Left-Fascism: Free Speech Restrictions on Campus

Left-fascism is the version of fascism which is generally associated with the so called “Left” which is exhibited in many nodes of American culture but particularly at some universities. Many people know it as “political correctness” but it goes much deeper than just that.

Though Left-fascism embraces the Marxist ideas of “hierarchy” and “oppression” and other tenants associated with the radical Left, Left-fascism has more in common with Goebbels and Hitler than it does with anything which could remotely be called “liberal.” God forbid (trigger warning: I used the name of God, oh wait too late) any legitimate quest for truth or beauty. Left-fascism, driven by the grievance studies crowd, is an oppressive, anti-intellectual, anti-liberal, anti-human (even anti-humanist) ethos of death and self pity. It is a philosophy of second class minds.

And the thing is, the Left-fascists know it. That’s why they have to bully everyone.

That’s what these people are, bullies. The PC brigade hides behind bureaucracy and speech codes because they know that it’s all bull. They may convince themselves that what they are doing is “correcting language” or evening hierarchies or whatever, but basically theirs is a self loathing (and nearly everybody else loathing) cult who’s priests darken the halls of some parts of academia.

To say that Left-fascism is a “progressive” ideology is true and it is also not. In one sense many Left-fascists probably self identify as “progressives,” but in a real sense the Left-fascist worldview is anything but “progressive.”*

This point has been made by many “conservatives” in the past in critiques of Left-fascism. But this falsely pits “conservatives” against the Left-fascists who as mentioned above self identify as “progressives.” This gives the impression that the counter to Left-fascism is a retrograde and reactionary effort. That somehow conservatives should “roll back” the “progressive” efforts of the opposition.

I say no. The counter to Left-fascism, political correctness, is not “conservatism” per se. The “progressives” don’t get to define what progress is. They don’t define the battlefield. I say progress is the degree to which human beings can achieve their individual potential in peace and without coercion. Progress is the degree to which the average human being, regardless of gender or race can live in peace and freedom.

The philosophy of Left-fascism, with its language codes and love of the state, will never provide freedom. The Left-fascists don’t care about freedom, or liberty, or beauty, or truth. They just want a slave master of a different kind.

Universities should push back against Left-fascism. It will take great courage because the red (fascist) guards will come for the heads of the new vanguard of intellectual freedom. This vanguard will be called sexist. Members will be called racist. But the thing is, at this point everyone knows (everyone) that in most instances the people who are called sexist or racist aren’t actually sexist or racist.

The Left-fascists bank on the fear of everyday people who know the real deal but don’t dare speak out and on liberals in academia, journalism, and government who basically know the real deal but who don’t want to betray their “class.” (What history professor at any respectable college wants to be seen as anti-progressive by his or her peers? You can forget ever making tenure – in most instances – if you are seen as an enemy of PC.) This is the key point of cultural leverage for Left-fascists. And it is very tenuous. More tenuous than most understand.

Push through this fear and the bullies will crumble. Like I said the Left-fascists know fundamentally that their entire worldview is excrement. They know this on a deep visceral level. There was a time when most of the PC crowd wasn’t in the cult. They remember what sense is even if they can’t acknowledge it any longer.

And as we’ve said before, bullies back down after you give them a shot in the teeth. How much more so for a bully which is delusional?

It is time now to counter Left-fascism and to call it what it is, Left-fascism. Don’t counter these people with cultural conservatism though. They know how to deal with that for the most part. Challenge them on the ideals of liberty, truth, beauty, self actualization, privacy, self expression, and intellectual curiosity. Challenge the Left-fascists with CLASSICAL LIBERALISM and then tell them to slink back into the dustbin of history like the fascists of another era.

* It should be noted that all those who identify as “progressive” are not Left-fascists. (An important point.)

** One more point. To be anti-political correctness doesn’t mean one should just go around being rude. Respect is the word. Manners are valuable. But we must not let those who are easily offended create a totalitarian environment.

Why the Left Loves Islam

Both socialism and Islam are parasitical fascist systems where the elite bosses feed as vampires upon the productive citizenry under their control. Under totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law, productive “people of the book” (Christians and Jews) are tolerated as “dhimmis” (officially subjugated 2nd class citizens) to the degree that the local emirs and sultans decree they should be tolerated. This allows the Muslim bosses to ease their grip or tighten it at will. In socialism this relationship finds many parallels.

For example, Lenin himself, during the disastrous “war Communism” period following the revolution and civil war, allowed the “New Economic Policy” or NEP, where a limited form of capitalism was permitted in order to get the flat-lining economy moving again. Once it was moving, the Communist bosses mass-murdered the successful NEPers, namely the so-called “Kulak class.” The Castros in Cuba have made similar moves over the decades, with Cuban NEPs cycling with harsh Communist crackdowns. Today in Venezuela the productive are tolerated in order to exploit their economic vigor, or they are rounded up and imprisoned, purely at the whim of the elite socialist bosses.

Under Islam, the local Muslim bosses can decide in one place and era to tolerate the dhimmis and exploit their economic vitality (Spain during “Al-Andalus” post 711AD), or wipe them out in a genocide (many examples, the Turkish genocide of the Armenians and other Christians during the early 20th century is just one). But the degree of freedom permitted to the subjugated dhimmis is totally up to the local Muslim power structure. From tolerance to genocide, all is permitted when it comes to Muslims dealing with infidels. The Muslim is always the master, the infidel is always the subjugated dhimmi.

This also is seen in Muslim marital relationships, and in their ownership of slaves. A Muslim husband or slave master can be a wonderful, enlightened and tolerant man, or he can be a ruthless exploiter, brutal rapist and even a killer. It is totally up to the master how he disposes of a slave, or a wife. That is the fate of the dhimmi under Islam. Your Muslim masters will hold your complete fate in their hands.

And leading elite Leftists are totally fine with that power structure. It’s very similar to how they see the world. In the view of the Left, the productive class consists of greedy exploiters who should be taxed heavily, in order to redistribute their ill-gotten wealth to the needy, poor and oppressed. In doling out this stolen largess, the elite bosses of socialism attain all power, and live like sultans and pashas.

In coming years, expect that leading progressive socialist leaders, who today mysteriously promote tolerance for and approval of massive Muslim immigration, will suddenly announce that they have discovered that Mohammed is the last messenger of world socialism, raise their right index fingers, and repeat the Shahada oath declaring their submission to Islam, while dreaming of both Marx and Mohammed.

And that is why the Left loves Islam. They both hate freedom and worship pure power.

As we used to post back in the day, BTTT.

I think the ruminated-about convergence between Islam and fascism is overrated intellectually, and interesting only because Obama embodies and prosecutes it strategically, because Islamofascism and Communism share an enmity toward the (classically) liberal and progressive West, whose culture has always been based in Judaeo-Christian and classical culture and norms of behavior and discourse.

Keep in mind that Obama and his neo-colonial, Europe-hating fellow-strugglers do not hate analytically. They don't hate certain norms and values objectively, but rather they hate us politically, for who we are and not what we are.

To-wit, if we were all Hesychasmists, Obama would hate Hesychasmism, and Franz Fanon, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and Susan Sontag would have left us long, wordy books enumerating the vices, offenses, and hatefulnesses of Hesychasmism... As long as we were the ones practicing Hesychasmism.

That is why I say Obama is strategic and operational in his dislikes and likes and therefore a second-stringer in the Hate-Whitey bench.

There is an old post which considers the motivation for people like Obama and those who support him. I think it applies even more closely to Islam. At the end of the day, Obama's quarrel and Mohammed's quarrel are really with Martin Luther or, if you prefer, St. Paul for establishing the divine right of the individual.

Here is the reply from some years ago:

You ask, in effect, why do leftists behave the way they do? You rightly cite the suicidal belligerence of the Palestinians and the mindless hostility of American liberals. We are witnessing a cult or tribal phenomenon.

I have been preoccupied for some time with the power that draw well-intentioned people into liberalism and I've concluded that it is the power of the cult. Consider how very difficult it is to pry a teenager loose from the clutches of a cult. It requires professionals and an intervention of the most intense level. My first experience with this phenomenon came from exposure in the 1970s to people who had gone through EST. They exhibited many of the characteristics which mark the present day liberal. A smugness, an ill disguised feeling of superiority derived from a belief that they alone are possessed of special insights and truth. A belief that the rest of humanity is benighted and unworthy except as candidates for conversion.

These people were so myopic and yet so convinced of the superiority of their Weltanshaaung that they were obnoxious. We called them, "est-holes."

The est experience consisted of "seminar training" in which the individual was stripped clean of his ego which was replaced by a new belief system imposed on the crushed individual by the est facilitator. This is typical of a cult. It is even typical of the Marine Corps but that is in pursuit of a worthy goal.

This phenomenon is so strong in its appeal because of the "power of surrender."

I believe that the principal distinction between conservatives and statists is that the latter are God players and as such they are in unremitting rebellion against God. Conservatives on the other hand tend to be believers. In the Christian faith where we come to our salvation as an individual experience. One would think that a God player would be an individualist but for some reason which I do not understand they tend to be collectivists. In effect, they find their salvation in the group. Think of the Bloods and Crips. The act of surrender of the ego to the group yields a wonderful feeling of integration and well-being. The individual can renew that feeling by re-immersing himself into the group. That which threatens the group also threatens him. Consider the American Indians such as the Iroquois who were quite loving toward their children and considerate of each other and yet were unbelievably brutal and indifferent to the agony of those prisoners they tortured. They were outside the tribe, they were the "other."

I believe this accounts for the scatological language and the sheer nastiness of the posts one finds in the liberal blogs. There is no restraint so long as one stays within the cult. One of the primary taboos of this cult has to do with race. Liberals consider conservatives to be racists and hence beyond the pale. There is no opprobrium so debased that it cannot be applied to these (Christians, conservatives, the "other") people who, virtually by definition, are racists.

As new converts get drawn to the flame, they sense the release to be obtained from surrendering to such a group.

Last April there was a report that Obama recommended Americans embark on an environmental "mission." I wrote the following post as an illustration of the phenomenon I am trying to articulate:

Obama: Americans Want to Be on an Environmental ‘Mission’

April 23, 2009

I think Obama actually believes that the country once summoned will experience a spiritual release through devotion to the environment. This is a little understood phenomenon which motivates liberals in very many of their causes. When the individual surrenders to something other than himself- typically for the liberal that means the "collective," but it can be to virtually anything- he is rewarded with an emotional release, a feeling of integration. This phenomenon has been well-recognized by psychologists.

Recall Hillary Clinton's summons in 1969 for a more "ecstatic" experience. She was trying to articulate the same phenomenon. Think of the calls by liberals in the wake of 9/11 for George Bush to summon the country to a "sacrifice." Instinctively the liberals grope for this emotional experience. It matters not that the summons would have been fatuous. What did they want George Bush to summon them to? To plant victory gardens? To collect old tires? To ration gas? The point, of course, is that the war on terrorism was waged against us to cause us to change our lifestyle. No matter, logic has nothing to do with the emotional satisfaction.

I think we should consider the entire Obama administration to be a mystical call to the nation to join with them in this kind of mystical release that he found as an agitator and group leader for Saul Alinsky.

Yes, we are now being governed as though we were in a giant EST meeting and may God have mercy on all of us.

I read a bit about "est" back in the 70's, and I had experience of attending introductory meetings for other groups built by John Rodger and Jose Silva ee. g,, groups that didn't have that cultic edge you describe (although a fair proportion of such groups did: The Way International was one, and I suppose the old, defunct Mind Dynamics of which "est" was the successor, did. I don't know very much about Transcendental Meditation n/w/s that the Beatles made the group famous. A friend was involved with the "Ramsters", the Ramtha group made famous by Garry Trudeau when he lampooned it; she wrote me a lot about what they were doing, and I also saw a story in Rolling Stone about 10 years before that, about how it was run by an ensorcelling, avaricious b*tch from New Jersey named J. K. She was a former real estate agent who'd turned her people skills to straightforward extraction, somewhat on the model of Scientology.

Then there are the truly infamous ones like the People's Temple (I had no idea until recently that they were Communists.... The press did a good job of filtering that little detail out of the reporting) and the Branch Davidian (Spell**cker repeatedly wants to defeat me and write "Branch Davidson") , and now the child-abusing polygamists out in New Mexico, is it? Or the Panhandle?

And lest we forget, I was once a temporary resident of Virginia Beach, and of a summer weekend I'd often see students and teachers strolling the beach, deep in conversation, from Edgar Cayce's nearby Association for Religious Enlightenment (A. R. E.) campus/motherhouse, which was sited atop the dunes about a mile from my (now-vanished) duplex.

There was also Transactional Analysis or T/A, about which I read a book once. It seemed to be pretty functional to me, no thrints riding unicorns. It was more along the lines of practical psychology, pretty elementary but eye-opening nevertheless for the callow young.

One tip I picked up from all that reading was that, whatever people are doing at the time (unless they're abject criminals or psycho), they always think what they are doing is for the best. That is why they need a stabilizing guide rooted in absolute values.

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.