The State’s Tower of Babble

010-the_tower_of_babel

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. –  Genesis 11:1-9 (bold emphasis added)

Whether you believe this actually happened or consider it an ancient myth, the moral of the story is very clear; a common language unites people. Different languages naturally divide people, who segregate themselves based on whom they can understand. Language is culture, and culture is the primary means by which people associate with one another.

If you want to divide a people and remove their power derived through unity, confuse their language. In the modern context, this means bastardizing the meaning of words and intentionally misusing them. Then make yourself the final arbiter of what people meant when they speak. This allows you to control the frame of discussions and the Overton Window.

Few authors demonstrated this as well as George Orwell in his famous novel, 1984. Newspeak and doublespeak have entered Western lexicon as ways in which government confounds and distorts truth by the use of words.

As the now cliché saying goes; war is peace, freedom is slavery.

But how do you get people to think this way? You use those words as though they had the other’s definition, but never admit what you’re doing.

Once of the more subversive effects this has is that it makes conversations between ordinary people very difficult because two people may use the same word yet mean totally different things. Rather than discussing their views, much of the time is spent trying to unravel the intent of what the person says or arguing when they actually agree. It can also cause people to support policies they are opposed to because they mistake them for other ideas.

Libertarian and crisis investor Doug Casey touched on this in a recent column (update; he’s written a second part to this topic that is worth reading, too).

Many of the words you hear, especially on television and other media, are confused, conflated, or completely misused. Many recent changes in the way words are used are corrupting the language. The corruption of language is adding to the corruption of civilization itself.

Words are extremely important because they provide the most important means we have to communicate with each other. If you don’t mean what you say and say what you mean, then it’s impossible to communicate accurately. Do you remember that famous line at the end of Cool Hand Luke, when Paul Newman gets shot? “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate”? That’s what I want to talk about.

You can read the rest of his columns where discusses the corruption of various words or terms. It only adds further proof of the trend we see in society.

Do not mistake the misuse of words by the Powers that Be or self-proclaimed authority figures as innocent in nature. When feminists speak of “consent” as though it meant the same thing as “desire,” they aren’t ignorant about what they’re doing. It is purposefully done.

When our political leaders speak of entire nations as “they” and ours as “we” as though we all got together and made the decision as a group, it’s not an accident. When the Federal Reserve announces another round of “quantitative easing,” the choice of words is not accidental.

Consider the word “love.” It is intertwined with the definitions of “happy,” “joyful,” “considerate,” “nice,” and “altruistic.” Except it means none of these things.

“Hate” is another corrupted word. We think of hate as a necessarily evil thing. We also use the word “hate” in lieu of “disagree.” Hence, you get “hate speech.” Or, you have “hate crimes” in which the motive of a criminal – as determined by a jury – impacts the severity of their punishment. It’s a stepping stone to criminalizing thoughts. Yet ordinary people will defend it because to oppose hate crime laws is to support hate, and hate is now synonymous with violence.

The Alt. Right is certainly not without its faults on a variety of issues I’ve referenced in the past. But their charge that “diversity is code for anti-white” is absolutely devastating because strips away all pretension and exposes the true intent behind it. No one discusses diversifying Japan or non-Western countries.

Along those lines, tolerance in modern context means embracing Progressive values. Open-mindedness means accepting Progressive values.  Inclusive means allowing Progressives into your groups.

Of course, the ultimate goal of twisting the meaning of words is to keep people confuse. A confused people are a divided people, and a divided people are easily distracted by petty, unnecessary divisions.

For the state, they make easily governable subjects.

By doing this, the state and its discontents are trying to play God.

The result: the vast majority of modern conversation consists of babble that you can only interpret if you know the person’s true language. Once you crack the code or figure out your own Rosetta Stone, it becomes clear.

Remember that the most powerful tool in your rhetorical arsenal is the question, “What do you mean by that?” It places a burden on the person to explain or define the words they use. They cannot hide behind presumptions that you both have the same meaning in mind.

A free and healthy society is based on a strong, cohesion language. A dying culture is filled people struggling to comprehend themselves and one another.

It is clear which category the West falls into. The question that remains is how long this can go on before the natural order of things dictate that people separate themselves politically according to their respective languages and whether this will be carried out peacefully or not.

Photo credit: Wiki commons.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Central Government, central planning, free speech, general political thoughts, libertarianism, philosophy, society and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The State’s Tower of Babble

  1. gunnerq says:

    “The vast majority of modern conversation consists of babble that you can only interpret if you know the person’s true language. Once you crack the code or figure out your own Rosetta Stone, it becomes clear.”

    In college, I struggled to understand Nietzsche. I understood every individual word he used but he kept stringing them together into sentences that made no sense, anecdotes that had no point. It wasn’t until later that I hit on the ‘Rosetta Stone’: Nietzsche hates God. Once I imagined the guy screaming his writings at the Almighty while throwing up the double bird, it clicked.

    It’s a frustratingly female way of talking. Men say what’s on their mind and care about being understood correctly even when the result is a fight. But women have concepts like “frenemy” and turn words into weapons of mass manipulation.

    And just like that, all those old “my word is my honor” warrior codes I’d read about clicked, too. It is not a trivial statement after all, that real men say what they mean and mean what they say. Modern politics is an excellent demonstration. And just like THAT, the dueling code clicks, too. How does men killing each other promote good character? Because nobody bleeds for a lie.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      It’s a frustratingly female way of talking. Men say what’s on their mind and care about being understood correctly even when the result is a fight. But women have concepts like “frenemy” and turn words into weapons of mass manipulation.

      I’m pirating from Rollo Tomassi at The Rational Male when I say that men fight in the physical realm while women battle in the psychological. For men, the message matters most. For women, the medium is the message. How they communicate is more important than what they actually say in getting across what they mean.

      And just like that, all those old “my word is my honor” warrior codes I’d read about clicked, too. It is not a trivial statement after all, that real men say what they mean and mean what they say. Modern politics is an excellent demonstration. And just like THAT, the dueling code clicks, too. How does men killing each other promote good character? Because nobody bleeds for a lie.

      This is a distinctly masculine way of looking at the world, which is also why the state has waged a war on masculinity. “A man’s word is his bond,” but “It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.”

      I’ll need to touch on this in a future post, but this goes back to the concept of honor. A free society has to be based on honor because it is an indispensable means of enforcing social norms.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s