‘A Rose by any other name …’

George Rebane

Lately, readers claiming not to know my definitions for and usage of ideological labels have accused me and others on the Right of inserting these labels to identify our leftwing counterparts in a pejorative manner.   Unfortunately that is an ignorant error.  To clarify, I have selected a few past RR posts that should remedy the matter.  And those seeking to continue prosecuting their assertions should quote chapter and verse from these posts to which I add the ever accessible ‘A Conservetarian Credo’ in top right margin - else send in the crickets.

Who is a Socialist

The Views of a Rightwing Extremist – Indictment without Evidence

Ideologies and Governance – A Structured Look

Liberals and Conservatives Don’t Tell the Whole Story

The Educated Liberal

The Value of Stereotyping

And Orwell summarized nicely why the progressives have tenaciously controlled public education in America.

If you control the language, you control the argument,
If you control the argument, you control information,
If you control information, you control history,
If you control history, you control the past;
He who controls the past controls the future.  

    – Big Brother, 1984

 

Comments

[Todd Juvinall]

Yep. I am sure if you scanned all the posts here you will find numerous labels by the left against the conservatives and other like minded individuals.

When I started writing response to leftwingers diatribes I used "liberal" in describing them. As we have seen over time, the liberals have become attached to their inanity by the masses and the term has become a very accurate slap on them. But it is not a "pejorative" per say. It is in the minds of them however so they started calling them selves "progressives" to avoid the embarrassment of being a liberal. Just as they change the meaning of other words, "gay", climate change" and many more, they still can't convince even themselves that their true moniker is a ad hominem.

I love it when a plan comes together!

[Gregory]

Todd, you got that wrong. The meaning of "liberal" is what we now call "libertarian".

"Liberal" was repurposed to avoid "democratic socialist" which is what the New Deal 'progressivism' was all about. One of my admirations of Bernie Sanders is because he doesn't shy away from the S word.

[Walt]

The "Left" has rebranded themselves on a regular basis. When they turned " Democrat" into a dirty word, they picked up " Liberal" to identify with. They turned that description into the likes of a cesspool odor even faster. Now "Progressive" is the current stripe, and that's got the smell of roadkill left to rot in the Summer noonday sun.
There is now a class action lawsuit for disparagement and slander by Donkeys nation wide.
" Find another mascot!" Bottom feeding invasive Carp would be a good fit. They destroy everything they get into. ( And the Chinese love them.)

[fish]

Bottom feeding invasive Carp would be a good fit.

HEY!!!!

[Gregory]

Let's not confuse a carp with a typical politician: one is a disgusting bottom feeder and the other is a fish.

[Todd Juvinall]

LOL! That was good!

[Todd Juvinall]

Here is Obama's hero, Saul Alinsky's "community organized" tactics from way back. Note how the left is still full of sh***.

From WIKI:

"As an example, after organizing FIGHT (an acronym for Freedom, Independence [subsequently Integration], God, Honor, Today) in Rochester, New York,[12] Alinsky once threatened to stage a "fart in" to disrupt the sensibilities of the city's establishment at a Rochester Philharmonic concert. FIGHT members were to consume large quantities of baked beans after which, according to author Nicholas von Hoffman, "FIGHT's increasingly gaseous music-loving members would hie themselves to the concert hall where they would sit expelling gaseous vapors with such noisy velocity as to compete with the woodwinds."[13] Satisfied with his threat yielding action, Alinsky later threatened a "piss in" at Chicago O'Hare Airport. Alinsky planned to arrange for large numbers of well-dressed African Americans to occupy the urinals and toilets at O'Hare for as long as it took to bring the city to the bargaining table. According to Alinsky, once again the threat alone was sufficient to produce results.[13] In Rules for Radicals, he notes that this tactic fell under two of his rules: Rule #3: Wherever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy; and Rule #4: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

[George Rebane]

ToddJ 406pm - I thought "sh***" was spelled with only two *s ;-)

[Todd Juvinall]

LOL!

[Walt]

Sorry Fish, I just couldn't come up with a out fo ya' at the time of printing, even though I knew that would get your dorsal fin up.
I had to hit the road to go buy some fire insurance. A Honda pump and hose. I knew my "redneck" above ground pool would come in handy. Now I have a fighting chance. Our luck here WILL run out sooner or later. ( Now to figure out how to deduct the expense)

[Bill Tozer]

The Chair of The Democrat Party was asked a simple question. What is the difference between a rose and a rose?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/trick-question-whats-the-difference-between-a-democrat-and-a-socialist.php

[Todd Juvinall]

Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz is the best Chairman I could imagine for electing Republicans. The woman is a loon! Good link.

[fish]

There are days I think it's good that the British are going the way of the Dodo!

http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/10/26/david-pearce-the-naturalisation-of-heaven/

Fucking wanker!

(Sorry George....I tried to keep my epithet culturally appropriate)

[fish]

In going back and reading the of the comments associated with blog posts you listed I am struck that Franklins "Death and Taxes" aphorism was incomplete....had he been alive in our era it would need to be amended to:

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.....and that somewhere Ben Emery is still mad at Walmart"!

Here is why I dislike Walmart and companies like them so much. They will oppress, violate rights, and cut corners for the bottom line for their shareholders but at the expense of the stakeholders. Profit is fine but excess profit stolen from the labor and rights of others should never be accepted by those who even pretend to believe in liberty and natural rights.

From RR, Feb 2013

What the hell is a Walmart "stakeholder"?

[Account Deleted]

fish at 8:02 - you'll also have to add:

...and everything wrong with the American economy and foreign policy is always Bush's fault.

[fish]

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 01 August 2015 at 08:49 AM

Well to be fair many of them are....Medicare Part D springs to mind! Of course his replacement is arguably worse.

[George Rebane]

fish 802am - A well-timed question which I hope BenE will deign to answer since his response will clarify one socialist's view of property rights and ownership. In the past, 'stakeholder' has had the fuzzy semantic of a cohort that benefits from an enterprise the future direction of which they view very differently from that of the owners (shareholders) of the enterprise. Nevertheless, BenE's definition of stakeholder will be our gold standard.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 01 August 2015 at 10:16 AM

In the past, 'stakeholder' has had the fuzzy semantic of a cohort that benefits from an enterprise the future direction of which they view very differently from that of the owners (shareholders) of the enterprise.

"Employer" I understand. "Employee" I understand. "Shareholder" I understand.

"Stakeholder" as you mention is someone who benefits in a less than clearly defined way usually due to political maneuvers of some sort. Think Jesse Jackson ......although I'm not sure that Ben would agree with my "definition" or example.

[George Rebane]

fish 1059am - we recall that for all forms of collectivism to work successfully requires that participants continually practice altruism - selfless action to the greater benefit of the collective (as defined by its elites). In that sense our socialist friends teach that all private enterprise should be entered into, not for personal gain, but to serve society whose welfare is at stake in the sense that the enterprise serves society. Therefore, the stakeholders of any such enterprise may comprise of virtually anyone ranging from its customers to those indirectly affected by operations of the enterprise. In setting priorities, it is to such stakeholders that the owners (shareholders) of the enterprise should be beholden.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 01 August 2015 at 11:24 AM

I suppose that's fine as a theoretical definition. "Stakeholder" as a practical matter seems like someone who will require compensation in order to purchase their consent.

[Todd Juvinall]

Stakeholder came into the vernacular in the early 90's if I recall correctly. It was used mostly in environmental endeavors by the eco's. It meant they had a part of the decision's outcome so they were made part of the process. Every single project had "stakeholders" but I never understood how they, the eco's had a "stake" in the Kmart store construction. It was used to involve them so they would be notified of all things on a project. Then they could use that for lawsuits later on as the claimed to have a "stake" in the outcomes. Great money maker scams by Earth Justice on down to a neighbor.

[fish]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 01 August 2015 at 11:53 AM

This is how I remember it as well.

A "Stakeholder" was frequently someone who really had no legitimate reason to oppose a construction project (they didn't live next to where the project was sited, There were no tangible impacts to them personally or as proper owners) but needed to be mollified financially to preclude them from filing nuisance lawsuits, obstructing construction activities, etc.

[George Rebane]

ToddJ 1153am and fish 1138am - actually my 1124am gives an operational definition of 'stakeholder' which clearly subsumes ToddJ's 1153am as a special case of well-publicized instances of 'consumer activism'.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 01 August 2015 at 12:11 PM

Therefore, the stakeholders of any such enterprise may comprise of virtually anyone ranging from its customers to those indirectly affected by operations of the enterprise. In setting priorities, it is to such stakeholders that the owners (shareholders) of the enterprise should be beholden.

Then I find myself needing to retract my earlier agreement with your theoretical definition of "stakeholder" as presented as it almost always contradicts the "altruistic behavior" requirement of the first part of your statement.

The term and behavior of a "Stakeholder" as practiced is usually parasitical. Altruism doesn't enter into the equation. Somebody who is losing their house due to development has a legitimate claim against the project. The "Stakeholder" to whom Todd and I refer is a latter day creation of the legal system who isn't impacted but can offer a veto. A Sierra Club might threaten to sue just to fatten their coffers, not because there is anything inherently wrong with the goals of the project or in conflict with the organizations charter but simply because there might be money in it.

One would think that the concept of "stakeholder" would be repulsive to the collectivist.

[Todd Juvinall]

The developments in the Martis Valley are prime examples of what FISH is talking about (and I agree with). In order to develop their lands into subdivisions, the Sierra Club, and many other eco groups, pretty much forced their way into the system declaring they are "stakeholders" even though in all practical purposes they are not. So, they have a "say" and in order to keep them from screwing up everything the developers were extorted for a lot of money or property or both.

Same is happening with N.I.D. and its re-licensing of the Yuba Bear project and the new dam proposal. Funny how all the eco non profits went away when they were paid off in Martis and Truckee. And now a local eco nut council claims those projects as a great economic success.

[George Rebane]

fish 1239pm - Perhaps my 1124am was not clear. Altruism is the overarching moral attribute that collectivists use to justify their concepts of government for public consumption. Nowhere did I state or imply that in stakeholder activism is altruism required in any of the participants, most certainly not in the business owners or managers. It is the activist stakeholders who hypocritically justify their militancy, because the business and shareholders should practice altruism but don't. That notion of altruism is the raison d'etre of all collectivist moralizing; without constantly appealing to it, their case for, say, violating property rights has nothing to stand on. (As a very accessible example, review the exhortations and reasoning of our own BenE. All his policies in the end require that the government's gun will be used to impose altruistic behavior on the ignorant, greedy, and unwilling.)

I hope this helps, and again I apologize that my 1124am didn't say it clearly enough for you to understand.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 01 August 2015 at 01:56 PM

I hope this helps, and again I apologize that my 1124am didn't say it clearly enough for you to understand.

Of course George.....clarity of language is always beneficial! ;-)