Can we catch word-weapons early?
Returning yet again to a basic question. Why do SOME government agencies manage to violate Parkinson? Why do SOME corporations and NGOs disappear when their purpose is gone? How do we make this happen more often? Clearly the Bush/Obama neocon monsters asked this question when they were planning to repeat Wilson. They found the differences and used them for evil purposes, to guarantee that war and tyranny will be permanent and self-maintaining. Nobody has ever used the difference for good.

This is a question that wasn't touched by earlier writers of charters and constitutions. The 1787 boys assumed that competition and sweetness would keep the parts of gov't in check. Fantastically stupid assumption. When an agency or NGO or corporation gets big enough, it can simply destroy all other players.

The problem was clearly visible and recognized in 1890. Populists and 'progressives' managed to pass federal anti-trust laws (now extinct), and the few state constitutions written after 1890 attempted to use referenda as an external feedback mechanism. Referenda still work as negative feedback on trivial matters where none of the monster players care about an issue. On important matters that could possibly threaten the infinite wealth of a Mafia, the Mafias can reliably count on the agencies criminally and fraudulently described as "courts" to overturn any referendum that threatens their monstrosity.

It's clear by now that any effort to directly halt corruption in agencies and corporations is doomed. Any institution large enough to combat the devils will be instantly controlled by the devils. We need to focus on defending our souls. Well then, how about a revolutionary movement aimed at defending WORDS from corruption? Lexical Liberation Front? ** Orwell understood the power of the dictionary, and it has turned out to be the tyrant's strongest weapon. We've seen it work beautifully on terrorism and marriage and ethics and rape and evolution and science. All of those words have been flipped and weaponized in the last 20 years. Too late to recapture them.

Can we catch a word-weapon in its early stages?

Here's one that hasn't quite 'gone national' yet:

Their research found Spokane County's rate of homelessness is 33 percent higher than state average. Of the nearly 3,000 homeless children in Spokane County schools, 76 percent of them are doubling up with family and friends due to evictions and other financial issues. Oelrich said when people think about homelessness, they think about people sleeping under bridges or holding signs, but homeless students are much less visible.

STOP AND THINK. If you're "doubling up with family and friends" you're NOT HOMELESS. You're an extended family. Nothing special. Historically normal. It sometimes indicates poverty, but it is NOT HOMELESSNESS.

Clearly we're observing a weaponized word in its early stages here. This is pure Parkinson. A naked power-grab and budget-grab through deceptive definition. THIS IS FRAUD IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS KITING A CHECK. Erasing the figure that was written on the valid check and replacing it by a new figure with the aim of taking money you don't deserve. Literally and specifically and chargeably uttering a forged instrument.

= = = = =

** Footnote on Liberation: Language has its own Natural Law, which is STRONGLY DEMOCRATIC. When tyrants are not allowed to meddle, words and grammar and syntax are naturally formed by a slow-moving consensus. Definitions often shift by this natural process. So a movement to release the claws of tyrants would be pro-democracy in a deep and perfect sense. One problem: Standard-brand conservative types don't understand this part of Natural Law. They insist on enforcing a peculiar set of rules that were never actually rules, and definitions chosen at arbitrary points in the past. Those pseudorules and antique definitions simply can't be enforced and shouldn't be enforced. So the LLF would need to recruit mainly from absolutely fed-up "liberals" in the tradition of Orwell himself.

45 DAYS SINCE START OF FINAL PURGE.

Labels: defensible spaces, Ethics

  ¶ 3:32 AM