A Glossary of Progressive Ideas: Part Two
Today, we continue our lexical stroll through progressivism. Two more terms to help you wend your way through modern life without getting lost in the thought-distorting maze of linguistic corruption.
(Prefatory note: In proper English, this term literally means a person’s research has been accepted by one or more reviewers for publication in an academic journal, or for presentation at a professional conference. That is all it means. It does not mean the findings presented in that research are truer than ideas which have not been submitted to such a process. Nor does it mean that those findings are truer, or better-supported, than the findings contained in other research papers which were also submitted to a peer-review process but were rejected by reviewers. In the case of accepted vs. rejected research, then, everything depends on who the reviewers are, what their own biases or presuppositions are, and in general what kind of theoretical assumptions or approaches are deemed acceptable or appropriate by the journal editors or conference organizers who employed those particular reviewers. In the case of writing that has not been submitted to an academic peer-review process at all, it need only be noted that almost everything truly important that has ever been committed to writing, in any field of inquiry and at any time in human history, falls into the non-peer-reviewed category — apart from those exceptions that fall into the peer-rejected category. In practical effect, then, the term “peer-reviewed” may generally be understood as a euphemism for “not very important.”)
In progressive logic, “peer-reviewed” means unassailable and necessarily true. “It’s a peer-reviewed study” (or the popular variation, “He/She is a peer-reviewed scientist”) is a premise used in inverse proportion to the empirical verifiability of the conclusion being promoted. In other words, when they cannot adduce enough practical, fact-based evidence in support of a particular conclusion, or when the evidence against that conclusion is particularly uncomfortable, especially if the desired conclusion is being cited as the main justification for a massive new regulatory and/or taxation scheme, progressives will be most likely to defend their case by insisting that their claim is based on “peer-reviewed research,” sometimes also referred to as “settled science.” Thus, one may assess the likelihood or trustworthiness of a progressive empirical claim by noting how heavily the claim relies on shouts of “Peer-reviewed research!” The more they rely on this phrase, the less confident they are in their claims. (See also “Expert.”)
God. The giver of all bounties, and controller of all fates. That without which human life would be unlivable, not in the sense in which tools make human life more livable, but in the sense in which air makes it so. Government is the one entity whose essence is identical to its existence, and whose existence is the source of the real existence of all other essential natures. “The State,” “Society,” and “The People” are alternative names expressing various facets of the Government’s essence, in terms more comprehensible to mere humans. “The State” means Government understood as a system of laws and regulations. “Society” means Government understood as a system of propagandized and school-indoctrinated social norms and officially sanctioned modes of collective belief and behavior. “The People” means Government understood as a collective of millions of undifferentiated cells, each of which is dependent upon, and subservient to, Government as its source and lifeblood, and each of which exists as nothing but a collection of “rights,” by which progressives mean “those privileges and advantages which are bestowed upon a cell by the Government in its manifestation as The State.”