The left does not need to argue with conservatives and other normal people. This is because the left has co-opted language so that clear thinking is impossible. Buzzwords preclude whole serious thought and channel virtually all cognition along predictable and entirely theoretical, rather than empirical, lines.
While leftists can “think” only along these lines, the real danger is that conservatives accept these buzzwords as well, so conservatives also have shackled minds that rely, almost entirely, upon an entire vocabulary created by leftist totalitarianism. A few words and phrases help show how this works.
“Homophobia” is a rickety neologism intended to encompass virtually every variety of analysis of that leftist insistence that homosexuality and its offspring “transgender” and so forth have no problems. In fact, there are at least three different and usually conflicting approaches to this issue.
Judaism and Christianity in their historic forms consider homosexuality a sin. Darwinists, who disagree with Judaism and Christianity in almost every respect, find homosexuality, which dramatically diminishes natural procreation, to be an evolutionary dead end. Psychologists, decades ago, considered homosexuality a disorder. Why, then, lump all these reactions into a single “homophobia” label? It prevents any real serious analysis or reflection.
Along similar lines, the “ideological spectrum,” the idea that political thought can be categorized based on a geometrical model that does not exist and has never really existed, infects virtually everything in political discussion. Even conservatives swallow whole the profoundly silly idea that political positions can be explained by identifying a position as lying along an “ideological spectrum.”
Even more idiotic are those words historically used to calibrate points along the nonexistent ideological spectrum: reactionary, conservative, liberal, progressive, radical, and revolutionary. A sober study of politics is impossible when using these baby words. Thomas Jefferson was simultaneously revolutionary, reactionary, progressive, radical, liberal, and conservative.
As we approach the 2020 election and see that more and more potential and declared Democrat candidates are women, get ready for the dull, dreary, lifeless leftist malediction “sexist!” to be forced more and more into political debate. What was the original argument behind feminism and sexism? Both sexes were oppressed by being forced into roles that…blah, blah, blah. This original argument meant that ending sexism liberated both sexes.
Feminists never really believed in or wanted equality. That would have meant that men would be given equal standing in child custody cases. Women would have the same duty to support a household that men had. Women would not be believed in court simply because a teary-eyed woman evoked more sympathy than an unemotional man. We were all going to be equal in every sense.
But, to paraphrase Orwell in Animal Farm, the real guiding idea was this: “Both sexes are equal, but one is more equal than the other.” This showed up early in symbolic changes. So hurricanes could no longer be named after women, which is also why we speak today of “Father Nature.” (Oh, wait – we don’t!)
Every billboard dealing with domestic violence shows a woman, never a man, as the victim. The “Violence Against Women Act” might as well be called the “Violence Against Aryans Act” because most victims of violence are men, not women. Although women now live longer than men (until 1950, men lived longer), nevertheless, demands for more money to “women’s health” was angrily demanded.
The laws that were passed a century ago in the “Progressive Era” at the insistence of feminists to protect women and children, laws prohibiting factories and mine-owners from employing women and children in the most dangerous jobs, now, magically, became discrimination against women.
Whines from spoiled, rich dopes like Hillary that men earn more money than women are exactly like the similar screeches by Nazis of higher Jewish income – the idea that income was related to effort or skill is summarily dismissed in both cases. The fact that women own more and spend more than men is never mentioned.
As with feminism, all leftist buzzwords and pseudo-ideologies are irrational and immoral. The purpose is to retain some appearance of thought while, in fact, destroying free minds and independent thinking. The key to defeating this misology is to directly challenge the language and assumptions upon which it rests its rickety foundation. That requires us to discard the lexicon shoved upon us and to show moral courage. If we fail in this, our slide into the abyss can only be slowed but never stopped.