by Sandy Stringfellow
It was in high school that I first read “Animal Farm,” the brilliantly satirical expose of Stalinist communism by George Orwell. Among other things, Orwell illustrated how control of language determines the outcome of events.
“Newspeak” was the modus operandi of those seeking power, with indoctrination of thought being the end result.
Although many words in our English language often have specific meanings, the impressions left upon us from the manner in which words are used in society often have as great an effect as the actual definitions themselves.
The word “racist” is thrown around quite a bit these days. In most cases, a more accurate word for the intended meaning of the insult is “bigot.”
Through political correctness, we’ve been conditioned to understand that “racist” has a greater negative political charge than “bigot,” and we respond with a more pronounced knee-jerk reaction when it is used.
Even though it would appear, in this day and age, that few people in America are actual racists, most of us have been taught to be afraid of the word.
It’s not the meaning of the word that counts, but the perceived impact of the word.
I believe the inverse holds true as well, that some words we’ve accepted through frequency of use as having a singular meaning should, instead, be considered as they are defined; as a dichotomy, with meanings that are related but separate.
My edition of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “leader” primarily as “a person who has commanding authority or influence.”
However, there’s another definition: “the principle member of the party elite in a totalitarian system endowed by official ideology with a heroic or mystical character and who governs with a minimum of formal constitutional restraints, extreme national demagogy, and claims to be above narrow class and group interest.”
Webster’s defines “demagogue” as “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.”
If one reads “popular prejudices” as “political correctness,” the insidious nature of over one hundred years of social engineering and political conditioning begin to come into focus.
As Americans, we’ve grown accustomed and are generally predisposed to view leadership in the most positive of contexts. We revere those bravest and most honorable of leaders throughout our nation’s remarkable history. The positive leadership of great Americans like George Washington, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin are an inspiration to us all.
When someone in a leadership role fails to produce results considered positive, it’s usually referred to as an “absence of leadership,” and their efforts deemed a failure.
However, if the leader’s end result is negative in nature and this negative result is by design, is it still considered ineffectual leadership? Should it still be considered a failure?
With the recent nationalization of health care, banking, automotive manufacturing, insurance companies, student loans, home mortgages, et al, we’ve observed King Barry’s leadership skills in action.
He’s effectively injected elements of fascism into our fundamentally capitalist economy; a stunning example of “negative” leadership, if his results are viewed through the prism of our founding documents and the rule of law.
It’s common to accept this false premise of leadership; that leadership must be positive in nature or otherwise considered as failure.
I believe the problem with it is, by doing so we lose focus on our own conservative objectives and miss opportunities to draw important political distinctions.
King Barry is not a simple-minded boob, not stupid, and not an idiot.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I respectfully submit that King Barry is not a simple-minded boob, not stupid, and not an idiot. Although his actions are often mischaracterized as being the result of inexperience, he doesn’t fit the bill of a simpleton, in over their head. The real issue is his motivation.
I think one reason King Barry often appears less than competent, is because he dare not say what he actually believes. Virtually all of his statements, when carefully dissected, consists of flagrant lies and “Wizard of Oz”-like smokescreens; a difficult facade to maintain.
The fact that he’s decided it’s politically advantageous to cultivate an affection of speech to indicate he’s “cool” and “of the street” doesn’t bolster his credibility rating except with those who read and write at the fifth grade level; quite possibly his target audience.
King Barry demonstrates his particular brand of experience daily. Through subterfuge, cunning, misdirection, and prevarication, he is re-designing America as he exacts a strange narcissistic revenge, all in the name of rectifying the past and creating a new “social justice”; it is a Progressive Marxist ideological vision, and he pursues it with the relentless and dogmatic determination of a true believer.
Politics is not unlike the game of chess, where one must think well ahead of the move being considered. Based upon the degree of national security, economic, social, constitutional, judicial, and environmental damage inflicted thus far by King Barry and his royal court, it’s reasonable to conclude they grasp the concept that a “win at all costs” strategy is required to fulfill their long-standing dream of a New World Order and America’s subservient role in it.
How could a stupid leader create so much harm?
I am concerned about the frequency with which King Barry’s totalitarian oligarchy is being “soft-pedaled” by both conservatives and non-conservatives alike, often because he’s been dismissed as being stupid, an idiot, etc.
How could a stupid leader create so much harm? If he truly is stupid, is it not reasonable that the negative impact of his policies and initiatives are being exaggerated?
There certainly are a significant number of people who think King Barry is an idiot, and it appears that many of these people don’t appreciate the terminally serious stage of our national demise. Why?
Do they think he’s too dumb to do any lasting harm to America? That anything he does can be undone with a minimum of effort; have an election and “poof,” everything changes back to normal?
To insult his intelligence creates a perception that King Barry and his members of the revolutionary left are far less dangerous than advertised, instead of reinforcing an image of their having the competence to establish a plan of attack specifically designed to implement “change” to the fundamental precepts and structure that define America, and ultimately bring about her collapse and destruction.
When King Barry is not credited for the mind-numbing damage inflicted through his application of negative leadership, simply because we’ve labeled him “stupid” or “idiotic,” conservatives forfeit a prime opportunity to point out his lethal and catastrophic behavior through everyday conversation.
Conversely, when King Barry’s negative leadership is viewed as a “skill,” albeit treacherous and despicable, the results of his policies and initiatives become attached to him topically as a derivative of his “talents,” and more people are made aware of the truth; that his attack on America continues to be both effective and devastating.
Far too many voters, democrat and republican, are in a state of denial
I believe that far too many voters, democrat and republican, are in a state of denial. Over-stimulated, stressed-out, or products of the welfare state, these voters are not investing the time and intellectual discipline necessary to keep up with the onslaught of King Barry’s blitzkrieg against America.
They appear resigned to complacency, drifting along with the flow of the mainstream media, nurturing detachment, convinced they receive all the facts necessary to vote responsibly from the local newspaper, or that things aren’t as bad as have been reported on conservative talk radio.
Many of these voters get their “facts” from alphabet soup networks during the six o’clock news on television.
The entrepreneurial approach to give King Barry well-deserved credit for our nation’s perilous condition, by emphasizing his motive and ability, may encourage a new voter perspective; an increase in awareness of how potentially fatal our national crisis has grown.
It reminds me of a classic technique to overcome objections when closing a sale. It’s based on simple psychology, and it works. Briefly put, after hearing an objection, the salesman responds in a conversational manner:
“If I were in your situation, I would feel the same way. In fact, I’ve thought the same thing myself sometimes. But if you look at it from my perspective, you’ll see the wisdom of why it makes sense to change your point of view.”
I think it’s important for conservatives to trumpet the fact that King Barry has done a remarkable job of planning his work and working his plan.
With due credit established, we can then explain exactly how damaging and effective his plan has been thus far, and where it’s going to lead us if he’s not stopped this November by electing conservatives to the House of Representatives and the Senate.
King Barry has created the “soft tyranny”
King Barry has created the “soft tyranny” Mark Levin writes about in his excellent book “Liberty and Tyranny”, through the blatant disregard of our United States Constitution, abrogating the rule of law, ignoring the courts, and seizing power through fiat governance and the issuing of executive orders; classic Marxist methodology.
It is an unapologetic attack on civil society, personal liberty, private property rights, national security, and American sovereignty. For those investing a modest amount of time in research, or for those simply willing to listen, it’s not difficult to connect the dots; King Barry’s mission is the total destruction of America as we know it, and as it was founded in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights.
Sandy Stringfellow is a writer and musician with an interest in history, economics, and politics.
(Reprinted with author’s permission, www.canadafreepress.com. First published on Saturday, July 3, 2010)