Words and their potential

The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.

Philip K. Dick

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Thomas Jefferson


Words, especially when uttered by politicians, are a bigger threat to freedom, justice, and truth than bullets because, when used by government politicians with an authoritarian bent, they can be used to enslave millions of minds, thus turning people into obedient machines without a will  – and without any understanding of their actions beyond a belief in the lies that their leaders tell them. Whilst words can serve as an agent of enslavement, they can also serve as a tool for liberation and transformation; however the latter can only happen when the media are not therefore, through their dependence on the political elite for their income, ‘in the political pocket’.

Edward Spalton, commenting on my post “And Finally” (a comment well worth reading in full) writes that a British friend of his is of the opinion that the British people have been ‘tamed’. That comment is one that ‘hits the nail on the head’, in that that is just what has been accomplished by our political elite through their careful use of words and policies such as ‘social-engineering’ whereby they have changed our society, a change they hope being one to their advantage.

Social-engineering is not necessarily limited to changing a society through the introduction of different races to that society, but can also be accomplished by allowing the politically correct brigade, who are of left-wing persuasion, ‘free reign’ to implement their ideas of equality and diversity; especially when considering the field of education (see Edward’s comment). Having recently ‘discovered’ Thomas Sowell, yet another quotation from him is worth repeating:

The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.

That statement is borne out when considering any quango that is involved in ‘educating’ the British people where matters of health, education, personal behaviour or law and order are concerned – and the first part of that quotation is why no government of a socialist ideology should ever be elected in the future.

Returning to the subject of the media, when people select a British newspaper, or select either the BBC or ITV, one has to ask whether they really do believe that which they read or hear, or whether – due to their having been ‘tamed’ – they accept that which they read or hear without question. It is, methinks, the latter and it matters not whether a newspaper is ‘broadsheet’ or ‘tabloid’, BBC or ITV, as their output is couched in words to suit their target market. It must be logical to assume that whilst the media are reliant for their income on career politicians the market that the media should be serving, namely their readership or viewers, will never learn the truth.

If politicians lie; if the media do not, for whatever reason, report the truth; if thoughtful individuals are barred from speaking their minds in public, being denigrated for example as racist or homophobic, then what has evolved is no more than state-inspired censorship to the detriment of humanity. It can also be argued that the suppression of information by the media – caused solely by the reason suggested above – has allowed the political ruling class to misuse the powers they have usurped, thus imposing authoritarian measures that result in the suppression of what are supposed to be free people. Thomas Jefferson uses the word man in the quotation above, a use I would suggest is generic in that in any democracy a majority view must hold sway. In that context the decision by our political elite to maintain the UK’s membership of the EU, which is against the majority of public opinion, is authoritarian in the extreme – as is the Coalition’s policy on overseas aid, a policy carried out to the detriment of those to whom the government of the day owe a duty of care. Never mind the word ‘compel’, used by Jefferson – to solicit funds and then impose a political dogma which the majority of people consider draconian is not only sinful, wrong and tyrannical, it is nothing more than an abuse of the trust of a people that have been led to believe they need leading – which leads me, as an alternative, back to a system of government referred to as “Referism” (see previous posts).

I would offer the suggestion that the greatest crime that can be levelled at our political elite and the media is that as words can shape a people’s destiny for good or evil and in so doing hide ugly truths from the people whilst protecting the powerful from retribution, our political elite and the media deserve the highest accolade possible.

9 comments for “Words and their potential

  1. May 31, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Good post and very true – our words are our bonds if I may corrupt an old and unreliable adage. Yet we should also remember that your words have an effect too and ten years ago nobody would have been able to read them and you probably weren’t writing them.

    • WitteringWitney
      May 31, 2011 at 8:14 pm

      AKH: Thank you, firstly. Were my words to have an effect then what started as a hobby and has since become almost a full-time job would then truly have been worthwhile.

      As an aside, ten years ago I wasn’t writing but then ten years ago I was like the majority of the GBP in that I didn’t care less and didn’t know what the bastard politicos were doing to this country!

  2. June 1, 2011 at 5:25 am

    “If politicians lie; if the media do not, for whatever reason, report the truth; if thoughtful individuals are barred from speaking their minds in public, being denigrated for example as racist or homophobic, then what has evolved is no more than state-inspired censorship to the detriment of humanity.”

    This is spot on!

    • WitteringWitney
      June 1, 2011 at 8:01 am

      Thank you Julia!

      One can only wonder how long it will take for the penny to drop with society in general.

  3. David
    June 1, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Great post. What are we sane Brits to do about it, short of engaging in Lawful Rebellion? 😕 😯

    • WitteringWitney
      June 1, 2011 at 2:17 pm

      Thank you for your comment. Not too sure about Lawful Rebellion at the moment, however you may like to put 9th July in your diary as a provisional date for a little event in London……..

  4. Junican
    June 2, 2011 at 2:35 am

    A perfect example of word manipulation is the phrase/word ‘smokefree’. It is perfect. It brings together two ideas which are incontestable. A. Smoke is nasty. B. ‘Free’ is wonderful. The invention of that word/phrase was a stroke of genius.

    Only if you take the word/phrase apart and start querying its meaning, do you see the ‘confidence trick’. What does the word ‘smoke’ actually mean? Does this stuff described as ‘smoke’ have to be visible? Does it have to be of a dark colour? Cigarette smoke, for example, is visible, but is not of a dark colour, whereas burning oil is of a dark colour. The fragrance which emanates from some plants (some roses, for example) is not visible, but it is ‘smoke’, if the word means ‘molecules of materials being emitted into the atmosphere’ . What colour is the ‘smoke’ from such plants?

    And the word, ‘free’? When did the word ‘free’ cease to mean ‘freedom to’ and become ‘freedom from’? Is there such a thing as ‘freedom from’? If one thinks carefully about the conjunction of these two words, ‘freedom’ and ‘from’, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the word/phrase ‘smokefree’ is a contradiction in terms. The correct phrase/word is ‘smokeless’ – but even that word is a bit odd. The only good thing about it is that we know what it means – ‘no (visible) smoke’.

    Gas burns ‘smokefree’, but the consequences of a badly ventilated gas fuelled heater are very bad.

    The serious problem about this manipulation of words is that there will come a time when no one knows what words mean. For example, what does the word ‘abuse’ mean? No one knows any more.

    Some situations cannot be condensed into a single word (like smokefree). The ideas are too complex.

  5. Maaarrghk!
    June 2, 2011 at 6:59 am

    That Philip K Dick quote.

    Didn’t Orwell write a book on it? “Double speak” I think he called it. Also the concept of “New speak”. Reduce the language to so few words that the people no longer have the range of vocabulary to adequately voice their frustrations and complaints against the state.

  6. WitteringWitney
    June 3, 2011 at 8:29 am

    M: Yup, 1984 of course and your point is well made.

Comments are closed.