cj#446> Article: Doublespeak and The New World Order


Richard Moore

Dear CJ,

Earlier versions of this article have been posted to the list, and a
condensed version went out over American Reporter.  This "final" (revised
and expanded) version will be published in the next issue of New Dawn.

New entries in this version:


[version 3.1.1]

                     Doublespeak and The New World Order

                      Copyright 1996 by Richard K. Moore
                               27 January 1996

The New World Order (you know what the NWO is -- the corporate-sponsored
"free-trade" globalization steamroller) 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 either "good guys" or "bad guys"
by dressing them up in "white hat" words (like "reform" or "free") or
"black hat" words (like "bureaucracy" or "politics").

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

_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

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

        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,