Subscribe to Canada Free Press for FREE

"Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country..."

The Big Switch – socialism’s plan

A. Dru Kristenev image

By —— Bio and Archives February 7, 2019

Comments | Print This | Subscribe | Email Us

The Big Switch – socialism’s planCentral to political persuasion is the usage of words in modern language, how traditional definitions are subverted until the word means the opposite of the original intent. What is fascinating is how, by the time the word is accepted under its new guise, it is still emotionally connected to its origin.

Trigger words for today have long since been undergoing a slow transformation that has actually switched definitions but not the emotional attachment to what it once meant. As twisted as this sounds, it’s primary to converting and controlling public opinion. As an ideal illustration of this phenomenon are two words bandied about by media, politicians and pundits: Liberal and Reactionary.

We all know how the terms are currently applied, but are we aware of how the careful usage has preserved the emotional response of which word represented good and which was considered bad? Examining modern dictionaries, it’s found that the etymology of these words is fairly well ignored.

The positive reflection of liberal has somehow been maintained from this two-century old definition (bold emphasis, mine)

LIB’ERAL, adjective [Latin liberalis, from liber, free. See Libe.]

1. Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.

2. Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.

3. Not selfish, narrow on contracted; catholic; enlarged; embracing other interests than one’s own; as liberal sentiments or views; a liberal mind; liberal policy.

4. General; extensive; embracing literature and the sciences generally; as a liberal education. This phrase is often but not necessarily synonymous with collegiate; as a collegiate education.

5. Free; open; candid; as a liberal communication of thoughts… (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)

Whereas reactionary, derived from the following noun as defined in the same dictionary and one other, has preserved the negative connotation in its contemporary application (bold emphasis, mine)


1. In physics, counteraction; the resistance made by a body to the action or impulse of another body, which endeavors to change its state, either of motion or rest. Action and reaction are equal.

2. Any action in resisting other action or power. (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)

Reactionary, adjective uk ​ /riˈæk.ʃən.ər.i/ us ​ /riˈæk.ʃə disapproving

2. opposed to political or social change or new ideas, also backward-looking (Cambridge Dictionary)

A leftist reading this would automatically think that there’s no problem with the old definitions, that they fit perfectly as currently applied. But that view comes from a warped view of themselves, believing they live and breathe that definition despite their completely incongruent behavior of condemnation, intolerance of other opinions, and just plain spitefulness.

Add to the above responses of today’s liberals the fact that they are the ones who epitomize the old definition of reaction as “resisting other action or power,” plus reactionary as “disapproving” and “opposed to political or social change” that doesn’t agree with theirs, and the switched paradigm is complete.

Continued below...

Note the example used in the Cambridge Dictionary that describes the modern liberal to a tee, “They have made a career out of this reactionary, sentimental nonsense.” The sentimentality of politics is now almost entirely on the left, referring to liberal opinion.

The fascinating perspective about this brief overview of the two words, liberal and reactionary, is how the term conservative and its base verb have managed to maintain the integrity of their meaning:


Preservative; having power to preserve in a safe or entire state, or from loss, waste or injury.

CONSERVE, verb transitive [Latin , to hold, keep or guard.] To keep in a safe or sound state; to save; to preserve from loss, decay, waste, or injury; to defend from violation; as, to conserve bodies from perishing; to conserve the peace of society; to conserve fruits, roots and herbs, with sugar, etc. (bold emphasis, mine)

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conserver, from Latin conservare, from com- + servare to keep, guard, observe; akin to Avestan [old Persian] haurvaiti he guards (Webster’s 1828 dictionary)

Liberals haven’t been liberal for more than a hundred years

Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto was a masterpiece of semantics, relabeling the old feudal system with new verbiage to induce the “masses” to accept their underclass identity, which requires rising up against the status quo to institute the ancient status quo of overseers distributing equal shares of misery and hopelessness by calling it “wealth.” All of it managed by a regenerated, renamed noble class of legislators in a politburo of meanness (in the archaic “Lowness of mind; want [lack] of dignity and elevation; want [lack] of honor. Meanness in men incurs contempt. All dishonesty is meanness.” Webster’s 1828 Dictionary) that turns on its own. This is what the Enlightenment instigated from the French Revolution through the 21th century demagogues; Godless elevation of men who killed the aristocracy, replacing the class with themselves who then murdered their comrades to consolidate power. Guillotine to firing squad, nothing has changed.

Approximately 3,000 years ago Solomon wrote Proverbs 1:10-14 that aptly explains communism, of which socialism is the half-measure:

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood,
let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
12 let us swallow them up alive as the grave;
and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
13 we shall find all precious substance,
we shall fill our houses with spoil:
14 cast in thy lot among us;
let us all have one purse:

And the Amplified Bible translation states the last verse so perfectly:

14 Throw in your lot with us [they insist] and be a sworn brother and comrade; let us all have one purse in common—(boldface, mine).


Continued below...

Redistribution of wealth has never worked. History shows over and over that the mob always destroys and devours its own

Continue on to see the just rewards of those who follow this communistic mob:

18 But [when these men set a trap for others] they are lying in wait for their own blood; they set an ambush for their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who is greedy of gain; such [greed for plunder] takes away the lives of its possessors.

Redistribution of wealth has never worked. History shows over and over that the mob always destroys and devours its own, whether it’s Stalin, Pol Pot, Maduro or ISIS. The end is a power struggle between mean men (see definition above).

Liberals haven’t been liberal for more than a hundred years. Conservatives are labeled reactionary although that is what current liberalism embodies. Because words are all turned on their heads, it’s no wonder young democrat-socialists have been suckered into believing they’re the open-minded thinkers when they’ve ingested the bait (and switch) without a burp.

A. Dru Kristenev -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Former newspaper publisher, A. Dru Kristenev,  grew up in the publishing industry working every angle of a paper, from ad composition and sales, to personnel management, copy writing, and overseeing all editorial content. During her tenure as a news professional, Kristenev traveled internationally as both a representative of the paper and non-profit organizations.

Since 2007, Kristenev has authored four fact-filled political suspense novels, the Baron Series, and two non-fiction books, all available on Amazon.

ChangingWind ( is a solutions-centered Christian ministry.

Donate Here