an ignorant, stupid, crazy evil hater.
After a generation or two of using courtesy and subtle insults and mocking to silence conservatives, the younger generation has never heard the alternative view. They believe the bad stereotypes because it saturates popular culture and comes from their “neutral” teachers K-college.
They now invest religious levels of devotion to liberal ideology (social justice warriors). To be good requires being liberal, liberals are good no matter what they do.
So digital lynch mobs ruining someone’s life, getting them fired and rendering them unemployable based on a Tweet taken out of context is fine.
Calling people up with rape threats and death threats is OK, since you’re fighting for the sacred victims. And your friends egg you on to be even crueler, find new ways to hurt the victim.
Because you’re fighting “evil”, there are no boundaries. That’s how college kids in a social media argument have their parents getting hate mail and late night phone calls, Sargon of Akkad (Youtuber)’s girlfriend got hate mail and threats as punishment to him, Dana Loesch’s kids got threatened, Scott Adams of Dilbert’s girlfriend was deverified twice (affecting her income) when he didn’t give up criticism of SJWs.
How did the discussion go, after he said that about someone should be silenced? Did he defend that as the correct action? What did you say?
Witness laws and social media company bans against so-called “hate speech”. Gee.....who gets the oh so delicious power to decide what constitutes “hate sppech”?
If Leftists wouldn’t trust me personally with that kind of power - and they would be fools to trust me with it - why the hell should I trust them?
To quote Lord Acton: that is more power than any good man should want, and more power than any other kind of man ought to have.
I finally read that book last year. Great book about a terrible subject.
How did the discussion go, after he said that about someone should be silenced? Did he defend that as the correct action? What did you say?
Yes, I’m curious about that, as well.
If it weren’t in a conversation (say, you read or heard this) have you had a chance to ask him about this? Confront him with facts?
Re
Cultural Marxism!
************
It has permeated ALL!
++++++++++++++++++++++
Umm, he’s not your friend. He is a fiend.
Communists raise a vital concern. When should speech be denied. The answer is actually quite simple. Speech that restricts or denies the speech of another is impermissible. This means the freedom of speech is limited to those who do not restrict the speech of others. Cases in which speech encourages criminal activity can be adjudicated under current law. Any speech that denies the right of speech to another is, by its nature, a violation of free speech law.
What is called liberalism is really fascism. The UK is closer to full fascism than the USA, but the gap is narrowing. Schools in the USA, an adjunct of the government, actively persecute individuals for their thoughts, and no one tries to stop them.
Liberals love totalitarianism, especially the *slamic kind, because it’s part of their belief system. They do not want anyone to think an unapproved thought.
The neighborhood association held annual potluck get-togethers at the pool area in an effort for neighbors to get to know each other better.
I overheard a lady who lived two doors down from us tell someone she was talking to, "I am not a liberal. I am a progressive."
I couldn't help but laugh out loud, thinking how stupid this woman must be not to see that she was telling these people she was mentally backward.
Regressivism is an apt description.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.