Definitions can be important. An important technique of the socialist revolution against religion, morality, and true liberty has been to hijack words and reinvent their definitions to their exact opposites.One example is the word liberalism. In the founding era, liberalism, or as we call it today, classical liberalism, was an outlook on  political science that believed in limited government (thus maximum liberty) on the one hand, tempered by an educated and moral people on the other hand (which can also imply liberality, or fairness, or loving one's neighbor as himself), which hopefully translates into "ordered liberty," or "freedom to do what is right."

And again, freedom to do what is right means the state will stay out of your way in things like your career choices, or how you run your business, or what how you exercise your religion, so long as you don't hurt anyone, or deprive them of their sacred rights in the process. But if you do, then the state has a legitimate interest in looking into the matter, and restraining or punishing you if necessary.

Others would add to this definition by stating, as Joseph Smith did, that "to every kingdom there is a law, and to every law there are certain bounds and conditions."

I like that. For true liberty can only exist where there are certain basic laws in place (with some logical and fair-minded flexibility), otherwise there is anarchy, followed by the rule of the jungle, and after that, complete tyranny as a police state steps in (at the invitation of the victims) to restore order.

Freedom to exist, must have a reasonable set of limits. But beyond these, we are very liberal with man's freedom of choice. That was liberalism. Minimum government, with a few good moral and eternal laws keeping freedom within reasonable bounds, and of course, an educated and moral populace so that those limits will be, for the most part, respected.

Liberalism today, to illustrate my point, is the precise opposite of the original and true definition; that is, maximum government and control on the one hand, and yet absolute freedom in the morality department to do whatever one pleases, that is, as Karl Marx taught, there is no morality, there are no eternal truths, there is no reason or legitimacy in a few fixed laws and bounds, it's all relative, relative to empowering the state. Why? Because what we have is the pincer strategy - pressure from above, and pressure from below. Pressure for centralize power mixed, as government is the answer for everything; and pressure from below because without moral limits cries comes every sort of crime, in ever increasing numbers, which cries for ever increasing intervention from the state. Or as someone once said, "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."

And yes, here's the kicker, it all backfires on the politically correct immorality grouping of the day, who will with ever centralizing power have their "freedoms" taken by and by with everyone else's. Welcome to Reality 101.

The hijacking, and redefinition of the word "gay" by the left, is another obvious example … and thus what was once a pathology, homosexuality, is now redefined as "normal, happy, healthy," everyone smile … even though the suicide rate among gays is exorbitantly high. It just isn't a happy lifestyle. Never has been.
Another word re-invented by the left to its opposite is discussed in today's National Review Online, by Rich Lowry; it is fascism. Fascism, as this editor has long taught (but which has not been taught in the schools or the media), is but a form of socialism. Indeed, Lenin's NEP was fundamentally a fascist model, as was Gorbachev's Peretroika. That is, by way of one example, complete state ownership of the major industries, highly regulated status of the other industries and businesses, and free enterprise for Mama and Papa businesses.

On another level, there was private ownership in those regulated and Mama and Papa industries, but it had aggressive, freedom destroying limits. Publishers could freely compete, but not with a variety of political views (they had to pull the party line), but they could only compete for audiences; e.g. the senior audience, or the youth, or, let's say, manufacturers.

Thus, they had the economic benefits of private ownership and competition, but not freedom of speech as we understand it. Similar examples abound.

Lowry reviews a book by Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism," that exposes the fraud of the conservative right and Christians as fascists. Fascism and communism are sisters of the left. Both are highly centralized liberty destroying variations of the same idea.

Definitions are important.

Read the review: Rich Lowry on Liberal Fascism on National Review Online

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell