Saturday, January 02, 2010

lib·er·al·ism (lbr--lzm, lbr-) n. 1. Elitist Socialism

People who write dictionaries must be the smartest people on earth. Flicking through the pocket Oxford, it's impossible not to be impressed by the brevity with which word meanings are explained.

With limited space, dictionaires manage to concisely cut through longwinded extrapolations and get straight to the point, in a way that exemplifies the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle.

Having become embroiled lately in various online discussions which boiled down to the meaning of simple words, I was struck by how jealously such words are guarded by the liberal elite who seek to maintain ownership of them within their own intellectual circles.

The most well-known of these key words is "racism", which really has a very brief and uncomplicated definition. Pick up any dictionary. It is necessarily vague, but much ink has been spilt trying to make it specific. And convoluted. I seriously question the motives of those who seek to make it such, and their agenda can be summed up by the term 'liberal'.

Marx knew that the "working class" would be motivated by economic self-interest, which makes one wonder why he wrote such an epic tome in defense of his position. Even Lenin knew that the ideas needed to be filtered down to the working classes via the mediation of a middle-class educated elite.

Liberalism has no such concerns. Rather than simplifying a message so that it is comprehensible by the masses, they try to complicate it. And this seems self-defeating. If you question their concept of, say, "institutional racism" to describe any Western country, you will likely be, as I was, immediately shot down and chastised for not being aware of this week's convoluted (but fully understood by them) definition of what racism is. Or isn't.

And if you manage to "offend" (it's not hard) someone then your cause is immediately lost, irrespective of whether it is their conscious choice to be offended, or even your right to offend, or not. This injection of emotionalism into the subject is a liberal tactic, and usually means you've found the ideological chink in the armour. Sorry- East Asian.

The attempt to mystify language is both a part of a group dynamic that places itself morally and intellectually above everyone else, and a powerful ideological weapon, as we learned from Orwell.

Ironically, Classical Liberalism championed what we know call Common Sense - that universal knowledge of what is right and wrong that transcends class, colour and creed. Modern liberals subvert that completely, and undermine the wisdom of the everyday individual - a wisdom that often has a very acute bullshit-detector, and instinctively knows when something smells fishy.

This latter, of course, is the biggest danger to what we know as the Multiculturalist project. This elite is threatened by such mundane wisdom, and hence democracy itself.

The liberal elite is not the bogeyman that Dan Quayle was famously unable to identify, saying "they know who they are". They exist in the media, we know their names, they sit in our parliaments, and they are even teaching in our schools.

We know what racism is. We do not need thousands of pages of sociological jargon to be told what it is. This may come across as anti-intellectual. Is isn't. But ultimately, any argument that required thousands of pages to make, is not a good argument.

5 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...


#1. Assassinate your character

#2. Repeat Big Lies often and

#3. Slip in the assumption that
they alone have the authority
to pass judgement on everyone
else including and especially

#4. Command, control and contort
the language.

#5. Inculcate fear.

Goebbels knew all about this a long time ago. They have studied him well.


Anonymous said...

Superb article. Well done Viking. Very accurate and very true.

Exzanian said...

Great post Viking. Talking about chinks, it brings to mind the word Niggardly, meaning simply "stingy" or "miserly" and is quite clearly not related to the racial "Nigger". A tornado in a teacup was unleashed in 1999 by David Howard, a Washington politico, who used the word in a budget; a complaint was lodged, and he had to resign. He was later offered the olive branch to another position (from the same black mayor who accepted his resignation) and was quoted as saying (apparently in all sincerity) "I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind. That's naïve, especially for a white person, because a white person can't afford to be colorblind. They don't have to think about race every day. An African American does."

Anonymous said...

Here in Asia there used to be a toothpaste called "Darkie". They were bought out and it was called Darly.

Look how PC changes things. The Chinese did not give a flip about being PC did them?

Anonymous said...

@Viking. An excellent summation of your recent online debate. Pity "they" won't get it. Their conduct was typical, and amounts to the same thing as censorship, which should be the antithesis of liberalism.