Examining how two words have been weaponized to cause us to self obliterate: ‘Radical’ and ‘Corruption’ (with additional bonus word!)

Corruption:

This may be a longish ride so let me put the punch line first so you can decide if you want to read further.

If someone puts a strip of plastic over your nose and mouth after writing down somewhere that you have to have a strip of plastic over your nose and mouth by decree, and you poke a hole in it so you can breathe, is that corruption?

If the state kicks you in the knee and you discover you can only walk with a limp, is walking with a limp corruption? Or just the only way you can walk as a consequence of being kicked in the knee?

Let me start with a couple of anecdotes from people I know well:

A Canadian store owner back around the turn of the century, somewhere between 1998 and 2002 or so, was buying goods from a wholesaler in NY. He asked the wholesaler to please provide him with an invoice to ship with the goods for less than half the actual price of the goods with a real invoice to follow later by mail.

The wholesaler laughed and asked the question: “Is your government (in Canada) trying to turn you into a nation of criminals?”

The store owner asked for details, even though, as I am told, the shop owner perfectly understood the comment.

The wholesaler continued: “Every Canadian I deal with asks for fake invoices because they simply could not sell the goods competitively if at all if the official tariff rate was paid on these goods! (This was decades before Donald Trump remember!) Your costs would be too high to do business at all! What’s Wrong with your government! They are making you a nation of criminals!”

Much more recently, and for similar reasons, when you buy a used car, the government of Ontario will not accept a sales receipt presented by the buyer from the seller. So a car, which has already had all sales taxes paid on it when it was purchased new, must also have sales tax paid on it when you buy it used from someone who bought it new and paid tax on it, or also bought it used and paid tax on it. The government has decided not to accept a sales receipt as proof of price paid, because simply no one would present the honest price they paid as the tax required would make the car, if not unaffordable, much more expensive than it was likely worth.

So now the Ontario government demands that you go to a specialized garage and get an estimate on the worth of the car, so that the state approved level of taxation can be applied to the sale of the used car. This is irrespective of what the buyer actually pays. The tax rate is set by an appraiser approved of by the state.

Which then sets the appraiser up in a position where he might be tempted to split the difference with a purchaser. Offer a lower appraisal rate for the car for a higher appraisal fee. Now I am not saying this happens, just that this would be a fairly predictable market response to being kicked in the knee when buying a car.

As a response to this non-practice which likely never happens, the state of Ontario has decided they want a video tape of the appraisal itself so they can judge if the appraisal was honest.

By the way, this applies even when the car is a gift, unless it’s within specified relationships. Those include common law spouse or actual official married partner, and direct descendants.

This additional 13% can change the decision to purchase the car as it can take it from affordable to not affordable.

Is that corruption? Or is the system forcing a free market to behave this way?

So is trying to work around these state imposed, anti-free market measures corruption? Or walking with a limp, or breathing through a hole in a suffocating gag?

Remembering a book I read in 1976 by Hedrick Smith called, The Russians, the entire book was dedicated to describing day to day life in the Soviet Union. How in fact the official or state mandated artificial economy was something like only 10% of the organic or real free market economy, which people called corrupt, or “the black market”.

A person would rapidly discover that their government pay checks would not pay the months food and rent or even close to it. The reason being that while the state had artificially fixed the cost of food and rent so that your monthly wages would cover it, in order to actually get to the food, or be allowed to stay in your government owned apartment, you would have to pay usually around 10X the official price of the thing in bribes. You had to bribe the doorman to get into the store, The cashier to get the goods, and of course, they would issue you a fake receipt showing the official rate of the loaf or bread for example, as opposed to the 10X rate you really paid, since, like all Canadians Soviet Citizens you are now a criminal, they had to cover your crime of actually buying food with paperwork that conformed to the state narrative of the cost of goods.

One can stand in a field and scream orders at the earth as much as one likes but it won’t produce a single grain of wheat without seed, water, fertilizer and lots and lots of hard work. So there are, shall we say, real-world costs to things. We measure those costs in money. But we cannot change those costs by merely revaluing the money itself arbitrarily any more than we can make an 8 inch ruler, for example, say that it is 12 inches when it’s really only 8. The man who is five feet two is no more attractive to women just because the ruler insists he is six foot four. There are real world and organic standards. And a free market economy is one of the best ways of measuring them. Yes, to a degreee this can be regulated. And to a degree, a very successful one can be slowed down with taxation etc. in order to control growth or create a tax base to advance civilization itself. But even in a perfect world like that, taxation etc. slows growth. And what we have now is that one and only feature of taxation, the slowing of growth and disincentivisaiton of production in place.

Taxation increasingly is a weapon against the middle class. And as the government simply prints money to do things which are damaging to Canada and claims it cannot afford to do the obvious things, like look after war veterans, we can say with some certainty that taxation is not about generating revenue for the benefit of Canadians and Canadian culture and society. It is punitive.

But to the point. Clearly in Hedrick Smith’s The Russians, and to Canadians who try and find a work-around from punitive taxation and regulations beyond any reasonable explanation for them, this also cannot be called corruption but a reflexive survival response. The corruption is the system that necessitates such responses. And even then, it is not technically corruption, but a pure and properly constructed and directed weapon against Canadian liberties and free market system.

Nazis who shot at allied forces in WW2 were not corrupt. They were ideologically pure. As were those allied forces that tried not to get shot and also shot back at them.

So the word corruption at this point looks like another dialectical or rhetorical weapon to manipulate public sentiment in such a way as to assist them in total self destruction.

“Radical” or “extremist”

Sometime in the early 2000s, a study was done on US mosques. It was conducted by a very reputable survey company who had a reputation, and much more importantly, used excellent methods for determining the nature or views of the thing under study.

The purpose of the study was to find out what percent of US mosques taught “radical” or “Extremist” Islamic values such as jihad for conquest of the US and what percent taught a sort of narrative version of Islam as another religion of personal choice within the US with no frothing at the mouth sermons about jihad.

From memory, the number of mosques who did not teach jihad, violence and hatred was well under 10% and those that did, over 90%. That is within the USA.

A large number of mosques were sampled and across the whole of the country.

So now we run up against what might be the most important aspect of this.

How can 90% of a thing be “radical” or “extremist”?

Sam Harris, author of the book, End of Faith put it best: “The problem with Islamic Fundamentalism, is the fundamentals of Islam”. A clip I have posted many times but can no longer find on YouTube. Curiouser and curiouser. In any case, clearly the words, “extremist”, “Fundamentalist”, “Radical” are rhetorical weapons against those people that observant Muslims would destroy, namely us, and to help us destroy ourselves.

The central dogma and doctrine of Islam is of jihad. and destruction of all other systems of human organization, belief and law and to replace it with Islamic orthodoxy. To dismiss this as the view of “extremists” etc. is to use a version of Hanlon’s Razor. Instead of claiming those who create destructive policies or actions are merely stupid or incompetent to divert the fact that they are malicious, we are saying that all those constant string of stabbings, mass casualty events, ramming with cars and so on represent only a tiny minority of people within islam who, perhaps, do not understand their own religion. Sayeth the people who have never picked up a Koran but claim they have read “parts of it” because they heard a few out of context quotes on CBC or CNN.

The way it works is, a few people wage acts of kinetic jihad in a way that kill some small number of people, but is horrific and then treated by the media in a specific way. The state, will simultaneously claim this is not what it obviously is, but admit there is a security problem, and take away knives from old white German women that they may have as a protection from a very legitimate fear of being raped or otherwise abused by Muslim migrants. These crisis can be conveniently reworked by the state-media apparatus to justify the removal of all people’s most essential liberties. And is.

So you don’t actually need a lot of these acts of jihad. But they achieve the results both the Muslims and the communists are after.

Bonus word: Minority:

One really outstanding example of a dialectic might be the word, ‘Minority’.

It is brilliantly used as a cover to mean anyone but white people.

White people, or caucasians, which might be a more scientific nomenclature for white people, are in fact a minority if we are allowed to use the anthropological definition of races. There are certainly more East Asians than white people. Probably more South Asians as well. Certainly more Africans. But the media will still refer to say, Muslims as a minority in a city in the West when they are in fact an overwhelming majority of the population and have transformed the culture to an Islamic one to the extent that the kids don’t even know they live in a non-Islamic country. Although perhaps was, is a better tense.

It is important to also remember all the emotional attachments that the word has today. In essence, a minority, being non-white is always oppressed, and are always victims, and must always be given higher status in law, and a lower standard of expected behaviour and conformity to the law than non-minorities, meaning whites and Jews. The Jews of course, are or are not part of the majority depending on if they are conservative or leftist. Leftist jews still get to have a victim/minority label. But Jews who stand up for Western civilization will be accused of everything the constant marches through every city insist they are. Colonizers. Oppressors and commuters of genocide.

The selective use of the word, ‘minority’ might be one of the easiest examples of dialectical weaponry to expose.

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide why this video is in this article and how it fits.

And this:

Source: https://vladtepesblog.com/2025/06/09/examining-how-two-words-have-been-weaponized-to-cause-us-to-self-obliterate-radical-and-corruption-with-additional-bonus-word/