Recent Posts

Monday, 21 May 2012

Dancing with fairies and the fiction of language in politics


Thanks to Wiki; William Blake's Oberon, Titiania and Puck
To me, fairy tales, (excluding Tolkien, but not Shakespeare) reveal a world of madness and irrationality. Fairy tales represent the unknown mysteries of nature, where the human rational view of the world no longer exists. Living in Europe right now is like living in land where the most important thing is dancing with fairies.

I can't believe I am writing a post which could have been written in the 1930s in Nazi Germany. The purposeful twisting of language in Great Britain and Europe with regard to political terms has become an explosion in a spaghetti factory. I have been listening to television from several nations, reading articles online and conversing with people. From these sources I have gleaned several serious problems which I want to share, as a heads up.

First, there is a purposeful disassociation of the term Socialist. Normal usage of the word is construed by the media and private persons to mean either Centralist positions, or worse, Communism. The original meaning of the word Socialist has been obfuscated to cover so many meaning as to make the word meaningless. Not only is this sloppy journalism, it is done with agendas including the softening of hard-line communists principles now found in most Socialist parties.

Second, the reports which refer to "far-left" and "far-right" groupings present various meanings to these terms, which have confused the man and woman in the street. What those of us who are students of history or politics deem as "far-right" would be the KKK, other openly racist groups, fascism and neo-Nazi parties.

However, the far-right now includes mainstream, even right to centralist parties which have or want stronger immigration policies. Of course, the term is being misused on purpose. The term is used to cover anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage advocates, as if these people were terrorists. Far-right means in some places opposition to sharia law. That is a completely ironic use of the term.

Third, the news gurus also use the term "far-left" in confusing arrays of definitions. In my book of definitions, the far-left would include communists, anarchists, syndicalists, and some socialists. The problem is this. The term "Communist" is taboo in the Euro-zone. However, many politicians, or would be government officials, or even diplomats in the Brussels, Strasbourg, even Frankfurt actually hold communist ideals but are not labelled as such. They are called "reformers", mostly. The term "far-left" is used in an undisciplined manner to include terrorists, as well as political candidates in Greece, who the media refuses to label communists, although that is what the platforms of such persons looks like, when one can actually find substance beneath the rhetoric.

The terms "government", "sovereignty", "austerity" and "growth" have been bandied about so much lately that one loses track of the misuses of these terms. At this point in any real political discussion, the terms are meaningless. The left twists austerity into unfair punishment and uses the term growth as if spending will get anyone out of debt. Families know this is ludicrous and if the jobs are not there, if the industries or worse, if the population is gone which would create a strong infrastructure (population problems caused by brain-drains, contraception and abortion, among other things), there can be no growth--that is simply a fairy tale and the media in Europe loves this fairy tale.


I am concerned, as in the old days, at least in the English-speaking world, journalists and other writers had a common parlance. It was only the propaganda machines which used language to suit political agendas. Now, we have a state where one has to listen and look closely to find the Truth.

I hope the Vatican can avoid slipping into sloppy language, or vague language, which is another post, as this happened last Autumn with the horrible socialist economic leaked paper, and with other documents in the 1960s.

If language is corrupted either by propaganda or agendas, or deceit , or narcissism, we no longer can communicate. This is happening very quickly in Europe.


If Catholics can save the Truth through the Teaching Magisterium, we need to be very careful about definitions and language. The relativistic onslaught is weakening not only language, but how we think. Thinking needs definitions and clarity. We are slipping into the dance of the fairies.


When we cannot trust a common language, we cannot trust each other. We have lost our civilisation's ability to communitcate.

13 comments:

Anita Moore said...

The term "Communist" is taboo in the Euro-zone.

Another reason they hate Nigel Farage so much in the European Parliament: he publicly names and identifies the "ex" Communists among them. Which I love.

I'm kinda torn between wanting Nigel Farage to stay where he is, doing what he's doing, and coming over here and running for President. Now that it's been established that it no longer matters whether a President of the United States is a natural-born citizen, maybe Mr. Farage has a twin brother who'd consent to naturalize and run.

Bill Meyer said...

I am puzzled that you suggest fascism and Nazism are far right. Nazis were, of course, socialist nationalists. Further, the link between both of these and totalitarian enforcement is consistent with every flavor of socialism seen to date.

Supertradmum said...

Bill, I think historically we can make a distinction between communism, socialism on the left, and the idea of the nationalism led by a tyrant on the right. I would agree that at first view, these seem the same, but the philosophical premises are very different, even though the resulting governments may look the same. Tyrannies are tyrannies, after all. But, the fascists want a totalitarian government without the economic so-called equality of the masses. The fascist is an elitist in the way the socialist is not. Usually fascists are the opposites of communists, although ready to form alliances for the total power needed to rule. Fascism also believes in private property, as long as this helps the state, and is not into the real commune type of ideology of the communist. Also, fascism does not hold the traditional form of communist, Marxist class-struggle. As fascism is primarily nationalistic, this form of government sees nations as enemies in the market place. Many people see the Germans as still fascist, for example. Also, the nationalism is the raison d'etre of the fascist. Stalin and Hitler would have very different views on nationhood, even though, from the outside, as it were, they look the same.

Supertradmum said...

Anita, the man is totally entertaining and mostly correct. He is irritating on purpose, of course, like some bloggers. I wish he had a better position of power.

Bill Meyer said...

I'm inclined to disagree. Marie. Socialists and communists have also been nationalists, and certainly were tyrants. Fascism makes property a right, so long as it supports the state. Sorta like Obama right now. Still leftist, from where I sit.

Supertradmum said...

Bill another help...look at the Spanish Civil War. Also, think of the Russian purges, the destruction of the Ukrainians. Communism is always pan-national in its ideology and really does not care about a people, as such. Fascism is more like the original symbol indicates-like the Roman Empire, which would be consider "far right".

Supertradmum said...

Bill, Fascists are idealists first, not materialists first, which is a huge intellectual difference. Sorel for example was not accepted by fellow fascists for his too socialist stance. Charles Marras believed in integral nationalism as a starting point for economic renewal as against revolutionary anarchists and communists. Pareto was an elitist. Those who started the modern Italian state were more fascist than democrats but not communists or socialists. The centre of power and the centre of economics as well as the philosophical ideals of materialism I do think create opposing parties. Historically, fascist governments were not anti-religion either, and many allowed the Catholic and Christian churches to continue with some destruction of power in temporal matters, but one would not call fascism atheist as in Marxism and most socialist philosophies. I know the end product looks the same, but I do think that the origins and ideals are vastly different.

Hollande is not a nationalist, but appeals to the Euro-socialists in a way which is scary. His desire to leave NATO is not so much a decision for France, but for the pan-national ideals of socialism, that is, anti-nation-state.

Supertradmum said...

Bill, Fascists are idealists first, not materialists first, which is a huge intellectual difference. Sorel for example was not accepted by fellow fascists for his too socialist stance. Charles Marras believed in integral nationalism as a starting point for economic renewal as against revolutionary anarchists and communists. Pareto was an elitist. Those who started the modern Italian state were more fascist than democrats but not communists or socialists. The centre of power and the centre of economics as well as the philosophical ideals of materialism I do think create opposing parties. Historically, fascist governments were not anti-religion either, and many allowed the Catholic and Christian churches to continue with some destruction of power in temporal matters, but one would not call fascism atheist as in Marxism and most socialist philosophies. I know the end product looks the same, but I do think that the origins and ideals are vastly different.

Hollande is not a nationalist, but appeals to the Euro-socialists in a way which is scary. His desire to leave NATO is not so much a decision for France, but for the pan-national ideals of socialism, that is, anti-nation-state.

Anonymous said...

I hope none of you are saying fascism is a good thing.

Supertradmum said...

Don't worry, Anonymous. Most commenting on this blog are probably monarchists or fans of republican democracies, as in the States before Obama.

JonathanCatholic said...

And how about you, tradmum? Monarchist or a fan of Republican Democracy?

Supertradmum said...

Well, Jonathan Catholic, on Wednesday night, I had a very interesting discussion with two priests, one of whom is a monarchist. I was leaning towards monarchy for years and years, but the realpolitik is for republics and democracies and I doubt with the end of Catholic monarchie and Catholic royals that we could ever hope for a monarchial structure which is not totally perverse. When Christendom existed and royals were trained in noblese oblige and attempted to practice their faith, we could hope for good monarchs. But, where would such kings and queens come from today. Having said that, look at this very interesting article from lifesitenews.... Abortion debate jeopardizes 900-year-old Liechtenstein dynasty
Peter Baklinski Wed May 23 16:22 EST Abortion
LIECHTENSTEIN, May 23, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Hereditary Prince Alois of Liechtenstein has threatened to step down from his royal duties if a citizen-led initiative to limit his vetoing power proves successful. The citizens’ initiative gained momentum last year when the 43 year-old prince threatened to veto the results of a referendum should the majority opt to legalize abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and in cases of fetal deformity.

Speaking to parliament in March, the prince, a devout Catholic and father of four, made it clear that for the Royal Family to continue its vision for the country, it must retain the royal power to veto legislation contrary to that vision.

“The royal family is not willing to undertake its political responsibilities unless the prince… has the necessary tools at his disposal,” said Prince Alois as reported by Agence France-Presse. “But if the people are no longer open to that, then the royal family will not want to undertake its political responsibilities and ... will completely withdraw from political life.”

Liechtenstein, with a population of 36,000 and a land area of 160 square kilometers, has a constitution that empowers the hereditary prince with the royal right of veto. The royal family and their princes have ruled the tiny country as an autonomous monarchy since the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806.

Abortion in Liechtenstein is illegal under current law. According to the Penal Code of 1987, whoever performs an abortion can be punished with up to one year in prison. If an abortion is performed for profit, the sentence is elevated to three years in prison. Abortions are permitted, however, when deemed necessary to prevent serious danger to the life of the pregnant woman or serious harm to her health, when the pregnant woman is under the age of fourteen and has not at any time been married to the man who impregnated her, or when performed to save the pregnant woman from immediate danger to her life that cannot otherwise be prevented.

JonathanCatholic said...

And Liechtenstein wants more of an open abortion policy than that? That's really sad..

But yes, I thought the same thing when I read that article before. A rare case in our world: A good, strong Catholic monarch.