WHY DO CONSERVATIVES HATE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT?

These concepts are socially constructed and have been given much weight. What are your thoughts?
Post Reply
User avatar
Christina Marie
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9305
Joined: August 11th, 2005, 4:58 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Pennsylvania
What city do you live in now?: From LB to PA
Location: CA

WHY DO CONSERVATIVES HATE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT?

Unread post by Christina Marie » December 29th, 2005, 2:54 pm

On Native Ground
WHY DO CONSERVATIVES HATE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT?
by Randolph T. Holhut
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.

DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- The conservative magazine Human Events recently compiled a list of what it considers the "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries."

The 10 books that their group of conservative intellectuals picked are the ones you might expect conservatives to pick. They are:

1. "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels.

2. "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler.

3. "Quotations from Chairman Mao" by Mao Zedong.

4. "Sexual Response in the Human Male" by Alfred Kinsey.

5. "Democracy and Education" by John Dewey.

6. "Capital" by Karl Marx.

7. "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan.

8. "The Course of Positive Philosophy" by Auguste Comte.

9. "Beyond Good and Evil" by Freidrich Nietzche.

10. "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" by John Maynard Keynes.

Then there were the books that were picked as honorable mention selections, which gives us an even clearer look at what the people who compiled this list are thinking:

- "The Population Bomb" by Paul Erlich.

- "What Is To Be Done" by V.I. Lenin.

- "Authoritarian Personality" by Theodor Adorno.

- "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill.

- "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" by B.F. Skinner.

- "Reflections on Violence" by Georges Sorel.

- "The Promise of American Life" by Herbert Croly.

- "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin.

- "Madness and Civilization" by Michel Foucault.

- "Soviet Communism: A New Civilization" by Sidney and Beatrice Webb.

- "Coming of Age in Samoa" by Margaret Mead.

- "Unsafe at Any Speed" by Ralph Nader.

- "The Second Sex" by Simone de Beauvoir.

- "Prison Notebooks" by Antonio Gramsci.

- "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson.

- "Wretched of the Earth" by Frantz Fanon.

- "Introduction to Psychoanalysis" by Sigmund Freud.

- "The Greening of America" by Charles Reich.

- "The Limits to Growth" by the Club of Rome.

You would expect that any books from authors writing favorably about Marxism, socialism and communism would end up a list like this. But the Human Events panel also doesn't think much of feminism, evolution, progressive education, psychoanalysis, consumer protection, environmentalism or democracy in general.

In other words, most of the ideas and movements that have fueled human progress in the past 150 years are deemed "harmful" in the eyes of conservatives.

I won't get into a debate over the politics of Marx and Engels, but you can argue that, in "The Communist Manifesto," they accurately foresaw the economic force now known as globalization - a seamlessly integrated world where everything is for sale and everything is subject to the pressure of free market competition. And the panel's summation of "Capital," in which they write that Marx portrays capitalists as "inevitably and amorally exploit labor by paying the cheapest possible wages to earn the greatest possible profits," sounds like a spot-on description of globalization.

As for "Mein Kampf," this is the only selection on the top 10 that isn't subject to debate. But you can just as easily plug "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" into this spot. That book, rather than "Mein Kampf," fueled the murderous anti-Semitism that Hitler exploited. And even though it was exposed long ago as a forgery, to this day "Protocols" is still a big favorite with Jew-haters around the world.

And how did Mao make the list at No. 3? The hybrid communist/capitalist society that exists in China today would never happened without the radical social and economic transformations that took place under Mao. In any event, Mao's work is mostly Marx with a Chinese spin on it and seems redundant if you already list Marx and Engels.

Conservatives hate the idea of people enjoying sex, so naturally Kinsey would be high up on the list. What the Human Events panel called "the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy" would be to most Americans an admission that sex exists and people like it. Why else would there be a multi-billion dollar porn industry?

Dewey makes the list simply because conservatives hate free thought almost as much as they hate sex. Instead of using education as a means of social control, Dewey advocated its use to develop critical thinking skills. But of course, people who can think critically aren't likely to become conservatives.

Conservatives have hated Friedan's book ever since it came out in 1963. Challenging the idea of patriarchy is almost as offensive as suggesting sex is pleasurable or that people should think for themselves. It's telling how much the panel hates Friedan when it trots out the old accusations by David Horowitz of Friedan being a "Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America's Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley's radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer."

Red-baiting never goes out of style with this crowd.

Comte is probably the most obscure author on this list, but he shares space with the better known Nietzsche for their rejection of God and religion - another taboo to conservatives.

Keynes makes the list simply because of the heretical (to conservatives) idea that government could spur economic growth in slack times through deficit spending. Never mind that Ronald Reagan was perhaps the ultimate Keynesian in his tripling of the national debt through tax cuts and exorbitant military spending. That brand of Keynesian economics is OK. It's spending for the public good, which Franklin Roosevelt raised to an art form in the 1930s, that upsets conservatives. Deficits are only acceptable if conservatives get wealthy as a result.

In this one little list, you see conservative thought in a nutshell. Any list that would consider Keynes, Darwin, Dewey and Mill as harmful is a list written by idiots. Likewise for people who think "Silent Spring" and "Unsafe at Any Speed" are harmful, unless they truly believe in the freedom to ingest DDT and drive around in unsafe cars is important. And to mention Friedan in the same breath as Marx, Mao and Hitler is breathtakingly stupid.

Kevin Drum had the best response to the list in his blog on the Washington Monthly's Web site. He too picked 10 "books we hate/beg to differ with" and used the same time period the Human Events panel used, but decided to not pick books from Nazis or communists because they "are already well represented on the Human Events list and I just figured it would be more fun to try to come up with ten completely different books."

His picks by chronological order:

- "Social Statics," 1851, by Herbert Spencer, the man who invented "Social Darwinism" and who believed that the state's only legitimate roles are internal policing and foreign protection.

- "Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races," 1853, by Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau, who promoted "scientific racism" and argued that the success of a civilization was in direct proportion to how much "Caucasian blood" they contained.

- "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," 1905, by the Russian secret police, which I've already discussed.

- "The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan," 1905, by Thomas Dixon and Arthur I. Keller, the book that inspired D.W. Griffith's 1915 film "Birth of a Nation" and rekindled interest in the Klan in the early 20th century.

- "The Road to Serfdom," 1944, by Freidrich Hayek, a book that did Spencer one better by declaring that all government intervention, no matter how well-intentioned, leads to totalitarianism. It is among the most influential books in the conservative canon of the last six decades.

- "Witness," 1952, by Whittaker Chambers, the former communist turned red-baiter whose book set the tone for the worst excesses of the McCarthy era.

- "Atlas Shrugged," 1957, by Ayn Rand, a book which has long served as the manifesto for hard-core libertarians. Judging from the responses on Drum's blog, she was the most disliked author and most frequently nominated for the "harmful books by conservatives" list.

- "Capitalism and Freedom," 1962, by Milton Friedman, who did more to promote the glories of unrestrained free market capitalism than anyone in the past 50 years. The Reagan revolution would have been impossible without him.

- "Milestones," 1964, by Sayyid Qutb. You could call this book the "Mein Kampf" of militant Islam. Tortured in Egyptian prisons for 10 years, Qutb wrote this book, which provided in the intellectual underpinning for the brand of Islamic extremism that has swept the Arab world in the past four decades.

- "The Late Great Planet Earth," 1970, by Hal Lindsey, probably the weakest pick on Drum's list. But the book was a huge best seller in the 1970s and the inspiration for the evangelical Christian apocalypse industry epitomized by the "Left Behind" series which has sold more than 50 million copies in the past decade. I would have substituted "The Turner Diaries" by William Pierce - the book that was a big favorite of Timothy McVeigh and many other white supremacists - but it came out after the 1975 cutoff date that Drum used for his list

Lists like Drum's and the Human Events' panel are meant to spur discussion, because ideas, as the conservatives like to say, have consequences. The ideas represented in Drum's list, one can argue, have caused more harm to the world than the Human Events list. But how far a stretch is it to go from listing harmful books to calling for their destruction?

I believe in a world where one can read "Mein Kampf" or "The Turner Diaries" as well as "The Feminine Mystique" or "On Liberty." Education, rather than censorship, is always the best antidote for dealing with bad ideas.

It is not books or ideas that are harmful. Books don't cause genocide. People do, especially people who aren't educated to read critically and question the ideas that are presented to them.

http://www.american-reporter.com/2,799/256.html

3Harmonies
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 86
Joined: December 3rd, 2005, 7:09 am

Unread post by 3Harmonies » December 29th, 2005, 11:59 pm

Conservatives of the United States are Eurocentric Imposers as well.. They think Freedom of thought is a threat on Western Society and its Ideals. I hadn't read the column but I pretty much understand the conservatives thoughts. New immigration and liberal thinking works to change or balance this Euro Nation. Most white-americans deep down inside regardless on their position, yes even the White guy that has 3 kids with the Asian girl, dont want to live in a place where they are not a majority.

User avatar
StillNoScript
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 914
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 1:27 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Sacramento
Location: Alta Califas
Contact:

Re: WHY DO CONSERVATIVES HATE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT?

Unread post by StillNoScript » December 30th, 2005, 1:19 am

- "Unsafe at Any Speed" by Ralph Nader.
LOL. Anyone else catch the author of this op-ed piece trying to morph Ralph Nader in with the likes of Karl Marx and Hitler?

User avatar
StillNoScript
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 914
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 1:27 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Sacramento
Location: Alta Califas
Contact:

Unread post by StillNoScript » December 30th, 2005, 1:24 am

Correction: I meant not the author of the op-ed piece, but rather the editor of 'Human Events' magazine. The author of the op-ed piece was mocking the list.

AcmeWhiteBread
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 741
Joined: February 8th, 2004, 3:49 pm

Unread post by AcmeWhiteBread » December 30th, 2005, 7:00 am

3Harmonies wrote:Conservatives of the United States are Eurocentric Imposers as well.. They think Freedom of thought is a threat on Western Society and its Ideals. I hadn't read the column but I pretty much understand the conservatives thoughts. New immigration and liberal thinking works to change or balance this Euro Nation. Most white-americans deep down inside regardless on their position, yes even the White guy that has 3 kids with the Asian girl, dont want to live in a place where they are not a majority.
Neither do most non whites or they wouldnt be always on whiteys heels. Man, you really ate giant donkey dick on that one.....

3Harmonies
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 86
Joined: December 3rd, 2005, 7:09 am

Unread post by 3Harmonies » December 30th, 2005, 8:08 am

Giant donkey dick? You mean Mexicans? I dont care for Mexicans, too easy to explain how I dont care for them to even mention using vast knowledge of their pathetic history. You have to understand conquering is a never ending game with no rules whatsoever :lol: Dont complain when you visit Thailand and find yourself dead in alley.. robbed and left for dead, it's not my fault..:lol:

User avatar
shadoworder
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 171
Joined: May 22nd, 2004, 12:08 am

Unread post by shadoworder » December 30th, 2005, 10:50 pm

Liberals hate freedom of thought as well,at least with CONservatives you know where they stand,Liberals act like anything goes but you quickly find out when you criticize their sacred cows and their 'Family values'(Minorities,gays,women,Communists etc,etc)that they are even quicker to censor then the right.

AcmeWhiteBread
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 741
Joined: February 8th, 2004, 3:49 pm

Unread post by AcmeWhiteBread » December 30th, 2005, 11:11 pm

3Harmonies wrote:Giant donkey dick? You mean Mexicans? I dont care for Mexicans, too easy to explain how I dont care for them to even mention using vast knowledge of their pathetic history. You have to understand conquering is a never ending game with no rules whatsoever :lol: Dont complain when you visit Thailand and find yourself dead in alley.. robbed and left for dead, it's not my fault..:lol:
Thailand??? That Disneyland compared to Sierra Leone. Spent 3 years there dropping every toad that looked at me crooked. And yes, might does make right. Thats why whitey alwats win... We didnt invent conquering, just perfected it..

User avatar
StillNoScript
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 914
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 1:27 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Sacramento
Location: Alta Califas
Contact:

Unread post by StillNoScript » December 31st, 2005, 3:47 am

shadoworder wrote:Liberals hate freedom of thought as well,at least with CONservatives you know where they stand,Liberals act like anything goes but you quickly find out when you criticize their sacred cows and their 'Family values'(Minorities,gays,women,Communists etc,etc)that they are even quicker to censor then the right.
What youre describing as censorship is criticism. Will the left criticize some right winger who's on a radio station cracking a bunch of racist jokes? Of course. Is that censorship? No. It's criticism.

What conservatives get when they go on insensitive diatribes is criticism. When's the last time one's been fined by the government? Which brings us to Howard Stern. What happened to him was PRESCISELY censorship.

In this country, the left has never really had the power in govenment to censor. It's been pretty much a right wing deal from McCarthy to Bush.

P.S.

I almost spit my coffee out when you said, "..at least with conservatives, you know where they stand."

AcmeWhiteBread
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 741
Joined: February 8th, 2004, 3:49 pm

Unread post by AcmeWhiteBread » December 31st, 2005, 4:52 am

StillNoScript wrote:
shadoworder wrote:Liberals hate freedom of thought as well,at least with CONservatives you know where they stand,Liberals act like anything goes but you quickly find out when you criticize their sacred cows and their 'Family values'(Minorities,gays,women,Communists etc,etc)that they are even quicker to censor then the right.
What youre describing as censorship is criticism. Will the left criticize some right winger who's on a radio station cracking a bunch of racist jokes? Of course. Is that censorship? No. It's criticism.

What conservatives get when they go on insensitive diatribes is criticism. When's the last time one's been fined by the government? Which brings us to Howard Stern. What happened to him was PRESCISELY censorship.

In this country, the left has never really had the power in govenment to censor. It's been pretty much a right wing deal from McCarthy to Bush.

P.S.

I almost spit my coffee out when you said, "..at least with conservatives, you know where they stand."
You two are playing their game. Two arms on the same body fellas. They got you two chasing your tails.....

User avatar
shadoworder
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 171
Joined: May 22nd, 2004, 12:08 am

Unread post by shadoworder » January 16th, 2006, 4:09 pm

StillNoScript wrote:
shadoworder wrote:Liberals hate freedom of thought as well,at least with CONservatives you know where they stand,Liberals act like anything goes but you quickly find out when you criticize their sacred cows and their 'Family values'(Minorities,gays,women,Communists etc,etc)that they are even quicker to censor then the right.
What youre describing as censorship is criticism. Will the left criticize some right winger who's on a radio station cracking a bunch of racist jokes? Of course. Is that censorship? No. It's criticism.

What conservatives get when they go on insensitive diatribes is criticism. When's the last time one's been fined by the government? Which brings us to Howard Stern. What happened to him was PRESCISELY censorship.

In this country, the left has never really had the power in govenment to censor. It's been pretty much a right wing deal from McCarthy to Bush.

P.S.

I almost spit my coffee out when you said, "..at least with conservatives, you know where they stand."
Not true,in many Universities across the USA leftwing radical groups have passed all kinds of draconian laws against sexual harrasment/intimidation,racism.homophobia which have resulted in many students being suspended or even expelled for criticizing Affirmative action,Feminism or gay rights or even making an offcolor joke in private
all the laws that have been passed in various European countries as well as Australia and Canada that make it illegal to sing a Skrewdriver song in public or question the Holocaust have been passed by leftwing orgs as well.
plus their is the unspoken censorship that goes on in the Media on a daily basis(including Hollywood too)where only certain things get emphasized while others dont
as for your ridiculous implication that the FCC is rightwing,so you mean if Rush said the F word on air they would do nothing to him??their have been plenty of public access programs and college radio shows that were booted off the air due to leftist complaints
I know where im living a few years ago their was a public access Radio show
that got the boot because leftists said it was too "hateful"
regardless of who sits in the white house,this country in a Cultural sense has been dominated and run by the left since the 60s

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » January 16th, 2006, 4:38 pm

shadoworder wrote:..... to sing a Skrewdriver song in public or question the Holocaust have been passed by leftwing orgs as well.

Now i could say that only right wingers question the Holocaust....Against all facts...

AcmeWhiteBread
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 741
Joined: February 8th, 2004, 3:49 pm

Unread post by AcmeWhiteBread » January 17th, 2006, 5:03 pm

Sentenza wrote:
shadoworder wrote:..... to sing a Skrewdriver song in public or question the Holocaust have been passed by leftwing orgs as well.

Now i could say that only right wingers question the Holocaust....Against all facts...
BORING BORING BORING, To raise question is not always denying something. The holocaust ( A word they devised for the marketing package ) refers to the mass killing of jews in a systematic way. To question if the technology existed to do it in the way it has been described doesnt mean that at least Im saying jews were not killed in mass. They were, ok so if I just have a problem with the idea of zyklon b being jutted out into the atmosphere without being neutralized and I want an explanation Im a psycho? Or because it takes modern incinerator 8 hours to consume a human body and they claim 25000 a day were being incinerated a day at Aushwitz and I qrinkle my eyebrow at the claim Im insane? You see your tied to emotion here rather than just turning over a couple of stones. I know Jews were murdered and all kinds of wrongs were done to them. That I dont question, its the methods that dont always hold water. Damn is that such a big deal?

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » January 17th, 2006, 9:45 pm

Sentenza wrote:
shadoworder wrote:..... to sing a Skrewdriver song in public or question the Holocaust have been passed by leftwing orgs as well.

Now i could say that only right wingers question the Holocaust....Against all facts...
... actually its a really mixed group, only thing common is they are definitely out of the mainstream. Like that guy who hates America, Iran's new president.... scary for the future there

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » January 18th, 2006, 8:12 am

Well, he is definitely a right winger too.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » January 18th, 2006, 9:09 am

AcmeWhiteBread wrote:
Sentenza wrote:
shadoworder wrote:..... to sing a Skrewdriver song in public or question the Holocaust have been passed by leftwing orgs as well.

Now i could say that only right wingers question the Holocaust....Against all facts...
BORING BORING BORING, To raise question is not always denying something. The holocaust ( A word they devised for the marketing package ) refers to the mass killing of jews in a systematic way. To question if the technology existed to do it in the way it has been described doesnt mean that at least Im saying jews were not killed in mass. They were, ok so if I just have a problem with the idea of zyklon b being jutted out into the atmosphere without being neutralized and I want an explanation Im a psycho? Or because it takes modern incinerator 8 hours to consume a human body and they claim 25000 a day were being incinerated a day at Aushwitz and I qrinkle my eyebrow at the claim Im insane? You see your tied to emotion here rather than just turning over a couple of stones. I know Jews were murdered and all kinds of wrongs were done to them. That I dont question, its the methods that dont always hold water. Damn is that such a big deal?
Thats completely ok.
But if i talk about people denying the Holocaust, i mean people who are denying it. You know that they are out there. Those guys are complete Idiots.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » January 18th, 2006, 10:06 am

AcmeWhiteBread wrote:
Sentenza wrote:
shadoworder wrote:..... to sing a Skrewdriver song in public or question the Holocaust have been passed by leftwing orgs as well.

Now i could say that only right wingers question the Holocaust....Against all facts...
BORING BORING BORING, To raise question is not always denying something. The holocaust ( A word they devised for the marketing package ) refers to the mass killing of jews in a systematic way. To question if the technology existed to do it in the way it has been described doesnt mean that at least Im saying jews were not killed in mass. They were, ok so if I just have a problem with the idea of zyklon b being jutted out into the atmosphere without being neutralized and I want an explanation Im a psycho? Or because it takes modern incinerator 8 hours to consume a human body and they claim 25000 a day were being incinerated a day at Aushwitz and I qrinkle my eyebrow at the claim Im insane? You see your tied to emotion here rather than just turning over a couple of stones. I know Jews were murdered and all kinds of wrongs were done to them. That I dont question, its the methods that dont always hold water. Damn is that such a big deal?
And another thing.

If those Jews have not been killed. Where did those 5-6 Million people go?
So many people just do not disappear from the surface.

Post Reply

Return to “Race and Ethnicity, Racial Relations & Racism”