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
Another parallel with fascism: California has become, essentially, a one-party state, and it is the leftist fascist party, the Democrats.
It's amazing how people use the word "fascist" with no concept of it's meaning.
I wonder if someone has a link to a question that was posed to some collegians on a theoretical Presidential election.
The one candidate was a member of a militia, supported gun rights, overthrow of an unjust government, etc, etc.
The other candidate banned guns, outlawed the vivisection of animals and was a vegetarian, etc.
They overwhelmingly voted for the vegetarian.
The vegetarian was Adolf Hitler.
The militia men were the founding fathers.
liberals - The first to cry for tolerence, the first to shut you up when you don't agree with them.
FYI JFF (Just for fun)
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html
An Anarchist FAQ
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer52.html
I found it, read this, you'll love it!
That Hitler was a vegetarian is a total myth that has been repeated countless times. He was intolerant to certain foods for which his doctors advised him to go on a vegetarian diet. But when not on a diet he relished meat as much as anyone else.
I had a fuzzy recollection of the article, read the link. Whether he was a vegetarian was of little consequence.
I have a family member who is a liberal. One of his favorite sentences is, "People shouldn't be allowed to do that". Insert smoking, driving over 55, owning a knife, etc.
"there may be healthy signs that support for the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Ridge form of fascist state is starting to wane. "
What in the world is this idiot bleating about?
"I wonder if someone has a link to a question that was posed to some collegians on a theoretical Presidential election. "
I wonder if anybody has a copy of the ballot.
If it's of little consequence why would you emphasize 'vegetarian' by using the word three times in three sentences ?
You have a family member who is a budding fascisti.
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.
I think the author claims too much for this passage. It is in the nature of a rejoinder. He is advancing Fascism as an absolute, and against the objection that there are no absolutes, he is saying that in that case we are advancing our own ideology with all our energy etc.
Cf. THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)
"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts"
I do agree in a general way that the liberalism of today has twisted itself into a totalitarian doctrine, and I would prefer the more general term of "totalitarian" to descibe it. ( Look it up! )
"there may be healthy signs that support for the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Ridge form of fascist state is starting to wane. "
What in the world is this idiot bleating about?
_______
I caught that too, but the quiz is great and I ignored him going off the cliff there. When I first read about this quiz it was only the quiz and the answer. I had to do a lot of googling to find the quiz.
Whether he was a vegetarian was of little consequence.
If it's of little consequence why would you emphasize 'vegetarian' by using the word three times in three sentences ?
______
I found and posted the link to the original quiz, as I told you before I had a fuzzy recollection of what the quiz actually was, I then posted the link to the quiz.
You're quite the stickler, loosen up a little ;)
yep
If it's of little consequence why would you emphasize 'vegetarian' by using the word three times in three sentences ?
_____
Since I can be a bit of a stickler myself, I actually used the word vegetarian TWICE. I seem to have struck a nerve with you. I'm not for the vivisection of vegetarians. I have no problem with you if you're a vegetarian. I've known vegetarians, a vegetarian is a friend of mine. Vegetarians are very healthy people, I like to eat at Morton's Steak House and get all those juicy amino acids from a New York Strip, no vegetarians there, but they are welcome.
Wow, I do use the word vegetarian a lot, don't I? My bad.
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.