[Louis Foxwell]

Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List notification of new articles.

FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off the Sultan Knish ping list. I highly recommend an occasional look at the Sultan Knish blog. It is a rich source of materials, links and more from one of the preeminent writers of our age.

[Mr. K]

Geez this guy is good....

[ComputerGuy]

You can't think in Liberal Newspeak. You can only feel good or bad, angry or self-satisfied. There is no room for thoughts, only feelings. You can feel guilty in Liberal Newspeak. You can be outraged, self-righteous or concerned. But you can't weigh one idea against another because it isn't a language of ideas. It's a vocabulary of emotional cues that could just as easily be taught to a smart animal.

One of several gems in this fine piece.

[Louis Foxwell]

This may be the most important discussion of liberal thought. Liberals do not think. They emote. It is not possible to have a rational conversation with a liberal because liberals are not guided by rational discourse. They are a hive, driven by emotional cues. Their language elicits emotion, not thought. Even their signature accomplishments are not thought provoking. They are emotion cues.
Liberals are comtemptuous of thought. They equate thinking with hating. If you have to think about it you are not a member of the hive.
A critical understanding of the mentality of liberals differentiates between honey bee hive and the fire ant colony. The bee hive has a single queen. The ant colony is a many headed hydra, with countless queens each with their own soldiers, gatherers and drones.
Honey bees are industrious and private. Fire ants are invasive and dangerous. Liberalism is most comparable to a vast invasion of biting, poisonous, agressive fire ants. Their colony may infest acres of turf. Exterminating one mound does not eradicate the colony.
Thank you Daniel. Keeping poking those fire ants.

[jsanders2001]

As usual masterful and to the point seeing through the lies, deception, and general BS of the liberal mind. I especially enjoyed the Stephen King style description of liberal “newspeak” here:

“Liberal Newspeak is the chirpy announcer in a drug commercial soothingly telling you about all the fatal side effects while on screen couples have romantic picnics and go whitewater rafting”

By articulating and clarifying the tactics of the enemy so well it makes us better understand hiw to counter and go on the offensive. Just make you don’t shake hands with strangers or drive any late model vehicles, Daniel...: )

[gattaca]

Every time I hear my progressive co-workers spewing the rant of the day, I think of Baghdad Bob. This articles explains why.

[Excellence]

Everything he says about liberal-speak can be found in just about every education paper, which is why edducation is so screwed up.

[freepersup]

Newspeak j-a-y-c-a-r-n-e-y

[Old Sarge]

Pretty please add me to the Sultan’s Pinglist.

[left that other site]

Liberal Newspeak is a language of preemption. It preempts questions and ideas. Its terminology is so vague that specific questions require a convoluted assemblage of words. The more specific the question, the more convoluted the sentence, until asking even a simple question is like trying to make a wish with a genie. And then the sheer amount of words makes the meaning impermeable.

This is a fine art that is relentlessly taught in most of the schools in America. There is no debate, only repetitive "talking Points". When a sensible and righteous argument is presented by our side, it is immediately pre-empted, interrupted, and overridden in a technique known as "Jamming". Liberals who call conservative talk radio are TRAINED in this technique. It is pathetic and tragic listening to decent, polite, conservative people attempting an old-fashioned conversation with liberals who have been "trained" in this fashion.

The recent "Thanksgiving Dinner" Campaign for obamascare is an example of the left "tipping its hand" on their MO.

[traderrob6]

This article’s a keeper.

[IronJack]

And it goes beyond mere language. If, as the author asserts, the purpose of Newspeak is to coat bitter realities in palatable utterances, that is little more than a metaphor for the whole socialist/communist/progressive agenda. It is a dehumanizing, brutal idelology whose record shows its utter moral paucity. Yet it stays alive by selling itself in comforting (albeit meaningless) images and vaguely noble abstractions that preclude concrete discussion.

To the Left, it’s always about the package, never the contents. And the poster boy for that reality is Barack Obama.

[N. Theknow]

Pleas ad me to the Ping List. Thank you.

[Oratam]

Please add me as well.

[Teacher317]

Well written, sir!

[mountainfolk]

Knish is one of my five must reads for the day. Always a good use of my time to read whatever Knish is talking about. We gave up on newspapers years ago and that reading time is now spread among good writers and blogs. Knish is one of the best.

[Mike Darancette]

Liberal Newspeak is the chirpy announcer in a drug commercial soothingly telling you about all the fatal side effects while on screen couples have romantic picnics and go whitewater rafting.

Had me blowing coffee out of my nose. Give the Sultan some hits.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It's not that these words don't have meanings. It's that their meanings have been rendered meaningless. The techniques of advertising have been used to pluck up words that people once felt comfortable with and wrap them around the agendas of the liberal bureaucracy.

This entire article uses the term “liberal” as if its connotation of “socialist” were unexceptionable. And says that

Unlike Newspeak, Liberal Newspeak doesn't engage in any showy inversions of meaning.

- except that the very word “liberal” had its meaning inverted in the 1920s.

[uncitizen]

Thanx for posting this. Most excellent!