Labels as form of debate? What a joke

It has become fashionable these days to label people we disagree with, hoping these labels will put them to shame and, the best outcome, silence them.

Here’s an interesting thing: most of those label-users aren’t even aware of what the words that they use mean.

Need an example?

Conspiracy theory. This one is used to dismiss anyone who dares question the motives of those who govern use to bully those whom they govern into submission.

It’s the word theory that (they think) makes their vocabulary impenetrable, bulletproof and watertight, even.

Except: in the scheme of things, we see something, we form an opinion, and, as time goes on, and if we are honest enough, we collect more facts. Once we have all the facts that are available at the time, we structure them into the simplest possible story. We remember that no fact is allowed to contradict any of the other facts, and that we are not allowed to omit any of the available facts.

The result is called hypothesis.

Theory goes one significant step further: all the facts, one by one, and all of them as a whole, must be proven.

Which would make the derogatory interpretation of the word theory perfectly laughable, if only more people knew its real meaning.

The other word that is abused beyond belief: progressive.

Chess players would tell you that there exists not one new move in their game. Every move must have been played at one time or other. It either wasn’t too successful, or it happened before people started writing down their chess game moves, but, in any case, the move was just simply forgotten, but it’s nothing new.

Same goes with the word progressive. Its users, more often than not those on the left side of the political spectrum, have claimed it for themselves.

It is ironic, by the way, that the division into left and right political wings has made little or no sense since the time a few days after it had been introduced in France centuries ago. But that’s another topic for another day.

If you decide to check what stands for progressive these days (the so-called Great Reset, a.k.a. the fourth industrial revolution, the one-world-government system, the climate change-driven genocide, many of the newest communications technologies), you’ll shudder.

Shocking past, worse future

Summed up, we are talking about what American economist Martin Armstrong calls feudalist socialism. Humans have experienced feudalism with its serfdom, and socialism with its return to slavery.

In other words: innovation does not necessarily equal progress. All of the so-called progressive ideologies have been tested and found wanting.

Another expression that has been insupportably popular among the so-called progressives in recent memory: fascism.

Of course, far be it for them to know that fascism is but one branch of socialism. The other three include Communism, Nazism and social democracy. Some defenders of socialism (especially of the social media kind) are perfectly livid when they read such comparisons. The fact that the National Socialist German Workers’ Party’s name (National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, or NSDAP for short) is so specific does not disturb these people in the least: the Nazis hijacked the word, socialism, they claim, not having any idea about either socialism or Nazism whatsoever.

It borders on the impossible attempting to explain the few minor differences between the lot. The Communists have always wanted to destroy the entire economy first, and rebuild something from nothing afterwards, all of this under the (their words) leadership of the victorious vanguard of the working people. Who forms that vanguard, pray?

The Fascists are a bit smarter: why not take control of the economy in partnership with both business and labour?

Gruesome reality

The People’s Republic of China remains Communist only in the name. The country’s national economy is run by what seems to be private business interests.

It takes a closer look to establish that each and every one of those private businesses is controlled by the government in one way or another. Those Chinese multi-billionaires who forget their place get government-issue bullets in their necks before they can cry uncle.

In any case, this combination makes the People’s Republic of China’s political and economic systems perfectly fascist.

And it makes those who whine that now ex-President Donald J. Trump was, is, and will be fascist sound like perfectly illiterate ignoramuses which is what they are.

And that’s the danger of labelling people.

One thought on “Labels as form of debate? What a joke

  1. Ramon Mitchell April 10, 2021 at 15:14 Reply

    I simply wanted to write down a quick word to say thanks to you for those wonderful tips and hints you are showing on this site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: