|That paper in his pocket better not have|
any counter-revolutionary ideas in it!
Presumably, and quite ironically (although the Marxists are unlikely to ever have a clue about the irony of their own position), the "fascists" would use those rights to deprive the Marxists of their right to free speech, among other things.
This was explicitly on display in a post earlier this month from that font of Marxist enlightenment, Gods & Radicals, in an article by Sophia Burns entitled The Inalienable Right to Persecute. This one has pretty much gone "under the radar" among those of us resisting the Marxist push to place their political ideology above our gods and traditions, but I think it is at the core of the Marxists' strategy.
Basically, the Marxist logic goes, "we need to take away our enemies' rights, because if we don't they'll use them to take away our rights."
The notion of classical liberal freedom of speech is pretty much that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want, as long as it doesn't directly incite physical violence against others. This is essentially the basis of the First Amendment's Free Speech clause, but is completely anathema to the Marxist view that anything that disagrees with their own cause should be destroyed, as Ms. Burns states plainly:
"...the Pagan far right knows that the classical liberal ethic can be manipulated for their benefit. When reactionaries invoke coexistence, the toleration of disagreement, and setting aside political differences in religious settings, don’t accept it on face value. The far right’s raison d’être is the disempowerment of social minorities." (emphasis in the original)
- When reactionaries invoke coexistence ... don’t accept it on face value.
- When they hide behind classical liberal notions of “reasonable people disagreeing reasonably,” they obscure the reality of discrimination behind their words.
- “Civility” is a red herring meant to obscure their actions’ destructive consequences.
- Each time, we see reactionaries invoking classical liberal ideas to deflect criticism
- While lauding tolerance and freedom as a defensive strategy, the reactionaries are already implementing an agenda of exclusion, discrimination, and targeted disempowerment
- Fascists, however, don’t believe in free speech. They don’t believe in free and open participation, and their invocation of classical liberal values is purely opportunistic.
- Whenever fascists are tolerated, they enact discrimination.
Basically, anyone who isn't them. Go figure.
For a group of people who are always bitching and moaning about "othering" people, and "dehumanizing" people, and "dog whistles" and the like, they're sure good at doing what they complain about other people doing, aren't they?
recently asked that people not listen to what other people say about him. Give him the benefit of the doubt. But that, of course, doesn't apply to those who have been Officially Denounced. That's them. And they can't be trusted. You know because we told you so.
It'd be funny if they weren't so deadly serious about it.
Let's take a trip down memory lane. Back in the 1920's and 1930's in Germany, there was a political party called the National Socialist German Workers' Party. You might know them as the Nazi Party. They advocated anti-capitalism, collectivism, breaking up big banks, getting rid of usurious interest, and all the other stuff that their Marxist counterparts championed. The Nazis even had Four Year Plans, just like the Soviet Five Year Plans. The only difference? The word "National" in front of the name. The Nazis wanted the collectivism done at a national/racial level, while the communists wanted it done at a global level. You change that to "International" and the differences between Nazis and Marxists disappear (the "Communist International" was the leading organization advocating Marxism well into World War II). Certainly their methods are absolutely identical; the Marxists are just a LOT more efficient at committing genocide.
|Seriously. You Marxists have Hitler on your side. WTG!|
Big fucking whoop. Commisars or Gauleiters. No difference.
And this isn't limited to Rhyd and his cell of Marxist neopagan infiltrators. We see this all the time in contemporary SJW activism. "They don't deserve to be heard, because they're X", which you can fill in with fascists, racists, transphobes, homophobes, Republicans, Fox News viewers, Trump supporters, Christians, Mormons, Libertarians, or whatever happens to be the villain of the day.
They're evil. We're good. If you support us, you're good. If you support them, you're evil. Remind you of anyone?
Oh, they're going to hate that one. But it fits.
The problem with the suppression of free speech, even of people who you think are inherently evil, and who you think are just twisting that freedom of speech to their own ends, is that... that's exactly what they think of you.
The whole premise rests on the idea that they are objectively correct. That anyone who disagrees with them is objectively wrong. That they are right simply because they know they're right, and everyone else (including most of us) are wrong because they know we're wrong.
And, naturally, there's no right to spread wrongthink, as defined by those who are the guardians of truefact.
Freedom of speech protects unpopular speech, precisely because POPULAR SPEECH DOESN'T NEED TO BE PROTECTED!
They accuse the "fascists" of wanting to suppress individuality. And yet that's the very thing they seek to stifle. They don't want to engage with people who disagree. They want to silence them. Just look at what's happening in Lodi, California this weekend. The Sons of Odin, who have stopped "refugees" from raping women in northern Europe, are planning a rally, and the heroic antifa forces are going to protest against them (guys, seriously, you have a rape problem - it seems so many things are worse than rape, in your worldview). You think those antifa bullies are going there to engage in a spirited and rational debate with the Sons of Odin?
They're going there to silence them. Because they disagree with them, and that cannot be tolerated. They're the enemy. They're evil. We're good. We must be, because we're not them.
Don't like what someone says? Refute it. No human thought, no matter how much you might subjectively disagree with it, should be silenced, unless it directly incites physical violence (and even then, there are exceptions). The impulse to silence dissenting voices is based in the fear that, if someone hears a different opinion, they might actually agree with it. And that implies that your opinion might be wrong, which is intolerable.
And who are you, who is anyone, to deny any individual the right to make up their own mind? Only a fanatic, who is certain in the absolute, objective rightness of their cause. And that way lies despotism.
To them, free speech is a threat. They think you're too stupid to make up your own mind. You need them to tell you what is right and what is wrong, and what you should agree with, and what you should not. That should tell you all you need to know about them.
* The term "Fascist" actually has a very specific meaning, but they hurl it around so willy-nilly that it has lost all real meaning, other than "someone I don't like". Congratulations, guys. You've equated murderous totalitarian dictators like Mussolini and Franco with "you won't accept people literally believing they're dragons".