IT WAS AND IS ONE OF THE STUPIDEST ideas ever articulated by, largely, college-credentialed people when largely secular alleged liberals, with full knowledge of the still then recently ended WWII genocides were a reality, held that "We MUST allow Nazis in the post-war period, to be able to freely advocate their ideas." I never think of that without hearing it said in a whiny, falsely pious obnoxious cadence. Of course the reason we MUST do that is the wording of the First Amendment with its truncated, ill-considered, stupidly-general language adopted, not by gods among us, but by the members of the First Congress and the legislatures of the thirteen states, almost to a person, propertied, white men of affluence enough to allow them to play politics largely for their own advantage, with every defect and deficiency in consideration and motivation that you could expect to find among them. Many of them slave owners and wage-slavers who had no intention of extending freedom of speech to those held in bondage to them, certainly not the Native inhabitants of lands they had their eyes on grabbing.
The idea holds that no matter what harsh lessons history throws at us, we are never, ever to learn that there are ideologies, ideas, claims and lies that are dangerous enough to get millions of people murdered and that the proponents of such lies, having proven they actually can make it happen here, should eternally get a second, third, fourth, etc. chance to make it happen again because a bunch of white, rich men who really didn't have any experience of governance adopted that set of words which empowered lies and false witness with legal impunity and the impossibility of regulation and prohibition of them.
That may be the stupidest idea that flows out of and through 18th century modernism and into today, an act of epic irresponsibility and nonfeasance dressed up like a sacred virtue when what is virtuous would be facing that Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, the ideologies of fascism, and its indigenous, traditional American form, white supremacy, subjugators of Women, bashers of LGBTQ people, should never, ever be able to rig things to give them any more chances of ever gaining power and putting themselves in a position to do it again, this time having learned how to do it more effectively. It may be the stupidest, it is certainly among the stupidest, unthinking, ill considered idiocies ever to come out of the mouths of college-credentialed people as one of the perverted, inverted virtues of modernism. That so many members of the groups who can be guaranteed to be the target of their empowerment hold with the idiotic idea that advocating violent, oppressive depravity must be placed on the same level as advocating egalitarian democracy, responsible freedom and behavior for the common good is only a further indictment of modernism and the education in its attitudes and habits of speech and thought.
Women who believe those who would subjugate, control, harm and kill them have a "right" to do that because "The First Amendment" are their oppressors and killers' best friends. Not a few of them in the pay of the porn industry. Much of that clean-handed, absurdly elevated "First Amendment" advocacy is nothing but paid, intellectual shilling.
Black People, Latinos, members of other groups targeted by the racist media, and that extends from the pits of FOX level fascism to the editorial pages of the New York Times and The Washington Post as well as PBS and NPR, members of targeted groups who hold that "we MUST allow them to have that chance" are their oppressors and killers' best friends.
My fellow LGBTQ People who hold that their enemies have an absolute right to try what will probably be far easier than for the groups already mentioned, overturn, first marriage equality and, then, the rest of the progress made very fast in the past twenty five years will see that erased, are as foolish. I have to confess that there is nothing I find more dispicable than an LGBTQ Republican-fascist or its close allies.
And, yes, I'll go there, Jews who advocate for the rights of Nazis and neo-Nazis to get another try are among the most morally depraved group who have ever lived. I will include those who experienced Stalinism, Maoism, etc. but who hold that those mass murdering, genocidal ideologies are rightly advocated now, with full knowledge of what those led to are as depraved. So are any of us who know that history and still hold that idea as a viable virtue.
There is no right to advocate the destruction of egalitarian democracy because that advocacy contains within it both the reason to suppress that advocacy and the moral foundation for that suppression. As I've been demonstrating, the holding that that advocacy is to be permitted contains its own self-contradiction because those it advocates for would destroy the false-egalitarian notion being advocated by the would be "civil libertarians."
Since ideologies that contain the advocacy of not only inequality but, also, the suppression of groups of people, their oppression, their enslavement and exploitation, discrimination against them and up to and including their murder and obliteration imagine that as some kind of good, they have given those they target the right to turn that unequal treatment back on those who advocate it.
That is a definitive difference between those who advocate egalitarianism WHICH MUST INCLUDE REAL AND SERIOUS LIMITS ON HOW OTHER PEOPLE CAN BE TREATED WHICH PRECLUDES THE DESIRES OF THOSE WHO WOULD HARM THEM and those who advocate inequality in which some, privileged people get to do that harm to other people. The advocates of equality accept that those limits on behavior and advocacy of inequality which they would impose on others are, as well, imposed on them.
That the advocates of equality may want to have their own worst impulses subject to legal restrictions is an entirely more admirable and safe desire than the desire of those who advocate inequality to be unrestrained in their inflicting harm on other people.
The two things desired are not the same, one is entirely different in its effect than the other one. No one in a position to judge the two could possibly mistake the effects of the one for the effects of the other, though our judicial system is full to the top of lawyers who were taught to lie about that, the "justices" of the Supreme Court, in the majority are some of the more powerful liars of that kind, the media are full to the top with them.
Update: The rise of neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, even in the lands where the most numbers of people were murdered under those ideologies EVEN, FOR PETE'S SAKE, IN RUSSIA WHICH THE NAZIS MURDERED HUGE NUMBERS ON TOP OF THOSE MURDERED BY STALIN proves that the "more speech" means of resisting their success is about the stupidest slogan of lawyers and journalists and others who profited off of the money of pornographers and oligarch building billionaires ever peddled to a gullible public. Put your "more speech" such as was practiced by Republican-fascists in DC last January 6 against that of the mealy-mouthed, media figure civil libertarian's "free speech" and see which one has real traction. I am sure Merrick Garland must have at least nodded in acquiescent quiescence when a more bold legal colleague mouthed that false piety.
No comments:
Post a Comment