“Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.*”
— Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanack, 1735
Have you ever heard someone say something to the affect of ‘Words mean things?’ I’m reasonably sure that all of us, at some point in our lives, have heard something similar to this, but I wonder how many of us ever stopped to reflect on how important the idea behind these words actually is. What would it be like to live in a world where we could never know the meaning of the words we used? How would a society function if the meaning of a word could be arbitrarily changed at any given moment? Could anyone ever feel safe or secure in such a society if the words that were thought to protect you yesterday were suddenly understood as justification for your condemnation today? How could anything like the notion of individual rights and liberty or the rule of law possibly exist in a world such as this? And what of justice? Can justice exist in a society where the words ‘justice‘ and ‘injustice‘ are used interchangeably? For that matter, how could one keep their sanity in that world, or even know what sanity is? But, more importantly, what type of person would not only accept, but even advocate for such a world? Well, we need not wonder because we in The United States are living in just such a world today.
Before we look at why someone might not only accept but even advocate for a world in which the meaning of words can be changed at any time and for any reason, let us try to fully understand the problem. First, we must understand that an attack on language is an attack on Natural Law and the Social Contract. It is an attack on Natural Law because it seeks to undermine the laws by which language is governed. It is an attack on the Social Contract because, if the language is destroyed, then so is that contract. In this case, that would be the U.S Constitution. Therefore, the deliberate attempt to pervert, corrupt or destroy the plain meaning of words is an attack on the Creator as well as society.
Next, we need to understand that we are not just dealing with the meaning of a given word being changed over time. That is natural. It is the process by which a language evolves. For example, a contact once referred to a person we knew who could give us information or help us in other ways. Later, it referred to a part in an ignition system for an internal gas combustion engine. Still later after that, it was known as a corrective lens word directly on the eye. All three of these meanings for the word, ‘contact,’ are still in use. We can usually determine which is intended by the context of what is being said. What we are talking about is a deliberate attempt to confuse am issue or idea by destroying the words people use to discuss it.
What happens when the meaning of a word is intentionally changed for the expressed purpose of confusing people so they cannot be sure they understand what is being said? An example of this would be the modern use of the word ‘racism.’ Racism is a modern word. It did not exist at the time of our nation’s founding. According to “The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology, The Origins of American English Words,” the word, ‘racism‘ was first used in 1936. Originally, it referred to a belief that one race of people was superior to all others. Soon afterward, it came to be understood as an institutional practice or policy whose outcome was based on the race of the person to whom it was applied. After that, it was used to refer to bigotry or prejudice. Today, it is used to indicate a person who disagrees — for any reason — with anyone considered to be a racial minority. At the same time, many people assert that black people cannot be racist, which is a direct contradiction to the definition of the word (i.e. it assumes something about a person or people based simply on their race). The word, ‘racist,’ has always been a political term, but it has turned into a political weapon which is used to prevent any serious discussion about the real issues while silencing anyone who tries to do so. So why do minorities demand that society address problems of race-relations while, at the same time, they use the words connected to race-relations to shut down any and all discussion about the issue? How can society possibly hope to resolve something it is not allowed to discuss?
Make no mistake about this: these things are done intentionally. They are deliberately forced upon society so that discussion can be shut down and opposition silenced. The following video is an excellent example of how the process works. As you watch it, consider how the words have been constructed to confuse the issue, shut down debate and destroy anyone who tries to disagree with the artificially constructed narrative that has been forced upon them:
Clearly then, the intention behind the deliberate confusing of the language is to cause social confusion. But to what end? Why would anyone want to cause confusion by perverting the language? Well, when it comes to matters such as this, I find that we can almost always look to America’s founders for help:
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”
— Samuel Adams
But it is not just those who love liberty who understand this principle. Those who seek to re-make society according to their own desires also understand it, and they use it as a weapon in the furtherance of their goals. We can see that this is true by considering the words of George Orwell, a Fabian Socialist:**
“Political chaos is connected with the decay of language… one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.”
“Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
As a Fabian, Orwell’s thinking is connected to their allies in America, the Progressives. Among the most prominent Progressive founding fathers was John Dewey. Dewey believed that people could be controlled through the ‘scientific’ use of language (as do the majority of those who use language as a weapon). For Dewey, what a person thinks or how they understand a given subject is all controlled by their language. If you find the right word to describe something, then and only then do you properly understand it:
“Every one has experienced how learning an appropriate name for what was dim and vague cleared up and crystallized the whole matter. Some meaning seems distinct almost within reach, but is elusive; it refuses to condense into definite form; the attaching of a word somehow (just how, it is almost impossible to say) puts limits around the meaning, draws it out from the void, makes it stand out as an entity on its own account.”
Consequently, Dewey — and people like him — came to believe that people could be controlled by giving or taking away the words they used. For Dewey, if you do not have a word to describe something, then you can never really understand it; and if you can never rally understand it, then you cannot advance that idea or agenda. Or, to put it another way: if you have no words to express individualism, then you will accept collectivism because you have no way to describe individualism to others. Now, my dear reader, stop and consider whether or not you see this line of reasoning behind the attempts to control our language in the West today? How often do we see the words that were once used to discuss the idea of individualism turned into forms of self-condemnation while new, “acceptable” words are introduced that can only be used in connection to the collective?
Now, I acknowledge that there is a great deal of confusion surrounding this whole subject. There are many reasons for this confusion, and — taken individually — any one of them may appear to contradict my argument. But this is because the attack on our society, through the destruction of our language, is a process. Consequently, it must be looked at as an on-going process. However, if we look past the surface appearances, we will find that there is a trend behind this process. We will also find that this trend has a pattern. What’s more, both the trend and the pattern point to a systematic progression (i.e. a step-by-step progress, a.k.a. ‘progressivism’) toward a single agenda: the desire to destroy our society. But why destroy society?
“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.”
— George Orwell
As I prepare to close, let me ask you to consider one last point. Woodrow Wilson wrote about his desires to change America into what, if I could be permitted to paraphrase him, could bee described as a ‘scientifically’ administrated, democratic dictatorship. In short, Wilson wanted to make America into a dictatorship where the President was elected by the people, after which, he would have complete and unquestioned control until the next election. This elected dictator would then ‘administrate’ the government through a group of special, ‘scientifically’ trained bureaucracies who were appointed to their jobs and held their positions for life. Wilson called this the ‘American’ version of Communism. However, unlike the Communist model, Wilson knew he could never mount a successful revolution in America. Therefore, he would have to construct this new government by infecting the current system and changing it from within, like some science-fiction virus that turns people into aliens. This incremental change of America was Wilson’s idea of ‘Progress,’ hence the name, ‘Progressive.’
Now, consider Wilson and Orwell together here. You start a revolution to establish a dictatorship. But what if a traditional revolution is impossible? Then you might do as Wilson described and change things slowly, by subverting the system from within it. You start by taking over the colleges (which Wilson advocated) and then the public schools (which Dewey advocated) so as to indoctrinate the children. You use these indoctrinated products to gain elected office and positions within the rest of society, such as the whole of education, entertainment, the media and especially the courts. Then you start changing our history, our language, our laws and you protect these progressive advances of your agenda by using the courts to strike down any challenges to them. Until, eventually, you become bold enough to just come right out and tell people what you are doing:
Now, consider how people might have heard this if our language had not been perverted:
2 a : of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts : radical
- fundamental change
1 a : to change in composition or structure
Or he could have just said:
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
Now, if the whole of America still understood language as well as our founders, do you think the nation might have heard this man differently? Do you think they might have recognized the threat in his words? And do you see how he was able to openly declare his intentions without fear of being found out because he knew the language had been so corrupted that no one would understand what he was really saying? Finally, do you see why they seek to destroy our language?
By destroying our language, they can do things openly that they would never be able to get away with if the people actually understand their true intentions.
* By this Franklin was referring to those people who seek to confuse by using a lot of words — especially ‘big words’ — to confuse their audience. These people often present themselves as the most ‘reasonable’ party in the debate when, in reality, they are usually the least reasonable. Or, to put this in terms of a more modern American colloquialism: “If they can’t dazzle you with brilliance (i.e. a well reasoned argument), they will baffle you with bull (i.e. lies hidden behind a lot of ‘big’ words).
** Orwell was a Fabian Socialist. Unlike Huxley, Orwell never left the society. Since the Fabian Society’s stated goal is to re-make the world according to their desires, and because they adopted the symbol of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I am unwilling to give Orwell any benefit of the doubt. If the reader wishes, this link explains more about why I believe Orwell was one of those seeking to cause chaos. And though many may find the information in this link ‘conspiratorial,’ most everything in it can be verified through more ‘reputable’ books on this subject. I chose to provide this link simply because I believe there is a better chance people will read it than the several rather dry books from which the information is actually drawn (all of which I own and have read).