Monday, May 24, 2010

Liberal Fascism

Liberals are far more fascistic than conservatives.  Conservatives are the ones most often accused of Fascism.  Clearly fascism, generally, doesn't restrict itself to party lines, however, the Regime can be accurately characterized as fascistic.  By the 'Regime', of course, I mean the Obama administration.  This so called Regime is far more fascistic than any proceeding administration, including the much hated and feared Bush/Cheney Administration.

Clearly 'fascism' is more than just a buzzword- it is a morally indignant insult.  When one feels that ones ethics have been violated or undermined by a government, the knee-jerk response is to call the perpetrators  fascist.  Now one could easily say that fascism has a definition proper, and this is true; however, fascism could also be accurately described in laymen's terms as an 'abuse of power' at high levels.  This violates our basic sense of Justice, Honor, and Dignity.

Well, one might argue that Justice is just subjective (falling into Descartes Error as Antonio Damassio put it).  In fact, arguing that Truth is merely 'subjective' is proof that the Cartesian tradition is alive and well despite being thoroughly dismissed philosophically since the beginning of the 20th century.  What does Descartes have to do with politics and fascism?

Descartes is the philosopher who famously said Cogito Ergo Sum (I Think therefore I Am).  This effectively splits "reality" into 'subjective' mental phenomena and the 'objective' external world.  This is known as 'Dualism', and it has been said that your average man on the street is a 'Dualist'.

When one sees ones own mental phenomena as untrue, and sees science as the only way of penetrating the truth, one is left open to accepting fascism more readily by virtue of the fact that one deifies science and places simple everyday 'Being' in the realm of 'subjectivity' (often times when people are asked about their philosophical world-view, they write it off as merely 'subjective interpretation').  When one accepts this dualistic way of looking at things, one falls into 'ideology'.

Progressives operate off of ideology rather than Philosophy, and this leads them into supporting liberal fascism while believing that they are in fact, merely being moderate.  A truly moderate liberal is a rare if non-existent thing- and many radical liberals claim to be 'independent'.  Obama was elected under the stated intention of being a 'moderate' democrat, yet he is anything but moderate.  

This is made most clear by the people Obama has surrounded himself with- all of them radical leftists-  Marilyn Katz, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarret, Mark LLoyd, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, and the much publicized Van Jones.  Just do a little research on any one of these names and you should find, amidst plenty of fluff, their radical credentials.

I digress...

The connection between Cartesianism and Liberalism is quite simple actually.  Once one sees their own 'being' as subjective then one comes to trust authorities in their claims that they, in fact, possess the 'real' scientific truth.  When one puts faith in science (or deifies it), one is far more likely to trust those who claim to have your best interest at heart- a malicious lie in the case of the Obama administration.

Obama and his cronies despise everyday 'being'.  They even despise human life generally.  These are bold claims, but if you have ever heard Rahm Emmanual off the record you would have proof of the kind of elite attitude that is possessed by this administration.  They hate human life.  They despise everything America has stood for historically.  They even have contempt for free thinking and free speech.  I know it sounds far fetched, but I warn you- this administration supports eugenics.

Eugenics has, historically, proven to be a terrible strategy.  An experiment in eugenics was done in europe where Nietzsche and Darwins relatives went to live, and breed, together in an isolated community.  It was thought that this would create an Ubermensch.  What happened was after a few generations the offspring were sick and troubled and the experiment was a complete disaster.

Eugenics aside, the fact that you consider truth to be 'subjective' is proof of the pervasive influence of Cartesian thought, which lends itself to scientific dictatorships, or- Fascism.  This way of thinking makes accessing Truth with a capitol 'T' virtually impossible-  a great tragedy for our supposedly enlightened society and an affront to everything American tradition holds dear.

3 comments:

  1. 1

    Where do we start.

    Let us start at the first line of the argument.

    Liberalism is inherently, deductively, not fascistic. If it was it would not be liberalism. Your argument fails on the first line.

    But you say:

    "Clearly 'fascism' is more than just a buzzword- it is a morally indignant insult. When one feels that ones ethics have been violated or undermined by a government, the knee-jerk response is to call the perpetrators fascist"

    Okay. So what you actually mean then is that you feel the government have "violated your ethics" and you want use a morally "morally indignant insult" on them. That whole bit makes things pretty blurry. But the argument now makes much more sense since it only meant to be inflammatory.

    Now to your actual argument:

    You regard liberalism, empiricism and relativism as synonymous. They are not.

    "When one sees ones own mental phenomena as untrue, and sees science as the only way of penetrating the truth, one is left open to accepting fascism more readily by virtue of the fact that one deifies science and places simple everyday 'Being' in the realm of 'subjectivity' (often times when people are asked about their philosophical world-view, they write it off as merely 'subjective interpretation')"

    So according to you liberalism = empiricism = dualism = relativism. Highly problematic chain of reasoning but we will focus on the the dualism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2

    "Descartes is the philosopher who famously said Cogito Ergo Sum (I Think therefore I Am). This effectively splits "reality" into 'subjective' mental phenomena and the 'objective' external world"

    Not really. It says that when we push a skeptical argument to its furthest possible point all we can know for sure is that "I" exist in some form because their would have to be something doing this thinking. "Reality" is not remotely objective, and we cannot even be sure that our mental phenomena are objective. All our thoughts could be being fed to us by a "evil demon" or in a more modern take we could be in the Matrix. All we can be sure of is that some part of us exists because something is doing this thinking.

    Your usage of Cartesian dualism, therefore the argument from ignorance to claim that:

    "Once one sees their own 'being' as subjective then one comes to trust authorities in their claims that they, in fact, possess the 'real' scientific truth"

    When in fact the opposite seems to be the logical conclusion

    (i) S does not know that not-q
    (ii) If S does not know not-q then S does not know that p
    (iii) So S does not know that p

    (Where 'not-q' is the negation of any skeptical hypothesis, and 'p' is any empirical proposition we take ourselves to know

    (i) Carbine does not know that he is in the Matrix
    (ii) If Carbine does not know that he is not in the Matrix then Carbine does not know that the sky is blue
    (iii) So Carbine does not know that the sky is blue

    Dualism tends to entail extreme skepticism.

    I am not sure what you would call the philosophical position you describe where you distrust your own mental phenomena and only trust the outside world, but it definitely isn't dualism or empiricism. Insanity comes to mind. Why would you trust the external world if you do not trust your tools for perceiving it?

    "When one puts faith in science (or deifies it), one is far more likely to trust those who claim to have your best interest at heart".

    Not really. Science is about objectively, empirically studying the world not faith. Again just like the first premise if your science is based on faith then it is inherently, deductively, not science. What do you mean by science?

    "An experiment in eugenics was done in europe where Nietzsche and Darwins relatives went to live, and breed, together in an isolated community. It was thought that this would create an Ubermensch. What happened was after a few generations the offspring were sick and troubled and the experiment was a complete disaster"

    I can find no reference to this experiment. I would be interested to see your source on this.

    ReplyDelete