The Post-Tragedy Politicization of Language. The Media gaslights certain political terms.

It has been a whole few hours after the unfortunate and senseless terrorist attack against a Pittsburgh synagogue by a deranged anti-Semitic Gab user, and already the narrative has been cemented in place by the Twitterati, or the Blue Checkmark class. The shooter, who’s name shall go unmentioned out of respect, posted repeatedly about the worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and how President Trump is a puppet to the “ZOG” (an older white supremacist term for “Zionist-order government”). President Trump however, still remains the primary culprit to the blue checkmark journalists(bloggers) for some vague and nebulous charge of “fomenting” a “climate of hate”. It matters not that Trump repeatedly stresses his friendliness towards Israel, or the Jewish members of his own family. As one Blue Checkmark points out “Trump and the Alt-right white supremacists hate the same things” ergo, they are one in the same!

What one can observe about the grand and monolithic “narrative” that many allude to during the immediate reaction to a mass shooting, is that the media class is willing to utilize such an event to effectively gas-light and pollute certain terms that their enemies on the right use.

The primary words that are being politically anathematized currently are “Globalist”, any and all criticisms of the actions of Billionaire and Progressive foundation funder George Soros, to even utter his name is a “anti-Semitic dog whistle”. And of course, any mention of nationalism automatically means “White nationalism”, and this is all on the heels of Trump speaking at a rally where he mentions his explicit support for American nationalism against the globalist worldview.

Many are scoffing at this blatant attempt by the far left to politicizes neutral political terms, terms that have a legitimacy outside of their worst manifestations, but in light of this act of anti-Jewish terrorism, now the jurno-sphere has ample ammunition to expunge the terms used by their political foes. It is a decivious, yet effective tactic. I have seen some even compare the word nationalist to Hitler and national socialism, yet the lion’s share of liberal heroes and secular saints around the world, from Mandala to Gandhi to FDR, all considered themselves nationalistic in their thinking.

The problem is that in such an emotional and devastating event, it is quite easy to manufacture and guide political discourse in certain ways, and exploit people’s emotions for a particular political outcome. It is also a good tactic, from a purely objective point of few, to rob ones political enemies of the very language that they use, to de-legitimize any debate over ideological labels like Globalist, with very real-world consequences. Now that language has essentially been deconstructed, contorted, and no longer signifies a pointing-towards objective truth (this is a simplification of critical theory mind you), then people can exploit academic theories on the ground, and in the trenches of metaphoric political warfare to weaponize, or expunge certain phrases and terms all together. The claim of “dog whistling” is quite easy, it also relies on the fallacy of guild by association, I.E. if some retrograde white supremacist uses a certain ubiquitous term that virtually all conservatives have used from time to time, and then Trump uses the term at a rally, then one can label the event and Trump supporters with all sorts of Third-Reich connotations.

Here are some examples of the unifying narrative on the political left to undercut powerful terms used to describe their worldview from the perspective of the right in the pejorative sense. One must fairly debate such terms without this underhanded gas-lighting and transparent claims of “dog-whistling”. This is a tough issue because no doubt there have been legitimate racist and white-supremacist dog-whistle terms, so one must contemplate on the meaning of political language to separate what is genuine from what is manufactured. It’s the equivalent of saying that everyone with Hugo Boss clothing is a Nazi because they made uniforms for the Nazis, or if you enjoy listening to Wagner’s “Ring of the Nibelung”, you must be a Nazi because Hitler enjoyed that Opera too. This is unfortunately the tactics we see from the legacy media after a tragedy, and one must give sober thought to all political terminology, free of such subjectivist and emotive hyperbole.