Forgive me if the clips are misleading as to who said
what. I want to respond to what remains.

Are the prior thoughts just an erudite way of
saying:  how can intellectuals control the
ignorant by intimidation if they can not emotionally
load words with moral implications;  words like
racism, nigger, kike, genocide, holocaust,   et al.
Not being able to fight very well as a youngster, I
remained a spectator and turned to observing the
interactions between my peers on the playground.  A
clever controlling tactic was to cause a stronger
adversary to get angry and then direct his anger
elsewhere.  In my schoolyard, wops and micks were
fair game for this.  But anyone of them who asked
for a definition of such terms was not as easily
controlled.

In our "grown up" world, is not the game the same
with the same goals and tactics.  If you can sensitize
enough negros, as a group, to the word nigger, you
can direct their energy, as a group, at your enemies,
whoever they may be. But not if the word is used so
much that the emotion is defused.   Similarly but
conversely, if you can load the word "worker" with
the image of an unfairly downtrodden, misunderstood,
mistreated, sincere, loyal, etc object which is
deserving of extreme compassion, then the word also
becomes a loaded political tool.

Talking about definitions too much will purge the
words of their subliminal baggage and put lots of poets
and intellectuals out of business.


Don Brayton

<clip>

This is true to a limited extent, but not when discussing
racism  and/or the only functional form of racism, which
is white supremacy.  The definitions are very exact and
precise.  White supremacy is a global system of though,
speech and actions.  Like most systems it is very  well
defined.

I will concede that a term such as "racism" is politicized
to create deliberately ambiguous and evasive language.
In this sense, it is  called doublespeak and is used in
the propaganda war in confusing issues = dealing with
white supremacy (racism).

<clip>

White supremacy (racism) is well beyond problems of
semantics and the various illusion and pretense of
language.

>
>
>F. Leon
>
>

<clip>