Neo-Marxism and the End of Language
How globalist oligarchs are targeting western meaning
Language is changing in America; indeed, probably throughout the West. And the changes are not good.
The changes I see being introduced into English speech in America, are designed to kill off the practices and assumptions of individual freedom and responsive representation that have also been embedded for generations in us as a people.
The language and language practice changes that have arisen in the past few years tend to “deconstruct” (a favorite word of the globalist elite) the core concepts upon which the West has been built for four millennia.
They also tend to subvert the norms of representational government that America has practiced since its founding. The new phrasings, cliches and speech patterns replace those foundational Western concepts with Marxist/feudalist and oligarchical concepts.
Language, of course, always changes. That is why we distinguish “living” from “dead languages.” “Dead languages” have stopped changing because they are not in use by living societies.
However, the new language usages that concern me are not from language changing organically, the way it used to — that is to say, via changes in sensibility and usage; via new inventions arising and requiring terminologies, or old habits, traditions and objects passing out of memory.
In other words, the changes being imposed on our language and language practices are not arising for the same reasons that we no longer talk about “voyageurs” rather than salesmen, or why we no longer discuss wielding a “bare bodkin”.
Rather, the same monsters who have taken the rest of human civilization into their grip for the last two years, to establish their neo-Marxist/feudalist globalist oligarchy, are deliberately driving artificial changes in language and language practices.
(I’ll call the goal of these monsters, awkwardly, “NFGO” for short, as we tend to lack a catchall phrase for this horror. A “neo-Marxist/feudalist globalist oligarchy’ sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it isn’t; it’s neo-Marxist feudalism for you and me, friend, and the pleasures of a globalist oligarchy — with the oligarchy’s elites at the pinnacle — for them.)
Why does this matter more than slightly?
Changes in language are far from trivial. Linguists have pointed out, as I explore in my new book Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age, that language constructs reality. People can only conceive, understand, communicate about and act upon what they can name.
Thus, language and language practices shape national identity and even individual character: “[S]peakers of different languages develop different cognitive skills and predispositions, as shaped by the structures and patterns of their languages,” writes Dr Lera Boroditsky, Associate Professor of Cognitive Science at UCSD, in her essay “Language and the Brain”
So your conciousness is affected by your language, which in turn imprints your brain processing; the way you structure information is affected by details as subtle as the direction in which letters flow: “Exposure to written language also restructures the brain, even when acquired late in life. Even seemingly surface properties, such as writing direction (left-to-right or right-to-left), have profound consequences for how people attend to, imagine, and organize information”, writes Dr Boroditsky.
When certain language practices are altered, they won’t just affect how easily people can understand each other; they can actually shut down certain assumptions about freedom and accountability, and thus close down expectations of political representation and individual rights, for an entire society.
New practices introduced into language can thus chip away at the identities of Westerners, and especially of Americans, to wear down what is most Western and American in the core of their being; to introduce, at level of their brain processing, acceptance of what would formerly have been alien norms of social conformity, servitude, submissiveness, powerlessness and hopelessness.
So those who wish to destroy America in other, material ways, such as by poisoning our pharmaceutical supply, as we discussed in Facing the Beast, or by buying up our farmland, are not wasting their time in their efforts also to subvert our language.
Here are some examples.
I. “Social Distancing.” “Public Health”. “Public Good. “Public Safety.”
I’ve written about how Chinese Communist ideas popped up like mushrooms overnight when the “pandemic” drama was rolled out in 2020. “Social distancing” became a “thing”, even though in the individualistic West, the “social” part of that term was not organic.
The phrase lingers, threateningly, to this day: “In the pandemic, people needed moments of levity, and Barrymore’s crew could avoid spreading the virus by wearing face masks and social distancing.—Tori Otten, The New Republic, 15 Sep. 2023”.
The “social” of “social distancing,” just like the privileging of “public health” as a concept that is supposed to stamp out fragile protests about personal choices, or the rise of terms such as “safety” and “public safety” (and I gather, in Europe and Britain, “convenience”), are being used in ways that are meant to crush faint murmurs about rights and freedoms.
And all of these are Marxist usages meant entirely to reorder how we think of humans in groups.
We used to have a society made up of individuals. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was famously accused of having said, in a 1987 interview in Women’s Own, that “there is no such thing as society.”
I was living in Britain at the time and “There is no such thing as society” was inaccurately attributed to her everywhere, making her sound driven slightly mad with her lust for unfettered individualism.
And yet what she really said was:
“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’
‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who [italics mine] is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people [italics mine[ and people look to themselves first.…
[It] is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate …
[t]hat was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system … when people come and say: ‘But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!’”
Whether you agree with her here or not about benefits, her larger point was true of Western society: she did not say “society does not exist.” What she said was: “who [italics mine] is society? […] individual men and women.”
Indeed, this premise is the core building block of the Western project.
It is also essentially true of the American project – the fact that “society”, meaning the direction of a community or nation, must be made up from the autonomous wills of individual men and women.
But terms such as “social distancing” (which clearly parallels such Chinese concepts as “social credit score”), along with newly empowered terms such as “public safety” and even “public health”, are being “privileged” — that is to say, given validity and authority — over and above that formerly fundamental Western premise, that society is made up of individuals with rights.
Phrases such as “social distancing,” are predicated, in contrast, on the core beliefs of societies that manage the ordering of movements or behavior of masses of people by compulsion, as they do in China.
The repetition of “social distancing”, “public health,” “public safety” etc., along with the weird little circles on the supermarket floor during 2020-2022 telling you where to stand, as if you were prisoners getting exercise in a prison yard, all served to rewire the Western brain to become accustomed to the concept that we can indeed be told where to go, where to stand, whom to touch, whom to avoid; and that our individual wishes and rights are fungible.
All of this repetition is mind-rewiring that undoes the Western brain’s original wiring toward liberty.
I got into a gentle argument once with a right-on young lady who was speaking with me after I had been forcibly escorted out of a restuarant in Salem, Oregon, because I was unvaccinated. (I found it historically ironic that the restaurant, which would not let me eat alongside the vaccinated diners, had windows plastered with icons of the Black Lives Movement).
The young lady accused me, during our back and forth, of “centering yourself.”
I had never heard that expression before, but it is an important one. It aligns with the Marxist goal of the restructuring of our language: from the Renaissance on, the “self” has been “centered” in the West.
This was the great, revolutionary innovation of Western consciousness.
That centering of one’s self has now been turned into a “social” crime.
II. “What I can tell you…” “What I will say”….“Again…” “As I’ve said over and over…”
There is a change in how dialogue is being conducted at a public level. Questions are being dissevered from answers and we are being propagandized that that is ok.
A feature of the Biden era is that the Western notion that in a representative democracy, your elected officials have to answer you, or at least, have to appear to do so, is being demonstrated to be dead.
The phrases above form a new set of non-answers that break apart the Western representative-democracy premise that our elected or appointed officials are answerable to us.
These are highly scripted responses that some media trainer in the Biden administration has imposed on every single public spokesperson (these mannerisms seem to be especially warmly embraced by the women).
The phrases manifest along with robotic, NLP-style hand gestures that make the speaker look as if she is repetitively dividing dough with the edge of her hand. They are accompanied by that maddening upward vocal lilt, when the spokesperson is challenged, that sounds exactly like, “Young man, any more sass from you….”
This obnoxiously smug tone of voice and set of mannerisms does not just position the speaker as being superior to the questioner, but they also now indicate to the questioner that the speaker’s accountability is at-will.
She or he does not have to give the challenger an answer at all.
Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, and now her successor Karine Jean-Pierre, use these phrases in response to reporters’ questions, and especially in response to their follow-up questions.
The press secretaries also use the off-putting word “Again…” , before simply repeating what they had said before; or the equally Mom-ish “as I’ve said over and over”.
When these spokespeople are confronted with questions requiring, under normal Western expectations, actual answers, or at least squirmy Clintonesque gestures at answers, the spokeswomen are trained to restate their non-answers until the questioner gives up.
Here, incredibly enough, is Robin Dunn Marcos, Office of Refugee Resettlement Director, stonewalling Rep Andy Biggs in this way, at 46:40 — “What I can tell you” — when he asks her about emails sent to staffers whom she manages, raising concerns about hundreds of children in her care who were being trafficked.
You can see the Republicans melting in anguish at the wall of willed obtuseness facing them.
Variations on this non-response are: “What I will say”, “What I will tell you”; as if it is perfectly OK now to pick and choose what answer a public official constructs, to give to a public question.
Karine Jean-Pierre makes use of “What I can tell you” at 0:19 in this clip.
This language practice (and I call it a “language practice” instead of simply a change in language, because it is literally changing the rules of the dance of speech, severing questioning, linguistically, from any prompt to provide an answer) is dividing Republicans and Democrats, especially in public hearings, dramatically.
The Republicans cannot believe how maddeningly childishly the target of their questions is behaving. The repetition of non-answers feels to them like that awful moment all parents will recognize, when 8-year-olds realize they can drive adults crazy (and they realize the power this gives them), by reiterating ad nauseam “No I’m not, you are!” or “Says you!” — or by repeating the adult’s question verbatim, until the kids are finally sent to their rooms.
The trouble is, the Republicans can’t send anyone who is now doing this, to his or her room.
You can watch Republicans devolve in astonishment, writhing with irritation, in hearing after hearing: but they remain balked by the non-answerers. The targets of the questions remain stolidly and shamelessly unmoving in their own commitment to non-meaning.
This refusal to answer in any meaningful way, would not have been allowed to pass, a mere three years ago. “You are not answering the question”, the subjects would have been told, and eventually the question would be answered grudgingly or else the person charged with contempt of Congress.
At the very least, the subjects who stonewalled in this way would be torn to bits in the press and the administration that sent them out as front people, would never be re-elected.
But now, no.
Here is Rep. Ayana Pressley insisting to CNN’s Jake Tapper that “The border is secure.” He gives her multiple opportunities to correct what is obviously an arrant fib, but she refuses to take the opportunity to correct an untruth, and insists: “The border is secure.”
This divide has now become not just two groups struggling to communicate; this has now become two completely separate worlds of meaning, two different hermeneutical universes, with utterly different social rules, within one United States of America.
Establishing the baroque non-answer as legitimate, is not trivial. Every time we hear an elected official or government employee, a government spokesperson, or a corporate leader in the cross-hairs facing the press, give a categorical, bald-faced non-answer “answer,” it’s not just that moment that is frustrating.
Over time, with repetition, our brains are being worn down; the goal of our enemies is that we eventually will accept the premise that we do not deserve answers.
Questions in public from the public to “officialdom,” or to elites, will soon feel theoretical, cosmetic, or purely rhetorical.
Questions themselves will be drained of the positive social valence that they have had in the West. As in any totalitarian system, we will conclude: why even bother asking?
Sooner or later, these new linguistic practices and structures will indeed rewire our thought processes, so that we will forget that we ever had the expectation of the right to a public answer.
That is the goal. The meta-goal.
III. “I’m/we’re not doing this.” “Cancel culture.” “Speaking with One Voice.” Just leaving the room
Have you ever been in a debate with someone on the Left — someone thoughtful, educated, trained in critical thinking — who recently has begun to announce, when he or she has no good answers, “We are not doing this”?
I have. I have literally had people from the Left get up and walk out of the room when he or she ran out of good responses in an ordinary debate.
Until very recently, we understood that the person who stopped debating, who walked away, who gave up on the back and forth — had lost.
This is taken from a long document. Read the rest here substack.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
“Exposure to written language also restructures the brain, even when acquired late in life”
This depends entirely on how aware of one’s-self the reader is. One should examine the material read, not simply absorb it and regurgitate it.
“the person who stopped debating, who walked away, who gave up on the back and forth — had lost.”
There is allways the option to walk away from any battle that is unwinnable, fruitless, pointless, or risks descending into silliness, or simple attacks, thus taking you down with it. It is not a sign of weakness, nor losing, rather a sign of integrity and knowing limits.
You won’t win them all.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Post-modernism has also infected the sciences, except we call it Post-Normal Science. PNS advocates for a departure from the scientific method is favor of a science-by-democracy approach: truth is “temporarily” suspended in favor of a science by extended peer community approach, i.e. “consensus science”. Redefining science words by committee or by oligarchy is a bad idea. If I’m talking to a physicist and I say “Gravity” I assume he is generally aware of the whole package that comes with it. Changing “Gravity” to mean something different (say quantum gravity) would cause confusion, and cause me to hesitate using the word again, until I’m sure I know its new meaning.
Normal language is very similar. I learned the difference between “cat” and “dog” when I would point to a cat and say “Doggie!”, and someone would smile and say “No, that’s a cat”, and I would think ” Let’s see fur, four legs, tail. Looks like a dog to me.” But then I notice the whiskers, the miauw, and learn what the word package “cat’. contains Now late in life someone tells me, “No, we’re changing that. You can no longer use the c-word, you must call it a dog”. Replace cat and dog with man and woman and you have the reason people start stuttering when trying to describe someone’s sex, or using “people who menstruate”, “people who breastfeed”, etc. It goes much deeper than merely meaning, or the words you’re allowed to use. It goes to changing the words you use in your head, your internal dialogue. These changes could be because of the notion that someone’s feelings trump your mental sanity, but I think what you’re arguing is that it’s a form of mind control. Using “Ministry of Truth” for the “Ministry of Propaganda” causes cognitive dissonance, and there are some who benefit from our confusion.
Reply