In my last post, I wrote on how plain language is not really suited for the interests of the controllers and meddlers, though it's essential for clear thinking.
Social engineers like to use imposter terms, words made to conceal the true nature of their meanings in order to fulfill a propaganda effort of some sort. You'll see it time and time again and to the eyes of a clear-headed thinker it's probably frustrating to no end.
You might find it a useful exercise to go over repeatedly used terms in media outlets to try to get down to principles of what is being discussed, saving you time in the process so you don't need to glance at every new publication just to get an understanding.
What usually happens, is a select term for something seen as indefensible or an object of censure and offense comes to the attention of politicians, journalists, economists, and academics. They then make it their mission to flip the term into something that can be defended by creating an imposter version of the term.
Imposter terms are nothing new and if anybody knows the history of Statism they're well aware of its influence. Even the term "the State" visible in its true sense and plain definition is just another word for a gang of criminals.
Unfortunately, many innocent people unwillingly use them and they get tossed around so much they eventually become part of our social vernacular.
Now, let's take a took at a very controversial term that shouldn't be—capitalism.
Economic terms are particularly prone to deceit, as if you can manipulate peoples understanding of how social forces work, they will either remain erroneously uninformed or be at the whims of the planners.
The word capital, in the economic sense, has its origins in Medieval economies, which means any type of wealth in the form of goods or property. ‘Ism’ comes from the Greek -ισμός meaning, “A suffix that forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine.”
Putting these two together, you can see they would denote the action of employing goods and services.
Capitalism, plainly speaking, means employing capital for certain ends or using generated wealth to create more wealth.
It's really that simple; I can’t think any economic system at anytime in recorded history where this did not exist. Of course in many cases, the uses of capital was only available to the ruling class instead of private persons but the underlying system was still in place.
Nevertheless, capitalism on its own doesn’t necessarily mean those who want to manage and use capital actually believe in a free market or private property rights.
Some of the most successful capitalists are indeed statists.
In fact, like how Nock describes “economism”, the central idea that life is solely about acquiring, producing and distributing wealth, rubs through easily enough; the doctrine being perfectly well-suited for capitalists to receive and enjoy statutory privileges.
The term has been continuously used as imposter term infamously by Marx and subsequent collectivists. It should be remembered that it was only done in order to disguise the fact that the system in place is a monopoly control of resources by the State and its beneficiaries or what is sometimes referred as crony-capitalism.
Calling the whole system solely capitalism sounds a lot better than saying it's a centralized monopolist one. That would leave a bad taste in peoples mouths, so the imposter term is substituted.