Saturday, August 30, 2008

Beware Of Labels

There are many political labels being bandied about in the media these days and most, if not all, of these labels are grossly misused. This inaccuracy is not accidental. It is purposely done to fool and mislead the American public.

To fully understand and appreciate the depth and scope of this fraudulent misrepresentation you must get your dictionary. Go ahead, get it! I'll wait! Your ignorance, laziness, and laxness is what has contributed to the success of this dishonest scam.

Got it? Good! Now look up the following words: conservatism, capitalism, liberalism, environmentalism, socialism and communism. Yes, of course you need to actually read the definitions!

By definition, a conservative is unlikely to make any rapid and sweeping changes in government. This is diametrically opposed to what is broadcast daily by the mainstream media and espoused by many public figures. Those two sources loudly and incessantly wail that rapid, sweeping, and catastrophic changes to government programs are imminent with a conservative administration, but neither history nor the record bears this out. No proof is offered by these people, only innuendo. Who then is lying and why?

A capitalist is a businessman or woman, period. Contrary to political rhetoric and media hype, no connotations of environmental rape, animal cruelty or industrialized slavery is attached by definition to that title. These less desirable attributes that do occur on occasion are dishonestly attributed to ALL capitalists by the media and some self serving public figures in an effort to support an agenda that demands more governmental control of everything. Who is being dishonest here?

As defined by Merriam-Webster, a liberal exactly describes those categorized by the media and some public figures as the "Religious Right." Who, then, are the self professed liberals and liberal institutions and those the media characterize as liberals? Those people and institutions the media describe as liberal are decidedly not liberals at all. This goes for the "liberal" media as well. Neither the "liberal" media nor "liberal" public figures profess or display any tenets of liberalism. Quite the contrary. They are at best socialists and, at worst, communists. The "liberal" label fits the vast majority of the American public. Is that why the term is misused? Is it to misrepresent the truth and hide a more sinister agenda.

An environmentalist is one who wants to protect or improve the environment. Nowhere does the definition preclude capitalists, liberals or anyother political persuasion from supporting those views nor does it place environmental issues paramount to the needs of humans or indicate that humans are of less intrinsic value than the flora and fauna. Who, or what, then are the people that espouse that principal? They can't be labeled environmentalists as the media and others do. Perhaps new terms recently emerging in the "electronic fringe media" are more descriptive. Those terms are "eco-extremists" and"eco-terrorists."

A socialist is one that demands massive governmental intervention in business and private matters to the point that the government either owns or controls the entire productive capacity of a nation and all property. A socialist recognizes that those who produce more for the state deserve more from the state, though certainly nowhere near all that they produce, however, that which is given to them by the state still belongs to the state. "State benevolence" is essentially a conditional short term loan that is extended and can be recalled at a moment's notice and does not become private property when given. Is this the people who are improperly identified as liberals? It seems so by definition. Why doesn't the media properly identify those with a socialist agenda as socialists? Is it because the vast majority of the American people rebel at the thought of socialism and correctly identify it as an intermediate step to communism, but have been dumbed down enough through leftist educational policies to gradually accept it under another less offensive, but totally false, term? I think so and the evidence to support this available everyday to anyone willing to think for themselves.

Communism need not be discussed here. It is the antithesis of the American system of self government and has historically been a dismal failure, but you already knew that didn't you? Do not pay too close attention to what the media and public figures say about people and institutions in the limelight. Watch what they really do and find out ALL of the facts before you decide the label. That goes double for those making the assertions.
---William Fortner 2008---

No comments: