Politics is definitely not one dimensional. Trying to put everyone’s political beliefs somewhere on a right/left line is just plain wrong. Using two dimension is infinitely better. Even still, people often view their own politics quite differently than other view them.

Spot on. “Rebranding” is a powerful and legitimate tool in the private market, mostly due to brilliant advertising geniuses.

Definitely works in politics, too.

Other important examples re Marxism/Socialism:

Branding Marxism as “scientific”.

Turning “classical Liberalism”, ie free trade into “liberal”, it’s opposite: Socialism.

Progressivism (not sure if it was used before, correctly) to describe an ideology guaranteed to provide stagnation, not progress.

Not quite direct rebranding, but to dividing the basic political duality as Socialism as “Left” and “Fascism” as “Right”. When except in minor details are both Socialism. Example: the Nazis as “Fascist”, where their party name, translated, was “National Socialism”.

This may be the most pernicious in its modern effects. Note that “Capitalism” is excluded as a choice, or worse: The Right = Fascism = Capitalism.

Currently reading Chuchill’s 6 volume history of WWII, and even he accepted the false dichotomy. A virulent anti-Communist, still for practical reasons I agree with, he allied with Stalin. Fascist “Hitlerism” was the greater evil. In the end, it translated into Allied victory, but very soon he learned the dealing with “Uncle Joe” was still dealing with the devil. The most tragic outcome being that liberating Poland, which due to treaty, caused Britain’s immediate declaration of war, did not lead to Poland’s liberation at all.

A favourite minor example of mine, buried so deep I only stumbled onto one historical reference :

The New School of Social Research “ in NYC, now just “The New School”, in an “alternative” school that is predominantly Marxist. Founded around the 30’s, it had “Marx” in its original official name. Even the radical Marxist founders realized, very quickly, it was inhibiting student enrollment. Very quickly rebranded, brilliantly, as “The New School...”...who doesn’t like “new” ideas?

Actually, I was thinking about the response from the character Francisco d'Anconia when James commented that,
“Any grafter can make money.”

Even though grafters do not make or create money, at all, in the mind of James, grafters can make money. And do it all the time.

You mean, Who was John Galt?You can say a lot about the relationship between Branden and Rand, but he was creating a world-wide movement, while other objectivists were arguing about esoteric philosophical points. When they broke up, Rand in a fit of pique that Branden had the gall to fall in love with someone else, the movement fell apart.Since then, no one was able to take Objectivism to the next level, making it a world-wide phenomenon.

In order to gain incite into your observation about why these points need to be "taught" is really quite simple. Use of this apparently simple stance is at the heart of the Progressive assault on what is truly the target. These supposedly high sounding positions should really be a wake-up call to the fact that they really are smokescreen(read Gramsci) and represent a diversion and a tool with which to bash anyone who does not agree with what we see happening in the name of those "principled" stances (not!). they are only used as a tool to accomplish something that has absolutely nothing to do with what they seem to represent.

This subterfuge effectively creates wedge issues thus putting anyone who does not quickly subscribe to the orthodoxy on the defensive therefore blunting any discussions centered on the real issues (illegal immigration, voting by criminals, open borders without changing the law, and so on). They use these points effectively by making those on the right look like they are against, as you say, what should not need to be taught and should be basically accepted on face value. You have to understand the effective way Progressives have co-opted the fake, moral, "high-ground". The average person has no clue as to how they are being manipulated. Truth be told!

Teaching these traits from an early age creates an army of people who will readily jump on whomever does not opening kow-tow to this othodoxy. This, if you stop and reflect on it for a moment is a brilliant strategy adopted by the Progressive (communist) left. It did not happen by accident but is rather a well thought out and fully implemented strategy for the adoption of the "New" Socialist/Communist hegemony.

The secret here is that you must not only understand Gramsci, but more importantly, the approach of the Fabian Socialists (much more effective than Marx). The shock troops of the Fabians are the Marxists and anarchists (Antifas, etc.).

Who ever said that words have an exact meaning?
Oh well, who is John Galt?

Communism has appeal because it appears simple, orderly, dependable, and predictable. A capitalist society, with each individual providing his or her element of unpredictability, and with a market nearly impossible to predict, is a form of semi-organized chaos often described as creative destruction. To many, such a society is frightening, making the appeal of the Communist vision all the more seductive.

Sadly, the success of our capitalist society in providing a measure of security (from our efforts) to our younger members has lulled them into the belief that life should be easy. When faced with the (to them) harsh reality that success depends largely on personal effort and persistence, they recoil in fear, seeking a less stressful path to security, which Communist sirens lay before them.

The desire for safety and security becomes so strong that no matter how false or contradictory the message is from the proponents of Socialism/Communism, it becomes gospel, and the mind is shut to fact and logic. The followers eagerly embrace promises of "free" health care and education. "Guaranteed" employment sounds so much better than the messiness of the capitalist job market. When realist thinkers try to tell the followers that such promises come at a harsh price, and that the guaranteed jobs are essentially slave labor, their ears are shut. The idea that followers become subjects under the control of the state is a sad surprise, and no matter how many examples they are shown, the followers do not listen.

There is no doubt that changing language and the meanings of certain words has an effect. It serves to smooth over the differences between left and right to the point where communism is a bad word, but progressive is a word that can be tolerated by both sides. One more way to lead the naive toward the left.

My dictionary also defines racism as,
(2) “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”

Professor Peterson uses this definition of racism as it applies to the term, “white privilege”:
“The ascription of the hypothetical quality of the group to all of the individuals who compose that group.”

I do not follow this. Saying there's racism, i.e. people being judged based on how they look, it is not prejudging anyone based on anything to say that. Saying there's an issue with racial privileged is not condoning it. It's not judging people based on race. It's saying there is a problem with people judging people based on race.

Professor Peterson states that term,“white privilege” is a racist slur. I fully agree. It has effectively the same purpose as the many other racist slurs used against specific races. Racist slurs should be called out, LOUDLY, as RACIST SLURS! Negative prejudgement of a person based on their race, or color of skin, instead of their character, is racist.

Thanks for the video. I will watch the rest of it. In the 1st two minutes he's saying things that sound bizarre and indefensible, such as that it's racist to acknowledge racism. I can't say based on two min. Will listen to more when I'm working on a circuit board tomorrow. Thanks for posting b/c based on the overview at the beginning, this talk addresses my questions squarely.

“I don’t get this.”
Here is Professor Peterson explaining his reasons for this,
https://youtu.be/TqcRVmOpIbY

I agree with pretty much everything he said here.

"Welcome to post-modernism and the resentment it sows. But life is too precious to let that seethe and fester. We have a choice, become captive to the envy and guilt our elites are selling, or expose the man behind the curtain and reclaim ownership of our lives. We can let the collective consciousness of society shape our ideas, or we can win the future as individuals armed with reason, pursuing our values, and ready to defend the right of anyone else to do the same."
This is so powerful. Earlier in the article Shupe talks about communism being re-branded as liberalism and progressivism. I tend to identify with liberalism / progressivism to the extent they mean the rejection of all that, a rejection of post-modernism and seething resentment.

"Jordan Peterson condemns the teaching of equity, diversity, inclusion, white privilege, and systemic racism. "
I don't get this. These seem like basic values. Ideally they shouldn't need to be taught. We should try to live our values such that they're self-evident and need no teaching. System racism is a HUGE problem, but the arc of history clearly bends away from it. I'm optimistic it could disappear, along with any hand-wringing about how to teach these things.

The radial left wants a new age across the globe. An age of feeling. Where subjectivity trumps objectivity. Emotion trumps reason. The Endarkenment!
https://www.libertynation.com/postmod...