Monday, March 8, 2010

Of Elites, Liberty and the Manipulation of Perception

Word is getting out, and it is explained better and better. I first heard about the false Left and Right dichotomy, reading Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism", now entirely available online.

With Communism and Socialism on the far Left, and Nazis and fascists on the extreme Right hand side of this political scale - capitalism and liberty is positioned smack in the middle? It just doesn't make sense.

Ayn Rand had this to say about Nazism and Mussolini's Italian Social Republic:
The political origin of that notion is more shameful than the “moderates” would care publicly to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis—with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism). (...) Read the lexicon
Oh, and let's not forget the secret Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Non Aggression Treaty, which was not as outrageous as it may seem. Word has it that even before 1939 Nazis were holding military exercises on Soviet territory.

Andie Brownlow on Pajamas today has the following overview on the subject, and throws in a shortlist of recent history, of the Leftist press dealing with the enemy, i.e. liberty. As a now deeply middle aged, Leftist stand-up even last night had it: everything bad that befalls us is America's fault (but then, he also thinks reactionary is the opposite of proactive, so perhaps never mind him).

As we conclude in "Socialist Causes Explained", in case Leftist actions defy all sense and logic, ask yourself this and you've got your answer: what course of action would hurt the West or the cause of liberty (read capitalism) most?

Pajamas: "American Media, Blaming the ‘Right’: From Duranty and the KGB to Reuters", by Andie Brownlow
A Reuters article last month titled “German protesters stop neo-Nazi march in Dresden” takes a hyper-partisan stab at what would otherwise have been a dull story. The article is short, 474 words, and describes a neo-Nazi funeral march in the German city to remember Nazi deaths by the Allied air raid in WWII. This event was thwarted by anti-Nazi protesters.
In this brief article about clear-cut good and evil, the political “right-wing” was awkwardly invoked six times, including under the caption. Such a ham-handed approach to finger-pointing can hardly go unnoticed. It is a sloppy attempt to paint the right-wing as sharing the ideology of one of the most evil men in history, Adolf Hitler.
As many people are beginning to understand, Nazism has nothing to do with modern conservatism or the clichéd “extreme right-wing” canard favored by the political left. In fact, all totalitarian regimes are on the extreme political left; nothing but anarchy exists on the extreme political right.
The modern left has its roots in the political phenomenon of the 1930s when progressivism, communism, fascism, socialism, and Nazism coalesced under the common flag of centralized governments and an ideology of collectivism. This worldwide movement went largely unchallenged ideologically until the reassertion of classical liberalism through the American conservative movement in the 1950s. (...) >>>
Read here about the moral equivalent of war, which explains the need for unity in the face of a common enemy, global warming. The moral equivalent of war turns out to be nothing less than an exalted means to mobilization for what's deemed an ethically superior cause: that's fascism, thought up by the groundlayer of "progressive" collectivist Pragmatism, William James.

Read here how politically demoralized commentator Andrew Sullivan is wriggling out of Orwell's correct analysis that pacifism is objectively pro fascist. This RINO is juggling objectivity and subjectivity as it were a cup game, and plays the card that any old Leftist habitually does, the ethics of good intentions (or deontology), in other words, the-perpetual-get-out-of-jail-card.

The more you learn, the more you feel liberated from INGSOC.


- "The Dystopia of Paradise"
- "Just Doing his Job", interview with Soviet defector, Juri Bezmenov
- "Socialist Causes Explained"
- "The Press from Hell"
- "Under the Bus"
- "In Defense of Liberty"
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


James Higham said...

Orwell's correct analysis that pacifism is objectively pro fascist.

Interesting contention that.

RatePoint Business Reviews