G. Edward Griffin, interviewed by Christian Gomez, gives a short-course in political science leading to the awareness that Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Leftwing, Rightwing, and many other similar words cannot be defined to the satisfaction of all. That is because they are emotionally associated with good or bad depending on each person’s opinion of what the words mean. In this interview, Mr. Griffin explains that the reason for this difficulty is that all of these words, as they are manifest today, are merely different names for the same ideology called collectivism. The reason the world has steadily marched toward global tyranny for the past one-hundred years is that the political choices made available to the public have been between different variants of collectivism, and collectivism always progressed into full-blown tyranny. This is a short version of Political Science 101. 2021 January 24 – Source: John Birch Society
You can view this video from several sources. Cached versions are adjusted for optimum quality, if needed, and they provide access if original sources fail.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Another solid piece of information. The lingering hindrance is precisely as Mr Griffin stated; ” Three people in a room can not agree on a definition. ” I call it lost in translation when many people are saying the same thoughts in different ways. Since language is our greatest tool of LIBERTY and our best defense against tyrannical collectivism would be to recover this asset from them because they have mastered it to their ends.
How do you accomplish or resolve this problem? How do you get all these different points of view on the same target? How do you focus the light of truth regardless of shade and bring it clarity amongst so many individuals?
I would have liked to see a live chat/class room board here where people could pursue solutions and provide insight, but as a former volunteer moderator for the backwoods home magazine once upon a time, I also understand the down side of a high maintenance endeavor as such.
How ever, perhaps it is worth considering the possibility as people need this type of real time social interaction more then ever. Their “parliamentary” social skills are limited to say the least, not everyone has the ability to state the same position several ways tailoring it to their audience. They mostly just wait for their turn to speak and not really and truly listen.
Further more, topics or threads do not come back to the top when a late comer or new arrival comments. This seems counter productive as the shelf life on any of these topics is not time sensitive.
If we are talking, we are communicating, organizing thoughts and focusing on solutions. If we are communicating and organizing thoughts we begin to cohere, not alone and feel engaged, actively productive, making a difference and that is highly contagious.
Language can UNITE or DIVIDE. If employed and exercised productively it tends to UNITE. Some thing as simple as this perspective raises eye brows every time I employ it.
Why do we have to hear the cultural identification as; African American, or Italian American etc. ? It is obvious with this simple expression that it DIVIDES us as Americans, secondary.
Would it not be more accurate and UNIFYING to say; American Italian, or American African instead? We have seen for the last few decades the concerted effort of the media to DIVIDE. That they are winning this skirmish is self evident. Their use of language is subtle but effective repeated over and over.
Surely we can counter this in some small way with a chat/ class room? Our most powerful tool is Language we must begin here if we truly want a chance to change the tide.