These are the far leftist’s favourite words:
i) ‘Islamophobia’/’Islamophobic’ (a word tailor-made for the far left)
ii) ‘bigot’ (‘fascist bigot’, ‘racist bigot’, etc.)
vi) ‘Neo-liberal’ (a fairly new far-leftist favourite)
x) ‘Zionist’ (or ‘Zionist racist’ or ‘Zionist Nazi’, etc.)
These words are used to stop debate. That’s why the Socialist Workers Party, for example, is so keen on violence and banning things. Everyone who does not to agree with it is by definition an extremist - by its own extremist standards. That is, a ‘racist’, an ‘Islamophobe’, a ‘fascist bigot’, etc. Thus the only language the extremist understands is that of violence, banning and, if they ever gain real political power, death and the Gulag.
As I said, though, brown and black people are allowed to be extreme. Muslims are allowed to be extreme too. They are also allowed to kill. Why is that? Because they are part of the homogenised ‘oppressed’. And white guys (in and out of suits), guys like the parents or past teachers of far leftists, are the ‘oppressors’.
If you notice, all the words in the far-leftist lexicon are critical adjectives. They are used in order to dehumanise the ‘enemy’ (e.g., a word which Salma Yaqoob, formerly of Respect, seems to use in almost every sentence). And the totalitarian mind, or the Stalinist mind, or the Trotskyist mind, or the Islamist mind, must dehumanise all its enemies. And I mean all. By dehumanising the opponent, whether he is an 'Islamophobe', a 'bigot', a 'fascist', a 'Nazi', a 'neo-Con', a 'Zionist', a 'neo-liberal', etc., you can at the same time de-legitimatise him or her. So perhaps some of these totalitarian minds do not really think that their opponents or enemies are fascists, or Islamophobes, etc. However, this de-legitimising totalitarian tactic still works wonders for the totalitarian mind or the totalitarian group.
If you haven’t firstly dehumanised the enemy, then you can’t get rid of him. And if you are a revolutionary, then you must get rid of the enemy because only democrats can cope with those who disagree with them. It is too much of a risk to the Revolution or to Radicalisation or to Progressive Politics to debate with the opponent. (‘No platform for X.’) Thus all opponents are automatically ‘the enemy’. It will get in the way of the revolution or revolutionary acts to listen to them. This is also applied to people within far-leftist groups like the SWP. People with independent minds are quickly dispensed with, either at local branch meetings or even before that stage. They too may become enemies of the party. All you then have left is an army of obedient automatons who spend their mornings literally memorising the content of Socialist Worker before they preach what they have only just read to the non-converted. (Perhaps there is a little bit of room for manoeuvre at the top or within the SWP's Central Committee.)