Political Terms

Political terms can be obscure. They can indicate a level of low cunning, used to deceive honest voters. Here are some. Others are at Political campaigning.

Liberal Democracy is a misnomer, a perversion of the truth.
Representative Democracy
is another
is a Marxist construct, a Marxist Propaganda tool used to impose Third World immigration on Western Civilization but not, of course Israel.

Anchor Baby - produce one & become an American citizen as a matter of right - of law anyway
 is another word for Multiculturalism or Cultural Diversity
Diversity hires means: He got the job because he was black 
Divide and Conquer is a major political technique summarised by Hegel as "thesis, antithesis, synthesis"
Dog Whistle Politics send messages without saying them in so many words.
Enemy Of The People - usually a communist term.
Fifth Column
- traitors within the gates 

Hard Right ex Wiki
- is just a term of abuse. It does not mean advocating mass murder etc.
Judas Goats lead others of the herd to their doom; they are trained to betray. 
means Libertarian except in America where it has been changed to Socialist 
Mud Slinging - an even more honest term.
Negative Campaigning
- an honest term.
Party Line
- the point of view imposed by Cultural Marxists & other Tyrants

- is a code word for Marxism or, at least Left Wing 
Push Poll is mud slung by phone.

- essentially a leftie or Rent A Mob  
Regressive Left

Social Justice Warrior  - the Wiki displays its bias 
Thought collectives
 - a simple idea with a Marxist feel to it
Stalking Horse
- is sent to test the strength of feeling.
Wedge Issue - divide and conquer.


Dog Whistle Politics
Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The phrase is only ever used as a pejorative, because of the inherently deceptive nature of the practice and because the dog-whistle messages are frequently themselves distasteful, for example by empathising with racist attitudes. It is an analogy to dog whistles, which are built in such a way that their high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs, but is inaudible to humans.

The term can be distinguished from "code words" used by hospital staff or other specialist workers, in that dog-whistling is specific to the political realm, and the messaging referred to as the dog-whistle has an understandable meaning for a general audience, rather than being incomprehensible.
You just might see political bias in the Wiki's examples.


Hard Right ex Wiki
Hard right
is a political term used for political tendencies to the right of the mainstream right-wing and left of the far-right.

In the U.S. the term Hard right is often used to describe groups such as the Patriot movement and the Tea Party movement.[1][2] Features include Paleoconservatism, Christian theocracy and White nationalism.[3] It is said to be on the rise in response to the Obama presidency.[4] In the U.K. the term Hard right is used to describe hard-line elements within UKIP[5] and elements within mainstream parties that favour a pro-business neoliberal agenda.[6] Elsewhere in Europe a range of populist anti-immigration groups are referred to as Hard right such as the AfD in Germany.[7]


Judas Goats
A Judas goat is a trained goat used in general animal herding. The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards, a Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared. Judas goats are also used to lead other animals to specific pens and onto trucks. They have fallen out of use in recent times, but can still be found in various smaller slaughterhouses in some parts of the world.

The term is a reference to the biblical character Judas Iscariot.[1]
Treachery is the name of the game with goats as with people. See Judas Goats for more bout the book.


Progressivism ex Wiki
is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[1] Sociologist Robert Nisbet defines five "crucial premises" of the Idea of Progress as being: value of the past; nobility of Western civilization; worth of economic/technological growth; scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason over faith; the intrinsic importance and worth of life on Earth.[2] Beyond this, the meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives.

The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.[3]

The term is also now often used as shorthand for a more or less left-wing way of looking at the world.[4]


Radicalism ex Wiki
The term political radicalism (or simply, in political science, radicalism) denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways. Derived from the Latin radix (root), the denotation of radical has changed since its eighteenth-century coinage to comprehend the entire political spectrum—yet retains the "change at the root" connotation fundamental to revolutionary societal change. Historically, radicalism has referred exclusively to the radical left (under the single category of far-left politics) and rarely incorporating far-right politics, though these may have revolutionary elements; the prominent exception is in the United States where some consider radicalism to include both political extremes of the radical left and the radical right. In traditional labels of the spectrum of political thought, the opposite of radical on the "right" of the political spectrum is termed reactionary.

The nineteenth-century Cyclopaedia of Political Science (1881, 1889) reports that "radicalism is characterized less by its principles than by the manner of their application".[1] Conservatives often used the term radical pejoratively, whereas contemporary left radicals used the term conservative derogatorily;[2] thus contemporary denotations of radical, radicalism, and political radicalism comprehend far left (hard left,[3] radical left),[4] and far right (hard right, radical right).[5]..........

 Philosophically, the French political scientist Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78), is the principal theoretician proposing political radicalism as feasible in republican political philosophy, viz the French Revolution (1789–99), and other modern revolutions—the antithesis to the liberalism of John Locke.[6]


Regressive Left ex Wiki
The regressive left (also sometimes referred to as regressive liberals) is a political epithet used to negatively characterize a section of left-wing politics which is accused of paradoxically holding reactionary views due to its tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies (such as extremist Islamism) for the sake of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.

Within the specific context of multiculturalism, British anti-Islamism activist Maajid Nawaz used the term in 2012 in his memoir Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism[note 1] to describe "well-meaning liberals and ideologically driven leftists" in the United Kingdom who naïvely and "ignorantly pandered to" Islamists and helped Islamist ideology to gain acceptance. In a 2015 video presentation on the Internet forum Big Think, Nawaz elaborated on the meaning of the term, saying that it describes "a section of the left" that has, in his opinion, "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities ... for the sake of political correctness, for the sake of tolerating what they believe is other cultures and respecting different lifestyles".[2]

Among well-known political and social commentators, political talk-show hosts such as Bill Maher and Dave Rubin, as well as New Atheist writers like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have discussed the concept numerous times.[3][4]


Social Justice Warrior ex Wiki
"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views;[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[citation needed] political correctness,[2] and identity politics.[3] The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation.[5]

The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice.[1] During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, political correctness, or feminism.[1][2]

The term has entered popular culture, including a parody role-playing video game released in 2014 titled Social Justice Warriors.[6][7] The game was focused around debating an Internet troll, and its creator was motivated to encourage users to engage in critical thinking.[8]
This is one of the Wikipedia's more tendentious articles. It implies that "social justice" has a lot to do with real justice; that "progress" is for the better. Ditto for Feminism, Identity Politics & other of Marxism's single issue propaganda operations.


Stalking Horse ex Wiki
A stalking horse is a figure that tests a concept with someone or mounts a challenge against someone on behalf of an anonymous third party. If the idea proves viable or popular, the anonymous figure can then declare its interest and advance the concept with little risk of failure. If the concept fails, the anonymous party will not be tainted by association with the failed concept and can either drop the idea completely or bide its time and wait until a better moment for launching an attack.

The term stalking horse originally derived from the practice of hunting, [1] particularly of wildfowl.[2] Hunters noticed that many birds would flee immediately on the approach of humans, but would tolerate the close presence of animals such as horses and cattle.

Hunters would therefore slowly approach their quarry by walking alongside their horses, keeping their upper bodies out of sight until the flock was within firing range. Animals trained for this purpose were called stalking horses. Sometimes mobile hides are used for a similar purpose.........

The expression is generally used in politics and business. In politics, the circumstances are an attempt to bring down a powerful leader, usually by members of their own party. In business, the circumstances are an attempt at testing the market for a potential (hostile) takeover of a business. In each case, there is the clear understanding that the anonymous party, whether a company or an individual, has a valuable reputation that could be damaged by the failure. The stalking horse is an exercise in assessing accurately the degree of risk, thus a full-blooded challenge is only mounted by the main party when there is a real likelihood of success.
They used one on Maggie Thatcher. 


Thought collectives ex Wiki
Fleck wrote that the development of truth in scientific research was an unattainable ideal as different researchers were locked into thought collectives (or thought-styles). A "truth" was a relative value, expressed in the language or symbolism of the thought collective in which it belonged, and subject to the social and temporal structure of this collective. To state therefore that a specific truth is true or false is impossible. It is true in its own collective, but incomprehensible or unverifiable in most others. He felt that the development of scientific insights was not unidirectional and does not consist of just accumulating new pieces of information, but also in overthrowing the old ones. This overthrowing of old insights is difficult because a collective attains over time a specific way of investigating, bringing with it a blindness to alternative ways of observing and conceptualization. Change was especially possible when members of two thought collectives met and cooperated in observing, formulating hypothesis and ideas. He strongly advocated comparative epistemology. This approach anticipated later developments in social constructionism, and especially the development of critical science and technology studies.
PS The idea comes from Ludwik Fleck, a Jew from Poland.


Wedge Issue ex Wiki
A wedge issue is a social issue, often of a divisive or controversial nature, which splits apart a population or political group. Wedge issues can be advertised or publicly aired in an attempt to weaken the unity of a population; with the goal of enticing polarized individuals to give support to an opponent. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics. Wedge issues are also known as hot button or third rail issues.

Political campaigns use wedge issues to exploit tension within a targeted population. A wedge issue may often be a point of internal dissent within an opposing party, which that party attempts to suppress or ignore discussing because it divides "the base." Typically, wedge issues have a cultural or populist theme, relating to matters such as crime, national security, sexuality (e.g. gay marriage), or race. A party may introduce a wedge issue to an opposing population, while aligning itself with the dissenting faction of the opposition. A wedge issue, when introduced, is intended to bring about such things as:

  • A debate, often vitriolic, within the opposing party, giving the public a perception of disarray.
  • The defection of supporters of the opposing party's minority faction to the other party (or independent parties) if they lose the debate.
  • The legitimising of sentiment which, while perhaps popularly held, is usually considered inappropriate or politically incorrect; criticisms from the opposition then make it appear beholden to special interests or fringe ideology.
  • In an extreme case, a wedge issue might contribute to the actual fracture of the opposing party as another party spins off, taking voters with it.

To prevent these three consequences from occurring, the opposing party may attempt to take a "pragmatic" stand and officially endorse the views of its minority faction. However, this can lead to the defection of supporters of the opposing party's majority faction to a third party, should they lose the debate.
Divide and conquer was what the Romans said. It worked then, it works now.


Negative Campaigning ex Wiki aka Mud Slinging
Negative campaigning, also known more colloquially as "mudslinging", is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies. In the broadest sense, the term covers any rhetoric in which one refers to one's opponent in an ad hominem manner.

Negative campaigning can be found in most marketplaces where ideas are contested. In U.S. politics, "mudslinging" has been called "as American as Mississippi mud". Some research suggests negative campaigning is the norm in all political venues, mitigated only by the dynamics of a particular contest.[1]
Telling people why NOT makes sense. That is why the Tories & the Labour Party sound the same. 


Push Poll ex Wiki
A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.

In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning.[1] This tactic is commonly considered to undermine the democratic process as false or misleading information is provided about candidates.

The term is also commonly used in a broader sense to refer to legitimate polls that aim to test political messages, some of which may be negative. Future usage of the term will determine whether the strict or broad definition becomes the most favored definition. However, in all such polls, the pollster asks leading questions or suggestive questions that "push" the interviewee towards adopting an unfavourable response towards the political candidate.
This is mud slinging by phone.