Trotsky's Parting Gift to The World

 By Hugh Farnham

While racism has been with us since the dawn of humanity, it was one special individual who gave us the modern term Racist:  Leon Trotsky.  A word-weapon meant to silence those who stood in the way of international Communism.

True to form, today's progressives have held fast to Trotsky's original use.  Let's see how he cast this word in referring to conservative Slavs: 

"Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: "In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them." This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the 'racists.'" 

 - "The History of the Russian Revolution"

Trotsky believed those traditional Slavs who held to traditional Christian values were insular and not compatible with his vision of the Communist International.   They were racist in his view.

Let's translate that into today's progressive-speak:

"Conservatism, the clinging to the Bible, Constitution, and guns, is based on the erroneous assumption that Americans are exceptional; freedom and individual choice are somehow greater than a centrally planned economy; a group who falsely believes 'they actually built that themselves'.  Racists."

Any doubt Obama would heartily agree with the above passage?  Be able to expound upon it ad nauseam without a teleprompter, straight from the heart?  

Progressives have added to this word to make it more powerful.  They built upon the hate of traditionalists and added a supposed element of racial hatred in all Conservatives.  

Truth be told, Progressives project their true nature on their enemies.  In 20 years, one can imagine Common Core teaching that Republicans kept slaves on their Northern plantations in Illinois, Democrats freed the slaves and integrated the military, evil Republicans tried to stop the Civil Rights Act, all led by a Republican senator from West Virginia who just happened to be a grand wizard in the KKK.

The next time I hear the usual suspects in the media try to shut down a voice of Conservatism with "racist", I'm going to think of the founder of that word:

  Sources:  The Unpopular Truth, The Immanent Domain

"Shut up," the 'Progressives' Explained

The apocryphal Sinclair Lewis quote has been proven wrong:

Fascism has arrived in America, and it isn't wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. It is a false-flag operation wrapped in Progressive PC Speech Codes of "Tolerance" and "Diversity" and carrying a Rainbow flag, the sword of islam and the Democrat party logo.

In saying this, I do not indict all muslims, all gay people, or all Democrats. Instead, I indict the small-in-number, large-in-mouth leftwing fasci (predominately guilty white latte leftists) in this country who brilliantly manipulate symbols and emotion to mau-mau ordinary Americans into sitting down and shutting up.  Normal people detest how this agenda-driven outrage kabuki has trashed our public discourse, but the leftwing cray cray's march on.

The regressive Progs are out in the open now with their hostility to our God-given liberties. They've abandoned reasoned argument and now are all about harnessing government's coercive power to tell you to sit down and shut up.  When that doesn't work, community organizers and professional indignation coordinators take to twitter and other social media to crowd-source outraged mobs.

I quote copiously from Mark Steyn, because he has written an especially brilliant article on the subject.

Academic Earplugs

A ditzy dingbat from Swarthmore really did say this:

‘What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.’

Mark Steyn's response:

Yeah, who needs that? There speaks the voice of a generation: celebrate diversity by enforcing conformity.

In theory, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is everything the identity-group fetishists dig: female, atheist, black, immigrant. If conservative white males were to silence a secular women’s rights campaigner from Somalia, it would be proof of the Republican party’s ‘war on women’, or the encroaching Christian fundamentalist theocracy, or just plain old Andrew Boltian racism breaking free of its redoubt at the Herald Sun to rampage as far as the eye can see. But when the snivelling white male who purports to be president of Brandeis (one Frederick Lawrence) does it out of deference to Islam, Miss Hirsi Ali’s blackness washes off her like a bad dye job on a telly news anchor.

He decries Britain's aging performing arts community's lust for shutting people up, when they themselves stormed the censor's barricades back in the 60's:

This is the aging of the dawn of Aquarius: new blasphemy laws for progressive pieties. [...] But, once you get a taste for shutting people up, it’s hard to stop. Why bother winning the debate when it’s easier to close it down?

Steyn explains the importance of free speech in a democratic society:

Nick Lowles defined the ‘No Platform’ philosophy as ‘the position where we refuse to allow fascists an opportunity to act like normal political parties’. But free speech is essential to a free society because, when you deny people ‘an opportunity to act like normal political parties’, there’s nothing left for them to do but punch your lights out. Free speech, wrote the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson last week, ‘buttresses the political system’s legitimacy. It helps losers, in the struggle for public opinion and electoral success, to accept their fates. It helps keep them loyal to the system, even though it has disappointed them. They will accept the outcomes, because they believe they’ve had a fair opportunity to express and advance their views. There’s always the next election. Free speech underpins our larger concept of freedom.’

"The (Fill in the Blank) is Settled!" 

Young Erin Ching at Swarthmore College has grasped the essential idea: it is not merely that, as the Big Climate enforcers say, ‘the science is settled’, but so is everything else, from abortion to gay marriage.

So what’s to talk about?

Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation, ‘gender fluidity’ and everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.

"Progressives:"  Bringing Middle East-Style Obscurantism to the West!

As it happens, the biggest ‘safe space’ on the planet is the Muslim world. For a millennium, Islamic scholars have insisted, as firmly as a climate scientist or an American sophomore, that there’s nothing to debate. And what happened? As the United Nations Human Development Programme’s famous 2002 report blandly noted, more books are translated in Spain in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years. Free speech and a dynamic, innovative society are intimately connected: a culture that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very fast.

As American universities, British playwrights and Australian judges once understood, the ‘safe space’ is where cultures go to die.

Illiberal Regressives

There in nothing more intolerant in this country than today's mis-named, self-proclaimed 'liberals.' At least some of them have dropped 'liberal' and taken up the old school authoritarian monicker of progressive, but even that is a lie. They are dragging society backwards to the bad old days when dissent was punished by the state or mob violence.

Mark Steyn - The Slow Death of Free Speech

See also:
Progressives are wrong about the Essence of the Constitution
Liberals Attack Female Fighting Misogyny

An 800 Pound Mozilla

The Mozilla Foundation and its subsidiary the Mozilla Corporation is most widely known for its free and open source browser: Firefox.  You may recognize it's logo below:

 

Brendan Eich, co-founder of Mozilla and the creator of the Java Script programming language was appointed as CEO about a week ago and has since stepped down amid a swirl of controversy.

In 2008 Brendan Eich donated $1000 in support of California Proposition 8 to add "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", a measure I might add that passed with 52.8% of the vote. Mr. Eich was forced to step down after news of his donation became public.

"It is clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting"... “That was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness”

~Mitchell Baker, Executive Chairwoman, Mozilla

Mozilla has since released a statement on the controversy:

...Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard.

 ROFLMAO

 Yeah, right. 

You know you've gone beyond left-wing lunacy when even Bill Maher comes out against you

So does this mean I can fire anyone stupid enough to have donated to the Obama campaign?  If not, Why? What's the difference?

Might be time for me to switch to Google's Chrome.