Revolution or evolution - the war of the "ists"

We live in a world of “ists.”
It used to be, in my framework of life, only eggheads and people studying to be eggheads were “ists.” These days, however, you just can’t get away from them. It really makes you wonder what the solution is – or if there’s a solution at all.

The old “ists” were things like psychiatrists, pharmacologists, linguists, physicists, astrobiologists, chemists, horticulturalists, hydrologists, balloonists, scientists, etc. Now, for whatever reason, we have brought new words into the discussion – abortionists, environmentalists, abolitionists, annihilationists, apocalyptists, bolshevists, decentralists, and so many others.

There are elitists who want to develop into eugenicisits and evolutionists who want to drum out all the biblicists. There are ecologists who are dabbling in the world of economists and escapists who are probably already druggists. There are evangelists who have become cultists and feminists who were really just faddist.

Of course, we have all seen factionists who became terrorists.

There are humorists and lampoonists who really are ignorantists but aspire to be Congressionalists.

But then, there are the worst. There are the names now bantered about so freely because of a failing government – and its representatives who hide from the people, use locked doors and guards to remove protestors from public property, and use the law to fold around the corners they can’t shore up.

Some of these names are: Centrist, democratist, communist, racist, capitalist, loyalist, Zionist, fascist, leftist, Marxist, nihilist, inflationist, progressist, dogmatist, socialist, propagandist, tzarist and seditionist.

Can you recognize the times when terms like these last were used most freely? I’ll give you a hint – they weren’t happy moments in our world’s history.

Now this may annoy some of the “ists” who are out there, but I hold no great love for any political party. You might just define me as an occasional essayist who is alternately an artist and a practiced pugilist, but who dabbles as a shootist.

I honestly do not care if the answers come from the left or the right. Frankly, I’m tired of all the gibbering on both sides of the spectrum. I can’t think of a more pedantic, ridiculous course of action than to drone on and on about the same old solutions to the same old problems. I would call this “puckfist” thinking.

As an example:

An email being fired about today amongst the politicists, who would desparately like to be pantisocratists, described an apparent discussion in which they had been engaged. During this meeting, some egoist, who might have been a defeatist, but was probably closer to a defectionist had put forth the idea that the group should adopt Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” rewriting it essentially and putting some kind of capitalist spin on the thing. I cannot disagree enough.

No matter what kind of pretty ribbon you wrap around excrement, it remains excrement. You can no more get reliable tactics or strategy from Alinsky than you can from any other mediocrist aspiring to be an incendiarist.

On the other side of the stupid coin, however, you have those marginalists in our government and media, who wish to wave away the concerns of many, making them the butt of jokes and focus of their derision. On this same side are the politicians who seek fat paychecks, but do not wish to hear the complaints and address the woes of a growing and very uneasy group of people.

Set it all aside.

We are in a scenario now, which leads in only two directions. The first is increasing Statism, an easy march down a very straight road, which eventually leads to more polarity within the population, until you have insurrection and revolution. The second is a cleaner destination, but a more difficult, twisting, up-hill climb.

It is liberty.