Ms. Kuehl
Posted on 12/12/2006 10:04:17 PM PST by Swordmaker
Doesn't it seem odd that the kids who started the 60s anti-establishment protest riots on college campuses with the Free Speech Movement (Berkeley, 1964) are the college professors or politicians today who most vehemently suppress free speech among their students or constituents in the name of political correctness?
How can this be? How can worshipping at the shrines of Diversity, Tolerance, and Multiculturalism result in trials and expulsions for students, or jail for citizens, who express ideas with which the worshippers are not in agreement?
The answer is the intimate connection between Subjectivism and Fascism.
The core metaphysical assertion of liberals is that there are no absolute truths, factually or morally. What's true for you may not be true for me, it's all a matter of perspective, who are you to say what is right or wrong, true or false.
Truth is a matter of subjective opinion, it is relative to the values of different people. This belief, which lies at the very center of the liberal view of the world, is known as Subjectivism or Relativism.
It's opposite, Objectivism, the assertion that there are in fact absolute truths, both moral and factual about the nature of reality regardless of anyone's opinion or desires, horrifies liberals. They think such an assertion leads straight to tyranny and fascism.
Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), the founder of Fascism as a political movement (after the Latin fasces, the bundle of rods used by Rome to symbolize strength through unity) vehemently disagreed.
In his 1921 essay Diuturna (The Lasting, that which endures), Mussolini made it clear that moral relativism was his rationale for Fascism:
If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.
Liberals follow Mussolini's conclusion to the letter. Preaching tolerance, they have no tolerance for anyone's opinions but their own. Anyone they disagree with they call 'racist' or 'sexist' or 'homophobic' or some other denigration.
Liberal intolerance, of course, goes way beyond mere disagreement and name-calling. They want to criminalize the beliefs and actions of those with whom they disagree.
They succeeded this week in California. On Tuesday (August 29), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law (SB 1441 sponsored by a lesbian actress turned state senator, Sheila Kuehl) specifically requiring "any program or activity that...receives any financial assistance from the state" to support transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality or lose state funding.
The Democrat-run California Legislature is passing an entire raft of such fascist laws. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez made it bluntly clear: "Our purpose is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system."
He and his fellow Democrats have the Orwellian nerve to call their legislative fascism "tolerance education."
Liberal "tolerance" is forcing people at the point of a gun to believe and act as liberals demand. You don't get more fascist than that.
California's Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, is, however, trying. He is actually trying to criminalize disagreement on "global warming."
In his lawsuit against such prominent scientists as MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen and Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, Lockyer accuses them of being "climate skeptics," who are playing "a major role in spreading disinformation about global warming."
Until recently, Lockyer was positioning himself to run for California governor, challenging Schwarzenegger. They could have had a debate as to which one is more fascist than the other. (No one should be shocked by Schwarzenegger, by the way. He married a Kennedy!)
The only way to combat liberal lunacy like that on exhibit in California is to attack it at its source: liberal subjectivism leading directly to fascism.
It will do no good for liberals to bleat about religious absolutists, be they Christian or Moslem, who believe they have a right to force people into behaving as they want because that's what the Bible or the Koran says.
That's a red herring. Don't let liberals switch the issue. The issue here is the fundamental contradiction in their world-view, not anyone else's. Liberals cannot argue for relativism in morality and claim there are no moral truths, then claim their moral values magically have more validity than anyone else's.
When you argue there are no objective moral truths, the only way to settle a moral disagreement is at the point of a gun. Mussolini understood this, and he had the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Liberals understand it too, but they don't want to admit it, least of all to themselves. It still makes them fascists, nonetheless.
Demonstrating how and why liberals are fascists is their Achilles' Heel. Name-calling is a liberal specialty, and they are fond of calling their opponents "fascists." But using reason and logic to expose how they are demonstrably in fact fascists can be effective.
Combat liberalism by publicly exposing it as fascism. California would be a good place to start.
--30--
NOTE TO OTHERS: PLEASE FORWARD THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR EMAIL LISTS--ALSO, BLOGGERS FEEL FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE
Bump and ping.
great post - thanks!
The title alone is enough for me. Whenever I see a picture of Howard Dean, I just see the swastika on his arm.
I was under the impression, and I may be wrong on this, that his vegetarianism was a product of a period of his life when he was extremely poor (just after WW1) and consequently could not afford meat, and therefore got used to doing without. The same reason is why he was a non-smoker (a very rare occurence in the 1930s/40s and drank sparingly of his country's excellent beer!
And Roosevelt and his political allies practiced what they preached. As UPI financial journalist Martin Hutchinson has pointed out, the USA in the 1940s was a place "with price controls, government licensing of transportation, state intervention in the steel and auto industries, interest rates that were set by Treasury fiat and a capital market in which banks were not allowed to operate. Also a "democracy" in which electoral districts were wildly unequal and 15 percent of the population was denied the vote." By modern-day standards the USA of that time had considerable Fascist elements too. American Leftism was Fascist even then. As Stromberg also notes:
"In 1954, Hofstadter chided those who had worried about "several close parallels" between FDR's N.R.A. and fascist corporatism. There are more than "several" parallels. In 1944, John T. Flynn made the case in As We Go Marching, where he enumerated the stigmata of generic fascism, surveyed the interwar policies of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and pointed to uncomfortably similar American policies. For Flynn, the hallmarks of fascism were: 1) unrestrained government; 2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party; 3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production; 4) bureaucracy and administrative "law"; 5) state control of the financial sector; 6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending; 7) militarism, and 8) imperialism (pp. 161-62). He proceeded to show that all these were alive and well under the wartime New Deal administration (pp. 166-258). Pragmatic American liberalism had produced "a genteel fascism" without the ethnic persecutions and full-scale executive dictatorship seen overseas. Flynn found this insufficiently cheering. Some may call Flynn's catalogue of fascist traits arbitrary. Perhaps, but Flynn listed things he found; he did not make them up."
But if the American Left of the "new Deal" era learnt from Mussolini, it is also true that Mussolini learnt from America. Those ideas of Mussolini which were not clearly Marxist were in fact generally American. Where did Mussolini learn his glorification of war, his imperialism, his stiff-armed "Fascist" salute, his emphasis on military-style obedience and his worship of action? They were all ideas from his predecessors among the "Progressives" (Leftists) of America in the late 19th and early 20th century. In fact, the more one reads about the American "Progressives" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the more parallels one finds between them and the Fascists. And a remarkably similar predecessor to Mussolini in both word and deed was in fact a President of the United States -- Theodore Roosevelt. So ALL of Mussolini's ideas can be traced to the Leftists of his day.
There is practically no feature of modern-day Leftism that was not prefigured by Mussolini. It is clear from the many quotations and reports that are available, that Mussolini was very much a kindred spirit of modern-day Leftists. It is therefore hilarious that Leftists now use the name of his movement as their routine term of abuse! Ignorance of history does indeed lead to some strange follies. http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html
"liberals - The first to cry for tolerence, the first to shut you up when you don't agree with them."
And this is why, Hillary, Richardson or Obama will not be the Presidential nominee in 08. Liberals are also racists and sexists. They will sooner vote for a corrupt liar like Kerry then vote for a black or female candidate regardless of qualifications.
With that said, look for Hillary to be the VP candidate on the ticket or to be the party's savior when all hell breaks loose. There is no way she is winning the nomination based on the primaries.
Sorry... back to our thread.
At least Mussolini says it without camoflage.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
When you argue there are no objective moral truths, the only way to settle a moral disagreement is at the point of a gun. Mussolini understood this, and he had the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Yes.
From the topic under discussion which MIGHT NOT BE reiterated in the subject quotation. It is then parenthetically added to a quotation to provide the subject under discussion. In this instance the purpose of the bill because that is what his remarks were about: 'outlawing' specific undesirable viewpoints or, in another word "perspectives".
Ms. Kuehl
Heheh - found this before I saw your ping.
Thanks. More proof that liberalism is not just a mental illness, it's criminal insanity.
'He is actually trying to criminalize disagreement on "global warming." 'So you are in agreement that a government agency should SUE someone who has not harmed anyone but has merely published articles YOU DISAGREE WITH in the course of political debate? Where is the tortuous activity? Where is the injury?Sounds to me like he is suing some shills.
Prepare yourself to receive a summons... I disagree with you. I guess I should sue you.
I think we have a Liberal in a midst, folks.
Thanks for the ping.
I missed this excellent oped/article.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752692/posts
Too many Freepers want to label the lefties as commies.
Most liberals, today are modern 2nd generation fascists. This article details the fascists of today versus those in Europe during the 1930's.
I checked FS comments since he registered on FR. Not very many of them.
He is liberal troll.
Like Tammy Bruce says fascism can only come from the Left as it is the Left that is all about power and control
LOt of good stuff on this thread.
Bump For Wheeler
"When you argue there are no objective moral truths, the only way to settle a moral disagreement is at the point of a gun. Mussolini understood this, and he had the intellectual honesty to admit it."
The interesting thing here is liberals cannot be convinced to change their minds by appeals to a higher authority--an objective morality. For example, they would call you irrational if you quote the Bible to prove homosexuality is wrong. Like the leadership in the TEC (The Episcopal Church), they don't really believe in any objective truths, so all disagreements quickly devolve into simple power struggles. As you know, "facts" can be found (or created) to support almost any conclusion.
Personally, I accept God's truths (as revealed by the prophets and Christ) at face value--I do not second guess them. I might later think I understand why God did what He did, but the faith comes first. For example, homosexuality is a terrible sin. However, it isn't a sin against me. What I mean is, homosexuals don't harm me, at least not directly. But that's really irrelevant. God has revealed homosexuality is an abomination, so that's all I need to know (the Holy Spirit also reveals to me the truth of this). Of course, all of this is complete and total nonsense to someone who doesn't have faith. If I was discussing these truths with an unbeliever, he or she would think I was crazy. They would expect me to list hard facts WHY homosexuality is wrong, yet every fact can be refuted with another fact. So, it all comes down to whichever side has the most power.
That's where a key difference between conservatives and liberals comes in. As a conservative, I would not use the government to force others to follow my beliefs. I only want to be left alone to practice my faith in freedom. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in using the power of government to right every wrong. There is nothing they won't do, because #1 they don't believe in objective truths and #2 they believe they are doing good.
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.