The Power of Newspeak and the Nascence of its Illegitimate Spawn Islamophobia

The Power of Newspeak and the Nascence of its Illegitimate Spawn Islamophobia

by Seneca III

The word ‘Islamophobia’ is a neologism (‘Newspeak’ according to Orwell), a new word introduced into the ‘Politically Correct’ dictionary, that dictionary itself being an instrument of the Marxist-Socialist-Islamofascist mind control strategy* designed to stifle thoughts or actions inconsistent with its ultimate objective.

The primary purpose of the project is the abrogation of free speech and of the right to hold an opinion contrary to heir established totalitarian doctrines.

Islamophobia thus serves as an example of a word or part thereof that obfuscates truth and promotes lies. The definition of ‘phobia’ is ‘an irrational fear’; it is obvious to anyone who sees or experiences Islam first-hand that it is in fact a violent, brutal, retrogressive theocratic control system founded on and sustained by human slavery. No one brought up in a civilised Western country this past half century is being irrational when their understanding and public exposition of Islam is the result of personal observation and experience. Nausea and anger, yes — irrationality, no.

Political correctness didn’t just happen; it has been carefully constructed over decades. It is designed to prevent us from seeing the truth until it completes its evolution to full-on totalitarianism by eradicating any contrary thought and speech. Politicians, academics, advertisers, plutocrats, inimical foreign entities, so-called charities and virtue signaling profit centers, supported by an equally corrupted and motivated mainstream media, promote the indoctrination of children, mass shaming, suppression, the ruining of livelihoods and the shouting down of dissent while playing on our cultural apathy to firmly root political correctness in the mass psyche.

It is not just the demonising of contrary speech that is so troubling about PC, its practitioners and its mindless acolytes; it also seeks to eliminate the very ability to think widely and at all deeply, and thus express contrary thoughts. Consequently, words and phrases that reflect non-PC concepts are ostracised, and then either disappeared or replaced with meaningless words and phrases.

The weird personal pronouns utilised and demanded of others by the LGBT alphabet soup collective are a classic example of the latter. Language and how it is used can corrupt thinking to the point where words can be removed from the vocabulary in their entirety so that whatever they represented no longer exists and therefore cannot be observed or discussed.

Our language exists to describe what we see as reality. If that language is limited to approved words and phrases only, then language controls our reality totally. When words such as ‘Islamophobia’ are in control of cultural reality, rational argument becomes impossible and the human mind is enslaved as well as the body.

In those circumstances the Marxist-Socialist-Islamofascist cabal will have won and a new Dark Age will begin.

— Seneca III, in an increasingly draconian Middle England, this 4th day of August 2019

*   N.B. The word Islamophobia, whatever it really represents, if anything, has now been officially defined as meaning ‘Wrong Thought’ by virtually all vote-whoring Globalist politicians and their enforcement arms in the UK and Europe. Very soon it will become a ‘Thought Crime’ even to think of speaking truth about Islam, and offenders will no doubt be severely punished. Our days are numbered if we fail to put a stop to this suicidal nonsense post-haste.

For links to previous essays by Seneca III, see the Seneca III Archives.

33 thoughts on “The Power of Newspeak and the Nascence of its Illegitimate Spawn Islamophobia

  1. I’m going to recap the discussion on another thread.

    The concept of political correctness, and the bulk of the actions against any rational discussion and against traditional cultural thinking and practices, derives from a very explicit development of cultural Marxist thinking and philosophy. Cultural Marxist theory was developed in the Frankfurt School, established in the US by refugee German Marxists.

    The primary focus of cultural Marxists was to demolish the cultural structure of society, so as to clear the path for a Marxist revolution. The original theory of Marxism was that revolution would come through class consciousness by the workers. But, the workers weren’t moving quickly enough, so the focus shifted to destroying the culture with which the workers identified, leaving them rootless, demoralized, and susceptible to revolutionary practices. It should be noted that although classic Marxism focused on class warfare, Marx and Engels as early as 1844 wrote about the destruction of the family and of bourgeois culture as a consequence and predecessor of revolution. So, cultural Marxism is not in the least a misinterpretation of classic Marxism.

    The Frankfurt School, under Critical Theory, developed the movements we are seeing today: the idolization of browns and blacks, the destruction of the family, the criminalization of logical, non-revolutionary thinking, the erasing of sex roles, and the erasure of cultural history. The Frankfurt School “scholars” specifically planned the infiltration of academic, cultural, and communication media to spread their philosophy and suppress competing ideas. The suppression of any historical facts not in line with the class and struggle theory of dominance and exploitation was a vital part of cultural Marxist teachings.

    • Okay, the $64 million question is, “Who funded the Frankfurt School and who is funding the School’s continued efforts in the undermining of the present societal order?”

      • Interesting question. Here’s a bit of an answer I found:

        The Institut für Sozialforschung (Institut) was the creation of Felix Weil, who was able to use money from his father’s grain business to finance the Institut. Weil was a young Marxist who had written his PhD on the practical problems of implementing socialism and was published by Karl Korsch.

        Felix Weil
        With the hope of bringing different trends of Marxism together, Weil organised a week-long symposium (the Erste Marxistische Arbeitswoche) in 1922 attended by Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch, Karl August Wittfogel, Friedrich Pollock and others. The event was so successful that Weil set about erecting a building and funding salaries for a permanent institute. Weil negotiated with the Ministry of Education that the Director of the Institut would be a full professor from the state system, so that the Institut would have the status of a University.

        Given the issues and the time period, it wouldn’t’ be too surprising if there were some covert funding from the Soviet government.

        After the war, the school moved back to Frankfurt, no doubt funded by the hapless workers under capitalism in the form of government subsidies for higher eductaion.

        Herbert Marcuse became a revered professor, funded by you and me, as he merrily taught his students about free love and the oppression of the traditional family.

        Adorno became something of a capitalist star, showing advertising companies how to profitably lead the consumer into buying useless products without the consumer knowing he was being manipulated.

        Was there covert funding? Like, perhaps, international bankers and the like? Who knows? It seems to be a truism that large, long-lived bureaucracies naturally attract leftists. The leftist philosophy of control through power rather than through productivity seems to mesh very well with the requirements for successful bureaucratic infighting.

        Once a people concede their freedom and identity by choosing a large government they think will take care of them and make their hard decisions for them, they have set up the machinery of their own oppression. It might be that the wild success of the Frankfurt School Marxism was actually achieved without the intervention of secret cabals or funding by foreign intelligence agencies.

    • “Refugee German Marxists”? Notwithstanding the Baron’s apprehensiveness about the Jewish Question at GoV, Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer et. al were German Jews. That is why they were refugees in the USA. At the time before and during WW2, they were seen as such, as also Hannah Arendt.

      Legally, they will all have been robbed by Adolf of their citizenship in Germany, hence they were not even German by passport.

      This however takes us to such matters as why Solzhenitsyn’s “200 Years together” has never been translated into English officially, and who was behind this not happening and why?

      As regards the current Number One PC sin of “racism: claiming Marx to be a Cultural Marxist hence “anti racist” is absurd; he had extremely robust views about what were progressive and backward races respectively.
      So Marx would be ostracised or sacked at any snowflake university or presstitute organ in 2019.

      Marx said nothing much about the superstructure, Überbau, as his focus was on economics. He is thus guilty of another PC crime, lack of intersectionality.

      There is a strong tendency at GoV and similar anti-Left websites, all of which are loyal to their idea of the “free market”, to try to deny the classical capitalist nature of globalism by attributing it to “cultural Marxism”.

      But the Central Bank of Ireland is just looking to fight the Irish class war a la Marx at this link:

      It does not care about the consequent destruction of the security and welfare of native Irish; if the Irish “Left” then profits from Black African bloc voting in 2030, that is no proof that “Irish Cultural Marxism” led to that state of affairs.

      • My opinion is, you don’t really need to have a discussion on the “Jewish question” as long as you protect yourself and your country by evaluating individuals.

        I’ll give examples. All the Frankfurt refugees were obviously communists. It makes sense to exclude communists a priori for refugee status. In fact, the McCarren Act did just that until invalidated by the Supreme Court. This says to me, we are a kritarchy, where the courts can overrule all other branches of government. This actually worked well when the Supreme Court invalidated the fascist New Deal centralization provisions. But, we’re either going to be self-ruling or ruled by an oligarchy, so I would not tolerate rule by judiciary.

        To continue with the “Jewish question”, one thing you don’t want to do is treat Jews as a class. For example, if the anti-Semitic street violence by Muslim refugees heats up in France or Sweden, you could conceivably see a mass application by Jews as justified refugees from political violence. Instead of being waved through, each applicant should be evaluated for his commitment to limited, representative government. It doesn’t make sense to admit large numbers of refugees who hold political opinions contrary to your preferred form of government.

        So, I’m saying Jews should not be treated as a class, either pro or con.

        As far as your comments on the free market and capitalism, I’m happy to have the debate. But, I’ll point out that central banking is to a free market as Dracula is to a medical blood bank. A central bank uses government power to prevent any competition in the creation or coinage of money. So, a government can use a central bank to control money and thus inflate money and issue debt until the whole house collapses.

        One of the primary points of debate between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians was the creation of a central bank. Hamilton did get a central bank created which existed until 1830, when Andrew Jackson got rid of it.

        I will repeat the point: a central bank and centralized banking is not even remotely related to the free market. Technically, it’s crony capitalism, which is to capitalism as neocons are to conservatives. Some would argue that the idea of a corporation itself, as a shield for personal responsibility for illegal or fraudulent actions, is anathema to the free market. I’m coming to agree with that idea.

        By the way, the defining trait of a cultural Marxist is not being anti-racist. The racism issue, like feminism, homosexual rights and now trans-rights, are just excuses for Marxist fronts. The defining trait of a cultural Marxist is a deep wish to destroy Western culture and society. You can find this wish in the early works of Marx and Engels, certainly extending through the Communist Manifesto.

        You have noticed, I presume, how the past, racist rantings of cultural Marxists like Joy Reid are conveniently ignored as long as possible. Being racist is by no means a disqualification for cultural Marxists as long as they lie about it, and aren’t unlucky enough to have massive social-media attention.

    • “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
      ― Theodore Dalrymple

  2. We tend to forget that before 9/11 Americans had rather romantic and exotic associations with Islam and Arabs in general. A sizable number of us became fearful when Muslims began to do incredibly fearful things.

    • Yes, it is all fun and games until they cut your head off.

      I spent time in Saudi Arabia before 9-11; at the time it was still somewhat exotic and exciting. Because of the Khobar Towers bombing, we were on a heightened state of alert but it still didn’t seem like a combat zone. Interestingly, the base where I was deployed to was built for the Saudi government by Bin Laden Construction.

    • @Anonymous:

      it has never been clear to me what mentally separates people who voted (US) Republican such as the architect Richard Gage of Architects for 9/11 Truth from other conservative US voters, including many or all at GoV who still believe the US gubmint conspiracy theory that “Muslims did 9/11”.

      Even though this belief depends on believing the US lamestream media which are otherwise, and rightly, rejected on other topics as being mendacious propaganda organs.

      Maybe it is the ability to assess and quantify engineering, physics and chemical evidence. Or the tribal allegiance to whatever Republican gubmints say, as Bush jr. was Pres. in 2001.

      We see the same tribalism on the Pelosi-Cortez-Warren axis, Democrat presidents having started more wars in US history than Republican ones.

      However, it is entirely possible to both reject Islam and all its hijra works and effects AND to deny that Muslims did 9/11.

      Over the last 18 years, the evidence after all points to 9/11 being a false flag run by expert military and intelligence pros, aimed at getting the USA deeper into the Middle East. There were various actors inside and outside the USA in this successful plan.

      • There is ZERO conspiracy where 9/11 is concerned, the bloody savages of islam did it with ZERO, let me say this again for your benefit, ZERO help from Uncle Sugar. I say this as I was Government Sanctioned back then, so take it to the bloody bank!

      • Wow, where did they find non-muslims willing to die flying ‘planes into buildings?

      • There are some huge problems for people who claim Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11.

        1) Saudi diplomats in the US who had been friendly with some of the hijackers, dropped everything and left their meals on the table in their haste to leave the US a day or two before the actual hijacking;

        2) There are plans for the hijacking on the computer drives of one or more Muslims either arrested or under observation prior to the hijacking. The information was not accessed or shared due to Justice Department policies instituted under the Clinton administration and not revisited by the less-than-competent Bush administration;

        3) There are detailed records of the comings and goings of the hijackers, including the preparations in other countries.

        There are a lot of loose ends, however, to the official narrative.

        1) The “laughing Israelis” which was a real occurrence.

        2) The very neat implosion of the buildings, especially tower 3 which had not been directly hit. Incidentally, if the demolition of the towers was an inside job, why did they create a minimal footprint, rather than topple the towers, causing much more death and destruction.

        3) To my knowledge, there was no testing for thermite, which was a major alternative to the jet fuel hypothesis.

        4) Some claim that the destruction at the Pentagon could only have been caused by a bomb or missile.

        5) And the granddaddy of the doubts: the Bush administration used the 9/11 hijacking as a pretext for an invasion of Iraq, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Al Qaeda plot.

        Nevertheless, the fact that the Bush administration bungled just about all aspects of 9/11 and its aftermath does not prove any particular alternative hypothesis, or even that the official narrative was substantively wrong. About the only good thing to come out of the current Democrat hysteria about Trump collusion and the so-called, mythical Russian interference is that the Justice Department and intelligence are no longer viewed as neutral fact providers, and skeptics are much quicker to examine the actual evidence while it is still fresh.

        • RonaldB, I will address your points one by one.
          1. Yes the Saudi’s did flee and it was the day of the bombing not before and ole Bush let them, much to our shock as to who let them. Hint, State Department.

          2. Tower 3 was undermined by the twin towers when they fell thus causing structural failure, no explosives nor residue was ever found.

          3. Massive testing was conduced at all sites, nothing but jet fuel.

          4. A plane was flown into the Pentagon as thousands of witnesses testified too. No missiles, Period!

          5. 9/11 wasn’t used as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq, the mandarins of state and pentagon did and Bush was dumb enough to fall for it.

          6. There were no laughing Israeli’s, but there were laughing and celebrating muslims all over our western countries which wasn’t dealt with.

          7. The various agencies did not share information which led to this Islamic success and our abysmal risk averse failure.

          Bush bungled the aftermath of 9/11 by not taking direct action against various muslim groups and instead followed a policy of appeasement in the vain misguided hopes and pink unicorn dreams that the muslims might like us if we were nice to them instead of the time tested way of dealing with them with bloody minded vengeance where we put the fear of us into them, and we have paid the price ever since and will get a lot worse before those methods will have to finally be employed if we are to survive this century.

          • I have a friend whose business office was directly under the flight path of the jet that hit the Pentagon. He saw it and heard it come in. So either he (and thousands of others like him) experienced a mass hallucination, or they were part of an immense conspiracy to lie and obfuscate.

        • For G:

          I’ll add one more twig to the fire. Asking this question got me kicked off a thread at the Occidental Observer website.

          The conspiracy theory assumes that someone set charges in the buildings and performed a controlled demolition resulting in the neat collapse of the buildings.

          Now, the plan involved flying four planes into very public buildings: twin towers, pentagon and presumably the White House.

          It seems to me if you hijack 4 planes and use them as weapons in order to generate outrage, the controlled demolition is entirely superfluous. Why go to the trouble and risk of setting charges in the buildings? Just flying airliners into the buildings of a country should be fully enough to rouse anyone.

          As to the dancing Israelis, (not laughing, sorry), there are some records on that. Such a display, although in abominable taste, doesn’t mean the Israelis were involved in any plot. It was immediately obvious on hearing of the airliner attacks, that Muslims did it. I remember thinking that myself on hearing the news. The Israelis could have seen the attack and conclude that the US would get involved in an active war in the Middle East, which they saw as being in Israel’s interest.

          I will concede most of your points, as we seem to agree on most things: the Bush administration, impelled by its ill-considered alliance with the Saudis, bungled just about all aspects of the 9/11 aftermath. Extended wars and nation-building in the Middle East and other Muslim countries is a sinkhole for the US.

          My own opinion is that an effective border and immigration control will eliminate most reasons for us to engage in fighting outside the US.

          • @Ronald B and G: the assertions you both make are either erroneous or irrelevant or both. As usual with 9-11 deniers, you give no references. Some of what you say is identifiable as sourced in the US presstitute media.

            You could start by reading J Michael Springmann “Visas for Al Qaeda” and books by David Ray Griffin.

            Or if reading is too much trouble, various of the 9-11 video testimonies by over 2,000 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation of 9-11. G being a Marine, he may be impressed by the rank of one testifier, Stubbelbine, ex head of USAAF aerial reconnaissance.

            But then, [ad-hominem mind-reading redacted].

            Because as I said above, Republicrat tribalism, or CONUS belief in innate CONUS gubmint goodness, is very powerful.

          • For Reconquista,

            Quite frankly, I don’t find your arguments persuasive. You also need to reread my posting if you want to get my real position on the matter. The reason I don’t find your arguments persuasive is that you give no arguments. You simply say I ought to read such-and-such and that thousands of engineers say 9/11 ought to be reinvestigated.

            To be truthful, I’d love to engage in some detailed argumentation like I engaged in with G, but that hasn’t happened with your postings. I’ll give you one instance. I did hear on a video that no investigation occurred on the wreckage of the building to determine if thermite were present. G said extensive tests were done, and only found jet fuel.

            So, if you want to make a convincing case for your point of view, give a couple of links (not just vague reference to books) showing or asserting with authority whether tests were done for thermite or a similar substance.

          • Reconquista, As one of the thousands of alphabet soup agents running over one another, our conclusions, massive testing, by no less than 30 agencies, makes an absolute mockery of your little conspiracy theory. So in conclusion, your thousands of engineers, who were never on those sites and never once tested a bloody thing are nothing but hot air and the fact that you put stock into this stupidity really does say more about you, who refused to get their hands dirty doing the heavy lifting and should be taken with a truckload of salt. Whenever you are ready to [actually do something], I’ll be happy to take your resume and send it to some friends of mine who can point you in the right direction. Oh and don’t forget, you will be living in some austere living conditions you won’t be used to. So glad to help a fellow anti-jihadist get their feet wet.
            Semper Fi !

          • RonaldB, Yes, you are quite correct to ask that exact question, sorry they could not see the simple logic and reasoning of what you asked, because those people truly want to believe their government would stoop that low as to kill 3,000 people in their quest for whatever the bloody heck that is.

            Our days of nation building is over, thank God(not allah), for it get’s the US nothing in return but grief and massive debt. The military cannot win wars any longer because they are not allowed to do what they are supposed to do, which is break things and kill massive amounts of people for total Victory.

    • I learned all about islam on the morning of 10-23-83 when a building blew up in my face. I have followed the 11th Commandment of, Know thy enemies as thy know thyself, ever since. There is ZERO compromise with islam or it’s leftist enablers and allies, this comes down to the very simple equation of them, or us.

      • @G and Mark H:
        G appears from the date of 23 Oct 1983 he cites to be an ex-Marine,

        So G “learnt all about Islam”? Wow, and I thought there were scholars who spent their lifetimes doing that.

        Reminds me of one example of the Man he was working for, Henry Kissinger: “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.” Ever heard the saying, “nations don’t have permanent friends, they just have permanent interests”? Know what it means as regards the US and Islam? So why do the USA fund and train Islamic terrorism, incl. ISIS? Ever heard of the Muslim minorities to be subverted and used in Russia and China, or [insult redacted]?

        @Mark: like I said, the forensic evidence from engineering etc, is out there to look at. Which tribalistic Republicrats don’t want to. Whereas even in 2001, it was possible to remotely fly aircraft into buildings.
        Check out Reagan ex-advisor Barbara Honegger or the many hours of DVD statements by architects, engineers and ex-military [redacted].

        • Reconquista, It’s former Marine, not ex-Marine thank you very much, and that polite, dismissive, snide sneer at us military folks is duly noted. Yes, I did study the devil’s book the Koran, hadith’s and sura’s, and a great many history books as to why someone would blow themselves up without question. As for that disaster Kissinger and his wretched ilk, I’ll quote ole Teddy where those cretins are concerned,” The military, not the diplomat, that is the master and the diplomat must always be subservient to the military man”. ISIS and the rest of the alphabet soup orgs of Islamic jihadists was funded mostly by Brennon and company under Comrade Obummer, but started when ole Saint Reagan was hoodwinked into funding Islamic jihad against the Russians in [Afghan]istan and the rest of the Presidents that followed continued this suicidal policy. There are a great many of us disgusted conservatives aimed at the spineless repubs and that is why we voted enmass for Trump. The Russians and Chinese know how to deal with their Islamic problems far better than we do, they simply eliminate their villages and inhabitants by whatever means necessary, and which one way or another, we shall be forced to do as well soon. Deo Volente!

  3. I’m pleased to know that at least one rational person still exists in England.

  4. Christophobia is so completely normal as to be not named.
    After all, who can respect a religion that will merely scold you rather than cut your head off with a penknife if you blaspheme?

  5. The true nature and purpose of “Islamophobia” has been unwittingly revealed in the recent All Party Parliamentary Group on Muslims’ report “Islamophobia Defined”. The group defined Islamophobia as “a type of racism”. Although they were coy about what type of racism they actually meant, it is clear from the contributions from various radical sociologists and hate-speech academics that they were referring to the bogus concept of “cultural racism”.

    The report is gone into in some detail here:
    and here:
    and here:
    and here:

    Cultural racism is examined in part 3.

  6. The age-old expression of ‘Freedom under the Law’ is not just some repetitive cliché but witness to the truth. Law is there to make us free: free from oppression and fear, free from those who covet what we have striven for and earned through our own efforts, freedom to say what we feel and think and most importantly, to agree to disagree.In contrast, we now have fascist liberalism that allows the criminal to do what he or she wants, where society is at fault rather than individuals charged with responsibility for their actions, where fascist religious ideologues prevent us from speaking our minds and bomb and kill us if we attempt to do so or lock us up. A totalitarianism where sexual abstinence and license are almost compulsory and where even our very language is curbed, should it not

    reflect the new order’s accepted way of doing things. A society where exist‘Human Rights’ without duty to others and where that very concept of ‘other’ is subordinated to self. More importantly ‘all property is theft!’Human beings can only truly be free under the Law. Any other way is that of the beast. The greatest freedom is that which comes from within, namely oneself. However in the situation that now exists, wherein we are increasingly censured for being self-disciplined and on the contrary, encouraged to be self-indulgent and tolerant of acts, that only a while ago would not only have been illegal but anathema, we are imprisoned by the very fact we are not allowed to live by that ancient Law that allowed us to be free. License is therefore a form of amoral prison: a celebration of bondage through non-guilt and self-indulgence. We are therefore bound by the ropes of sexual fetishism and perversion of morality. Amorality has become our prison cell.Guilt is part of freedom too. Now we are even denied that privilege. The right to feel remorse and regret is perhaps the greatest of all human freedoms as these reflect upon us as the moral human beings we are. To deny this aspect of our humanity, is the greatest threat to our freedom of all. It denies us the very privilege of understanding right from wrong: good from evil. Without the freedom to do so we are less than animals.I have given all this the name Paradological Nihilism. This is because Ifeel that we are on the road to self-extinction through parody and paradox. What we have today in the society we live in, is a parody of its former self Furthermore it is a sick parody of the democratic system and Law we once cherished. It is not freedom but license. It is a totalitarian license too. The paradox should be obvious even to the most dull. By releasing us all from moral and spiritual responsibility we have become imprisoned and subject to our basest of desires in pursuit of self at any cost. We have discussed ‘Deconstructivism’ in my previous book ‘A Question of Balance’ and seen that it is as incredibly destructive as intended by its exponents. The trouble is they have replaced that which is lost with amorality and license that far from freeing us has imprisoned us, as it allows evil to thrive.It has no standard apart from worship of self and perversion. It does not pursue excellence and perfection but the base and lowest common denominator. This is indeed the road to extinction not Nirvana.Some turn back to religion in order to find direction. This aspect in particular is a traditional approach to such situations. What is not traditional though, is the deliberate attack upon innocents that some of the more fanatical elements of the new religionists have sought as a way of destroying those systems and people of whom they disapprove. They only become part of the Paradological Nihilistic problem. They actually aid and abet the very same corrupt ideologues they profess to despise.

  7. I found something funny. Maybe not directly related to this, so maybe Baron, you can make a seperate thread about it.
    We all know that races do not exist.
    But why does the evil White race exists?
    And now an antifascist made a distinction between PoC and BPoC.
    Yes, I had to look up t´he second acronym.
    PoC=People of Colour=Non-whites
    BPoC= Black People of Colour

    So, if no races exist, why do they now make a difference between Non-Whites and Black Non-Whites?
    This is totally against the “We are all the same and equal etc” Agenda.
    Is this some form of making a ladder that BPoC are more valuable than PoC?

    If you dont believe me, go to
    Yes, it is in German, but for those who can read it, have fun. This Division among themselves will tear them apart – I hope.

  8. Nice article, Seneca. And interesting comments. Now, listen up, people. I’m going to teach you about ‘snarl words’.

    I’m glad of the string beginning with the comment of RonaldB on neo Marxism because it gives me an ‘in’. Some years ago, I had been put in touch with the critique of what is coming out of the universities these days, and learned the term ‘Cultural Marxism’. I was surprised I didn’t see it more, and decided to google it. At Rational Wiki ( I found a definition:

    ‘1 First — extremely rarely — “cultural Marxism” (lower C, upper M) refers to an obscure critique of popular culture by the Frankfurt School, framing culture as being imposed by a capitalist culture industry and consumed passively by the masses.
    2 Second — in common usage in the wild — “Cultural Marxism” (both uppercase) is a common snarl word used to paint anyone with progressive tendencies as a secret Communist. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Some variants of the conspiracy allege that basically all of modern social liberalism is, in fact, a Communist front group.’

    And that is where I first saw the expression ‘snarl word’. It would appear that just as those of us on (for want of a better term) the ‘right’ had actually identified the mischief that was befalling contemporary thought and discourse and given a name, the right to use the name was being taken away because it was characterised as a ‘snarl word’ loaded up with a conspiracy theory.

    So, what is a ‘snarl word’ (or, at least, what do those on the (for want of a better term) ‘left’ think it is)?

    ‘A word used to induce a negative response or association in the person hearing or reading it. Commonly used to appeal to people’s emotions rather than their reasoning, and thereby get them on your side.’ (From Urban Dictionary:

    ‘A derogatory term that cannot be used in a neutral or positive way.’ (From Wiktionary:

    ‘A snarl word is a derogatory label that can be attached to something (or even to people), in order to dismiss their importance or worth, without guilt. When used as snarl words, these words are essentially meaningless; most of them can be used with meaning, but that seldom happens.’ (From Rational Wiki:

    The interesting thing about the Rational Wiki article is that it doesn’t limit its list of snarl words to things that the ‘right’ calls the ‘left’. It actually includes (and here I become relevant) ‘Islamophobia’. Which is good, because I’ve been trying to call out ‘Islamophobia’ (as well as ‘Homophobia’ and ‘Transphobia’, etc.) as ‘snarl words’ for some time.

    Of course, I retain my prejudices by believing that ‘Cultural Marxist’ is merely a description of an ideology permeating a lot of what is coming out of the universities, because it ties back, whether consciously or not, to the Frankfurt School, and also helps identify the ‘social’ (rather than purely economic) ‘left’.

    So it would appear that it’s o.k. to call out Islamophobia as a snarl word because even Rational Wiki says it is.

    In my definition, a snarl word is a neologism coined for the purpose of delegitimising the argument, facts and opinions that it labels. (I don’t believe that Cultural Marxism does that. I do believe that Islamophobia was coined for that very purpose.)

    • I kind of don’t agree with your characterization of “cultural Marxism”, although your characterization is not hostile to those people opposing cultural Marxism.

      It is not necessary even for Marxists, to assert that current culture was the product of capitalist, exploitative classes. After the failure of the Bolshevik Revolution to spread to other countries, the Marxists concluded that the culture within which the proletariat existed was keeping the working class from accepting the revolution. So, the culture had to go. Cultural Marxists are not trying to destroy culture because culture was created by capitalists, or aristocrats, or bourgeois, but because culture was in the way of a communist revolution by the workers and peasants.

      And the term “cultural Marxism” has great powers of explanation. It explains why feminists tolerate Female Genital Mutilation, why black interest groups oppose conservative blacks, why gay groups support bringing in more Muslim immigrants, why mainstream Jewish organizations advocate, in effect, open borders and massive Muslim immigration.

      Labeling someone a communist may have been a “snarl word” at times in the past, but if used with even a tiny bit of precision, it was extremely informative concerning the person labeled as a communist. In the same token, I try to limit my designation of “cultural Marxist” to someone directly influenced by cultural Marxist teachings and basically consciously pursuing its agenda: the destruction of Western culture and society.

      Islamists like Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib are not cultural Marxists, although they share the goal of destroying Western culture. But, their objective is the imposition of sharia law, rather than the class revolution of Marx. AOC is a thorough cultural Marxist, of course.

      “Islamophobe” may or may not be a snarl word. It might be taken to mean “anyone who opposes the imposition of sharia law”, in which case it’s informative.

      The term “racist” is a pure snarl word, as it is used to describe anyone who has criticized the one using the term. It’s equivalent to the playground term “you eat mud”. It’s meant to be mean to the target, conveys no information whatsoever, and often evokes the reaction it wants: emotional fear of disapproval.

      Anyway, as ECAW points out, let’s not let our enemies define our lexicon.

      • It’s not my characterisation of cultural Marxism–it’s Rational Wiki’s (and I am perfectly suspicious of it–which is why I was surprised to see Islamophobia included among its list of snarl words). I think it’s a perfectly helpful term–but the left, including Rational Wiki, calls it a snarl word. Snarl word is a term coined, and used, by the left, but every time the left says ‘Islamophobia’, we can call it out by saying it’s just a snarl word.

      • And I would say that ‘anyone who opposes the imposition of sharia law’ is not a person that the derogatory term ‘Islamophobe’ (implying an irrational fear) ought to apply to. When the left screams Islamophobia in response to the raising of reasonable concerns about sharia, it’s using a snarl word.

Comments are closed.