Posts Tagged ‘language’

The Fallacy of Faction

Thursday, August 17th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… language is such a poor means of communication, it is barely utile. Certainly you can grunt out that you are hungry, follow, look a deer and shoot it, and a few other concepts and philosophies have come into it over the years, but most words are so hard to define, even when consulting a dictionary, they are almost useless. This is never more true than when the words are political in nature. Politics is, by it’s nature mercurial, and the language of politics is mercurial as well. We think we know what terms such as left, right, capitalism, communism, fascism and oligarchy mean, but we don’t. Not you nor I. That is because those words have different meaning to different people. A white horse is not a horse so to speak. Without a stable definition a word means nothing.

Capitalism is just such a word. The word means something different to anyone who speaks it. To some it means cronyism, corporatism, oligarchy, company towns, tyranny and exploitation. To others it means free enterprise, free markets, limited government interference, freedom, industry, industriousness, wealth and opportunity. Yet these are not the only definitions of capitalism, there is every shade in between those two extremes. The word capitalism is so mercurial it is worthless as a means of conveying a thought. Better to grunt “hungry,” You will get the point across.

The left/right political definition has become utterly absurd. A national socialist who believes in the planned economy is on the right, and a communist, who also believes in a planned economy is on the left. Both sides are authoritarian, the definition rests on whether the faction believes in globalism, (one world government), or nationalism, (the nation state), a globalist being a leftist and a nationalist being on the right. The only philosophy not afforded any room in that definition… is for people who believe in freedom, free enterprise and free markets. Which highlights another aspect of political speech, that philosophy you dislike can be marginalized, by drowning it within other negative definitions.

Certainly there are people who believe in free enterprise, that also believe in a one world government, and those who believe in the nation state as well. Both parts of that faction, who believe in free enterprise, are separated by the left right paradigm, rendering that faction less potent than it otherwise would be.

The terms liberal and conservative used to have some utility but have long since lost any use whatsoever. A classic economic liberal is what today in the US is called a libertarian or conservative, and a classic economic conservative, is what today is called progressive or liberal. Meanwhile what used to be a classic social liberal is today a progressive or liberal, as a social conservative classically defined, is what we consider a conservative today. Most people are lost somewhere in between the definitions making those terms to be confusing at best and fraudulent at worse.

Politics doesn’t like hard definitions. Politicians like to have their words mean different things to different people. The best politicians are empty suits the people fill with their imaginations. Like Obama was all things to all people when he ran for office, once he got into office, he became something else altogether. Politicians therefore have an incentive to destroy the meaning of words, muddy their definitions and conceal their implications. That is just the nature of politics. It is in our own best interest however to try to understand what people actually think then.

Understanding what others really think is made nearly impossible by the nature of our language. How many times have you or I argued about capitalism with someone when if we had both defined what we meant by capitalism we would have discovered we agreed on ninety percent? He was arguing against corporatism and I was arguing for freedom. Both of us hate corporatism, and both want freedom, yet we argue past each other over a word we never defined! The only real disagreement was on our definitions. Politicians want us to misunderstand each other, they want the water turbid and the air foggy, to keep us in small factions and thus easier to control. We should endeavor to clear the air, let the water settle and actually take the time to understand each other. We might find to our everlasting horror… we agree on far more than we disagree.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Moderate Extremists

Thursday, August 15th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, what is called moderate today is actually extreme, and what is called extreme is actually moderate, that most people don’t intrinsically understand this is cause for concern. That progressives claim their stances on every issue no matter how out of the mainstream, moderate and the libertarian argument as extreme, is their modus operandi and has been since their inception. It is the monopoly on the flow of information that progressives have that makes their perversion of the terms moderate and extreme so dangerous, especially since so few in our society recognize it. The results for our republic is that it will inevitably rot into a despotism. To be sure, it is our duty and responsibility, to protect the republic and point our united fingers at threats to it’s very existence, in this case overt, to enlighten our fellow citizens to the threat.

 

Language is the transmitter of information. Language has it’s flaws however. Kung Sung Lung wrote his famous treatise on, a white horse is not really a horse, to prove the weakness of language as a transmitter of truth. This has been known for millennia among the learned of society but the people have remained ignorant of it. We rely on language every day and in every possible way. Therefore the truth that language has fundamental flaws is lost on most of us. This ignorance is used against us by the elite.

 

Those who control the language therefore control the transmission of all information. Since language has inherent flaws it can be manipulated to change meanings, and the main reason for transmitting information is to convey meaning, this power can be exploited to control everything. The elite don’t have to change the wording of our Constitution, they simply change the meaning of the words. In the case of moderate verses extreme, the elite don’t change the meaning of the words, but the context of them.

 

Take the debate between conservatives/libertarians and progressives regarding “Death Panels.” Sara Palin was excoriated in the unbiased press for her characterization, of what are now widely recognized as… death panels. She was called extreme for her opinion. There was no corner of the unbiased media that didn’t pillory her for it. Yet today, only a few years later, everyone knows that those panels will decide who lives and who dies… and progressives even admit it. But Sara Palin was labeled an extremist for her stance, while those that disemboweled her for it, were, and still are, called moderate. History clearly shows that she was the moderate and her detractors were the extremists… and the theater goes on.

 

Now President Obama claims republicans are out of touch and extreme in their positions. His rhetoric is as vicious as it is prevarication. One example is that Obama maintains he has the power to arbitrarily enforce the laws as he sees fit. While some in the republican party, (the non progressives), disagree. They claim Obama must follow the Constitution, enforcing every law Congress passes, to the best of his ability. The position that the President has the arbitrary power to enforce law as he sees fit, is called, but more importantly considered, moderate, while the Constitutional argument is called extreme.

 

We are not quibbling about the meaning of a few words here, we are discussing the future of liberty in our country, and the World. If we allow the language to be controlled by a single faction in our society, we already have tyranny, in fact if not in name. Absurdity, like the switching of moderate and extreme, needs to be pointed out, else those who are lazy thinkers will accept the false label and act accordingly. Once that happens, we have no one to blame but ourselves, we are condemned by our silence.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Language and Hypocrasy

Thursday, November 24th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that our language is under attack for political purposes. The definition of words is the main focus but actions are being redefined too. “Liberal” publications even call attention to the fact that if you want to change people’s opinion about a subject rename it. There are people who put absolutely no limit on the scope of their actions when it comes to politics. However, there is real danger in unfreezing language… It might refreeze at a point no one imagined. Changing fundamental things in ways that no one could have predicted. With possible dire outcomes. Moreover once a tactic is used in the political arena it becomes fair for any political actor. As we saw when republicans used a tactic thought up by democrats on the democrats and the democrat reaction was as hypocritical as can be. Our mutual liberty and prosperity are threatened by these actions.

This is altogether logical. The people who are changing language, to suit their wants, work in an egoistic way. They have no arguments that have not been thoroughly debunked. The arguments of Marcuse and Tonnies, not only being absolutely hypocritical (in the way they lived their lives), they have all been uniformly proven false. There is no intellectual argument that can be made, to empower the State to enforce political fairness, that has not been made. They are all equally egoistic and spurious. Therefore those that seek this political outcome must use unethical means to their ends. Logic is their enemy; Emotion is their friend.

Hypocrisy is laughed at by the unbiased media and the political Elite. It must be, for the hypocrisy of the unbiased media and the Elite, would otherwise be shown in stark detail. The most glaring example, (no matter where you fall on the overall issue), is abortion. Nothing could be more hypocritical than to urge the murder of an innocent unborn child, in a safe clinical atmosphere, while protesting to keep a cop killer alive. What about… supporting late term abortion and eschewing fur? The list is endless in the ways that legalized abortion is hypocrisy writ large.

The “liberals” have been seeking to normalize deviancy, for generations, by renaming it. They call a vitriolic attack on Roman Catholicism “art” but they would never broach such an attack on Islam, Buddhism or any other religion. The curious thing is, when communists get power, the first thing they outlaw is pornography, homosexuality and religion. The Nazis, Lenin, Mao, Fidel, et al. the list is complete. The communist government controls the individual to the nth degree. Even to the point of selecting his or her recreational activities. None of which are hedonistic. (Read Shang Yang). Just a bit hypocritical eh?

Even the term Liberal has been redefined to mean illiberal. Look at the positions of those calling themselves “liberal” today. They are uniformly anti capitalist, they call for the elimination of Israel, they demand thought laws, they seek control over the most mundane choices in our lives, they loathe Christianity, they always fall on the side of a bigger more powerful State and the modern “liberal” hates free speech unless it is his speech. Lets face it, they are the same people who brought us the French Revolution, communist revolutions and all their excesses. Their minds are as closed as a factory in Chicago.

Some of the terms being redefined are; To be racist is to be pro-capitalist, because no matter what a pro-capitalist says, it is called racist. While blatant anti Semitism is not denounced as racist – those that do denounce it are called racists. To be progressive means wanting to return to the Feudal System. In the end, that is what communism, and socialism, but, forms of feudalism. Where the goods of society are distributed by political power. Ala aristocracy, oligarchs run the show and distribute the goods… not the “unfair” market.

Look at the way the democrats reacted to the Swift Boat Veterans for Justice. The democrats had been using far more vitriolic attack organizations on republicans, for at least two election cycles before that, but when the republicans finally caught on, the democrats were horrified. The Elite and the unbiased media all denounced the tactic. The unbiased media were silent, about the fact, it was democrats that invented the tactic in the first place, and have several still in existence, Move on dot org is just one… Not the least hypocritical.

While it is clear that, people are changing language for political purposes, what remains unclear is how. Language is a factor of culture not politics. But today we see language not only becoming politicized but criminalized. So indeed politicians have seized the power to effect language but the cultural Elite still have far more power to effect language. Hollywood and other cultural purveyors including the unbiased media have great authority in this regard. As Maxwell Smart used to say, “Too bad he used his power for evilness instead of goodness.“

Too bad indeed…