Plainspeak Vs. Politispeak

Dave Killion — January 9, 2011

Writing blog posts is tough, and because politicians can’t really say what they mean, it is doubly so.  First they must write their posts, and then they must translate them into Politispeak.  Victoria City Councillor John Luton, previously discussed here, has recently posted some thoughts on ‘green’ buildings and transportation.  Since we here at the VLBC are fluent in Politispeak, I have provided you with an example of what an unredacted portion of the post might look like –

We need I want to force other property owners to locate buildings within or near to services and other destinations serving people (recreation, health services, entertainment etc.) so that they can walk or bike more often. We need I want to use taxpayer money to connect residential density, commercial and workplace developments with heavily subsidized transit services so people don’t need to drive everywhere.  We I also need to stop want to criminalize building on “greenfields” – cheap, undeveloped land distant from urban areas where the services and transportation network are already in place people can live in an environment they prefer, but to which I am opposed.”

As you can see, Plainspeak is a little blunt, so the Councillor and other politicians have to pussyfoot around if they want to advance their agendas.  No need to thank me, that’s what we’re here for.

Comments

CodeSlinger says

Dave:

The agenda goes deeper than that. The whole point is to squeeze more people into the city and get them to give up their cars.

Why? Because living in the city is like living in the matrix. People who live in the country are much more connected to the realities of life and are therefore much harder too fool. City people will believe whatever the idiot box tells them.

The more mobile people are, the more independent they are. And the more independent they are, the more difficult they are to rule. Thus anything that restricts people’s mobility furthers the corporate-statist agenda. In the city, it is relatively easy to get people to give up their cars. And then they are trapped physically as well as mentally.

City people are absolutely dependent on the system for everything they need for survival. They dare not buck the system. Country people grow and make a good part of what they need. Most of what they get from the system, they could do without if they had to.

The more densely packed people are in cities, the more abjectly they are bound in slavery.

— January 14, 2011

Leave a Comment

Disclaimer: The articles and opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Libertarian Book Club.