Barely a day seems to go by in which some left wing “intellectual” makes an outlandish statement about UKIP. This hit a new low over the weekend in an article by Nick Cohen in the Guardian’s Comment is Free section.
Now, I know any venture into this segment of the Guardian is not dissimilar to Martin Sheen’s river journey in ‘Apocalypse Now’, but it is useful to keep up to date with the lefts thinking. So on occasion, the sacrifice must be made.
For those of you that have not chosen to stare into the abyss recently (which is wise given the often repeated quote from Nietzsche that “when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”), you will have missed Nick Cohen run through the whole list of left wing sloganeering, political correctness and slandering which we have come to expect. However, rather than accept such behaviour, is it not time for a frank discussion as to whether the so called “centre left” is in fact extremist and dangerous to society?
To use the example of the article in question, Nick Cohen’s tries to paint UKIP as being “xenophobic”, “bigoted” and “extreme” when any normal person, using common sense, would see that this is not the case. The key phrase here is “common sense”.
The left have long agonised over common sense and came to the conclusion that they needed to create a “new” common sense so that the average person could see Marxist Socialism for the paradise they believe it to be. This is rooted in Cultural Marxism, and in particular the teaching of Antonio Gramsci’s concept of Cultural Hegemony. Gramsci believed that our elites controlled and disseminated cultural norms to maintain their power. As such, to create a socialist society, it is necessary for the left to take control of this elite hegemony to “benevolently” alter society’s norms in favour of socialism.
So here we have Nick Cohen using accusations which he knows are patently untrue to try and assert “centre left” Cultural Hegemony by pushing new meanings to words.
The example of “xenophobic” in particular is an interesting example as it functions on three different levels.
Firstly, the word commonly means someone with an extreme dislike of foreigners. But for the modern “centre left” and Mr Cohen, they understand this to now mean anyone who in any way expresses misgivings about mass uncontrolled immigration. They believe the negative connotations of the word will now be transferred to their new meaning of the word.
Secondly, by usage of the suffix – phobia, (which is a now common tool of the left verbal armoury) he is imputing an irrationality to the position of having misgivings about uncontrolled mass immigration. This also works as a ready packaged slur against the mental state of the target.
Thirdly, the word also acts as a secular version of blasphemy. Mr Cohen’s position is so correct that no discussion is needed or permitted, so the word is uttered without explanation; it’s a self evident truth. The dissenter against his view must be silenced as they are blasphemers against the revealed truth of Marxist Socialism. This also holds true for all new phobias and the word racism.
Given this third usage, it will come as no surprise that the left also have agonised over the structures of religion and have often sought to emulate the role of religion in society, as again espoused by Antonio Gramsci. Mr Cohen himself has written a book regarding censorship entitled ‘You can’t read this book’ in which he mainly concerns himself with religious blasphemy. So he is fully aware of the power and form of blasphemy rules.
Which brings me back to my initial question; given the extreme tactics such as Political Correctness, Cultural Marxism and the surreptitious attempts to mimic the structure of religion (as demonstrated by Nick Cohen) should the “centre left” be deemed extremist and treated by society in the same manner as racist and fascists?