WEAPONIZED STRATEGIC CONTEXT
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
As you well know, Halloween was a bit of a luxury for me because I was able to speak about some of the more terrifying and fascinating things about Halloween and the esoteric knowledge that I find fascinating.
Many of you that listen to my show understand that we explore all kinds of things that are paranormal, and in some cases analyze prevailing conspiracy theory in order to determine what the facts are as opposed to opinion and conjecture that pass as facts.
These topics are relevant, but for some people, these topics trample all over biases and constructs that have been programmed into them. For rigid thinkers, there is no room to evolve or grow into information that seems uncomfortable.
There are many who see themselves as too sophisticated to entertain metaphor or even question the status quo. They want everything to be homogenized and palatable and they are not keen to words that make them tremble or thundering words that challenge the framed narrative.
However, as we use history and true facts as guideposts we can reveal that there is yet another conspiracy afoot and this once is so diabolical it will eventually vilify us all.
There are many terminologies that I am going to be using to illustrate how this conspiracy is being implemented – it is intentional and in my opinion, should be considered criminal as it is a tactic that is being protected by the 1st Amendment.
The notion of freedom of speech tends to be ambiguous. It is used to refer to both the political right it enshrines, and the ethical ideal it embodies. There is also the right to a free press.
In order to have genuine freedom of speech, one must also be free to question, contradict, and even parody the assertions of others.
Also protected is the right to say that someone else’s choices of words are insensitive or inappropriate, that is called Censure. Censure is not the same thing as censorship; the right not to be censored by the government extends to the right to censure – that is, we can morally condemn the speech and acts of other people.
Once again all of these terms have been rendered ambiguous because when it comes to being censured; most Americans who do not know the difference and see it as censorship.
I have been accused many times of censorship when I have deleted a post or have banned someone from posting. When I see someone in my Facebook forum posting erroneous, insensitive or racist material, I have the right to protect my forum and remove the rank and file haters and trolls from putting my livelihood at risk.
There are not many people who have not learned the skills of using their words effectively nor are they capable of understanding the use of constructive criticism as opposed to using ad hominem attacks.
Most who use the latter are surprised when someone defends themselves against it and have now developed a rationalizing attitude about it because thanks to social media, everyone does it and they do it with the absence of forethought.
This does not make it right and this delicate issue has now grown into a monster as the media has decided that in order to further their agenda – they have created a form of speech that I want to term, “unspeak.”
Unspeak is an obsolete term that needs a new definition. While it is often used to denote a retraction of what has been said – I would like to further the meaning into not only retracting one’s speech –but to retract and then give a strategic context in order to make an excuse as to why a statement was made in the first place.
I came up with this when I heard the quote from President Trump where he says that “He always wants to tell the truth. When he can, he tells the truth,” basically the truth is told under certain conditions, it cannot be unsaid and so it is unspeak or words held up for scrutiny under strategic context.
When he uttered those words to ABC News he expounded upon his words by saying, “And sometimes it turns out to be where something happens that’s different or there’s a change, but I always like to be truthful.”
The media, of course, has had a field day with this quote.
The situation reminds me of the passage of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. Alice speaks with Humpty Dumpty about his choice of words and his ability to twist them so that he can appear intelligent:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
President Trump’s bending of language is similar to that of Humpty Dumpty – he uses words as the call and the media that plays off of their own egos give response using an equally destructive strategic context.
They weaponize words couched in a warped context and then they unsay it without recanting.
On Wednesday’s CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, the host responded to criticisms he received earlier in the week for comments he made while discussing a recent Kentucky grocery store shooting with Chris Cuomo on Cuomo Prime Time.
“We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.”
His words were offensive – but there was barely a comment about his ethnocentristic statement.
Finally, when he was confronted over his words, he was not ready to unspeak them or recant – he doubled down with weaponized strategic context.
Lemon justified his statements by saying “Let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold, hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming.”
He included stats from places like The Government Accountability Office, The Washington Post and The Anti-Defamation League to back up his point that the vast majority of deadly attacks in this country over the past couple of decades were carried out by far-right violent extremists.
When CNN was asked for comment they dropped the issue.
And while the criticism of Lemon will undoubtedly continue, he will undoubtedly keep doing what he does.
He continued to defend his comments by saying “So people who were angered about what I said are missing the entire point,” “We don’t need to worry about people who are thousands of miles away. The biggest threats are homegrown. The facts prove that.”
Meanwhile days earlier, Hillary Clinton also was able to avoid repercussions for making a racial statement by saying jokingly in an interview that all black men look the same.
Hillary Clinton made an insensitive remark that suggested former attorney general Eric Holder and Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, both of whom are black, “all look alike.”
Clinton asserted it was “childish” to “paint with a broad brush; every immigrant is this, every African American is that” as she discussed the Democratic Party’s “political correctness,” during an interview with Recode executive editor Kara Swisher in New York City on Saturday.
Swisher asked Clinton a question regarding a quip that was previously made by Holder, but mistook him for the junior senator from New Jersey: “What do you think of Corey Booker … what do you think about him saying ‘Kick them in the shins,’ essentially?”
“Well, that was Eric Holder,” Clinton said. “Yeah, I know they all look alike.”
“No, they don’t,” Swisher responded.
The “kick them in the shins” remark Swisher referenced came from Holder, who made that comment during a Democratic campaign event in Georgia earlier in October.
During the event, Holder modified former first lady Michelle Obama’s infamous slogan, “When they go low, we go high.”
“When they go low, we kick ’em,” Holder said at the time, adding: “That’s what this new Democratic Party is about.”
Then when he was criticized for his statements he then used unspeak using strategic context – Holder later qualified his quip by saying he was not encouraging people to do “anything inappropriate.”
Donald Trump has been held to the fire regarding race and insensitivity –with his detractors going as far as saying that he is anti-Semitic and has been blamed by the media as being responsible for the recent synagogue shootings in Pennsylvania.
Accused Pittsburgh synagogue killer Robert Bowers is a raving anti-Semitic white nationalist who also despises President Donald Trump.
However here lies the confusion – as strategic text and media manipulation does not give the proper context as they have been saying that Trump is Hitler and those who support him are anti-Semitic or worse.
It is becoming terrifyingly obvious that blaming the president for anything and everything bad that happens in our country is not just fashionable among the establishment media, it’s a requirement.
The sickening solution is to then watch Fox news –which basically defends the other baffling Strategic context and this creates massive confusion amongst the populace.
The media will tell everyone that they are not the enemy of the people – but what they are doing is something that is close to being criminal and they are hiding behind the freedom of the press in order to continue the bending and shaping of language –and couching all weaponizing and catalyzing words into strategic context –which has been called dog whistling.
It is word play to demonize what is perceived as a domestic adversary – for those like Don Lemon it is the demonizing of white Americans, for others, it is the warped ideology that supporting president Trump is a nod to anti-Semites that you support their cause.
There are no apology tours because this weaponizing of context is used to let unity die in this country.
Americans are now so polarized that they no longer share basic sympathies and trust because they no longer regard each other as worthy of equal consideration, they are at odds and they are already preparing for war against a perceived adversary.
The division is for a self-fulfilling prophecy of civil war.
The absence of unity makes it easy for the ruling oligarchy to achieve its police state rule for the sake of abolishing and destabilizing what is left of the United States.
It is an orchestrated conflict that has been seeded by unspeak and weaponized context.