The Richness of Leftist Fascists Decrying 'Fascism'
By: David Limbaugh
The fascist left is the biggest threat to America in recent times. They are exactly as they define their opposition. They promote socialism over liberty and Marxism over capitalism. They attack and malign conservatives on a regular basis based on the things it is that the fascist left truly is. Their intolerance knowns no bounds
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Source: AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez
The fascist left regularly typifies the very qualities it professes to abhor. The only thing more pronounced than its totalitarianism is its stunning lack of self-awareness.
It's ironic that leftists think of themselves as liberals, as the term "liberal" is historically and etymologically connected to the concept of liberty. Not only are they merely selective champions of liberty but the logical extension of their agenda is an eradication of liberty, from socialism to Supreme Court legislation, from radical redistributions of income to oppressive pseudo-environmental regulations.
What do I mean by "selective champions of liberty"? Simply that they believe conservative ideas are so odious they must be excluded from the classroom; social media; university student organizations; and, in too many cases, restaurants, yard signs and baseball caps.
Try teaching intelligent design in many public schools. In the name of science, they'll exclude ID's scientific findings. They believe that conservatives and their ideas are inherently racist and sexist and, in many cases, lead to violence, which means conservatives are not entitled to First Amendment protection or free expression on social media. It's scary how these leftists have blinded themselves to their own hypocrisy and fascism in trampling the same rights they purport to celebrate.
Invisible authoritarians running social media platforms cite arbitrary rules of conduct that conveniently censor conservative opinion to allegedly ensure decency and decorum. Yet the opinions they muzzle are only dangerous and indecent if you define danger as the free expression of opposing views. While prohibiting conservative views that don't remotely advocate violence, they permit overt leftist calls for violence. The chilling process by which this "private" and sometimes-government-supported censorship occurs is that leftists subjectively determine conservative speech is offensive or hateful and must be banned.
The First Amendment free-speech guarantees were designed precisely to protect controversial political speech, as uncontroversial expression obviously needs no protection. In the not-too-distant past, liberals understood that protecting the expression of all ideas was the essence of liberty. Yesterday's American Civil Liberties Union defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois, in 1978.
Examples of the tyrannical leftist mindset abound. Nicholas Sandmann's admission to Transylvania University in Kentucky incensed certain leftists. They clearly loathe Sandmann, who was brutally slandered by CNN and other leftists when activists accosted him for simply wearing a MAGA hat and standing for the pro-life cause.
"Does anyone else think it's a bit of a stain on Transylvania University for accepting Nick Sandmann? I'm sure it's a 'both sides' defense, but it's pretty counter to their mission and another instance of there not being equal sides to an issue," wrote ACLU staffer Samuel Crankshaw on Facebook. "This kid clearly is a provocateur in training with no intention of learning. He exists only to troll, intimidate and play victim."
"Counter to their mission"? What mission would that be: the promulgation of leftist propaganda and the suppression of opposing ideas? Note Crankshaw's revealing admission that he doesn't believe there are even two sides to the Sandmann controversy. This is more remarkable considering that the media's original reporting of this event was debunked at the time and then more resoundingly discredited when Sandmann settled a major defamation suit against CNN and others.
Despite Sandmann's vindication, this ranting ACLU ideologue can't even acknowledge that Sandmann had a legitimate position. And without knowing Sandmann personally, Crankshaw presumes he has no intention of learning -- leftist open-mindedness on parade.
Crankshaw isn't alone. Transylvania University professor Avery Tompkins, who paradoxically identifies as a "diversity scholar," went further. "If (Sandmann) were to cause problems by being disruptive, trolling, or engaging in unethical behavior of any kind, I would immediately document it ... and he would just be putting himself in a position for me to file a conduct report," commented Tompkins on Crankshaw's Facebook page.
This unmistakably reads like a threat against Sandmann should he express his views. If that weren't sickening enough, Tompkins' claims are preposterous. Sandmann wasn't disruptive at the pro-life march. He trolled no one; a Native American man approached and taunted him, obnoxiously banging a drum in his face. Nor did Sandmann behave unethically, unless, perhaps, you believe that gathering in support of innocent unborn babies is unethical.
Tompkins' thinking is disturbing (though I would still defend his freedom to express this stupidity), as is his attempted intimidation of a student entering his university. It's rich that on the university website, Tompkins is quoted as saying: "I don't want to be the authoritative person in the classroom. ... The classes are there for the students. It's not my soapbox." Hmm. Could have fooled this casual observer.
Tompkins' later apology in which he paid lip service to "diversity" is laughable. He is an adult with fully formed ideas, and a poster child for illustrating that the left's idea of "diversity" means anything but ideological diversity.
Another example involved leftist University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended an anarchist's murder of Trump supporter Aaron Danielson in Portland. "He killed a fascist," Loomis said. "I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective." This abomination speaks for itself.
Before you call this an extreme example, note that this kind of thinking drives the widespread leftist violence throughout American cities that was enabled by Democratic governors and mayors.
I wouldn't be so alarmed about any of this if the left weren't promising to ratchet up its violence if President Donald Trump is reelected. If you doubt this, you're not paying attention, and as young people say, "That's on you." Prayers and more prayers for this great nation.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is "Guilty by Reason of Insanity: Why the Democrats Must Not Win." Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com.
Tags
Who is online
68 visitors
It's ironic that leftists think of themselves as liberals, as the term "liberal" is historically and etymologically connected to the concept of liberty. Not only are they merely selective champions of liberty but the logical extension of their agenda is an eradication of liberty, from socialism to Supreme Court legislation, from radical redistributions of income to oppressive pseudo-environmental regulations.
What do I mean by "selective champions of liberty"? Simply that they believe conservative ideas are so odious they must be excluded from the classroom; social media; university student organizations; and, in too many cases, restaurants, yard signs and baseball caps.
Try teaching intelligent design in many public schools. In the name of science, they'll exclude ID's scientific findings. They believe that conservatives and their ideas are inherently racist and sexist and, in many cases, lead to violence, which means conservatives are not entitled to First Amendment protection or free expression on social media. It's scary how these leftists have blinded themselves to their own hypocrisy and fascism in trampling the same rights they purport to celebrate.
Invisible authoritarians running social media platforms cite arbitrary rules of conduct that conveniently censor conservative opinion to allegedly ensure decency and decorum. Yet the opinions they muzzle are only dangerous and indecent if you define danger as the free expression of opposing views. While prohibiting conservative views that don't remotely advocate violence, they permit overt leftist calls for violence. The chilling process by which this "private" and sometimes-government-supported censorship occurs is that leftists subjectively determine conservative speech is offensive or hateful and must be banned.
The First Amendment free-speech guarantees were designed precisely to protect controversial political speech, as uncontroversial expression obviously needs no protection. In the not-too-distant past, liberals understood that protecting the expression of all ideas was the essence of liberty. Yesterday's American Civil Liberties Union defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois, in 1978.
Examples of the tyrannical leftist mindset abound. Nicholas Sandmann's admission to Transylvania University in Kentucky incensed certain leftists. They clearly loathe Sandmann, who was brutally slandered by CNN and other leftists when activists accosted him for simply wearing a MAGA hat and standing for the pro-life cause.
"Does anyone else think it's a bit of a stain on Transylvania University for accepting Nick Sandmann? I'm sure it's a 'both sides' defense, but it's pretty counter to their mission and another instance of there not being equal sides to an issue," wrote ACLU staffer Samuel Crankshaw on Facebook. "This kid clearly is a provocateur in training with no intention of learning. He exists only to troll, intimidate and play victim."
"Counter to their mission"? What mission would that be: the promulgation of leftist propaganda and the suppression of opposing ideas?
https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/10153/the-richness-of-leftist-fascists-decrying-fascism
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CFTA6fhAJG1/?igshid=18josr40bwe1z
...One of the best-selling books in America right now, Ibram Kendi’s “How to Be an Antiracist,” calls for some astonishingly autocratic policies. It would establish a federal Department of Anti-racism with veto power over any local, state, or federal policies considered racially inequitable by its bureaucrats. (No one in the agency would be appointed by or accountable to the president or Congress.) It would also “investigate private racist policies” and “monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas … empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.”
This proposal to tear up both the checks and balances on executive fiat in Washington and the protections for individual rights embedded in our Constitution is one indicator among many that woke activists have fallen headlong for authoritarianism.
Their very language of group conflict and oppression is of course taken directly from Marxism. And there is a harsh intemperance and lack of proportionality in the behavior of today’s social-justice warriors. They say white supremacism is universal in America, not an aberration. Their favored graffiti spray tag is “ACAB” (All Cops Are Bastards). They want to defund and shut down police departments, not fix them. They call for lawmakers to “abolish ICE” and fling our southern border wide open. There is a growing fanaticism in which gray arguments and toleration for opposing points of view disappear.
If politics is the methodical organization of resentments, identity politics runs on the methodical organization of rage. Rage is an awful fuel for the gradual give-and-take needed to produce social progress in a non-authoritarian democracy. Alas, the Americans under age 30 who are manning the barricades of identity socialism loathe messy give-and-take. They prefer, as columnist Bari Weiss has noted, to squash resisters. Revolution rather than reform is increasingly the goal.
There is a soaring tendency to personalize disagreements. Protesters now regularly descend on the homes of people they disagree with. They hound them in restaurants. They harass family members. They release phone numbers and personal information online (“doxing”). They get opponents disinvited from public events, and dismissed from public posts (“deplatforming”).
Character assassination and purges — also hallmarks of a totalitarian temptation — are on the rise. A University of Chicago economist was forced to resign as editor of the Journal of Political Economy after he argued, “We need more police, we need to pay them more, we need to train them better.” (The day he wrote that, June 8, was the most murderous ever recorded in his home city; Chicago’s homicide rate is currently up 51% from the previous year.) When he said poor people benefit from positive role models, Pete Buttigieg was denounced as racist. The art and museum world was swept by severe ideological purges this summer.
Intellectual standardization of the mass media is another hint of totalist currents. Lexis-Nexis searches show that woke jargon and orthodoxies have become a uniform language within the media in recent years. The press ideal for generations — objectivity — is now attacked not only by agitators but by progressive journalists themselves as “a pillar of white supremacy.” On stories touching upon race, transsexuality, immigration, and other identity topics, many reporters now profess that the goal should be “truth” rather than objective discussion. The longstanding ideal of making newspapers and magazines mixed marketplaces of contending ideas, and letting readers decide issues for themselves, is now being savagely rejected by much of the press.
A former Time editor recently called for new laws penalizing hate speech. A Vox reporter wants all publications to ban from their op-ed pages any argument that supports today’s elected administration. The current Washington Post media columnist has repeatedly said that trying “to ‘represent all points of view equally’ is absurd,” and that journalists should advocate rather than aim to be balanced.
When Weiss was driven from the New York Times in June, she described the “civil war” raging inside that paper, a pattern of browbeating and bullying of centrists by progressive colleagues that has become common across the major media. “A new consensus has emerged in the press,” she cautions, “that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”
Orwell described how totalitarian movements dictate what ideas and language will be deemed socially acceptable. He referred to this as groupthink. Ideological movements feel deeply threatened by mavericks who violate their groupthink, and so persecute them.
In Maoist China and Stalinist Russia, the purging impulse eventually led to party members attacking other party members for being marginally less sanctified. We are now seeing similar phenomena within the identity politics movement. At left-wing Evergreen State College, Bernie Sanders enthusiast Bret Weinstein was hounded off the faculty for resisting a demand by black activists that all whites vacate the campus for a day. One of the nation’s largest public radio stations, WNYC, recently faced a revolt after it chose a progressive white woman instead of a person of color to head its newsroom. The purity standard rises higher and higher.
Another indicator of the totalitarian temptations within today’s identity politics is the surging reality of violence. There is the psychic violence of vendettas pursued by Twitter hunting packs. There are the shout-downs, table-turnovers, and physical trashings that the non-woke now regularly face on campuses. Smashed buildings and statues, looting, and arson became commonplace in American cities this summer. And the paramilitary enforcers of identity politics increasingly carry out assaults like the recent beating of a Wisconsin state senator (a gay Democrat) for filming riots, and the killing of a Portland businessman for counter-protesting.
A generation ago, “Power and Purity” author Mark Mitchell has noted, many people “were wringing their hands over the ‘moral relativism’ of the young. Today, moral relativism is not the problem. ... If you listen to the rhetoric of the social-justice warriors, you hear not the easygoing platitudes of the relativist but the hard-edged assertions of the absolutist. When people march in the streets, picket their opponent’s house, and threaten their political enemies with violence, they are expressing not moral relativism but supreme moral confidence. The humility required to listen patiently and respond charitably has nearly vanished.”...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/09/18/the_totalitarian_tendencies_of_the_woke.html
What is this? Today's decree from Big Brother and The Ministry of Information? One thing is obvious. Tokyo Rose and Axis Annie would fit right in with the rightwingers on American social media today...
Another example involved leftist University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended an anarchist's murder of Trump supporter Aaron Danielson in Portland. "He killed a fascist," Loomis said. "I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective." This abomination speaks for itself.
Before you call this an extreme example, note that this kind of thinking drives the widespread leftist violence throughout American cities that was enabled by Democratic governors and mayors.
I wouldn't be so alarmed about any of this if the left weren't promising to ratchet up its violence if President Donald Trump is reelected.
https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/10153/the-richness-of-leftist-fascists-decrying-fascism#cm1410853
Fascism ( / ˈ f æ ʃ ɪ z əm / ) is a form of far-right , authoritarian ultranationalism [1] [2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy [3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. [4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I , before spreading to other European countries . [4] Opposed to liberalism , Marxism , and anarchism , fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum . [4] [5] [6]
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. [7] [8] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens. [7] [8]
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. [9] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. [9] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. [10] [11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy , with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. [12]
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th-century fascist movements. [4] [13]
.
Fascism was, is and always will be a right wing ideology.
Fascism isn’t, never was, and never will be an ideology of the right. It is a tool of secular socialists.
Read the definition, it's pretty clear.
Fascism is literally the opposite end of the political spectrum. It's always been that way. Just own it an move on. You aren't going to be able to rewrite history to make yourself look better for supporting a fucking fascist president.
It's pretty simple. the right celebrates individual rights and opposes state control of property while the left wants to assert governmental control over both. The farther left you get, the more governmental control. Fascism, a totalitarian movement, is firmly on the left. It's only right wing when compared to communism, and the supposed irreconcilable difference between communists and fascists is just a war between different visions of socialism. Those who are close in doctrine often hate each the other the most. (historically Catholics and Protestants in northern Ireland for example)
Communists and fascists are to socialism what Catholics and protestants are to Christianity. Right winger would be buddhists in that scenario, with a completely different set of beliefs.
Are you even aware how Orwellian that sounds?
Making wildly false pronouncements as you seem intent on, is the definition of Orwellian!
Fascism is far rightwing ideology. Deal with it!
You are aware that Hitler was a fascist socialist, correct? And absolutely no one, ever, has claimed he was left wing.
They are realizing just how much of a fascist Donny is, now they are trying to redefine what fascism is so they don't have to admit that they are supporting a fascist president. That's what it boils down to.
So you're pro choice now?
Funny how the left thinks the only individual right is the right to abortion. Give them the right to kill babies, and they'll happily re institute slavery.
I'm not a left winger. I don't believe anyone has the right to kill another innocent human. Remember it's the Nazis and American progressives who collaborated over eugenics programs
Or choice.
If someone is killing babies, shouldn't you be calling the police? Also, what do you call telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? Sounds a lot like slavery to me, Sean.
Does that include the right to choose an abortion for women?
Funny, it's been more the "left" that's fought to preserve individual rights.
Nice sweeping generalization.
Where is that deemed a right exactly?
Now you're just inventing things.
Good, because no such right exists and killing another human is illegal (the exception being self defense).
Never let them ever forget that last point you made. It says everything about what progressives are.
Actually, other than assuming their own liberty to do as they will in all ways, I haven't seen them defend any liberties. All I have seen them advocate is the overthrow of government they don't like or the harassment of people who don't agree with them.
That about sums them up! The secular fascist left is the single biggest domestic threat to America in recent times. They are actually exactly as they define their opposition in their ridiculous rhetoric. They promote socialism over liberty and Marxism over capitalism. They attack and malign conservatives and believers on a regular basis based on the things it is that the fascist left truly is. Their intolerance knowns almost no bounds at all.