Another way to put it is: “It’s always been.”
Two of our readers wrote:
# Once you detain and criminalise people who want free speech and label them as “extreme right-wing” then ipso facto, you will have an awful of of extreme right-wingers. This will not end well.
# Where does this need to label yourself sit? More bloody labels.
The whole game of the enemy is about labels, labels are everything, along with the counter-strategy of castigating and shaming anyone who employs them. That’s not necessarily what the second reader above did but it comes to the same thing in its general effect.
Labels are the only possible way to convey ideas without quoting 5000 posts on the subject every single time.
It’s an irrational position to reduce the language of communication to one word – “label” and then run some campaign against “labelling”, as if it does not hold water.
If no one labelled, then fine but every single person does, each time he or she communicates.
Nowhere is this more true than in the video below which shows that whatever new labels you like to attach to the forces at work, it always comes back to and turns on labels.
Labels you see, define the discussion. If you speak of tolerance and diversity, you are speaking of something entirely different to what I am. The number of clashes due to two people differently interpreting a word, a label, just gets in the way of achieving understanding.
And while there are people who are just naive about this, there are also those who require the misunderstanding of labels to move their agenda forward. Here is one lot who require that misunderstanding and whose core strategy is to replace what was the conventional understanding for decades into something radically different:
And by the way, those people have all sorts of fine sounding names but they are still communists.
The amount of effort by countless millions on destigmatising that word would fill a shelf of tomes. It was precisely that destigmatising which brought down McCarthy, quite erroneously as Diana West and Stefan point out:
One of the hundreds of snippets in that very long youtube concerned how the destigmatising and the stigmatising of opposition occurs.
In its simplest form, the current labelling, by the MSM and the forces behind it, of anything critical of what’s going on as “far right” is a perfect example. If you can reduce the two sides to a bunfight over a word, then the actual things being exposed fall by the wayside and are never addressed and debated.
That is the whole aim, the goal, the strategy.
Labels are vital. Call someone from the post-war era “gay” and you mean a radically different thing to what is meant today. Someone who tries to prevent you from using a label whilst using them himself – well, you have to look closely at his motivation. It may be something innocuous but it might also be something far more sinister. [“Sinister, by the way, means “left”.]
Labels have enormous power and so, when someone asks me, in defence of SJWs bringing in “refugess” [another label, you see]: “Don’t you believe in love and compassion, James?” … that is such a loaded question that it should be dismissed out of hand and yet it cannot be because so many have accepted the framing pushed by these people, the enemy, and parrotted by the legion of followers of the simplistic Narrative.
And by its very definition, a label has all attached meaning shorn away. If someone hears the label, he goes to Wikipedia for an explanation and guess who wrote the Wikipedia entry?
This sort of thing is discussed by Diana and Stefan – the amount of sheer bloody effort by so many across the globe, over such a long period of time, to redefine concepts and then to use the positions of power which maintain labels to hammer the accepted definition home – it’s too mindboggling to accept.
Example – look at what the word “pride” denotes today. It’s a hijacking, no more, no less.
Diana also refers to meetings. Now I ran a post or two on a meeting of the Scottish Arts Council in Brown’s day, called for and run by one Julia Middleton in which accepted definitions were simply misused and abused until someone in the room spoke up, he was mocked and vilified – he retired, shamed and mumbling to himself.
There is nothing nice in this misuse and abuse of labels and so I give short shrift to anyone reproaching me for using labels and demanding that we agree on which each means.
Far from ditching labels, we need to discuss first, in the plenary, in the introductory phase, just what we clearly mean by this or that word. If we enter a discussion and I, for example, regard myself as centre-right but the other person sees me as “far-right”, then whither debate?
Labels, I contend, are vital.
Then we get to the use of the “reproach” tactic itself. At OoL, there was a reader who said I might like to reconsider the language I use. Nope, quite the opposite – he should reconsider his, because I have very much defined mine over the course of some 20,000 blogposts and online activity since 2003.
It could well be that he is an innocent, just another of us seeking understanding and he does not like my challenge to those things he’s been induced to understand as “good”. That’s the charitable explanation and it’s nothing personal – another tactic of the left by the way, and the globalists like Common Purpose – is to reduce a discussion of ideas to a bunfight about individuals.
Barriers to understanding
Apart from the above, one of the greatest barriers is overload, which is why this post is relatively short. Unless you have some way of tackling the West/Molyneux youtube, to break it into parts perhaps, to schedule viewing, then you will do what the majority do – you will perhaps watch a minute and then rely on my summary below it.
I’m not going to call that laziness, I’m going to call it getting caught up in this thing called “no time”. The very nature of information overload online is that you have such limited time at each blog or other source – you want the summary laid before you and that’s all you have time for now. If the post gets longwinded, then unless you’re already onside with the general thrust and don’t mind the writing style – you’re not going to continue to the end.
And whither understanding then? You’ll go away and say you’ve “read” my post, which you categorically have not. These are just a few barriers to understanding and communication.
1. Definition and label clarity and agreement;
2. Available time and energy.
There are even problems with the word “you” I’ve just employed. It could mean you, generically, meaning “one” or the “common man”, or else you take it as a personal go at you and take umbrage at that.
At that point, “you” are departing from the discussion of ideas and are personalising it, something I resist as far as I can but there are powerful forces pressuring me to engage in personal bunfights over nothing.
Suffice it to say that IMHO, it’s well worth watching that youtube discussion because it explains so much of what goes on and what we, as people, get dragged into.
Diana West mentioned meetings, so did I above, she said that the key discussions are always kept back until after the sheeple have departed and there are just two or three people left hanging back. Years ago, there was a post at my place on Citizen’s Juries and it followed the same lines.
That’s the word they used and it bellowed out from the youtube front screen grab. Immediately, many would think McCarthy, Moseley and they’d think it negatively … because they are conditioned to. Diane West called it, “trundling along in a prearranged way” or words to that effect, it may have been Stefan who said it.
Yuri Bezmenov spoke of these things in the 80s, as did other good people in the 50s:
Feb. 23, 1954 – Senator William Jenner of Indiana says before the U.S. Senate: “Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people.
We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state. It has a foothold within our Government, and its own propaganda apparatus. One may call this group by many names. Some people call it socialism, some collectivism. I prefer to call it ‘democratic centralism.’
The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway.
This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people by an elegant form of brainwashing. We see this, for example, in the innocent use of words like ‘democracy’ in place of ‘representative government.’ “
A year before, Rowan Gaither, one of the enemy, said similar:
1953 – Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation, tells a Congressional commission investigating tax-exempt foundations: “We at the executive level here were active in either the OSS [forerunner of the CIA], the State Department, or the European Economic Administration.
During those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House. We are continuing to be guided by just such directives, the substance of which were to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.”
Just how many quotes are needed? Three years earlier:
Feb. 9, 1950 – The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduces Senate Concurrent Resolution #66 which begins: “Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution.” The resolution is introduced by Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho), who later states: “We would have to sacrifice considerable sovereignty to the world organization to enable them to levy taxes in their own right to support themselves.”
Or far later, straight from the enemy’s mouth:
1966 – Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, authors a massive volume entitled “Tragedy and Hope” in which he states: “There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act.
In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.
I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records.
I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
1968 – Joy Elmer Morgan, former editor of the “NEA Journal,” publishes “The American Citizen’s Handbook” in which he says: “The coming of the United Nations and the urgent necessity that it evolve into a more comprehensive form of world government places upon the citizens of the United States an increased obligation to make the most of their citizenship which now widens into active world citizenship.”
The essentially thing both youtubers stress over and over is that this thing is not recent, it’s not modern. I can point to turn of the century education and the Rockefeller funded Lincoln School – you could guess why they chose that name.
It was out-and-out progressivism. They found a nutter [see my label here] called Wundt and adopted his destructive [label] educational ideas – now that’s some hundred and forty years ago – there’s nothing new going on, only the labels change.
Some years ago, they changed it to “communitarianism”, supposedly meaning having a local say in local affairs. Utter bollox- it was establishing local and regional end groups in a federalist model, with a politburo at the top.
It never, ever stops.
Lucille Ball, comic actress – ran a communist district, Martin Gabel [Arlene Francis’s hubby of a different name] was an out-and-out communist. The entire What’s My Line programme was filled with such people. Guests not toeing the line, e.g. Chuck Connors, did not come back.
And look at the Hollywood clowns today. De Niro. Music – Sprngsteen.
This thing is massive, ubiquitous, society is riddled. And what is their counterattack?
That I see reds under beds or the modern equivalent – a tinfoil hat. Have you ever seen anyone wearing one? it’s a stupid expression, meaningless, used by the brainwashed.