This is Part 2 in a series. Part 1 showed where America actually ranks. Now, before we follow the money, we need to talk about why you’ve been trained to stop listening the moment certain words appear.
How I Realized We Needed This Post
I was working on the next piece in this series – the one that follows the money and shows exactly who profits from America’s failures. I was using an AI assistant to help structure the arguments, and it asked me something that stopped me cold:
“Would you like me to use conservative-friendly framing so we don’t trigger people and lose them?”
My first instinct was yes. Of course. Use language that doesn’t make people defensive. Meet them where they are. Use “market competition” instead of “regulation.” Say “removing barriers” instead of “wealth inequality.”
Then I realized: That’s the whole fucking problem.
The fact that we have to tiptoe around certain words – the fact that there are entire concepts we can’t discuss without triggering an emotional shutdown – that’s not just a communication challenge. That’s the weapon being used against us.
So I asked the AI: “Break down for me how words are used as emotional triggers to get people to stop listening.”
What came back was illuminating. And infuriating. Because once you see the pattern, you can’t unsee it.
We can’t have an honest conversation about what’s happening in America because certain words have been weaponized to prevent that conversation from ever starting.
So before we follow the money, we need to disarm the weapons. We need to expose how language is used to keep you from thinking. Because in the next post, every single trigger word we’re about to discuss will appear – and your brain will want to shut down before you see who’s robbing you.
This post is your inoculation.
Why Keep You Fighting? (It’s Not a Conspiracy)
Before we go further, let’s address the obvious question: Why would anyone want to keep regular people fighting each other?
Not because there’s a smoke-filled room with villains plotting.
Because people who benefit from the status quo don’t need to plot – they just need things to stay the same.
Think about it:
- If you’re making billions from healthcare extraction, you don’t need to coordinate with other billionaires. You just need people to NOT demand change.
- If you’re profiting from the prison system, you don’t need a conspiracy. You just need people to keep supporting “tough on crime” policies.
- If you’re a defense contractor, you don’t need secret meetings. You just need people to keep believing that cutting military spending = not supporting troops.
The system maintains itself through simple incentives:
When regular people fight about:
- Abortion, guns, pronouns, critical race theory, Dr. Seuss, Mr. Potato Head, trans athletes, woke corporations, cancel culture…
They’re NOT fighting about:
- Why healthcare costs $12,555/person but ranks 36th in outcomes
- Why we work more hours than almost every developed nation
- Why 1 in 5 American children lives in poverty
- Why we have more guns than people and 30x the homicide rate of similar countries
- Why student debt is $1.77 trillion and climbing
It’s not that someone invented culture war issues to distract you. Many of these are real issues that people genuinely care about.
It’s that focusing all your political energy on them ensures you never build a coalition large enough to change the economic extraction that affects everyone.
A working-class conservative and a working-class liberal have more in common economically than either has with a billionaire. But if they’re fighting about bathrooms and pronouns, they’ll never realize they’re both getting robbed by the same system.
The status quo doesn’t need to create division. It just needs to amplify the divisions that already exist. And that happens naturally when:
- Media makes money from engagement (outrage drives clicks)
- Politicians fundraise off cultural wedge issues
- Wealthy donors fund both parties but only on issues that don’t threaten extraction
No conspiracy required. Just aligned incentives.
Now let’s look at how language is used to keep those fights going.
The Setup
In Part 1, we looked at objective data. Rankings. Numbers. Measurements.
America ranks near the bottom in life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality, child poverty, social mobility, education, work-life balance, and safety. We rank #1 in healthcare spending, incarceration, military spending, and medical bankruptcies.
Those are facts. Measurements. They’re not opinions, and they’re not political positions.
But here’s what will happen when we start exploring WHY:
The moment certain words appear – socialism, free markets, redistribution, regulation, capitalism, welfare – many readers will stop thinking and start reacting.
That’s not an accident. That’s the design.
Before we can talk about who’s taking your money and how they’re doing it, we need to talk about how you’ve been trained to defend the people robbing you.
The Language Trap: How It Works
Here’s the basic mechanism:
Step 1: Take a neutral word that describes a thing
Examples:
- Regulation (rules for how markets operate)
- Socialism (government ownership of production)
- Capitalism (private ownership of production)
- Welfare (programs that help people in need)
- Tax (money collected to fund government services)
Step 2: Load it with emotional weight through repetition
Associate the word with:
- Fear (this leads to tyranny/collapse/destruction)
- Moral judgment (this is evil/lazy/greedy)
- Identity (people who support this are the enemy)
- Absolutes (any amount of this is catastrophic)
Step 3: Use it to stop analysis
Now whenever someone tries to discuss the actual thing, you can deploy the loaded word to trigger an emotional response that prevents thinking:
- “That’s socialism” → stops discussion of whether a policy works
- “Government overreach” → stops discussion of whether regulation prevents harm
- “Class warfare” → stops discussion of wealth concentration
- “Handouts” → stops discussion of whether programs reduce poverty
- “Cancel culture” → stops discussion of whether criticism is valid
Step 4: Make any nuanced position impossible
Once the word is loaded, you can’t even analyze specifics:
- Can’t discuss which regulations help vs. hurt → all regulation is “government control”
- Can’t discuss which social programs work vs. don’t → all programs are “socialism”
- Can’t discuss tax rates on billionaires → all tax discussion is “redistribution”
- Can’t examine military spending effectiveness → any reduction is “weakening America”
The result: You literally cannot talk about what’s actually happening because the words themselves shut down your brain before analysis begins.
Let’s Test This On You Right Now
I’m going to write two sentences. Notice your reaction to each:
Sentence 1: “We should examine whether current regulations favor large corporations over small businesses and reduce barriers to market competition.”
Sentence 2: “We should implement socialist policies to redistribute wealth from the rich.”
Did you notice your brain’s response?
The first sentence probably felt reasonable, maybe even conservative-friendly. The second sentence probably triggered some reaction – either positive (finally!) or negative (here we go…).
But here’s the thing: I haven’t actually said anything substantive in either sentence.
- Sentence 1 sounds nice but is meaningless without specifics. Which regulations? What barriers? How?
- Sentence 2 is loaded with trigger words but also meaningless without specifics. Which policies? What wealth? How much?
Neither sentence contains enough information to evaluate whether the policy would help or hurt you.
Yet one felt safe and one felt loaded. That’s not analysis. That’s conditioning.
The Trigger Words and What They Actually Mean
Let’s defuse some common ones by showing what they actually describe vs. what you’ve been trained to feel:
“Socialism”
What it actually means: Government ownership of the means of production (factories, farms, businesses).
How it’s used: Any government program that helps people.
Examples of “socialism” according to modern usage:
- Social Security (not socialism – it’s social insurance)
- Medicare (not socialism – it’s single-payer insurance)
- Public schools (not socialism – it’s public service)
- Fire departments (not socialism – it’s public service)
- The military (not socialism – it’s… wait, this one’s actually government-owned)
The con: By calling everything “socialism,” you can’t distinguish between:
- Norway (capitalist country with strong social programs) ← they call this socialism
- Cuba (actual socialist country with government-owned production) ← this is actual socialism
- Soviet Union (communist country with centralized control) ← totally different system
So when you see data showing Norway has better healthcare, longer lives, and higher social mobility, you’ve been trained to think: “That’s socialism, which means Soviet Union, which means tyranny, so we can’t do that.”
But Norway isn’t socialist. It’s capitalist with guard rails.
The word “socialism” is used to prevent you from examining what actually works.
“Free Market” / “Capitalism”
What it actually means: Private ownership with competition determining prices and allocation.
How it’s used: Whatever the wealthy want to do should be unregulated.
The con: A “free market” requires:
- Competition (not monopolies)
- Transparent pricing (not hidden costs)
- Freedom to enter/exit (not artificial barriers)
- Equal information (not asymmetric knowledge)
- No externalities (or someone pays for pollution/damage)
American healthcare is called a “free market” but has:
- ✗ No competition (try shopping for an ER during a heart attack)
- ✗ No transparent pricing (costs are hidden until after service)
- ✗ No freedom to exit (insurance tied to employment)
- ✗ Massive information asymmetry (you can’t evaluate medical necessity)
- ✗ Huge externalities (untreated sick people affect everyone)
It’s not a free market. It’s extraction.
But the moment you suggest “maybe we should regulate this,” you’re accused of “attacking capitalism.”
Actual capitalism requires rules. Preventing monopolies is pro-capitalism. Requiring transparent pricing is pro-capitalism. Breaking up concentrated power is pro-capitalism.
The word “free market” is used to defend extraction that prevents actual market competition.
“Regulation”
What it actually means: Rules for how markets operate.
How it’s used: Government interference that always hurts business.
The con: ALL markets have regulations. The question is never “regulation vs. no regulation.” The question is always: “Whose interests do the regulations serve?”
Examples:
- Regulations that help regular people: Food safety standards, building codes, worker safety rules, anti-monopoly laws
- Regulations that help wealthy/corporations: Occupational licensing that blocks competition, zoning laws that prevent housing supply, patent extensions that prevent generic drugs, limited liability that shields executives from consequences
Notice: Both are “regulation.” But one set protects you, one set extracts from you.
When you hear someone say “cut regulations,” ask: WHICH regulations?
- Cut food safety rules? (Helps corporations, hurts you)
- Cut monopoly protections? (Helps corporations, hurts you)
- Cut occupational licensing barriers? (Helps you, hurts incumbent businesses)
- Cut zoning restrictions? (Helps you, hurts property owners who want artificial scarcity)
The word “regulation” is used to make you defend rules that hurt you while opposing rules that help you.
“Redistribution”
What it actually means: Moving money from one group to another through policy.
How it’s used: Taking from “makers” and giving to “takers.”
The con: ALL economic systems redistribute. The question is never “redistribution vs. no redistribution.” The question is: “Redistribution toward whom?”
Current US policy redistributes:
- Upward: Capital gains taxed lower than wages (money flows to investors, not workers)
- Upward: Mortgage interest deduction (bigger house = bigger tax break)
- Upward: Step-up basis on inheritance (wealth passes tax-free to heirs)
- Upward: Corporate subsidies (profitable companies get tax breaks)
- Upward: Limited liability protections (executives take risks, society absorbs losses)
When you oppose “redistribution,” you’re not opposing the redistribution that’s happening to you right now. You’re defending it.
The word “redistribution” is used to make you angry about crumbs going to poor people while ignoring billions flowing to wealthy people.
“Welfare”
What it actually means: Programs that provide assistance to people in need.
How it’s used: Money given to lazy people who won’t work.
The con: The biggest welfare recipients in America are:
- Corporations getting subsidies and tax breaks
- Wealthy individuals getting preferential tax treatment
- Industries getting bailouts when they fail
- Homeowners getting mortgage interest deductions
But we call it:
- “Job creation incentives”
- “Business-friendly policies”
- “Too big to fail”
- “Middle-class tax relief”
Meanwhile, food assistance for a single mother working two jobs is “welfare.”
2008 Financial Crisis example:
- Banks get $498 billion in bailouts → “Necessary to save the economy”
- Auto workers keep pensions → “Unfair bailout of unions”
COVID-19 Pandemic example:
- Paycheck Protection Program: $800 billion, much went to businesses that didn’t need it → “Economic relief”
- Expanded unemployment benefits: $669 billion, went to workers who lost jobs → “People getting lazy on welfare”
The word “welfare” is used to make you angry about helping poor people while accepting much larger transfers to wealthy people.
“Handout”
What it actually means: Something given without work.
How it’s used: Any assistance to poor people.
The con:
Things we call “handouts”:
- Food stamps for working families
- Medicaid for low-income children
- Unemployment insurance (that you paid into)
Things we don’t call “handouts”:
- Inherited wealth (literal money you didn’t earn)
- Capital gains treatment (lower taxes on investment income vs. work income)
- Corporate tax breaks (literally free money to profitable companies)
- Farm subsidies (direct payments to agricultural businesses)
A billionaire’s child inheriting $500 million tax-free: Not a handout A single mother getting $200/month in food stamps while working full-time: Handout
The word “handout” is used to stigmatize help for poor people while normalizing much larger transfers to wealthy people.
“Personal Responsibility”
What it actually means: People should be accountable for their choices.
How it’s used: If you’re struggling, it’s your fault.
The con: “Personal responsibility” only applies downward, never upward.
Applied to regular people:
- Can’t afford healthcare → Should have gotten a better job
- Drowned in student debt → Should have made better choices
- Lost your home in 2008 → Should have read your mortgage contract
- Working two jobs but still poor → Should have learned to code
Not applied to wealthy people:
- Banks cause financial crisis → Get bailed out, no prosecutions
- Company fails due to bad management → CEO gets golden parachute
- Pharmaceutical company creates opioid epidemic → Pays fine, no jail time
- Hedge fund loses billions → Investors get tax writeoffs
The phrase “personal responsibility” is used to punish people for systemic failures while excusing wealthy people for actual misconduct.
The Pattern: Notice What All These Have In Common
Every single one of these loaded terms:
- Stops you from analyzing specifics – Forces you into binary thinking
- Applies different standards to different groups – Harsh for regular people, gentle for wealthy
- Defends extraction – Protects systems that take your money
- Prevents comparison – Can’t look at what works elsewhere
- Triggers emotion instead of thought – You react before you analyze
This is not accidental.
The Test: Can You Discuss The Actual Thing?
Here’s how to know if you’re thinking or just reacting:
Try to discuss the specific policy without using the loaded word.
Example 1:
- ❌ “That’s socialism!”
- ✓ “Let’s look at whether government-provided healthcare gives better outcomes per dollar than private insurance”
Example 2:
- ❌ “The free market will solve it!”
- ✓ “Let’s examine whether this market has the conditions necessary for competition to work”
Example 3:
- ❌ “Stop redistributing wealth!”
- ✓ “Let’s compare effective tax rates across income levels and see where money is actually flowing”
If you can’t discuss the actual policy without using the trigger word, you’re not thinking. You’re reacting.
Why This Matters For What Comes Next
In the next post, we’re going to follow the money. We’re going to show exactly how wealth is extracted from regular people through:
- Healthcare that costs 3x other countries while delivering worse results
- Incarceration that costs billions while making us less safe
- Military spending that enriches contractors while losing wars
- Student debt that enriches loan servicers while crushing young people
Every single one of these systems will trigger the words we just discussed.
When you read about healthcare, your brain might want to yell “socialism!” When you read about military spending, your brain might want to yell “support the troops!” When you read about student debt, your brain might want to yell “personal responsibility!” When you read about incarceration, your brain might want to yell “tough on crime!”
Those reactions are not your thoughts. They’re your conditioning.
And that conditioning exists to prevent you from seeing who’s taking your money.
The Real Question
Before we go any further, ask yourself:
Am I willing to look at what’s actually happening, even if it contradicts what I’ve been taught to believe?
Because here’s what the data shows:
- We pay the most and get the worst results
- Other countries do it differently and get better results
- Specific people and industries profit from us continuing to fail
- Those people and industries fund the rhetoric that keeps you from seeing it
You can either:
- Keep reacting to trigger words and defending the people who are robbing you
- Look at the actual mechanisms and decide if you’re okay with them
This isn’t about left or right. It’s about up or down.
The people extracting wealth from you don’t care about your politics. They care about keeping you too angry at other regular people to notice what they’re doing.
Next Time
Now that you can recognize when you’re being manipulated by language, we can follow the money without your brain shutting down when trigger words appear.
Part 3: “Follow the Money – How the Game is Rigged”
We’ll trace exactly where your healthcare dollars go (not to healthcare), where military spending goes (not to troops), where your work hours go (not to you), and who profits from keeping it this way.
But you’ll need to keep your conditioning in check. Because they’re going to use every trigger word we just discussed to stop you from seeing it.
If this made you uncomfortable, good. Comfort is the enemy of truth. The question isn’t whether you like what the data shows – the question is whether you’re brave enough to look at it.
Share this if you think others need to see how the language game works. The first step in breaking conditioning is recognizing it exists.
This is Part 2 in a series. Part 1 showed where America actually ranks. Now, before we follow the money, we need to talk about why you’ve been trained to stop listening the moment certain words appear.
How I Realized We Needed This Post
I was working on the next piece in this series – the one that follows the money and shows exactly who profits from America’s failures. I was using an AI assistant to help structure the arguments, and it asked me something that stopped me cold:
“Would you like me to use conservative-friendly framing so we don’t trigger people and lose them?”
My first instinct was yes. Of course. Use language that doesn’t make people defensive. Meet them where they are. Use “market competition” instead of “regulation.” Say “removing barriers” instead of “wealth inequality.”
Then I realized: That’s the whole fucking problem.
The fact that we have to tiptoe around certain words – the fact that there are entire concepts we can’t discuss without triggering an emotional shutdown – that’s not just a communication challenge. That’s the weapon being used against us.
So I asked the AI: “Break down for me how words are used as emotional triggers to get people to stop listening.”
What came back was illuminating. And infuriating. Because once you see the pattern, you can’t unsee it.
We can’t have an honest conversation about what’s happening in America because certain words have been weaponized to prevent that conversation from ever starting.
So before we follow the money, we need to disarm the weapons. We need to expose how language is used to keep you from thinking. Because in the next post, every single trigger word we’re about to discuss will appear – and your brain will want to shut down before you see who’s robbing you.
This post is your inoculation.
The Setup
In Part 1, we looked at objective data. Rankings. Numbers. Measurements.
America ranks near the bottom in life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality, child poverty, social mobility, education, work-life balance, and safety. We rank #1 in healthcare spending, incarceration, military spending, and medical bankruptcies.
Those are facts. Measurements. They’re not opinions, and they’re not political positions.
But here’s what will happen when we start exploring WHY:
The moment certain words appear – socialism, free markets, redistribution, regulation, capitalism, welfare – many readers will stop thinking and start reacting.
That’s not an accident. That’s the design.
Before we can talk about who’s taking your money and how they’re doing it, we need to talk about how you’ve been trained to defend the people robbing you.
The Language Trap: How It Works
Here’s the basic mechanism:
Step 1: Take a neutral word that describes a thing
Examples:
- Regulation (rules for how markets operate)
- Socialism (government ownership of production)
- Capitalism (private ownership of production)
- Welfare (programs that help people in need)
- Tax (money collected to fund government services)
Step 2: Load it with emotional weight through repetition
Associate the word with:
- Fear (this leads to tyranny/collapse/destruction)
- Moral judgment (this is evil/lazy/greedy)
- Identity (people who support this are the enemy)
- Absolutes (any amount of this is catastrophic)
Step 3: Use it to stop analysis
Now whenever someone tries to discuss the actual thing, you can deploy the loaded word to trigger an emotional response that prevents thinking:
- “That’s socialism” → stops discussion of whether a policy works
- “Government overreach” → stops discussion of whether regulation prevents harm
- “Class warfare” → stops discussion of wealth concentration
- “Handouts” → stops discussion of whether programs reduce poverty
- “Cancel culture” → stops discussion of whether criticism is valid
Step 4: Make any nuanced position impossible
Once the word is loaded, you can’t even analyze specifics:
- Can’t discuss which regulations help vs. hurt → all regulation is “government control”
- Can’t discuss which social programs work vs. don’t → all programs are “socialism”
- Can’t discuss tax rates on billionaires → all tax discussion is “redistribution”
- Can’t examine military spending effectiveness → any reduction is “weakening America”
The result: You literally cannot talk about what’s actually happening because the words themselves shut down your brain before analysis begins.
Let’s Test This On You Right Now
I’m going to write two sentences. Notice your reaction to each:
Sentence 1: “We should examine whether current regulations favor large corporations over small businesses and reduce barriers to market competition.”
Sentence 2: “We should implement socialist policies to redistribute wealth from the rich.”
Did you notice your brain’s response?
The first sentence probably felt reasonable, maybe even conservative-friendly. The second sentence probably triggered some reaction – either positive (finally!) or negative (here we go…).
But here’s the thing: I haven’t actually said anything substantive in either sentence.
- Sentence 1 sounds nice but is meaningless without specifics. Which regulations? What barriers? How?
- Sentence 2 is loaded with trigger words but also meaningless without specifics. Which policies? What wealth? How much?
Neither sentence contains enough information to evaluate whether the policy would help or hurt you.
Yet one felt safe and one felt loaded. That’s not analysis. That’s conditioning.
The Trigger Words and What They Actually Mean
Let’s defuse some common ones by showing what they actually describe vs. what you’ve been trained to feel:
“Socialism”
What it actually means: Government ownership of the means of production (factories, farms, businesses).
How it’s used: Any government program that helps people.
Examples of “socialism” according to modern usage:
- Social Security (not socialism – it’s social insurance)
- Medicare (not socialism – it’s single-payer insurance)
- Public schools (not socialism – it’s public service)
- Fire departments (not socialism – it’s public service)
- The military (not socialism – it’s… wait, this one’s actually government-owned)
The con: By calling everything “socialism,” you can’t distinguish between:
- Norway (capitalist country with strong social programs) ← they call this socialism
- Cuba (actual socialist country with government-owned production) ← this is actual socialism
- Soviet Union (communist country with centralized control) ← totally different system
So when you see data showing Norway has better healthcare, longer lives, and higher social mobility, you’ve been trained to think: “That’s socialism, which means Soviet Union, which means tyranny, so we can’t do that.”
But Norway isn’t socialist. It’s capitalist with guard rails.
The word “socialism” is used to prevent you from examining what actually works.
“Free Market” / “Capitalism”
What it actually means: Private ownership with competition determining prices and allocation.
How it’s used: Whatever the wealthy want to do should be unregulated.
The con: A “free market” requires:
- Competition (not monopolies)
- Transparent pricing (not hidden costs)
- Freedom to enter/exit (not artificial barriers)
- Equal information (not asymmetric knowledge)
- No externalities (or someone pays for pollution/damage)
American healthcare is called a “free market” but has:
- ✗ No competition (try shopping for an ER during a heart attack)
- ✗ No transparent pricing (costs are hidden until after service)
- ✗ No freedom to exit (insurance tied to employment)
- ✗ Massive information asymmetry (you can’t evaluate medical necessity)
- ✗ Huge externalities (untreated sick people affect everyone)
It’s not a free market. It’s extraction.
But the moment you suggest “maybe we should regulate this,” you’re accused of “attacking capitalism.”
Actual capitalism requires rules. Preventing monopolies is pro-capitalism. Requiring transparent pricing is pro-capitalism. Breaking up concentrated power is pro-capitalism.
The word “free market” is used to defend extraction that prevents actual market competition.
“Regulation”
What it actually means: Rules for how markets operate.
How it’s used: Government interference that always hurts business.
The con: ALL markets have regulations. The question is never “regulation vs. no regulation.” The question is always: “Whose interests do the regulations serve?”
Examples:
- Regulations that help regular people: Food safety standards, building codes, worker safety rules, anti-monopoly laws
- Regulations that help wealthy/corporations: Occupational licensing that blocks competition, zoning laws that prevent housing supply, patent extensions that prevent generic drugs, limited liability that shields executives from consequences
Notice: Both are “regulation.” But one set protects you, one set extracts from you.
When you hear someone say “cut regulations,” ask: WHICH regulations?
- Cut food safety rules? (Helps corporations, hurts you)
- Cut monopoly protections? (Helps corporations, hurts you)
- Cut occupational licensing barriers? (Helps you, hurts incumbent businesses)
- Cut zoning restrictions? (Helps you, hurts property owners who want artificial scarcity)
The word “regulation” is used to make you defend rules that hurt you while opposing rules that help you.
“Redistribution”
What it actually means: Moving money from one group to another through policy.
How it’s used: Taking from “makers” and giving to “takers.”
The con: ALL economic systems redistribute. The question is never “redistribution vs. no redistribution.” The question is: “Redistribution toward whom?”
Current US policy redistributes:
- Upward: Capital gains taxed lower than wages (money flows to investors, not workers)
- Upward: Mortgage interest deduction (bigger house = bigger tax break)
- Upward: Step-up basis on inheritance (wealth passes tax-free to heirs)
- Upward: Corporate subsidies (profitable companies get tax breaks)
- Upward: Limited liability protections (executives take risks, society absorbs losses)
When you oppose “redistribution,” you’re not opposing the redistribution that’s happening to you right now. You’re defending it.
The word “redistribution” is used to make you angry about crumbs going to poor people while ignoring billions flowing to wealthy people.
“Welfare”
What it actually means: Programs that provide assistance to people in need.
How it’s used: Money given to lazy people who won’t work.
The con: The biggest welfare recipients in America are:
- Corporations getting subsidies and tax breaks
- Wealthy individuals getting preferential tax treatment
- Industries getting bailouts when they fail
- Homeowners getting mortgage interest deductions
But we call it:
- “Job creation incentives”
- “Business-friendly policies”
- “Too big to fail”
- “Middle-class tax relief”
Meanwhile, food assistance for a single mother working two jobs is “welfare.”
2008 Financial Crisis example:
- Banks get $498 billion in bailouts → “Necessary to save the economy”
- Auto workers keep pensions → “Unfair bailout of unions”
COVID-19 Pandemic example:
- Paycheck Protection Program: $800 billion, much went to businesses that didn’t need it → “Economic relief”
- Expanded unemployment benefits: $669 billion, went to workers who lost jobs → “People getting lazy on welfare”
The word “welfare” is used to make you angry about helping poor people while accepting much larger transfers to wealthy people.
“Handout”
What it actually means: Something given without work.
How it’s used: Any assistance to poor people.
The con:
Things we call “handouts”:
- Food stamps for working families
- Medicaid for low-income children
- Unemployment insurance (that you paid into)
Things we don’t call “handouts”:
- Inherited wealth (literal money you didn’t earn)
- Capital gains treatment (lower taxes on investment income vs. work income)
- Corporate tax breaks (literally free money to profitable companies)
- Farm subsidies (direct payments to agricultural businesses)
A billionaire’s child inheriting $500 million tax-free: Not a handout A single mother getting $200/month in food stamps while working full-time: Handout
The word “handout” is used to stigmatize help for poor people while normalizing much larger transfers to wealthy people.
“Personal Responsibility”
What it actually means: People should be accountable for their choices.
How it’s used: If you’re struggling, it’s your fault.
The con: “Personal responsibility” only applies downward, never upward.
Applied to regular people:
- Can’t afford healthcare → Should have gotten a better job
- Drowned in student debt → Should have made better choices
- Lost your home in 2008 → Should have read your mortgage contract
- Working two jobs but still poor → Should have learned to code
Not applied to wealthy people:
- Banks cause financial crisis → Get bailed out, no prosecutions
- Company fails due to bad management → CEO gets golden parachute
- Pharmaceutical company creates opioid epidemic → Pays fine, no jail time
- Hedge fund loses billions → Investors get tax writeoffs
The phrase “personal responsibility” is used to punish people for systemic failures while excusing wealthy people for actual misconduct.
The Pattern: Notice What All These Have In Common
Every single one of these loaded terms:
- Stops you from analyzing specifics – Forces you into binary thinking
- Applies different standards to different groups – Harsh for regular people, gentle for wealthy
- Defends extraction – Protects systems that take your money
- Prevents comparison – Can’t look at what works elsewhere
- Triggers emotion instead of thought – You react before you analyze
This is not accidental.
The Test: Can You Discuss The Actual Thing?
Here’s how to know if you’re thinking or just reacting:
Try to discuss the specific policy without using the loaded word.
Example 1:
- ❌ “That’s socialism!”
- ✓ “Let’s look at whether government-provided healthcare gives better outcomes per dollar than private insurance”
Example 2:
- ❌ “The free market will solve it!”
- ✓ “Let’s examine whether this market has the conditions necessary for competition to work”
Example 3:
- ❌ “Stop redistributing wealth!”
- ✓ “Let’s compare effective tax rates across income levels and see where money is actually flowing”
If you can’t discuss the actual policy without using the trigger word, you’re not thinking. You’re reacting.
Why This Matters For What Comes Next
In the next post, we’re going to follow the money. We’re going to show exactly how wealth is extracted from regular people through:
- Healthcare that costs 3x other countries while delivering worse results
- Incarceration that costs billions while making us less safe
- Military spending that enriches contractors while losing wars
- Student debt that enriches loan servicers while crushing young people
Every single one of these systems will trigger the words we just discussed.
When you read about healthcare, your brain might want to yell “socialism!” When you read about military spending, your brain might want to yell “support the troops!” When you read about student debt, your brain might want to yell “personal responsibility!” When you read about incarceration, your brain might want to yell “tough on crime!”
Those reactions are not your thoughts. They’re your conditioning.
And that conditioning exists to prevent you from seeing who’s taking your money.
The Real Question
Before we go any further, ask yourself:
Am I willing to look at what’s actually happening, even if it contradicts what I’ve been taught to believe?
Because here’s what the data shows:
- We pay the most and get the worst results
- Other countries do it differently and get better results
- Specific people and industries profit from us continuing to fail
- Those people and industries fund the rhetoric that keeps you from seeing it
You can either:
- Keep reacting to trigger words and defending the people who are robbing you
- Look at the actual mechanisms and decide if you’re okay with them
This isn’t about left or right. It’s about up or down.
The people extracting wealth from you don’t care about your politics. They care about keeping you too angry at other regular people to notice what they’re doing.
Next Time
Now that you can recognize when you’re being manipulated by language, we can follow the money without your brain shutting down when trigger words appear.
Part 3: “Follow the Money – How the Game is Rigged”
We’ll trace exactly where your healthcare dollars go (not to healthcare), where military spending goes (not to troops), where your work hours go (not to you), and who profits from keeping it this way.
But you’ll need to keep your conditioning in check. Because they’re going to use every trigger word we just discussed to stop you from seeing it.
If this made you uncomfortable, good. Comfort is the enemy of truth. The question isn’t whether you like what the data shows – the question is whether you’re brave enough to look at it.
Share this if you think others need to see how the language game works. The first step in breaking conditioning is recognizing it exists.
Even that's Odd 
Leave a comment