The Left is no longer liberal and liberals need to stand up.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

There is a particular ideology in America today, fostered by the Left-wing of the political spectrum, so intent on giving voice to minority populations that it seemingly idolizes victimization while proclaiming their distaste for and their distrust of populations of privilege.  Some proponents of this ideology have even driven it to an extent of advocating for a dismantling of Western political and judicial systems on claims that Western civilization was founded on nothing more than the exploitation of minority populations.  Nevermind that individuals in the West today enjoy a relatively peaceful society as well as longer lifespans compared to other parts of the world, contemporary Leftists focus on negative aspects of human history while dismissing anything positive that has arisen from a cultivation of social norms.  As if humans would be better off without civilization, roaming the wilderness just like any other animal.

Western civilization is not perfect (of course), no civilization is perfect.  Human history is littered with violence because humans have a proclivity towards violence.  However; despite what post-modern ideologues would have you believe, power struggles are not the only thing that drive human actions.  Any (reasonable) scholar of history will recognize that some of the worst atrocities have been committed in pursuit of an utopian ideal.  In other words, some of the worst things ever accomplished were carried out with the best of intentions.  A pragmatic leader governs a society as humans are, not as humans ought to be.

Contemporary Leftists are indeed pushing an idealistic agenda and it seems eerily reminiscent of the old Marxist rhetoric leading up to the Russian Revolution which formed the Soviet Union.  These new “cultural Marxists,” or neo-Marxists, are driven by a desire for a utopia in which no group of people is prejudiced toward another group of people and all individuals live in harmony with one another with no hatred, jealousy, or exploitation.  This is a fantastical, pathological idea and it is most evident on college campuses (more so with large universities) where Leftist, student organizations will rally protests against specific people with a so-called controversial opinion simply for having the audacity to speak to a crowd of supporters.  Leftists students today are so “triggered” by differing opinions that they wish to limit individual freedom of speech to protect their own asinine sensabilities.  The political Left is no longer liberal and liberals must stand up against these neo-communists.

Liberalism is about individuality, liberty, entreprenuership, and the ability of one person to forge his/her own destiny regardless of the circumstances of his birth.  Liberals advocate for free speech for individuals, accountability for governments, separations of power, divisions in the structures of governments, and egalitarianism throughout a population.

The problem with idealistic, utopian ideologies like Marxist socialism/communism or Nazi socialism/fascism, as “well-intentioned” as they may be, they create “in-group” mentalities amongst specific populations which foster exclusiveness in pursuit of inclusiveness.  In pursuit of a so-called inclusive society, the ideologues advocate to silence any rhetoric that goes against their ideology (any rhetoric that they label as hateful).  Nevermind freedom of speech for individuals and the marketplace of ideas, any speech that may be interpreted as “hate speech” will not be tolerated by the contemporary neo-communists.  This pro-censorship stance is antithetical to classic Enlightenment values.  Censorship advocates are not liberal.

Examples of these pathological neo-communists can be seen in video recordings of public speeches by Milo Yiannopolous and Ben Shapiro.  Milo Yiannopolous is a former reporter/editor at “Breitbart News” who organized a tour of college campuses a couple years back during which he spoke to his supporters publicly.  Ben Shapiro is the current editor-in-chief of “The Daily Wire” who occasionally partners with various conservative organizations to speak to his supporters publicly at various American colleges.  Both Yiannopolous and Shapiro have had contact with protesters at their events, people who were protesting them simply because they were speaking publicly.

A reasonable person encounters a public speaker whom they disagree with and perhaps crafts an argument against the speaker, engaging in a debate.  However; the post-modern neo-communists do not believe in values of free speech and debate, they only care about asserting their own influence in the public sphere and obtaining power over our society.  They do this under a belief that truth does not exist and that power dynamics are all that matter in human relations; this belief justifies their own use of power.

Free speech only matters if it applies to every person.  Every person deserves the right to speak his mind regardless of how hateful it may be.  I write this as a person who used to describe himself as a socialist.  I used to describe myself as a socialist because I bought into the idealistic rhetoric of Marxism, “workers of the world unite,” and all that shit.  I did not understand the bitter pathology behind a strive for utopia.

Post-modernist, neo-communism must be stopped before human history repeats itself.  We do not want another Soviet Union to rise to prominence on the global stage.

Free speech is the foundation for civility.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

There is a rising ideology in America today, fostered by the political spectrum’s left-wing, that is antithetical to the values that Western Civilization has held dear for centuries.  This ideology is commonly referred to as “Progressivism,” although it is anything but progressive.  It seems to have been born out of a desire to give minority populations a stronger voice in political discourse but it is taken to such an extreme that it idolizes victimization and demonizes any position of privilege.  Some proponents of this ideology have driven it to an extent of advocating for dismantling Western political and judicial institutions on the basis that Western Civilization is founded on exploitations and subversions of alternative cultures.  Never mind that individuals in the West today enjoy a relatively peaceful society as well as longer lifespans and substantial freedom (Freedom House and Economic Intelligence Unit) compared to the rest of the world, many contemporary leftists focus on the negative aspects of Western civilization like institutionalized slavery and its subsequent repercussions, extreme poverty as a byproduct of excessive capitalism, the tendency of unregulated capitalism to move toward monopolies and corporate oligarchies, etc.  These new leftists either fail to recognize or simply ignore the benefits that Western civilization has brought its people like mass production of clothing, development of modern medical practices and medicinal remedies, personal empowerment through entrepreneurship, rising standards of living for all economic classes, etc.  The new leftists see the world through an extremely narrow and simplistic scope of oppressors and the oppressed with no middle ground.

Western civilization is not perfect, of course; no human society is perfect because humans are not perfect.  Human history has no shortage of prejudiced individuals and violent actions.  However; any honest scholar of human history will recognize that some of the worst atrocities have been committed in the pursuit of an utopian ideal.  A pragmatic and humanistic leader will help to govern his society based on how humans are, not how we ought to be.

Contemporary leftists are indeed pushing an idealistic and utopian agenda, one that seems eerily reminiscent of the old Marxist rhetoric which culminated in the Russian Revolution.  These new “cultural Marxists” seem be driven by a desire for a utopia in which prejudice is non-existent and they are more evident on college campuses.  The problem with this utopian ideology, as well-intentioned as it may be, is that it creates an “in-group” mentality among its proponents, which ironically fosters exclusiveness in pursuit of inclusiveness; in pursuit of an all-inclusive society, these neo-Communists fight to silence any rhetoric that may be labelled as hateful.  Never mind freedom of speech/expression for individuals, whatever speech that can be labelled as “hate speech” will not be tolerated by the neo-Communists.  This pro-censorship stance is antithetical to liberalism and an open marketplace of ideas.

Recent examples of these neo-Communists revealed themselves during Milo Yiannopolous‘ tour through American colleges, his “Dangerous Faggot Tour.”  During this multi-stop travelling experience,  Yiannopolous spoke publicly at privately scheduled events on the campuses of various colleges and universities.  Yiannopolous being a provocateur, often saying incendiary and inflammatory things, was met with much resistance in the form of protests.  Although, these protesters did not attempt to debate Yiannopolous intellectually and respectfully, they instead made a show of their opposition to him in attempts to disrupt and shut down his events.  Interruption, disruption, and (ultimately) censorship are the tactics of the neo-Communists because they seem to think that their ideology is above criticism and anyone who dares to question them must be a racist or a sexist or a homophobe and therefore do not deserve to be engaged with intellectually.  This “in-group” mentality is dangerous because it inculcates the people inside this ideology from any reasonable debate; the ideologues foster their beliefs inside an echo chamber and they become self-righteous.  Yiannopolous may say some insensitive things but he still has the political right to free speech and expression.  Debate is the appropriate response to controversy, not censorship.

Conservatives such as Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and Lauren Southern have now taken up the mantle for free speech, but free speech as a political issue should be a basic unifying principle in any civilized society.  The ability to argue with each other without resorting to violent reactions, even if no consensus is reached, is what separates us from more barabaric societies.

Leftist frenzy over professional troll, Milo Yiannopoulos.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

Renowned, online provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos resigned from his position as Breitbart’s tech editor yesterday over comments he made over a year ago.  In January of 2016, Milo appeared on the Drunken Peasants (DP), a comedic podcast boasting over 138,000 subscribers on YouTube.  During that DP episode, the talk show hosts pressured Milo to confront some of the apparent inconsistencies in his personal politics and Milo eventually wandered onto the subject of an experience he lived through as a teenager regarding his church.  Today, more than a year later, a conservative group known as the Reagan Battalion tweeted a video of Milo with clips from his appearance on the DPCNN found the video and made a televised report of Milo’s comments on the DP.

The CNN report on Milo’s comments set off a media firestorm with Salon, Buzzfeed, Mediaite jumping on the clip to write hit pieces about Milo “defending pedophilia” over comments that were made more than a year ago.  If these writers are so concerned about these comments, where were they when the comments were initially made?  After the video clip and the CNN news report went viral online, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) disinvited Milo from speaking at their event later this year.  The publishing company Simon & Schuster also cancelled their book deal with Milo.  After these two personal setbacks, Milo decided to resign from his senior editing position at Breitbart News Network.

Milo has been a controversial figure in American political discourse for some time now.  Throughout 2016, he toured American college campuses across the country (the “Dangerous Faggot Tour”) utilizing his usual inflammatory rhetoric while speaking out against liberal immigration policies, advocating for unconditional free speech, and campaigning for Donald Trump.  Milo’s tour across American colleges also drew hordes of protesters at his events attempting to shut them down in the name of silencing “hate speech.”  This backlash against Milo from the political Left proves that the Left is no longer liberal.  A core value of liberalism is individual liberty, the ability to live your life in accordance with your own desires as long as you are not physically harming anyone else.  Today, psuedo-liberals often claim that “hateful speech” does harm them physically in the form of mental stress.  However; what constitutes hate speech?  Who determines and declares hate speech?  Merriam-Webster defines “hate speech” as “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people.”  This defintion could literally apply to any group of people, it is subjective.  Any person can claim “hate speech” against any other person, which make laws against “hate speech” too easily abused.

Free speech is only effective if it applies to every individual in the society  If you support free speech, you should also support the speech of those with whom you disagree.  Censorship may only work in your favor for as long as your representatives are in positions of power or influence.

How can I end this blog post any other way?  In the words of Milo Yiannopoulos, “with all due respect, kindly fuck your feelings!”