Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Unitary Executive Theory

2009-12-21T04:25:30Z

Jfraatz:

'''Unitary executive theory''' is a model of executive power proposed by constitutional law experts and neoconservative intellectuals such as John Yoo and Harvey C. Mansfield. It argues that all executive power is derived from the presidency and thus that all executive action must be consistent with the power of the office of the unitary executive.

==The theory==
The theoretical basis of the model stems from two clauses in the [[Constitution]]:

*The "Take Care" clause:"The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..."
*The "Vesting" clause:"the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Based on these clauses it then becomes evident that all laws must be consistent with the power of the unitary executive. If a law is made that places restrictions on this power, those restrictions must themselves be imposed by the executive branch on itself.

Since the "Vesting" clause places all executive power ultimately in the president, such a law would necessarily cause the president to enforce laws against himself, which would be an inherent contradiction in the law. Any such law would in effect be a law that says "by this law, this law shall not be enforced."<ref>http://uwmpost.com/article/52/10/2658-Presidential-authority-justified.</ref>

==Criticism==

During the Presidency of [[George W. Bush]] it was argued by some extremists on the left that this model gave the presidency more power than it should have, and that it was leading to what they termed an '''imperial presidency.''' However [[neoconservative]] intellectual and [[Harvard]] professor Harvey Mansfield one of the chief proponents of the theory pointed out why such a criticism does not make sense:

“If the executive is an adversary of the law, how can he carry out the function of enforcing it?” <ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010014</ref>

Unitary Executive Theory

2009-12-21T04:25:07Z

Jfraatz:

User:Jfraatz

2009-12-05T05:16:41Z

Jfraatz:

Hello, my name is Johanan Raatz. I live in Wisconsin where I attend the University of Milwaukee Wisconsin. My interests include theoretical physics, neoconservative politics, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind. I also network on facebook for political purposes.

Pages I've added:

*[[Fetal rights]]
*[[Fegeism]]
*[[Democratic Failure]]
*[[Peace terrorism]]
*[[Unitary Executive Theory]]

Unitary Executive Theory

2009-12-05T05:16:07Z

Jfraatz: Created page with ''''Unitary executive theory''' is a model of executive power proposed by constitutional law experts and neoconservative intellectuals such as John Yoo and Harvey C. Mansfield. It...'

Talk:Creationism

2009-12-05T04:53:30Z

Jfraatz: /* Bigotry against Creationism */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: [http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/cdesign_propone.html cdesign proponentsists] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category change ==

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:I don't have a ''strong'' objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
::Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, [[:Category:Religion]] is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Social effects of Creationist ideas==
Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include ''negative'' effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing [[natural science#Beginnings|science]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::: Huh? That is nothing like what I said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Not hilarious at all. It's a fact. Did you read the link? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::The link only offers opinion, educated opinion maybe, but still opinion, not fact. Sure, many scientific institutions had their roots in monasteries, order, and religious institutions, but science did often better when it was freed from oversight by the church, such as the free cities in Italy show, or the more secular Netherlands.[[User:Order|Order]] 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::On Wikipedia, this would be a violation of their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Point POINT] guideline. I really, really do not think you want to go down that road here. You're already treading on thin ice as it is. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)

::::Keep in mind, [[Wikipedia]] has a [[liberal bias]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Order, of course it is only opinion, as this is not something that is empirically testable, but it is, as you said, ''educated'' (or perhaps we could say ''expert'') opinion, and opinion ''based on evidence''. And what it is talking about is the influence of ''Christianity'', not the ''church''. Perhaps some/the religious ''institutions'' did limit it in cases, but that is different to saying that ''Christianity'' limited it. Historically, the most Christian nation on Earth has been America, the same country that has produced more scientists than the ''rest of the world put together'', I believe. The point being that there is plenty of evidence (albeit not absolute proof, which is impossible anyway) for the claim, and it is really only the unwillingness of most atheists and agnostics to acknowledge this that leads to it being questioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, let's face it, those who were literalists lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time, but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian.''": That is not what is noted. What is noted is that science arose ''because of'' the Christian worldview, not coincidentally.
::::::: "''...you had ... two types of Christians scientists ... those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside.''": Really? Newton, to pick one example, did both.
::::::: "''...those who were literalists lost pretty much every time.''": Yeah? This is not borne out by your following examples.
::::::: "''Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible.''": The implication being that the geocentric view that he rejected was derived from a ''more'' "literal interpretation" of the Bible. But this was not the case. The geocentric view common at the time was derived from the ''non-Christian'' teachings of Aristotle.
::::::: "''Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists.''": No, he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the scientific establishment that had (for the most part) fallen in with the Aristotelean view.
::::::: "''So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.''": I hope you see by now that you had their philosophy wrong.
::::::: My comments about America and Christianity are something I've heard a few times, but I can't add much to. But I was not talking particularly about America ''today'', and even today, much of the American culture owes its origins to a Christian worldview, even though many people now reject that basis.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Artistole might be pre-christian, but he won out over alterntaive Greek philosophers, because his views were thought to be most compatible with a literal reading of the bible. Aristoteles defenders weren't adherents of Greek religions, but Christians too. The establishment, also in science, was Christian, too.
::::::::And indeed there were those that did both, read the bible and did research. But even with Newton, who had good and bad ideas, it is obvious that his great contributions were those that he derived from observations of nature.
::::::::I still don't see that I had any of their philosophies wrong. Their were naturalists, and not literalists. If you however agree with the sentiment that "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" in science, then we got to an agreement.
::::::::The US has indeed quite some impressive European heritage. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Aristotle's supporters may have used the Bible to justify their views, but their views didn't come from the Bible, and people like Copernicus and Galileo were not rejecting what the Bible says in proposing their alternative views: they were Bible-believing creationists. I'm not sure exactly what "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" is supposed to mean, but as far as ''observations'' go, I would agree that there is no need to go to Scripture to see what is. However, as far as ''history'' goes (goo-to-you evolution, for example), that's a different matter. But this is all getting off the point, which is that science arose ''because of'' a Christian worldview, and nothing you've said disproves that. You were trying to refute that point of view by arguing that even though they were Christians, they were acting ''as empiricists'', not as ''Christians''. That's a false distinction, because it was their ''Christianity'' that gave them cause and justification to act as ''empiricists'' in studying God's creation. A Hindu, for example, would never dissect a cow to see how it works inside, nor any other creature for that matter, as it might be an ancestor reincarnated. An animist would be afraid of disrespecting if not actually harming the spirits living in nature if they investigated nature. And so on. It was Christianity that saw that creation was not itself divine, but under man's dominion, and that creation, being the product of a consistent God, was itself consistent and therefore the laws of nature, for example, would not change. It's this ''principle'' that still guides science, so that when we conclude that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it will do so ''everywhere in the universe'', because the whole universe is the product of the one consistent God. Atheists reject the basis for this principle, but still accept the principle (now without basis!), but the principle has its basis in Christian thinking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time. Galileo was a Christian, and his opponents too. But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations. Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope. Anyway, as said, Christianity by itself is a poor predictor.
::::::::::Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
::::::::::The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: "''Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time.''": What do you mean by that?
::::::::::: "''But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations.''": Yeah? I think that's just unsubstantiated rhetoric.
::::::::::: "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''": On the contrary, it seems that Galileo didn't think that experimental proof was necessary, and refused to explain his evidence to others. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here].
::::::::::: "''Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention ...''": ''Principle'', not ''invention''.
::::::::::: "''First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it.''": You again commit the fallacy of conflating the Creator God with "a deity". I never said that it was because of "a deity", but because of God. To elaborate, it was because of the Christian understanding of the nature of God, not simply because of "a deity". This was the reason that Greek science didn't take off: they thought that the gods might change the laws of nature on a whim, so there was no point in studying them. But Christianity, because of it's understanding of God, saw things differently, which is ''acknowledged by the experts'' as being one of the main reasons why Christianity gave rise to science.
::::::::::: "''...without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change...''": And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change.
::::::::::: "''But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century.''": Wrong. That is, you are wrong to say that this is the way I frame the idea. This is the documented reason that science started in a Christian worldview. Despite all the comments that I've made to the contrary, and despite your own acknowledgements, you still seem to be acting as though this is something that I and I alone believe and promote, whereas all I'm doing is relating the conclusions and evidence of others. I don't know what you're talking about with John Paul XXI, but given your inability to grasp other ideas, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
::::::::::: "''The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex?''": The idea of irreducible complexity is that some things could not have arisen by chance, and this is based on ''evidence''. That it happens to be compatible with the idea of a creator may be an uncomfortable fact for your point of view, but it's not the basis of the argument.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Thanks for citing creationweb.com when it comes to Galileo. It says that Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. And he did this by offering an alternative interpretation. Exactly what I told you before. Thanks for proving my point.
::::::::::::Martin Luther was a Christian, right? If Christianity would be good predictor, he should agree with other Christians on this matter, especially since Martin Luther probably knew the bible better than most. But he didn't. He disagreed with many other clerics that defended Copernicanism. So, again, that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.
:::::::::::: "And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change." Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws. It could be this way, it could be that way.
::::::::::::Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.
::::::::::::No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance". But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.[[User:Order|Order]] 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: "''Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. ... Exactly what I told you before.''": I don't recall you saying that, and if you did, I don't recall disagreeing. But you did say "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''" which does suggest something rather different.
::::::::::::: "''...that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.''": That doesn't follow from your example. That is, nobody is going to be correct on every last point, so quoting one person with a different view (and I'm taking your word for that) does not mean that Christianity has no or little predictive value.
::::::::::::: "''Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws.''": Thanks for taking no notice of the distinction I pointed out between "a deity" and "God".
::::::::::::: "''Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea.''": Well, given the lack of notice you took between "a deity" and "God", I think I have a point. Not to mention...
::::::::::::: "''To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277.''": But I didn't say that. I didn't say that God ''couldn't'', but that because of His nature, he ''wouldn't''. And it was your reference to the Pope that caused me to question your ability to grasp an idea, so this appears to justify me doing so ''in that very case''!
::::::::::::: "''No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance".''": Yet chance is all you have left if you reject purpose and design. Mutations are chance events, and natural selection selects for environments that come about by chance.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::I told you right in the beginning that Galileo accompanied his finding with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. And he did point at his telescope, the article that you quoted yourself mentions explicitly that he showed dignitaries telescopes. And it also mentioned that he refused to give proof for some of his more outlandish claims, maybe because he didn't have it. But at no point did he offer pieces of scripture as replacement for observations. He then offered nothing, and acted condescending towards his peers.
::::::::::::::That god doesn't do it because of his nature, was one of the forbidden statements. You still would have been a heretic.
::::::::::::::If one person supports an idea because of his Christian roots, and another rejects it because of the same roots, then those roots do not matter. No matter who would have won the argument, you could claim that it would be because of the Christian root either way, and therefore this claim is vacuous.
::::::::::::::I use deity and god as synonyms, because that is what they are.
::::::::::::::So you play your little game with the different meanings of "chance" again. Environments do not come about by random chance, and after selection it isn't randomly distributed either. I am happy to take you along this argument again. Nobody claims what you claim to happen by chance. But why do you have such a hard time to admit that you take recourse to the heavens, rather than try to explain why it isn't random? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)

(unindent)"''I told you right in the beginning that Galileo accompanied his finding with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible''": Perhaps you did, but that's not quite the same thing as "''Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible''". The rest of your first paragraph appears to be arguing points that I don't disagree with.

"''That god doesn't do it because of his nature, was one of the forbidden statements.''": Reference please.

"''If one person supports an idea because of his Christian roots, and another rejects it because of the same roots, then those roots do not matter.''": That assumes that they are both correctly applying the Christian principles. But nobody is perfect, so it's entirely possible that one of them has ''misapplied'' the principles. So simply quoting an example of two people supposedly basing their opposing views on Christian principles does not by itself prove that Christian principles do not matter.

"''I use deity and god as synonyms, because that is what they are.''": The distinction that I drew was not between "deity" and "god", but "a deity" (that is, any given deity) and "God" (with a capital "G", that is, a ''particular'' deity). "'''a''' deity" and "'''G'''od" are not synonyms.

"''So you play your little game ...''": Game? No, it's no game.

"''Environments do not come about by random chance, and after selection it isn't randomly distributed either.''": If there is no design, then it's down to chance.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:49, 6 February 2008 (EST)
:If you want an accessible introduction to the condemnations of 1277 look here [http://www.economist.com/diversions/millennium/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=346780]. A better introduction can be found here [http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/1254/]. Chapter six for example explicitly refers to what we discuss, but it's in German. But to summarize, and the economist mentions it too, the idea that God couldn't do something, like changing the laws of nature, was forbidden.
:You assume that there exist such a thing as "Christian principles". And then not in the platonic universe, but in reality. In reality the Christian principles are what Christians say they are. Especially if you claim the knowledge that Europeans had of these principles caused modern science to emerge in Europe. It then only matters what Europeans thought they would be. And we know that they thought differently. And we have no way to determine in advance which interpretation is the correct one; all you offer is hindsight.
:The capital G god, is a god. So, you are right that it is not a synonym, and God is a particular instance of a deity. But it still correct to call it a deity, as you say yourself. But what is your point? If it is a property of deities that the can change laws, then it should be in particular be a property of an omnipotent deity.
:If it's not a game, then it is probably a mistake that you us the word with different meanings. Doesn't make your argument correct.
:You claimed before that lack of design implies that it must be chance. And we are now talking about "chance" with the meaning of "Probability", but you should know that the difference between the two uses of the word chance by now. If something happens by "chance" it can mean without purpose, or with a certain probability. So, I asked you before, and I am waiting for a few month now, to give me a single example, where lack of design lead to a random event. A single instant. I am not even asking you to prove your general claim that lack of design leads to chance, but just for a single example. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:23, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== Cdesign proponentsists ==

I would like to include mention of [[Cdesign proponentsists]] in the paragraph about the Dover case as an argument linking creationism and ID. I can not edit the page to do this, so will someone with authority please review and include it. --[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)
: I've unlocked the article, but I don't think that the term deserves mention in the article. It's little more than irrelevant trivia. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 4 February 2008 (EST)

== Basic Grammar Changes ==

I found that there were several grammatical errors in the page and thought I'd run through them:

1. 1st sentence of the Creationism and Intelligent Design section has a double "the" in the phrase "believe that the the natural world." 
2. 2nd sentence of the same section reads "Recently, there has been," and may be an effort by liberals to make Conservapedia sound like lolcats. 
3. 5th sentence of the same section has a double "of" in the phrase "advocates of of creationism," which may stem from liberals' misuse of prepositions in trying to sabotage this article.

Hope this helps!--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 14:24, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks; I've fixed each of them. Without checking the history, though, I suspect just simple typos rather than "liberal" sabotage. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:29, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

== Why must we be created by God ==

It seems that one of the most prominent creationist argument is if there exists a creation, there must also exist a creator. Makes perfect sense right? If there's a meal, there must be a cook to cook it. However, the cook is not a god so why must we be created by God? Why must we, an imperfect creation, be created by a perfect entity? Why is it not possible for us to be created by the Devil? Because the Bible said so? Who created the Bible? God?

Also, if the cook produced the meal and God created the cook, what created God and what created the creator of God?

:Your first question (why it needs to be God) is answered by your second paragraph. It doesn't (logically) need to be God, but that then raises the question of who created the beings that created us. Ultimately, you will need to invoke someone that we would call "God". The devil is something that God created, so he can't be the ultimate creator. That is, if the devil was the ultimate creator, then the devil would actually be referred to as "God", not "the devil".
:You only need to explain the origin of something that had an origin. God exists outside of time; He had no beginning, so no explanation of His origin is needed.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps I should reword my question then: "Is humanity the ''direct'' creation of the ultimate creator?". It is perfectly plausible for us to be the creation of a creation (e.g. the Devil). The idea that everything must be originated directly or indirect from the ultimate creator bring up the question of its perfection. If God is indeed perfect then shouldn't everything he do be perfect? If so, he should be perfect at creating a perfect creation. This creation then must be too capable of perfect creation, would it not?--[[User:Aixer|Aixer]] 22:26, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::: To your first question, I would say that humanity ''is'' a direct creation of God, although that is something that is deduced from evidence such as the Bible, not from straight logic, as the existence of God Himself can be deduced.
::: To your second question, you confuse perfection with other traits such as infallibility and invulnerability. If you build a "perfect" television, it's one that works without flaw, has no scratches or dents, doesn't break down or corrode, and so on. It doesn't mean that the television won't succumb to an attack from a sledgehammer.
::: God created a creation that was perfect, but one that had a special feature, the creatures that were the object of his creation, man, had the special feature of ''free will'', which is the ''ability'' to reject God, and thus deliberately introduce a defect. But just as a sledgehammer can introduce a defect into a perfect television, this doesn't mean that the creation was not perfect to begin with.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:09, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::: To expand on that, perfection refers to something being without fault in ''what it was designed to do''. A television is not designed to make you a cup of tea, work underwater, or make offspring of itself. Unlike televisions, humans ''were'' designed to make offspring of themselves, but were not designed to create universes out of nothing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== Bigotry against Creationism ==

I was thinking we could open a section on bigotry against creationism, and comment on tolerant and intolerant reactions to it by the evolutionists. I'd be happy to write it if anyone is interested. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-04T06:18:25Z

Jfraatz: /* MemeShock Algorithm */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion.

::Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::You admit that "engineering language" is misleading, but I'm still trying to comprehend the rest of your title. Could you clarify for me: a) what part of this uses an algorithm b) what any of this has to do with "deep structure" (which I will understand in the Chomskyian sense until told otherwise)? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::Let's me clear that Johanan Raatz is speaking for his own approach, which we reject here. We support open minds and free speech as the best way to advance knowledge and truth. None of this entry uses an algorithm or "deep structure."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Yes, of course! Sorry for the confusion -- my query is directed at Jfraatz. I'm hoping he will clarify his grandiose title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm", which until he corrects me I am assuming is a more or less meaningless string of words, as there's no indication of where there's an algorithm, and this seems rather far afield of what I know as "deep structure". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 12:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Deep structure is a Chomskyian linguistic concept, as I think you already know. Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm, appears to be a syntactically correct but otherwise meaningless phrase. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

*Linking words in a Loop-Back Structure

For Douglas, Andy and Jim:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

*On Memeshock and Dishonesty

Now a word on my approach. It's not dishonest so much as it is social engineering. We have an adjunct group of MemeShock which does deal with disinformation and such, but MemeShock does language engineering only.

Think of it like this. Many left-wingers do not accept logical argumentation so to counter this we are just engineering the language such that it is idiot-proof. That way that can't reach their irrational conclusions because the means are no longer there. We aren't lying to them with this or anything like that though. It's just a fancied up way to do what we do a lot -frame arguments.

From the looks of it is sort of what this page was about in the first place -was it not? Developing new conservative words to frame the argument?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:No, it certainly was not. This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture. What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian, deceitful, and frankly, absurd. Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans. It is a serious resource for ''actual'' topics. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::"This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture."

::Well I will only post ones which I can link back to articles then.

::"What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian,"

::Well yes.

::"deceitful,

::No we do have a special adjunct group for that, but MemeShock engages in language engineering only.

::"and frankly, absurd."

::Well read the link over. It's not really that fancy, and the logic is straightforward. If words define other words then the language must loop back on itself right? If it loops back on itself it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out how it loops back on itself. (it's just a page long -fairly simple concept)

::"Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans."

::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::Firstly, Douglas is correct: I'm not sure where you got the impression that this page is about developing new words to frame the argument.
:::Secondly, what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the standard linguistic notion of "deep structure". I'd suggest you choose a new phrase to describe whatever it is you mean. Throwing around "linguistic deep structure" makes it sound like you want the actual meaning -- what precisely do you intend by the term?
:::I read through the link you sent. I admit that it left me a completely baffled: you dwell on some trivial points of logic and make numerous errors throughout. In any case I'm not sure how you want to apply it to determine which concepts require additions to your lexicon ("memeplex"). The first ten or so paragraphs of section 2 seem to boil down to the fact that every statement can be made using only ">" and "~". Duh? Then you start talking about "components" and while I'm not sure precisely what you mean I assume that you want to regard a conjunction or disjunction of two concepts as simply a new concept, perhaps with its own word. Eventually you want to put every statement into some canonical form in terms of these concepts formed as conjunctions and disjunctions. It's quite possible that you can do this, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about by this point. In any case, what this has to do with memes I don't know.
:::So tell me if I've guessed the gist right: you have a concept A which you want to integrate into a memeplex. To do so, you characterize it by its properties, with a statement of the form "(A>B)v~C" (where, for now, B and C are other properties). OK, maybe we first define it as part of some more complex statement, and then reduce to this form using the preceding "arguments" -- I don't know why you would bother reducing to this canonical form, but whatever. With this done, maybe the memeplex doesn't already have terms for B and C; in this case, add them recursively, by statements of the same form. Keep going in this way until all your terms are defined using only other terms. This has to terminate eventually. Hopefully it terminates while the number of terms added is less than the limit on the size of a memeplex which you mention. How'd I do? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:55, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::::Jim's points are excellent, and I look forward to Johanan's response to them. In the meantime, Jim is exactly right: this entry is not about developing new words to frame an argument. Rather, this entry is a recognition and listing of insightful new words. People (with God's help) are the source of insights; computer programs can't do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 2 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Jim, you got the idea generally correct. Basically you the algorithm is like the framework for a box. You need it in that structure so that people can't think outside of it. Then you find the right walls to put onto the framework. That part (Andy this concerns your critique) is not generated by computer or anything it's just developed the same way people usually develop words.

:::::Now the algorithm is rather simple -actually it's the simplest possible form to have for a non-tautologous language system, but it can be scaled up by recursing the algorithm in on itself. There's a larger algorithm which I won't reveal which does this and creates a 3x3 language "matrix."

:::::I apologize about adding the new words, when that wasn't the aim of the page. I was wondering however if you could revert fegeism -as I had that linked. (I know it was my own article) I was also wondering if I could post other words from articles I had written.

:::::As for your comment on deep-structure -from wikipedia (it's ok on some stuff):

:::::"In linguistics, and especially the study of syntax, the deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, in particular Noam Chomsky, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common deep structure."

:::::The idea here was instead of studying the relationship between words in sets of sentences to do the same for an entire dictionary of definitions. When you do that languages inherently circularity comes out and the overarching "loops" have the structure A>Bv~C. From the links between these words you can derive all manner of sentences, but if you manipulate the links you can parameterize which sentences can be derived and which can not be -something that could become a politically useful tool. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-02T05:48:17Z

Jfraatz: /* MemeShock Algorithm */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-02T05:41:29Z

Jfraatz: /* MemeShock Algorithm */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-02T05:40:28Z

Jfraatz: /* MemeShock Algorithm */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion.

::Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::You admit that "engineering language" is misleading, but I'm still trying to comprehend the rest of your title. Could you clarify for me: a) what part of this uses an algorithm b) what any of this has to do with "deep structure" (which I will understand in the Chomskyian sense until told otherwise)? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::Let's me clear that Johanan Raatz is speaking for his own approach, which we reject here. We support open minds and free speech as the best way to advance knowledge and truth. None of this entry uses an algorithm or "deep structure."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Yes, of course! Sorry for the confusion -- my query is directed at Jfraatz. I'm hoping he will clarify his grandiose title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm", which until he corrects me I am assuming is a more or less meaningless string of words, as there's no indication of where there's an algorithm, and this seems rather far afield of what I know as "deep structure". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 12:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Deep structure is a Chomskyian linguistic concept, as I think you already know. Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm, appears to be a syntactically correct but otherwise meaningless phrase. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

*Linking words in a Loop-Back Structure

For Douglas, Andy and Jim:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

*On Memeshock and Dishonesty

Now a word on my approach. It's not dishonest so much as it is social engineering. We have an adjunct group of MemeShock which does deal with disinformation and such, but MemeShock does language engineering only.

Think of it like this. Many left-wingers do not accept logical argumentation so to counter this we are just engineering the language such that it is idiot-proof. That way that can't reach their irrational conclusions because the means are no longer there. We aren't lying to them with this or anything like that though. It's just a fancied up way to do what we do a lot -frame arguments.

From the looks of it is sort of what this page was about in the first place -was it not? Developing new conservative words to frame the argument?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:No, it certainly was not. This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture. What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian, deceitful, and frankly, absurd. Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans. It is a serious resource for ''actual'' topics. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::"This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture."

::Well I will only post ones which I can link back to articles then.

::"What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian,"

::Well yes.

::"deceitful,

::No we do have a special adjunct group for that, but MemeShock engages in language engineering only.

"and frankly, absurd."

::Well read the link over. It's not really that fancy, and the logic is straightforward. If words define other words then the language must loop back on itself right? If it loops back on itself it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out how it loops back on itself. (it's just a page long -fairly simple concept)

::"Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans."

::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-02T04:32:08Z

Jfraatz: /* MemeShock Algorithm */ new section

Talk:Fegeism

2009-12-02T04:25:27Z

Jfraatz: /* "Fegeism" could stand on it's own as well. */ new section

== Deletion ==

Now that the "MemeShock language" has been removed from [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]], I'd like to suggest that this page and any others be removed as well. The methodology of this program has been rejected by Aschlafly and others, given CP's advocacy of open-mindedness and free speech to settle ideological disputes, rather than deception. Jfraatz's title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm" appears to be utter gibberish (pending his response; see the relevant section of [[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]]); given this I suspect that he is either a parodist, dishonest, or a pseudo-intellectual doofus of the highest order. In none of these cases is there any reason for CP to continue to be a part of this "social experiment". Perhaps Mr. Raatz could first outline his proposals in the Essay: space. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:18, 1 December 2009 (EST)

: I agree. We are open-minded and reluctant to quash any intellectual activity, but the above-described unthinking silliness looks like it should be the exception that proves the rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

Hold on guys:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

== "Fegeism" could stand on it's own as well. ==

I know you don't like the methodology I used to think up terms like fegeism, but the term could stand on it's own as well. I mean when pro-aborts completely ignore the fetal child in a debate about abortion and try to mock you whenever you bring it up, that is a sort of discrimination there. Logically they are being ageists with respect to people who are still in the womb. Hence "fetal ageists" is not inaccurate in a honest sense. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Fegeism

2009-12-02T04:22:40Z

Jfraatz: /* MemeShock Algorithm */

Talk:Fegeism

2009-12-02T04:22:28Z

Jfraatz: /* MemeShock Algorithm */ new section

William Ayers

2009-12-01T05:18:39Z

Jfraatz: /* See Also */

[[Image:Features_ayers1.jpg|thumb|William Ayers as he appeared in ''Chicago Magazine''.]] '''William Charles "Bill" Ayers''' (born 1944) is currently a professor at the [[University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|University of Illinois]] at [[Chicago]] and former Chicago community organizer. He is best known as a founder of the [[Soviet]] sponsored {{citation needed}}, [[peace terrorism|peace terrorist]] [[Weather Underground|Weather Underground Organization]] (WUO), and friend of U.S President [[Barack Obama]]. The WUO has often mistakenly been labeled as a Vietnam era protest organization, however many of the organizations activities continued well past the end of American involvement in [[Vietnam]],<ref>''Ambush:The Brinks Robbery of 1981'', [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/brinks/2.html truTV - Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army]</ref> the fall of [[South Vietnam]], and the victory of the [[Communist]] regime of [[North Vietnam]], which was the groups oft stated goals.

Ayers is the husband of fellow peace terrorist [[Bernardine Dohrn]].
 
==Early Life and Upbringing==
Ayers grew up in a wealthy home as the son of Thomas G. Ayers, former Chairman and CEO of Commonwealth Edison. <ref>Northwestern University, Obituary: Thomas Ayers Served as Board Chair from 1975 to 1986[http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/ayers.html]</ref> He lived in Glen Ellyn, a suburb of Chicago. Ayers attended public schools and received a bachelor of Arts degree from the [[University of Michigan]] in 1968. At age 21, Ayers became director of the Children's Community, a small school in a basement that did not have grades, report cards, and had children address teachers by their first names. It was part of a "free school movement."

== Internationally sponsored terrorism ==
[[Image:Ayers.jpg|left|thumb|Bill Ayers in August 1968.]]
In 1968, Ayers became leader of the [[Students for a Democratic Society]], and then a prominent leader of the violent "Weatherman group." The group was associated with other international communist guerrilla and terrorist groups, including the [[Vietcong]]. Its objective was the furtherance of [[Soviet]] foreign policy and the defeat of the U.S. in Vientam. In May 1970, the organization issued a Declaration of War<ref>FBI file, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Declaration_of_a_State_of_War Weather Underground Declaration of a State of War]</ref> against the United States authored by Bernardine Dohrn who was later to become Ayers wife but not until other members of the group, including Ayers girlfriend at the time, blew themselves up in a bomb making factory in [[Greenwich Village]] [[New York]].

The WUO was responsible for roughly 72 bombings in all, including the [[United States Capitol]] (March 1 1971), [[The Pentagon]] (May 19 1972), the United States [[Department of State]] (January 28 1975)<ref> [http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground] pgs. 67-71 pdf</ref> and numerous other targets. In 1969, the Weather Underground planted a bomb at a statue dedicated to [[police]] casualties in the 1886 [[Haymarket Riot]]. The statue was blown into pieces, but was rebuilt in 1970. It was blown up again by the Weather Underground, five months later.

Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."

==The San Francisco Police Department bombing==

In sworn testimony before the U.S. [[Senate Internal Security Subcommittee]] on October 18 1974,<ref>Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, October 18, 1974 quoted in [http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/chicago-obama.pdf''Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection''], USA Survival, Inc.</ref> an [[FBI]] informant declared,
{{cquote|"When he [Bill Ayers] returned, we had another meeting at which time -- and this is the only time that any Weathermen told me about something that someone else had done -- and Bill started off telling us about the need to raise the level of the struggle and for stronger leadership inside the Weathermen 'focals' [i.e., cells] and inside the Weatherman organization as a whole. And he cited as one of the real problems was that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act."}}

The informant added that Ayers said "the bomb was placed on the window ledge and described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it." He was asked, "Did he say who placed the bomb on the window ledge?" He replied, "Bernardine Dohrn."<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78130 Did Ayers' wife kill policeman? FBI report said Dohrn named as bomb builder, planter], ''WorldNetDaily.com, October 16, 2008.</ref>

The ''San Francisco Chronicle'' reported on March 12 2009, in a highly unusual move, the San Francisco Police Officers Association have accused Ayers and his wife of taking part in the bombing. The Association claims,
{{cquote|There are irrefutable and compelling reasons to believe that Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn ... are largely responsible for the bombing of Park Police Station,}} and a cold case investigation is being called for.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/12/BATK16DHA4.DTL&hw=ayers&sn=001&sc=1000 S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing], Demian Bulwa, ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'' March 12, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://marklevin.ning.com/forum/topics/ayers-dohrn-murder-case Ayers, Dohrn Murder Case Reopened] marklevin.ning.com</ref>

==Prairie Fire Organizing Committee==
:''Main article : '''[[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]]'''''

[[Image:Prairie Fire.jpg|thumb|left|150px]]

In 1974, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and other members formed the [[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]], the publishing arm of the Weather Underground Organization. The name was inspired by [[mass murder]]er [[Mao Zedong]] who said, "a single spark can set a prairie fire." Its first book was ''Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism.'' In this book, William Ayers admits that he is a communist,

:"We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years."

[[Image:Dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan.jpg|thumb|right|Prairie Fire is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's assassin.]]
Interestingly, the book lists [[Sirhan Sirhan]], [[Robert F. Kennedy]]'s assassin, among many other now-obscure '60s-era radicals, criminals and revolutionaries on the dedication page.

Ayers and his fellow co-authors brag about their numerous acts of domestic terrorism, and provide a handy list detailing not only each crime but in most cases the justification for each crime as well.
[[Image:Weather Underground bombings.jpg|thumb|right|Ayers and his fellow co-authors brag about their numerous acts of domestic terrorism.]]

Among the bombings by Ayers' group listed in the book:

*Haymarket police statue, Chicago
*Chicago police cars
*New York City police headquarters
*Marin County Courthouse
*Long Island City Courthouse
*Department of Corrections, San Francisco
*Office of California Prisons, Sacramento
*Department of Corrections, Albany NY
*103rd Precinct of New York City police
*Harvard Center for International Affairs
*[[U.S. Capitol]]
*MIT research center
*[[The Pentagon]]
*Draft and recruiting centers
*ROTC buildings
*ITT Latin America Headquarters
*National Guard Headquarters, Washington D.C.
*Presidio Army Base and MP Station, San Francisco
*Federal Offices of Health, Education and Welfare, San Francisco <ref>[http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/ William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire], zombietime.com, October 22, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/forgotten-terrorist-manifesto-prairie.html Forgotten Terrorist Manifesto: Prairie Fire], Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice, October 24, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/23/reading-bill-ayers/ Reading Bill Ayers], Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com, October 23, 2008</ref>

== "Guilty as hell, free as a bird" ==

Bill Ayers, his wife Bernardine Dohrn and other WUO figures were not prosecuted because of alleged [[FBI]] misconduct while investigating the foreign influence in domestic terrorism. In fact, FBI officials [[W. Mark Felt]]<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB156/ Nixon and the FBI: The White House Tapes], National Security Archive, The George Washington Universtiy, Washington, D.C.</ref> and Edward S. Miller were indicted and convicted in November 1980 of conspiring to violate the civil rights of relatives of the Weather Underground, including Jennifer Dohrn,<ref>http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=jennifer%20dohrn</ref> sister of Bernardine, whose homes had been burglarized.

However, on April 15, 1981, President [[Ronald Reagan]] in his first 100 days granted full and unconditional pardons, saying, in part:
{{Cquote| Messrs. Felt and Miller followed procedures they believed essential to keep the Director of the FBI, the [[Attorney General]], and the [[President of the United States]] advised of the activities of hostile foreign powers and their collaborators in this country.<ref>[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/41581d.htm Statement on Granting Pardons to W. Mark Felt and Edward S. Miller], April 15, 1981.</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/01/us/two-top-fbi-officials-cleared.html Two Top F.B.I. Officials Cleared], [[New York Times]], December 1, 1983.</ref>}}

At the end of Ayers ''Fugitive Days'' he writes that he is "Guilty as hell, free as a bird—it’s a great country." Historian [[Ronald Radosh]] reviewing ''Fugitive Days'' in the [[Weekly Standard]] notes, "As for those who might believe without irony that America is a great country, Ayers has one reaction: 'It makes me want to puke.'"<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C000%5C267rdlhy.asp ''Don't Need a Weatherman : The clouded mind of Bill Ayers''.] by Ronald Radosh, The Weekly Standard, 10/08/2001, Volume 007, Issue 04.</ref>

==Fugitive Days==

Today, Ayers and his wife -- fellow former Weather Underground fugitive [[Bernardine Dohrn]] -- live in Hyde Park, where they moved after surrendering in 1980.

In a 2001 interview with the [[New York Times]], an unrepentant Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough." Ayers later claimed that he was quoted out of context, and that he meant that he felt that he had not done enough to oppose the war in Vietnam, which he defined as ''"[an] illegal, murderous, imperial war."'' <ref>Bill Ayers' blog, Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy, by Bill Ayers, 4/06/2008[http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/]</ref>

Ayers has claimed that his actions were not terrorist acts.<ref>Bill Ayers' blog, Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy, by Bill Ayers, 4/06/2008[http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/]</ref> He has stated that according to the official definition of both the U.S. and the U.N., terrorism consists of violent acts intended to intimidate or coerce a populace into a political end, and that his actions were intended to draw attention to and combat the state terrorism of the U.S. in the Vietnam War. In his autobiography, Fugitive Days, Ayers claimed that his bombing of the [[Pentagon]] prevented aerial bombardments in Vietnam for several days, which he defined as terrorism. In this regard, Ayers has implied that he ''prevented'' terrorism rather than caused it.

==Obama, the Annenberg Challenge, ACORN and the Woods Fund ==

Ayers and [[Barack Obama]] worked together at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), from 1995-1999, an [[organisation]] that funneled money to [[ACORN]]. On his curriculum vitae, Ayers identifies himself as the co-founder and grant writer of the Annenberg Challenge Grant of $49,200,000 and the one who obtained this and other grants for "the support of the Small Schools Workshop and/or the Chicago forum for School Change at the University of Illinois at Chicago..."

Obama joined Ayers again in a paid nine-member board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Ayers also says that he obtained grants from the Chicago-based MacArthur foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat with [[Barack Obama]] from 1999 to 2002.

The announcement of Obama's candidacy for higher office was made in the home of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn in 1995.

In 2001, Ayers supported and contributed $200 to Obama's state Senate campaign<ref>[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?d=330121189]</ref>.

Obama was asked about the relationship in an April 2008 Presidential debate by moderator [[George Stephanopoulos]]:

:''"Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?"''

To which Obama replied,

:''"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of [[English]] in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George"''

In February of 2008, Obama Chief Strategist David Axelrod said:

:''"Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school … They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together."'' He called Ayers current defense of his 1960s bombings ''"objectionable, and I think Barack would also say that was objectionable. I don't think he's ever had an in-depth discussion [with Ayers] about them."''<ref>Politico, ''Ax on Ayers'', by Ben Smith, February 26, 2008 [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Ax_on_Ayers.html]</ref>

In an October 2008 article in ''American Thinker'', Jack Cashill speculated that Ayers [[ghostewrite|ghostwrote]] Obama's first book, "Dreams From My Father".<ref>American Thinker, October 26, 2008, ''Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?'', by Jack Cashill, October 09, 2008 [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html]</ref> He based his assertion on a comparison of the writing styles of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', and Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres had ghostwritten ''Dreams''.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm]</ref><ref>WorldNet Daily, ''Obama didn't write 'Dreams from My Father''', by Jack Cashill, October 13, 2008[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815]</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Mystery:Who Ghostwrote Obama's Books?]]
*[[Peace terrorism]]

==References==
<references />

==External links==
*[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/bombing.case.pdf The Park Police Station Bombing Case], usasurvival.org

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ayers, William}}

[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Weather Underground]]

William Ayers

2009-12-01T05:18:06Z

Jfraatz: /* Fugitive Days */

[[Image:Features_ayers1.jpg|thumb|William Ayers as he appeared in ''Chicago Magazine''.]] '''William Charles "Bill" Ayers''' (born 1944) is currently a professor at the [[University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|University of Illinois]] at [[Chicago]] and former Chicago community organizer. He is best known as a founder of the [[Soviet]] sponsored {{citation needed}}, [[peace terrorism|peace terrorist]] [[Weather Underground|Weather Underground Organization]] (WUO), and friend of U.S President [[Barack Obama]]. The WUO has often mistakenly been labeled as a Vietnam era protest organization, however many of the organizations activities continued well past the end of American involvement in [[Vietnam]],<ref>''Ambush:The Brinks Robbery of 1981'', [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/brinks/2.html truTV - Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army]</ref> the fall of [[South Vietnam]], and the victory of the [[Communist]] regime of [[North Vietnam]], which was the groups oft stated goals.

Ayers is the husband of fellow peace terrorist [[Bernardine Dohrn]].
 
==Early Life and Upbringing==
Ayers grew up in a wealthy home as the son of Thomas G. Ayers, former Chairman and CEO of Commonwealth Edison. <ref>Northwestern University, Obituary: Thomas Ayers Served as Board Chair from 1975 to 1986[http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/ayers.html]</ref> He lived in Glen Ellyn, a suburb of Chicago. Ayers attended public schools and received a bachelor of Arts degree from the [[University of Michigan]] in 1968. At age 21, Ayers became director of the Children's Community, a small school in a basement that did not have grades, report cards, and had children address teachers by their first names. It was part of a "free school movement."

== Internationally sponsored terrorism ==
[[Image:Ayers.jpg|left|thumb|Bill Ayers in August 1968.]]
In 1968, Ayers became leader of the [[Students for a Democratic Society]], and then a prominent leader of the violent "Weatherman group." The group was associated with other international communist guerrilla and terrorist groups, including the [[Vietcong]]. Its objective was the furtherance of [[Soviet]] foreign policy and the defeat of the U.S. in Vientam. In May 1970, the organization issued a Declaration of War<ref>FBI file, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Declaration_of_a_State_of_War Weather Underground Declaration of a State of War]</ref> against the United States authored by Bernardine Dohrn who was later to become Ayers wife but not until other members of the group, including Ayers girlfriend at the time, blew themselves up in a bomb making factory in [[Greenwich Village]] [[New York]].

The WUO was responsible for roughly 72 bombings in all, including the [[United States Capitol]] (March 1 1971), [[The Pentagon]] (May 19 1972), the United States [[Department of State]] (January 28 1975)<ref> [http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground] pgs. 67-71 pdf</ref> and numerous other targets. In 1969, the Weather Underground planted a bomb at a statue dedicated to [[police]] casualties in the 1886 [[Haymarket Riot]]. The statue was blown into pieces, but was rebuilt in 1970. It was blown up again by the Weather Underground, five months later.

Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."

==The San Francisco Police Department bombing==

In sworn testimony before the U.S. [[Senate Internal Security Subcommittee]] on October 18 1974,<ref>Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, October 18, 1974 quoted in [http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/chicago-obama.pdf''Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection''], USA Survival, Inc.</ref> an [[FBI]] informant declared,
{{cquote|"When he [Bill Ayers] returned, we had another meeting at which time -- and this is the only time that any Weathermen told me about something that someone else had done -- and Bill started off telling us about the need to raise the level of the struggle and for stronger leadership inside the Weathermen 'focals' [i.e., cells] and inside the Weatherman organization as a whole. And he cited as one of the real problems was that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act."}}

The informant added that Ayers said "the bomb was placed on the window ledge and described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it." He was asked, "Did he say who placed the bomb on the window ledge?" He replied, "Bernardine Dohrn."<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78130 Did Ayers' wife kill policeman? FBI report said Dohrn named as bomb builder, planter], ''WorldNetDaily.com, October 16, 2008.</ref>

The ''San Francisco Chronicle'' reported on March 12 2009, in a highly unusual move, the San Francisco Police Officers Association have accused Ayers and his wife of taking part in the bombing. The Association claims,
{{cquote|There are irrefutable and compelling reasons to believe that Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn ... are largely responsible for the bombing of Park Police Station,}} and a cold case investigation is being called for.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/12/BATK16DHA4.DTL&hw=ayers&sn=001&sc=1000 S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing], Demian Bulwa, ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'' March 12, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://marklevin.ning.com/forum/topics/ayers-dohrn-murder-case Ayers, Dohrn Murder Case Reopened] marklevin.ning.com</ref>

==Prairie Fire Organizing Committee==
:''Main article : '''[[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]]'''''

[[Image:Prairie Fire.jpg|thumb|left|150px]]

In 1974, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and other members formed the [[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]], the publishing arm of the Weather Underground Organization. The name was inspired by [[mass murder]]er [[Mao Zedong]] who said, "a single spark can set a prairie fire." Its first book was ''Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism.'' In this book, William Ayers admits that he is a communist,

:"We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years."

[[Image:Dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan.jpg|thumb|right|Prairie Fire is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's assassin.]]
Interestingly, the book lists [[Sirhan Sirhan]], [[Robert F. Kennedy]]'s assassin, among many other now-obscure '60s-era radicals, criminals and revolutionaries on the dedication page.

Ayers and his fellow co-authors brag about their numerous acts of domestic terrorism, and provide a handy list detailing not only each crime but in most cases the justification for each crime as well.
[[Image:Weather Underground bombings.jpg|thumb|right|Ayers and his fellow co-authors brag about their numerous acts of domestic terrorism.]]

Among the bombings by Ayers' group listed in the book:

*Haymarket police statue, Chicago
*Chicago police cars
*New York City police headquarters
*Marin County Courthouse
*Long Island City Courthouse
*Department of Corrections, San Francisco
*Office of California Prisons, Sacramento
*Department of Corrections, Albany NY
*103rd Precinct of New York City police
*Harvard Center for International Affairs
*[[U.S. Capitol]]
*MIT research center
*[[The Pentagon]]
*Draft and recruiting centers
*ROTC buildings
*ITT Latin America Headquarters
*National Guard Headquarters, Washington D.C.
*Presidio Army Base and MP Station, San Francisco
*Federal Offices of Health, Education and Welfare, San Francisco <ref>[http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/ William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire], zombietime.com, October 22, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/forgotten-terrorist-manifesto-prairie.html Forgotten Terrorist Manifesto: Prairie Fire], Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice, October 24, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/23/reading-bill-ayers/ Reading Bill Ayers], Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com, October 23, 2008</ref>

== "Guilty as hell, free as a bird" ==

Bill Ayers, his wife Bernardine Dohrn and other WUO figures were not prosecuted because of alleged [[FBI]] misconduct while investigating the foreign influence in domestic terrorism. In fact, FBI officials [[W. Mark Felt]]<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB156/ Nixon and the FBI: The White House Tapes], National Security Archive, The George Washington Universtiy, Washington, D.C.</ref> and Edward S. Miller were indicted and convicted in November 1980 of conspiring to violate the civil rights of relatives of the Weather Underground, including Jennifer Dohrn,<ref>http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=jennifer%20dohrn</ref> sister of Bernardine, whose homes had been burglarized.

However, on April 15, 1981, President [[Ronald Reagan]] in his first 100 days granted full and unconditional pardons, saying, in part:
{{Cquote| Messrs. Felt and Miller followed procedures they believed essential to keep the Director of the FBI, the [[Attorney General]], and the [[President of the United States]] advised of the activities of hostile foreign powers and their collaborators in this country.<ref>[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/41581d.htm Statement on Granting Pardons to W. Mark Felt and Edward S. Miller], April 15, 1981.</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/01/us/two-top-fbi-officials-cleared.html Two Top F.B.I. Officials Cleared], [[New York Times]], December 1, 1983.</ref>}}

At the end of Ayers ''Fugitive Days'' he writes that he is "Guilty as hell, free as a bird—it’s a great country." Historian [[Ronald Radosh]] reviewing ''Fugitive Days'' in the [[Weekly Standard]] notes, "As for those who might believe without irony that America is a great country, Ayers has one reaction: 'It makes me want to puke.'"<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C000%5C267rdlhy.asp ''Don't Need a Weatherman : The clouded mind of Bill Ayers''.] by Ronald Radosh, The Weekly Standard, 10/08/2001, Volume 007, Issue 04.</ref>

==Fugitive Days==

Today, Ayers and his wife -- fellow former Weather Underground fugitive [[Bernardine Dohrn]] -- live in Hyde Park, where they moved after surrendering in 1980.

In a 2001 interview with the [[New York Times]], an unrepentant Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough." Ayers later claimed that he was quoted out of context, and that he meant that he felt that he had not done enough to oppose the war in Vietnam, which he defined as ''"[an] illegal, murderous, imperial war."'' <ref>Bill Ayers' blog, Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy, by Bill Ayers, 4/06/2008[http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/]</ref>

Ayers has claimed that his actions were not terrorist acts.<ref>Bill Ayers' blog, Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy, by Bill Ayers, 4/06/2008[http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/]</ref> He has stated that according to the official definition of both the U.S. and the U.N., terrorism consists of violent acts intended to intimidate or coerce a populace into a political end, and that his actions were intended to draw attention to and combat the state terrorism of the U.S. in the Vietnam War. In his autobiography, Fugitive Days, Ayers claimed that his bombing of the [[Pentagon]] prevented aerial bombardments in Vietnam for several days, which he defined as terrorism. In this regard, Ayers has implied that he ''prevented'' terrorism rather than caused it.

==Obama, the Annenberg Challenge, ACORN and the Woods Fund ==

Ayers and [[Barack Obama]] worked together at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), from 1995-1999, an [[organisation]] that funneled money to [[ACORN]]. On his curriculum vitae, Ayers identifies himself as the co-founder and grant writer of the Annenberg Challenge Grant of $49,200,000 and the one who obtained this and other grants for "the support of the Small Schools Workshop and/or the Chicago forum for School Change at the University of Illinois at Chicago..."

Obama joined Ayers again in a paid nine-member board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Ayers also says that he obtained grants from the Chicago-based MacArthur foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat with [[Barack Obama]] from 1999 to 2002.

The announcement of Obama's candidacy for higher office was made in the home of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn in 1995.

In 2001, Ayers supported and contributed $200 to Obama's state Senate campaign<ref>[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?d=330121189]</ref>.

Obama was asked about the relationship in an April 2008 Presidential debate by moderator [[George Stephanopoulos]]:

:''"Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?"''

To which Obama replied,

:''"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of [[English]] in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George"''

In February of 2008, Obama Chief Strategist David Axelrod said:

:''"Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school … They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together."'' He called Ayers current defense of his 1960s bombings ''"objectionable, and I think Barack would also say that was objectionable. I don't think he's ever had an in-depth discussion [with Ayers] about them."''<ref>Politico, ''Ax on Ayers'', by Ben Smith, February 26, 2008 [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Ax_on_Ayers.html]</ref>

In an October 2008 article in ''American Thinker'', Jack Cashill speculated that Ayers [[ghostewrite|ghostwrote]] Obama's first book, "Dreams From My Father".<ref>American Thinker, October 26, 2008, ''Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?'', by Jack Cashill, October 09, 2008 [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html]</ref> He based his assertion on a comparison of the writing styles of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', and Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres had ghostwritten ''Dreams''.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm]</ref><ref>WorldNet Daily, ''Obama didn't write 'Dreams from My Father''', by Jack Cashill, October 13, 2008[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815]</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Mystery:Who Ghostwrote Obama's Books?]]

==References==
<references />

==External links==
*[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/bombing.case.pdf The Park Police Station Bombing Case], usasurvival.org

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ayers, William}}

[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Weather Underground]]

William Ayers

2009-12-01T05:13:25Z

Jfraatz:

[[Image:Features_ayers1.jpg|thumb|William Ayers as he appeared in ''Chicago Magazine''.]] '''William Charles "Bill" Ayers''' (born 1944) is currently a professor at the [[University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|University of Illinois]] at [[Chicago]] and former Chicago community organizer. He is best known as a founder of the [[Soviet]] sponsored {{citation needed}}, [[peace terrorism|peace terrorist]] [[Weather Underground|Weather Underground Organization]] (WUO), and friend of U.S President [[Barack Obama]]. The WUO has often mistakenly been labeled as a Vietnam era protest organization, however many of the organizations activities continued well past the end of American involvement in [[Vietnam]],<ref>''Ambush:The Brinks Robbery of 1981'', [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/brinks/2.html truTV - Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army]</ref> the fall of [[South Vietnam]], and the victory of the [[Communist]] regime of [[North Vietnam]], which was the groups oft stated goals.

Ayers is the husband of fellow peace terrorist [[Bernardine Dohrn]].
 
==Early Life and Upbringing==
Ayers grew up in a wealthy home as the son of Thomas G. Ayers, former Chairman and CEO of Commonwealth Edison. <ref>Northwestern University, Obituary: Thomas Ayers Served as Board Chair from 1975 to 1986[http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/ayers.html]</ref> He lived in Glen Ellyn, a suburb of Chicago. Ayers attended public schools and received a bachelor of Arts degree from the [[University of Michigan]] in 1968. At age 21, Ayers became director of the Children's Community, a small school in a basement that did not have grades, report cards, and had children address teachers by their first names. It was part of a "free school movement."

== Internationally sponsored terrorism ==
[[Image:Ayers.jpg|left|thumb|Bill Ayers in August 1968.]]
In 1968, Ayers became leader of the [[Students for a Democratic Society]], and then a prominent leader of the violent "Weatherman group." The group was associated with other international communist guerrilla and terrorist groups, including the [[Vietcong]]. Its objective was the furtherance of [[Soviet]] foreign policy and the defeat of the U.S. in Vientam. In May 1970, the organization issued a Declaration of War<ref>FBI file, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Declaration_of_a_State_of_War Weather Underground Declaration of a State of War]</ref> against the United States authored by Bernardine Dohrn who was later to become Ayers wife but not until other members of the group, including Ayers girlfriend at the time, blew themselves up in a bomb making factory in [[Greenwich Village]] [[New York]].

The WUO was responsible for roughly 72 bombings in all, including the [[United States Capitol]] (March 1 1971), [[The Pentagon]] (May 19 1972), the United States [[Department of State]] (January 28 1975)<ref> [http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground] pgs. 67-71 pdf</ref> and numerous other targets. In 1969, the Weather Underground planted a bomb at a statue dedicated to [[police]] casualties in the 1886 [[Haymarket Riot]]. The statue was blown into pieces, but was rebuilt in 1970. It was blown up again by the Weather Underground, five months later.

Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."

==The San Francisco Police Department bombing==

In sworn testimony before the U.S. [[Senate Internal Security Subcommittee]] on October 18 1974,<ref>Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, October 18, 1974 quoted in [http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/chicago-obama.pdf''Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection''], USA Survival, Inc.</ref> an [[FBI]] informant declared,
{{cquote|"When he [Bill Ayers] returned, we had another meeting at which time -- and this is the only time that any Weathermen told me about something that someone else had done -- and Bill started off telling us about the need to raise the level of the struggle and for stronger leadership inside the Weathermen 'focals' [i.e., cells] and inside the Weatherman organization as a whole. And he cited as one of the real problems was that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act."}}

The informant added that Ayers said "the bomb was placed on the window ledge and described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it." He was asked, "Did he say who placed the bomb on the window ledge?" He replied, "Bernardine Dohrn."<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78130 Did Ayers' wife kill policeman? FBI report said Dohrn named as bomb builder, planter], ''WorldNetDaily.com, October 16, 2008.</ref>

The ''San Francisco Chronicle'' reported on March 12 2009, in a highly unusual move, the San Francisco Police Officers Association have accused Ayers and his wife of taking part in the bombing. The Association claims,
{{cquote|There are irrefutable and compelling reasons to believe that Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn ... are largely responsible for the bombing of Park Police Station,}} and a cold case investigation is being called for.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/12/BATK16DHA4.DTL&hw=ayers&sn=001&sc=1000 S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing], Demian Bulwa, ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'' March 12, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://marklevin.ning.com/forum/topics/ayers-dohrn-murder-case Ayers, Dohrn Murder Case Reopened] marklevin.ning.com</ref>

==Prairie Fire Organizing Committee==
:''Main article : '''[[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]]'''''

[[Image:Prairie Fire.jpg|thumb|left|150px]]

In 1974, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and other members formed the [[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]], the publishing arm of the Weather Underground Organization. The name was inspired by [[mass murder]]er [[Mao Zedong]] who said, "a single spark can set a prairie fire." Its first book was ''Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism.'' In this book, William Ayers admits that he is a communist,

:"We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years."

[[Image:Dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan.jpg|thumb|right|Prairie Fire is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's assassin.]]
Interestingly, the book lists [[Sirhan Sirhan]], [[Robert F. Kennedy]]'s assassin, among many other now-obscure '60s-era radicals, criminals and revolutionaries on the dedication page.

Ayers and his fellow co-authors brag about their numerous acts of domestic terrorism, and provide a handy list detailing not only each crime but in most cases the justification for each crime as well.
[[Image:Weather Underground bombings.jpg|thumb|right|Ayers and his fellow co-authors brag about their numerous acts of domestic terrorism.]]

Among the bombings by Ayers' group listed in the book:

*Haymarket police statue, Chicago
*Chicago police cars
*New York City police headquarters
*Marin County Courthouse
*Long Island City Courthouse
*Department of Corrections, San Francisco
*Office of California Prisons, Sacramento
*Department of Corrections, Albany NY
*103rd Precinct of New York City police
*Harvard Center for International Affairs
*[[U.S. Capitol]]
*MIT research center
*[[The Pentagon]]
*Draft and recruiting centers
*ROTC buildings
*ITT Latin America Headquarters
*National Guard Headquarters, Washington D.C.
*Presidio Army Base and MP Station, San Francisco
*Federal Offices of Health, Education and Welfare, San Francisco <ref>[http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/ William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire], zombietime.com, October 22, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/forgotten-terrorist-manifesto-prairie.html Forgotten Terrorist Manifesto: Prairie Fire], Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice, October 24, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/23/reading-bill-ayers/ Reading Bill Ayers], Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com, October 23, 2008</ref>

== "Guilty as hell, free as a bird" ==

Bill Ayers, his wife Bernardine Dohrn and other WUO figures were not prosecuted because of alleged [[FBI]] misconduct while investigating the foreign influence in domestic terrorism. In fact, FBI officials [[W. Mark Felt]]<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB156/ Nixon and the FBI: The White House Tapes], National Security Archive, The George Washington Universtiy, Washington, D.C.</ref> and Edward S. Miller were indicted and convicted in November 1980 of conspiring to violate the civil rights of relatives of the Weather Underground, including Jennifer Dohrn,<ref>http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=jennifer%20dohrn</ref> sister of Bernardine, whose homes had been burglarized.

However, on April 15, 1981, President [[Ronald Reagan]] in his first 100 days granted full and unconditional pardons, saying, in part:
{{Cquote| Messrs. Felt and Miller followed procedures they believed essential to keep the Director of the FBI, the [[Attorney General]], and the [[President of the United States]] advised of the activities of hostile foreign powers and their collaborators in this country.<ref>[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/41581d.htm Statement on Granting Pardons to W. Mark Felt and Edward S. Miller], April 15, 1981.</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/01/us/two-top-fbi-officials-cleared.html Two Top F.B.I. Officials Cleared], [[New York Times]], December 1, 1983.</ref>}}

At the end of Ayers ''Fugitive Days'' he writes that he is "Guilty as hell, free as a bird—it’s a great country." Historian [[Ronald Radosh]] reviewing ''Fugitive Days'' in the [[Weekly Standard]] notes, "As for those who might believe without irony that America is a great country, Ayers has one reaction: 'It makes me want to puke.'"<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C000%5C267rdlhy.asp ''Don't Need a Weatherman : The clouded mind of Bill Ayers''.] by Ronald Radosh, The Weekly Standard, 10/08/2001, Volume 007, Issue 04.</ref>

==Fugitive Days==

Today, Ayers and his wife -- fellow former Weather Underground fugitive [[Bernardine Dohrn]] -- live in Hyde Park, where they moved after surrendering in 1980.

In a 2001 interview with the [[New York Times]], Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough." Ayers later claimed that he was quoted out of context, and that he meant that he felt that he had not done enough to oppose the war in Vietnam, which he defined as ''"[an] illegal, murderous, imperial war."'' <ref>Bill Ayers' blog, Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy, by Bill Ayers, 4/06/2008[http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/]</ref>

Ayers has claimed that his actions were not terrorist acts.<ref>Bill Ayers' blog, Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy, by Bill Ayers, 4/06/2008[http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/]</ref> He has stated that according to the official definition of both the U.S. and the U.N., terrorism consists of violent acts intended to intimidate or coerce a populace into a political end, and that his actions were intended to draw attention to and combat the state terrorism of the U.S. in the Vietnam War. In his autobiography, Fugitive Days, Ayers claimed that his bombing of the [[Pentagon]] prevented aerial bombardments in Vietnam for several days, which he defined as terrorism. In this regard, Ayers has implied that he ''prevented'' terrorism rather than caused it.

==Obama, the Annenberg Challenge, ACORN and the Woods Fund ==

Ayers and [[Barack Obama]] worked together at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), from 1995-1999, an [[organisation]] that funneled money to [[ACORN]]. On his curriculum vitae, Ayers identifies himself as the co-founder and grant writer of the Annenberg Challenge Grant of $49,200,000 and the one who obtained this and other grants for "the support of the Small Schools Workshop and/or the Chicago forum for School Change at the University of Illinois at Chicago..."

Obama joined Ayers again in a paid nine-member board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Ayers also says that he obtained grants from the Chicago-based MacArthur foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat with [[Barack Obama]] from 1999 to 2002.

The announcement of Obama's candidacy for higher office was made in the home of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn in 1995.

In 2001, Ayers supported and contributed $200 to Obama's state Senate campaign<ref>[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?d=330121189]</ref>.

Obama was asked about the relationship in an April 2008 Presidential debate by moderator [[George Stephanopoulos]]:

:''"Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?"''

To which Obama replied,

:''"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of [[English]] in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George"''

In February of 2008, Obama Chief Strategist David Axelrod said:

:''"Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school … They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together."'' He called Ayers current defense of his 1960s bombings ''"objectionable, and I think Barack would also say that was objectionable. I don't think he's ever had an in-depth discussion [with Ayers] about them."''<ref>Politico, ''Ax on Ayers'', by Ben Smith, February 26, 2008 [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Ax_on_Ayers.html]</ref>

In an October 2008 article in ''American Thinker'', Jack Cashill speculated that Ayers [[ghostewrite|ghostwrote]] Obama's first book, "Dreams From My Father".<ref>American Thinker, October 26, 2008, ''Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?'', by Jack Cashill, October 09, 2008 [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html]</ref> He based his assertion on a comparison of the writing styles of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', and Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres had ghostwritten ''Dreams''.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm]</ref><ref>WorldNet Daily, ''Obama didn't write 'Dreams from My Father''', by Jack Cashill, October 13, 2008[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815]</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Mystery:Who Ghostwrote Obama's Books?]]

==References==
<references />

==External links==
*[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/bombing.case.pdf The Park Police Station Bombing Case], usasurvival.org

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ayers, William}}

[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Weather Underground]]

William Ayers

2009-12-01T05:12:50Z

Jfraatz:

[[Image:Features_ayers1.jpg|thumb|William Ayers as he appeared in ''Chicago Magazine''.]] '''William Charles "Bill" Ayers''' (born 1944) is currently a professor at the [[University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|University of Illinois]] at [[Chicago]] and former Chicago community organizer. He is best known as a founder of the [[Soviet]] sponsored {{citation needed}}, [[peace terrorist]] [[Weather Underground|Weather Underground Organization]] (WUO), and friend of U.S President [[Barack Obama]]. The WUO has often mistakenly been labeled as a Vietnam era protest organization, however many of the organizations activities continued well past the end of American involvement in [[Vietnam]],<ref>''Ambush:The Brinks Robbery of 1981'', [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/brinks/2.html truTV - Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army]</ref> the fall of [[South Vietnam]], and the victory of the [[Communist]] regime of [[North Vietnam]], which was the groups oft stated goals.

Ayers is the husband of fellow peace terrorist [[Bernardine Dohrn]].
 
==Early Life and Upbringing==
Ayers grew up in a wealthy home as the son of Thomas G. Ayers, former Chairman and CEO of Commonwealth Edison. <ref>Northwestern University, Obituary: Thomas Ayers Served as Board Chair from 1975 to 1986[http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/ayers.html]</ref> He lived in Glen Ellyn, a suburb of Chicago. Ayers attended public schools and received a bachelor of Arts degree from the [[University of Michigan]] in 1968. At age 21, Ayers became director of the Children's Community, a small school in a basement that did not have grades, report cards, and had children address teachers by their first names. It was part of a "free school movement."

== Internationally sponsored terrorism ==
[[Image:Ayers.jpg|left|thumb|Bill Ayers in August 1968.]]
In 1968, Ayers became leader of the [[Students for a Democratic Society]], and then a prominent leader of the violent "Weatherman group." The group was associated with other international communist guerrilla and terrorist groups, including the [[Vietcong]]. Its objective was the furtherance of [[Soviet]] foreign policy and the defeat of the U.S. in Vientam. In May 1970, the organization issued a Declaration of War<ref>FBI file, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Declaration_of_a_State_of_War Weather Underground Declaration of a State of War]</ref> against the United States authored by Bernardine Dohrn who was later to become Ayers wife but not until other members of the group, including Ayers girlfriend at the time, blew themselves up in a bomb making factory in [[Greenwich Village]] [[New York]].

The WUO was responsible for roughly 72 bombings in all, including the [[United States Capitol]] (March 1 1971), [[The Pentagon]] (May 19 1972), the United States [[Department of State]] (January 28 1975)<ref> [http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground] pgs. 67-71 pdf</ref> and numerous other targets. In 1969, the Weather Underground planted a bomb at a statue dedicated to [[police]] casualties in the 1886 [[Haymarket Riot]]. The statue was blown into pieces, but was rebuilt in 1970. It was blown up again by the Weather Underground, five months later.

Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."

==The San Francisco Police Department bombing==

In sworn testimony before the U.S. [[Senate Internal Security Subcommittee]] on October 18 1974,<ref>Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, October 18, 1974 quoted in [http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/chicago-obama.pdf''Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection''], USA Survival, Inc.</ref> an [[FBI]] informant declared,
{{cquote|"When he [Bill Ayers] returned, we had another meeting at which time -- and this is the only time that any Weathermen told me about something that someone else had done -- and Bill started off telling us about the need to raise the level of the struggle and for stronger leadership inside the Weathermen 'focals' [i.e., cells] and inside the Weatherman organization as a whole. And he cited as one of the real problems was that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act."}}

The informant added that Ayers said "the bomb was placed on the window ledge and described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it." He was asked, "Did he say who placed the bomb on the window ledge?" He replied, "Bernardine Dohrn."<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78130 Did Ayers' wife kill policeman? FBI report said Dohrn named as bomb builder, planter], ''WorldNetDaily.com, October 16, 2008.</ref>

The ''San Francisco Chronicle'' reported on March 12 2009, in a highly unusual move, the San Francisco Police Officers Association have accused Ayers and his wife of taking part in the bombing. The Association claims,
{{cquote|There are irrefutable and compelling reasons to believe that Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn ... are largely responsible for the bombing of Park Police Station,}} and a cold case investigation is being called for.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/12/BATK16DHA4.DTL&hw=ayers&sn=001&sc=1000 S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing], Demian Bulwa, ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'' March 12, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://marklevin.ning.com/forum/topics/ayers-dohrn-murder-case Ayers, Dohrn Murder Case Reopened] marklevin.ning.com</ref>

==Prairie Fire Organizing Committee==
:''Main article : '''[[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]]'''''

[[Image:Prairie Fire.jpg|thumb|left|150px]]

In 1974, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and other members formed the [[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]], the publishing arm of the Weather Underground Organization. The name was inspired by [[mass murder]]er [[Mao Zedong]] who said, "a single spark can set a prairie fire." Its first book was ''Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism.'' In this book, William Ayers admits that he is a communist,

:"We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years."

[[Image:Dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan.jpg|thumb|right|Prairie Fire is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's assassin.]]
Interestingly, the book lists [[Sirhan Sirhan]], [[Robert F. Kennedy]]'s assassin, among many other now-obscure '60s-era radicals, criminals and revolutionaries on the dedication page.

Ayers and his fellow co-authors brag about their numerous acts of domestic terrorism, and provide a handy list detailing not only each crime but in most cases the justification for each crime as well.
[[Image:Weather Underground bombings.jpg|thumb|right|Ayers and his fellow co-authors brag about their numerous acts of domestic terrorism.]]

Among the bombings by Ayers' group listed in the book:

*Haymarket police statue, Chicago
*Chicago police cars
*New York City police headquarters
*Marin County Courthouse
*Long Island City Courthouse
*Department of Corrections, San Francisco
*Office of California Prisons, Sacramento
*Department of Corrections, Albany NY
*103rd Precinct of New York City police
*Harvard Center for International Affairs
*[[U.S. Capitol]]
*MIT research center
*[[The Pentagon]]
*Draft and recruiting centers
*ROTC buildings
*ITT Latin America Headquarters
*National Guard Headquarters, Washington D.C.
*Presidio Army Base and MP Station, San Francisco
*Federal Offices of Health, Education and Welfare, San Francisco <ref>[http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/ William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire], zombietime.com, October 22, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/forgotten-terrorist-manifesto-prairie.html Forgotten Terrorist Manifesto: Prairie Fire], Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice, October 24, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/23/reading-bill-ayers/ Reading Bill Ayers], Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com, October 23, 2008</ref>

== "Guilty as hell, free as a bird" ==

Bill Ayers, his wife Bernardine Dohrn and other WUO figures were not prosecuted because of alleged [[FBI]] misconduct while investigating the foreign influence in domestic terrorism. In fact, FBI officials [[W. Mark Felt]]<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB156/ Nixon and the FBI: The White House Tapes], National Security Archive, The George Washington Universtiy, Washington, D.C.</ref> and Edward S. Miller were indicted and convicted in November 1980 of conspiring to violate the civil rights of relatives of the Weather Underground, including Jennifer Dohrn,<ref>http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=jennifer%20dohrn</ref> sister of Bernardine, whose homes had been burglarized.

However, on April 15, 1981, President [[Ronald Reagan]] in his first 100 days granted full and unconditional pardons, saying, in part:
{{Cquote| Messrs. Felt and Miller followed procedures they believed essential to keep the Director of the FBI, the [[Attorney General]], and the [[President of the United States]] advised of the activities of hostile foreign powers and their collaborators in this country.<ref>[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/41581d.htm Statement on Granting Pardons to W. Mark Felt and Edward S. Miller], April 15, 1981.</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/01/us/two-top-fbi-officials-cleared.html Two Top F.B.I. Officials Cleared], [[New York Times]], December 1, 1983.</ref>}}

At the end of Ayers ''Fugitive Days'' he writes that he is "Guilty as hell, free as a bird—it’s a great country." Historian [[Ronald Radosh]] reviewing ''Fugitive Days'' in the [[Weekly Standard]] notes, "As for those who might believe without irony that America is a great country, Ayers has one reaction: 'It makes me want to puke.'"<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C000%5C267rdlhy.asp ''Don't Need a Weatherman : The clouded mind of Bill Ayers''.] by Ronald Radosh, The Weekly Standard, 10/08/2001, Volume 007, Issue 04.</ref>

==Fugitive Days==

Today, Ayers and his wife -- fellow former Weather Underground fugitive [[Bernardine Dohrn]] -- live in Hyde Park, where they moved after surrendering in 1980.

In a 2001 interview with the [[New York Times]], Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough." Ayers later claimed that he was quoted out of context, and that he meant that he felt that he had not done enough to oppose the war in Vietnam, which he defined as ''"[an] illegal, murderous, imperial war."'' <ref>Bill Ayers' blog, Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy, by Bill Ayers, 4/06/2008[http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/]</ref>

Ayers has claimed that his actions were not terrorist acts.<ref>Bill Ayers' blog, Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy, by Bill Ayers, 4/06/2008[http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/]</ref> He has stated that according to the official definition of both the U.S. and the U.N., terrorism consists of violent acts intended to intimidate or coerce a populace into a political end, and that his actions were intended to draw attention to and combat the state terrorism of the U.S. in the Vietnam War. In his autobiography, Fugitive Days, Ayers claimed that his bombing of the [[Pentagon]] prevented aerial bombardments in Vietnam for several days, which he defined as terrorism. In this regard, Ayers has implied that he ''prevented'' terrorism rather than caused it.

==Obama, the Annenberg Challenge, ACORN and the Woods Fund ==

Ayers and [[Barack Obama]] worked together at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), from 1995-1999, an [[organisation]] that funneled money to [[ACORN]]. On his curriculum vitae, Ayers identifies himself as the co-founder and grant writer of the Annenberg Challenge Grant of $49,200,000 and the one who obtained this and other grants for "the support of the Small Schools Workshop and/or the Chicago forum for School Change at the University of Illinois at Chicago..."

Obama joined Ayers again in a paid nine-member board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Ayers also says that he obtained grants from the Chicago-based MacArthur foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat with [[Barack Obama]] from 1999 to 2002.

The announcement of Obama's candidacy for higher office was made in the home of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn in 1995.

In 2001, Ayers supported and contributed $200 to Obama's state Senate campaign<ref>[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?d=330121189]</ref>.

Obama was asked about the relationship in an April 2008 Presidential debate by moderator [[George Stephanopoulos]]:

:''"Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?"''

To which Obama replied,

:''"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of [[English]] in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George"''

In February of 2008, Obama Chief Strategist David Axelrod said:

:''"Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school … They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together."'' He called Ayers current defense of his 1960s bombings ''"objectionable, and I think Barack would also say that was objectionable. I don't think he's ever had an in-depth discussion [with Ayers] about them."''<ref>Politico, ''Ax on Ayers'', by Ben Smith, February 26, 2008 [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Ax_on_Ayers.html]</ref>

In an October 2008 article in ''American Thinker'', Jack Cashill speculated that Ayers [[ghostewrite|ghostwrote]] Obama's first book, "Dreams From My Father".<ref>American Thinker, October 26, 2008, ''Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?'', by Jack Cashill, October 09, 2008 [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html]</ref> He based his assertion on a comparison of the writing styles of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', and Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres had ghostwritten ''Dreams''.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm]</ref><ref>WorldNet Daily, ''Obama didn't write 'Dreams from My Father''', by Jack Cashill, October 13, 2008[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815]</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Mystery:Who Ghostwrote Obama's Books?]]

==References==
<references />

==External links==
*[http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/bombing.case.pdf The Park Police Station Bombing Case], usasurvival.org

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ayers, William}}

[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Weather Underground]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-01T04:16:46Z

Jfraatz: /* Conservative words and terms */

[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The "tax-and-spend" slogan stuck to Harry Hopkins like a well-fitted suit.]]Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words,<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> and many good words have developed since then.

The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. [[Conservative]] terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms are.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611, and [[William Shakespeare]] had written virtually all of his plays.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|15
|-
|1700s
|30
|-
|1800s
|60
|-
|1900s
|127
|-
|2000s
|6 (preliminary)
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings
|-
|algorithm
|1894
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|-
|Anarchic Personality
|2009
|A personality type which holds that their is no transcendent moral authority or that sees all authority even abstract authority as tyrannical for it's own sake, regardless of source. Anarchic personalities may be thought of as having a form of oppositional defiant disorder. Many leftists are observed to hold traits consistent with those of an anarchic personality.
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search, yet the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't recognize this important term
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|antilife
|1929
|critical term describing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|assimilate
|late 1800s
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|bailout
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|biased
|1649
|
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone else unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|A person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"Popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|Unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap"
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|Coasean
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|[[comparative advantage]]
|1815<ref>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/orig.html</ref>
|developed by the classical economist [[David Ricardo]], this reflects the insight that each country should "do what it does best" in deciding which goods to produce
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|[[George Orwell]] first coined this term in ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1883
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto
undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party.
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|globalism
|1997
|MW states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term 'globalism'<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by [[George Orwell]]
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|Coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>This has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, fighting for those less fortunate- justice for humanity
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting politics for racial, ethnic, gender equality.
|-
|incidental inequality
|2009
|inequalities that result as side effects of an objectively just system
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"[W]e [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|judicial activism
|1947
|First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial prejudice
|2009
|The bias of a judge in favor of a political correct identity group intended to rig outcome equality in favor of that group based on subjective bias rather than objective justice.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|One who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|judicial taking
|1982
|Deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] [[granted cert.]] on this issue in 2009.
|-
|junk science
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: that was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|The ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|See [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|parenting
|1958
|Children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by the Supreme Court. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|Spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|socialist
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|Language and rhetorical ploys equating equality of outcome with justice.
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|statism
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with such distractions
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|underemployed
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|victimization
|1840
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|}

'''Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms'''

__TOC__ 

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|Misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline
|-
|[[Limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|[[limousine liberal]]
|hypocrite
|rich promoting causes which they themselves don't adhere to
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|Religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|Someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|Even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassionate-care clinics
|2008
|a term describe pot-shops that dispense medical marijuana <ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/?postversion=2009091116 How marijuana became legal, CNN, September 11, 2009]</ref>
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|Treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"A style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|main squeeze
|1968
|one's romantic partner, typically in an unmarried relationship
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|Originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|shovel-ready <ref>[http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/04/is-it-time-to-add-shovelready-to-the-dictionary.html Is it time to add shovel-ready to the dictionary? Skyline Views, April 24, 2009]</ref>
|2008
|jobs and people ready to work if funded
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transforming society
|2008
|Obama, Rahm and Axelrod use this term. It dates to [[Saul Alinsky]] and Chicago politics. <ref>[http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# Mark Levin Show, July 7, 2009]</ref>
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|10
|-
|1900s
|29 (9 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|5
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|Cold War
|1947
|open hostilities and ideological driven differences between nations
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|Multitasking
|1966
|multiple task all at once
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>This first use was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|underdog
|1887
|conservative or liberal?
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|eleemosynary
|1616
|relating to charity
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|Luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|smart aleck
|1856
|an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to being superior to others. Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart%20alec Smart Aleck Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-01T04:07:59Z

Jfraatz: /* Conservative words and terms */

[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The "tax-and-spend" slogan stuck to Harry Hopkins like a well-fitted suit.]]Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words,<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> and many good words have developed since then.

The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. [[Conservative]] terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms are.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611, and [[William Shakespeare]] had written virtually all of his plays.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|15
|-
|1700s
|30
|-
|1800s
|60
|-
|1900s
|127
|-
|2000s
|6 (preliminary)
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings
|-
|algorithm
|1894
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search, yet the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't recognize this important term
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|antilife
|1929
|critical term describing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|assimilate
|late 1800s
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|bailout
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|biased
|1649
|
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone else unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|A person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"Popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|Unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap"
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|Coasean
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|[[comparative advantage]]
|1815<ref>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/orig.html</ref>
|developed by the classical economist [[David Ricardo]], this reflects the insight that each country should "do what it does best" in deciding which goods to produce
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|[[George Orwell]] first coined this term in ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1883
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto
undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party.
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|globalism
|1997
|MW states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term 'globalism'<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by [[George Orwell]]
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|Coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>This has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, fighting for those less fortunate- justice for humanity
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting politics for racial, ethnic, gender equality.
|-
|incidental inequality
|2009
|inequalities that result as side effects of an objectively just system
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"[W]e [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|judicial activism
|1947
|First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial prejudice
|2009
|The bias of a judge in favor of a political correct identity group intended to rig outcome equality in favor of that group based on subjective bias rather than objective justice.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|One who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|judicial taking
|1982
|Deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] [[granted cert.]] on this issue in 2009.
|-
|junk science
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: that was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|The ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|See [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|parenting
|1958
|Children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by the Supreme Court. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|Spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|socialist
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|Language and rhetorical ploys equating equality of outcome with justice.
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|statism
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with such distractions
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|underemployed
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|victimization
|1840
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|}

'''Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms'''

__TOC__ 

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|Misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline
|-
|[[Limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|[[limousine liberal]]
|hypocrite
|rich promoting causes which they themselves don't adhere to
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|Religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|Someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|Even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassionate-care clinics
|2008
|a term describe pot-shops that dispense medical marijuana <ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/?postversion=2009091116 How marijuana became legal, CNN, September 11, 2009]</ref>
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|Treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"A style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|main squeeze
|1968
|one's romantic partner, typically in an unmarried relationship
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|Originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|shovel-ready <ref>[http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/04/is-it-time-to-add-shovelready-to-the-dictionary.html Is it time to add shovel-ready to the dictionary? Skyline Views, April 24, 2009]</ref>
|2008
|jobs and people ready to work if funded
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transforming society
|2008
|Obama, Rahm and Axelrod use this term. It dates to [[Saul Alinsky]] and Chicago politics. <ref>[http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# Mark Levin Show, July 7, 2009]</ref>
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|10
|-
|1900s
|29 (9 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|5
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|Cold War
|1947
|open hostilities and ideological driven differences between nations
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|Multitasking
|1966
|multiple task all at once
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>This first use was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|underdog
|1887
|conservative or liberal?
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|eleemosynary
|1616
|relating to charity
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|Luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|smart aleck
|1856
|an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to being superior to others. Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart%20alec Smart Aleck Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-01T03:55:59Z

Jfraatz: /* Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-01T03:55:42Z

Jfraatz: /* Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion. Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-01T03:54:07Z

Jfraatz: /* Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that's helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-01T03:53:54Z

Jfraatz: /* Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that's helpful.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-01T03:53:39Z

Jfraatz: /* Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that's helpful.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-12-01T03:53:28Z

Jfraatz: /* Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that's helpful.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

User:Jfraatz

2009-12-01T01:38:11Z

Jfraatz:

User:Jfraatz

2009-12-01T01:38:03Z

Jfraatz:

User:Jfraatz

2009-12-01T01:37:44Z

Jfraatz:

User:Jfraatz

2009-12-01T01:37:34Z

Jfraatz:

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-11-30T19:36:47Z

Jfraatz: /* Engineered Language using Linguistic Deep Structure */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-11-30T19:36:10Z

Jfraatz: /* Engineered Language using Linguistic Deep Structure */ new section

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using Linguistic Deep Structure ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

User talk:JacobB

2009-11-29T04:46:11Z

Jfraatz: /* Relativity and MemeShock */

For older discussions, see [[User talk:JacobB/Archive 1]].



== Blocking ==

Please be aware of our [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Assistants Guidelines] regarding blocking. Non-Administrators should not be blocking for reasons of policy, or subjective reasons such as user name, unless such name is blatantly obscene. Communications from blocked users should be passed on to one of the Admins as well. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

== Relativity and MemeShock ==

Jacob:

"You continue to address the same points over and over in your objections to Conservapedia's content on relativity,"

Well the debate has gone back over several points. I tried to explain that this was begging the question, and move the discussion forwards, but for some reason the same points are brought up again and again.

"just to bait other editors into responding to you - a classic internet troll."

No, I'm having a debate with Andy. You can read my posts they are not rude. I am merely trying to explain to him why the stuff he has there is wrong. Let me show you something. The page contradicts itself:

In one section it argues that relativity lacks evidence:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Lack_of_evidence_for_Relativity

In the very next section it gives evidence for relativity!:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Time_dilation

You can't tell me this is unreasonable debate.

P.S. And I have not suggested any changes to the page and/or tried to change the page after you lifted the block.

"and, by your own admission, try to use Conservapedia to push your agenda and your preferred vocabulary."

Yes, that was meant to be a contribution to Conservapedia. Here, I've greatly contributed to your new conservative words page and created stubs for many of these: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words

Look at the links above in about MemeShock in the talk section on my page. I think you'll like what I have to offer.

"Please contribute constructively and stop violating 90/10 on the relativity pages."

I'm sorry I got distracted with the relativity page. I originally came here to add to the conservative lexicon -which I figured would be appreciated. I got sidetracked with the relativity page because I happen to be a physics major and couldn't help but object to what I was seeing.

I intend to produce a number of pages on different topics and edit pages in a way you would find constructive. Don't I'm not a troll.

P.S. Tell me what you think of the MemeShock program on facebook. I hope you will find that useful.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

User talk:JacobB

2009-11-29T04:45:25Z

Jfraatz: /* Relativity and MemeShock */

For older discussions, see [[User talk:JacobB/Archive 1]].



== Blocking ==

Please be aware of our [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Assistants Guidelines] regarding blocking. Non-Administrators should not be blocking for reasons of policy, or subjective reasons such as user name, unless such name is blatantly obscene. Communications from blocked users should be passed on to one of the Admins as well. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

== Relativity and MemeShock ==

Jacob:

"You continue to address the same points over and over in your objections to Conservapedia's content on relativity,"

Well the debate has gone back over several points. I tried to explain that this was begging the question, but I've tried to move the discussion forwards.

"just to bait other editors into responding to you - a classic internet troll."

No, I'm having a debate with Andy. You can read my posts they are not rude. I am merely trying to explain to him why the stuff he has there is wrong. Let me show you something. The page contradicts itself:

In one section it argues that relativity lacks evidence:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Lack_of_evidence_for_Relativity

In the very next section it gives evidence for relativity!:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Time_dilation

You can't tell me this is unreasonable debate.

P.S. And I have not suggested any changes to the page and/or tried to change the page after you lifted the block.

"and, by your own admission, try to use Conservapedia to push your agenda and your preferred vocabulary."

Yes, that was meant to be a contribution to Conservapedia. Here, I've greatly contributed to your new conservative words page and created stubs for many of these: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words

Look at the links above in about MemeShock in the talk section on my page. I think you'll like what I have to offer.

"Please contribute constructively and stop violating 90/10 on the relativity pages."

I'm sorry I got distracted with the relativity page. I originally came here to add to the conservative lexicon -which I figured would be appreciated. I got sidetracked with the relativity page because I happen to be a physics major and couldn't help but object to what I was seeing.

I intend to produce a number of pages on different topics and edit pages in a way you would find constructive. Don't I'm not a troll.

P.S. Tell me what you think of the MemeShock program on facebook. I hope you will find that useful.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

User talk:JacobB

2009-11-29T04:44:28Z

Jfraatz: /* Relativity and MemeShock */ new section

For older discussions, see [[User talk:JacobB/Archive 1]].



== Blocking ==

Please be aware of our [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Assistants Guidelines] regarding blocking. Non-Administrators should not be blocking for reasons of policy, or subjective reasons such as user name, unless such name is blatantly obscene. Communications from blocked users should be passed on to one of the Admins as well. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

== Relativity and MemeShock ==

Jacob:

"You continue to address the same points over and over in your objections to Conservapedia's content on relativity,"

"just to bait other editors into responding to you - a classic internet troll."

No, I'm having a debate with Andy. You can read my posts they are not rude. I am merely trying to explain to him why the stuff he has there is wrong. Let me show you something. The page contradicts itself:

In one section it argues that relativity lacks evidence:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Lack_of_evidence_for_Relativity

In the very next section it gives evidence for relativity!:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Time_dilation

You can't tell me this is unreasonable debate.

P.S. And I have not suggested any changes to the page and/or tried to change the page after you lifted the block.

"and, by your own admission, try to use Conservapedia to push your agenda and your preferred vocabulary."

Yes, that was meant to be a contribution to Conservapedia. Here, I've greatly contributed to your new conservative words page and created stubs for many of these: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words

Look at the links above in about MemeShock in the talk section on my page. I think you'll like what I have to offer.

"Please contribute constructively and stop violating 90/10 on the relativity pages."

I'm sorry I got distracted with the relativity page. I originally came here to add to the conservative lexicon -which I figured would be appreciated. I got sidetracked with the relativity page because I happen to be a physics major and couldn't help but object to what I was seeing.

I intend to produce a number of pages on different topics and edit pages in a way you would find constructive. Don't I'm not a troll.

P.S. Tell me what you think of the MemeShock program on facebook. I hope you will find that useful.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-29T04:35:00Z

Jfraatz: /* A Word on Relativism */ new section

'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]



== Jfraatz's comments ==

:: Andrew;

::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.

::"and it contradicts logic,"

::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.

::"the evidence,"

::On the contrary:

::Special relativity:

::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

::General relativity:

::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
3. Gravitational microlensing.
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.

::"and the Bible."

::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?

::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."

::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.

::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.

::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"

::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.

::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.

::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."

::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.

::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?

::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."

::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.

::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"

::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.

::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.

::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?

--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.

Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.

::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.

::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?

::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]

::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."

::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!

::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.

:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

*1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

*2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

*3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.

Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?

*4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

*5.)Do you?

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

*6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that?

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

*7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

*8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

*9.)Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

*10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.

:'''REPLY''':

:1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."

::No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.

:3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"

::Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

: Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"

:: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

: Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."

:: Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.

:6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."

::The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.

:7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

::Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.

:8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"

::The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.

:9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."

::Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.

:10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."

::So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.

::Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.

:Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."

::You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)

::::You're asking the wrong question TrondE. The question is "Does relativity turn people away from the Bible?" If you research relativity and relativism you'll discover that relativism only latches onto to relativity for incidental reasons. Furthermore the reasons for relativism's success exist for entirely different reasons. We'd have the 60's with or without Einstein. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::'''REPLY'''::

*Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"

:::Yes.

:::You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.

*Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

:::Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.

:::If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.

:::To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.

*Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

:::No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.

*Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking."

Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.

*Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."

:::That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.

*Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."

:::It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.

*Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."

:::Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:

::::"Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."

:::Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.

*Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."

:::Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.

*Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."

:::Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.

*Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."

:::1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.

:::2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.

:::3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.

*Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."

:::That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html

*Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."

:::Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.

*Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.

:::This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.

:::In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.

*Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."

:::Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

==Request for References==
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.

:Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:: Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space]. But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"

:::OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.

:::Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). [http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-dangers-of-islam-wright-vs-hitchens/]
:::: I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
:::: You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a [[double standard]] for relativity.

:::::But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to [[counterexamples to evolution]]. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::::"Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."

Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

== A Word on Relativism ==

Despite implications made here relativism did not come into being or become popular due to relativity. The roots of modern popular relativism can be traced back to Freud and in particular a group of neo-Marxist intellectuals known as the "critical theorists" who combined Marx with Freud to argue that all morality was merely a construct to be "liberated" from:

http://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/political-correctness-is-cultural-marxism-part-iii-speech-by-william-lind/

Basically they viewed all ideologies (even correct ones) as "oppressive." Therefore any correct moral system based on an objective ideology was "wrong" in their eyes. Thus no one moral system could be thought of as correct -hence relativism.

The critical theorists came over around WW2 to escape Germany and set up in the States. Here they then were the movers and shakers behind the counterculture of the 60's, which is where moral relativism comes from today.

Again it has nothing to do with relativity. It would have gone off on it's own with or without relativity.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-29T04:26:46Z

Jfraatz: /* Reply to Andrew Schlafly */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-29T04:23:15Z

Jfraatz: /* Reply to Andrew Schlafly */

'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]



== Jfraatz's comments ==

:: Andrew;

::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.

::"and it contradicts logic,"

::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.

::"the evidence,"

::On the contrary:

::Special relativity:

::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

::General relativity:

::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
3. Gravitational microlensing.
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.

::"and the Bible."

::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?

::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."

::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.

::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.

::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"

::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.

::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.

::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."

::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.

::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?

::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."

::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.

::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"

::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.

::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.

::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?

--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.

Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.

::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.

::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?

::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]

::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."

::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!

::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.

:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

*1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

*2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

*3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.

Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?

*4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

*5.)Do you?

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

*6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that?

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

*7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

*8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

*9.)Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

*10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.

:'''REPLY''':

:1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."

::No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.

:3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"

::Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

: Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"

:: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

: Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."

:: Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.

:6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."

::The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.

:7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

::Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.

:8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"

::The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.

:9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."

::Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.

:10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."

::So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.

::Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.

:Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."

::You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::'''REPLY'''::

*Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"

:::Yes.

:::You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.

*Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

:::Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.

:::If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.

:::To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.

*Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

:::No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.

*Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking."

Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.

*Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."

:::That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.

*Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."

:::It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.

*Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."

:::Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:

::::"Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."

:::Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.

*Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."

:::Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.

*Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."

:::Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.

*Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."

:::1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.

:::2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.

:::3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.

*Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."

:::That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html

*Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."

:::Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.

*Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.

:::This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.

:::In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.

*Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."

:::Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

==Request for References==
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.

:Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:: Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space]. But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"

:::OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.

:::Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). [http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-dangers-of-islam-wright-vs-hitchens/]
:::: I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
:::: You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a [[double standard]] for relativity.

:::::But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to [[counterexamples to evolution]]. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::::"Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."

Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-29T03:06:42Z

Jfraatz: /* Request for References */

'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]



== Jfraatz's comments ==

:: Andrew;

::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.

::"and it contradicts logic,"

::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.

::"the evidence,"

::On the contrary:

::Special relativity:

::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

::General relativity:

::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
3. Gravitational microlensing.
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.

::"and the Bible."

::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?

::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."

::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.

::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.

::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"

::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.

::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.

::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."

::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.

::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?

::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."

::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.

::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"

::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.

::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.

::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?

--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.

Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.

::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.

::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?

::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]

::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."

::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!

::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.

:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

*1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

*2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

*3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.

Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?

*4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

*5.)Do you?

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

*6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that?

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

*7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

*8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

*9.)Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

*10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.

:'''REPLY''':

:1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."

::No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.

:3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"

::Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

: Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"

:: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

: Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."

:: Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.

:6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."

::The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.

:7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

::Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.

:8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"

::The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.

:9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."

::Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.

:10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."

::So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.

::Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.

:Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."

::You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)

==Request for References==
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.

:Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:: Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space]. But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"

:::OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.

:::Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). [http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-dangers-of-islam-wright-vs-hitchens/]
:::: I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
:::: You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a [[double standard]] for relativity.

:::::But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to [[counterexamples to evolution]]. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::::"Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."

Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

User talk:Jfraatz

2009-11-29T02:53:50Z

Jfraatz: /* Best new conservative words */

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:03, 20 October 2009 (EDT)}}

==Fetal rights==
Johann, you need to go over your postings and remove whatever is not created by you. We have a policy against cut-n-paste from Wikipedia but I know you contributed much to that page. Also, I will add a template to the talk page.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:23, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

== MemeShock? ==
I'm curious about a lot of your edits here. Are you inventing all these new terms that you're adding? It's an interesting idea, though you might consider putting things like "Peace terrorism" in the Essay: namespace. [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] and [[Conservapedia's Law]] are in a similar vein (noting the insight that new conservative terms create), but it seems like you're attempting to engineer new conservative terms from scratch and have them catch on. Do you have a website about this anywhere? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:32, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
:Perhaps he's on to something. Here's an example of one such individual [http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/000889.html], more stupid then sensible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:38, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

Yes as a matter of fact. My website can be found here on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12621914298&ref=ts

At MemeShock we combine Noam Chomsky's concept of "linguistic deep-structure" with memetic engineering. We developed an algorithm based on applying the concept of linguistic deep-structure to languages as a whole. The result is that we can develop comprehensive language systems using "memeplex matrices" for specific issues usually comprising of around 9 or 10 terms. The idea being that this mimics natural thought and thus if we viral the terms they will natural form into predetermined thought-patterns in the general populace.

We fairly developed sets of language on a variety of topics: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=9162&uid=12621914298 (MemeShock dictionary 3.0) but we've had troubles viral the language. We've tried a number of different places to viral our language, but I've been thinking that Conservapedia would be useful as a "memetic vector" to help transmit the memes. [[User:jfraatz|jfraatz]]

== Best new conservative words ==

It'd be very helpful if you showed where the terms you've added are being used, much as the other entries link to sources showing first usage. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 18:09, 27 November 2009 (EST)

They're in the section above on "MemeShock." Also I posted the link on your page. Have fun with them! :D [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-27T21:32:19Z

Jfraatz: /* Reply to Andrew Schlafly */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-27T21:30:43Z

Jfraatz:

User:Jfraatz

2009-11-27T21:30:03Z

Jfraatz:

User:Jfraatz

2009-11-27T21:29:45Z

Jfraatz:

Hello, my name is Johanan Raatz. I live in Wisconsin where I attend the University of Milwaukee Wisconsin. My interests include theoretical physics, neoconservative politics, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind. I also network on facebook for political purposes.

Pages I've added:

[[Fetal rights]]
[[Fegeism]]
[[Democratic Failure]]

User:Jfraatz

2009-11-27T21:29:38Z

Jfraatz:

Hello, my name is Johanan Raatz. I live in Wisconsin where I attend the University of Milwaukee Wisconsin. My interests include theoretical physics, neoconservative politics, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind. I also network on facebook for political purposes.

Pages I've added:

[[Fetal rights]]
[[Fegeism]]
[[Democratic failure]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-27T21:28:47Z

Jfraatz: /* Reply to Andrew Schlafly */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-27T21:28:08Z

Jfraatz: /* Reply to Andrew Schlafly */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-27T21:26:52Z

Jfraatz: /* Reply to Mr. Schlafly */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-27T21:26:35Z

Jfraatz: /* Reply to Mr. Schlafly */ new section

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-11-27T21:01:23Z

Jfraatz: /* Conservative words and terms */

[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The "tax-and-spend" slogan stuck to Harry Hopkins like a well-fitted suit.]]Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words,<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> and many good words have developed since then.

The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. [[Conservative]] terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms are.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611, and [[William Shakespeare]] had written virtually all of his plays.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|15
|-
|1700s
|30
|-
|1800s
|60
|-
|1900s
|127
|-
|2000s
|6 (preliminary)
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings
|-
|algorithm
|1894
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|anarchic personality
|2009
|An individual who believes that there is no transcendent moral authority or who see ALL authority, even abstract authority, as tyrannical for it's own sake. Anarchic personalities can be classified with having a form of oppositional defiance disorder.
|-
|anti-choice
|2008
|the position of opposing school vouchers
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search, yet the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't recognize this important term
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|anti-faith bigotry
|2008
|opposition to religious elements in culture, and discrimination against people of faith
|-
|anti-fetal rights extremist
|2008
|pro-abortion extremist who favors abortion under all circumstances regardless of consideration, and opposes fetal rights even in cases where they do not intefere with abortions
|-
|antilife
|1929
|critical term describing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|assimilate
|late 1800s
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|bailout
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|biased
|1649
|
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone else unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|A person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"Popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|Unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap"
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|Coasean
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|[[comparative advantage]]
|1815<ref>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/orig.html</ref>
|developed by the classical economist [[David Ricardo]], this reflects the insight that each country should "do what it does best" in deciding which goods to produce
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|community values
|2009
|The values around which cultural integration is to occur, as opposed to divisive values that promote diversity and multiculturalism.
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|-
|[[Democratic Failure|democratic failure]]
|?
|A failure of a democratic consensus to uphold the democratic principles of classical liberalism.
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|disunity
|2009
|The state of divisiveness and discord within a community caused by divisive identity politics.
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|[[George Orwell]] first coined this term in ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1883
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto
undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fegeism]]
|2008
|fetal ageism, discrimination and bigotry against individuals in fetal stages of development
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party.
|-
|fetal child
|2007
|an individual in a fetal stage of development
|-
|[[fetal rights]]
|?
|the human rights pertaining to fetal children
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|globalism
|1997
|MW states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term 'globalism'<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by [[George Orwell]]
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|Coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|heterocentric societal benefits
|2009
|benefits gained from maintaining heterosexual cultural norms in society
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>This has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, fighting for those less fortunate- justice for humanity
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting politics for racial, ethnic, gender equality.
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"[W]e [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|judicial activism
|1947
|First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|One who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|judicial taking
|1982
|Deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] [[granted cert.]] on this issue in 2009.
|-
|junk science
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|moral clarity
|?
|The ability to see universal principles and make objective moral judgments based on self-evident moral truths.
|-
|moral degenerate
|2009
|an individual who does not believe in a natural moral law of any kind
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: that was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|normative impairment
|2009
|the inability to make objective moral judgments of anothers actions of any kind
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|The ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|See [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|parenting
|1958
|Children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotically incorrect hate speech
|2007
|Speech attacking America, Americans as a people, or American interests.
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by the Supreme Court. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|Spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|simplistic relativism
|2009
|the simplistic reduction of all of ethics to relativism, which lacks any serious intellectual attempt to find an objective basis for morality
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|socialist
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|language equating equality of outcome with justice
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|statism
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|exploitation of diversity:
|2009
|Using diversity to discriminate against politically incorrect identity groups (WASPs, "rich white European males" etc. etc.)
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with such distractions
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|underemployed
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|values deniers
|2009
|people who do not believe in natural law
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|victimization
|1840
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|}

'''Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms'''

__TOC__ 

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|Misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline
|-
|[[Limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|[[limousine liberal]]
|hypocrite
|rich promoting causes which they themselves don't adhere to
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|Religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|Someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|Even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassionate-care clinics
|2008
|a term describe pot-shops that dispense medical marijuana <ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/?postversion=2009091116 How marijuana became legal, CNN, September 11, 2009]</ref>
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|Treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"A style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|main squeeze
|1968
|one's romantic partner, typically in an unmarried relationship
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|Originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|shovel-ready <ref>[http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/04/is-it-time-to-add-shovelready-to-the-dictionary.html Is it time to add shovel-ready to the dictionary? Skyline Views, April 24, 2009]</ref>
|2008
|jobs and people ready to work if funded
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transforming society
|2008
|Obama, Rahm and Axelrod use this term. It dates to [[Saul Alinsky]] and Chicago politics. <ref>[http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# Mark Levin Show, July 7, 2009]</ref>
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|10
|-
|1900s
|29 (9 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|5
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|Cold War
|1947
|open hostilities and ideological driven differences between nations
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|Multitasking
|1966
|multiple task all at once
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>This first use was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|underdog
|1887
|conservative or liberal?
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|eleemosynary
|1616
|relating to charity
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|Luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|smart aleck
|1856
|an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to being superior to others. Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart%20alec Smart Aleck Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-11-27T20:59:52Z

Jfraatz: /* Conservative words and terms */

[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The "tax-and-spend" slogan stuck to Harry Hopkins like a well-fitted suit.]]Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words,<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> and many good words have developed since then.

The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. [[Conservative]] terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms are.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611, and [[William Shakespeare]] had written virtually all of his plays.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|15
|-
|1700s
|30
|-
|1800s
|60
|-
|1900s
|127
|-
|2000s
|6 (preliminary)
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings
|-
|algorithm
|1894
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|anarchic personality
|2009
|An individual who believes that there is no transcendent moral authority or who see ALL authority, even abstract authority, as tyrannical for it's own sake. Anarchic personalities can be classified with having a form of oppositional defiance disorder.
|-
|anti-choice
|2008
|the position of opposing school vouchers
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search, yet the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't recognize this important term
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|anti-faith bigotry
|2008
|opposition to religious elements in culture, and discrimination against people of faith
|-
|anti-fetal rights extremist
|2008
|pro-abortion extremist who favors abortion under all circumstances regardless of consideration, and opposes fetal rights even in cases where they do not intefere with abortions
|-
|antilife
|1929
|critical term describing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|assimilate
|late 1800s
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|bailout
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|biased
|1649
|
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone else unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|A person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"Popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|Unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap"
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|Coasean
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|[[comparative advantage]]
|1815<ref>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/orig.html</ref>
|developed by the classical economist [[David Ricardo]], this reflects the insight that each country should "do what it does best" in deciding which goods to produce
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|community values
|2009
|The values around which cultural integration is to occur, as opposed to divisive values that promote diversity and multiculturalism.
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|-
|[[Democratic Failure|democratic failure]]
|?
|A failure of a democratic consensus to uphold the democratic principles of classical liberalism.
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|disunity
|2009
|The state of divisiveness and discord within a community caused by divisive identity politics.
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|[[George Orwell]] first coined this term in ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1883
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto
undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fegeism]]
|2008
|fetal ageism, discrimination and bigotry against individuals in fetal stages of development
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party.
|-
|fetal child
|2007
|an individual in a fetal stage of development
|-
|[[fetal rights]]
|?
|the human rights pertaining to fetal children
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|globalism
|1997
|MW states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term 'globalism'<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by [[George Orwell]]
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|Coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|heterocentric societal benefits
|2009
|benefits gained from maintaining heterosexual cultural norms in society
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>This has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, fighting for those less fortunate- justice for humanity
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting politics for racial, ethnic, gender equality.
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"[W]e [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|judicial activism
|1947
|First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|One who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|judicial taking
|1982
|Deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] [[granted cert.]] on this issue in 2009.
|-
|junk science
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|moral clarity
|?
|The ability to see universal principles and make objective moral judgments based on self-evident moral truths.
|-
|moral degenerate
|2009
|an individual who does not believe in a natural moral law of any kind
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: that was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|normative impairment
|2009
|the inability to make objective moral judgments of anothers actions of any kind
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|The ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|See [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|parenting
|1958
|Children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotically incorrect hate speech
|2007
|Speech attacking America, Americans as a people, or American interests.
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by the Supreme Court. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|Spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|simplistic relativism
|2009
|the simplistic reduction of all of ethics to relativism, which lacks any serious intellectual attempt to find an objective basis for morality
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|socialist
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|language equating equality of outcome with justice
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|statism
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|exploitation of diversity:
|2009
|Using diversity to discriminate against politically incorrect identity groups (WASPs, "rich white European males" etc. etc.)
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with such distractions
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|underemployed
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|victimization
|1840
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|}

'''Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms'''

__TOC__ 

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|Misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline
|-
|[[Limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|[[limousine liberal]]
|hypocrite
|rich promoting causes which they themselves don't adhere to
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|Religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|Someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|Even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassionate-care clinics
|2008
|a term describe pot-shops that dispense medical marijuana <ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/?postversion=2009091116 How marijuana became legal, CNN, September 11, 2009]</ref>
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|Treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"A style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|main squeeze
|1968
|one's romantic partner, typically in an unmarried relationship
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|Originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|shovel-ready <ref>[http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/04/is-it-time-to-add-shovelready-to-the-dictionary.html Is it time to add shovel-ready to the dictionary? Skyline Views, April 24, 2009]</ref>
|2008
|jobs and people ready to work if funded
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transforming society
|2008
|Obama, Rahm and Axelrod use this term. It dates to [[Saul Alinsky]] and Chicago politics. <ref>[http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# Mark Levin Show, July 7, 2009]</ref>
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|10
|-
|1900s
|29 (9 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|5
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|Cold War
|1947
|open hostilities and ideological driven differences between nations
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|Multitasking
|1966
|multiple task all at once
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>This first use was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|underdog
|1887
|conservative or liberal?
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|eleemosynary
|1616
|relating to charity
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|Luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|smart aleck
|1856
|an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to being superior to others. Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart%20alec Smart Aleck Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]