Oratorical Terrorism
The kids have “6-7” which deliberately has no meaning. The “grownups”, at least the ones in the current administration, have “terrorism”, which is rapidly losing the meaning it used to have.
There was a time, way back in the Memory Hole, when the word meant something specific: a violent act, or acts, conducted by a non-governmental group seeking to spread fear in the population, for the sake of achieving political ends. ISIS represented a real-life example.
But the term has been enjoying a remarkable expansion of meaning, thanks to White House and cabinet spokespeople. “Narcoterrorist” was the preferred description of Maduro, whom most of us would have described as a “dictator”. But maybe that word was too close for comfort to someone in the Oval Office.
Now, in the horrible case of an ICE official killing a civilian driver, Kristi Noem has gone one step farther than just killing her dog. She described the motorist as a “domestic terrorist”. At this rate, it won’t be long before officials are describing a person crossing against the light as a “pedestro-terrorist”.
If a word was a stock, I’d say go bullish on “terrorism”.
How can you all be so critical of the winner of the first FIFA Peace Prize? Next year, if all goes well, we might even be blessed with an AI President Trump. Is the 21st century a planetary acid flashback or will we all awaken soon, and share our relief at it all having been a terrible dream?
I remember, as a kid, when Nixon invoked “national security” as a justification for just about anything he wanted to get away with. Maduro called anyone who even mildly opposed him a “golpista,” or coup plotter, as a justification for imprisonment. Mussolini’s Blackshirts called the opposition “internal enemies.” Do we notice a pattern here?