Why am I not allowed to say it like it is?

With all the recent shouting about Mr. Anders Breivik in the air, I think I have to clean up one more linguistic mess. Mr. Breivik is continually being referred to as a "right-wing extremist" or "rightist radical". It has been a common theme throughout history for the Left to label their finest men with such cliche titles. For example - let's take Benito Mussolini or Adolf Hitler. Both were praised by socialists and other Leftists during the 1920's and 1930's. George Bernard Shaw (the leading Fabian socialist and British intellectual) went as far as to call Mussolini "responsible socialist leader". Fascism is clearly a form of Leftism - it is based around the idea of the most extreme type of collectivism. And Hitler was, after all, a Nazi. That is to say, a National Socialist. Clearly he was vying with Stalin and Roosevelt for the title of World's Most Powerful Leftist of his day (and, as we know, that rivalry ended with war as most socialist projects do).
But what have the Leftists done now? They have labeled these men "right-wing extremists" so that they are no longer associated in one group together! Instead I am the one getting associated with them, since I openly claim to be a right-wing radical. The right-wing, however, has nothing to do with egalitarianism, collectivism, or militarism. These are all aspects of Leftism. And now Mr. Breivik, some murdering nut-job from Norway, got shoved into the same category. From what I know of his views he has recently demanded a lot of things in a statement he made from prison, and one of those demands was the abdication of the King of Norway, His Majesty Harald V! I don't know about you, but I never heard of a right-winger demanding something like that. On the contrary, it is clearly a Leftist sentiment.
Leftists are excellent at turning out such linguistic tricks. They have managed to change "liberalism" into "socialism" and now "the far Left" into "the far Right". Now I don't know how I can describe my political views without having to go into an hour-long explanation!

People interested in language manipulation should listen to George Carlin. He was one man who always said it like it is: "Government want to tell you things you can't say because they're against the law, or you can't say this because it's against a regulation, or here's something you can't say because its a...secret; "You can't tell him that because he's not cleared to know that." Government wants to control information and control language because that's the way you control thought, and basically that's the game they're in."
And the Left is synonymous with Government (except for a few self-proclaimed Leftist Anarchists who are living in an impossible dreamworld...)

So much for Socialism being 'humane'...

What is the main criticism people level at us, the good old capitalists? Well, for starters, we are supposedly just purely bad people. We selfishly want to exploit others in this dog-eat-dog world of ours. The weak who are not useful to us should perish - they are unnecessary and only a burden. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what characterizes capitalist society. Selfish motives might very well propel most of the relationships involved, after all, as Adam Smith described, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest". But people prosper under this system. The amount of labor allotted to each individual over the years has fallen dramatically. We are living in a richer, more healthy society. Charity has always blossomed under such conditions. It is no accident that the largest average per capita amount given to charity was present in the hay day of the capital of capitalism - 18th Century United States. Today, however, it is the socialists and social-democrats ('liberals' in the US) who claim to be representatives of the good. Capitalism is evil and must be replaced by mixed economy (a type of economic fascism) or outright socialism. Their policies lead the the exact opposite effects that capitalist ones do. Charitable contributions plunge (after all welfare and such things are now entitlements). Productivity is lowered which means, ceteris paribus, the amount of hours people work is increased. In fact socialism is the system which claims to give people the opportunity to improve and grow, not just work all the time. The exact opposite is true. People in a real socialist society are forced to work. Most theorists of modern socialism have repeatedly stated that those who are useless and do not work must be eliminated. I thought that was the criticism these people's successors are levelling at capitalism? The greatest inspiration for today's many powerful socialists and economic fascists was probably Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (a.k.a. Comrade Lenin), a mass murderer and revolutionary. The Democratic Party of the United States in many ways resembles in structure and policy the old Leninist ideals of centralization and unlimited powers of the democratic majority. Let me just remind these deluded individuals that the motto of their great hero was "He who does not work, neither shall he eat". And what is the incentive to work in a country with 100% tax rates? If not a carrot, then a stick must be used. Work or die. That is the socialist creed. I still fail to see the difference between this system and simple slavery.

Speaking of socialism and evil men, I have to mention George Bernard Shaw. He once said: "I, who said forty years ago that we should have had Socialism already but for the Socialists, am quite willing to drop the name if dropping it will help me to get the thing." From this we might learn that 'they' are out there and 'they' have many names. They are men with no virtue and no honor, only a lust for power. Maybe dear old Mr.McCarthy wasn't wrong back in the 1950's? Who can blame a man for being paranoid when he is surrounded by evil men who here call themselves socialists, there democrats, elsewhere liberals, or social-democrats, or greens, or nationalists, or internationalists, or even (what nerve they have!) conservatives.