Who Done It?

a human or an artificial person?

I replied to an online comment by someone I really appreciate for the work he is doing and agree with so much that he has to say, but I do have a few issues with a comment he recently made. In his post he states:

"When the government breaks the law, then there exists no law. We have anarchy. That, I am afraid, is the state of the union as of today. …."

Unfortunately in the Xandara view it is a deception to think that an artificial person or figment of the imagination can "break the law," and even if it could law has not disappeared. There is still law. Law in fact still exists, as natural law is eternal, but when an individual, a real human being under any form of delusion or concept of ego and grandiosity violates natural law that is a serious problem. However, these natural laws are always broken by specific individuals not some nebulous concept like "government." What would you have without “government?” Without a moral center, without self government you may have chaos and injustice but that is not anarchy it is a form of mental and spiritual illness.

It is my view that this meaning of the word anarchy has been intentionally twisted because those who are under the delusion that they are "government" and think they have acquired the right to rule over you are the ones who actually violate natural law and your basic human rights. Rights that they would be loathe to have violated themselves but think they can violate yours because they consider themselves to be your rulers. Here is a small example of this kind of thinking

They know that actual meaning of anarchy is to be without external rulers on the material plane we find ourselves in. Doesn't mean that there are not natural and appropriate rules, there just isn't any divine right to rule over other people than yourself. There is natural authority, but that comes from being right, being just and wise, having mastered self government. I am not against government when it is autonomous, when it is self government, but definitely am when it is an accountability avoiding corporation (artificial person, fictitious entity) masquerading as something legitimate and beneficial.

How does it happen that the meaning of words is sometimes reversed from what they used to mean and how does it happen? There is a natural thing called “semantic drift” however this can also be contrived for various purposes by those with their hands on the levers of social intercourse, in our day that means the media, television, news (propaganda) and education, books, documentaries, the internet.

So how can semantic inversion be used as a tool for achieving a certain agenda?

1. Rebrand a dissident identity in such a way that no one wants to be associated with it.

2. Frame radical moral autonomy as anti-social and radical.

3. Transform the dogged search for truth by someone into a tinfoil hat wearing “conspiracy theorist.

For example such terms as “sophist” became a term of derision (despite originally referring to wise men), and “cynic” went from philosopher of radical virtue to jaded misanthrope.

Here is a list of a few more words that have been deliberately altered over time.

Anarchy

• Original meaning:
  From Greek an-archē — “without rulers.” Not chaos, but voluntary order, non-coercive society, and self-rule.

• Modern meaning:
  Disorder, violence, lawlessness.

• Result: A deliberate reframing — to suggest that rulers are necessary for peace and order.

Democracy

• Classical meaning:
  Rule by the people, especially direct participation (Athenian assembly).

• Modern usage:
  Broadly applied to representative states, even when power is highly centralized, and elite-dominated.

• Result: Labeling a regime "democratic" is often a legitimation strategy, regardless of how accountable or decentralized it actually is.

Libertarian

• Original meaning:
  A believer in maximal individual liberty, minimal or no government, rooted in voluntary association and private property.

• Distorted meanings:

  • In some contexts, used interchangeably with “right-wing,” despite opposition to state authority.

  • In others, lumped with corporatism or authoritarian capitalism, which libertarians often oppose.

• Result: Blurred and maligned, sometimes reduced to caricature (e.g., “selfishness” or “anarchy-for-the-rich”).

Conservative

• Original meaning:
  One who preserves tradition, hierarchy, and social order — often wary of liberal or democratic upheaval.

• Modern U.S. usage:
  May include free-market individualism, which was originally liberal, not conservative.

• Result: Merges reactionary social values with classical liberal economics, even though those originated from opposing traditions.

Fascism

• Original meaning:
  An authoritarian, corporatist state with centralized power, national unity, and suppression of dissent — e.g., Mussolini's Italy.

• Modern usage:

  • Sometimes used as a general insult for anything authoritarian or unpopular.

  • Sometimes applied to any conservative or nationalist sentiment, regardless of actual ideology.

• Result: Diluted as a descriptor, yet still retains rhetorical power — often weaponized.

Populism

• Original meaning:
  A political movement claiming to represent the common people against an elite or establishment.

• Modern usage:
  Often framed as demagogic, irrational, or dangerous — even when the grievances are legitimate.

• Result: Delegitimized by association with mob rule or extremism, even when it reflects real anti-elite sentiment.

Capitalism

• Original usage (Marxist):
  A system in which the means of production are owned privately, and labor is exploited for profit.

• Later libertarian usage:
  Voluntary exchange, laissez-faire markets, and respect for property rights.

• Modern distortions:

  • Equated with cronyism, monopolies, and corporate subsidies — which actual free-market theorists reject.

• Result: One term, multiple definitions — often used to obscure rather than clarify.

Social Justice

• Original meaning:
  From 19th-century Catholic thought — achieving justice within society, through moral obligation, solidarity, and respect for rights.

• Modern use:
  Broad, often ideological — involving identity-based redistribution, equity of outcomes, and institutional activism.

• Result: Highly politicized; no longer universally intelligible, and often weaponized across political divides.

Rights

• Natural rights (original):
  Inherent, pre-political, negative rights — life, liberty, property.

• Modern "rights":

  • Often positive claims on resources or services (e.g., housing, healthcare, income).

• Result: Semantic shift from non-interference to entitlement, with vastly different implications for state power.

Language is political. Many of the terms that once described liberty, moral virtue, or popular sovereignty have been:

• Hollowed out

• Reversed

• Turned into rhetorical fog or tools of control

This is not mere evolution — it's often strategic framing:

• What was once a threat to authority is rebranded as dangerous or absurd

• What was once a moral philosophy is reduced to a personality trait or insult

Those who seek after power and control over others found that responsibility can be diluted and accountability avoided by cleverly manipulating people into thinking that there are imaginary collective “persons” like corporations, governments, NGOs etc. can think, do things, have opinions, while those behind the liability protection afforded can escape the consequences of destructive, greedy and self centered actions.

So we have people without much critical thinking commonly saying such things as “the government views Russia as a threat” or “the government is cracking down on farmers who produce raw milk.” No there are individuals who are thinking and doing these things and who may need to take responsibility and accountability for the things they are doing that are violations of what is right for a moral and ethical real person of good will to do.

Much credit is due to parts of this essay to my good friend Christopher Cook from a conversation he recently had with ChatGPT and recounted in a recent post on The Freedom Scale substack.