I read. I see. I feel everyone else, because we can do that if we try. I listen and most of all I participate because it’s our world and you are all “my people”. Not mine in the possessive sense, but mine in the way that one refers to the people from their home town; like if one said; “I’m from Key West, FL; my people are kind-hearted and practical by nature.” In this sense, I would say “I’m Human, my people are the most wonderful thing to behold; we are a giant family of variety, spread out all over the face of our Mother Earth.” We are all we have and we must remember how beautiful we are and how fragile we can be. A few of us have also twisted the same qualities that make us so wonderful to behold into tools for inequity and manipulation. This was possible for many years because our family was dispersed all over Mother Earth and for a long, long time, it was easy to make it difficult for all of us to talk. So we didn’t. We listened to what the few told us about whom and what we were and we obeyed and followed; what else was there to do? We were baptized in the religion of conflict and educated in the school of differences; we were taught that we were different. Those people from over there are not like us. They don’t eat what we eat, or talk like we talk or dress like we dress or think like we think….wait a minute – the only reason I eat what I eat and talk the way I talk and dress the way I dress and think the way I think because that’s all my parents knew when I was born and where I grew up. Those people from over there or from anywhere are no different than anyone else, we are exactly the same and if we eat differently or talk different or think differently it is only because that is what we were taught and not because we are different. What we were taught was convenient for the few, without regard for the damage that it would cause. We can see this now. We can look back and see the road already travelled and observe the mistakes and wrong turns made along the way and we can make sure not to repeat them. We must be responsible if we are going to attempt a happier world and a happier life for all of us. This responsibility includes how and what we communicate. Language is a critical human dynamic, without it many things would not be possible, including what I’m writing at this moment. The critical importance of language to humans is the very reason why it has been manipulated and re-worked so many times over so many years. It should not be a surprise that a sentence or even a single word has power and if that power were manipulated, the results could be disastrous. I’m here to tell you that our languages have been manipulated and altered to the point of having two parallel and contradictory paradigms; this horrifying fact is common knowledge and we don’t even realize it, that’s how powerful words are. We know the two as the literal and the figurative. The what and the what? How can a word or a sentence have a literal meaning and at the same time a figurative meaning? How can a word or a sentence officially mean one thing but in practice mean something else? That’s what literal and figurative signify. Why did we have to invent two new words when there was already one word that has the same significance: hypocrisy. This linguistic hypocrisy has been used, once and again, to warp the truth of a thing, to change the nature of a thing or even to alter actual events. People have been imprisoned or even put to death for something that was said and that is unacceptable, no word or words in existence can be worth someone’s life, yet we all know things like this have happened. We must, all of us, make sure not to allow things like that to ever happen again. Language and words are a very important part in the changes occurring today. We are all part of the change and we are coming together as one big family. We still speak different languages however, so must help each other whenever possible to understand what is said or written in whatever language it is spoken or read. Right now is a good time to start. There is a word that more and more people are using more frequently every day and in every venue. As we realize that it is all of us who are the world and not the few who claim to be, we feel empowered and lose the fear of speaking out, as it should be. This does not mean we can stop paying attention. This word, if used in any number of particular ways can be used against anyone in the worst of ways. In some places in the world, even today, the mere mention of this word is punishable by death. That’s right; a word can kill you. It should not come as a surprise that what allows this word to have the power of life and death is that it has been manipulated and altered. I offer this tiny observation as knowledge to all of my people of the world, so that we can help each other to move forward and not allow ourselves to go backwards, especially by the use of trickery in our languages.
The word in question is anarchy and all of its various forms which include anarchist and anarchism. This word has been tampered with and altered in linguistic terms and regardless of the language used to speak it, the result is the same. The proof of this is in the very instrument used to manipulate the word: The Dictionary. First let’s do a quick mental exercise. Think of the word anarchy and then focus on what the word brings to your mind. For the most part, if anyone hears the word; anarchy, what comes to the mind of most people is an image, the image of lots and lots of people, running around and screaming, in total disarray and chaos, wreaking havoc and wanton destruction everywhere they go. The image is of relentless looting, pillaging and raping without any control and without anyone in charge to stop it. That’s what we think of when we hear the word and that’s what the few or the convenient will understand whenever they hear it or read it and it WILL be used against many people who are not thinking about destroying or looting anything. Anarchy has the distinction of being a manipulated/altered word and it makes common sense to make sure that all of us know this so that no manipulations of meaning can occur. Let’s take a look at the Dictionary and see what the few have done to the language that we use; in this case it’s English, but do the same thing in any language and you will see the same result. Here’s what the dictionary tells us about the word:
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
Here we can see that the word has three distinct meanings, the interesting thing is how each one either contradicts the other(s) or how some of them simply lie to create a false definition. We can see that the word is listed as a NOUN. It has 3 syllables. If we look at the word’s linguistic morphology it is composed of two morphemes with a common Greek root. –an is a prefix meaning without and archy, from the Greek +arkh- (leader) as derived from the base word arkhein (to rule). Simply put, anarchy means without a ruler (leader).
This simple definition is expanded upon in the first definition of the word in the dictionary: [1. a state of society without government or law.] Here we can see the substitution of the words government and law in the place of leader or ruler. Technically, however, society has nothing to do with it, nor is it a state of society, it is simply the absence of a ruler or leader. If we let this slide, this first definition would be accurate enough since there are hardly any rulers in today’s world, they have all been replaced by governments and law, with are both much more convenient since neither can die nor be killed or anything else that a human can suffer from but not an ideal (supposedly). Simple enough.
Now let’s look at the second definition and here we can see the alteration in the definition of a single word. It explains that anarchy is [political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control]. What does this mean? Are we to understand that the absence of a government (in this case any one of the –isms: capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism or totalitarianism) automatically results in social disorder? Wait a minute! Isn’t that the mental image that comes to everyone’s mind? If anarchy is political and social disorder, then it is not a noun, I’m not sure what it would be, maybe somewhere in the family of adverbs, since disorder in this case is written in the literal sense (another altered word) and describes an action. Aren’t those verbs? How can the same word mean the absence of government and at the SAME TIME be used to define what is supposed to happen in the absence of government? That’s just a little too convenient. It’s kind of like what my dad told my mom the night they made me; he said: “Honest, honey. Just the tip. I promise! Just the tip.” – right. Anarchy DOES NOT MEAN the chaotic and lawless disorder that occurs in the absence of government, that’s looting and pillaging. Rape doesn’t technically fall into that category, but for some reason if the absence of authority is even implied, men begin to rape women, so to a great degree the manipulation of this word shares in the responsibility of what results from the manipulation; the rest of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of my fellow males, who very conveniently might just believe this and actually think that it is okay to rape, as long as there is no government. What? Like this hasn’t happened in our history? This second definition is … bullshit. Simple and pure bullshit, yet we bought it, hook line and sinker. As a result, if anyone attempts to use the word anarchy, even in an academic sense, they are taken for “promoters or anarchism” and can be arrested. All because of this second definition which is a simple fabricated lie.
Now, the third definition is really a whopper. It says that anarchy is [a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society]. Here we go again. A theory? That’s not a noun, but wait a minute…read the whole thing, slowly, then come back here. Let me ask a question: Isn’t the principal mode of an organized society supposed to be based on the ideal that individuals and groups cooperate so as to make sure that direct or coercive governments are always absent? Isn’t this what we call Democracy? When did this third definition get put in there? I don’t remember seeing it 15 years ago. Now, suddenly, someone would have us believe that anarchy = democracy? That is what #3 is saying.
Now we are completely confused. It is officially impossible to know exactly what anarchy means, but someone will surely come up with a way to use it against someone else, when it becomes convenient.
Let’s further this a bit by looking at the definition of the word as seen in the:
World English Dictionary
1. general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. the absence or lack of government
3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos
4. the theory or practice of political anarchism
This dictionary wins the first place prize for hypocrisy and bullshit. Look at the very first definition. This would have us believe the there doesn’t actually have the absence of government for there to be anarchy, it just hast to be thought absent. In other words, all one has to do is to think that there’s no government and then they can begin the looting and the pillaging? How grandiose of the authors of that reference book.
I don’t think I need to detail how definitions numbers 2, 3 and 4 contradict each other. It is so disgusting that it leaves a foul taste in one’s mouth. The “powers that be” have completely destroyed any coherence to the meaning of the word “anarchy”, so it can never mean whatever anyone actually is trying to say; it will always mean what’s convenient to the few.
It would make sense to simply not use the word anymore. Even in the dictionary, it has been defined into contradictory obscurity, and can only result in trouble. For the sake of establishing a single definition, a suggestion might be that the concept held in the mind of a person who might otherwise use the word anarchy to communicate the same is as follows:
The practical possibilities that result when all humans participate in the coordination and function of living together as a global community, where the authority and the regulation of day-to-day human life is shared by all humans in an environment of productivity and happiness for every single human being.
I don’t think there’s a word for that is there? Why can’t we give it one? Maybe we can call it Humanism. I don’t think saying that word will get anyone killed. What do you think?
I love you all; each and every one of you.