Dear Friends,
It seems to me, language evolves often quite quickly. The word fascist for example. Fascist used to mean someone who believed in central planning binding the public, corporations, and government together as a fasces. This way they thought, anything can be achieved. That was the accepted definition in the 1940’s. Today that definition has evolved. Now a fascist is someone who may not agree with you, but would fight to the death to protect your right to say it. Fascists also believe in limited government now as opposed to central planning as before. To be a fascist today one has to hold all races as equal. The old definition of a fascist, someone who hates certain races, like progressives who hate whites and Christians, is no longer applicable. Words evolve and sometimes very quickly into their opposite.
The word fascist has evolved in a very short time to become an inversion. One wonders if this was organic or fabricated? If it was organic then the new definition should be obvious and commonly known. The phrase NPC grew organically, is well defined, and common knowledge today. Fascist, however, is ill defined because everyone has an idea of it but no one understands what it is. This makes me suspect that fascist has been redefined or its definition blurred, and is fabricated. To what end only those who carpeted our psyches with Astroturf can say. We can deduce that ill defined fascism serves some purpose. Not our purpose but that of those who evolve the definition. Various pressures build to force the evolution of language.
Language also depends on perspective. What appears obvious to one may appear absurd to another. This often depends on perspective as much as reality. Ten different witnesses to the same act will have ten different stories. Taking this into account, it would seem that the definition of fascist isn’t as much a fixed definition like “cup,” “glue,” or “steel.” Some people may believe the term fascist then means anyone who is evil from their perspective. In that case a central planner would indeed see a populist as fascist. Since they are synonymous in that mindset. Being ill defined allows such mental manipulations to happen. This means that terms often have no meaning other than that given to them by the speaker. A Nazi is now a zealot for freedom. Such actions undermine the very utility of language itself.
Fascism then becomes a universal that can’t be defined. Like all universals it is subject to modification into something else. Fascism is often called nationalism. By some definitions nationalists are fascists. So is a free nation a fascist nation? Because it’s a nation? What about a globalist who believes the exact same ideology of the original fascists? Are they fascists? Or does being a globalist mean they can’t be fascists? What this suggests is that unlike the term, dirt bag, fascist is a slander that can’t really be defined. This makes the word a slur only. A libel with no real definition, based on perspective, and therefore merely a projection of the speaker’s perspective. One wonders what the correct term is, however, for today’s advocates of central planning?
Since fascist has no real meaning, what are we to call those who favor central planning as the Nazis, Marxists, Bolsheviks, Fascists, Maoists, etc… do? Language seems to have defined out any negative connotation to central planning. Indeed those who oppose central planning are slandered with those very same monikers. I have to wonder if that definition change wasn’t fabricated to suit the central planners. Those terms not only define central planning but also illustrate its effects. No one disputes that fascism, Nazism, Marxism, communism, etc… bring poverty, despotism, and war, but now that everyone is a fascist, those experiments can be tried again. This time under the guise of globalism. Yes, language evolves sometimes very fast, if it suits the central planners.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
