cj#325> NWO Doublespeak Reviewed


Richard Moore

Doublespeak and The New World Order

The New World Order exploits language in precisely the way Orwell
predicted.  Words are used to mislead and conceal -- not clarify -- and are
twisted to designate the opposite of their true meanings.  Concepts are
tagged as being "good guys" or "bad guys" by dressing them up in "white
hat" words (like "reform" or "free") or "black hat" words (like
"bureaucrat" or "marxist").

This use of language is a form of propaganda -- and this _vocabulary
proaganda_ is much more subtle and effective than _content propaganda_
(where information is presented selectively and with a spin.)  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

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 too mention
"constitutional balanace 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 little desk colonel 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 legal 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 languange
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 echos of "bureaucrat", "inefficient", and "corrupt"
reverberate unconciously.

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.

Rushing where angels won't tread, I'll attempt to decode some of the more
topical NWO doublethink terms.  You can let me know if my own language
achieves any kind of useful clarity.





        - how attractive a venue is to multinational investors.  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-wage parts of the world in attracting generic corporate

        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.  Media "competitiveness" is like prostitution -- it values a
nation's human and societal resources at scrap street value.  "Competitive"
might be decoded as "third-world trending".



        - a multi-party electoral system, in which multinationals are able
to excert effective influence.  If their interests are served, then no
amount of popular unrest, nor vote rigging -- not even civil war -- will
serve as credible evidence that the "democracy" is a sham.  If they aren't
served, no amount of civil accord, prosperity, and popular support
qualifies the government as "democratic".

        In reality, a democracy must be judged by its responsivenes 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
comptetitive political parties can deliver democracy, but it ain't
necessarily so.  Native Americans, in many cases, used a voluntarily
accepted system of village elders and regional councils.  Competing elders
were seen as devisive, and consensus was sought to restore village

        The record is clear that multi-party elections are no guarantee
whatever of any democratic process.  Not only can parties be limited to
those representing elite minority (or foreign) interests, but the
autonomous authority of the military 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?

        Castro doesn't have parties or elections.  But policies are worked
out by representatives from different segments of socieity, 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 in 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.



        -  the destabilization of an existing economic or political
arrangement, and its replacement by an NWO-sponsored, investment-friendly,
clone of the "Western" model.  An existing system is judged to be
inadequate -- with no further evidence required -- if it is seen as
following a non-"Western" model.  Obvious failures of the "reform" process,
such as unemployment and poverty, are never the fault of reform, but of
insincere or incompetent implementation.

        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 saw in the Soviet breakup/selloff/ripoff --
destroys the existing framework all at once, and replaces 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.  As used in the media, "reform"
could perhaps be decoded as "reckless change which opens up investment
opportunities".  The term is often preceded by "democratic" or "western" to
remind you which color the hat is.  Just like in a cartoon, where the
character is always drawn with exaggerated features.


Sorry -- only three terms in this first review.  Suggestions for "my
favorite doublespeak example" are invited.


 Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland
 •••@••.••• |  Cyberlib=http://www.internet-eireann.ie/cyberlib