Greetings good citizen, in our rudderless, directionless society the meaning of terms keep shifting, creating doubts about the message the average individual is receiving.
Most people have a rather poor vocabulary so the labels/terms used are often interpreted 'in context'.
Let's explore some terms being bandied about a little too freely in the corporate owned media, shall we?
First one is Populist:
The above definition is from Merriam-Webster online and reflects the terms 'origins' [where the wiki offers a broader definition.]
BOTH definitions utilize the Champion of the People theme but anyone with two brain cells still in communication with one another knows the last thing Donald Trump would be identified as is a 'Champion of the common man'. He 'adopted' that political tactic [he basically ran as a Democrat [emphasis on the capital D] who were traditionally, 'Champions of the common people'...then came 'the Triangulator' and it all went to shit. [Bonus Points to those who remember who the Triangulator is...]
Again, from Merriam-Webster we have this on the term the media should be using, Demagogue
Given the Donald's unflagging support for his 'base' [Who IS The Donald's base? same as W's, the HAVES and the HAVE MORES!] So it was NOT populism he was preaching on the campaign trail but demagoguery!
Yet NOBODY called him on it [and they still aren't!] What IS the sound of one hand clapping?
[Sidebar] We could play this game through the entire dictionary and find how the modern media manipulates you using words that aren't part of the typical citizen's vocabulary.
You may notice that there isn't a 'wide gulf' between the two terms although the more derogatory of the two is closer to the mark than the less inflammatory term 'populist'.
A populist is a champion of the people, Preznint Pussy-grabber is NOT!
Guess who else ran as a 'populist?' [Hint: he co-starred with a chimp and he didn't portray Tarzan!]
Some 'champion' huh?
Once again we see populist being substituted for demagogue. Naturally this brings us full circle to the consequences of tolerating liars.
You can't 'vote' for honesty, it's simply impossible. That said, leadership is something to be 'earned'.
Our current leaders 'earn' their place at the head of our civilization by SELLING THE REST OF US OUT [for personal gain no less!] and we once again suffer for the foolishness of a methodology that does nothing to verify the 'worthiness' of the candidates.
Again, it is universally agreed that this whole 'experiment in democracy' went sideways with the 'stolen election' of 1980, the one that put a B list actor in the White House.
They even told us it was the beginning of a 'new era', a 'conservative revolution'...so it seems two more definitions are in order, let's start with the one our new overlords self-identify with:
If we take this at 'face value' a conservative resists CHANGE, of any kind [although somehow this resistance to change has extended to resisting regulation of ANY kind, a sort of 'If you're not smart enough to avoid the quicksand, it's not my problem' attitude [more commonly known as the hooray for me and F you! syndrome. These people are also extreme 'rugged individualists' and stupidly proud of it! [without the aid of others we'd ALL soon be dead.]
THIS is why only 25% of the electorate 'self-identifies' as Conservative...and a goodly majority of them are conservative by 'tradition' ONLY. [They are conservatives because their parents were.]
Understand, these individualists do NOT eschew the fruits of the labor of others [despite their insistence they need no-one's 'aid'.]
Shorthand people, these are the types that never outgrow the 'world of I'. They also never appreciate their own limitations, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault. [Voldemort anyone?]
So we arrive at the opposite definition, let's see (for consistencies sake) what Merriam-Webster has to say:
Funny that since the beginning it appears the liberals and the conservatives have been fighting about the 'degree' of control the government should enjoy/exercise.
Bizarrely the 'rebel' protestant conservatives believe in 'let the bodies hit the floor' while their 'liberal' opponents favor reining in commerce's 'baser instincts' through regulation.
The 'irony' here is the Enlightenment began with the Protestant 'reformation' [which was more of a 'power grab' than liberation from the rigid orthodoxy that defined the Dark Ages.
The 'Bible Thumpers' didn't object to rigid orthodoxy, they objected to WHO got to decide 'what was what' which is why we elect politicians that insist they have regular conversations with imaginary beings. [You don't suppose the whole God thing is what got us marooned, do you?]
Once upon a time good citizen, 'comply or die' was a very real thing [made that much more heinous by 'because I said so!']
Which is to point out 'the nightmare that refuses to end' will continue until we unite in putting humanity and human rights FIRST [a.k.a. EQUALITY!]
The exploiters, whether they be populists or demagogues, both want to rule over you [solely so you won't be in a position to 'judge' them!]
This isn't a game, it's the future of sentient life in this plane of existence... [which, from where we currently sit, doesn't look too promising. Our 'shit luck' won't last much longer if we keep missing the mark or letting the feckless continue to ignore the bigger picture...]
If we fail to act 'in concert' for the common good there won't be one to protect much less preserve.
Thanks for stopping by and opening your mind,
Gegner
Most people have a rather poor vocabulary so the labels/terms used are often interpreted 'in context'.
Let's explore some terms being bandied about a little too freely in the corporate owned media, shall we?
First one is Populist:
a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially, often capitalized : a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2 : a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
The above definition is from Merriam-Webster online and reflects the terms 'origins' [where the wiki offers a broader definition.]
BOTH definitions utilize the Champion of the People theme but anyone with two brain cells still in communication with one another knows the last thing Donald Trump would be identified as is a 'Champion of the common man'. He 'adopted' that political tactic [he basically ran as a Democrat [emphasis on the capital D] who were traditionally, 'Champions of the common people'...then came 'the Triangulator' and it all went to shit. [Bonus Points to those who remember who the Triangulator is...]
Again, from Merriam-Webster we have this on the term the media should be using, Demagogue
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times
Given the Donald's unflagging support for his 'base' [Who IS The Donald's base? same as W's, the HAVES and the HAVE MORES!] So it was NOT populism he was preaching on the campaign trail but demagoguery!
Yet NOBODY called him on it [and they still aren't!] What IS the sound of one hand clapping?
[Sidebar] We could play this game through the entire dictionary and find how the modern media manipulates you using words that aren't part of the typical citizen's vocabulary.
You may notice that there isn't a 'wide gulf' between the two terms although the more derogatory of the two is closer to the mark than the less inflammatory term 'populist'.
A populist is a champion of the people, Preznint Pussy-grabber is NOT!
Guess who else ran as a 'populist?' [Hint: he co-starred with a chimp and he didn't portray Tarzan!]
Some 'champion' huh?
Once again we see populist being substituted for demagogue. Naturally this brings us full circle to the consequences of tolerating liars.
You can't 'vote' for honesty, it's simply impossible. That said, leadership is something to be 'earned'.
Our current leaders 'earn' their place at the head of our civilization by SELLING THE REST OF US OUT [for personal gain no less!] and we once again suffer for the foolishness of a methodology that does nothing to verify the 'worthiness' of the candidates.
Again, it is universally agreed that this whole 'experiment in democracy' went sideways with the 'stolen election' of 1980, the one that put a B list actor in the White House.
They even told us it was the beginning of a 'new era', a 'conservative revolution'...so it seems two more definitions are in order, let's start with the one our new overlords self-identify with:
Definition of conservatism
1 capitalized
a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change religious conservatism cultural conservatism
If we take this at 'face value' a conservative resists CHANGE, of any kind [although somehow this resistance to change has extended to resisting regulation of ANY kind, a sort of 'If you're not smart enough to avoid the quicksand, it's not my problem' attitude [more commonly known as the hooray for me and F you! syndrome. These people are also extreme 'rugged individualists' and stupidly proud of it! [without the aid of others we'd ALL soon be dead.]
THIS is why only 25% of the electorate 'self-identifies' as Conservative...and a goodly majority of them are conservative by 'tradition' ONLY. [They are conservatives because their parents were.]
Understand, these individualists do NOT eschew the fruits of the labor of others [despite their insistence they need no-one's 'aid'.]
Shorthand people, these are the types that never outgrow the 'world of I'. They also never appreciate their own limitations, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault. [Voldemort anyone?]
So we arrive at the opposite definition, let's see (for consistencies sake) what Merriam-Webster has to say:
Definition of liberalism
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard (see gold standard 1)
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see autonomy 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal (see 1liberal 6b) party
Funny that since the beginning it appears the liberals and the conservatives have been fighting about the 'degree' of control the government should enjoy/exercise.
Bizarrely the 'rebel' protestant conservatives believe in 'let the bodies hit the floor' while their 'liberal' opponents favor reining in commerce's 'baser instincts' through regulation.
The 'irony' here is the Enlightenment began with the Protestant 'reformation' [which was more of a 'power grab' than liberation from the rigid orthodoxy that defined the Dark Ages.
The 'Bible Thumpers' didn't object to rigid orthodoxy, they objected to WHO got to decide 'what was what' which is why we elect politicians that insist they have regular conversations with imaginary beings. [You don't suppose the whole God thing is what got us marooned, do you?]
Once upon a time good citizen, 'comply or die' was a very real thing [made that much more heinous by 'because I said so!']
Which is to point out 'the nightmare that refuses to end' will continue until we unite in putting humanity and human rights FIRST [a.k.a. EQUALITY!]
The exploiters, whether they be populists or demagogues, both want to rule over you [solely so you won't be in a position to 'judge' them!]
This isn't a game, it's the future of sentient life in this plane of existence... [which, from where we currently sit, doesn't look too promising. Our 'shit luck' won't last much longer if we keep missing the mark or letting the feckless continue to ignore the bigger picture...]
If we fail to act 'in concert' for the common good there won't be one to protect much less preserve.
Thanks for stopping by and opening your mind,
Gegner
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you can't stay on topic then don't say anything...