Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Terry Scambray: Fascism is simply a branch of communism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Reader Terry Scambray published an op-ed recently in the Fresno Bee (January 19, 2018) and has given us permission to reprint his original text.

Words are like knives; they become dull with use until eventually they can’t dissect and divide reality with any precision. And certainly there is no more overused and abused word than “fascism.”

A Short Explanation

Benito Mussolini, originally a communist, a revolutionary socialist, realized that the communist slogan, “Workers of the world unite” was a myth. For he understood that love of country, patriotism, had more appeal than “international socialism.” So he invented “national socialism,” calling it “fascism” which he defined as: “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

When WWI started, Mussolini was validated when the workers fought on the side of their own country, not against their “capitalist oppressors.” Nationalism trumped the “class solidarity” myth of the communists.

=====================================================================

That the communists and fascists have been enemies leads many to think of them as occupying opposite ends of the political spectrum. But this is no more reasonable than believing that since America and Russia were allies in WWII, that they were ideological twins.

=====================================================================

His former comrades, embittered by his flaunting of party doctrine as well as the dreadful causalities Italy suffered in the war, called him “a deviationist,” a fascist. And so it has been since then: anyone disagreeing with the communists and progressives is routinely called a fascist.
Each of us, perhaps, under the pervasive influence of the left has used the word, thinking it a measure of sophistication as well as an effective way to demean opponents by associating them with Hitler, who only in the late 1930’s came to be the despised uber embodiment of fascism.

“Heresy !”

Fascism then is a communist heresy, and heresies, like family feuds, often generate the most destructive hatreds. Thus Hitler, leading his National Socialist German Worker’s Party (i.e. the Nazi Party), railed against the communists because he was pedaling a different brand of the same statist snake oil.

Though Hitler was not really a nationalist, for he was destructively creating a trans-national racist state based on genocide and slavery which was similar to what his communist admirer, Stalin, was doing in the Russian empire. In fact, it was the Allies composed of various peoples with strong national allegiances who crushed the fascist, Axis powers.

That the communists and fascists have been enemies leads many to think of them as occupying opposite ends of the political spectrum. But this is no more reasonable than believing that since America and Russia were allies in WWII, that they were ideological twins.

Besides fascist Germany and communist Russia were allies between 1939 and 1941 in their mutual, rapacious desire to carve up Poland. However, this compact was but a slight cover, masking their geopolitical and tribal antagonisms stretching back into the dim past.

In reality communism, state socialism, and fascism, “state capitalism,” are two sides of the same coin; their common, overriding trait being centralized, totalitarian power. This makes both of them the polar opposite of a constitutional republic in which “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God,” as President Kennedy said.

Scientism

Since great scientific progress has been made in the last 200 years, certain thinkers decided that similar progress could be made if science was applied to society. But humans aren’t rats in a social experiment. This misapplication of science is sometimes called “scientism.” As the saying goes, when one is devoted to using a hammer then everything resembles a nail.

Nonetheless, misapplying science to society continues to arouse the imaginations of influential people who want to perfect society, as always, at other people’s expense. As columnist William Pfaff, wrote, “The idea of the total transformation of society through political means remains the most influential myth of modern times.”
For example, the renowned engineer, Herbert Hoover, as President Hoover, thought he could engineer America into prosperity after the 1929 Crash. FDR, unfortunately, doubled down on such policies. As the celebrated, liberal journalist Walter Lippmann noted, Hoover’s policies were continued by FDR though on a larger scale, extending the depression another eight years.

Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World, is a funny and scary satire on a futuristic, over-organized society based on scientism; he even has a character named, “Benito Hoover!” As the equally unsubtle Clint Eastwood reminds us, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

Governments, as essential as they are, also have limitations.

Terry Scambray taught English at Fresno City College and has published in The New Oxford Review, Commonweal, Touchstone, The Chesterton Review, American Thinker and elsewhere.

See also: Terry Scambray on Nicholas Wade, Darwin on race, expanded

Comments
--Of course not. It is up to the people listening who determine the rationality of the argument.-- But that means they have to listen which means the speaker gets to speak. -- People are not allowed to slander others.-- In the U.S. they are. Slander is not illegal. It's a civil matter, which for public figures is almost impossible to win a judgement. --People are not allowed to incite violence.-- Inciting violence directly endangers necessary public order and the principle is (should be) agnostic to the beliefs of the one doing the inciting. --Frankly, I would have no problem making organizations like the KKK, Aryan Nation, Neo-Nazis, etc. illegal and not allowing them to speak in public.-- And the communists? Black Lives Matter? Antifa?tribune7
February 1, 2018
February
02
Feb
1
01
2018
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
"Because the one who gets to determine what is a rational argument is the one who gets to control speech." Of course not. It is up to the people listening who determine the rationality of the argument. "All speech has to be defended. The only stipulation is that it follow protocol for necessary public order, and this limitation must be universal, consistent and non-discriminatory." I disagree. All thought is protected, but there are limitations on speech. People are not allowed to slander others. People are not allowed to incite violence. Frankly, I would have no problem making organizations like the KKK, Aryan Nation, Neo-Nazis, etc. illegal and not allowing them to speak in public.Molson Bleu
February 1, 2018
February
02
Feb
1
01
2018
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
--You and Kairosfocus keep bringing it back to violence.-- Because that's what the extant problem is. --However, in some circumstances, the protesters (shouters) have the more rational arguments. Why should they be silenced?-- Because the one who gets to determine what is a rational argument is the one who gets to control speech. You think Nazis and the KKK should not be allowed to express their views. How about communists? People wearing Che shirts? Muslims? Christians? Satanists? Male-hating potty mouths? All speech has to be defended. The only stipulation is that it follow protocol for necessary public order, and this limitation must be universal, consistent and non-discriminatory. If a group organizes to disrupt public order to stop a speaker who is following the rules, then the group and its organizers are the ones who must be subject to discipline, not the speaker.tribune7
February 1, 2018
February
02
Feb
1
01
2018
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
MB, for cause we are NOT talking about legitimate protest within the ambit of the civil peace of justice. There is a reality out there, cultural marxism [often, in academic circles, critical theory]; which comes from the Frankfurt/Columbia school, has had a significant branch-off through Alinsky et al, and which has had enormous and in many ways damaging impact. Going back centuries, we have had agit-prop, which was formalised as a system by those kissing cousins, the Bolsheviks and Nazis [who cooperated on a lot of things, including development of modern blitzkrieg type warfare]. This sort of thing actually has ancient roots as Plato's parable of the mutinous ship of state discusses. One of the key features of this is the spiral of silenc[ing] phenomenon, which gives a way to manipulate expressed opinion and its climate through intimidation and worse. This is the context in which Trib and I are pointing out that we have had ugly developments centred on the politically correct agendas on campuses, now spilling out into the streets. And the very same Agit-Prop tactics that I became all too familiar with coming from communists in my uni seeking to foment revolution are now routinely at work. The street theatre and bully-boy black-shirt games are one level. They are picked up by frankly enabling or outright complicit media and are sanitised by using demonising tactics and suppressing reporting of pouncing on and committing mayhem against those they swarm down. The media feed the opinion climate of those who are led to imagine they are supporters of progress confronting nazis and it is excusable to see a few punch a nazi cases. Or worse: my aunt was murdered in her shop by a self-appointed price control vigilante incited through a spokeswoman for a communist front group who invited such action. Then, after the murder she went back on air to pretend that she had not incited and enabled cold-blooded murder. Running in parallel, lawfare games and abuses of regulatory and policing power are creating precedents that historically have often led to outright police states. The predictable onward issue of the chaos is the emergence of the political superman [or these days, woman or some other "gender"] messiah figure who is larger than life and bigger than normal law. Then, we blend in economic chaos and the call for controls, which as von Mises points out both feeds the chaos and seems to be the solution. The totalitarian police state is then only a short few steps away. So, the first point is that in any reasonably democratic society or even just a lawful state, riot is without excuse. Mob censorship is incipient riot, where, the shout-down and lockout games are precisely mob censorship. The opportunity to mount a counter demonstration or lecture or investigative splash piece are all there and skills and technologies are readily accessible so WHY shout-down and silence becomes a very serious question indeed on motives and agendas of those pushing the mob. Likewise, as the Town-Clerk of Ephesus [effectively, appointed Mayor] pointed out to the mob stirred up by the silversmith guild, if you have a dispute that rises to the level of tort, the courts are there. In my recent experience when slandered in parliament and facing leaders there not willing to exert parliamentary discipline, I paid to air a reply on radio. When I was threatened and responsible leadership of the party in question would not address the matter, I reported to the police who warned the would-be bully-boy. When his friends tried more, I warned them they too would be reported, and they backed off. There is never a justification in any responsible polity to shout down, much less mob, beat, commit mayhem, indulge in arson and the like. Likewise, playing the game of delegitimising responsible political alternatives through smears and slanders amplified by a complicit media is exceedingly dangerous. Worse, is the rising trend of assuming that your side is the only legitimate winner of elections. Down THAT road lies civil war. And more. We are playing ignorantly with exceedingly dangerous matches. KF PS: Plato's parable of the ship of state -- how the first democracy failed:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus
February 1, 2018
February
02
Feb
1
01
2018
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT
“You mean like someone saying something unpopular and an angry throng trying to lynch them?” You and Kairosfocus keep bringing it back to violence. That is not the inevitable outcome of protest. If it gets to violence then those responsible should be prosecuted according to the law. I have been very clear on this. “When the Civil Rights people march there will inevitable be counter protesters trying to disrupt their plans.” Probably. Should we just prevent this or allowed them to demonstrate their irrationality as long as they do it peacefully? If someone tries to shout down someone else, they quickly lose credibility if they are irrational. Why not let them do so? However, in some circumstances, the protesters (shouters) have the more rational arguments. Why should they be silenced?Molson Bleu
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
--But I want people to look past the emotional. -- You mean like someone saying something unpopular and an angry throng trying to lynch them? --When the KKK marches, there will inevitably be counter protesters trying to disrupt their plans.-- When the Civil Rights people march there will inevitable be counter protesters trying to disrupt their plans.tribune7
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
“You really don’t get this?” No, I get it. But I want people to look past the emotional. Many of the improvements in society have been the result of protests that people were initially opposed to at a gut level. And, sadly, some of them resulted in violence. Are we so sure that we know what is “right” today that we want to stifle the protests? I’m not. When right to life proponents assemble, it is as sure as clockwork that there will be a pro-choice counter assembly. Each trying to shout each other down. What is wrong with that? Who decides which side has the right to be heard? When the KKK marches, there will inevitably be counter protesters trying to disrupt their plans. What would really worry me is if the KKK marched and everyone sat on their hands out of fear of violating their free speech rights. Silence is the enemy, not noise.Molson Bleu
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
--What line is that? There is nothing stopping the speaker and the crowd shouting me down.-- The line that leads to violence. The line that leads to your -- maybe legitimate ideas -- getting shouted down because they are unpopular. You really don't get this?tribune7
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
“Physical violence is but even if you shout down an invited speaker in auditorium you are crossing an important line.” What line is that? There is nothing stopping the speaker and the crowd shouting me down. Or security could escort me out if it was a private event. There are also disturbing the peace laws.Molson Bleu
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
--Protesting and out-shouting a speaker in a public venue is not extra-legal.-- Physical violence is but even if you shout down an invited speaker in auditorium you are crossing an important line.tribune7
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
MB, at UC Berkeley, police were on ordered stand-down. I have a post up from the time that shows officers, some in riot gear inside the locked student union while chaos was going on outside. Including face-spraying, mayhem and arson as well as destroying store fronts and IIRC at least one ATM machine. Police later escorted out and away the speaker. Others have been like that. The punch a nazi tactic is not a matter of agreement or disagreement that it is wrong, it is where things have been heading. I don't know if people realise just how dangerous a crowd can be, a 3-inch blade in the wrong place and it's curtains. A fist may contain a wrench, so a "punch" is hitting with a lethal blunt instrument, and more. Someone was hit in the head IIRC with a bicycle padlock with one of those long steel loops and a metal lock body -- a lethal weapon. What has been further happening is a cultivation of street level agitation and violent intimidation, amplified through media and cast to make favoured sides seem acceptable, with a parallel scheme in government and law. The protests we have seen are not initially peaceful and infiltrated, the infiltration is the fish in the sea tactic, where Anti fa especially have obviously been organised for years and trained in identifiable swarm tactics for at least months, e.g. the first confrontation is usually initiated by a physically small woman, who may snatch something of value and lure out, or may distract while a squad encircles to take down and beat; mayhem being part of that game -- and that is one "accident" of a head hitting a kerb edge away from murder. A lot of really dangerous stuff has been going on. KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
"The concerns expressed about stopping speech involve extra-legal action — including violence and threats of physical violence." Protesting and out-shouting a speaker in a public venue is not extra-legal. If it goes beyond that, then they are breaking the law and should be treated accordingly. "Well, they let it happen. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/.....079307.php" I didn't flow these events in great depth, but if the police really did sit back and do nothing, then that is definitely wrong and points towards a deeper problem involving corruption. However, if it was a case where they were ill prepared to deal with what happened, and delayed until they had the tools and resources to properly intervene, then it speaks more to bad planning. I would hope that it was the latter.Molson Bleu
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
MB --I was not suggesting doing anything extra-legal.-- The concerns expressed about stopping speech involve extra-legal action -- including violence and threats of physical violence. --Did the police not follow up on any of these things?-- Well, they let it happen. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-police-get-flak-for-hands-off-approach-11079307.phptribune7
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
"What if is was a black supremacist? Or a Muslim supremacist? Would you still have the same courage of conviction?" Yes. "If I heard something vile and the vileness was expressed in a legal fashion — a parade with a permit, an invitation to a campus — I would not use or advocate using extra-legal, or even inconsistent, means to shut it down, but respond in accordance with my recognized right to speech and expression of ideas." I was not suggesting doing anything extra-legal.Molson Bleu
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
"MB, pardon but we are dealing with realities not idealised peaceful objections. People have been hospitalised after mayhem. A hosting professor was hospitalised. People were sprayed in the face with who knows what witch’s brew of chemicals for the crime of trying to attend a speech and speaking to the press." And we have laws against these things. Did the police not follow up on any of these things? "The “punch a nazi” tactic is a symptom of dehumanisation and demonisation leading to violence that shows the need to actually correct the common, false impression that Nazism means “right wing” — so, no, your shut discussion down gambit fails. " We agree that people who use this sort of tactic, regardless of what end of the spectrum they are from, are acting dishonestly. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. "There has been arson and destruction of property, and more. " People break the law. We know this. That is why we have laws. If none of these violations were being investigated or prosecuted, I would agree that there is a big problem, supported by corruption at the highest levels. But I don't see that. "Something has gone seriously wrong and there is need to respond to it across the board." But how do you propose that we respond? Many of these violent incidents start out as peaceful protests that either get out of hand or are infiltrated by instigators who are intent on violence. The only way I can see that you can prevent any of this from happening is to ban all protests. The only other alternative is to ensure that security is in place for events and that the courts vigorously prosecute any people resorting to violence.Molson Bleu
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
To the man whose toolbox only contains a hammer, everything looks like a nail.kairosfocus
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Jonathan Haidt who is anything but a dyed-in-the-wool conservative (he appears describe himself as a liberal Liberal) said this in an article that was republished recently in the National Review.
When we look back at the ways our ancestors lived, there’s no getting around it: we are tribal primates. We are exquisitely designed and adapted by evolution for life in small societies with intense, animistic religion and violent intergroup conflict over territory. We love tribal living so much that we invented sports, fraternities, street gangs, fan clubs, and tattoos. Tribalism is in our hearts and minds. We’ll never stamp it out entirely, but we can minimize its effects because we are a behaviorally flexible species. We can live in many different ways, from egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups of 50 individuals to feudal hierarchies binding together millions. And in the last two centuries, a lot of us have lived in large, multi-ethnic secular liberal democracies. So clearly that is possible. But how much margin of error do we have in such societies? Here is the fine-tuned liberal democracy hypothesis: As tribal primates, human beings are unsuited for life in large, diverse secular democracies, unless you get certain settings finely adjusted to make possible the development of stable political life. This seems to be what the Founding Fathers believed. Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of those 18th-century deists clearly did think that designing a constitution was like designing a giant clock, a clock that might run forever if they chose the right springs and gears.
Haidt is alarmed by the way illiberal tribalism has begun to take over our democratic institutions-- the media, higher education and government. Can a diverse multi-ethnic culture like we find in the United States survive a resurrected form of tribalism? If the trends continue the way they have been going for the last the last 50 years, the answer, in my opinion, is NO. It appears to me that those on the secular progressive left have gone all in with tribal identity politics. Despite claims to the contrary, they really don’t have arguments based on reason, facts, evidence, logic and truth; rather it’s a commitment to group-think-- “we are reasonable and right because of who we are.” Again that kind of group-think was/is also typical of Marxists and Fascists. That should be no surprise, much of the secular-progressive left is made up of cultural Marxists. Haidt appears to agree with me:
Today’s identity politics has another interesting feature: It teaches students to think in a way antithetical to what a liberal-arts education should do. When I was at Yale in the 1980s, I was given so many tools for understanding the world. By the time I graduated, I could think about things as a Utilitarian or a Kantian, as a Freudian or a behaviorist, as a computer scientist or a humanist. I was given many lenses to apply to any one situation. But nowadays, students who liberal major in departments that prioritize social justice over the disinterested pursuit of truth are given just one lens — power — and told to apply it to all situations. Everything is about power.* Every situation is to be analyzed in terms of the bad people acting to preserve their power and privilege over the good people. This is not an education. This is induction into a cult, a fundamentalist religion, a paranoid worldview that separates people from each other and sends them down the road to alienation, anxiety, and intellectual impotence.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454964/age-outrage (*Emphasis added.)john_a_designer
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
MB --If I heard of a white supremacist giving a speech in my town, I would protest it and make as much noise as I could. -- What if is was a black supremacist? Or a Muslim supremacist? Would you still have the same courage of conviction? No offense, but opposing white supremacy in 2018 would not exactly get you a chapter in Profiles in Courage. Further there is a huge distinction in protesting something and shutting down someone's right to be heard. The problem isn't that certain people were protested but that they were kept from speaking and, FWIW, these people were not white supremacist. If I heard something vile and the vileness was expressed in a legal fashion -- a parade with a permit, an invitation to a campus -- I would not use or advocate using extra-legal, or even inconsistent, means to shut it down, but respond in accordance with my recognized right to speech and expression of ideas.tribune7
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
MB, pardon but we are dealing with realities not idealised peaceful objections. People have been hospitalised after mayhem. A hosting professor was hospitalised. People were sprayed in the face with who knows what witch's brew of chemicals for the crime of trying to attend a speech and speaking to the press. In one case, someone shot those who attacked him, and this was regarded as a defensive shooting by authorities -- implying the seriousness of the threat. The "punch a nazi" tactic is a symptom of dehumanisation and demonisation leading to violence that shows the need to actually correct the common, false impression that Nazism means "right wing" -- so, no, your shut discussion down gambit fails. There has been arson and destruction of property, and more. The interrupted course lecture I highlighted was the opening lecture for a compulsory course on Western Civilisation at a College; no it was no Hyde Park soap-box speaker facing hecklers -- and even there police would act to prevent riotous behaviour. My own experience of agit-prop makes me very concerned. This is not mere "peaceful" objection we are dealing with, it is mob-censorship and worse. Something has gone seriously wrong and there is need to respond to it across the board. KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
JAD, good point. But where do you stand on Ms. vs Miss and Mrs.? Or when people with PhDs insist on being referred to as Dr.?Molson Bleu
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Recently in an interview, Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto, was challenged on his politically incorrect use of language when it came to the issue of “transgender rights.” British interviewer, Cathy Newman, “questioned Peterson on why he refused to go along with the trendy leftist cause du jour: using pronouns chosen by individuals rather than pronouns that describe their biology.”
“Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” Newman asked. Peterson, ever the gentleman, answered the question without guffawing: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable.” Newman misdirected: “Well, I’m very glad I’ve put you on the spot.” But Peterson pursued: “Well, you get my point. You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.” Newman had no answer. Point to Peterson.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455714/jordan-peterson-interview-offending-people The Peterson interview reveals some of the typical ploys that the secular progressive left has been using to shut down the free speech rights of people with which they disagree. They redefine language reflected in traditional moral values as being offensive and then invent a new right, “the right not to be offended.” But if you follow that thinking to its logical conclusion, “the right not to be offended,” shuts down everyone else’s rights and stifles dialogue and debate. This is what happens when human being think they are they are the ultimate source of human rights. That’s what we saw in the Nazi era: If humans are the source of universal human rights then they are the ones who can take them away. That was the thinking that led to genocide.john_a_designer
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
"MB, right of protest does not extend to right of mob censorship or to — worse — threats or acts of violence to speakers, organisers or audience. " Protests are all about peaceful disruption. You mentioning threats of violence is off topic. I have already addressed the issue of violence. "Notice, in one case pointed to above, mob tactics were used to disrupt lectures in a duly set up and obviously reasonable course that the mob did not like." If the course was a student course, this was not a public event and the University would have the right to remove the protesters. If it was a speech in which there was an admittance fee or reserved seating, the same would apply. However, if someone stands on a soapbox in the middle of a University square, or any other public space, and spews hatred or racism, then I am well within my rights to attempt to shout him down. "The smearing of those one does not like and the raising of irrational hostility to the “punch a nazi” level implies that one has by mere accusation rendered targets subhuman or demonic and subject to robbing them of their rights. Perhaps, you have forgotten that such is precisely what the street gangs did." I have already provided my opinion on people who call others Nazis or fascists. I don't think that we have to rehash this unless you disagree with me that this is a dishonest tactic. "What we are actually facing is agit prop disruption of normal civil life,..." What you call agit-prop, I call the right of peaceful protest. Again, assuming that there is no violence. I certainly do not agree with many of these protests, but taking steps to prevent them is a slippery slope. If we are OK with stopping people peacefully protesting a speech by Ann Coulter, where do we draw the line? Stopping protesters at a MLK event? Stopping protesters at a gay rights event ?Stopping protesters at a pro-choice event? Stopping protesters at a right to life event? Stopping protesters outside an abortion clinic? Although I may not like to see protesters at some of these, I would oppose any action taken to stop the protesters. "(it seems you are Canadian from your handle)" No. I am from Maine. Molson products are sold in the US.Molson Bleu
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
MB, right of protest does not extend to right of mob censorship or to -- worse -- threats or acts of violence to speakers, organisers or audience. Notice, in one case pointed to above, mob tactics were used to disrupt lectures in a duly set up and obviously reasonable course that the mob did not like. Remember, the direct relevant context further includes people being put in hospital due to mayhem, swarming and beating people, spraying suspect chemicals into faces and eyes and more. The smearing of those one does not like and the raising of irrational hostility to the "punch a nazi" level implies that one has by mere accusation rendered targets subhuman or demonic and subject to robbing them of their rights. Perhaps, you have forgotten that such is precisely what the street gangs did. In my own cases, I lost an aunt to a self-appointed price control vigilante spurred on by an irresponsible agit prop operator, I have had a similar operator try to set a crowd on me for fear that I would insist on orderly behaviour out of Robert's Rules of Order [on a day when students were induced to confront paramilitary police by blocking a major artery road; down which reinforcements would have to come in case of a major disturbance in the city], and I have had attempts to trigger a fight that would likely have been an assassination. You don't seem to be aware of the matches you are playing with. I again refer you to the already linked from a year ago. If speakers are proposed who are outside the law or riotous assemblies are being entertained, there are proper provisions for such in the law. What we are actually facing is agit prop disruption of normal civil life, in some cases driven by patently anti-democratic mob rule and in others by ruthless determination to push a cause regardless of the general will of the people and the rights of the targetted other. KF PS: You should know (it seems you are Canadian from your handle) that US defamation law has long since been gutted by cumulative effects of reckless judicial decisions under colour of freedom of expression. Your innocent reputation and credibility can be trashed, leaving you without recourse, if any sufficiently powerful interest with the media and institutional influence to do it targets you. That should by itself be a major wake-up call on what is going on.kairosfocus
January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
“MB & JAD, there is no such thing as a “peaceful” shout-down;“ Are you saying that people don’t have the right to protest at speaker events? If I heard of a white supremacist giving a speech in my town, I would protest it and make as much noise as I could. If he has the right to spew and incite hatred, why don’t I have the right to use peaceful means to try to make it difficult for him to be heard? “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund BurkeMolson Bleu
January 30, 2018
January
01
Jan
30
30
2018
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
MB & JAD, there is no such thing as a "peaceful" shout-down; this is a riot, mob intimidation, bullying by those who cannot answer or don't care to answer when they can use threat or actual force to get their way, inducing a spiral of silencing. Precisely what I spoke to a year ago with the Anti Fa. KFkairosfocus
January 30, 2018
January
01
Jan
30
30
2018
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
JAD, thanks for the clarification. I don’t like the shout-downs, especially if they are violent. But I don’t know how you would stop peaceful shout-downs, or even if you should. I could even see situations in which I would try to shout-down certain speakers. I would certainly try to peacefully disrupt anyone trying to preach white supremacy or neo-Nazis. Yes, they have the right to think and say what they like. But so do I. If you prevent me from trying to peacefully shout them down, would you not be violating my right to free speech? Obviously anyone who goes beyond the peaceful protest should be dealt with accordingly.Molson Bleu
January 30, 2018
January
01
Jan
30
30
2018
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
MB @ 31, I am thinking of mainly of the shout-downs of visiting campus speakers…
Beginning with the Berkeley Milo Yiannopoulos riot of February 2, 2017 and continuing through shout-downs of Charles Murray at Middlebury and Heather Mac Donald at UCLA and Claremont, the second semester of last academic year kicked off the latest phase of the campus free-speech crisis…
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453357/campus-shout-down-rate-quadruples-free-speech But the shout-downs are not only directed towards visiting speaker but what also use to be part of our traditional core curriculum.
August 28: The first lecture of Reed College’s required freshman course on the origins of Western Civilization is cancelled when students protesting its “Eurocentrism” take over the stage.
The article lists several more examples of speakers, even some on the left, who have had their lectures either interrupted or cancelled. Then there are violent tactics of groups like Antifa (a so-called antifascist group which ironically employs fascist tactics.) When I was working as a campus minister on a large secular campus in the mid 1980’s shout-downs like we’re seeing now were not only unheard of but would have seemed absurd-- this is America. However, look at history. The Nazi’s did actively suppress ideas and speech with which they did not agree. Indeed they took it a step further-- book burnings, imprisonment and torture. Freedom of thought, conscience and belief and the freedom to express our thoughts and beliefs is fundamental to a free open and democratic society. There is, however, no right to suppress another person’s freedom of expression. Allow that you undermine democracy. That’s the lesson of history.john_a_designer
January 30, 2018
January
01
Jan
30
30
2018
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
MB, you may need to look at the just linked. KFkairosfocus
January 30, 2018
January
01
Jan
30
30
2018
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
F/N: a year ago: https://uncommondescent.com/free-speech/you-fascist-really-what-is-a-true-fascist/ KFkairosfocus
January 30, 2018
January
01
Jan
30
30
2018
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
"MB, you are trying to impute motives as though that is THE answer." Of course I am imputing their motives. I thought that I made that very clear. I am not talking about comparing modern government actions to the actions that the Nazi government took. These are fair game, and important, to draw these types of comparisons. This is important to make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. I am talking about people who feel it necessary to lump Nazis in with liberal philosophy, or conservative philosophy. Or those who feel it necessary to claim that Hitler was an atheist, a Christian of a Darwinist. There is only one purpose for taking this tactic. And that is to demonize those who disagree with them so that they don't have to substantively address their arguments.Molson Bleu
January 30, 2018
January
01
Jan
30
30
2018
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply