If Scruton is a nativist, then sign me up.

[theimaginativeconservative.org]

TO CONTROL LANGUAGE
IS TO CONTROL THOUGHT

As the communists realized from the beginning, to control language is to control thought—not actual thought, but the possibilities of thought. It is partly through the successful efforts of the communists—aided, of course, by a world war which they did not a little to precipitate—that our parents thought in terms of elementary dichotomies. Left-Right, Communist-fascist, socialist-capitalist, and so on. Such were the “terms of debate” that we inherited. To the extent that you are not “on the Left,” they implied, then to that extent are you “on the Right”; if not a Communist, then so much nearer fascism; if not a socialist, then an advocate of “capitalism,” as an economic and political system.

@cepstralspike Communist-fascist is not a dichotomy nor is socialist-capitalist. Communism and fascism are socialist ideologies and are too similar to occupy the same space. They destroy each other,both of them being totalitarian. Socialism is a political ideology and capitalism an economic ideology. Socialism destroys wealth creation and capitalism creates wealth.

But yes, we are taught they are dichotomies by those who butcher the language and wish to control thought. Marx's dichotomy was the proletariat and the bourgeoisie whereas any thought on the matter brings one to understand they are complementary as identities and not truly dichotomous except through misidentification. And so Cultural Marxism expands this identification of "dichotomies" wherever it can identify someone who will wear a victim label and points a finger at an defined oppressor. Equality is the goal of Marxism as he describes the classless society and it is brought about by the Hegelian synthesis of its outlined and perceived unjust dichotomies. Only equality brings peace. Indeed, victims can exist as humanity is not perfect and justice must play a role. Feminists will wear the victim label but many women won't. Blacks will wear the victim label but an increasing number won't. Labor will wear the victim label but many workers won't. Equality is the battle cry for these victims but for for those willing to wear the victim label dominance is the objective. Equality under the law would be a just and fair goal that would find no objection. But to achieve equality in the eyes of those who willingly wear the victim label it is necessary to become the perceived oppressor. Equality of all is, however, an insanity. There is no differentiation of anything or anyone if equality is the objective. This is how men become women and women men. Peace is war. Love is hate. Freedom is slavery. It's "1984".

Social equality then must have a qualifier. There must be "equality under the law". Dropping that qualifier and striving for equality brings an insanity that will destroy the social structure. A state sanctioned victim status brings a privilege to those with an axe to grind and grants them oppressor status - true equality.

A perfect example is Megan Kelly who had an epiphany that she was a victim and probably had been victimized all her life. Suddenly, the stars aligned and she could see. She wore the victim label and became a feminist. She destroyed her career by doing so. she was never accepted by the left because she settled for equality under the law and really didn't understand that as a victim needed to now become the oppressor. She would have been forgiven her blackface troubles had she understood she must thoroughly denounce and condemn it as oppressive but she couldn't see that it was. She needed to say she had evolved and understood it was offensive but she hesitated and it was her end.

Dichotomies are necessary but they must be defined in terms of being complementary opposites not oppressor/victim opposites if social tranquility is desirable - the oppressor/victim identification is not complementary but adversarial.

@FrankZeleniuk Talk about equality always puts me in mind of this blurb by Toqueville from "Democracy In America" [notes.pinboard.in]

@FrankZeleniuk As regards Megan Kelly, no one says it better than Alfie Solomons

@cepstralspike That was a good role for Tom Hardy. I liked old Alfie.

But yes we have to watch what we want in equality because there is nothing in the universe that is equal. After all, everything must occupy a different space than all other things. We are not all one, physically or metaphysically.