Chomsky's Philosophy: Noam Chomsky- 'Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?'

Source:Chomsky's Philosophy- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky talking about free speech in America.

Source:The New Democrat

“Noam Chomsky – Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” 

From Chomsky's Philosophy 

Noam Chomsky is a self-described Socialist and Libertarian-Socialist, no one’s moderate or right-winger, making the perfect argument for why even Neo-Nazis and others on the Far-Right in America, deserve free speech rights simply for being American citizens. Even if they’re the worst Americans citizens that we have in America.

Professor Chomsky arguing both for practical as well as principal reasons why even Neo-Nazis have free rights in America.

The practical reason being that Neo-Nazis could claim that their First Amendment rights are being trampled on an violated if some government authority passed some censorship law banning free speech in their jurisdiction or if the Federal Government attempted to do that and than enforced that law on Neo-Nazis and other Far-Right hate groups. These hate groups could no only claim that, but they would be right.

The right to free speech in America, just doesn’t protect free speech, but it protects speech. Including speech that offends the oversensitive so-called politically correct (really Far-Left) in America. Or speech that offends the Christian-Right in America. Certain forms of entertainment that offends the Christian-Right’s moral and religious values.

The First Amendment-

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Supreme Court has made only three exceptions to this.

Inciting violence like yelling fire and calling for a panic in a large crowded public place.

Falsely libeling people and libeling people with no real base or evidence to back up what you’re accusing the person of.

And harassment. You can name call people and call them bad names, but once the person moves away from you and makes it clear they don’t want to even hear from you, let alone talk to you, but you insist and follow the person around simply to harass them, you could face legal consequences for that if the person presses charges against you, as well as civil charges.

Simply using language that is offensive and even hatful, as well as false against people you hate short of calling for violence against that individual or people, is protected by the First Amendment in the United States.

We’re all equal citizens in America all having the same constitutional rights and deserve to have those rights equally enforced and protected. From the best of us who work everyday to make America a better country for everyone and who volunteer for people who are disadvantaged and even donate their time and money to people who aren’t doing well. To hateful assholes who look down on people simply because they have a different complexion and are of a different racial and ethnic background as the people who hate them.

As Noam Chomsky said the way to deal with Neo-Nazis and other hate groups, is to win the argument. Shouldn’t be that difficult to do for anyone with even average intelligence. Most Americans or at least a large majority of us, don’t hate people or feel superior to other people, simply because they have a different race or ethnicity.

If Neo-Nazis want to claim that Africans are animals and not humans and therefor not deserving of the same rights as Europeans, well we all know that Africans are human beings.

If the Neo-Nazis want to deny the Jewish Holocaust and genocide in Europe, show people the footage and literature that proves how false those claims are. Simply just show Americans who are young and perhaps don’t know any better how stupid these hate groups are simply by showing people what these groups have claimed and people will know how stupid they are.

AlterNet: Opinion- Liz Posner: '8 Things That Are Probably True About You if You Identify As Spiritual But Not Religious'

Source: AlterNet-

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

When I hear someone tell me that they're spiritual, but not religious, my first reaction if I'm not smirking is something generally like, "really?"

Someone who is religious believes in a God who is a superhuman controlling power and a belief in something greater than them self.

Someone who is self-described as spiritual, but not religious is someone who believes in the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul, as opposed to material or physical things. Sort of sounds like the definition of a Socialist, but that might be for a different discussion. According to Wikipedia the term spirituality originally developed within early Christianity.

Someone who is religious is also spiritual. I mean, what do you think houses of worship are for. You could be someone who practices a certain religion but doesn't believe in God or is simply neutral when it comes to God like an Agnostic and be spiritual in that way. There's this growing movement with young people (meaning Millennial's) who don't want to be religious or at least seen as religious with people they hangout with or respect, because they believe those people will think they're not cool or something, but they also don't want to be identified as Atheists either. So they try to thread the needle (so to speak) and self-identify as spiritual.

Spirituality is very common and popular with hipsters especially in Hollywood who believe religion is not cool, or at least their followers believe religion is not cool, but they're not comfortable identifying themselves as Atheists, because they come from religious families or perhaps just don't want to be known as an Atheist. In case it isn't obvious, Hollywood is about perception and not reality. Style over substance, which is something that they have in common with politicians.

If someone tells me they're an Atheist, I can respect that. I mean really, who can honestly actually say they've seen God before, let alone met the man. I mean, we don't see any sightings of Jesus Christ, or Moses, or Allah, except maybe around Halloween.

Its the fundamentalist Atheists who I have a problem with who look down upon people who are religious simply because they're religious. Or the faux Atheists who claim to be Atheists, but only critique Christianity especially fundamentalist Protestant Christianity because of hard-core stances that Evangelicals take on social issues and bigotry that they show against gays and other religions, women's place in the world, but never critique other religions that have similar, if not identical stances on the same issues.

Or so-called Atheists who label people as bigots even when they accurately critique Muslims for their regressive views on the same social issues that Evangelicals are known for having. And of course I'm talking about how the so-called politically correct Far-Left went after Bill Maher a few years ago for his stances against Islam. Bill Maher is a real Atheist and doesn't just call himself to sound cool with hipsters.

I'm an Agnostic myself simply because I don't know if there is a God or not. As a Liberal I base all my political beliefs as well as non-political beliefs on reason, evidence, and facts. Instead of having faith in some so-called higher being who supposedly always has my best interest at heart. Even though I never met this supposed person. And I'm someone who tends to not have faith in things or people, unless there's good reason and evidence to have faith. But just because you don't know that there is a God, doesn't mean you know there isn't a God. Which is where I separate from Atheists.

A big problem with America especially with young people (I know I sound like a grandfather now) is faddism. This need to be seen following whatever the current trend is especially with whatever fad young cool people are following. If walking down the street or showing up to work wearing nothing but a t-shirt, underwear, and cowboy boots, became a regular thing with whoever the current hot celebrities are supposed to be, you would see thousands if not millions of young Americans doing the same thing. And we would probably see a spike in the unemployment rate as a result, at least with young adults, because those people would get fired right on the spot for completely breaking the company dress code. Spirituality along with Scientology, is a Hollywood hipster fad and when its no longer seen as cool is when it will disappear. But not a movement that I respect or even take seriously.

Source: Koi Fresco: Religion Vs. Spirituality

Democratic Socialist: 'Classical Liberalism and Fascism'

Source:Democratic Socialist- Communists vs Lady Conservative Margaret Thatcher.

Source:The New Democrat  

"Classical Liberalism and Fascism" 

From Democratic Socialist

According to Wikipedia: "Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."

To put it simply: Fascists believe that their beliefs and values are so superior to anyone else's, that people who disagree with them, their beliefs and values are not worthy of being considered and perhaps those people don't have a right to even exist. 

Fascists believe that any opposition to what they believe should not be allowed to exist. Generally one of the first things that authoritarians do when they come to power in a country is attempt to completely shut down the political opposition and put them in prison, if not just murder the opposition. And then they shut down any private media organizations that disagree with their regime and report negative information about the authoritarian regime. Noticed, I haven't labeled Fascists as right-wing or left-wing.

The only governing philosophy that fascism is about is complete destruction of any possible opposition to what the party in power believes in. And for Fascists who aren't in power but would like to come to power, they believe opposition movements to what they believe in and advocate, don't have the same rights to exists, speak, and believe, that they do.

Communism is a governing philosophy.

Democratic socialism/social democracy, is a governing philosophy.

Libertarianism is a governing philosophy.

Religious theocracy or religious nationalism (whether its Christian or Muslim) are governing philosophies.

And then go to the Center-Left with progressivism which is a governing philosophy.

Liberalism is a governing philosophy.

Conservatism/conservative-libertarianism, is a governing philosophy.

But Fascists, similar to Nationalists who are also Fascists, are on both the Far-Left and Far-Right, both in North America and Europe.

Communists who are on the Far-Left, don't believe political opposition to what they believe and advocate, have a right to even exist let alone speak out. 

Right-wing Nationalists who are cultural Marxists and Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right and ethno-Nationalists like the KKK and Neo-Nazis, on the extreme Far-Right, believe that opposition to what they believe don't have a right to even exist, let alone speak out.

Now, liberalism according to Wikipedia:

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.  Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law."

In other word: Liberals believe in individual rights, as well as liberty and equality. Some of those individual rights are obviously Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, as well as Freedom of Assembly. Property rights and the Right to Privacy. 

Communists and even Democratic Socialists, tend to oppose most if not all of these liberal values which are reasons why they're not Liberals, but Communists and Socialists. 

Communists don't believe in democracy because they see it as a  threat to their regime and absolute power over society, even to serve the people. 

Democratic Socialists believe in democracy and even in the right for non-Socialists and even right-wingers to exist. But promote the human welfare and total economic equality, over property rights and individual freedom, both economic as well as personal freedom.

This is an important debate and discussion and debate especially in a time like now and in a country like America where political literacy (for lack of a better term) meaning knowledge of different political philosophies, are so low. Where people get labeled as Liberals by the media and by themselves even though they don't believe in Freedom of Speech (at least for people who disagree with them) don't believe in property rights, and in many cases don't even believe in personal freedom. And yet they get labeled as Liberals even though consistently promote illiberal values over liberal values and have illiberal tendencies instead of liberal tendencies.

The Rubin Report: David Rubin Interviewing Laura Kipnis- 'Feminism Has Been Hijacked by Melodrama'

Source:The Rubin Report- Radical Feminist Laura Kipnis 

Source:The Daily Review

"Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Laura Kipnis (author and professor) about her personal fight with Title IX, why she identifies as a “Leftist Feminist,” her take on modern day feminism, the effect of social media on the rape culture debate, sexual victimization on campus, and more."

From The Rubin Report 

At risk of sounding flip here (which I risk almost all the time) I don't consider myself a Feminist, because I'm a man. I don't believe you have to be a Feminist to believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and in the private sector and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender. I don't believe you have to be a Feminist to believe in equal rights or equal opportunity. Being a Liberal or just a good intelligent person, is all you have to be to believe in equal opportunity. I'm a Liberal, I believe in liberty and equal rights for all. Men and women, of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. So feminism and equal opportunity to me, aren't controversial, but commonsense.

Feminism is not controversial, but what's called radical feminism or what I prefer to call feminine supremacy, this idea that women are simply better than men and therefor women shouldn't be treated worst or equal than men, but better than men and if you don't believe in this you're a women-hating Fascist, this philosophy on the Far-Left in America is obviously very controversial. This idea that men, (well, straight men) are over masculine animals simply looking to conquer women. And that masculinity in itself is a bad thing (unless you're a man-hating dyke Lesbian, or just a Lesbian)  and the reason for all the problems in America and in the world, are because of men and especially Caucasian men especially in America.

So-called radical feminists or what I call feminine supremacists, hate everything that is masculine. They see straight men and straight activities like football, (just to use as an example) as promoting violence in America especially against women. What feminine supremacists don't seem to understand (and this is just one example) is that maybe 1/2 American football fans are women. You watch an NFL or college football game on TV or go to one and just about every other fan there and some games are women. So I guess a lot of women in America and probably most of them believe in feminism, (not including Ann Coulter) again that men and women should be treated equally, but most American women missed the last train on feminine supremacy and don't view men and masculinity in general, as some dangerous narcotic that must be wiped out in order to save society.

I know this is a Hollywood movie and everything, but if you are familiar with the 1970 social satire comedy Myra Breckinridge, Raquel Welch plays Myra a former queen Gay man who becomes a woman and not just a women, but what would be called today a radical feminist or what I call a feminine supremacist that saw her job as eliminating everything that is straight and masculine about men. Other than maybe the physical romantic relationships between straight men and women. Myra Breckinridge bombed as badly as a heavy metal concert in Harlem, or a country music festival in Compton, (not that it was a bad movie) but that movie perhaps has served for the 3-5 feminist supremacists who saw the movie as an inspiration for their feminist-supremacist movement in America.

Laura Kinpis described her politics as back in the day at least as a Marxist-Feminist. Well, that makes sense if you look at what's called radical feminism and what I call feminine-supremacy today. You're either totally in agreement with them, or you're part of the enemy and deserved to be destroyed. And have someone on Twitter who stalks you and has a nasty reply to everything that you tweet. Maybe if someone of these female-supremacists got a job and went to work, they would have less time for Twitter and our unemployment rate would go down even further.

Apparently Laura Kinpis has moderated from Marxist to just being a mainstream Socialist-Feminist, who believes in equality and complete redistribution, but not supremacy. Which goes to show you that there's hope for all radicals in America. If they just cut back on their caffeine intake, try to find hobbies outside of social media and looking at every radical article that is published and do this old fashion thing of thinking for yourself and looking at the world for how it really is and what people really believe. Instead of what the latest hot political celebrity is telling them as some type of God and viewing every word that person says as the golden truth who can never be wrong about anything.