This use of language is a form of propaganda - and this vocabulary
propaganda is much more subtle and effective than content propaganda.
Content propaganda misinforms about issues, but vocabulary propaganda
interferes with the ability to think or talk about issues in a way that can
lead to understanding or enable effective political organizing.
As Orwell predicted, this kind of propaganda makes language volatile. In his
scenario, one might read in the morning paper about an action against an
enemy, with no mention that the same folks were faithful allies as recently
as yesterday's edition. In actuality, the shifts in today's doublespeak are
more subtle and evolutionary. As you watch new language being created, you
can map out the NWO agenda: the white-hat items are to be promoted, the
black-hat items to be suppressed.
A classic example was the Oliver North hearings. Words like "good soldier",
"patriotic", "freedom fighter", and "legality" - not to mention
"constitutional balance of powers" - took quite a beating. By labeling
state-armed mercenary terrorists (ie., the Contras) as "freedom fighters",
the whole linguistic ground of the hearings was warped beyond hope. Those
who should have been indicting the pathetic little desk colonel and
impeaching his boss were instead prefacing their remarks with kowtows toward
the "freedom fighters" (if there was time remaining after the prayer
service). There was no ability to discuss the affair from a meaningful moral
or constitutional perspective, and the hearings dissolved into circus
rhetoric/coverup, as was intended by the NWO language masters.
If we want to discuss the world situation with any kind of useful
understanding, we need to explicitly decode the NWO doublespeak, and learn
how to translate it into straight language. This is not an easy task,
because the doublespeak process has, over time, warped political language to
the point where it is nearly useless. Words like "socialism" or "tariffs",
being so heavily tarred with the black brush, can't be used meaningfully
without an explanatory preface. Even the word "government" is tricky to
use - the echoes of "bureaucrat", "inefficient", and "corrupt" reverberate
unconsciously.
Meanwhile, words like "market" and "competitive" have been promoted with the
white brush to Unquestioned Axioms of The Universe. Easier would it be to
hold back the tides with a horse and lance, than to resist "market forces",
or so it would seem.
Following is my attempt to associate accurate meanings with some of the
NWO's most topical phrases. Perhaps these definitions will ring true to you,
and help you better understand what the NWO is about. With the doublespeak
unraveled, the media becomes a source of accurate information after all -
NWO statements, though coded, are actually fairly descriptive of the
sinister NWO agenda.
"COMPETITIVENESS": the attractiveness of a venue to multinational
investors, particularly: laxity of regulation and taxation; the degree to
which a developed country regresses to Third-World status.
The phrase "Britain must be made more competitive for today's markets"
decodes as "Britain must have lower wages and lower corporate tax rates so
that it can compete with low-income parts of the world in attracting generic
corporate investments".
Genuine competitiveness, as demonstrated by Japan, involves marshalling the
nation's skills & resources toward adding value in focused markets -
achieved by promoting synergy and making coordinated investments.
NWO-peddled "competitiveness" is like prostitution - it values a nation's
human and societal resources at scrap street value.
"CONSERVATISM": a policy of radically restructuring politics and economics
in order to produce investment opportunities and undermine democracy;
contrast with actual conservatism: a policy of preserving existing
institutions in the interest social and economic stability.
Ronald Reagan was the clearest exemplar of this particular line of
doublespeak. His rhetoric emphasized "returning to traditional values" while
he was in fact dismantling long-evolved institutions and pursuing policies
of unprecedented and untried social and economic transformation.
Genuine conservatism acts as a societal gyroscope, resisting nearly every
kind of change, regardless of its direction. Conservatism's catch prase
might be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A very important point to notice
is that the assault by the NWO on existing democratic institutions has
reversed the field in the game of Radical vs. Conservative: for most of the
twentieth century, it has been the democracy-minded progressives who sought
radical change, and the capitalist right wing who were the conservatives.
But since Reagan & Thatcher, the right-wing has taken the initiative for
radical change (in the wrong directions), and it is now the progressives who
have a vital interest in maintaining the political status quo (ie.,
constitutional democracy and national sovereignty).
In this case, doublespeak succeeds in separating the progressives from their
natural constituency. Progressive activists should be reaching out to the
silent majority - arousing stick-in-the-mud conservatives to join the cause
against reckless NWO-induced changes. By pre-empting the term
"conservatism", the right-wing radicals have tricked most of the
conservative-tending masses into following the wrong parade.
Progressives must reclaim their natural ground. To have any hope of
assembling a significant constituency, they must find a way to break through
the doublespeak jargon and help the general population to see that its
interests are not being served by the new "conservatism", and that reckless
changes are its true agenda.
We see a bizarre distortion of this desirable conservative reaction in the
Militia mentality in America. Militia "conspiracy theories" are actually
quite close to the mark: the U.S. government is being sold out to
international interests; the U.N. is beginning to establish a
sovereignty-threatening military force; the Constitution is being trashed;
the establishment in Washington is effectively a bunch of traitors. But it's
not the progressives who are bringing this message to these hard-core
backwoods conservatives - instead the message is getting to them with a
doublespeak reverse spin that manages to label the sellout of America as a
"liberal" conspiracy! Since a Democrat happens to be in the White House, the
NWO myth spinners have been able to transform anti-establishment sentiment
into anti-liberal sentiment. Instead of addressing the real enemies of the
Constitution (the corporate elite), the Militia tilts its lance toward the
liberals and progressives who should be instead its natural allies in
defending democracy. Divide and Conquer shows up once again as the most
potent tool of autocratic control.
Language is a field of battle, the media is the artillery, and vocabulary is
the ammunition. The NWO has taken the field by storm, and is proceeding with
coordinated attacks on several fronts, using all the latest hi-tech
vocabulary ammunition. They've laid a bed of land mines that cripple us when
we try to stand on them: "liberalism", "conservatism", "prosperity",
"democracy".
Progressives must wake up to the attack, and somehow find a way to fight
back. The achilles heal of the NWO lies in its runaway successes: its
high-handed treatment of nearly everyone has created an awesome potential
counter-reaction - if people can be made to see who the real perpetrators
are, those who are engineering the decline of democratic civilization. Even
its doublespeak successes can be turned against it, if people can learn to
read the NWO agenda by learning to decode the propaganda it dishes out. The
NWO crowd actually reveals all in their propaganda, so arrogantly confident
are they that their doublespeak enigma device won't be seen through by the
people.
"DEMOCRACY": a government with a competitive party electoral system, in
which multinationals are able to exert effective influence; Note: unrelated
to whether the government represents the people or supports their welfare.
If multinational interests are served, then no amount of popular unrest, nor
vote rigging - not even civil war - will serve as credible evidence that a
"democracy" is a sham. If corporate interests aren't served, no amount of
civil accord, prosperity, and popular support qualifies the government as
"democratic".
Doublespeak audacity reached an outrageous climax when CCN broadcast live
coverage of Yeltsin shelling his own Assembly, and billed it as a victory
for "democracy"! (Did they realize they were televising an exact repeat of
Lenin's shelling of an earlier Constituent Assembly? Would that have altered
their assessment?) What Yeltsin's bloody power grab was a victory for was
the corporate-sponsored dismantlement of the Russian economy, a program the
Western-backed Yeltsin has played his part in flawlessly. With a subtle
doublespeak twist within a twist, the media refers to Yeltsin as a "liberal
element" - in fact he is a "neo- liberal" element, which translates as "NWO
stooge".
Genuine democracy must be judged by its responsiveness to the informed
desires of the people, its success in promoting their welfare, and their
satisfaction with its performance. The mechanisms used to attain a
functional democracy can have many forms. The media says only competitive
political parties can deliver democracy, but don't believe it.
The record is clear that multi-party elections are no guarantee whatever of
democratic process. Not only can parties be limited to those representing
elite minority (or foreign) interests, but the autonomous authority of the
military (typically subsidized by major NWO powers) often overshadows
governmental policy.
To understand what democracy is really about, we need to re-examine our most
cherished assumptions. Is the U.S. a democracy? Is Cuba a democracy? Do you
think you can tell?
Cuba doesn't have competitive parties or elections. But policies are worked
out by representatives from different segments of society, are explained
forthrightly (at length!) on the media, and feedback is listened to.
Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels (until recently) have been the
envy of comparable economies. And Castro has been overwhelmingly popular for
most of his tenure.
The U.S. has parties and elections. But policies are worked out by corporate
interests, sold through misleading media rhetoric, and popular opposition is
dismissed as emotional reaction. Literacy, health care, and nutrition
levels - in fact human welfare by any measure - are on a steady decline. The
esteem of government and elected officials looms ever lower on the horizon,
nearly ready to set into a sea of total disgust.
The elections themselves are circuses where certain topics are selected as
being "the issues" and the crowd is entertained with an orchestrated
wrestling match where Hulk Republican and Pretty Boy Democrat dance around
the limited ring of issues. When the match is over, the establishment gets
back to its un-discussed agendas. Because there are no substantive issues
raised during the campaign, the rhetoric fades into memory. There's no
platform, and no distinct "change of government", as there used to be in
Britain, before Tony Blair infiltrated the Labour Party.
Such elections are more like a shuffling of board members in a corporation -
the faces change, the policies continue to be set as before - outside any
democratic process.
Pink Floyd asked "Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?". I ask
you: Can you tell a self-governing people from a stone parliament building?
"DEVELOPMENT": the restructuring of an economy to facilitate extraction of
wealth by multinationals; transforming an economy so as to become more
dependent on trade with multinationals; the theft of national assets by
multinationals.
"Development" is usually pursued where the potential profit is greatest.
This means that the investment is as little as possible and the exportation
of eventual revenues is as great as possible. The result is a net drain on
the "developing" economy. Fair play, you might say, if the "developing"
country is able to take advantage of the situation to bootstrap its way into
general economic prosperity (South Korea?), or if an infrastructure is
created which benefits the general economy.
But these collateral benefits are not the purpose of "development", and the
consequences are usually otherwise. Brazil is an example where "development"
was heralded as a great success (at least for a period), due to the large
flow of money through the country. But the local benefits were concentrated
in relatively small, elite management and land-owner classes, and the
consequence for the general population was the destruction of their food
supply and agricultural economy to the benefit of agri-export operators.
Meanwhile the rainforests burn to make room for displaced farmers or new
agri-business "developments".
In other cases, a country might be left with an infrastructure to support
export operations, such as a selectively deployed highway system, which may
not be appropriate for the general development needs of the country, and
which increases its dependence on oil imports.
In many cases, "development" involves the granting of mineral rights, land
leases, tax discounts, or exemptions from regulations, as enticements to
attract corporate "investment". In rare cases, such grants are valued
appropriately, but all too frequently a cash-strapped Third-World country is
compelled to give away long-term rights to valuable national assets while
getting very little in return, usually some low-paying jobs and under-valued
royalties. Whether the asset be copper, oil, or agricultural land, the
multinational investor extracts billions in profits while the host country
gets a relatively minor pittance of the actual value of the arm-twist stolen
asset.
"FREE TRADE": the systematic destabilization of national and regional
economic arrangements, by means of treaties such as GATT and NAFTA, in order
to take economic decision making as far as possible from any democratic
process, and centralize global economic control into the hands of the
corporate elite.
"Free trade", it would seem from the corporate media's propaganda, is
universally accepted by all reputable economists as the One True Path to
prosperity and progress. Such a belief, which does not in fact enjoy a
consensus among economists, is historical nonsense. The Great Economies,
such as those of the U.S., Imperial Britain, and modern Japan, were
developed under nurturing protectionist policies. Only when they achieved
considerable economic strength did these countries begin to adopt "free
trade" policies, as a way to prevent other nations from catching up.
An economy (see also: "Reform") is an ecosystem. A strong economy is one
that has diversity and synergy. When "free trade" is imposed on an
underdeveloped economy, it develops in a distorted way, and is over-
dependent on external market fluctuations. Such weakness increases the
bargaining leverage of the multinationals, which is the obvious objective of
"free trade" in the first place.
"Free trade", which is part of the "globalization" agenda, brings a shift
economic sovereignty from nation states, where there is hope of democratic
participation, to corporate-approved international commissions, where only
the corporate voice holds sway.
"GLOBALIZATION": the undermining of the nation state as a focus of
economic organization; the reduction to commodity status of worldwide
raw-goods suppliers; the monopolization of distribution channels by
transnational trading companies; the reduction of health & quality standards
to least-common- denominator levels; the most honest self-characterization
of the NWO agenda.
Capturing more broadly the scope of the "free trade" campaign,
"globalization" expresses the intent to homogenize the world economy - to
make national borders transparent to the transfer of capital and goods, and
enable a higher-order of centralized global management. The claim is
frequently made that this will lead to a leveling of prosperity levels on a
global basis, but with some exceptions, the evidence is all to the contrary.
What we see instead, and as we should expect from how "development" is
structured and "free trade" is implemented, is that "globalization" leads to
a greater prosperity disparity between the "developed" and "developing"
nations, as measured by the disposable income and living standards of the
general populations. The greatest real prosperity gains have been achieved
by those countries which created domestic synergy in their economies through
selective protectionism (eg., Japan).
The availability of low-cost worldwide transport and the multinational scope
of corporate operations - together with deregulation of trade barriers -
leads to a situation where every producer is competing with every other
producer throughout the world. Distributors can thus shop for the best deal
globally, and continue to sell at whatever price they can get in their
markets. As the distribution channels are increasingly concentrated into
fewer hands (mega-store chains, conglomerate food importers, etc.), a
classic cartel/robber-baron scenario is developing, and will become more
pronounced as globalization progresses.
The "robber-baron" scenario looks like this: On one side you have separated,
unorganized producers, all competing with one another to supply the
distributors. On the other side, you have the consumers of the world, also
separated and unorganized, buying what they can afford from what is offered
in their local outlets. In the middle you have the distributors, who like
robber barons of old, have (increasingly) monopoly control over the the flow
of goods from producer to market. Not only can producer prices be driven
down in one-sided bargaining, but producers can be selectively driven out of
business, and in general the distributors have the power to dictate whether
and how the producers do business.
The classic example of a robber baron regime was California in the heydey of
the Southern Pacific Railroad. SP would audit the books of firms which
shipped goods on their lines, and adjust each firm's shipping rates so that
profits on sales were shared "fairly" with SP. We see this kind of thing
today when the same drugs from the same distributors are sold at radically
different prices in different countries - those who can afford more, pay
more. It's the corporate version of a graduated income tax - but for the
people, it's taxation without representation all over again.
As for non-price consumer concerns - environmental protection, content
labelling, pesticide levels, other health issues - we can expect to see a
rapid reversal of the "green" gains which have occurred since the sixties.
Initially we see some localized improvements in standards, as the EU, for
example, levels its regulatory playing field. But the long-term
decision-making role for these policies is being shifted to
corporate-dominated entities (WTO, GATT, Brussels). This means that as the
distributors tighten their noose of control, and after local regulatory
power has been disabled, the distributors will wield their awesome influence
to reduce "anti-competitive" environmentalist "shackles" on "free markets"
and "consumer savings". This is of course already happening. We have the EU
telling the Germans that UK beef is safe, when the UK can't even get its
story straight about whether adequate controls are being implemented. The
EU, and even more so the WTO, have every motivation to go out of their way
to decide in favor of more trade, and minimize appraisal of any negative
consequences. Their business is to increase business, and they are a level
removed from the influence of citizen's concerns. That's why "globalization"
amounts to a partial sovereignty shift from democracy (where it exists) to
corporate feudalism.
"Globalization", among the terms in the NWO phrase book, comes closest to
being an honest use of language. The NWO does indeed, as "globalization"
suggests, want to systematize commerce on a global scale, to homogenize the
world in who-knows-how-many aspects - to bring forth a new world order. The
deception comes in the implication that "globalization" will bring increased
prosperity, that "free markets" will get goods to those who need them, and
that the abundance of the earth will become available to humanity on a more
equitable basis. As the song goes, "It ain't necessarily so".
"PRIVATIZATION": (1) the theft of citizen assets by corporate interests,
achieved through discounted sell-offs of intentionally under-valued public
properties; (2) the creation of new investment opportunities by means of
dismantling successfully operating public services.
Media discussion of privatization is generally limited to the narrow issues
of consumer benefits and operating efficiency. Even on these grounds, the
arguments presented are usually far from convincing. They are frequently
simply a recitation of the axioms "public is inefficient", "private is
efficient" - often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Privatization is not just a change of managers, it is a change of ownership.
It removes equity from citizens, and removes or minimizes public control
over asset development and pricing. In many cases following privatization,
employment is reduced as an immediate step in reducing costs and enhancing
the profit picture - without the social costs of the unemployment being
considered in the overall accounting for the transaction.
The aim of a privatized operation shifts from providing a public service, to
making a profit. Short-term profit pressures may reduce investment in
long-term maintenance and upgrades, since their payback period may be beyond
the horizon of the investor's plans for cashing out.
Despite inflated claims to the contrary, consumer benefits tend to be
minimal - any reduction in rates would be a direct loss from the bottom
line, and token reduction are usually enough for PR purposes and to satisfy
regulatory constraints. The obvious fact that the operator needs to take out
a profit is seldom mentioned when the benefits of privatization are
proclaimed, as if efficiency benefits (if any) would accrue fully to the
consumer.
In their personal finances, citizens appreciate the value of asset
ownership. Owning a car or home offers significant cost savings over the
lifetime of the investments, and greatly benefits the citizen in the face of
inflation and fluctuating rental rates. With privatization, citizens are
transformed from owners to renters, and suffer a long-term equity loss that
may be many times greater than the discounted sale price of the asset. A
privatized rail system may offer cheaper rates the first few years, but in
the long run it will charge whatever the traffic will bear - in tomorrow's
inflated economy.
"REFORM": the modification or replacement of an existing economic or
political system, so as to create new corporate investment opportunities -
it is not required that the new system perform effectively, only that it
deliver corporate profits.
A system is in need of "reform" whenever corporate investors think of a new
angle to make new profits. Obvious failures of the "reform" process, such as
unemployment and poverty, are never the fault of "reform", but of incomplete
implementation. Belief in "reform" is like religious faith: no amount of
counter-evidence can phase the True Believer.
"Reform" is like clear-cutting. A forest is an ecosystem, with wildlife,
streams, underbrush, etc. Careful forestry can harvest timber without
destroying the ecosystem - but clear-cutting destroys all at once. An
existing political/economic arrangement is also an eco-system: it is the
subtle fabric that weaves the society together and enables its functioning.
"Reform" - as we see in the Soviet breakup/selloff/ripoff - can destroy the
existing framework all at once, and replace it with one that doesn't fit,
that would take years or decades to take root and begin producing, and will
be owned by someone else at the end of the day.
Genuine reform would take into account the existing conditions, and if a
change is needed, would make incremental changes over time, evolving a
working system toward sounder functioning. Most significant, it would
reflect local customs and preferences - it would not seek to impose a
cookie-cutter standard paradigm upon all cultures and traditions.
"THIRD-WORLD ASSISTANCE": (1) the subsidization of non- competitive
First-World industries by means of channeling earmarked funds through
Third-World hands; (2) carrot-money to entice "development" in preferred NWO
directions; (3) hush- money to fund domestic suppression in host countries.
In order to encourage acquiescence by the taxpayers who foot the bill for
it, "assistance" or "aid" almost always comes wrapped in the rhetoric of
humanitarianism. Recently in Germany a more honest sales- pitch has been
launched, announcing that for every mark that was spent as development aid,
1.15 marks came back as orders for German business. This is no surprise to
anyone who's followed the numbers, but perhaps the publicity will invite the
German people to ask why German business doesn't pay more of the "aid" bill.
Heaven knows the Third World needs real financial aid - not interest-bearing
loans and not funds earmarked for externally-defined purposes. When strapped
for development funds, it is difficult for a country to turn down offers,
even when strings are attached. But money which leaves crippling debt in its
wake, or which encourages the development of a dependent economy, would be
better refused - it's like buying things you don't need using a credit card
you know you can never pay off.
In fact, the bulk of "assistance" has been channeled directly to military
and "security" forces, in the form of weapons, training, and cash. In some
cases this results in lucrative contracts for First World arms
manufacturers, but the main objective is to create a political climate
subservient to NWO designs. The military muscle enables unpopular and
NWO-submissive regimes to retain power and drain their country's resources
by participating recklessly in the "aid/development" game - running up their
country's credit cards at the NWO bank.
Viewed from the broadest perspective, the definition of "Third-World
assistance" is "the NWO version of imperialism". It succeeds - in too many
cases - in accomplishing the following imperialist objectives:
a.. controls the development priorities of the subject states
b.. manages the ruling class in the subject states
c.. puts the subject states into a condition of eternal debt
d.. extracts profits and resources with minimal taxation and labor costs
e.. provides markets for First-World goods, enhanced by absence of
development in directions of self-sufficiency
Like all highly-leveraged NWO enterprises, this is all accomplished with
minimal occupation forces, no colonial administrations, and no public
understanding of what's going on - and the bill is being paid by those who
benefit the least. If the NWO strategists weren't so sinister, you'd have to
respect them.
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Doublespeak%20and%20the%20New%20Worl
d%20Order.html
Redbaiter - see also the "Reply to" field in the header of the reference
- is now posting via *.au services and has been brainwashed too ;-)))
"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote:
>This use of language is a form of propaganda
Long live Orwell!
--
Robert Born - http://home.arcor.de/robert.born/
"Wir koennen zwar tun was wir wollen, doch wir koennen nicht wollen was wir wollen" - Schopenhauer
Ein Namensvetter von mir schrieb in Page: http://www.moritzbormann.com/liter/rb/index.html :
"Es genügt nicht, keine Meinung zu haben, man muss auch unfähig sein, sie auszudrücken..."