Politics

Introduction

We live in uncertain and confusing times. Which has been the condition of mankind for thousands of years. It's been said that we are at the end of history. Yet history moves along because history is really the future. Everyone want to know what's going to happen. There are people who want to make sure the history that is written is the history that they want to create while eliminating the prospects of all other people's histories.

People all over the world are totally perplexed at what is being reported in the press. This confusion stems from a myriad of sources: from the sheer amount of information, from the bewildering number of languages and countries and peoples, from the vast geography of the world itself. And it comes from the fact that words used by one person, such as democrat, republics, Republican and Democrat, and conservative, and liberal, liberty, libertarian, socialists, and Christian Democrats, and labor rights, and human rights, and the rights of countries, -- and on an on. All the terms used to describe the politics and economics of the world are used in whatever way the person using them intends. They are left with no meaning after so much misuse. Anybody can make any argument they want, that is totally opposite what somebody else is saying, using the same words.

Consider this: we are told that the conservative military government in Burma is working for human rights. And we are told that the Conservative political party in England is working for human rights. We are told that the conservative Communist Party in Russia is for human rights and we are told that the conservative Chilean political party is for human rights.

Conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights. The conservatives in the all the political parties in America are working for human rights. Conservatives in France and Germany are working for human rights. Conservatives in Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights. Conservatives in every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.

Indeed. So what's a conservative and what's a human right? How can you tell from all the different senses one uses a word? With these ever shifting meanings of the words it becomes impossible to really figure out what someone is saying. If you are a person who says you're not conservative but instead a liberal. Well that's easy enough, look:

Consider this: we are told that the liberal military government in Burma is working for human rights. And we are told that the Liberal political party in England is working for human rights. We are told that the liberal Communist Party in Russia is for human rights and we are told that the liberal Chilean political party is for human rights. Liberal Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights. The liberals in the all the political parties in America are working for human rights. Liberals in France and Germany are working for human rights. Liberals in Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights. Liberals in every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.

So don't worry, all the liberals are working for human rights. Surely their definitions of human rights all differ. Or are all the liberals all different? Are there conservative liberals and liberal liberals? Are there liberal conservatives and conservative conservatives? And of course you can plug in the word moderate:

Consider this: we are told that the moderate military government in Burma is working for human rights. And we are told that the Moderate political party in England is working for human rights. We are told that the moderate Communist Party in Russia is for human rights and we are told that the moderate Chilean political party is for human rights. Moderate Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights. The moderates in the all the political parties in America are working for human rights. Moderates in France and Germany are working for human rights. Moderates in Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights. Moderates in every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.

Look again, all these moderates all over the world working for human rights. Do you know what human rights yet? So now I suppose we can have moderal liberals and liberal moderates. And of course we can also have conservative moderate liberals and liberal moderate conservatives.

Now when it comes to the actual names for the political parties expousing their claim to be working for human rights we get such charming things as the Farm Labor, Workers, Conservative, Liberal, Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Peoples Democratic Party, Christian Democrats, Christian Republicans, Hindu Nationalists, Muslim Nationalists, People's Liberation Front, Popular Front, Democratic Populists, Labor, Republican Democrats, Democratic Republicans, Liberal Republicans, Liberal Democrats, All People's Front, All People's Party, Progressive, Progressive Conservatives, Progressive Liberal, Christian Moderates -- and it goes on and on and on. And then there are hundreds more parties with local names, like Baathists and Likud, the Irish Nationalists, All Singapore League, and that list goes on an on, too. Some claim they are conservative, some liberal and some moderate. And to a party they are all working for human rights.

And we're told there are all sorts of different governments: Communist, Socialist, Democratic, Social Democracies, Republics, Kingdoms, Parliamentary Democrocies, Theocracies, One Party States, People's Republics and Constitutional Monarchies, and more. All of course claim they are working for human rights.

Their parties and the leaders of those parties come before the United Nations each year to claim they are diligently working for human rights. And each and every one of them uses the same words. Within the United States all these words are quoted and used and reused by the press and anybody who talks about politics. So if the words mean so little any more and anybody can apply any definition they want to them how can we begin to fathom what is happening, and what might happen? It is impossible.

The best example today of the totally different uses of the same words is Iraq, France and America. All of them are using the same words, yet they disagree once they get beyond the surface words.