We are delighted that you are visiting us online and hope you spend some time looking around. In honor of the Sabbath our office and store will be closed from sunset on Friday night through Saturday evening (Pacific time).

Right Wing (Fill in the Blank)

April 23rd, 2013 Posted by Susan's Musings 8 comments

Actually, I’ll fill it in for you. The answer is,
“extremist.” If you say the words, “great, green, greasy” to my children, they
will shout out, “Limpopo River”, based on Rudyard Kipling stories that my
husband told them while they were growing up. If you then said that you were
thinking of an avocado burger or an emerald suntan lotion, that information wouldn’t
dislodge the association with “Limpopo River” from their minds. For my
children, the words “great, green and greasy” lead to one and only one
conclusion.

Sadly, language has been manipulated to form an equation
between the benign word ‘right’ as used in a political context and the idea of
danger and violence. The Wall Street
Journal
, hardly a bastion of liberalism, stated in its editorial
this past weekend, “The U.S. government watches right-wing extremist groups
because we know they are dangerous…” Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen
them, or any other media outlet refer to Dr. Kermit Gosnell, notorious
abortionist and murderer, as a left-wing extremist. When feminists adulate a
powerful man who was having a sexual relationship with an underling (Bill
Clinton and Monica Lewinsky), or ignore honor-killings of women in the Islamic
world, they aren’t labeled as left-wing extremists. That language certainly
hasn’t infiltrated the culture.

The reverse has. Before much information was known, CNN’s
national security analyst, Peter Bergen, suggested that
it made more sense to look to right-wing extremists than at Islamic militants
for the ideology behind the Boston bombing. He cited statistics to prove how
much more dangerous right-wing extremists are than any other suspected group. Defining
terms as he, the government and even the Wall
Street Journal
does, that makes sense.

The perversion of the phrase “right-wing” has been so
complete that even neo-Nazis are put in that category. Let’s think this
through. The word Nazi comes from the phrase National Socialist. The
German Nazis were in favor of gun control and an all-powerful, centralized
government. That sounds closer to liberalism than conservatism in America
today. They were certainly anti-Semitic, arguably a stand more at home in
today’s Democrat than Republican Party.
Yet, neo-Nazis are known as a right-wing organization? How about simply
calling them neo-Nazis or white supremacists or anti-Semites? It might be more
accurate even if it doesn’t allow liberals to pat themselves on the back as
morally superior.

Is there anyone whose bias doesn’t overrule his brain who
believes that the Fort
Hood massacre
was a workplace incident and not Islamic terrorism? Yet that
is the official government line. Liberals go through contortions that make
Cirque du Soileil look like a bunch of uncoordinated buffoons to avoid
attributing violence to Islam or other pet causes. Their contortions are only
outdone by the way that they fit as many incidents as they can into the
category of right-wing extremism.

Words evolve through the years. It is as confusing for
today’s youth to discover that a book on my shelf, When We Were Young and
Gay
, has nothing to with homosexuality as it is for me to find out that a
description of a location as ‘awful’ meant ‘full of awe’ rather than horrible. It
is too late to salvage the earlier meaning of those words.

It may be too late for the political word ‘right’ as well.
If “extremist” follows that word as automatically as the Limpopo
River follows the description, “great, green and greasy,” then it has been
irrevocably tainted. Conservatives have lost a linguistic battle.  If the government’s reaction to the Boston
Marathon violence is as warped as it was to the Fort Hood massacre, we will
continue losing the battle for this nation’s survival as well.

 

 

8 comments

Guy Greenwood says:

Hi Susan,
Are you familiar with the Fabian Society or the Frankfurt School? Both of them and the Nazis share a common root; Proto-Socialists Maximilian Robespierre, and Rousseau. Many other Utopians like them peddled snake oil long before Sparta’s Lycurgus, who was responsible for his kingdom having neither virgins, or a people suitable for employment.
Utopians unable to mold themselves into virtuous men, attempt to mold others like clay in the name of religion, morality, and some in the name of their Gd; obsessed with the greedy desire for power and control of others. Utopians don’t mold men they make monsters, which make society uncivil. Fredrick Bastiat explains the evils of Socialism in easy to understand language in his pamphlet “The Law”
Best wishes to you and Rabbi,
Guy

aren Jones says:

I have always wondered (while saying “awfully good” ) what could be meant by it!! Thank you for that small mystery cleared up! from a right wing extremist ya know, the dangerous Bible believing ,conservative, country dwelling , even had our own chickens, paid our own bills, kind…. the worst of the worst.!!

James says:

The insidious perversion of language toward political ends must certainly be as old as civilization. Targeted corruption of language to mask political guile was a refined art for totalitarians of the twentieth century. Nazis and Soviet propaganda come to mind. George Orwell seized upon this concept in his novel 1984, as did C. S. Lewis in That Hideous Strength, to demonstrate how elegant and benign language can be used as a cloak for human wickedness.
And now as we watch events unfold, we hear in high places and read in the press how we should not rush to judgment about the Boston bombings. Several speakers have let slip the subtle innuendo that “right-wing extremists” might be involved. One senses their poignant yearning for a Christian Caucasian scapegoat to blame and to slaughter, anything to avoid pointing the accusing finger at Muslim radicals. One finally hears the forbidden word TERROR (no more man-caused disaster) however blame is deflected from any fanatical element of any religion. Ms. Susan, you are right. In this event and in many others I hear echoes of Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels: “A lie repeated often enough becomes accepted as truth.”
But please note the irony, how the terror attack fell upon a city that has become a mecca of permissive liberality. Our Founding Fathers must be heartbroken over Boston. What better opportune place for the Evil One to arrive, to set down roots, to blend in and to thrive, escaping public scrutiny and alarm? Yet do not despair. The Lord is still in charge. C.S. Lewis might say: they will pull down Deep Heaven on their own heads. For this is the way the world really works.

Carol B says:

Hi Susan,
A few years ago my husband had a discussion with our son about the differences between “washing” and “wetting” hair. My son insisted that terms change over time and definitions change. My husband resorted to the dictionary definition of “wash” meaning to “to apply water or some other liquid (soap) to (something or someone) for the purpose of cleansing.” To “wet” means to “moistened, covered, or soaked with water or some other liquid: wet hands.” We wanted my son to “cleanse” his hair not just “moisten” it.
Today, regardless of whether Nazis are considered right wing or not, what they did still lives in infamy. You were absolutely correct when the Nazis wanted all power centralized to the government and gun control. They were truly monsters. Today because other groups want limited government and to uphold the Constitution, regardless of what the media says, they are not monsters but are patriots.
Best regards to you and Rabbi Lapin,
Carol

Susan,
Those who know me can testify that I am not shy with my opinions; but in the political arena I am growing sincerely and thoughtfully shy.
I think about political parties like I evaluate my thoughts… I will go with this option not that option; or as I think about the actions of others… I agree with this action not that one; or like I evaluate a barrel of apples…this one seems to have fewer bruised apples than that one.
If my husband, a Christian minister (FYI – not in a pulpit now) was asked to put himself in a political box, I bet he would go in the left wing box. I would also guess that his experiences through life have been very different from your husband. Yet, I feel with confidence that your husband and mine would agree with one another on an OVERWHELMING majority of thoughts and beliefs!
I believe that that those doing their best to hold God in their hearts, lives and actions should play many roles in the affairs of government. Evaluating the political arena is regrettably complicated as politicians and their ideas are a barrel full of complex apples. I appreciate those who are trained analyzers (political pundits). (Personally I cannot see right and wrong as fully embodied in either of our parties.) We are only equipped to vote for our best understanding of the thoughts and intentions of a person. We know that only God is perfect. The only options we voters are given in this imperfect world are imperfect people.
I mourn that political identification often unnecessarily divides people like us and can act as an obstacle to our mutual interests in creating a more righteous world together.
I cannot conclude without adding that there are definitely times that I can clearly see examples of political parties (like the Nazi’s) who have clearly aligned themselves with wrong values; but most of the time, from where I stand, the polarization looks like illusion and the implications of buying into the illusion frighten me. I think the illusion creates an unnecessary division between people and often prevents peoples from recognizing their common views and common strengths. The illusion prompts people to withdraw their hand rather than stretch it out to join hands in the creation of a more righteous world together.
Until our world is renewed through the rulership of God on earth, my personal fight will be within, aiming to get my thoughts, my knowledge, my life and actions right in preparation for God’s kingdom on earth. I am thankful for the role our husbands and you play in disseminating knowledge toward these goals.
These are my musings. Susan, I wonder what YOUR musings are on this?

Mary says:

So well stated. Why is this not obvious? It seems to be easy to purvey lies to the general public these days. A veil, perhaps?

Cathy Hieb says:

Hi Susan – I would suppose it is easier to categorize ‘right’ as such. When supporting the countries with U.S. dollars – the name ‘right’ doesn’t carry the weight as Islamic would. Thank you for your time and your comments. Cathy

Judy says:

I overheard a woman who professes herself to be a Christian say, “If people who say they believe in Jesus really did then they’d be Democrats, because the Democrats want to help people. Isn’t it better if my money is used by the government to help people than to kill people?”
It sounds so logical, so reasonable.
It is such a horrific lie.
Jesus never laid the caring for the poor on the shoulders of the government. He laid it on the shoulders of the individual.
The Democratic platform supports abortion, killing innocent children, at taxpayer expense. The welfare system touted as charity by the liberal left enslaves millions of people. The liberal left demonizes anyone who believes in God, which makes me wonder why they pretend Islamic Extremists don’t exist. They have no trouble believing Christian extremists exist.
Thank you, Susan, for standing for the truth, along side your husband, and thank you for the Cirque du Soileil comparison. It describes the insanity very well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.This is a required field!

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>