In this present era of happy progressive Orwellian hope and change, if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and generally goes about the business of acting like the most duckity duck you ever did see, not only are you officially discouraged from imagining, much less speaking of it as, perhaps, actually being a duck, you’re probably a racist, right-wing, hyper-religious, Palin-worshipping nutcase for even recognizing the possibility that it might be so.

Of course, ducks and duck recognition aren’t really the problem. Unless the ducks in question happen to vote Republican. (And why would any self-respecting creature of the wild ever do that?)

Nope, properly ID-ing a cute little duckie is no big deal at all. But when it comes to recognizing certain other animals, things can get sketchy quick. You see, out there roaming the countryside are a few particular sorts of beasts that we really aren’t supposed to notice. We’re almost not allowed to, and if we do notice them, however accidentally, we are under strict orders to pretend that they’re something fundamentally other than what we know them to be. Kinda like playing along with the “gay is okay” or “infanticide is a choice” brands of lunacy so prevalent in American culture today. Each of us living in post-Christian progressive America have become all too familiar with the ever increasing pressure to conform our language and thought so that we might ultimately join the vast and growing crowd as it marches happily towards its self-orchestrated oblivion.

We are well down that road.

A public education system consecrated to the progressive cause  has dutifully paved this path for decades, and now we are on the verge of reaping the full benefits of the dream of the American Statist. That vision includes the revision of history and language for the purpose of directing thought and controlling drones.

This leads right into a slew of terms that have long been on the progressive Left’s hit list. Words like Marxism, Communism and socialism have entered that phase of the process where they “disappear” so that, after sufficient time on the sideline or in the incubator, they might one day be sufficiently rehabilitated and re-emerge as viable tools in the progressive war on truth, justice, and the (once) American way. At the moment, terms such as these have become white-hot triggers for provocative conversation, and the forces of tolerance and progress are none too happy about it.

So, do socialists exist?

What about Marxists and commies? Are they mythological creatures conjured up by the enemy-needing schemes and imaginations of Karl Rove and Glenn Beck? Or are they real too?

And if they’re real, what are they all about? What are they into? What do they like? What do they hate? How much do they make Chris Matthews’ leg tingle?

These and other questions that the progressive mainstream thought police and media would rather we not consider are indeed, as you might have guessed, very much worthy of our consideration. They’re screaming for it, actually. So let’s just take a second here and at least nibble at one edge of this huge collection of important and intertwined expressions and ideas, okay?

While the term is still allowed a spot on Big Al’s Internet, let’s have a look-see at what has to tell us about the word “socialism”:


  //  /ˈsoʊ ʃəˌlɪz əm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uh m]


1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

In The American Heritage Dictionary section of the same listing, we get the following bits to help us flesh things out:

so·cial·ism //   (sō’shə-lĭz’əm)    

  1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
  2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

First off, it is worth noting that the term “socialism” does exist and has objective meaning. This is a biggie.

Secondly, as you might expect, “socialist” is defined as:


  //  /ˈsoʊ ʃə lɪst/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-list] Show IPA



an advocate or supporter of socialism.

Apparently, socialists are folks who “advocate or support” socialism.

Weird, huh?

So when someone “advocates or supports” moving our nation towards a system “of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy”, well, it seems like the folks we’re describing might just possibly be…


But don’t say that you heard it here. You and I both know that there are no ducks.


Copyright 2010 S.A. Buss – Feel free to re-post this piece, but only with the copyright included and a link to Fire Breathing Christian whenever possible. Thank you!

feed-icon-28x28 Subscribe to FIRE BREATHING CHRISTIAN!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *