Saturday, December 12, 2015

The war of words.

By Justin Esthay

In a previous post I conveyed what the the left's agenda represents tangibly. In this one I will endeavor to convey one significant method by which it is being (and has been) accomplished. This post, like those which preceded, is not meant to be a comprehensive exposition. It's meant merely to convey the fundamental motivations of their agenda and how they advance it.

Some of it, particularly the initial portions, will naturally seem quite abecedarian. But I encourage the reader to press on with an open mind and, though it may seem hyperbolic, belief that your future as a free human being is contingent upon understanding what you're about to read.

• How Language Works

Words themselves mean nothing. That's why foreign languages are unintelligible to you. There is no inherent meaning in the sounds and symbols we apply to things, but rather meaning is derived from the mental imagery you associate with them.

Example: This morning I went jogging in a red sweatsuit, and there was lots of dew on the ground.

While reading that it's possible that a person running in bright red clothing, starkly contrasting against the rest of the environment, sweat dripping from his brow, droplets of water clinging to blades of grass gleaming in the morning sun, flashed through your mind. It almost certainly did after reading the words directly preceding this sentence.

This illustration is merely meant to convey that the meaning of a word is derived from the mental imagery one associates with that word. Early languages largely consisted of pictures; the word was an image of the thing it represented. Whereas today through memorization, we mentally associate an image with a word to derive meaning, which allows for far more efficient communication. (And as we shall see, ironically, more efficient manipulation.)

You're taught to associate imagery with words and sounds from essentially your earliest days. When your mother teaches you the word cup, she holds up a cup in front of your face and says the word "cup" repeatedly, inducing you to associate the sound with the object over time. Once you're an adult, having done this your entire life, it occurs automatically, virtually instantaneously, and almost entirely without thought. And that's part of the reason this agenda has been so successful. It exploits that propensity.

• Language Controls Thought

Many on the Right observe that the statements of Socialists make little or no sense, but few discern the reason why they make no sense. Simply, their statements are not meant to make sense to a critical thinker. They're meant to channel thought in non-critical thinkers, which as we've seen is directed by terminology, in a specific way for a specific purpose.

The definition of delude is:
"to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive."
I now proffer to you, that literally everything a Socialist says, is intended purely for that purpose; to delude the hearer. Furthermore, this is primarily accomplished by simply changing the names of things. As a Fabian Socialist once said, advance Socialism by any name but Socialism. And a prime example of this is the rather well known video of Maxine Waters, in which she accidentally calls Socialism, Socialism, and upon realizing it her mistake, merely begins describing Socialism without using the term "Socialism."

Socialism, if presented honestly, would be utterly unmarketable. You can't run on a platform, at least not initially, of tyranny, sexual depravity, confiscating all private property, murdering babies, and banning Christianity.
"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. ... There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them." - Upton Sinclair, a congressional and gubernatorial candidate, recounting in 1951 how he garnered more support by changing his party affiliation from Socialist to Democrat.
So Socialism is essentially the art of deception through misappellation, for the purpose of marketing a bad thing as a good thing. By changing labels, because words control thought, you change perception. The brighter amongst us will experience cognitive dissonance, at least on some level, when this is done. The low information voter (Democrat), however, will not. Their minds will be easily directed by fallacious terminology toward a pre-determined false conception, like so many cattle herded into a corral.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! -  Isa 5:20.
Socialists do not win minds through superior argumentation. They win minds through manipulation and by controlling the information to which those minds have access. Both of these are staples of Socialism. In Soviet Russia the official propaganda apparatus for the Socialist state was called "Pravda," which in Russian is "правда," or "Truth;" i.e., the complete opposite of what it actually disseminated. Likewise Socialists in America have infiltrated and monopolized entertainment, journalism, and public education. Because if you control the language (thought), and the information to which people have access, it's all but assured they will arrive at whatever predetermined conclusion the state desires at the time.

Indeed, if you control the former (thought) you may reliably lead people to those conclusions you prefer, even without having control of the latter (information). And this is why leftists will consistently reject the truth when presented with it.

• Leftists Don't Debate They Anathematize

Your typical conversation with a Socialist will go something like this.
Leftist: The sun sets in the east. 
Conservative: No, the sun sets in the west. Look at this map; look which way the sun is going. 
Leftist: You're racist.
It's virtually impossible to induce a leftist to concede the truth through debate, because all leftists are relativists, and relativism is a form of psychosis. So, even were you to provide overwhelming and irrefutable proof that the sun does in fact set in the west, the leftist would simply resort to denying the existence of epistemological objectivity altogether, by claiming a belief in such is an ethnocentric perspective and that directions are a social construct.

But I digress. For the purposes of this contribution, we're focusing on the more immediate and short answer; "you're racist."

In the same manner that misappellation induces one to perceive a bad thing as good, it can also be used to make one perceive a good thing as bad. Just as leftists apply pleasant labels to subversive groups, they also apply unpleasant labels to their traditionalist opposition. Pagan sodomites are labeled "gay," and opposition to this proletarian faction is assiduously labeled with terms like "bigot," and accused of "hate," etc. And in addition to existing words, they even make up their own, such as "homophobe" or "transphobic" toward the same end.

This is a nuanced stratagem that serves multiple purposes.

• Moral inversion: If you oppose any portion of the leftist platform, you will be construed as opposed to the specious label, instead of their actual position. Anyone who opposes "gay rights," for example, will be construed as opposing people having rights as rather than an opponent of perversity and disease. And through this misappellation a narrative is set which consistently casts the opponent of Socialism preemptively as the villain.

• Obfuscation and redirection: The discussion is altogether shifted away from the actual issue. Instead of debating the merit of engaging in sodomy, a behavior, and the #1 source of HIV/AIDS and syphilis infection, people are instead manipulated into abstract dialogues about non-existent "rights," in which their mere participation grants validation. You are through the specious terminology being deliberately redirected away from the actual topic, and onto another, opposition to which portrays you negatively and which therefore behooves the Socialist.

(It should be understood that if you allow terminology like "gay rights" to go unchallenged in a debate, you have already lost, because you have been manipulated into acknowledging, and even accommodating, something that simply does not exist by Founding American law.)

Once you understand these things, you will realize as stated earlier, that every time a Socialist opens their mouth they're lying. And from this you should reach the natural conclusion that Socialism is inherently evil, because the average person must be tricked into adopting Socialism, by portraying it as something it's not.

• Christianity/charity: What's mine is yours.

• Socialism: What's yours is mine.

Socialism is organized theft marketed as altruism, it is criminality marketed as charity, it is tyranny marketed as liberty, and even apostasy marketed as Christianity, etc. It is invariably the utter opposite of what its proponents claim, and so are its proponents, who even conceal who they truly are and what they really want through specious terminology. Everything they purport to be, and everything they claim to support, is a lie.

The goal for any Socialist is not win a debate by presenting a viable argument. It's purely to assiduously attach negatively perceived labels to an opponent, thereby inducing others to dissociate with the target of the attacks, and to send a subconscious message to onlookers that this is what happens to you if you hold this opinion. This message is also interminably disseminated through popular culture, via entertainment in which Socialism is consistently portrayed in a positive light, or as "cool," in contrast to traditionalist elements which are consistently derogated, mocked, and subjected to farcically satirical interpretation.

That video is, as with all other things leftist, a complete inversion of reality. Socialism is the Utopian ideology, and yet that's how "Republican Town" is portrayed by leftist Seth MacFarlane. But the motif is virtually always the same. The "hip" person is assumed to be in alignment with the Socialist platform, and those who aren't are simply out of step with chic leftist sentiment.

• The Hierarchy Of The Left

There are two kinds of leftist.

1. The aristocracy: These are the lucid subversives who know everything they say is a lie, and lie specifically for the purpose of advancing Socialist tyranny. This element, e.g., Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc., are but a tiny minority.

2. The useful idiots: These are the easily inveigled lemmings who accept every statement from the former contingent at face value, and obliviously advance that agenda by subscribing to and regurgitating those lies by rote. They comprise the vast preponderance.

One will recognize this dynamic in our own society. When Donald Trump proposed a policy contrary or detrimental to the Socialist establishment (banning Muslim immigration), the Socialist aristocracy (#1) immediately began anathematizing him, and the average Democrat and "moderate Republican" (#2) immediately followed suit. They should also recognize that the latter's participation, conveys that the Socialist left's subversion of thought is now so ubiquitous, that even their "opposition" is often beguiled into protecting and advancing Socialist interests.

It must be understood that both of these contingents, 1 and 2, must be dealt with the same way. If someone set about to burning down your house, whether motivated by malice or delusion, the outcome is the same for you regardless. Thus it is with saving the domicile of our nation. The former is engaged in evil of their own volition and therefore cannot be redeemed. Period. Neither can the latter be redeemed through "argumentation." The deluded are virtually never coddled into reformation. They must be austerely confronted to induce correction.

They should not, ever, be "tolerated."

The left encourages coddling of subversives precisely because they know it enables as opposed to trammels them. And thus one of the most frustrating things for me to witness over the years, is how egregiously oblivious the leadership of the Right is to all of this. Not only are they plainly ignorant of the enemy's strategy, but they even incessantly facilitate it by adopting the terminology of the enemy.

It must be understood that if you adopt the (leftist) term, you accept the (leftist) premise, and if you accept the (leftist) premise you are complicit. Once you begin using words like "gay," "liberal" "progressive," "pro-choice," etc., you've not only stopped effectively opposing the left but you're actively advancing their agenda for them, by using rhetoric that is beneficial to their interests and detrimental to yours. You also suppress opposition to their agenda in others, by using terminology which induces the same false conceptions about right and wrong in those listening.

I often use a pathological analogy to convey this principle. A disease cannot be cured unless it is first accurately diagnosed. Likewise, if a subversive element is never accurately identified, it cannot be effectively resisted. And if you pay attention, leftists invariably change the label of subversive elements, or simply refuse to acknowledge them as such precisely for the purpose of suppressing said resistance.

There's a reason leftists refuse to refer to Islamic terrorism as "Islamic terrorism." The left is a doctor who deliberately poisons a patient (America), and then subsequently misdiagnoses the malady and proposes more injections of poison as the remedy, in order to ensure the patient's demise. So what are you accomplishing, if not to aid and abet the doctor poisoning the patient (even if only obliviously), by likewise disseminating his erroneous diagnosis?

By preventing subversive groups from being identified, those groups are permitted to advance their subversive agendas with less (or no) opposition, and proliferate exponentially within our borders.

Opposition is further suppressed by anathematization. People are disinclined to oppose a certain group or behavior, if doing so results in their prompt vilification. The neighbor of the San Bernardino shooters plainly illustrated this truth, by expressing that he said nothing about suspicious activities he witnessed, for fear of the derogation to which he would be subjected for reporting it.

Knowing all of this the point of various leftist policies becomes blatantly clear.

• Diversity and Anti-discrimination

Diversity campaigns and anti-discrimination laws facilitate the Socialist infiltration of various institutions, and subsequently prevent infiltrated institutions from expelling such subversives. Indeed, they're not even allowed to acknowledge that a subversive is in fact subversive. A flagrantly hostile Muslim with terrorist sympathies, who advocates the implementation of Sharia law in the U.S., must by law be viewed and treated as no different than a Christian patriot. To do otherwise can result in profound punitive repercussions.

But we as individuals, if we hope to reverse this, must discriminate. And paramount in this endeavor is labeling things correctly and attacking specious nomenclature. It's impossible to effectively rebuke as bad, something you simultaneously acknowledge to be good with your own lips. Referring to the malicious attacks upon free Christian civilization as "gay rights," is tantamount to rebuking the act of rape, by referring to the rapist as your "spouse" and the act as "lovemaking." It's completely and utterly self-defeating. But that's what the Right consistently does, and then it obtusely wonders why its message suffers diminutive efficacy. Sodomites assault religious liberty, and the Right rebukes "gay marriage," instead of Socialist tyranny.

It must also be understood that by using their terms, any debate is preemptively "rigged" in their favor. No Conservative should ever refer to Socialists, sodomites, and baby killers, as "liberals," "gays," and "pro-choice." These misappellations must be addressed and corrected from the outset, or you will spend the duration of any dialogue, perceived by the dimwitted as a bad person criticizing good things.

This is not optional. The preservation of traditionalist American society depends upon rectifying this. If Socialists continue to vilify traditionalist elements unchecked, and the latter continues affirm their fallacious paradigm by adopting their language, we are all but doomed. The battle to reclaim the minds of the populace begins (but certainly does not end) with reclaiming the language. And this should be done aggressively and unapologetically. It should be the first step amongst a multi-faceted campaign that, for the sake of brevity, I shan't articulate here.

In conclusion the summation of this contribution is thus. Call things what they are, never the misnomers that Socialists apply to them, and zealously point out and expose such.

That is the first step to reversing our current woes.
Blogger Widgets