Back in 2008 I wrote a three part series of articles entitled, “How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism.” Guess what? It still does.
Its been nearly three years since I wrote a long article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.” And the man has EXPLODED in fascism since I wrote that with his targeting of nearly 300 conservative groups using his thug IRS as a major recent example. He is a firehose of pure fascist evil and you literally cannot keep up with it unless you stay up 24/7 trying to document it all.
But this article isn’t about Obama per se; it’s about the left that Obama is a creature of. It’s about the left that is quintessentially fascist. Which is all-too easy to prove and to document.
In a nutshell, “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.” The only difference between fascist “national socialism” and “communism” was the fact that one favored “national” socialism while the other demanded “international socialism.” But socialism is socialism. Socialism is always and in every case big government run amok. Socialism is government dictating to the people what to do and how to live and what to think. If there was a National Socialist American Workers Party, is anyone actually fool enough to believe it would be the Republicans or the conservatives??? Because conservatism stands for the ANTITHESIS of socialism: we stand for LIMITED federal government, for individual liberty rather than governmental control, for laissez-faire free markets rather than government taxation and regulation.
Gene Edward Veith makes this point:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
Which is to say that you are already a far-leftist socialist – a communist – merely to believe the lie that the communist propaganda put forward about fascism being “right-wing.”
The notion that fascism/and or Nazism is “right-wing” is utter nonsense beyond this: Nazism and fascism are the extreme right of the far, radical LEFT. Socialism is inherently LEFT-WING, not right-wing. The Nazis believed in a fiercely nation-based socialism whereas the communists believed in an international, “workers of the world unite!” brand of socialism. But they BOTH wanted a giant, all-powerful, totalitarian government that is the heart of not the right but the LEFT.
So “fascism” is NOT “right-wing.” The next surprise is that “liberalism” is not “liberal” in any classical understanding of the term.
One of the things the reader must understand is how liberals have perverted the term “liberal” and “liberalism.” Yes, fascism is ideologically the opposite of liberalism; but that is “liberalism” in the CLASSICAL sense of liberalism, rather than what today’s progressive liberals believe and are doing. What is “liberalism” in the classical sense?
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.
In other words, a limited proponent of limited government, free markets, individual liberty. THAT’S a classical liberty. Which is to say that I as a modern conservative am a classical liberal, whereas modern progressive liberals are – you guessed it – fascists. Modern liberals, like the fascists, believe in the OPPOSITE of all these things that classical liberals held and hold the most dear.
As you think about fascism and Nazism (which was merely a particular form of fascist socialism, think about some of the tenants and try to understand how what I am going to document that which is coming from the American left today is genuinely fascist.
Only a couple of months ago there was this gem of rabid fascist intolerance from the left:
Harvard writer: Abolish free speech
Woman claims First Amendment threatens liberalism
Published: 1 day ago
A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.
Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.
“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.
“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.
“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”
Korn’s view grabbed the attention of the nation’s top conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh.
“This is not unique. This is not satire. This is not parody,” Limbaugh said on his nationally broadcast radio program Tuesday. “This woman, Sandra Korn, is real, and she’s serious that free speech needs to be abridged because it is threatening liberalism. It means that liberalism cannot hold up to scrutiny. It cannot withstand a challenge. If liberalism were infallible, if liberalism were so powerful and automatic, they would welcome challenges to it – and they would welcome the attempt to persuade and to convert. But instead they’re threatened by it.”
When asked of he thought her belief was going to become a movement, Limbaugh indicated it already was one.
“This is what the left is,” he explained. “Why do you think they want to get rid of this program? Why do you think they want to get rid of Fox News? Why do they want to silence criticism? What is Obama’s modus operandi? Eliminate the opposition. This is already a movement!”
“This woman has just written a column about it at Harvard with what appears to be an extreme view of eliminating the First Amendment as a way of silencing opposition. But she’s very honest. The First Amendment, free speech, ‘threatens liberalism,’ meaning liberalism cannot thrive in an open society. Liberalism is totalitarianism. Liberalism is statism. It is authoritarianism. It is all of the horrible Isms, and it cannot thrive when there is open debate. It cannot survive challenges.”
“Ah, the ‘community organizer force’ is strong with this one,” I’m sure Darth Obama – who held a similar position writing for Harvard – must have mused when he heard this.
The question, “Is this already a movement?” – and not merely an intellectual bowel movement – has been powerfully answered in the few weeks since this article came out from Harvard (the brains of the cockroach that is the leftist organism).
This from yesterday at the leftist Mozilla:
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns under fire for supporting Prop. 8
By Salvador Rodriguez
April 3, 2014, 2:32 p.m.
Just days after taking the job, Brendan Eich has resigned as chief executive of Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, after coming under fire for his 2008 support of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that disallowed the marriage of same-sex couples in the state.
Mozilla announced Eich’s resignation Thursday afternoon in a blog post, saying that his hiring did not reflect the organization’s beliefs.
“While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the Web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better,” Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said in a statement. “We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.”
But Eich came under sharp criticism for donating $1,000 to a campaign that supported Poropisition 8, Several Mozilla board members resigned to protest his appointment.
Numerous Mozilla staffers also took to Twitter to call for his resignation. One popular online dating site OKCupid displayed a message on its website asking Firefox users to access the Web using a different browser.
“We took the stand because it seemed like the right thing to do,” a spokesman for OKCupid said.
Mozilla said it is still discussing what comes next for its leadership.
This guy Eich was incredibly well qualified to run this company, which he’d helped found. But liberals hold religious purity tests having nothing to do with corporate performance – and Eich was found to be a heretic and blasphemer.
If you ask the question, “Is Sandra Korn running Mozilla?” the answer is, “She might as well be.” Because fascist leftist who are rabidly intolerant of ANY point of view that differs from their own and cannot emotionally or intellectually handle dissent are what they are whether they’re at Harvard or at Mozilla.
Imagine the fallout had a corporation purged a CEO for the death penalty-worthy crime of having exercised his or her freedom to donate to the No on 8 campaign. And said they were doing it out of a spirit of “inclusiveness” and “diversity” (which they would have as much to claim as the opposite side). But for the most part, the propaganda mill that constitutes “journalism” simply ignored this story.
What is rather fascinating is that one particular paragraph in the print article (on page B2 of the LA Times’ Business section) – was purged from the online article that you see here. It immediately follows the “did not reflect the organization’s beliefs” line of crap. Here it is:
“Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness,” Mozilla Chairwoman Michell Baker said in a statement. “Mozilla supports equality for all.”
You can see that statement from Mozilla in broader form here.
What is funny – and I mean laugh-till-you-pee-your-pants-funny – is how these Nazis actually view themselves as “inclusive.” You can understand why the uberleftist LA Times would purge that: it is so obviously self-refuting that it could not stand the light of day and had to be hidden the way ashamed parents would hide a child molesting freak in the basement.
Hell, I still remember when Barack Obama stated the following when he was lying his way to the presidency:
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. [big audience applause] For me as a Christian it’s also a sacred union, you know, God’s in the mix….I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.” — Barack Obama, Saddleback Church debate moderated by Rick Warren, August 20, 2008
The ONLY reason the left didn’t go after Obama the way they have rabidly gone after everyone who said the same words is that they understood that – being one of them – Barack Obama was a pathological liar who said one think until it was time to say the opposite of the thing he said.
Pathological dishonesty goes hand in hand with pathological fascism.
When “inclusive” means, “If you don’t think exactly like I do, I will destroy you,” you have arrived at the spirit of Orwellianism. And the soul of the left skinny dips in Orwellian anti-thought.
If you are a Democrat, if you are a liberal, you DON’T think. You double-think. You unthink. You anti-think. Which is why you are such a complete moral idiot. And why you have no shame, no honor, no virtue, no integrity of any kind whatsoever.
Sandra Korn was also apparently running the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference – which was (laughably) all about “inclusiveness” too.
Stormfront – from where I found the Youtube video below – also found this beauty of self-contradicting liberalism:
Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website (feministcampus.org).
Watch how “inclusive” they are the moment they discover “the other” and tell me about that “safe space policy” again. Tell me how this is what “structured around inclusivity” looks like. Tell me that this is what it looks like to have “a focus on representing various perspectives”:
Here’s a write-up from Campus Reform, which sent the reporter to be treated like a leper by “the tolerant and inclusive” people:
Campus Reform’s Katherine Timpf attended the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference (NYFLC) — an event which promised to be about “inclusivity” and welcoming everyone — only to be told that “conservative” women were not welcome.
Timpf attempted to ask students’ their opinions on feminism, but conference organizers made an announcement advising participants not to talk to Campus Reform because it was a “conservative” outlet.
“You guys aren’t wanted here.”
The organizers also followed Timpf around the conference to interrupt her conversations with students to tell them the same thing.
“They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.
“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.
“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.
“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.
“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.
“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.
“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”
Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website.
“We will not tolerate, allow, or encourage behavior which makes folks feel uncomfortable, threatened, or demoralized,” the policy continued.
The NYFLC conference was held March 29-31 at the DoubleTree by Hilton in Crystal City, VA.
The Nazis couldn’t have done it any better. One female editorialist described it as “Mean Girls with ugly women.”
But hey, I’m not done yet detailing how the left self-refutes themselves and documents their OWN rabid hypocrisy and intolerance.
Try this bit of “Sandra Korn” at other liberal universities like UC Santa Barbara and Oberlin, which are beginning to impose “trigger warnings” that would allow students to opt out of anything that might harm a liberal mind (you know, like reality or the truth):
You can’t bubble wrap students against any and all possible moments of discomfiture.At the Los Angeles Times, a rare outstanding editorial, “Warning: College students, this editorial may upset you“:
The latest attack on academic freedom comes not from government authorities or corporate pressure but from students. At UC Santa Barbara, the student Senate recently passed a resolution that calls for mandatory “trigger warnings” — cautions from professors, to be added to their course syllabi, specifying which days’ lectures will include readings or films or discussions that might trigger feelings of emotional or physical distress.
The resolution calls for warnings if course materials will involve depictions and discussions of rape, sexual assault, suicide, pornography or graphic violence, among other things. The professors would excuse students from those classes, with no points deducted, if the students felt the material would distress them; it is left unclear how students would complete assignments or answer test questions based on the work covered in those classes.
The student resolution is only advisory, a recommendation that campus authorities can turn into policy or reject. They should not only choose the latter course but should explain firmly to students why such a policy would be antithetical to all that college is supposed to provide: a rich and diverse body of study that often requires students to confront difficult or uncomfortable material, and encourages them to discuss such topics openly. Trigger warnings are part of a campus culture that is increasingly overprotective and hypersensitive in its efforts to ensure that no student is ever offended or made to feel uncomfortable…
Keep in mind that this development is something that derives entirely from the radical feminist left.
For more on that, see Robert Stacy McCain, “‘Fat Justice’ Feminists Blame Reagan, Praise ‘Communism and Socialism’.”
May I please have my liberal reality inoculation please? Because reality really, really upsets me and I have to be protected from it at all cost. That’s why I went to college where I could swim in a protective ocean where only fascist liberalism is allowed.
Accompanying this at UC Santa Barbara is a leftist professor who came unglued because somebody thought they had the right to be opposed to abortion and grabbed the sign away as her inner Nazi erupted:
The police report regarding UC Santa Barbara Professor Mireille Miller-Young has been released. Miller-Young made news after tearing a sign away from an anti-abortion activist in the university’s Free Speech Zone. Here is the PDF, and here is a rather illuminating quote.
It’s worth a reminder that this professor’s areas of study include “Pornography; Sex Work; Black Film, Popular Culture and Art; Feminist & Queer Theory; African American & African Diaspora Studies,” all of which require confronting potentially upsetting material. So what exactly is the limit on what is permissible on university campuses?
Outside of Santa Barbara, this story is receiving the most attention from conservative outlets. I’m curious to know what mainstream left-of-center outlets think about this.
This post was provoked by Donald Douglas, who writes, “America’s college campuses: literally the most f-ked-up places in the nation.”
Read more at the Santa Barbara Independent.
So if I’m upset by something, I have the right to employ violence? Only if I’m a liberal. If I’m a conservative, I’m going to get hauled away and prosecuted to the very fullest possible extent of the law just for SAYING that a liberal cockroach doesn’t have a right to be somewhere. That’s the kind of double-standard that also went on as “Germany” became “Nazi Germany.” Only the fascist thugs had the right to beat the hell out of somebody they didn’t like.
Understand: college and university faculties are THE most intolerant establishments in America, bar none. If you are a conservative, you won’t be hired. If you’ve already been hired and you’re a conservative, you’ll get the “Mozilla treatment” and lose promotions if not your position. Professors openly ADMIT they discriminate against conservatives. They take the amazing position that it is literally discriminatory for them to hire anyone who does not think exactly like they do. If you so much as try to speak as a conservative at a college or university, you will be shouted down by rabidly intolerant “tolerance” hypocrites.
And don’t tell me that university faculty and students are some “fringe” element within the Democrat Party or the liberal movement. Don’t tell me the violent and vicious Occupy movement fascists – and yes I truly do mean “violent and vicious” – that violated and just plain polluted the property rights of damn near everybody not long ago are some “fringe” element. Don’t tell me that the union thugs who either beat people up or shake people down aren’t at the heart of the liberal bowel movement. These people are all IT – whether you mean “Democrat,” “liberal” or “fascist.” They’re all part of the fascist army of liberal goose-steppers. Don’t tell me that the black people who make up the heart of the Democrat Party to the tune of voting 95% Democrat aren’t anything other than vicious. When they aren’t murdering their own babies or murdering one another, they are beating the fascist hell out of innocent white people in unprovoked racist attacks.
And if white kids had a game called “black bear hunting” in which they sucker punched little old black ladies, I have a damn feeling that the media and the courts would treat these racist young punks differently and call it for what it clearly is. But it’s black thugs, and Eric Holder says, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black” on my watch. So we’ve got this “knock out game” a.k.a. “polar bear hunting” going on all over America, and of course it can’t be “racist” for a black thug to sucker punch a white person.
The amazing thing is that THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CALL ME A NAZI. And they’re so pathologically dishonest and they’ve so completely deceived even themselves that they actually do it with a straight face.
You wonder how their skulls don’t explode from trying to hold so many massive contradictions, but they manage to pull it off. Because they anti-think when un-thinking or double-thinking fails them. And they are the most rabidly intolerant people that there are – and you literally have to be a full-fledged NAZI to be more rabidly intolerant than these liberals. And it is my observation that liberals are “progressives” who are progressing quite rapidly toward being full-fledged Nazis.
Do you want to know what is interesting? It is that when the Nazis came to Germany, it was these same university professor-types who were the FIRST to knuckle under and collaborate with their Nazi masters:
“Within the system of the concentration camp, something very strange took place. The first to give in, the first to collaborate—to save their lives—were the intellectuals, the liberals, the humanists, the professors of sociology, and the like. Because suddenly their whole concept of the universe broke down. They had nothing to lean on.”
Albert Einstein (a Jew who fled before the Nazis could capture him):
“Having always been an ardent partisan of freedom I turned to the Universities, as soon as the revolution broke out in Germany, to find the Universities took refuge in silence. I then turned to the editors of powerful newspapers, who, but lately in flowing articles, had claimed to be the faithful champions of liberty. These men, as well as the Universities, were reduced to silence in a few weeks. I then addressed myself to the authors individually, to those who passed themselves off as the intellectual guides of Germany, and among whom many had frequently discussed the question of freedom and its place in modern life. They are in turn very dumb. Only the church opposed the fight which Hitler was waging against liberty. Till then I had no interest in the church, but now I feel great admiration and am truly attracted to the church which had the persistent courage to fight for spiritual truth and moral freedom. I feel obliged to confess that I now admire what I used to consider of little value.”
Modern liberalism and those who cling to it had no answers or courage against Nazism. And in fact their philosophies, the values they hold today ARE the same as that of the Nazis they bowed down to when their moment to stand heroically came.
Here’s what you need to know about the university liberals who endlessly lecture us:
Soon after the end of World War II, the Jewish scholar Max Weinreich published Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People. This exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime documents how the scholarship of the time provided the intellectual justification and the conceptual framework for the Holocaust. This is not to say that these intellectuals necessarily intended the Holocaust, but, argues Weinreich, it would not have been possible without them. “Did the administer the poison?” he asks, “By no means; they only wrote the prescription.” — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 79-80
Ask yourself if “Professor” Mireille Miller-Young did far more than “write a prescription” justifying violence.
Weinreich establishes that these many academics who supported Hitler were sophisticated thinkers. Their problem was that the “value-free” assumptions with which they pursued their research resulted in a mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values. Which is THE same cancerous flaw that modern progressive intellectual liberalism suffers from today.
Now that I have documented the fascism in the left’s behavior, allow me to proceed to develop a new point about the fascism central to the left’s philosophy. Jonah Goldberg, in his great work Liberal Fascism makes this point:
For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right. And yet with the notable exception and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee if Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger. All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment – John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke – and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism. Meanwhile, the ranks of left-wing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition. And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents. The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values – even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments. — pg. 175-176
The solidly left-leaning (as acknowledged even by the leftist BBC) Prospect Magazine published an article titled, “In Defense of Heidegger.” If you want more proof that it is leftist, consider that it considered the EXTREME leftist Noam Chomsky as its greatest of its 100 Greatest Intellectuals. Most of the other 99 were quite leftist too, by the way.
The left now acknowledges that it is “common knowledge” that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi. But it’s funny that they spent most of the last eighty years denying that “common knowledge.”
The same methods—suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications—were employed by the legions of Heidegger interpreters and apologists. They were, until the publication of Farias epochal book, largely successful in preventing any critical scrutiny of Heidegger’s ideas and their relation to his politics. An ironic chapter in this enterprise was played out by the deconstruction theorist, Paul De Man. De Man did much to publicize Heidegger among the American intelligentsia in the 1960s. Then there came the posthumous revelation in the late 1980s that De Man’s hands had not exactly been clean. He had been a Nazi collaborator in occupied Belgium during World War II and in that capacity had written some anti-Semitic articles for a Nazi-sponsored literary magazine. After De Man’s war-time essays were published there ensued a lively controversy about the relationship between De Man’s war-time activity and his subsequent ideas on deconstruction.[
And my exploration of the above distortion of Marxist scholarship of fascism and Nazism at the beginning of this article is merely part of that intellectual tradition of deceit. The left “suppressed evidence” and employed tactics of “evasions and falsifications” to conceal the “common knowledge” of their intellectual hero for most of the last century until one courageous scholar finally blew the doors off the lie. And of course then the left instantly proceeded to apologize and rationalize the man’s heart and mind of pure evil. And of course it is pointed out that the left did the exact same thing with ANOTHER hard-core Nazi intellectual hero of the left named Paul de Man. You can goose step down the list of numerous leftist intellectual heroes such as Herbert Marcuse, Frantz Fanon, Georges Sorel, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Carl Schmitt, and others to see the same damn thing. And frankly even documented PROOF of the hatefulness of these men and their ideas – and the CONSEQUENCES of their ideas – don’t matter.
The paragraph that follows the one cited above in Liberal Fascism therefore points out that:
In a seminar there may be important distinctions to be made between, say, Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, and Hitler’s “revolt against reason.” But such distinctions rarely translate beyond ivy-covered walls – and they are particularly meaningless to a movement that believes action is more important than ideas. Deconstruction, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all of these ideas had the same purpose – to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancien regime still fought and persevered. These were ideologies of the “movement.” The late Richard Rorty admitted as much conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project. — Goldberg, Modern Fascism, p. 176
And it is simply a FACT that all of those intellectual traditions and worldviews are at the very heart of the left and in radical rejection of the Classical Enlightenment foundationalism and Judeo-Christian religious worldview of the right. You can ignore it with your constant exploitation of crisis and demand for action all you want, liberal, but hateful ideas have hateful consequences. And it has been the hateful ideas that you CONTINUE to espouse to this very day that had those hateful consequences that resulted in the gas chambers and the Holocaust of Nazism AND the purges and massacres of MILLIONS of communism.
You OWN it. Even though you are too much of a hypocrite and a liar and frankly a coward to ADMIT that you own it.
One of the primary reasons that the left’s “enterprise of Unreason” (remember how I referred to the left’s “un-thinking” and “anti-thinking” and “double-thinking”?) consistently leads to moral horror boils down to this:
David Hirsch, in his study of Holocaust literature, concludes that one of the most striking characteristics of those who have carried out the exterminations was their inability to have empathy with an “other.” Hans Ebeling criticizes Heidegger in similar terms: “the power of acknowledging the other as the other, as essentially equal, is missing, and for that reason it only remains to oppress the other without any leniency.” Since existentialism focuses upon the individual consciousness, “the other” is necessarily minimized. — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 103
At thus I reintroduce the demonization and purging of Brendan Eich for no other reason than that he gave a small financial contribution to a view of marriage that Barack Obama was HIMSELF hypocritically and dishonestly claiming at the time. Because it is the NATURE of the left – particularly the “intellectual” left – to lie without shame and cover up the truth and to suppress and to evade and to falsify the FACTS.
It ought to go without saying that if a more conservative-friendly corporation’s CEO had been found to have donated $1,000 to the “No on 8” campaign – as I’m frankly sure many have – he would still be there. Because unlike the left we value intellectual freedom.
So when Barack Hussein Obama routinely demonizes “the other” – that is absolutely everybody who doesn’t think exactly like he does – it’s what they call in golf “par for the course.” It’s who he is and what he does because the man is a fascist who has acted like a fascist his entire adult life as a “community agitator” and who very much THINKS like a fascist.
A lot of times folks would prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t. But this law is doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s working. It’s helping people from coast to coast, all of which makes the lengths to which critics have gone to scare people or undermine the law, or try to repeal the law without offering any plausible alternative so hard to understand. I’ve got to admit, I don’t get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of folks having health insurance?
Everything Obama says is a lie, so why should this be any different? Republicans DO have an alternative to ObamaCare. They’ve been talking about their alternatives for years now. Hell, I wrote a post in 2009 describing the Republicans’ alternative and pointed out that even at that early date they had already offered THREE alternative bills to ObamaCare. So Obama just lies like the devil and then demonizes his enemies.
He has repeated his lie about Republicans offering no alternative to his fascist health care hijack act even more times than he lied about people being able to keep their doctors and their health plans. And he lied about those things a LOT. But Obama believes in the Big Lie just like Hitler believed in it – which is why he fascistically and rabidly keeps sticking to his lies even when it is beyond obvious that they are lies.
The Big Lie is how Obama has governed. It is his ONLY “leadership technique.” And because he kept repeating the same lies his Big Lie governance literally got him elected and re-elected.
Find ONE Republican who would say he or she is opposed to ObamaCare because – and I quote Obama’s lie from hell here – “I don’t want people to have health insurance.” Just find ONE Republican who has said, “I’m mad about the idea of folks having health insurance.”
Obama has ALWAYS hated and demonized “the other” while maintaining the exact same hatred for the truth and willingness to engage in the “suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications” that I cite as at the heart of the fascist intellectual tradition above.
Obama is the man who has so much rabid hate for “the other” in his heart that as far as he is concerned, Republicans are people who want dirtier air, dirtier water and children born with Autism and Down Syndrome.
Tell you what: I challenge any liberal to a “hate contest.” It’s Bush hate vs. Obama hate. If I can find more examples of Obama demonizing Republicans than you can find of Bush demonizing Democrats, I get to use you as proof – with your consent no less – that all Democrats are Nazi liars who participate in Obama’s campaign of hate against “the other.”
Obama does to Republicans what Hitler did to Jews on a nearly a daily basis.
And again, Obama is the worst kind of self-righteous liar without shame who says one thing and then proves that he’s a hater according to his own dishonest standard with the next thing that comes out of his mouth. And again – that is part and parcel of the leftist tradition.
I’ve been saying it and saying it. The beast is coming, the Antichrist from the Bible. He will be the ULTIMATE Democrat in that he will be the ultimate big government totalitarian who creates the State in place of God and demands worship in place of God. He will do what Democrats have tried to do and he will succeed in completely taking over the economy such that no man or woman may buy or sell without his stamp of approval (a.k.a. the mark of the beast).
Nazism didn’t just fly out of nowhere. It took DECADES for the evil in the German spirit to metastasize to the point where they were willing to murder six million Jews and five million other helpless human beings in their government extermination center.
It was from the minds of thinkers whom the American left still adores and follows today – thinkers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger and Derrida – from which the thought process that led to the death camps and the gas chambers and the ovens.
And Obama has taken that liberal descent into true fascism that will ultimately have the ugliest and darkest consequences a giant step forward.
Update, 4/7/14: Well, it doesn’t take very long for liberals to prove even further that they are true fascists, does it. Yes, we just had a liberal UC Santa Barbara professor described above inciting violence against someone for the crime of peacefully holding a viewpoint different from hers. We just had the same uberliberal UC Santa Barbara student body demonstrate that under the leadership of such “professors,” they are rabidly intolerant of any ideas that they don’t like and demand that they should never have to listen to anything that disagrees with their preconceived liberal fascism. And being liberals and being fascist, they just got through documenting that they are as violent as hell: 100 young liberal fascists were arrested for rioting.
And of course it’s nothing new when a mob of black liberals (blacks voting so overwhelmingly Democrat that to be black IS to vote Democrat) beat a white man into a coma. So it shouldn’t be any surprise whatsoever that blacks – who are fascist because they are liberals – would beat yet another white man into a coma for the crime of being white.
Tags: "the other", abolish free speech, Brendan Eich, classical liberalism, communism, De Man, Derrida, diversity and inclusiveness, existentialism, fascism, fascist, foundationalism, free speech, Heidegger, inclusivity, Katherine Timpf, liberal faculty, liberal intolerance, liberal professors, liberalism, Marxist, Mireille Miller-Young, Mozilla, Nazi, Nazism, Nietzsche, Obama, Occupy, Pragmatism, Sandra Korn, socialism, trigger warnings, unions