General Semantics

General Semantics is a theory of ethical linguistics. It holds that use of the English verb "to be" and its equivalents in other languages is necessarily dogmatic, and that it deliberately confuses three different types of relationships that are better characterized by the words becomes, remains, and equals. That is, rather than say "A is B", one is forced to say "A becomes B", "A remains B" or "A equals B", which will necessarily force the author of the statement to limit the statement to a context and time horizon. At the very least, "equals" must refer to a definitive relationship true only for the moment the snapshot is taken, "remains" must refer to a relationship that already exists in the past tense, and "becomes" must refer to a relationship that will exist in the future. Since we have different action choices in these time frames, we must use quite different words to describe them, else we are deliberately creating confusion.

Should Consumerium Governance Organization restrict itself to General Semantics in its discourses? That is, ignore all statements using to be?