Why Leftism is NOT for Minorities

            We can all agree that ethnic slurs aren’t really nice to say, right? They are words created for the sole purpose of giving a demeaning label to a certain group and are altogether words of depravity. Anyone who uses them in malice does not have good intentions in their heart. These are statements we can agree with, right? For the ethnic groups that these terms exist for, so basically every ethnicity in the World, they should be especially agreeable. In social and political circles, those who use these words for malice and denigration usually make themselves hard to associate with and toss themselves into disrepute; how many careers have been ruined in recent  years by people who were outed for speaking slurs?

            Yes, this is an opinion that most can agree on. Racism, bad; slurs, bad. However, this opinion seems to be hard to understand by an ideological faction that many might find surprising. “Who is it?” you might be asking yourself. Well, if you have not inferred from the name of this article, that faction is no less than Radical Leftism. On Twitter, I follow two individuals who are relevant to this topic: Errol Webber, and Nzube Udezue (commonly known as Zuby). Mr. Webber is a Black Republican congressional candidate, and Zuby is a Black rapper from the UK, and they are also both political conservatives. Why I bring them up is because of a very simple matter, and that is in the comments of most of their Tweets, there is usually one common sight: the use of anti-African ethnic slurs which I dare not repeat here by Radical Leftists, the supposed champions of equality, anti-racism, and progressivism. Such an act of doublethink and hypocrisy, using slurs against minorities just because of a difference in opinion, has led me to think, “how could Leftism be for minorities?”

            It is not, that is the fact of the matter. Radical Leftism might tote anti-racism and equality as core tenets of its philosophy, but it is intrinsically not. The reason why this is so is because Radical Leftism is not just a radical ideological wing of the Left, but a socio-political engineering project that is the closest analogue to George Orwell’s IngSoc. It is an immensely radical, left-wing ideology that seeks to debase civilization through Orwellian methods of thought control, Newspeak, and doublethink in order to soften individuals and remold them into submissive, labor-producing units part of a collective. The best way to achieve this is, as shown by the novel, to create an out-group (Eastasia, Eurasia, Emmanuel Goldstein and the Brotherhood) and vilify it for representing qualities or orchestrating evils and use it as a means to redirect individualist sentiments and hatred towards the oppressive State (or Party, if we stick to Orwellian terminology) onto a common enemy. That is precisely the goal that the enemies of Oceania serve as, outlets, and the novel confirms that through events such as Two Minutes Hate, a daily activity as common as lunch that serves to empty the rage building up in these dehumanized, collectivized Proles and Outer Party members so as to prevent the Party from being targeted instead.

            This foray into the symbolism and meanings of Nineteen Eighty-Four comes back around to Radical Leftism when we begin connecting the spot-on similarities between either ideology, between IngSoc and Radical Leftism. Radical Leftism has its own out-groups: racists, conservatives, fascists. However, like Oceania, the Radical Left is complicit with the same reasons why it hates these out-groups: Racists, conservatives, and fascists are hated for being against equality, progress, and freedom, but Radical Leftists promote combatting them with reverse racism (oriented towards White people, mostly), rejecting empiricism and rationality and focusing on subjectivity and emotions (which makes logic malleable, and allows 2+2 to equal 5), and restricting the most basic of liberties to criminalize anti-Leftist characteristics. You see the picture that I am painting, right? The methodological and psychological strategies of the Radical Left reflect those of IngSoc so bone-chillingly well that I will accept using either term as interchangeable. In shorter words: Radical Leftism uses Orwellian strategies of doublethink, thoughtcrime, and deindividuation in order to construct the environment that allows for the creation of a socio-political climate reminiscent of Oceania in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

            So, when Radical Leftists use ethnic slurs against, say, a Black man of conservative sentiments they are, to themselves, not being hypocritical, but attacking the enemy, attacking their version of Emmanuel Goldstein. That is the argument being made here, and I apologize for using so much time to get to it, but to make such a comparison one must have an argument to back it, especially with the connotations of the term “Orwellian”. This is where we can finally break down why Radical Leftism is not for minorities, even if what I have said already is not enough to prove that.

            If we were to shed away the Orwellian argument for a moment, the incompatibility of minorities with Radical Leftism is still simple. What merit is there in supporting an ideology that will harass, degrade, and use slurs malicious towards the identity of a target, especially if that target is a minority that the Radical Left claims to love? That is so immensely hypocritical it is more hilarious than enraging! It is also counterintuitive, for how do you create a society of total racial equality when you can use terms forged of racial inequality against an opponent of the slurred ethnicity? That is the argument against minority support of Radical Leftism without Orwellian connections. With Orwellian connections, the argument is simpler: does a movement that resembles the values of IngSoc really represent what a minority would want in society? Because, in Oceania, there was equality, but that was equality in their shared suffering, oppression, and degradation as individuals. Endorsing Radical Leftism is an endorsement of hypocrisy, or an endorsement of Orwellianism, and that is why Radical Leftism is NOT at all supportive of the political hopes of minorities.