cj#333> Doublespeak and The New World Order

1995-12-08

Richard Moore

Dear CJ,

The previous version of this article (cj#325) included definitions for
"Competitive", "Democracy", and "Reform".  This new version includes also
"Free Trade", "Privatization", and "Reforms, Democratic", plus minor
updates to the earlier terms.

Cheers,
Richard




                     ********************************
         This article may be posted in entirety for non-commercial use.
                     ********************************

                    Doublespeak and The New World Order
                              version 2.0
                            Richard K. Moore
                            December 8, 1995



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
propaganda_ 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
understanding.

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 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 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
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.

Rushing where angels daren'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.

-rkm

____________________________________________
____________________________________________

        "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.  Media-peddled "competitiveness" is like prostitution -- it
values a nation's human and societal resources at scrap street value.
____________________________________________

        "DEMOCRACY": a government with a competitive party electoral
        system, in which multinationals are able to exert effective
        influence -- there is no requirement that the government
        represent the people or support 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 the "democracy" is a sham.  If corporate interests aren't
served, no amount of civil accord, prosperity, and popular support
qualifies the government as "democratic".

_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 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 divisive, and consensus was sought to restore
village functioning.

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?

Castro doesn't have 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?
____________________________________________

        "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 that of the 19th Century U.S. & Great Britain, and
modern Japan, were developed under nurturing protectionist policies.
Only when they achieved considerable economic strength did these
countries switch to "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 weakened way, and is over-
dependent on external market fluctuations.  Such weakness increases the
bargaining leverage of the multinationals, which is the obvious
objective.
____________________________________________

        "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 publicly
        owned 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,
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 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 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.  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.

Privatization is a creeping cancer, making inroads that often aren't
identified as "privatization".  Lotteries, for example, are at best a
privatized form of tax collection, and at worst, a way for the corporate
investors to fleece those least able to afford poor-odds gambling.
____________________________________________

        "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 saw in the Soviet breakup/selloff/ripoff
-- can destroy 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.
____________________________________________

        "REFORMS, DEMOCRATIC": (1) same as "market reforms"; (2)
        movement toward NWO's democracy model.

The  adjective "democratic" is used with "market reforms" when they
occur in a country known for its human rights abuses, presumably to
imply that the reforms may somehow reduce those abuses -- which is only
occasionally the case.  This use of the phrase "democratic reforms"
performs a mind-programming function: it suggests the assumption that
"market economy" is an inherent, even a primary, element in what it
means to be a democracy.

When applied to political changes, it implies a certain set of
mechanisms, not any democratic result.  Even if a culture had an
effective form of democratic governance before, and even if the new
western-style political parties (often covertly funded by foreign
interests) are slanted toward elite minorities -- the "reform" is
nonetheless considered to be a clear victory for "democracy".
____________________________________________
____________________________________________

To be extended.  Suggestions invited.

-rkm

                       ********************************
                            CyberLib maintained by:

  Richard K. Moore                          •••@••.•••
  (USA Citizen)                                 Moderator: Cyberjournal
  Wexford, Ireland              http://www.internet-eireann.ie/cyberlib

                       ********************************





Share:

istanbul escorts istanbul escorts istanbul escorts istanbul escorts istanbul escorts istanbul escorts istanbul escorts

fuck google fuck google fuck google fuck google