We have dealt with the use of word games in other essays--including specifically the organized Left's attribution of despicable motives to those who oppose their political goals or social values. (See for example, Creating Hate In America Today, and Chapters 5 and 7 of this Handbook, linked below.) Yet the subject is applicable to so many different aspects of Left/Right confrontation that it may be useful to devote a Chapter specifically to it.
It is probably a close call, generally, as to whether an appeal to fear or greed, a stirring of class antagonism and envy, or the mislabeling of foes with the terms of bigotry and paranoia, has been the most effective weapon in the Socialist assault on Western Society. But in America, at least, it is no contest. By far and away, the major vehicle for undermining our heritage and traditions has been an incessant campaign to attribute base motives, and create a fear of being stigmatized, to and among the conservative mainstream.
The problem the Left had to overcome is that Americans tend to be self-confident, traditionally believe that you should work for success, and do not suffer from the class hatreds of Europe. Yet we like to be considered fair. And it is in this desire to be considered a fair people, that the Left has found an "Achilles Heel." One must understand the technique that has been employed against us, and the inherent error in the underlying assumptions, in order to recognize it in the debate over any specific issue. Once fully understood, the tables may be turned, and the natural advantage of the Conservative defender of truth reestablished.
When the organized Left, in any of its principal manifestations, first targets an aspect of the American social tradition, the opening salvo is almost always an attack on the motives and objectivity of those expected to resist the change demanded. Sometimes the intention is to neutralize opposition by demoralizing Conservatives; at other times, it is to marginalize the defenders of a particular tradition, to drive a wedge between them and other like-minded groups or individuals. But always, the purpose seems to be to avoid reasoned debate on an issue on which the Left has the weaker argument.
An example of an attack intended to demoralize, would be the ongoing chorus accusing the Boy Scouts Of America of "hatred," "bigotry," "homophobia" and a pathological fear that inhibits reason, for excluding Homosexuals (note The Boy Scouts Of America & A Leftwing Agenda, below). Examples of attacks intended to marginalize and drive wedges between the like-minded, would be the sudden and ferocious vilification of Bob Jones University during the 2000 Presidential Primaries, or the abuse heaped on the athlete evangelist, Reggie White, after his speech to the Wisconsin Legislature in 1999. You will note that each was assailed for "bigotry and hatemongering" etc., because both the largely White Protestant University and the Negro evangelist refused to accede to the skewed vision of those demanding that social policy be based upon the concept of an undifferentiated humanity and the rejection of traditional religious values.
A similar hue and cry was directed towards the Southern Baptists, a couple of years ago, when they reiterated a belief in Biblical sex roles. In the case of the Baptists, we suspect that the intention was both to demoralize and marginalize. And while part of the nominal excuse for the attack on Bob Jones University, was a sometimes strident criticism of Roman Catholic doctrine by the School Administration, every traditional Catholic knows that his institutions have received similar vilification over their own adherence to traditional values. The same intentions--to demoralize and marginalize--are evident in the sudden frenzy to stigmatize Confederate symbols and renew a debate over an institution, which ended more than four generations ago.
Parallel use of abusive terms to demean opponents' motivations may be seen every time anyone suggests making the graduations in the personal income tax less extreme--or moving back in the direction of a system of taxation advocated by the Founding Fathers, which forbade any graduated tax at all. Invariably such reform is characterized as a taking from the "poor," with implications of some form of corruption among those who, after the proposed change, would still be paying far more than their per capita share of taxes.
Those who oppose liberal immigration, foreign aid, entangling alliances or "New World Orders," are denounced as "xenophobic," in addition to the usual epithets suggesting "hatred," "bigotry," and a paranoid "fear" of strangers. The intention, obviously, is to demoralize and isolate, not to debate.
The success that the Left has enjoyed with this tactic, through the years, is truly remarkable. It has been so successful, when applied to academic pursuits in the social and biological sciences, that many recent college graduates are actually unaware that there is even a meaningful correlation between success in any area of endeavor and innate, genetically determined, aptitude. Eugenics has been equated with "Nazis," and the results of three generation's of psychological testing-- designed to determine the relative roles of nature and nurture--swept into remote regions of seldom visited archives. Having thus silenced the obvious answer that those who succeed, generally deserve to succeed, the Left is free to rescue its clients from the "evils" of Capitalism. This success, achieved by creating a terrible fear of being mislabeled among those who knew better, has probably been responsible for every major Leftwing advance against our heritage since the days of the "New Deal."
It should be noted that few among us are really able to persuade others to a complex ideology. The glue that preserves social values is seldom found in the words of the wise alone. The enduring preservative lies more in a sense of social cohesion, of group identity; and when that is undermined--as it is by impugning the motives of those who share a personal sense of that identity--the very basis for cultural survival is destroyed. See Chapter 11 and The Leftist War On Social Cohesion, linked below.
A debate conducted at the pre-adolescent playground level, where each side hurls the same terms of derision and abuse at the other, is no answer to what we have described as the "hate/fear" tactic. We do not need to answer in epithets. We can easily demonstrate, in readily understandable images, who are the real bigots; who among us are primarily motivated by the negative emotions of hate and fear, and who by such positive traits as reason, truth and love. What we propose is an index of positive and negative emotions; to place different organizations, political and social movements, on an informal scale, related to that index. This Chapter will not suggest a definitive index or scale, merely a first step in the process.
It is clear that almost no group or organization, engaged in controversy, will be totally hate or love motivated; neither totally governed by bigotry, nor totally inspired by chivalry. The mere involvement in public controversy over political, religious or social issues, will heighten feelings, both positive and negative. We must recognize this that we not appear to employ a standard that imposes one measure on our friends and another on our enemies. Here, as always, let truth be our guide. This may mean that we must sometimes acknowledge vices among individual friends and virtues among enemies. Ultimately, of course, the merits of an idea are not dependent upon the vices or virtues of its proponents or opponents. In recognizing the emotional aspect of controversy, we do not deny the rational. The function of this Chapter, then, is strictly limited; to expose the fallacy of one of the reason avoiding tactics of the Left.
All else being equal, the defenders of the status quo obviously start on a more positive note than those who demand change. Rational man seeks to keep what he likes, what he believes in; to change what he dislikes, what he disfavors. Impugning the motives of those who merely want to be left alone is not to reason but to insult.
In constructing a positive/negative (love/hate) index for any organization, we should consider such points of reference as stated purpose, nature of primary activity (such as educational or confrontational), methods for handling controversy and opposition, and whether the subject is usually the initiator or responder to controversy; as well as actual time and resources spent on positive versus negative quests. It is possible to break these broad categorizations into a whole host of sub-categories; but this Chapter is intended to suggest the approach, not to offer a complete treatment.
To illustrate this concept, we select organizations that deal with group identification, because it is with respect to positive and negative group images that we encounter the heaviest concentration of the terms of abuse; the greatest reliance on demeaning the motivations of others. Consider and contrast the following organizations, each of which deals with some form of group identification:
1. Daughters Of The American Revolution.
2. The United Daughters Of The Confederacy.
3. National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People.
4. People For The American Way.
5. Southern Poverty Law Center.
6. The Anti-Defamation League.
Both the Daughters of The American Revolution and the United Daughters of The Confederacy have a clearly positive orientation. The D.A.R., which draws its membership from women at least eighteen, who "can prove lineal, blood line descent from an ancestor who aided in achieving American independence," states these Objectives:
Historical--to perpetuate the memory and spirit of the men and women who achieved American Independence;
Educational--to carry out the injunction of Washington in his farewell address ..."to promote, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge, thus developing an enlightened public opinion..." and
Patriotic--to cherish, maintain and extend the institutions of American freedom, to foster true patriotism and love of country, and to aid in securing for mankind all the blessings of liberty.
The U.D.C. draws its membership from women at least sixteen, "who are blood descendants, lineal or collateral, of men and women who served honorably in the Army, Navy or Civil Service of the Confederate States of America, or gave Material Aid to the Cause," and offers these Objectives:
Historical, Educational, Benevolent, Memorial and Patriotic, to honor the memory of those who served and those who fell in the service of the Confederate States of America; to protect, preserve and mark the places made historic by Confederate valor; to collect and preserve the material for a truthful history of the War Between the States; to record the part taken by Southern Women in patient endurance of hardship and patriotic devotion during the struggle, and the untiring efforts after the War during the reconstruction of the South; to fulfill the sacred duty of benevolence toward the survivors and toward those dependent upon them; to assist descendants of worthy Confederates in securing proper education; and to cherish the ties of friendship among the members of the Organization.
Note that neither of these organizations sets out to confront anyone, or to antagonize anyone. They begin by honoring their own lineage and traditional values, and proceed with constructive pursuits entirely consistent with that heritage. They seek to be a positive force in the lives of others. In endeavoring to preserve their own heritage, they do not disparage the heritage of anyone else. We have selected these particular organizations for our starting point because they are both drawn from the old, settled, stock of Americans, derisively referred to as "WASPs" in those circles of "Liberal" academia, which have tried to picture traditional America as a very intolerant land. Let us see how the pursuits of these ladies compare with our other subjects, each of which has been credited by those same "Liberal" academics with promoting "tolerance."
The NAACP has already drawn our attention in the essay below on Creating Hate In America Today. A Fabian Socialist organization, created by Leftwing Whites, with only one Negro (really a Mulatto) participating at the organizational meeting, its primary focus (in 1909) was to wrest the direction of efforts to improve the lot of the American Negro away from the Conservative Christian approach of the great Negro educator, Booker T. Washington, into a far more confrontational one. Where the NAACP stands on a Love/Hate index may be illustrated by the differences between its approach and that of Washington, on Negro advancement and relations between the races.
Both the thrust and essence of Booker T. Washington's approach to Negro needs and race relations were entirely positive. He sought to improve his people's lot through education and hard work; to climb the ladder as others had climbed the ladder. He did not revile the past, but concentrated on positive images; appealing to his Caucasian neighbors' love for a culture and heritage that the races had shared, and urging their respect for Negro loyalty to that shared civilization. He did not demand a forced association. He persuaded to a common devotion to a common interest.
In the place of this benign and constructive approach, this building for a better future; the NAACP chose to heap aspersions on the American mainstream; to blame others for every disappointment; to demand that a collective solve their people's problems; to demand involuntary patterns of association, and, finally today, to demand that others even cease to honor any heritage of which the NAACP does not approve.
Yet, while the NAACP has worked in tandem with other Fabian Socialist organizations, such as the ADL, on mutually useful projects for generations, it has at least one positive aspect amidst this sea of negativity and hate. Some of its activists do actually identify with their people's long term interest--however misguided the approach. As such they have encouraged educational pursuits, job training and specific neighborhood improvements. We make this distinction before we turn to the last three subject organizations.
These have much in common. Approaching the battle from somewhat different announced objectives, each directs primary attention and most of its energy into combating organizations and individuals who refuse to accept its values. While people who would defend their heritage sometimes form groups to actively combat their foes--for example the many Anti-Communist organizations that sprang up during the Cold War--it is not at all clear just what any of these subject organizations are defending.
The most apt place to start an analysis of the orientation of People For The American Way is in a recognition that what they claim to be defending is pure fantasy. They define their objectives as:
People For the American Way organizes and mobilizes Americans to fight for fairness, justice, civil rights and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. However, one will inquire in vain as to what they are doing to defend those Constitutional freedoms, currently under attack. They do not defend the First Amendment freedom to freely exercise religion--rather quite the opposite. Nor do they defend the right of free association, as for example in the case of the Boy Scouts Of America--rather quite the opposite. Nor the Second Amendment's guarantee of the Right To Keep & Bear Arms, nor the property rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, nor the rights of the States guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.
Their literature reveals rather a preoccupation with something they label the Religious Right. They see themselves as an essential "watchdog," keeping exhaustive records of what ultraconservative groups communicate to their own target audiences; being there to tell the truth when they deceptively tailor their messages for the mainstream media; and helping to organize other groups and communities to defeat the Religious Right.
While this is obviously negative and antagonistic, its correct position on the proposed index can only be determined by a consideration of just what, if anything, the PFAW claim to be defending. While the generalized rhetoric suggests that they are defending traditional American values, the reality is very different. The activities of the "Religious Right" which offend them appear to be those which involve defense of traditional family values. To the PFAW it is NOT acceptable that religious Americans would want to limit the role of public schools in teaching sexual values. It is NOT acceptable that religious Americans would condemn Homosexuality. It is NOT acceptable that those who want to preserve traditional family values would organize politically, or try to influence judicial appointments, or question the leftward drift of politics, or even prefer people who share their beliefs as employees.
In short, what the PFAW is guarding America from is not some aggression upon the part of religious Americans against the American tradition, but against any effort by religious Americans to fight back against the aggressive pursuit of a secular Leftwing agenda with which the PFAW identifies. The PFAW is not motivated by a love of anything that is real, but of the fantasy which the far Left wants to impose upon America. And if an obsessive ranting against people who want to preserve their traditions and values is not bigotry, what is?
The Southern Poverty Law Center describes itself as an organization that combats hate, intolerance and discrimination through education and litigation. Its programs include the Intelligence Project, Teaching Tolerance and Tolerance.org. To determine this organization's bent, and whether we would want them teaching their notion of "tolerance," let us look at their "Intelligence Project" to calculate where they stand on our index.
They tell us that, The Center's quarterly "Intelligence Report" offers in-depth analysis of political extremism and bias crimes in the United States... profiles Far Right leaders, monitors domestic terrorism and reports on the activities of extremist groups. Its annual listing of hate groups and Patriot groups is the most comprehensive in the United States. Each issue contains summaries of bias incidents from throughout the country.
The technique of the SPLC is remarkably similar to that used by the ADL (our next subject) against Conservatives for over 90 years. It is not surprising that a group with such techniques would fail to acknowledge that most extremism over the past two centuries has come from the Left not Right of center, from those who sought to repudiate not vindicate traditional values; would fail to acknowledge that most terrorists have been adherents to Socialist and Egalitarian movements, few indeed in favor of affirming heritage. Perusing SPLC articles, an informed Conservative will quickly perceive that their interpretation of tolerance bears no semblance to what the word means to the rest of the English speaking world.
The Tolerance Project involves a sometimes subtle, often overt, linking of small ineffective groups, which may actually display an inordinate degree of negative motivation and hateful sentiment, with others who simply share one trait in common with the first. That shared trait is often an ideological principle for which the Left has no answer but to smear by tortured association--such as a commitment to the traditional American belief in individual responsibility and limited Government.
Thus a recent article on what the SPLC labeled "Patriot Movement," linked such outspoken and effective advocates of traditional American values as J. J. Johnson, Howard Phillips (of the Constitution Party) and Larry Pratt (Gun Owners Of America) with some individuals discredited by personal conduct, who had at one time or another been in general agreement on kindred concepts. The article used one misleading trick after another to convey the impression that anyone who shared George Washington's belief in an armed and prepared citizenry, as essential to that individual responsibility and limited Government, was some form of crack pot. Yet it never addressed the underlying issues or mentioned that George Washington was the foremost champion of the ideas that those being smeared had advocated.
Although the tie between a respectable group being smeared and eccentrics on a tangent, is usually a common opposition to some gross excess on the Left, another favored tactic is to link anyone who expressespride in his racial heritage with those who spew hatred against others. The target most favored by the SPLC is, of course, the Conservative Southern Anglo-Saxon/Celtic strain of Christians: Those who still refuse to apologize for holding traditional views similar to the Founding Fathers. Slandering this group is not only an absurd confusion of love with hate; it is the same vicious technique that the master Socialist demagogue Adolph Hitler used so effectively in destroying all individual freedom in Germany. Let us look briefly at the ADL, the last group to be discussed, and then return to the techniques of the German Dictator.
At its website, the Anti-Defamation League laments the persistence of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry--which in recent years have included attacks on immigrants, Blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, gay men and lesbians. And while the hatemongers of today may be lacking in numbers and in economic and political power, they still have the ability to cause emotional pain, physical injury, property destruction, even death--not to mention the incalculable damage they do to the social fabric of America and to this country's cherished ideals of mutual respect and equal treatment for all.
To most of us, "mutual respect" means live and let live, as well as courtesy to those who have a different viewpoint--particularly when they do not try to force it upon others. That is not what mutual respect means to the ADL. To the ADL mutual respect means acceptance of a new universal norm. We cite their March 3, 2000 press release on South Carolina's failure to establish a Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday:
It is a shame that political squabbling, insensitivity and partisan aggrandizing would keep this state from paying its long overdue respect to Dr. King. While 49 states have seen fit to honor Dr. King, South Carolina remains out of step with the rest of America.
The article goes on to discuss the symbolism of the Confederate flag: ADL has consistently called on federal, state and local governments not to use or promote the Confederate flag "in any manner except for educational purposes." Many Americans--and South Carolinians--of all races, national origins, and religions regard the Confederate flag to be a modern-day symbol of racism, intimidation, hatred, oppression, and violence. Sound public policy dictates that no government should support the use of this symbol which offends so many decent people.
Other articles show the ADL consistently attacking organizations that honor Confederate traditions; using the same techniques as the SPLC to lump them with organizations that really do promote hate. This hatred of the South goes way back. The ADL was instrumental and active, behind the scenes, in efforts to make certain that the intellectual argument for the Southern position went uncovered in the major media during the battle over "Civil Rights" and forced School Integration in the late 1950s. They participated with the ACLU and NAACP in a media committee of the Consultative Conference on Desegregation, discussed in Chapter Three of this handbook. What is most revealing about this hatred of the old South is not only that it once again shows that what the ADL means by mutual respect is not what any normal person understands that term to signify. It also demonstrates that defending the image of Jews and Judaism from defamation--its claimed reason for existence--is not and never has been the primary object.
The most striking thing about the Old South, from a Jewish perspective, is that it was the one region in America where Jews were fully accepted into a mainstream leadership by the 1850s. Judah P. Benjamin, the Senator from Louisiana selected to make the textbook defense of the right of secession in the U.S. Senate, based upon the Law of Nations, served as the number three man in the Confederate Government. Florida also had a Jewish Senator at the time she left the Union. But don't hold your breath for the ADL to express appreciation or respect for either of those Southern leaders. Fabian Socialists are never quite what they claim to be.
Yet to really nail down the ADL position on our proposed index, we need to examine the recent attack on the Boy Scouts. This is what an organization that claims to be defending Judaism from hate and defamation had to say on the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Boy Scouts Of America:
We are stunned that in the year 2000, the Supreme Court could issue such a decision. The Supreme Court's decision provides cover for groups that attempt to target individuals they wish to exclude.... This decision effectively states that as long as an organization avows an anti-homosexual position, it is free to discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans ....As Justice John Paul Stevens observed in his dissent, the Court today has attached a special stigma to being gay. No American, however, should be discriminated against or stigmatized simply because of his or her sexual orientation.
Immediately following that declaration, they again proclaimed that they are "the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry."
What has given and sustained a group identity among Jews, for over 3200 years, has never been an organization seeking to insult and reform others in the manner of the ADL. The sustaining force, through the millennia, has been devotion to an explicit theology inscribed by Moses in the first five books of the Old Testament (in Greek, the Pentateuch, in Hebrew, the Torah), as Divine revelation; a standard of conduct carried by its adherents into every corner to which they have wandered. That same Pentateuch or Torah long since came to be a major part of the Foundation of Western Theology in general. It was no Court that "attached a special stigma to being gay."
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination (Leviticus, Chapter 18, 22).
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they shall surely be put to death; (Leviticus, Chapter 20, 13).
A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man; neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the Lord thy God (Deuteronomy, Chapter 22, 5).
The ADL should give up the pretense that it has a positive role; that it is actually defending anything more real than that same fantasy of the Left discussed under the PFAW. While it may lure innocent people into working on its projects, its orientation is totally warped. Or how else can one describe an organization that claims to be defending Judaism, while smearing Moses!
We promised to come back to the methodology of Hitler and the smear techniques of the SPLC & ADL. These were & are basically the same--the same tactic, to the same effect--the only difference, the immediate target. In each case, grossly illogical over-reaches are used to stigmatize by association. Then the vilest accusations are endlessly repeated.
While Hitler, the SPLC & ADL selected different targets, there are close similarities in the targets selected. This is not surprising. Once one cuts through the respective rant, it is quite clear that each sought power to enforce uniform values and standards over a diverse population--to suppress any right of dissent. Each thus picked a target that--by reason of a strong ethnic identity and spiritual values, coupled with pronounced individualistic traits--appeared unlikely to fit into the monolithic social structure being pursued. Thus Hitler selected Jews; the SPLC & ADL, rooted and Conservative Anglo-Saxon/Celtic Southern Protestants.
Although Hitler chose the same target as the founder of modern Communism, Karl Marx, a century before, he slightly varied the approach. Marx had pictured Jews as epitomizing the Capitalism Marx despised. Hitler focused on a number of highly visible Jewish rebels, then active in the Communist movement from which Hitler claimed to be saving Germany; accusing the Jews of being behind Communism--even though, Communism, of course, was out to destroy Jewish business interests no less than Gentile business interests. The technique used, is no different than when the SPLC & ADL link their Southern target to obvious fringe groups, citing the antics of individual eccentrics, who share a common ethnic heritage but rebel against its traditional Jeffersonian values. The same tactic, to the same effect--only different names and terminology.
While Hitler accused the Jews of corrupting German culture--even blaming them for degenerate musical forms because some had experimented in strange directions, when there were probably fifty times as many German Jews playing the music that Hitler loved in symphonic orchestras;--the SPLC & ADL have focused on individual acts of racial hatred, whenever a low-class White has reacted with excessive anger to some situation--even though those organizations are well aware that traditional Southern Society was based upon principles of "live and let live"; of treating people as individuals, and never asking more of others than to be left alone to be themselves.
When a lone German Jew killed a Nazi, an indoctrinated mob launched Crystal Night. Were mobs that have overreacted to the actions of White police officers in American cities, in the decades since the rhetoric of ethnic blame became acceptable in the media, any less indoctrinated by the tactics we describe? Are the actions of the PFAW, SPLC and ADL, in keeping close tabs on even the smallest dissenting organization, even in the most remote corner of America, appreciably different than the way Himmler and the Gestapo monitored dissent from Hitler's own form of Socialism? One could go on and on. The same tactic; the same purpose; similar targets. Where it eventually ends is the only question?
Hitler's rant started as a tactic in the pursuit of power. But in galvanizing the susceptible to action, he unleashed something that became increasingly ugly as time went by. There is already a considerable amount of similar hate-filled rant, today, aimed at the rooted White Southerner. It is on the TV networks; on the editorial pages of the New York Times; on the Internet; even from the pulpit. While our Southerners are armed, as the German Jews were not, the Left has long pushed to do something about that. No, we do not think they have yet planned an "ultimate solution," nor had Hitler in 1933. But the hate is there, and the sanctimonious organizations who claim a mission in fighting hatred, prejudice and bigotry, are avidly stirring it up. Where does it end?
In the final days of World War II, when the armies of an even greater tyranny than Hitler's were advancing into Central Europe from the East, when patriotic Germans of all ages were trying desperately to stop the advance of the Red Army; the Nazis overthrew the Hungarian Royalists, who had been their ally in the War against Russia, and started a systematic roundup of Hungarian Jews. It did not matter to the hate-motivated that their fellow countrymen were dying on the battlefield to protect a common homeland. To the hate-crazed, it was more important that no Jew escape. Once you understand that mindset--and it is a mindset of the Left (see Chapter 7, below, as well as a Compulsion For Uniformity)--you begin to understand why a lone dissenter, such as Randy Weaver, would be targeted on a remote mountainside; you begin to understand women and children being burned alive at Waco.
There are different targets, at different times. But the Left wants all the world to share its values--whatever they are at any moment. And they are the most intolerant people in the modern world. Many folks hate someone or something. But when you go door to door in Hungary, while the world is crashing down on your own people; or send snipers up a mountainside in Idaho to kill a boy and his dog, and then his mother holding her infant; you really know how to hate!
While we have focused on the tactic of the Left in demeaning and mislabeling opposition as primarily a technique in a war of propaganda, and addressed very briefly where such tactics may ultimately end; there is another aspect that should deserve some attention. There is a widely recognized phenomenon in human psychology, where a subject attributes his or her own vices or aberrations to others: "Projects" problem causing traits, that one does not want to acknowledge in himself, to those he has to deal with.
There is unquestionably an element of this among the truly fanatic adherents to those Leftwing groups that claim to be tracking "hatred," "bigotry" and "intolerance." The adjectives, they apply to others, apply far better to themselves.