Weapons of the Left

The Pathology of the Left is supported by a number of weapons designed to infect their ideology onto the larger society.  Some methods are deceptive in their presentation, appearing on the surface to be valid, logical, and reasonable.  Others are less surgical, relying mostly on brute force.  Most, if not all, are used across all of the Left's pathological mind set.  This is by no means an exhaustive list, but ones I consider to be the most effective, which also means the most dangerous.

Liberating Words from Their Meaning

"...words must be freed from the oppression of reason...the stranglehold of reason upon words is like the exploitation of the masses by the capitalists."  Ayn Rand's Fountainhead

This quote from The Fountainhead has always struck me as fascinatingly prophetic.  Language is a funny thing, especially when one thinks about it long enough.   The basic building blocks of language are words and words have meanings  These words describe and define our world.  But words are not static, and they evolve overtime.  Sometimes this process is long, sometimes it is deliberate, and sometimes it involves a number of different circumstances.  The fact that meanings evolve over time should not be of concern, except when those changes are done deliberately to achieve an ideological outcome.  In our hyper-literate world, meaning humans are producing and publishing ideas at an unparalleled rate, the chances for words evolving increases exponentially.  Because no one can copyright a word (I know there are some exceptions...trademarks, etc) or force people to use it accordingly, words are left to the imagination of the users.  When people have this freedom, words begin to be used in many creative ways.  It is like the word "literally."  Literally every person I know uses the word "literally" in a figurative manner.  Isn't that strange?  But back to my point...When words are used with other words, they present ideas.  The validity of an idea is directly related to the accepted standards to which the words are used to express the idea.  Thus, if one wants to have a valid idea, but the meanings and logical use of the words do not provide them the opportunity, then the obvious solution is to liberate the words from their meanings.  Think how convoluted these recent statements from leftists are: "Speech is violence"; "Silence is violence".  To make sense of this takes some logical gymnastics.  Essentially people have redefined three words that have accepted meanings.  However, it is clear "speech", "silence" and "violence" all need to be understood in a different light.  Clearly all three words apparently mean something completely different than what  I understand them to mean.  Same goes for the word "hate".  I think the Left has transformed that word to mean to disagree with the Left.  

The Left are masters at manipulating words and their meanings to aid in their ideological goals. Most of the efforts are focused allegedly discrimination or prejudice.  The most popular of these are racism, sexism, and homophobia or transphobia.  Each of these concepts have evolved significantly over the years and much more rapidly as of late.  In the last part of the 20th century, racism was broadly understood to mean, one who dislike or disparages another person based solely on the color of their skin.  That definition did not suit many on the left or their ends, and so it became more nuanced and refined.  Racism was no longer explicit behaviors but the more difficult to identify implicit attitudes.  Most recently, racism not only encompasses what you implicitly think, but also what your silence may imply, or what your lack of appropriate empathy reveals.  It also includes any words or phrases that may or may not be references to racism that nobody recognizes currently, or did not know until the New York Times told them it was racist.  Essentially, racism is what ever is convenient for the Left to push its ideas and silence their opponents.  Homophobia and transphobia has gone similar transformations to include anyone who disagrees with them.  Ask J.K. Rowling about her attempt to say that biological women are different from transwomen. 

To redefine words, there are a number of strategies to employ.  The first and most widely used is the constant use of the word in the new and intended way.  Many people will notice the misuse of the word and usually shrug, some might push back and say "You keep using that word.  I don't think you know what it means."  Overtime, people stop arguing over the use of the word and move on to the substance.  However, when that happens, it is an acquiescence of the word's meaning.    Repetition, however,  is the key.  Eventually, it becomes accepted as its new meaning.  Another strategy to change the meaning of words is to attack and shame anyone who attempts to challenge the new meaning.  For the Left does not like having their ideas challenged by those not worthy to challenge them.

Disparities and Disproportional Outcomes 

Similar to their approach with language, the Left deliberately and deceptively presents quantitative data to buttress their weak arguments.  Their's is a facade of factual data parading as hard and fast truths.  The problem is when you start to examine their data further, one often finds that their facts do not equate with the truth they are trying to peddle.  This is because humans, along with their societies, governments, and cultures are quite complex and require a thorough analysis of multiple variables and their dynamic relationships.  However, the Left often takes data that shows merely a relationship between two variables and attempts to extrapolate a cause from that relationship.  In statistics, this is called a causation error.  Just because two variables are related does not mean one causes the other.  To the Left, these relationships prove their predetermined beliefs.

  

The most glaring example of the Left's malfeasance with data is their infatuation with disparities of outcomes, especially as it relates to race, gender, and sexual orientation.  Disparities in outcomes means that there are unequal distributions among different variables, meaning they are disproportional. Being disproportional is the extent to which something is too big or too small in comparison to something else.  In other words, if the percentage of blue eyed people in America was 10%, then one would expect that nearly all categories of people (types of jobs, death rates, cancer patients, etc) would be roughly 10%.  If, say 30% of all cancer patients were blue eyed, we would say that is disproportional.  When the Left looks at data that shows disparities or disproportional outcomes, they immediately and reflexively claim that it proves an injustice that is the result of something malicious.  Here are a number of examples:

• The disproportional amount of African Americans incarcerated is a result of systemic racism in the justice system.
• The disparities in pay between men and women is proof of the patriarchal oppression
• The disparities in SAT scores is proof that standardized test scores are inherently racists.
• The disproportional amount of suicides among LBGTQ community is proof of a homophobic and transphobic society.

I could go on, but you get the point.  I will admit that race, gender, and sexual orientation may be a contributing factor, but I will argue strongly that it is not the causing factor.  All of these disparities should elicit concern and curiosity that promotes a deeper analysis.  Unfortunately, what we get are knee jerk reactions and pontifications from the Left and their propaganda machines that racism, sexism, et. al are responsible.  

It is interesting to note that there are plenty of disparities that the Left routinely overlooks without so much as a peep.  You will never hear the Left discuss the educational disparities between males and females that are currently present.  Nor will you hear any complaints that nearly all of the sexual assault offenders are males, or that those laws need to be replaced because of their inherent sexism.  Again, I can go on, but you get the point.  Disparities exist for a whole bunch of reasons, but attempting to simplify it down to a single reason such as race, is not very, shall we say, intellectual.

But the Left loves to use data, because it makes them feel like they are engaging in a scientific approach.  It provides them with a sense of relying on empirical evidence.  In reality, they reduce complex issues to appeal to the emotions of people, which is the exact opposite of scientific inquiry and intellectual integrity.  However, real understanding of the issue is not the purpose.  This type of data and the illogical reasoning used to defend it, is designed to give the Left cause to pursue, an oppression to pummel, and an injustice to puncture.  Furthermore, it also makes them feel like they are on the morally superior side.

The Narrative

The Left's assault on language and their deliberate misuse of data all are a part of their attempt to promote their narrative.  Simply put, narrative is a perspective and understanding of life's events, contexts, and outcomes.  Narratives provide us with a way to understand what happened in the past, make some sort of sense about the present, and to predict what will come in the future.  Narratives are much like a story in that regard.  They take all of the life's happenings and weave them into an account that allows us to make sense of the world in which we live and to rationalize our place in it.  In other words, narratives are a processing mechanism that takes all the incoming information and sorts it out, orders it, and packages it.  When we receive information that is contradictory to our narrative, we deal with the dissonance by retreating to ideologically friendly confines in hopes to be reassured that our narrative is correct.

Narratives are a part of the human experience and everyone of us has our own, as does every culture, society, and ideological party.  Regardless of whose narrative, they are essentially versions of the truth aided with some facts, heavy on the anecdote, and light on critical evaluation.  Narratives can be harmless rationalizations an individual holds as a means for self preservation.  For example, one might make the claim that they have been passed over for promotion because their boss is intimidated by their ability.  Cultural, societal, and ideological narratives, on the other hand,  can be more powerful and substantial in their impact on individuals or institutions.  For example, the conservative narrative that the media is overwhelmingly liberal leads to a rejection of any news conservatives find objectionable.  Both ideologies have deeply held narratives, both of which can be flawed, and ultimately corrosive to the truth.

The liberal and conservative narratives, however, are not equal in their corrosiveness.  Part of the reason for this is the distinguishing nature of the two ideologies.  Conservatives tend to embrace the ideas of absolute truth, logical reasoning, and constitutional standards, and reject relativism and emotionally reasoned arguments.  For its part, the left denies absolute truth or firm constitutional standards in favor of a convoluted method of relativist logic based on emotion and convenience   Now I say this knowing that there is segment of conservatives, especially of the populist bent, that tend to be more emotional rather than logical.  However, much of the Left's reasoning is so contorted that it often is self-contradictory and built on a strange hierarchical criteria that shifts from one context to the next.  Because of this moving target approach, the Left must rely on narratives as a method to bring cohesiveness to in otherwise confusing set of standards.  The only way to square a circle is to arbitrarily create a reality in which such a circumstance can exist.  To this end, the Left will claim that the square or the circle are a part of some patriarchal, racist, colonialist evil.  And this is the core of all of their narratives, that they, the Left, are good and those who oppose, are evil.

Like most narratives, the Left's are a collection of convenient facts, hand picked anecdotes, and a deliberate ignoring of anything contrary.  Take a pick from any of the Left's favorite narratives of racism, sexism, or economics and you will see cherry-picked facts and simplistic data, high lighted with emotional stories that seem to prove their narrative.  But the problem is that facts do not equate to the truth, at least not the whole truth.  The narrative about police brutality is supported by a handful of events that are parading on the media with the intent of making people think that police brutality is a common occurrence.  Remember the University of Virginia rape story that proved "rape culture" existed.  It was not true but it the damage was already done.  The list of these kinds of stories are long.

The Left's superior position in media, entertainment, and academia provide them with sophisticated tools of the narrative trade.  The media's role as gate keeper allows them to set the terms and context for our national conversation and discourse regarding events and issues.  They determine what information the public consumes, the manner in which they consume it, and how often it is consumed.  In the new frontier established by the technological revolution, social media companies have challenged the old media types for information supremacy, but they, too, are one of the Left's appendages.  They happily promote the Left's narrative and equally work to limit any contrarian voices.  Hollywood and the entertainment industry also do their part in promoting Leftist propaganda.  The medium of film cannot be underestimated.  It provides the opportunity to tell a story in any fashion you want with visually appealing aesthetics, perfectly timed musical score, and great looking people.  Sometimes, the narrative of the film is subtle and  in other instances, it can be quite explicit and in your face.  It was amazing to me the amount of anti-American anti-war movies were made between 2003-2008 when George W. Bush was president and all of a sudden stopped during the Obama presidency, even though the wars continued.  When you combine that with America's obsession with celebrity culture, the Left's ability to promote their narrative is magnified.  But what makes film and TV most effective is the fact that life can imitate art.  In other words, the big screen comes to life because through entertainment we establish culturally appropriate ideas and beliefs.  Meanwhile, academia provides the intellectual facade to promote the narrative.  As I have mentioned already, this intellectual narrative is mostly anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-white.  Together, the three are a narrative iron triangle.

Narratives are established mostly through repetition.  There is some truth to the "big lie" approach which advocates the repeated telling of a big lie that people will eventually believe it.  My contention is that it does not have to be "big".  The only requirement for a lie to be seen as the truth is for one to repeat so often that people accept it.  It is even more effective when the lie is unable to be detected by most people because they lack the ability or opportunity to observe it.  If it is repeated by media, supported in movies, approved by smart people, then it must be true.  So if you here that America is systemically racist over and over again and you have little experience with observing it, identifying it, or have nothing to push back against the claim, it becomes easier to accept.  When I start hearing different media outlets saying almost the exact same thing and in the same way, I become suspect.

Mob Mentality and Group Think

Because the narratives of the Left often lack both logic and evidence, they most often rely on the brute force of the mob.  When I say force, I am not talking about physical as much as I am talking about the social force.  This seems to currently be in vogue.  The power of the mob is immense and works on many levels.  There is the obvious explicit threats made by the mob to individuals or corporations.  It is communicated directly by calling for one to be fired, to be  cancelled, or a product or company to be boycotted.  Once a threat is made, the rest of the mob attacks via social media.  The media reports it as if Twitter was a true representation of the public.  Ultimately, the weak yield like hobbled wildebeests on the Serengeti to the attacking lions.  

Others see the consequences of this scenario and determine that the best approach is to remain silent or at least under the radar of the rabid Twitter warriors looking for weak people to devour.   This is the latent power of the mob.  I am certain there were many who watched what happened to Drew Brees and took note.  Humans are social learners, meaning they learn from observing the interactions of other humans.  Much of this learning is accomplished through implicit reasoning or making inferences from available information.  Many times this type of learning is even more powerful than the explicit threats. 

The mob mentality is probably most prevalent on campuses across America.  College campuses allow the tyrannous, minority, mob to control what people can say or ideas they can express.  It is the most anti-liberal, anti-western civilization, and anti-American practice, yet it is allowed and even applauded.  From professors to administrators to the students, the campus enforces a strict compliance to its ideological beliefs.  

The reality is that the Left's arsenal is both powerful and effective.  It is also extremely dangerous to liberty.  What we are currently witnessing is just how effective these weapons are.  The only remedy is for conservatives to fight back and hope that some reasonable people from the Left defect.  But defection from the left, is much like a defection from the Soviet Union.  Once you leave, you will never come back, and you better watch your back!