Thugocracy: (thug-oc’ra-cy) “A system of government that follows no constitutional principles, propped up by union thugs, who make manufactured and transported goods more expensive, leading to a socialist/Marxist take over using force and the threat of force in which an illegal alien can circumvent the Constitution to become president of the United States elected by Ineptocrats.”
So, what do you think? Pretty cool so far huh? Of course, a quick and fast Google search of that word shows that it has been slathered across the web and certain media outlets by the likes of Glenn Beck, David Petraeus (talking about Iran), and appears on quite a few blogs with a rather, shall we say, slightly right orientation. And by slightly right, I mean if your middle of the road guy is Karl Rove. The other word, married to Thugocracy is
Ineptocracy: (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) “A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.”
(DoGood): If you think I might be making them up or just pulling them out of the air, the link where I found the definitions to the words can be found here: http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/merriam-webster-says-thugocracy-and-ineptocracy-go-hand-in-hand/.
While there is a reference to Merriam Webster and no doubt an attempt at giving validity to the words, there is no link to Merriam Webster on that sight nor are those words listed or available on Merriam’s website in their on-line dictionary. In addition, both seem to have made an appearance in the previous decade. 2002 for Thugocracy and 2006 for Ineptocracy seems to be the first references for both.
But in the sense of both or either, it would appear that the words are used to describe those with a more liberalized political viewpoint. Contrived by those with a slightly less tolerant temprament for people who are poor, in a minority classification because of their skin pigmentation, or perhaps even, because they’re professed democrats.
Why did we need these words? I’m not really sure. The nexus of beginning puts them squarely within the Presidency of George W. Bush and the absolute control of both chambers of Congress by the Republican party. Given the obvious view of the writer as to the meaning of those words, it would appear they do not appear to be aimed at that administration or the party of ‘right’.
So in the interest of levity, I’d like to offer up some different words. Words that have been around for slightly longer than the two new ones proffered. Words that have quite a bit more meaning, for quite a few more people, and nations.
Democracy.
1.a. Government by the people; especially, rule of the majority.
b. A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2. A political unit that has a democratic government.
3. Capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4. The common people especially when constituting the source of political authority.
5. The absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.
(DoGood) - Notice that sentence contained under number 4 in the definition of Democracy? “The common people, especially when constituting the source of political authority.” But more about that in a bit.
Theocracy. First known to be used, 1622.
1. Government of a State by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
2. A State governed by a Theocracy.
Oligarchy. First known to be used, 1542.
1. Government by the few.
2. A government in which a small group exercises control, especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.
3. An organization under oligarchic control.
(DoGood) - I’m going to stop there and explain why I wrote a piece a couple of months ago that wasn’t that well received, steeped in language and meaning that apparently had all the appeal of a dentists’ drill. So why am I making another trip to the dentist? Look at the words folks. We communicate in language. Look at how they compare to the new ones I shared with you. Someone wants to attack things that we have a right to engage in, in this country, and someone(s) wants to strip you of that ability and paint those rights as sedition, communism, socialism, and being a traitor. It even says that in Thugocracy, there is no adherence to Constitutional ideals. That gives me pause to wonder what Constitution it is that this writer is reading or referencing. I have little doubt that some of you may have already seen those two words before today. I likewise realize that some of you may even agree with the meaning they convey. That’s between you and your conscience. But if you read the definition of Ineptocracy and look at the definition of Democracy, you can see that the Ineptocracy pundit stands directly against those who believe in Democracy. I’m not going to ramble on, I know, tissues all around for that, but I’ll merely leave you with the following picture, also borrowed from that same website, as testament to what is being railed against.
I look at that banner and I see a plea to stop funding the rich, the affluent, and the military industrial complex and create jobs that pay a wage so that people can earn a decent and respectable living for themselves and their families. I don’t see a demand for handouts, welfare, or food stamps. How dare they!
