Language makes it easy for stupid people to win
"Words, words, words/ I'm so sick of words" -- Eliza Doolittle in "My Fair Lady"
When I titled my book and this substack “War of the Words” I wasn't being arbitrary. Three years ago, the political strife engulfing the world was clearly a cultural struggle, with words playing a central role. I tried to point out the importance of examining terms such as “fascist” and “racist” and “right-wing,” stripping them of their accepted, false meanings and substituting concepts that authentically fit them.
The most important point I have tried to make is that historical fascism and historical communism are indistinguishable. Positing them as opposites is akin to saying that lung cancer and bladder cancer are opposites. Cancer is cancer wherever in the body it appears, and the all-powerful State is the all-powerful State, whatever its name. My latest effort in convincing people of this truth took the form of my short book, Communists are Fascists (And Too Stupid to Know It), available through Amazon.com.
But my reach has been limited to a couple hundred people at this site and tiny book sales. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, no one else is driving home the message that language must be changed to reflect authentic concepts and that, failing this, the Left will rise triumphant. Look at the ease with which Zohran Mamdani was elected Mayor of New York City as a socialist. Did anyone voting for him stop to consider the meaning of socialism, let alone its failure throughout decades of oppressive attempts? Can anyone voting socialist tell me why they refuse to acknowledge Naziism as National Socialism? The word slips past scrutiny in the minds of most people, who vaguely “think” of socialism as some kind of Generous Uncle instead of the Big Brother it actually is.
People rightly made fun of Kamala Harris’ “word salads,” concoctions of words in disarray without real meaning yet somehow redolent of meaning. The most famous instance of this was when an interviewer asked Harris why she hadn’t exercised her title as “Border Czar” by visiting the border. Her answer: “I haven’t been to Europe, either.” This was completely off-subject, an evasive non-answer, and yet it felt legit to the undiscerning. After all, “She hasn’t been to the border” and “She hasn’t been to Europe” are both true, right?
Word salads are not confined to Harris. Here’s one I keep seeing in some form or other from various radical Lefties via social media: “If you shoot someone who’s trying to steal your property, that means you value property over human life.”
In a sane world, such a garbage heap of moralizing verbiage would be dismissed as, well, moralizing verbiage. But as we live in Clown World, it’s necessary to unpack the statement’s “meaning.” (Hint: It is in truth meaningless.)
All societies are based on the principle that only individuals dispense of possessions. This is a fact of human nature and is not obviated by socialist ideas about “common ownership.” In the Soviet Union, in today’s China, in Cuba and ye even in North Korea, when a man eats a banana it is his banana to eat. Socialist bilge water can rant all day about how the banana belongs to the State or to all people equally, but no one has ever suggested that a man planning to eat a banana should first divide it into dozens of teeny bits to be distributed equally to everyone in the neighborhood. All possessions — from items of food to housing to furniture, etc., — are used by individuals, not by communities or classes. Exceptions might be made for community-run parks, food banks, etc., but even then, the ultimate users of the parks or the food banks are individuals. It literally cannot be otherwise.
Because of this, the right to ownership cannot — even in a socialist community — be overthrown. My living space and the items in it are mine to dispense with as I wish. If someone who does not respect this breaks into my living space and begins to remove things from it, he is violating my right to maintain a living space for myself and my family. He is the one who does not value human life, and he expresses his contempt for it by breaking into my house and taking things that are not his. I have the right to resist this by any available means, including, if necessary, lethal force. In doing so, I am not valuing property over human life, I am valuing human life and the inviolable principles that attend it over their negation by the intruder.
Why is it required to parse this out when all that should be necessary to answer “If you shoot someone who’s trying to steal your property, that means you value property over human life” is: “You have shit for brains.” Why? Because language has been loosed from its home in real-world concepts and is running wild among the stupid, who use it randomly and without penalty. If there is one thing I long for, it is the reining-in of language that it might become what it should be: A clear reflection of the concepts used throughout history to accurately reflect humanity and its place in the cosmos.
+++
I'm not a paid subscriber so I couldn't read all of your article. Apologies if there is material which invalidates my comments.
> the all-powerful State is the all-powerful State, whatever its name.
I don't entirely agree, but it's probably a minor difference of opinion. I'm more comfortable in thinking of both fascism and communism as 'authoritarian'. A communistic state is an authoritarian state on the left, preaching no personal property; a fascist state is an authoritarian state of the right, where personal property can be held.
Where you say 'fascism' I think 'authoritarian'.
> Look at the ease with which Zohran Mamdani was elected Mayor of New York City as a socialist.
Oh, goodness yes.
> Did anyone voting for him stop to consider the meaning of socialism, let alone its failure throughout decades of oppressive attempts?
No. :-(
Conservative blogger Matt Walsh - I think it was him - raised a theory about this sort of thing a month or so ago. Maybe it was someone else.
The theory was based on the old tenet "those whom ignore history are doomed to repeat it". His addendum to that adage was that people only (emotionally) consider history of the *previous two generations*, i.e. history reinforced by parents and grandparents, with whom one has an emotional/personal connection. History going further back - i.e. accessible only in books and via schooling - is ignored, or doesn't 'take' due to the more academic, non-emotional method of delivery.
I'm really taken by this theory, and I think there might be something to it. It's why the kiddies are braying happily about socialism - they have no idea as to the ugly reality of socialism in the 20th century.
It's why we have more and more anti-vaxers ... because it's been generations since we had mass deaths from epidemics.
(I came across a black-and-white photograph of two children standing side-by-side, one vaccinated against smallpox - or was it measles - one not. *Shudders* The poor unvaccinated boy was completely covered in pustules and boils. Now *that's* an emotional connection to history. If only we could force the kids to look.)
Mamdani won because he's cool and superficially/artificially hip and glib and the idea of making everyone 'equal' *is* a powerful draw to those who don't both to look into the details.
> The word slips past scrutiny in the minds of most people, who vaguely “think” of socialism as some kind of Generous Uncle instead of the Big Brother it actually is.
Those who lived through Big Brother, or have an emotional connection to such history via their parents or grandparents, have a clue. The rest, largely, do not.
And so history is doomed to repeat itself. :-( Horrible, isn't it? We have these big brains and yet most of us still need an emotional connection to *use* them in analysing and applying the lessons of history.
> an interviewer asked Harris why she hadn’t exercised her title as “Border Czar” by visiting the border.
Goodness, there was something about Harris a few weeks ago ... I don't think it was her book ... maybe a piece extolling her virtues for a run at governor? Or the next US president? ... and I noticed that there was zero mention of her 'Border Czar' responsibility. :-)
> “If you shoot someone who’s trying to steal your property, that means you value property over human life.”
We're at odds on this one, sorry. I think that's clear cut. If the robber isn't threatening your life, you can't shoot him. At least not in the UK or Australia, far as I know. And I think that makes sense. That's why we have the police.
(My eyes roll every time I watch a US TV show or movie where police are chasing a miscreant for a relatively minor crime and merrily firing off their handguns. I've never looked into if that really happens in the USA.)
> Because of this, the right to ownership cannot — even in a socialist community — be overthrown.
At some level, sure, I understand and agree with your argument. But your next doesn't follow:
> He is the one who does not value human life, and he expresses his contempt for it by breaking into my house and taking things that are not his. I have the right to resist this by any available means, including, if necessary, lethal force.
No, I disagree. He's expressing contempt for your right to your property, not the value of your life. If he's not pointing a weapon at you then he's not exercising lethal force - or threatening same - and your taking his life is an unwarranted escalation, in my opinion.
> In doing so, I am not valuing property over human life, I am valuing human life and the inviolable principles that attend it over their negation by the intruder.
No, you've skipped over any real 'proof' of that. You are meeting his action to deprive you of your property with your action to deprive him of his life. They don't equate, no matter how hard you try to marry them up.
> You have shit for brains.
I'm certainly ignorant of many things, and not nearly as learned as you, but I don't think I'm that bad. :-) I believe the chain of thought you have laid out here is flawed and isn't sufficient to justify taking a life. Even the life of a property-stealing thug.
Cheers.