Something that just occured to me is that while George Orwell was a very brilliant man who had understood the socialist, etc. mindset and methods of his time very well, he may not have been able to predict the refinement and innovations they or others who adopted their methods would come up with over the years to silence dissent.
Even if you've never read 1984, I imagine by now you're familiar with the term "Newspeak," the approved language of the Party in the book which has become a catch-all term to describe efforts to silence dissent through the destruction of useful language. It could certainly be an effective method, assuming you could manage to get people to go along with it.
The problem is that it involves a level of control that's difficult if not impossible to convince others to accept. Stop using entire words? Some you can if you frame them as offsensive slurs, but others are more stubborn and pervasive. "Newspeak," itself is a perfect example of this.
What if you could alter the definitions of words to the point that their original meanings become largely irrelevant? Even better, what if you could get some people to accept new definitions almost wholly different from the original? If some people refuse to accept those new definitions, so much the better.
Enter the Tower of Bab-il, a tale from the abrahamic faiths about men attempting to reach Heaven so they can be gods, and God "counfounding' their language to halt the project. That's the short version, and it's good enough for this conversation. Certainly the allegory would appeal to the egos of the Klaus Schwabs, the George Soroses and the Koch Brothers of the world, men and women who believe themselves above the 'lesser' people of the world, and fear they may rise up and overthrow them. Men and women who for instance would model the EU Parliment building after the Titular Tower.
Consider for example terms like 'racism,' 'oppression,' and even 'women' at this point. Can someone on the right talk to someone on the left about any of these issues without getting bogged down hammering out the proper combination of jargon to have a meaningful discussion? It's an uphill battle all the way!
But how could such a thing be done? How could you introduce these new definitions and perhaps new jargon to "confound" the speech of the masses? The easy answer is colleges and online social media. Both offer a wealth of opportunies to introduce new, Bab-il-ese definitions of words and impress on young minds that these are the 'correct' definitions. Of course other options are available, but you get the idea.
That's not to insist that a nerfarious plot is necessary to cause such a rift in language to occur, however. In fact, there's an old joke that America and England are two countries separated by a common language. It could simply be that one or both groups, in their college dormitories and their echo chambers, created 'new,' 'refined' definitions of these terms, independent of outside intereference by nefarious actors.
The point remains, however, that as long as we're speaking different dialects when we discuss complex issues like racial and sexual/gender dynamics, the project is doomed to fail.
This, small as it may seem, may be the single most important issue moving forward, in spite of being so easily overlooked...
Heads up; I'm mirroring this post on thedonald, Greatawakening, ConsumeProduct, kotakuinaction2, and maybe NoNewNormal , feel free to use whichever community you prefer.
Edit: thanks to a ConPro user for pointing this out:
https://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/f/u/fuf1/publications/Fonseca_Martin_ICIS_05_Abstract.pdf
Neomarxists don't believe in dialogue because "logic" "reason" and "civility" are the "tools of the oppressor".
Technically they are correct. Because engaging in dialogue itself requires acceptance of common premises and whoever accepts their enemy's premise first "for the sake of argument" has given up his own premise.
We see communication as a means of conveying information, ideally for the purpose of influencing the future decisions of those with whom we are communicating. They don't.
Instead they have three goals when they send public messages.
An example is a an employee speaks up at a company meeting on an unrelated topic saying "we should publicly announce our support for black history month". That employee is signalling her virtue because "worship blacks" is one of the planks of the revolution.
Next she is intently watching to see who reacts with anything except positivity. Whether by open disagreement or non-verbal communication like eye rolling, looking away, etc. Those you push back are painted as targets for her fellow cabalists. They will get worse reviews from sympathetic managers, be targeted for complaints to HR, get "accidentally" left out of future decision making notices, not invited to social events, etc.
If she gets her way then she will have successfully converted company resources to neomarxist propaganda pushing while attacking the enemies of the revolution which are white, christian men.
True, but what happens when she or one of her cohorts starts to question the cause? What happens when they want to reach out to the other side, if only to confirm their beliefs? Of course changing their minds is an uphill slog, but how much harder is it made by a lack of a common language to discuss the points of contention?
Its a trick. Get an axe!
lmao. five-pound sledge would be more effective... cut the handle short...just sayin...
a) to be on the other side implies being within the same conflict. This conflict (reason) is caused by consenting to a suggestion by a 3rd party...a side that isn't within those conflicts; but uses both sides as a battery to keep the division going.
b) does perception require confirmation or adaptation? Hold your breath and wait...will you need to confirm breathing or will you be forced to adapt to the need of breathing? Impressed to compressed to expressed...suggestion tempts one to regress instead.
c) to belief represents consent to the suggestion of another; hence choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law aka submission of free will to the will of others.
"in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" tempts one to believe in "patris et filii et spiritus sancti"; while ignoring consenting to those who suggest "in nomine" (in the name of). There's a contract law underneath every suggested belief and that tempts one to ignore the need to respond to perceived natural law.
Consent to language aka consent to suggested information (idolatry) over perceived inspiration represents the cause of all contention (imbalance) within the ignored balance based system; with oneself at the center as the responding choice aka "free" will of choice in response to the "dom"inance of balance aka free-dom. Instead the ignorant many consent to self imposed slavery under the suggested will of the parasitic few.
I'm not gonna lie, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you're saying, lol.
I'm not nearly the intelectual I like to pretend to be. I just have a clever thought now and again, and I try to chase it down and share my findings.
I know i'ts bad for me, but I weirdly find that tobacco helps me think btw...
Understanding represents standing under suggested information; which ignores growing comprehension out of perceived inspiration.
In others words...consenting to suggested words inside a moving system; tempts one to ignore that the moving system communicates itself through inspiration. Look at anything around you...a name; brand; idol was suggested to you for it; yet have you ever questioned that you perceive it before others can suggest a name for it?
Language represents a suggested layer of meaning (fiction) upon the perceived meaning (reality) and your consent to it; gives those suggesting it the power to define; redefine and contradict your perception of reality with their suggested fiction. And just like that you find yourself in clown world full of contradicting definitions out of your choice of influence.
Question the laws of nature as the only thing that cannot change within a system of constantly perceived change. Both suggested truth (want) and lies (not want) tempt to ignore being within constant change; hence a need/want balance for responding choice. You think in words; because others domesticated you with suggestion to think in words. The accumulation of words within memory is called the "ego"; which constantly tempts one to ignore perceived reality for the suggested fiction; one upholds as words within memory.
a) IN'TELLECT, noun [Latin intellectus, from intelligo, to understand.] aka once again standing under the suggested information by others; while ignoring KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists" aka perceivable inspiration. It's the suggested words (intelligence and knowledge) that deceive us to ignore the perceived function out of which the words where shaped.
b) PRETEND', verb transitive [Latin proetendo; proe, before, and tendo, to tend, to reach or stretch.] - "to reach or stretch forward". Life doesn't need to reach forwards towards death; it's tempted to reach for suggestions aiming forwards; while ignoring to adapt to perceived origin; hence resisting as life; while being moved from inception towards death.
Every one can grow his comprehension (potential) of perceived (potentiality) by choosing to adapt to perceived inspiration (need) over suggested information (want)...yet only by oneself, hence the communication barrier when trying to help each other aka waking each other up. Choice responding to balance represents communication; choice to choice (aka agreement vs disagreement) represents miscommunication. We don't have to agree upon a system (flow to form) enacted upon us; and disagreeing about it represents ignoring it; while still being enacted upon by it. Willing self destruction.
Now and again represents momentum (balance within motion); which is what communicates inspiration to the responding choice at the center; yet choice implies having the choice to ignore perceived (need) for suggested (want); otherwise it couldn't perform as choice within balance (need/want).
If you would resist the "want" to chase suggested information down the rabbit-hole, and instead keep adapting to whatever inspires you; then you would tap as the finite form into the infinite flow offered to you. One doesn't need to chase after; one (perceiving) needs to open up to all (perceivable); hence growing in comprehension. You represent ONE seed within the soil of ALL; yet your choice is required to grow anything within everything. To prevent you from comprehending this; the parasitic few are suggesting you nothing (fiction); while you ignore perceived everything (reality). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
The real sharing isn't about suggesting information in exchange for confirmation; but about expressing growth; which others perceive as inspiration for adaptation. If you grow a garden; the growth represents an expressed ecosystem; which in return attracts everything around it.
a) most use addictions as a habit to calm themselves from suggested stress; which ignores that the suggested stress requires consent to grow; which then results in ever growing temptations aka habits to indulge in.
b) consider growing tobacco leaves...not for the want of outcome (being able to smoke); but to comprehend the process by adapting to anything perceived within it; which in return will help you kick the habit. I got lots of guys away from alcohol; by getting them into fermenting their own stuff. Slowly the needed responsibility to maintain growth overtook the wanted temptations, and of course working detoxified them mentally and physically.
Acceptance to premise represents choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law. What's being ignored is that suggestion doesn't represents a COMMON; noun - "belonging equally to more than one"; since suggestion is based on the choice of others.
Choice represents the response to perceived balance (need/want); not to the suggested imbalance (want vs not want) by others. Every different choice exists at the center of common balance, and "needs" to respond to perceived balance; while resisting the temptation of "wanting" the suggested choices by others.
In short...choice to choice (contract law) as the inversion of balance to choice (natural law). Choice doesn't have to accept any suggested choice; it needs to respond to perceived origin (balance).
a) information implies "from within form"; yet form (life) implies out of flow (inception towards death"; hence in need to adapt to perceived inspiration; which implies "from within spirit" aka (Latin spiro) - "to breathe" aka form to flow adaptation.
b) COMMUNICATE (to impart) -ATION (through action). Choice doesn't represent action; but reaction to enacted balance. Form (life) represents the reaction to enacted flow (inception towards death).
c) choice responding to perceived balance represents resonance (need); choice ignoring perceived balance for suggested choices represents dissonance (want).
d) perceivable imparts towards those perceiving it within.
Choice exist at the center of balance; balance represents the momentum of ongoing motion (velocity) for the temporary remotion (resistance) within aka temporary growth (life) within ongoing loss (inception towards death).
The few suggest past; present and future to tempt the many to ignore perceived momentum (tick; tick; tick..) aka the ever changing moment (um). All decisions (choices) are made within the moment (balance) and not for outcome (death); but in response to origin (for the sustenance of life)...unless ignored.
Life isn't outcome oriented (death is predefined at inception); life represents response to origin (momentum aka balance). The parasitic few suggest progressivism to tempt the many to go with the flow (towards death); while ignoring to be the formed resistance to it (for the sustenance of self).
REVOLU'TION, noun [Latin revolutus, revolvo.] - "motion backward" aka resistance (life) to being moved forwards (inception towards death).
Which would be great but they anticipated that and created a legal framework under which it is close to impossible to fire a "protected class"(everyone except normal white male christians) without a major lawsuit risk.
Most higher ups have better things to do and dont want the hassle so they pay lip service to the subversive and concede something that appears to be minor like one "temporary" line on the company homepage and a poster in the break room. Of course we know how that goes and it only escalates.