An important tool of leftist propaganda is the distortion of words. By organized and persistent use of some terms in some general sense and in a use slightly more distant from that for which the particular word should be used, we end up in the “blurring” of the word and finally in its use for something other than what it should be. it pays off. It is a process that needs a system and takes time, but which ultimately makes the “receiver” not understand what some people really mean. And even more, since the real meaning is different from the use, what the distorter achieves is to make the listener think that he is acting in favor of one situation when in fact he is acting in favor of another and usually the opposite! This is the “language of the left”. And all the media must use it (since they are controlled) but anyone who doesn’t use it is automatically censored and nowadays maybe even prosecuted.
Equality vs Equity
There is, say, the example of “equality”. The “progressive” political narrative tells us that equality is necessary in society so that there is a balance in opportunities for citizens. But reality, as well as experience, teaches that if we have equality of rights, obligations, earnings and privileges, then we will never have the same opportunities since the majority of people do not have the same possibilities. Equality would have to be weighed on a case-by-case basis to strike a balance. The propagandists, however, sell equality in place of equalization, precisely by twisting the word.
The Liberalism
In exactly the same way, the word “liberalism” is used. And who is he who would declare himself no friend of liberty? The political-social system of liberalism, however, has very little to do with friendship for freedom. But by using the term misleadingly, he traps many people in his ranks who actually work against the freedom they profess… friendship…
The term liberalism is a rendering of the foreign word liberalism, which would more correctly be translated roughly as, libertarianism. Except then it wouldn’t have the same penetration. In the following I will refer to liberalism with the word “liberalism” in order to be closer to its true meaning.
Liberalism therefore has at the center of its philosophy and action, the liberation of the individualism of man. And there, exactly at the first step, he makes the fatal mistake. Because it is deeply wrong to want to “liberate” the individualism of man, cutting him off from the rest with which he goes along “by factory design” on the path of life. “Man is a social and political being by nature” as Aristotle has taught us, who goes a step further and recognizes as a free man only those who understand their obligations to the community.
The collective consciousness of man is a central vehicle for his prosperity and progress. The collective identity, therefore, and the human quality, are the main components of the “ecosystem” in which the mental and spiritual health of people survives.
Having its first flowers in Protestantism, liberalism begins to question collectiveness in man, to consider it a commitment and regression and to praise individualism. Thus Protestantism breaks its relationship with the Catholic Church (on the occasion of the Papacy) denying the collective identity of Catholicism. It has not yet denied the collective identity of Christianity, for he would lose the vehicle on which he travels.
The Neo-Liberalism
In historical continuity, liberalism spreads. It now challenges the Western political establishment, specifically Western imperialism, denying this collective identity as well. Then he rebels against the collective identity of the National State, seeking and establishing a state of citizens (citoyen). Then throughout the 20th century (politically and militarily) an epic conflict takes place between Nationalism, Communism and liberalism, in which conflict liberalism ultimately prevails. In the period of the 20th century, liberalism also expresses the middle bourgeois classes, offering economic prosperity through the liberation of individual activity. It thus maintains the strange attitude of expressing the wider political center while at the same time considering itself progressive and rooted in the “progressive” political spaces.
In the 21st century, (since the Soviet Union has also collapsed) liberalism finds itself without another substantial opponent. It is what Francis Fukuyama attributed by declaring: “there are no more ideologies” in his book “The End of History”. Fukuyama concludes: “liberal democracies and capitalism constitute the ultimate form of human government and thus the end of history.”
So in this phase, liberalism feeling justified and strong, realizing its true purpose, gets rid of the middle bourgeois classes and gets rid of them violently, trying to exterminate them. As he tries to wipe out the Nations (having defeated the Nation States, it seems like the logical next step) with his tales of racism and illegal immigration.
It has now morphed into neo-liberalism and is actively distancing itself from any “centrist” political character. The agents of neo-liberalism, see Klaus Swab, George Soros etc, attack against any collective identity.
And so we arrive at our days, where there are now only two collective identities left to break.
1. The first is sexual identity.
Which of course is collective, since one experiences masculinity or femininity by acting interactively with others, within a collective biological identity. It therefore creates a new, “sexual individualism”. Gender can be something fluid and not static. This is where the woke absurdities, the extremes, the arbitrariness of the various minorities are based. Bourgeois democracy in its traditional form is based on the will of the many. But it is easier to direct some minorities and thus the democracies (the so-called western states) in the 21st century, now impose the will of the minorities, most of which they themselves have constructed with political cynicism and nurture them with social poison.
2. The second is human identity!
Breaking the human identity, will “someone” be able to choose not to be human. Do you realize the cataclysmic cultural annihilation this final stage will bring? In the influence of conditions, rights, obligations, laws, etc.? In interpersonal relationships? On the social web? And finally to the very mental health of people…
Artificial intelligence is a key step for this stage. Also the various “improvements” that are designed and applied (even experimentally) to humans but also of course the non-bio-ethical genetics, with its interventions in the normal reproductive process.
Today when you read these lines, you may think of them as science fiction, but I challenge you to think: how many of the predictions of science fiction of the 20th century have been applied to our everyday lives? Almost all!!!
The issue of the fragmentation of collective identity is extremely serious. The question of the alteration or even disappearance of the collective human identity is capital.
There are many forums that “explore” “transhumanism” or “post humanism” and “transhumanism”. And these forums have legendary chapters, famous personalities, scientific and political connections. Propaganda is in full swing to lay the carpet for the coming inhuman needs of neo-liberalism.
For better or for worse, we ourselves have the final say. And in the information age, ignorance is a choice.
