From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle
Liberty, Liberally Volume II - Issue IX
It’s amazing to me, but not surprising, how often my writing focuses on words and their root meanings. My interest in words and their etymology came at an early age; it’s a sincere interest. What’s amazing is that this lifelong pursuit of mine would be such a useful tool in sussing out sociopolitical bullshit. Word games abound in this modern, media driven world. We think we know things because we were told things. Words themselves are being misused so overtly, so commonly, so as to sow confusion for future legal scholars and their deliberations. What does that have to do with economics?
Capitalism. That’s the word we’re working with here. It’s a made up word. It’s a Marxist word. I’m not being hyperbolic, it’s a word that was coined by Marx. All we need do is use the modern tools available to us, to those of us who are interested in words. The Google N-Gram viewer has been a reference I’ve used many times here in Liberty, Liberally. It allows the user to type a word or phrase, and then it creates a graph of it’s usage over time. This calculation is based on Google’s data gathered from all available literature from their searchable database. It’s a powerful resource that past generations of word-researchers couldn’t have imagined.
September 2022
such as it is, has spread across the earth since then - along with this new word that he coined to replace ‘free market’ from our political vernacular. There is no ‘capitalism’, only capital. ‘Capitalism’ is Marxist terminology, meant to reduce the Free Market to something less profound. It’s a rhetorical trick to avoid reminding people that he and his philosophy are opposed to a free market, and freedom in general. Communism is, after all, a controlled everything. When right-leaning folks affirm this terminology by using it, it always reminds me how wrong the political right has been about so many things. I think about the endless war on terror, I look at the state of Afghanistan today, and I am appalled by it all. The Patriot Act? C’mon, man. And when I hear them affirm Marx’s derogatory renaming of the Free Market, I’m reminded that the conservative faction of American politics, which claims ‘fiscal responsibility’, ‘no new taxes’, and all these talking points, they talk like Marxists. And worse, they’re oblivious to it, even as the word games of Marx and his intellectual descendants have become the obvious battleground for the American mind. Defending ‘capitalism’ is the problem. You are being an unwitting Marxist - a useful innocent - every time you repeat such propaganda. We have a Free Market, meaning we are free to buy and sell. The role of a free market in a free society cannot be understated. Name it, proclaim it. It’s your right.
In the above graph, we can see that the word “capital” was used since before the 1800s, when the N-Gram starts measuring.
Liberty, Liberally
(Writer’s Note: This was written in advance of a public meeting at the local school board, regarding a proposed change to the daily schedule. It was proposed that each day the school begins with a moment of silence. On social media, where discourse goes to die, I saw some complaining that this was a workaround for religious zealots to include prayer in school. Of course, it’s obviously the opposite, but rather than waste words on the local Facebook group, I wrote this public statement and read it at the school board meeting.) I saw some public discussion on social media regarding the proposed moment of silence. I am not involved in any organized religion myself, and I greatly value a society that doesn’t force religion on the people. Religious Toleration is a secular concern, not a religious concern. The first amendment limits the government’s ability to infringe on religion, creating the possibility for a tolerant society that makes space for all religions, even and especially those that the majority might not practice. Religious tolerance also protects the non-religious, as much as minority religions that might otherwise be overwhelmed by the culture of the majority. The First Amendment’s primary clause is the establishment clause. It guarantees a lawful protection for all religion, creating space in our society for religious toleration. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Supreme Court has ruled that because of the first amendment, the government cannot define what is or is not religion. Any definition of religion by the government would violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Essentially, they determined that it is a matter of individual conscience alone. However, this created a deliberative challenge for the Supreme Court. How could they defend religious liberty and decide on cases about religious liberty if they couldn’t lawfully define religion?
decide the Lemon vs Kurtzman case, and future cases regarding religious Liberty: ————————————— The rule must have a secular purpose. It’s primary effect must neither advance OR INHIBIT religion It mustn’t foster excessive government entanglement with religion. ————————————— I believe the proposed moment of silence passes all three of these benchmarks. Here’s why: ONE - Rule must have a secular purpose - The moment of silence allows for students to remember that religious toleration, including the tolerance of atheists, agnostics and minority religions, is a bedrock principle of a secular society. It’s of the ultimate secular purpose, in our free society, to create space for different people with different beliefs. Just as the first amendment creates space for religious tolerance without endorsing any religion, so too would this proposed moment of silence. TWO - Primary effect must not advance or inhibit religion - The moment of silence doesn’t contain any overt support for or against any religion, and in fact does the opposite, mandating silence for a minute or so. THREE - Must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion - Since the proposed moment of silence doesn’t mention religion at all, and requires silence from the students, there is no reasonable interpretation of it as entangling the public schools with any religion. Just the opposite. It’s important that our students learn about religious tolerance, a secular concept that runs parallel to the First Amendment’s establishment clause. In this way, the moment of silence would serve as a reminder of this foundational principle of a secular society.
The Supreme Court ruled on a case called Lemon vs. Kurtzman in 1971. The lemon test is a good measuring stick for the school board as well as the Supreme Court.
If you would like to communicate with the Mat-Su School Board, go to the below web address and click “Email All School Board Member” www.matsuk12.us/domain/1
During their deliberations, they came up with three questions that would help guide them in their effort to
“Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” - Aristotle
A Haiku by Joshua Fryfogle
“ The beginning
Now, in this graph, we see that the ‘-ism’ wasn’t attached to ‘capital’ until sometime after the year 1880. Karl Marx died in 1883, and his philosophy,
Liberty, Liberally
of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.”
www.LibertyLiberally.com
Haiku, like silence Is perfect in the moment Of profundity
www.LibertyLiberally.com
From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle