Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Concept Clarification: Better Defining The Liberal Lexicon
The Iconoclast ^ | February 16, 2003 | Steven Plaut

Posted on 02/16/2003 4:25:17 PM PST by BurkesLaw

Verbal dexterity and conceptual sleight of hand seems to be a particular specialty of the liberal left. And since there has been a lot of confusion lately about the meaning of terms thrown around by the masters of "progressive" agitprop, it behooves us to clarify some of these terms for a confused public. Check below for the true definitions of terms commonly bandied about by journalists and Hollywood celebrities alike:

1. Capitalist:
A. Someone who owns capital, meaning almost all American workers who own capital through their pension funds.
B. Someone who understands that capitalism is the only system on earth that can produce wealth or reduce poverty.

2. Liberal:
A. Before 1960, someone who believes in individual freedom, economic freedom, and opposes discrimination.
B. Since 1970, someone who opposes individual freedom, opposes economic freedom, and supports discrimination.

3. Marxist:
A. An extremely rare form of psychosis and personality disorder.
B. Something someone claims to be to make their Mommy mad.

4. Fidelista: a terminal case of #3.

5. Socialist:
A. Someone who refuses to study economics.
B. Someone practicing recreational compassion.

6. Conservative: see "liberal" for before 1960.

7. Deconstructionist: an asshole.

8. Progressive: shallow politically-correct liberals and leftists

9. Post-modernist: a Deconstructionist without all that depth in understanding (in other words, a bigger asshole).

10. Empowered: a meaningless word PC leftists use to make themselves feel deep

11. Feminist:
A. Before 1970, someone who wants equality of opportunity for the sexes.
B. After 1970, someone who opposes equality of opportunity for the sexes...................


(Excerpt) Read more at iconoclast.ca ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: correction; dogma; pc
Deconstructing PC-speak.
1 posted on 02/16/2003 4:25:17 PM PST by BurkesLaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BurkesLaw
A. Someone who owns capital, meaning almost all American workers who own capital through their pension funds.

American workers may own capital via their pension funds, but who controls that captial?

2 posted on 02/16/2003 4:29:26 PM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonF
but who controls that captial? [sic]

Um, the owners do. They withdraw it and put it somewhere else if they're unhappy with its current rate of productivity.

3 posted on 02/16/2003 4:59:33 PM PST by BfloGuy (The past is like a different country, they do things different there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BurkesLaw
2. Liberal:
A. Before 19601900, someone who believes in individual freedom, economic freedom, and opposes discrimination.

B. Since 19701940, someone who opposes individual freedom, opposes economic freedom, and supports discrimination.

FDR was entirely unselfconsciously using "liberal" to mean its dictionary opposite in the 1930s.

The term "liberal" retained its dictionary definition outside the US, for the simple reason that the term "socialism" (which is actually government coersion to dismiss social decisions in, for example markets) was sufficiently misleading to be a successful brand name for tyranny elsewhere. Here in the U.S. not only socialism but the revamped term liberalism have failed as brand names to make tyranny acceptable.

The definition of the term could never have been inverted without the cooperation of journalism--just another example of the negative, superficial anticonservatism inherent in that genre of nonfiction entertainment . . .

4 posted on 02/16/2003 5:39:29 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurkesLaw
The first step to deconstruction is to quit talking about liberals, and call them by their true name: socialists.
5 posted on 02/16/2003 5:49:08 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurkesLaw
bump
6 posted on 02/16/2003 5:54:39 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurkesLaw
It is a sad state of affairs when a conservative is merely a liberal who is behind the times by a few decades. This ultimately means that they will never change things for the better. An authentic conservatism, IMHO, needs to be counter-revolutionary rather than counter-evolutionary. It is for this reason that I increasingly find Joseph De Maistre preferable to Edmund Burke.
7 posted on 02/16/2003 7:36:10 PM PST by TradicalRC (Fides quaerens intellectum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson