Social just means whatever communist subversives want. Fair play for unmarried
mother? Check. Fair play for illegal immigrants as in council houses, dole,
medical treatment? Check.
How To Frame A Patriot
Barry Krusch writes about HOW it is done. He is interested in the mechanics of
media manipulation rather than being a sympathizer. It is in .pdf format
unfortunately but well worth a read.
Newspeak for the Oldest Profession
Is a view from someone else on the same theme. He gives us:-
cripple >> handicapped
>> disabled >> differently abled
idiot >> imbecile
>> retarded >> special needs
deaf >> hard of hearing
sodomite >> homosexual
>> gay
also
squatter camps
>> informal housing
illegal immigrants
>> undocumented workers
illegal immigration
>> informal migration
crime
>> informal employment
terrorism
>> informal violence
but not
extortion
>> tax
The Wikipedia takes a public position:-
This article contains
weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies
biased or
unverifiable information. Such statements should be
clarified or removed.
Their public position is a mask for their real agenda.
Review of
Robert Conquest's The Dragons of Expectation - Reality and Delusion in the
Course of History
QUOTE
Even now, when the opening of the Soviet archives has revealed that matters were
even worse than Conquest could prove, one strand of “liberalism” continues
inexcusably to treat the Cold War as a battle not between free societies and
totalitarian dictatorship, but between “ideologies” that, it is implied or even
stated, should be seen as morally equivalent.
UNQUOTE
Ideologies or very different political systems? It is fair to say that America
under Bush is becoming as bad as Russia under Lenin and Stalin.
When Magical Thinking Enters The Arena
QUOTE
I was recently
awoken from a Zyrtec-induced (allergies are the worst) stupor in my American
Revolution seminar class when I heard my professor make an off-handed comment
about “magic words.” Having recently spent an undisclosed number of hours
watching multiple Harry Potter movies, I assumed that he was referring to words
like “Wingardium Leviosa” shouted with a swish and flick of a magic wand.
Needless to say, I was a little off. The magic words he meant have probably
never echoed through the halls of Hogwarts, yet they have become unbelievably
common in our cultural vernacular.
What my professor meant was words like “feminism,” “social
justice,” and “fair share;” words whose meanings are perpetually twisted and
stretched to fit a political agenda. Substantially speaking, these words are
nothing more than fluff. They rely not on rationality, but on emotion.
“Feminism” invokes feelings of female empowerment; “social justice,” feelings of
equality and solidarity. For me, the words “fair share” usually evoke anger and
frustration because of the common misuse of the phrase, but those “magic words”
are intended also to invoke feelings of fairness and equality. While these
“magic words” or broader—“magical thinking” are useful during campaign speeches,
on holidays, or at memorials, when applied to public policy, they take a far
more sinister turn.
When “magical thinking” invades the political arena, tensions
are sure to ensue. Often, one side, either right or left, will hijack a word or
phrase and claim that their definition is absolute. For example, “feminism” is
commonly associated with liberal ideology. However, what does feminism actually
mean? Here’s where the magic comes in. Feminism is commonly
defined as “the
theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” Sounds
good, right? However, once an ideology grasps onto a “magic” word like feminism,
its meaning changes entirely. For the
National Organization of Women,
feminism encompasses the idea of “reproductive rights,” and supports the full
legalization of abortion. However,
Sarah Palin has
advocated for an emerging “conservative feminism,” which includes traditional
family values and a pro-life agenda. Which side’s version of “feminism” is
correct? In short, both of them and neither of them. That’s the magic of
“feminism.” Slap on your own definition of feminism and bang, you’re a
“feminist.” However, I can’t say it’s accurate to put Sarah Palin in the same
category as Gloria Steinem.
“Magical
thinking” is commonly associated with the words “social justice” and “fair
share” as well. Social justice certainly paints a picture of serene equality and
national solidarity, but in action, it often manifests itself as something quite
different. The left-leaning Sojourners
magazine portrays social justice as a concept of equality which encompasses
positions like amnesty for illegal immigrants and affirmative action. I’m all
for justice, but I can’t say I support either of those two positions. However,
that doesn’t mean I’m for social “injustice.” Based upon the nature of “magical
thinking,” the answer might be yes, depending on who you ask. The phrase “fair
share” works the same way. I will personally shell out $10,000 to anyone who can
give me a universal definition of fair share. Fair share is a concept defined
both relatively and individually. It essentially means whatever the person
saying it decides it to mean. For Occupy Wall Street, fair share means a massive
tax increase for the “1%.” However, more conservative Americans tend to believe
that our progressive tax system is unfairly targeting the rich and instead, the
bottom 50% of taxpayers (or non-taxpayers, as the case may be) are not paying
their fair share. Again, I’ll ask the question, whose definition is
correct? It is impossible to tell. This sort of magical thinking makes consensus
and rational debate all but impossible.
“Magic words” are bipolar. What I mean is, if your definition
of a magic word does not align with that of another person, then you must be
“wrong” and they must be “right,” or vice versa. If you’re against the liberal
conception of feminism, well then you must hate women. Uneasy about social
justice? You must, therefore, support injustice. If your concept of “fair share”
is too small, then you must hate the poor. It’s a vicious cycle, but one to be
expected. “Magic words” have to power to induce brief euphoria, but fade quickly
when actual policies come into play. This makes political debate all but
impossible. How can you possibly argue against amnesty for illegal immigrants
when your opponent labels it “social justice?” Sure, you can bring up solid
facts and a rational argument, but it’s still impossible to escape the
accusation that you are “against” social justice. That’s the true power of these
“magic words.” Bring them up in an argument and you’ve won, regardless of
whether your facts are accurate or your points logical. Who wants to argue
against fairness, equality, or even freedom for that matter? Magical thinking
and magic words must stay where they belong on the campaign trail and in holiday
speeches, where a politician’s main goal is to invoke passion or create
solidarity. When it comes to deciding public policy or arguing the facts in a
political debate, leave the magic words at the door. Progression is all but
impossible if we are not able to rely on reason and facts instead of meaningless
words and “magical” thinking.
Amy Lutz | Saint Louis University | Saint Louis, Missouri |
@AmyLutz4
UNQUOTE
Miss Lutz has brains and beauty; a good combination.
