Wordnapping: The Totalitarian Left's Subversion of Language

Kidnapping: The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.

                                                          http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/kidnapping

Criminality is the modus operandi of the Left.  Stalin in his early Bolshevik days robbed banks to help finance the Leninist power grap.  Later when in full-satrapy the Great Oarsman stepped up his game to mass-murder (by the tens of millions), ethnic cleansing and war crimes.  The resume of any A-list Marx-inspired chieftain you care to name – Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot – will be a document of extensive criminality.  

American Bolshevik, Bill Ayers in the early 1970s busied himself with bombing public buildings. His spouse, Bernardine Dohrn, was a capo in the Weather Underground, a Marxist, terrorist cell that bombed police stations and advocated killing “pigs”, aka policemen. She remained on the FBI’s most wanted list for three years.  In that same era the Red Army Faction (Rote Armee Fraktion, aka, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, in Germany and the Red Brigade (Brigate Rosse) in Italy bombed, kidnapped and murdered their way across central and southern Europe. 

Bill Ayers, as noted in Wikopedia, now passes himself off as “an American elementary education theorist” which suggests that the meanings of the words “education” and “theorist” have been mutilated beyond recognition. Unlike some other infamous American criminals like John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and Bonnie and Clyde, the Pentagon bomber managed to coast into a comfortable retirement as a “professor” from the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers). Bernardine Dohrn from 1991 to 2013 was a Clinical Associate Professor of Law at the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University School of Law.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn).  So much for the old saw, “crime doesn’t pay” – tenured sinecures, hobnobbing with future U.S. Presidents, and basking in the glow of ex-radical celebrity-hood are the perks for leftwing terrorist seniors.

And so with at least a hundred years of criminality embedded in the molecular structure of left-wing politicking and governance, the  pathetic grand finale of the 2016 Democrat primary for the White House should not have been a surprise.  It turned out to be a rigged contest between a simple-minded Marxist crackpot like Bernie Sanders, who captured the affection and votes of millions of (particularly young) Americans, and a corrupt, colorless harridan who promised to turn the U.S. into a Peronist-style dictatorship where the rule of law gives way to the 3-Cs of Clintonism, corruption, collusion and coercion.  Her campaign, in the crudest, reductionist terms, was a constantly expanding quest for “clients” who in exchange for their votes get more of the government favors and loot she will dole out.  She referred to the bribes she offers as “investments.”

The descent of American politics into an abyss inhabited by the likes of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter thugs is made possible in part by the corruption of language.  The left resorts to what I call, “wordnapping”, seizing and detaining a word and distorting its meaning to serve as a propaganda tool.  It is now possible to compile a dictionary of words that the left has stripped of their clear, original meanings and are now used exclusively to smear opposition and eliminate dissent.  Below, a few of the hostages they have taken.

Racism: Racism was once simple, clear and straight forward. A racist was anyone who believed that members of his race were superior to those of a different race.  The left, however, in a consummation of Orwellian-style word corruption, has now turned the meaning upside down: “racism” for the left is the recalcitrance of white, European-descendant peoples to acknowledge their unique moral inferiority, i.e. their continuing responsibility for the oppression and exploitation of “people of color” and their refusal to atone for “white privilege”, the vehicle and cause of the continuing pathologies that plague the black community.  To be racist today is to be a white person who is reluctant to engage in the ethno-masochism that is de rigueur in the universities and popular culture.  From “Yes, All White People are Racists and Let’s Do Something about It”, here is the typical braying from one of the many race baiters, a shakedown laced with the usual strains of condescension, calumny and abuse.

What if Americans changed the way they talk about race? What if white people tried to confront their own shortcomings, and accepted that the default presumption should probably be "implicitly racist"? Maybe then, whites would start to work harder, collectively and individually, to show their alliance with (and acceptance of) people of color — through their words, their actions, and their deeds. After all, wouldn't it be better to live in a world where white people made a constant, concerted effort to overcome implicit racism? Particularly when it lurks within themselves.  http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/yes-all-white-people-are-racists-now-lets-do-something-about-it

It should be fairly obvious from this that what we used to understand as “racism” is now a main staple of black “activism” and its extortionist methods.  (See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-left-masters-of-extortio.html) 

“Racism” is the left’s greatest agit-prop triumph of our time, one that even a master of “the big lie” like Joseph Goebbels would be proud to own.  It is increasingly difficult to remember what a “racist” used to be before the invention of “micro-aggressions”, the professionalization of race hustling and the reign of the “diversity” inquisitors. Racism the left wants us to believe has burrowed into every crevice of American society. Which means that its pervasiveness and insidiousness must be comprehended through the mediation of self-appointed experts who unfold its complex taxonomy and illustrate its constantly expanding mutations: “structural racism”, “systemic racism”, “institutional racism”, “individual racism”, “environmental racism”, “economic racism” “covert racism”, “subtle racism”, etc., ad infinitum.  Zeba Blay in a Huffington Post article jumps off the deep end with 11 kinds of racism including such gems as “free speech racists”, “hipster racists” and “voyeuristic racists”, an indication that the word no longer possesses any recognizable boundaries and that those who make a living charging others with it should not be taken seriously, or taken very seriously as twenty-first century versions of Der Stürmer publisher, Julius Streicher, the raging Nazi anti-Semite hanged by the Allies after WWII.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/11-types-of-racists-who-need-to-stop_us_563786e0e4b0c66bae5d088a

Recently President Obama, presumably after perusing the pages of abstruse genetics journals, announced that “racism is a part of our DNA.”  By “our DNA” I assume he means the DNA of the descendants of white slave owners.  Not clear is whether those “white folks”, as he likes to refer to that inferior race, whose ancestors were not slave owners are likewise contaminated by this moral blight, and, by having a white mother, whether his DNA is implicated.  Perhaps further research in genetics will clarify this. 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/US-not-cured-of-racism-its-a-part-of-our-DNA-Barack-Obama-says-citing-legacy-of-slavery/articleshow/47773999.cms 

Twenty-first century “racism” emulates twentieth-century “fascism” – it has become a word empty of specific meaning, used to condemn a critic as, well … a very bad person.  In its routine applications, “racism” is the favorite big club of today’s social justice warriors, to beat up on whatever opposition they encounter in their efforts to limit free speech, rationalize and defend minority criminality and destroy traditional American institutions.  “Racism” is a broad brush assault, perhaps unique in its smearing capacity in that, unlike with other kinds of allegations of moral or legal culpability, once charged, there is no way to demonstrate that you are not a racist. It is possible to prove that you are not a liar, a fool, a rapist, a robber, and a plagiarist; you can never effectively dispute the claim that you are a racist.  No protest or evidence counts. Name one person who has ever been successful in doing it?  Being a racist now is sort of like it was to have “cooties” back when you were in fifth grade.  There was no remedy for the mysterious virus of cooties and you were deemed infected because someone decided that they didn’t like you.   

Hate: “Hatred” is another favored smear of leftwing propagandists, one they employ to remain immune from criticism. “Hatred” for them is the not the usual word one uses to describe that visceral often irrational emotion of loathing one may feel toward someone or some group.  “Hatred” for the left means disapproval. Nothing less than affirmation and approval for their programs and policies for  the 21^st century utopianists can only mean hatred.  If you object to gay marriage, you hate gays.  If you oppose affirmative action, you hate black people. If you favor lower taxes, you hate the government.  If you support the deportation of illegals, you hate Mexicans.  Leftist opponents are not reasonable or considerate, not individuals who have a different, arguable view or perspective about a controversial issue.  They are morally defective, irrational, purple-faced “haters”.  Republicans are now routinely pilloried as “haters” in contrast to Democrats who are all about compassion.

The persistent hate smear in contemporary leftist politics, however, should be understood as a stunning display of psychological projection.  When it comes to frothing-at-the-mouth emissions of visceral loathing and detestation for those of different political persuasion no one can match an aggrieved leftist. Here is New Republic writer, Jonathon Chait, completely unhinged, when having to think about George W. Bush.

“I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too….  And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more…. There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice, or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche.” https://newrepublic.com/article/67136/mad-about-you

During the Presidency of George W. Bush, writers from the “party of compassion” were offering their readership these models of dispassionate political discourse:

The I Hate George W. Bush Reader: Why Dubya Is Wrong About Absolutely Everything (The "I Hate" Series, 2004, Clint Willis, editor);

The I Hate Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice... Reader: Behind the Bush Cabal's War on America (The “I Hate Series, 2004, Clint Willis, editor); 
The I Hate Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage... Reader: The Hideous Truth About America's Ugliest Conservatives (The "I Hate" Series, 2004, Clint Willis, editor)

Hatred for the entire field of Republican, conservative scumbags in 2004 was so popular with Democrat readers, that a publisher series was dedicated to poring out scorn and contempt.  But as we are constantly reminded, the Republicans are the party of hatred – as Chait or one of his colleagues might say, following the lead of Groucho Marx:  "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/grouchomar128465.html

Intolerance: to continue with the practice of psychological projection, leftists love to talk about how intolerant their critics and opponents are on the right.  Once again, a word has been wrenched from it moorings and turned into reflexively-used smear.  “Intolerance” in its corrupted usage mirrors “hatred”.  Anything less than affirmation and enthusiasm for the leftist-defined march of “progress” makes one into a knuckle-dragging bigot.  Recall Presidential candidate, Barack Obama’s condescending sneer in 2008 about those “white folks” who “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them….”  Of course!  The only reason why a white, rural voter would not vote for a black Marxist demagogue who mocks and demeans them is racial bigotry.  No other possibilities exist.

The problem is that the practice of toleration is a tricky business.  A genuinely tolerant person is someone who, even though he finds the beliefs, perspectives and life-style of another objectionable, treats that person in a way that conveys basic human respect and a live-and-let-live attitude.   No one has to be tolerant around people he esteems and approves of: it is only required for someone who confronts people who he in some way or aspect disapproves of, an accommodation of sorts, peaceful coexistence.  Of course, no one is or should be tolerant of everything and everyone, and finding those boundaries is what makes toleration such a tricky affair.  The irony that seems to complete escape the leftists is that they disapprove of conservatives and Republicans (see Jonathan Chait above) but cannot tolerate them.  President Obama and Hillary Clinton refer to them as their “enemies”.  http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3439-obama-calls-his-critics-enemies   You do not tolerate your enemies, you eliminate or destroy them whenever you can.  Intolerance is the inevitable stance of leftist ideology because leftists, believing that they are uniquely virtuous and enlightened, view their competitors for power as corrupt and heartless, atavists submerged in bigotry and ignorance. 

In doing battle with our enemies, “the left” it is extremely important to know their “dictionary”, to recognize their subversion of language.  This will help us to resist the intimidation, refute the falsehoods and expose the hypocrisy.

Moderate Republicans; Velvet Stalinists

Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.

                                               Oscar Wilde

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

                                               Barry Goldwater

Who could be against moderation in one’s personal habits and conduct?  People are usually better off by not doing too much or too little of life’s basics – eating, drinking, exercising, relaxing, etc.   The “mean” was a centerpiece of Aristotle’s ethics – best is a life somewhere in a midway between excess and deficiency.  “Moderation” thus in most any conversation comes with approval and commendation. Extremes are dangerous: extremists are disagreeable and obnoxious.

The word “moderation” applied to an individual’s action or habits both describes and approves of what he does.  A “moderate” drinker is approved of because he habitually hits the proper balance of enjoying the pleasures of a toxic substance with the disciplined, limited (measured) intake of it so as to avoid intoxication and damage to his health.   Pleasure, sobriety and good health are all good things and moderation in this example is what brings these all together in a piece. There is no exact amount of consumption that can describe moderate drinking – “moderation” is inevitably and usefully imprecise and somewhat relative – because circumstances and people are endlessly variable.   

In discussions of politics, however, beware of moderation!  “Moderation” when applied to politicians collapses completely into partisan approbation disguised as analysis and description.  Political pundits and commentators, for example, routinely speak of “moderate Republicans,” a locution they employ to distinguish those so designated from other Republicans – who are what?  “Extreme,” “right-wing,” “radical,” “out-of-the-mainstream.” Moderate Republicans are, in effect, good Republicans, that is, ones that the pundits and commentators approve of.

What then is a “good Republican”?  A good Republican is a Republican who resembles or talks like a Democrat.   The supposed description contained in the phrase “moderate Republican” is really nothing more or less than disguised approval.   The pundit highly approves of Democrats and thus those who insist on distinguishing themselves from Democrats merit approval only insofar as they resemble Democrats.   When the “moderate Republicans” like John McCain or Jon Huntsman compete against other Republicans they are as “moderate Republicans” objects of high praise for the mainstream commentators, but when they eventually come to joust with Democrats, then…well… they are just Republicans and as such members of an inferior, discredited political caste who must then endure the riffs of condescension, derision and contempt from the inhabitants of the fourth estate.

This ideological and partisan use of moderation favored by our mainstream political commentators and reporters is routinely pointed primarily against Republicans and is evidenced by the fact that one rarely if ever encounters the mention of “moderate Democrats.”  If so, who are they?  Who then are the Democrat “extremists” who are distinct from them and who merit the kind of disapproval showered upon Republican “extremists”?   

There are no “moderate Democrats” as distinct from other ones because all Democrats are by nature balanced, reasoned, and above all, moderate.  Thus while there may be some variation among them relative to particular policy, no Democrat will be labeled “extreme” because to be extreme is to be other than a Democrat, outside of that virtuous orbit.  This point can be made with a question:  if President Obama is a “moderate Democrat”, who in the Party represents the extremists on the Left?   
Edward Kennedy as measured on the ideological spectrum was far on the Left region of the Party but at some point in his career he achieved apotheosis and was treated by the mainstream media a pillar of political rectitude, sound reason and moderation. There is some irony in this given Senator Kennedy’s conspicuous lack of moderation in his personal life – his alcoholism, womanizing and abandonment of a young woman companion to drown in the back seat of his car while he conferred with his political handlers.

Since the Kulturkampf of the 1960s pushed American culture to the Left and with it the entire Democrat party, its leading constituents now are composed of teacher unions, trial lawyers and Hollywood actors and directors. The culture-shaping institutions including the universities, the entertainment industry and the media are now dominated by an ideology of collectivism and thus the Democrats as the party increasingly of the Left has established its politics as “the norm” and its candidates as uniquely virtuous, empathetic and rational.  If you are not a Democrat, you are “abnormal,” which is translated by the pundits into the more specific attributes of stupid, mean and greedy.   No longer do the Democrats call themselves “liberals”; they are now “progressives” and since “progress” must be good and what any normal person would desire, non-progressives must be out of touch reactionaries who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them…”

The “moderate “Republican” subterfuge by the contemporary Left is a small part of its practice of “velvet Stalinism”.  Velvet Stalinists share the same premise as their pioneering iron-fisted precursors – power is not to be shared nor critics respected or spared.  President Obama in an unguarded moment made this premise explicit during the 2010 congressional campaign in an interview with Univision when he said: “[W]e're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends ...”   Politics for Stalinists, iron-fisted and velvet, alike, is war. The object thus is to destroy the opposition because it is responsible for all the malignancies that plague society.  In those early days when Stalin was building the socialist workers paradise, the dissenters and unenthused were physically removed from political competition – shot or sent to the Gulag.

Today’s Stalinists not possessing quite the monopoly of force as the General Secretary of the CPSU, deal with their competitors by simply pronouncing them to be unfit, thus there is no obligation have to contest their criticism or ideas.  Nor should they have to since they are by definition “out of the mainstream.”  The competitors are assigned to realm of the stupid, the greedy, the mean-spirited, Fascists, Nazi’s and racists, categories that mean that the opposition should be taken seriously except as a pathological aberration.     

Moderation is wonderful, but it is meaningless in politics.