“How dare he!” they stormed. It was nothing short of blackmail – good old emotional blackmail. To be fair to them, they were right. It was blackmail. It was also a calculated and very cunning attempt to polarise the debate: Those not with us are against us. No wonder the lefty-liberal political class had steam coming out of their halos.
Effectively Cameron was manipulating them into an impossible corner and they knew it. After all, they are the masters of the art. For Cameron’s tactic had indeed been lifted straight from the pages of the lefty handbook which could easily be entitled, How to Silence Your Opponents and Win any Debate.
Incidentally, the way to do this is simplicity itself: It merely involves polarising a given debate into rational v irrational or good v bad. More specifically, an option is offered as irrefutably rational or desirable (bombing Syria, immigration etc.) with the opposite opinion (anti-bombing, anti-immigration) offered as counter-argument which is irrational, and if possible morally reprehensible.
And now the really clever bit. This opposing argument must be cloaked in highly emotive language. And above all else it must be accusatory. Put simply, you must get personal; you must accuse your opponents of something. For example, “If YOU don’t agree with X, YOU must be Y.’
Potential opponents to Cameron’s agenda were thus deigned to be ‘terrorist sympathisers.’ Oh how the lefty-liberals winced. The irony was almost too much to bear. Here they were on the receiving end of their own artillery! And wasn’t there just the tiniest grain of truth in the terrorist sympathiser accusation? All it needed was a bit of lateral thinking and bingo!
Opponents of bombing Syria were indeed ‘terrorist sympathisers.’ Genius.
After all, it’s an article of faith on the left to automatically support whoever they feel are the oppressed while demonising the ‘oppressors.’ From Che Guevara to the Palestinians, Lefty-liberals have always always loved an underdog however despicable.
The fact incidentally that their oppressed victims all too often demonstrate a propensity for violence passes them by completely.
In the UK the new rabidly-left Labour leadership comprising Jeremy Corbyn and his lieutenant John McDonnel are on record as having expressed their support for the IRA’s terrorist activities which blighted the British mainland throughout the 70s and 80s.
Further, Liberals the length and breadth of the US and Western Europe are currently attempting to rationalise and even justify the loathsome activities of ISIS.
Hmmm. So, are the winds of change finally in the air?
Over in France Marie Le Pen of the Front National has coined another phrase that will send shivers down the spines of the lefty-liberals, assuming you believe they have spines in the first place.
In response to the attempt to pervert democracy in the forthcoming French elections, Le Pen has called the centre right-left allegiance elitists ‘intellectual terrorists.’ The T word once again…
Now the Right has long been forced into a corner by the linguistic bullyboy tactics of the Left. Thus if you do not wish to see the streets of London, Paris or Stockholm turned into third-world dumping grounds you are routinely labelled as ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’ or worse.
If you oppose such charming cultural practices that includes apostasy, beheading, subjugation of women and the throwing of homosexuals to their deaths from tall buildings, then you are routinely dismissed as ‘islamophobic.’
Until now there has been no intellectual response to such hysteria and fraudulence. The right’s response has been to concede or more often than not complete withdrawal. They have found to their cost that slander is a very potent weapon.
In the light of Cameron’s ‘terrorist sympathisers’ and Le Pen’s ‘intellectual terrorists,’ is the battlefield about to become level once more I wonder? To the Right, the ‘T’ word could become just as potent as the Left’s favourite pets ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic.’
Why not? As a word the ‘T’ word is equally loaded. And thus as a weapon of slander has potential to really disable its targets. Witness the fury in the House of Commons last week as the Lefty-liberals railed over Cameron’s tactics. They fumed and they raged. Very interesting…
Have we found the Left’s Achilles heel? Could this just be the beginning? As crimes such as gang-rape and sexual grooming by Muslim gangs increase across Europe, has the time come to fight hysteria with hysteria?
The time might be ripe for the Right to play the Left at their own game. The way to do this is with language. Rational debate has proved no match for lefty-liberal hysteria and slander. Thus, it is time for the vocabulary of the right to become similarly enthused with a whole new range of epithets.
The problem, however for the Right will be one of reluctance. After all, who but the rabid, foaming Left feel comfortable sat atop the high horse of moral outrage? For the lefty-liberals it’s their natural environment. For the Right, it’s unchartered territory. Courage mon brave.
It may be alien to the nature of the Right, but they might just have to become used to and not only used to, but, moreover, at ease hurling hysterical abuse from on high. Only time will tell.
In the meantime, let’s start the ball rolling…
To Cameron’s and Le Pen’s ‘T’ words, we could add terms such as ‘Jihad-denier/sympathiser’ or ‘grooming-apologist.’ The new language of the Right needs to be just as inflammatory as the language of the Left; and like their language it needs to force them into corners and from thence into ideological checkmate.
A war of words must now begin and the Right's words must be equally illogical. It goes against the grain, but this, unfortunately, is where we are right now.The Right's lexicon must also be just as reductive as the language of their enemies, and crucially just as pithy. In fact ,the closer to a soundbite, the better.
Turning the Left's logic upon itself is another option of course. Using terms such as 'lefty-bigot,' 'liberal-fascist' are fine as far it goes, but in order to be truly effective, the Right will need to become innovative and creative in terms of its own linguistic branding. It will then need repetition and even more repetition.
Others will no doubt expand this new terminology which has started with ‘terrorist sympathiser,’ because when they do, the fight back can then and only then begin in earnest.
Not for the feint-hearted: Donald Trump's 'ban all Muslims.' >>>