Asymmetric War Of Words

Asymmetric War Of Words


There was a time where it was easy to point out that the Orwellian nightmare we are in the middle of. Now that the practice of implementing doublethink and newspeak has taken hold, the biggest complaint is that in this country we have become too politically correct.

While I can’t deny that political correctness is a problem in this country, the idea of words being used as weapons is not something that has been talked about in an open forum.

The truth is that if anyone attempts to point out newspeak and doublethink, they are immediately told that they are some sort of political shill that wants to do harm to the party.

This hits the point right home because that was the point of the Orwellian nightmare. Orwell illustrated that words could be used as weapons, especially with regard to political speak because they could be used to mask the truth and mislead the public.

When reading the dystopian ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four‘, we wonder how it is possible that words and how they are used can politically manipulate and deceive people. This creates a society of people that are forced to accept unquestioningly, mindless propaganda as reality.

While most people are inclined to expand their lexicon and their thought processes, newspeak and doublethink were used to cause a withdrawal of meaningful expression, eliminate humor, irony, sarcasm, cynicism and skepticism when it is directed to political speech.

It can be said that what Orwell was expressing was that there was no need for a Tower of Babel to confuse communication; all that is needed is a determined and guided power that has control of talking points that are merely descriptions used to foster coercion.

The strategy of the power structure and political media is to create words that provide a trap of creating a phrase or word structure that coerces people into thinking that they would be crazy not to agree or identify with.

For example, you see that those who are for the woman’s right to have an abortion are called pro-choice, while those who oppose abortion are called pro-life. The difficulty the brain has in trying to understand these words are that choice is something we all want. Choice is fundamental in liberty. However, being pro-choice puts you into a category. Therefore you have to use doublethink in order to clarify that your pro- stance on choice is not based in reproductive rights, but in the foundations of liberty. Using the term pro-life also creates doublethink because: Who isn’t pro- or for the right to live life?

No one is anti-life and, of course, in some cases people may see life as far more important than choice.

This is obvious because of how we are now surrendering choice and life for the promise of safety. This is a hollow promise because we are now seeing that even with all of the safeguards that exist there are still moments where we witness bombings and terror events.

One of the terms for the so-called safeguards is the Patriot Act, which is far from an act of patriotism. However who is capable of question something that is supposed to be the act of a patriot, even though it nullifies most of the Constitution?

This fosters doublethink and derision by those whose party is responsible for bringing us a patriotic act in order to save us from terror. This has been one of the biggest examples of something going unquestioned because of title alone.

No one wishes to look unpatriotic after their country has suffered a loss during an unprovoked attack. That is why, with this weaponized phraseology, the thought of questioning the official story of the 9/11 is unpatriotic and yet it is more patriotic to concede that the terrorists have succeeded in having us alter the way we carry out the rule of law.

Now no one will admit to that—because the Patriot Act nullifies the very proposition.

With asymmetric warfare it is always a winning strategy to come up with a term that no one in their right mind would disagree with.

One of the more notorious phrases being used today is ‘climate change’. No one in their right mind would argue that there is no such thing as climate change. Climate change exists, it happens in cycles all the time.

What makes the phrase an Orwellian wet dream is how it has replaced the failed attempt at conditioning the world into believing in anthropogenic global warming. This long and tedious phrase is desperately being excised by the original “global warming” extremists because while you can argue that the planet has not seen an increase in temperature, you cannot argue effectively against the proposal that the climate has changed.

The climate has changed and it looks as if it is becoming colder. No one will argue “climate cooling” because it is easy to argue against it in the winter months. It can be cited as a natural and normal occurrence.

However, it is immediately appropriate to bring up global warming if the country sustains long term temperatures that surpass the 100 degree mark in summer months. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say that global warming is a reality if we see abnormally mild winters? Well apparently not.

Is it convenient to avoid talk about “global warming” scientists that set out to explore melting ice that wind up being stranded in an Ice shelf that they contended did not exist? It is yet another inappropriate thing to talk about even though it does create some doublethink.

If you disagree with environmental groups that call themselves friends of the earth, then you must be an enemy of the earth. How silly is it to think this? In a logical world it is very silly; in an Orwellian nightmare it is common.

That is why it is difficult for people to understand that you can be environmentally aware, recycle, plant trees, take care of the Earth as best you can and still believe that androgenic global warming, climate change, and whatever they come up with to explain the personality of nature is junk science.

Intelligent people will realize that all of those newspeak phrases are covers for the plans for global sustainability which includes plans for culling those who are a burden to the planet.

Hitler had a term for that, he called it “sifting human material,” something that sounds better than “the final solution” or “extermination.”

Of course, if anyone tries to open a forum where people engage in meaningful dialogue about the pros and cons of carbon science and how it will include taxation and a redistribution of wealth, those who believe in the newspeak will uses another hijacked term against those who reveal the manipulation.

That term is ‘conspiracy theorist‘.

Unfortunately “conspiracy theorist” is also a weaponized word that is used in the arsenal of those who wish to coerce and manipulate a conversation.

The prevailing definition of conspiracy theory in today’s Orwellian doppelganger is a piece of news that is considered horrible or destructive. Conspiracy theorists are so labeled because it is proposed that what they report is information that is not confirmed or denied, and therefore must not be trusted. Statistically it is easy to write off dissenting information as conspiracy theory and demean it into an unlikely set of coincidences and contrived parallels.

Many conspiracy theorists – or anyone who considers the possibility that the theories given ring some truth – are more than likely capable of being suspected as domestic terrorists, another weaponized phrase that vilifies anyone who openly supports the Constitution, openly disagrees with U.S. policies, refuses to comply at unconstitutional checkpoints and tends to side with libertarian views.

Political leaders see these individuals as enemies against American interests, a term that sounds as if it is a positive thing for America, but literally means the justification for interventionism by all means in any foreign country that objects to American and Israeli imperialism.

American interests are simply those interests that benefit the establishment of Empire building. Some see this as the path that will lead us into joining a world fascist cooperative known as the New World Order, an order that simply is not new, but a proposed world government that is similar to the Roman Empire.

By manipulating our language and changing the meaning of day to day words and phrases the social engineers attempt to control our ways of thinking.

Asymmetric weaponized words are ideal for a totalitarian system because it lessens the blow of the negativity that true speech creates. Truth now is uncomfortable and even when Newspeak is created as derogatory it can back fire.

Affordable health care becomes Obamacare, which literally implies that Barack Obama cares about your health, even though it is a pleasant way of describing the medical arm of the surveillance state and the effective and inexpensive plan for euthanasia and iatrogenesis.

Shelter in place” is a recently used, Orwellian-themed term that sounds like a measure that will protect you during a national emergency. However, it is quite literally a term that indicates temporary martial law. It can also be defined as mandatory safety and comfort as police storm through the neighborhood carrying out unlawful search and seizure.

Can you find violations of Fourth Amendment rights comfortable or even safe?

Yes, you can.

“Yes, we can” is another vacuous term that was used to encourage you to vote for Barack Obama. Who can argue with “yes you can”? Are we all fatalists that are going to say “No, you can’t”?

This is the creepiness of the influence of these weaponized words, these fluid and non discretionary uses if unspeak. They all sound like they are part of an all win proposition when they are far from it.

It creates a psychological schism. It promotes division and polarization. It goes far beyond the overused term of political correctness. It is done in a way that does not trigger public opposition and may be the reason why we have not rebelled.

That is the strength of Word warfare. No one would want to rebel against an act of patriotism or a patriot act—how can something like that be unconstitutional when it is labeled in a way that promotes patriotism?

It is linguistic trickery that has plagued us and confused us into surrendering our rights and freedoms. It has also created a climate where people are willing to surrender cognitive liberty, to the possibility of thought crime or pre-crime.

How can you trust your own thoughts when you are told that frigid cold temperatures that are plaguing the entire country are the result of a warming planet?

The ruling clique are capable are creating false dogma and force the masses to believe in it. The Orwellian idea that 2+2=5 can be applied in this situation as false dogma that the ruling class expects you to believe in order to not be detected as an agent of thought crime.

As Orwell writes: “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?

The answer is in plain sight. The words will be stuck on the tip or your tongue and will dangle on the frayed nerves of your logic. Proof will be demanded and even with proof you will no longer believe or trust.

There will be no words left to describe your confusion or your new found lack of faith.