There is no doubt whatsoever that the radical left is attempting to push an agenda in America today that more closely resembles fascism than anything else. The problem is the fact that they are in utter denial about it.
They’ve even attempted to use the moniker “Antifa”, short for “anti-fascist”, in the naming of their most radical wing of agitators. You see, under the auspice of being anti-fascist, the left believes that they have carte blanche to “punch Nazis”… a gross oversimplification of the idea of fascism in the first place.
Back in reality, we understand that fascism comes from the desire for homogeny in politics and in the social sphere. It is truly a desire to eliminate the possibilities of dissent, and create an environment where one way of thinking rules over all. This is achieved through revisionist history, censorship, and accusations; all tactics that have found the mainstream over the course of this, the “Trump Era”.
Now, the left is pushing for the banning of certain books on Amazon, based around the faulty idea that the Southern Poverty Law Center has some semblance of authority over the First Amendment.
The vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee is asking Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to stop the retail giant’s “sale of literature and music published by entities identified as ‘hate groups’ by the Southern Poverty Law Center.”
While the letter from U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., later specifies concern about “neo-nazis and white nationalist writers,” his opening, sweeping statement about SPLC-designated “hate groups” should be cause for alarm, writes Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer.
“Clearly Ellison wants Amazon, which has (with Barnes & Noble) a virtual monopoly on book sales in the U.S., to stop selling books by people designated as ‘hate groups’ by the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Spencer writes.
He points out that, like the establishment media, Ellison assumes SPLC is a “reliable, unbiased arbiter of what is and isn’t a hate group.”
The SPLC is not, however, the benevolent organization that the left believes it to be, having long gerrymandered the very definition of “hate” in order to disparage the right wing from influencing the mainstream.
This has led to a number of worries about exactly what agenda is inherent within the organization, and whether or not freedom itself, particularly in the realm of free speech, can really ever have a gatekeeper.
Here’s a hint: Freedom isn’t malleable, nor does it contain any grey areas. You either have it, or you don’t, and Keith Ellison would prefer the latter.