Bør konservtive bli hardere i klypa i kampen for ytringsfriheten? Sett på bakgrunn av det følgende, bør svaret bli ja:
Utgangspunkt: Vi har i de siste månedene sett at et samlet mediakorps i USA har gått hardt ut mot Trump fordi han ikke innkalte Nasjonalgarden for å slå ned – den nesten ublodige - «opprøret» eller «stormingen» av Kongressen i januar i fjor.
Samtidig ser man at det samme mediakorpset kommer med nådeløs kritikk og beskyldninger om fascisme/nazisme når en avis og en kongressmann etterlyste nettopp Nasjonalgarden under de blodige Floyd opptøyene året før.
Og da er det noe som ikke stemmer; som om det var en faretruende utvikling på gang, en utvikling som kan true både trosfrihet og ytringsfrihet. (Jeg minner om at en av liberalismens fedre, John Lock, var for religionsfrihet for alle i England, den gang, men ikke for katolikker.
Like dan puritaneren Bunyan, i Pilgrims Progress: BUNYAN CHALLENGED THE QUAKERS in a number of his works. His first book, in fact, was an attack on Quaker beliefs. Quakers must be opposed: “a Christ crucified within, dead within, risen again within, and ascended within, in opposition to the Son of Mary, who was crucified without, dead without, risen again without, and ascended in a cloud away from his disciples into heaven without them (Acts 1:9-11).” her
Som
Pascal sier: And
is it not obvious that, as it is a crime to disturb the peace when truth
reigns, it is also a crime to remain at peace when truth is being destroyed?
There is therefore a time when peace is just and a time when it is unjust.
Weaklings are those who know the truth, bur maintain it only as far as it is in
their interest to do so, and apart from that forsake it. (Eugene Peterson:
You’re blessed when your commitment to God provokes persecution. The
persecution drives you even deeper into God’s kingdom … ).
Vi skal dele noen perspektiver på disse grunnlagsspørsmålene
i det følgende, i håp om større ekte ydmykhet, for slik å kunne stoppe
fremtidige mediadespoter som i dag skilter med at de støtter trosfriheten, men
de i praksis har vist helt andre takter.
Den
kjente amerikanske journalisten, W Lippmann, insisted on at least a façade of
nonpartisanship, despite his own elitism: “Empathetically the journalist ought
not to be serving a cause, no matter how good. In his professional activity it is
no business of his to care who’s ox is gored … As the observer of the signs of
change, his value to society depends upon the prophetic discrimination with
which he select those signs”.
Konservatismens far, Edmund Burke, her, som var en varm tilhenger av amerikanernes blodige frigjøringskrig med England, skriver: On the Reflections on the Revolutions of France, en annen blodig revolusjon han gikk sterkt imot:
Some interesting analysis of Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolutions of France: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/edmund-burke-intellectuals-french-revolution-part-3
Burke on prejudice:
In a very controversial manner, Burke defends the notion of prejudice, and speaks about how the English uphold their prejudices or “untaught feelings” of what is right or wrong based on prejudices passed through generations. It seems ludicrous initially as it seems that we as society try to strive towards justice by abandoning prejudice and unreasoned emotions and feelings towards another, and relying solely on rational principles and facts to determine what is right or wrong in order to govern a body.
A government driven by emotion and prejudice in any way or form is what we would normally regard as a corrupted government. Yet, Burke defends prejudice by drawing upon the nature of human beings. Humans are emotionally driven beings that rely on their sentiments to make decisions. He condemns those who support the Revolution and preach of a completely just government that could rule solely on reason as one such perfectly rational entity could never exist since humans are driven by sentiments and humans make up the government. He continues his argument that our natural sentiments can be destructive or civilized, and it is through civilized sentiments that can uphold some degree of order or justice in a society. Yet, he does not believe that we can civilize our sentiments on ungrounded zealous deliverance of justice and righteousness like that of those part of the Revolution. Instead, it is civilized through adopting past values and customs, along with past prejudices. I think this idea is quite opposite of Smith’s idea of an impartial spectator in Theory of Moral Sentiments, because the impartial spectator is needed to remain impartial and not be swayed by previous bias in order to sympathize with someone, whereas Burke supports holding onto prejudices and sentiments to, ironically, civilize our sentiments to create order and justice.
Hvem ligner Burke på her? Jo, på en revolusjonær og meget innflytelsesrike filosof, H Marcuse, som hadde mer enn en finger med i spillet rundt «venstrerevolusjonene» i 68 ff.
Herbert Marcuse, her
… Under the
rule of monopolistic media--themselves the mere instruments of economic and
political power--a mentality is created for which right and wrong, true and
false are predefined wherever they affect the vital interests of the society.
This is, prior to all expression and communication, a matter of semantics: the
blocking of effective dissent, of the recognition of that which is not of the
Establishment which begins in the. language that is publicized and
administered. The meaning of words is rigidly stabilized. Rational persuasion,
persuasion to the opposite is all but precluded.
The avenues of entrance are closed to the meaning of words and ideas other than the established one--established by the publicity of the powers that be, and verified in their practices. Other words can be spoken and heard, other ideas can be expressed, but, at the massive scale of the conservative majority (outside such enclaves as the intelligentsia), they are immediately 'evaluated' (i.e. automatically understood) in terms of the public language--a language which determines 'a priori' the direction in which the thought process moves. Thus the process of reflection ends where it started: in the given conditions and relations. Self-validating, the argument. of the discussion repels the contradiction because the antithesis is redefined in terms of the thesis. For example, thesis: we work for peace; antithesis: we prepare for war (or even: we wage war); unification of opposites; preparing for war is working for peace. Peace is redefined as necessarily, in the prevailing situation, including preparation for war (or even war) and in this Orwellian form, the meaning of the word 'peace' is stabilized. Thus, the basic vocabulary of the Orwellian language operates as a priori categories of understanding: preforming all content. These conditions invalidate the logic of tolerance which involves the rational development of meaning and precludes the 'closing of meaning. Consequently, persuasion through discussion and the equal presentation of opposites (even where it is really, equal) easily lose their liberating force as factors of understanding and learning; they are far more likely to strengthen the established thesis and to repel the alternatives.
https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html-
They (Frankfurterskolen) wanted to find the particular reasons why someone in the past had thought in a particular way, reasons that were to be found mainly in external factors. Essentially, the Frankfurt School endeavored to establish a “value-free” social science, that is, the erasure of any sort of prejudice among philosophers and sociologists. Since Western civilization was monomaniacally seen as the history of dominations by various groups over one another—which meant that individual actors had to be viewed as purely nefarious oppressors—it followed quite naturally that much of the West was ready for the garbage heap. Not only were the workers and the poor oppressed by the rich, but the rich in turn were, along with everyone else, oppressed psychologically by Christian sexual mores and by the overall familial hierarchy of Western civilization. This is why, to many of the school’s members, not only smaller fixes had to be implemented here and there, but the whole edifice had to be brought down (which was itself ultimately a morally positivistic effort). With the rise of Nazism in Germany, many Frankfurt scholars moved to New York, and thereby gained a broader audience of impressionable college students. https://quillette.com/2022/03/02/herbert-marcuse/
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/04/ukraina-og-den-kristne-avisen-dagen-i.html
Litt mer om Lippmann, nevnt over: During the 1920s, Walter Lippmann expressed his growing doubts about the epistemic capacities of the journalistically informed mass public, and John Dewey published three responses to these doubts—none of which grappled with the interpretive problems that Lippmann saw as the barrier to an adequate understanding of modern society. Rather than lamenting the mass public’s lack of knowledge, as Dewey did, Lippmann was mainly worried about the inevitably biased stereotypes by means of which journalists and their readers winnow down overabundant knowledge into coherent interpretations. Dewey’s hopes for a new form of journalism, his faith in ordinary people’s knowledge of the problems afflicting them, and his ideas for a new social science failed to confront this problem of interpretation. However, Lippmann’s own solution, early in the debate, was an epistocracy of statisticians, which also failed to confront the interpretive problem he had identified. The debate ended, then, with neither engagement nor resolution.
https://academic.oup.com/book/33623/chapter-abstract/288135288?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
Nå over til det aktuelle, nære og “evolusjonære” Amerika
av I dag, hvor journalismen og media fremviser klare tegn til forflatning,
irrelevans og samtidig oppvise klare tendenser mot en stadig mer omseggripende totalitarianisme
som vil knuse den tros- og ytringsfrihet som den livnærer seg av, (snakk om å
undergrave seg selv, på litt sikt – de samme tendenser kan vi se i Norge i dag,
uten t noen bryr seg, men det er og finnes og funnets «tegn» i lang tid nå, se
hva som skjedde i USA:
Konservative
Ben Shapiro: Our
New Ruling Class journalists don’t bother. These journalists argue that the are
actually better journalists than their forbears who attempted to provide a
variety of viewpoints in any controversy. Real journalists, they say,
don’t engage in “false balance – meaning, respect for a side other than their
own. Real journalists, they say, bring their own experiences to bear. Real
journalists, they say, are crusaders rather than passive observers. s 171
ff
In June
2020, Ben Smith of the New Yorker, observed: Lowery’s view that
news organizations’ core value needs to be the truth, not the perception of objectivity,
as he told me, has been winning in a series of battles, many around how to
cover race … The shift in mainstream American media – driven by a journalism
that is more personal, and reporters mor willing to speak what they see as the
truth without worrying about alienating conservatives. now feels irreversible
…” Lowery now believes that the
“American view-from-nowhere, objectivity-obsessed, both- sides journalism is a
failed experiment. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a
place of moral clarity”.
The religious wokeness that infuses our newsrooms is enforced daily. It turns out that “moral clarity”
often looks like the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects it, bur at this point everybody should. …
The battle
is truly between authoritarian leftist and liberals …
Ben Shapiro mocks NY Times' 'fully insane' apology over Cotton op-ed: 'Don't yell at us! We're woke!' By Yael Halon | Fox News
The New York Times' "delusional" apology over their decision to publish an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton -- which caused Gray Lady staffers to lash out at their employer --is "fully insane," and represents "absolute cowardice" on behalf of their editorial board, Ben Shapiro asserted Friday.
"The move toward 'America is evil, systemically racist and therefore the only way to fix that is to shut down all the voices we don’t like...' is being made by the whole staff at the New York Times," the "Ben Shapiro Show" host argued.
In the piece
published Wednesday,
Cotton called on the federal government to "send in the
troops" to quell violent uprisings over George Floyd's death. However, what was described as an
"open revolt" took place among dozens of Times staffers with all of
them tweeting in unison, "Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in
danger."
"Put them in danger...why?" Shapiro responded. "Are they rioting and looting? Are they flinging Molotov cocktails at cop cars? If not, they probably shouldn’t feel super endangered by this.
"It’s
not really the threat of violence," he went on. " It’s the belief
that the only way to make a better America is to repress voices you don’t
like."
After Times editorial page editor James Bennet and Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger defended the op-ed, a spokeswoman released a statement Thursday evening claiming Cotton's piece never should have been published.
"We've
examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review
made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed
that did not meet our standards," the statement read. "As a result,
we're planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include
expanding our fact-checking operation and reduction the number of op-eds we
publish."
"If
you are saying that you cannot print an op-ed from a sitting U.S. senator, a
Harvard law graduate…who is writing a piece about the use of the military
against rioting and looting…you are not only not in the mainstream, you are
fully insane," Shapiro responded.
The outspoken conservative pointed out that staffers outraged over Cotton's op-ed were seemingly not fired up enough to quit, but that "they just want to bit-- about it so that the pusillanimous cowardly upper management would apologize for running a piece that 58 percent of Americans agree with.
"This
was just 'please please don’t yell at us! Don't yell at us, we're woke we're
woke!'" he mocked, adding "the amount of cowardice in corporate
America is stunning. "Absolute cowardice."
"If
you are saying that you cannot print an op-ed from a sitting U.S. senator, a
Harvard law graduate … who is writing a piece about the use of the military
against rioting and looting … you are not only not in the mainstream, you are
fully insane," Shapiro responded.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ben-shapiro-rips-nyt-cotton-op-ed
Se hva den kristne Reinhold Niebuhr, skriver, også han
har noe av «Marcuse» i seg, ikke bare Lippmann, som nevnt over:
Society
may believe that the preservation of freedom of opinion is a social good, not
because liberty of thought is an inherent or natural right but because it is a
basic condition of social progress. Yet in a given instance the principle of
freedom may have to yield to the necessities of social cohesion,
requiring a measure of coercion. If the state usually errs in throttling
freedom, its error is in using an undue measure of coercion, in applying it
prematurely before efforts to achieve solidarity by a mutual accommodation of
interests have been exhausted, and in exploiting the resultant social
solidarity for morally unapproved ends.
"Human
beings are endowed by nature with both selfish and unselfish impulses. … His
reason endows him with a capacity for self-transcendence"(25).
"Harmonious social relations depend upon the sense of justice as much
as, or even more than, upon the sentiment of benevolence. This sense of
justice is a product of the mind and not of the heart. It is the result of
reason’s insistence upon consistency"
Litt mer
om Marcuse (Frankfurterskolen og kritisk teori, aka 68’erne):
«Marcuse
believes that under such conditions tolerance as traditionally understood
serves the cause of domination and that a new kind of tolerance is therefore
needed: tolerance of the Left, subversion, and revolutionary violence, combined with intolerance of the Right, existing
institutions of civil society, and opposition to socialism.[1] Marcuse claims
that tolerance shown to minority views in industrial societies is a deceit
because such expressions cannot be effective. Freedom of speech is not a good in
itself because it allows for the propagation of error; Marcuse believes that
"The telos of tolerance is truth". Revolutionary minorities hold the
truth and the majority has to be liberated from error by being re-educated in
the truth by this minority. The revolutionary minority are entitled, Marcuse
claims, to suppress rival and harmful opinions». her
Fra min egen penn og bare for å ta ett eksempel eller en innfallsvinkel, sett «i norsk perspektiv»: Men hva med (den norske loven, «diskrimineringsloven)? Er ikke loven mer diskriminerende i seg selv enn den brøde mot fernisset av det selvinnbilte fromme og falskt andektige Merete Hodne gjorde seg skyldig i?
Jo, selvsagt: Loven er en hån mot seg selv. Den undergraver den vakre intensjon den selv setter seg opp til å beskytte. Den beskytter diskriminering av både kvinner og menn. Den beskytter det islamske apartheid, som forankres i en guddommelighet som gjør krav på blind underkastelse, en guddom som fordømmer demokratiet, spesielt det vestlige, men også f eks det kinesiske demokrati, som plasserer partiet som den øverste guddom, men dog en guddom som før eller siden vil falle for folkets rett til opprør, hjemlet i naturrettslige konsepter, ikke i typisk naturrettslige.
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2016/09/hodne-marcuse-og-fugelli.html
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar