Berkeley and Caracas – is there any difference in the free-speech suppression of the Socialist’s Playbook?

Sometimes it is quite fascinating when two story lines, one is following intersect with perfect symmetry. Anyone familiar with the steady degradation of liberty in Venezuela has witnessed Socialist dictator Maduro is imposing his Leftist will upon that nation. Meanwhile in the states, the nation’s Socialist Left is attempting to do the same.

Advertisements

“Only oppression should fear the full exercise of freedom.” – Jose Marti

“The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. “ Ronald
Reagan

Consider this excerpt from Bloomberg: Venezuela Eyes Censoring Social Media After Public Shaming Wave

Venezuela is considering banning messages that promote “hate” and “intolerance” on social media and messenger services, according to Delcy Rodriguez, the president of the country’s all-powerful constituent assembly.

Rodriguez told reporters on Monday that the South American nation is looking to limit messages that fuel bigotry and confrontation between Venezuelans in a so-called anti-hate law, which is currently being debated by the legislative super body, known as the constituyente.

Compare this to a piece from The San Francisco Chronicle: After melees, Berkeley mayor asks Cal to cancel right-wing Free Speech Week

In the aftermath of a right-wing rally Sunday that ended with anarchists chasing attendees from a downtown park, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin urged UC Berkeley on Monday to cancel conservatives’ plans for a Free Speech Week next month to avoid making the city the center of more violent unrest.
[..]
“I am concerned about these groups using large protests to create mayhem,” Arreguin said. “It’s something we have seen in Oakland and in Berkeley.”

Then there is this from Constitutional scholar Nancy Pelosi in National Review: Yelling ‘Wolf’ in a Crowded Theater? Nancy Pelosi Flunks Constitutional Law

When the interviewer, Pam Moore, pressed Pelosi to consider Patriot Prayer’s First Amendment rights, Pelosi responded, “The Constitution does not say that a person can yell wolf in a crowded theater. If you are endangering people, then you don’t have a constitutional right to do that.”

Voluntary exchange versus coercion is one of the fundamental differences between Right and Left. The Right is based upon on a system of economic liberty while the Left relies on coercion. Part and parcel of the Left’s ideology of collective coercion is their reliance on false narratives and lies. It is a logical consequence that a system based on force cannot be open and honest about this because it is abhorrent to most people. A system that relies on false narratives and lies also cannot abide a free flow of information.

We on the Conservatarian-Right know we can win in the marketplace of ideas, the Socialist–Left cannot. Their 500 year old ideas have failed repeatedly down through the centuries because they are anathema to the basic precepts of psychology. The only way they can survive in that marketplace is to deceive people on the true nature of their ideas.

Parenthetically speaking, one cannot approach a group of people tell them that the government is going to force them to do the bidding of a small cadre of central planners and if they don’t they will be arrested and thrown into a ‘re-education’ camp. No, those purveyors of a collectivist bent must lie and make promises of government largess and blame others when these grandiose promises inevitably fail to materialize.

The Socialist–Left has to frame it’s ideas in flowery terms as ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’. The practical effects of their collectivist ideas do not result in these manifestations and thus they have to spew forth falsehoods that blame others for the lack of these results. And when their ideas fail completely, they have lie and claim that the systems utilizing these ideas weren’t actually utilizing these ideas.

We are now seeing this phenomena manifest itself in several locations, but with eerily similar results.

 

Normalizing the Fascist Left

Sometimes the Nation’s Socialist media let’s the mask slip and in other cases, it drops it to the floor. We are witness to the latter instance here. Instead of properly condemning violent extremist groups of any stripe, the NSM has begun whitewashing the reputation of the Fascist ‘Antifa’, as well as doing the same for the immoral and parasitic collectivist ideologies.

The ‘newspaper of record’ just published an opinion piece entitled: Who’s Afraid of Antifa?

Antifa is the backlash to the backlash, a defensive response to the growing presence of right-wing extremism.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry. Because antifa groups are willing to use force when needed, provoking them can trigger a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[..]
Who are the antifa, then? They do not advocate a positive doctrine, racial or otherwise. Some supporters consider themselves (as Mr. Trump accurately said) anarchists, some Marxists of different stripes; others don’t care much what you call them. There is no national antifa organization; most organized groups are local, concentrated in Texas and the Northwest. There’s not even a consensus among adherents as to whether to pronounce the term AN-tee-fah or an-TEE-fah.

Now, is it that advisable to have a major newspaper profiling and justifying the actions of violent groups such as this? The ‘News paper or record’ is not alone in this regard, others of the NSM such as CNN have made the absurd claim that it’s goals are “peace through violence.”


Bear in mind that these are groups who are opening chanting “No Trump, no wall, no USA at all!”

Question: When have major Conservative newspaper and media outlets profiled and praised groups that fashion themselves after the National Socialist German Worker’s Party or any of affiliates thereof?

Does Bernie Sanders realize his ideas are 501 years old?

Last night Socialist Bernie Sanders tweeted out this trenchant comment cementing the assertion that the man has lost any sense of self-awareness:

This is a man who railed against his political opponents and talked about having fresh ideas. We could allow that perhaps he’s had a change of heart and has given up on the ancient ideas of collectivism. Never the less, it’s most likely he’s lost touch with history and reality. Not only did he lose badly to Comrade Clinton, but he’s been flogging the same old ideas for years now.

He should realize that his ideology was based on ancient ideas expressed 501 years ago in Sir Thomas More’s book Utopia [Published in 1516].

So when is he going to get out?

From the Communist Manifesto after 100 years [Monthly Review,  published August 1949]:

The only way to stop the Left’s cultural revolution insanity is to go after it’s base ideology.

“The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.” Ayn Rand

It has always been a goal of the left to erase the past and replace it with their version of reality to usher in their vision of a socialist Utopia of unicorns prancing about under rainbow skies. Even now they are letting the mask slip even further with attacks against the constitution and the founding fathers.

These attacks against fixed locations not only serve to erase history, but force the right into defending that which we fought against in the first go around.

Just to set the record straight, the Republican party’s original raison d’état had been the abolition of slavery. It was the Democratic party that favoured appeasement and later on revived the KKK. The left would like to call anyone who opposes their little revolution with the epithet Nazi, ignoring the historical fact that they were a National Socialist Worker’s party and Leftists like them. These facts should be known by those with the least bit familiar with history.

It should be obvious that the current strategy of trying to stop their erasure of history has not been effective. The nation’s Socialist left garners too much of an advantage for them to halt their efforts, and they will always have new targets for their cultural revolution. Merely trying to stop them will not work, and any victories they attain only fuels their efforts, neither will trying to embarrass them in their Orwellian actions.

They are very much like an army of ideological terminators, they can’t be bargained with, they can’t be reasoned with and they will not stop… ever

Army tactical doctrine has it that the best defense is a counter attack against the enemy’s most Assailable Flank. It should be clear that when a static defense is not working, one must go after the enemy’s weakest flank. In the case of the nation’s Socialist left, this would be their immoral and parasitic collectivist base ideology.

An article recently published outlined the long term goals of a socialist party being the elimination of economic liberty in the free market. So why not have a have a discussion about the elimination of the Left’s economic slavery with Socialism?

Is there any reason it should even be considered a valid form of government any more? It’s been a disastrous failure everywhere it’s ever been tried. It’s resulted in the deliberate mass murder of millions of innocents, why should rational people consider it’s failure ever again?

The nation’s left would like to keep the focus on the past, so why not indulge them in their efforts? If it’s a discussion of the history they want, let’s bring it on. We can start by talking about the deliberate mass murder by acolytes of their base ideology.

They want to talk about symbols and statues, fine we can debate them on that front as well. Let’s start with their idolization of a mass murderer Che Guevara.

More than likely they will parrot the tired old lines that “Socialism has yet to be tried” or that “Socialist regimes weren’t really Socialist.” Let them explain all the facts of history to everyone listening, it should be a fascinating discussion.

Or perhaps they will deny being Socialists, in which case they should have no objection to it’s eradication.

If people are given a choice between economic liberty of the free market or the economic slavery of socialism we can be very confident in the outcome. The odds are the nation’s socialist left won’t want to take up the challenge of this debate, for they cannot abide a frank discussion of their base ideology. And perhaps they may go back to their echo chamber and leave everyone else alone. We can only hope.

 

It was never just about flags and statues, but the tearing down of the nation’s founding itself.

Anyone familiar with the vestiges of cultural Marxism and critical theory should have seen this coming from a mile away. It was only a matter of time before the nation’s Socialist left went after the Confederate battle flag and various sundry statuary that may or may not have associated with the US Civil war. At present, their cultural revolution is growing beyond that point already with their rapacious fervour now directed at the founding fathers. Most assuredly their success in erasing history will turn to attacking the very documents authored by those founding fathers.

Mob rule is akin to a brush fire raging out of control, feeding on itself and creating it’s own weather patterns. Social media only further inflames this tendency with a mob in one locale being inspired by another somewhere else. Governmental bodies trying to proactively keep the conflagration at bay only serves to encourage the rabble to set it’s sights on new targets

Mobs are generally opportunistic in nature when seeking new fuel for it’s rapacious needs to grow and expand. As predicted, this insanity didn’t stop at the mere removal of a few flags and Civil war statuary. Cultural Marxism is the guiding principle in all of this madness. For once they garner some success at the easy targets in the public square, they will soon go after that which has forestalled their authoritarian bent.

One can only implement a Marxist system of total government control and collective rights with the destruction of the old system of limited government and the protection of individual rights. This can only be accomplished with the discrediting the documents that have restrained the government and enshrined the civil rights of the individual. What better way to have a society rhetorically throw away the old than to attack the very individuals that penned and installed it’s founding principles?

We are told the founding fathers were flawed individuals, and thus we’re supposed to ignore their genius in setting up the greatest nation the world has ever seen. The plain fact is that everyone is flawed in some way, but that has no bearing on what they did. They rose above their faults and created a system that has worked for over 200 years and is still going strong. But there are those who wish to rule over their fellow man, and they would prefer to see this swept away and they feel that any means to do so justifies their ends.

Here’s were we disagree with Glenn Beck on the characterization of the Nazi’s as ‘Far-Right’

Having viewpoint grounded in historic fact has it’s advantages and Glenn Beck uses this to good effect. However, there is one contention that he needs to address to keep with logical reality. Many a time he has asserted that certain Nazi groups are a vestige of the Far-Right with allusions to it being some sort of European model. With all due respect, the measurement of any logical construct has to be vested with a consistent metric to make sense and this metric cannot change by geographic location.

It should be axiomatic that the constructs of our life have a basis in logic and reality. Confusion reigns when these elements are missing. The subject at hand is a very good example, there are those that prefer to characterize certain political groups as ‘on the Far-Right’ under various rationales that seem to be rather arbitrary.

In order to have an understandable metric, one must have it based upon a certain logical factor endemic to that measurement. This is why governments maintain weight and measurement standards in controlled environments, since each of these metrics have to be clearly defined for everyone. Such is the case with the political spectrum. One cannot arbitrary place a particular ideology at some point with a rational basis for doing so.

The origins of Left and Right began under the auspices of support for a monarchy during the time of the French revolution. Clearly this is no longer the case and it only makes sense to set the metric to a standard of modern times. This metric should have a basis in the dictionary definitions of the various mainstream ideologies of the day.

In general terms, the Right is considered to be the Conservative imbued with the principles of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property ownership and limited government while the Left is considered to be Socialistic in nature, vested in the principles of Collective or Groups rights and unlimited government.

It should be obvious that the political spectrum should measure governmental power, with the Right favouring the limitation of this power while the left favours the opposite viewpoint. The Far-Right would thus be characterized as minimal or zero governance. While the Far-Left would be characterized by complete or total government control. Thus one would logically place anarchy on the Far-Right and Totalitarianism on the Far-Left.

The mere placement of certain groups arbitrarily or by past characterizations or only sows confusion and discord. The spectrum is meaningless without a logical basis in fact. This is why it makes no logical sense to place an ideology that would require expansive governance on the Far-Right. Moreover it doesn’t make any sense to have this metric magically change depending on which side of the pond one is on.