|
|
In consistent newspeak tradition, "violence" has been redefined.
What used to be defined as either rough or injurious physical force has now been broadened to include something as simple as uttering a word. Not just any word, to be clear, but any unwanted word or words heard by the listener. It doesn't take a strategist of the level of Sun Tzu to ascertain why the wokerati would expand violence to include words or phrases, or even thoughts. They did so in order to prevent opposing ideas from being presented in public, driving them underground to the graveyard of 'keep it on the down low' or 'watch what you say.' And just why would such a strategic move be necessary? Because only in open discussion in the public square can a free population continue to parse through ideas effectively enough to weed out bad ones and pursue good ones. Thus one may quickly and easily recognize that at any point in history, when the forces who seek to control the general population threaten you with a loss of reputation, job, career, physical safety, peace of mind, freedom and life itself, they are admitting that the idea you propose threatens them to the point they would rather just censor you in a thousand different ways than to actually debate with you in the public square. Another earmark of this fear of truth is when the wokerati utilize their typical tactic of ad hominem attack and add ironic insult to injury by actually projecting their own sins onto their enemies. How many times in recent history have we seen unbalanced justice via hypocritical accusations hurled with the intention of destroying someone whose greatest sin was to merely disagree with established liberal narratives? However, the worst aspect of this unreasonable tendency to equate disagreeable words with violence is the core intention of the accusation. That core intention is to paint such an ugly picture of the enemy that even reasonable people would look with disfavor or disgust and 'righteously' sanction punitive actions up to and including prison or execution. That's the principle reason why someone on the Left would actually stoop low enough to refer to someone on the Right as a Nazi. Anyone, regardless of world view, who possesses a reasonable mind, can easily discern the difference between modern conservatives and genuine Nazis in WWII Germany. But those who claim to be victims of genocide while shooting nine-year-old children want you to believe that those of us who don't believe in murdering children in the womb and those of us who don't think it appropriate to give pornographic materials and lessons to children are equal to those who were complicit with the vicious and merciless murder of millions of human beings. Are these denizens of Wokefield using hyperbole for the sake of emphasis? No. Let's not mix words here. When the Left refers to conservatives as "far-right" or "white supremacists" or "extreme MAGA" or "knuckle-draggers" or "extremists" or "insurrectionists" or "cult members" or "Q-Anon" or "domestic terrorists," we needn't complicate things by using newspeak to describe the Left's behavior. They're merely telling lies and nothing more. Lies were what people were told in Nazi Germany, and that's what we're being told now. |