The Sky is Falling …
September 23, 2009 by TXPoet
Filed under For Your Entertainment
An old fable is updated…
Chicken Barry was walking along one day when he was hit in the head by a falling nut. Unknown to Chicken Barry, the nut didn’t fall it was actually thrown by Chicken George aka Sorry Soros. Unapologetic Billie Airs had positioned Chicken Barry for the full impact from the nut. Billie Airs told Chicken Barry that the sky was falling and that only he could prevent the end of the world. Chicken Barry then started running and telling everyone he saw about the doom and gloom that lie ahead, but due to his head injury he kept forgetting the message and required a teleprompter to remind him every time he spoke. Chicken Barry told all his friends, there was Fancy Nancy, Scary Harry, Odd Dodd and Smarmy Barney who heard the message and proceeded to cover their ass-ets with large government umbrellas. Even that crazy Anti-war Gore got in the act by claiming that the reason the sky was falling was too many people breathing and producing carbon dioxide. This fit into Anti-War Gore’s overall plan of making more money since he had positioned himself to be the retailer of carbon credits. Chicken George then used his wealth to manipulate a fake emergency and caused his blind followers to repeat the lie, the economy is failing, the economy is failing, and the economy is failing. They did this until a majority actually believed the lie. Then they all started a campaign to make a spending rush to bankruptcy, screaming “Now, Now, Now!” This enabled Chicken Barry to give control of banking, transportation and energy to friends of Sorry Soros. This had been the plan for over 30 years. Friends of Chicken Barry were now poised to totally destroy everything so they could live as potentates over their minions. A dynasty had to be created from the ruins. They continued to scream “Now, Now, Now. Healthcare, stimulus, capitulation, apologies, Racism, reparations, amnesty, a second constitution, subservience to enemies, Ala Akbar, what ever Chicken Barry wants. Every one listen and obey, do it quick there isn’t much time.
Chicken Barry was permanently addled from the bombardment of nuts, which he now recognized as acorns. His head would never be normal again.
Even though he no longer could reason logically, Chicken Barry and his friends knew that their game was discovered by a few but they had counted on that. Let the people stand up and complain. It would be their demise. It would give Chicken Barry the excuse he needed to declare martial law and to suspend all rights previously granted under that worthless piece of paper they call the Constitution!
While the people run around screaming, the end is near, the sky is falling, God is dead, America is dead, capitalism is dead, the oceans are rising, the skies are on fire, and other slogans popular with the uninformed, Chicken George is continuing to make even more money and destroy more governments in his hope for an esperanto speaking New World Order.
![[del.icio.us]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Facebook]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
… Chicken George is continuing to make even more money and destroy more governments in his hope for an esperanto speaking New World Order.
Had you not tagged this entry with “Esperanto”, I would have considered your remark about Esperanto to be in jest, and gone my way. The tag leads me to believe, however, that you take your remark seriously and that you view Esperanto with suspicion. As a devoutly Christian conservative who also happens to speak Esperanto, I would like to reassure you that there is nothing to fear from Esperanto nor, in general, from those who speak it. From some of those who speak it, perhaps, but not from the community at large. Please be so kind as to let me explain.
Esperanto is first and foremost a language. Opinions and persuasions are those of its speakers, which span the social, religious and political spectrum from one extreme to the other, with everything else in between. I, for instance, am middle-class and, as previously mentioned, Christian and conservative. While it has been said that the middle-of-the-road Esperanto speaker leans somewhat left of center, it is also true, according to my experience, that the most vocal critics of Esperanto seem to lie somewhat left of center. In fact, the deadliest opponents of Esperanto – “deadly”, as in rounding up and murdering Esperanto speakers – were Stalin and Hitler. While Esperanto’s inventor believed that widepread use of Esperanto could help usher in world peace, few modern Esperantists take such a view, believing rather that improved communication is a very good thing and a step in the right direction, but by no means sufficient.
Esperanto is “universal” only in the sense that its vocation – to the extent that a language can have a vocation – is as a common but voluntary easy-to-learn second language between people who do not share a mother tongue. The vast majority of its 2,000,000 or so speakers do not seek to impose it as a replacement of existing languages, but rather advocate respect for and preservation of all languages, including English. That respect would include learning and using the language of the place you live. There is a fairly strong tendency among Esperanto speakers to question the adequacy of English as an international language, but mostly because, having experienced both, they find Esperanto to be much easier than English to learn and speak without sacrificing quality. Voluntarily making the effort to learn Esperanto and speak it with someone else who has done the same, instead of using one or the other’s native language, is viewed as an act of kindness that also makes economic sense, since two people can learn Esperanto for much less than what it costs for one person to learn any national language. Nevertheless, it is common among Esperantists to speak yet other languages in addition to their native language and Esperanto as they discover through Esperanto an ability and even love for languages. These characteristics of the Esperanto community are, for the most part, an expression of genuine adherence, at the very least regarding language and communication, to the principles of “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” and “equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations”.
Finally, about George Soros: He may have spoken Esperanto in his youth – a choice made more by his father than by him – but he and Esperanto have had nothing to do with each other for decades.
Thank you for considering my point of view.
I have nothing against esperanto it is referenced only as it helps establish certain facts. Just as the nautical vernacular of the book, Dreams of My Father, points directly to Bill Ayers as the real author, a person’s native language and the philosophy behind that language influences them. Soros is one of the rare native speakers of esperanto. Phrasing and word order can be used to see the puppet master as the ghost writer of this administration’s plans and policies. Soros has made no secret of his plans for a new world order or that he is “one who hopes”.
I understand your reasoning, and agree with it to a certain extent. However, the relationship between authorship and writing style, while similar in appearance, is actually quite different from the relationship between native language and personal philosophy. That is not to say that native language does not affect one’s outlook, just that the two relationships are not the same. Please allow me to explain.
Once you have identified the writing style of a piece of literature of contested authorship, how can you then determine the author? As you point out, one way is to examine the writing styles of candidates for authorship. This works because the style of writing in a piece of literature is not only influenced by that of the author, it is that of the author. Is it possible for the writing style of a work to be influenced by things other than the author’s native writing style? The short answer is no: all such influences would necessarily be channeled through the author’s pen, and hence his or her writing style. Is it possible for more than one writer to be responsible for the writing style of a work? Yes, it’s possible, but each writer’s style will remain distinct in the parts he or she contributed.
Now let’s try and apply the same reasoning to personal philosophy. Once you have identified the philosophy of a person the origin of whose philosophy is contested, how can you then determine the source of that philosophy? As you point out, one way is to examine the possible sources of influence. Here is where the two comparisons start to diverge. In the first example, we range over the set of possible authors, examining the style of each writer. In the second, we range over… well, the set of possible sources – of which native language is just one – examining the possible influence of each. Native language is comparable to just one of the writers, not to the writing style. The other “writers” could be upbringing, parental example, religion, education, society, genetics, personal choice, and so on. Native language may have an influence, but any or even all of the others could have as much or even much more influence on the person’s philosophy. I find it unlikely that each actual source would remain very distinct and identifiable in the person’s philosophy, but would tend to fuse into a whole. All possible influences need to be examined before drawing a conclusion as to the source – or sources – of Soros’s personal philosophy. Native language does influence one’s thinking, but consider that, for example, Albanian, the language that produced Enver Hoxha, atheist communist “leader” and destroyer of Albania, also produced Mother Teresa. If I told you that English, which has produced the likes of Ted Kaczinsky, Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz and John Gacy, influences people to become serial killers, you’d reject it outright, not the least reason being that you know multitudes of native English speakers who bear absolutely no resemblance to these monsters; similarly, most Esperanto speakers – certainly none that I know – bear no resemblance to George Soros or his national-interventionist-manipulationist philosophy. Either native language can influence people in very, very different ways, or else other influences potentially much more powerful than native language can come into play.
Another problem is that what is believed to be a mechanism of influence may not actually be one at all, or may function very differently from what is commonly believed. My experience with Esperanto is that the philosophy behind it is actually quite limited in scope; people tend to see in that philosophy what they will, perceiving some property of Esperanto and/or its philosophy to be beneficial to their own philosophy and often mistaking their perception for the philosophy itself. I have at home a course in Esperanto published decades ago in France by the French communist party with a preface exhorting the study of Esperanto as the language of equality, the language of the revolutionary proletariat in its struggle against the imperialistic capitalist powers of the world and their linguistic oligarchy. However, I also know where to find on the Internet the websites of Esperanto outreach programs of the Roman Catholic church and of a couple of Protestant denominations that see in Esperanto a bridge of understanding between people of different languages, cultures and faiths, with the hope of bringing the love of Christ and the light of the Gospel to those who may not yet have it. Now, is Esperanto’s philosophy inherently communist, or inherently Christian? It seems to depend on the speaker, and if that’s so, then maybe it’s neither – or maybe it’s just a language.
In my opinion, Esperanto was little more than coincidental in Soros’ life, as indicated by the fact that he had essentially abandoned it by the time he made it to the U.S., even though it was his first language. The influences of his personal philosophy with almost absolute certainty lay elsewhere.
A recent CNN television broadcast gave the impression that Esperanto aims to be a single global language. The comparison was with a global reserve currency instead of the US dollar.
See http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/english/2009/09/video-global-currency-global-language.html#tpe-action-posted-6a00d8341d417153ef0120a5a17e4b970b
However Esperanto intends to be an auxiliary language, or a second language for all. Please see http://www.lernu.net for confirmation.