One Is Only As Good As His Word

by Eric Thomson

. . . . George Orwell warned that "tyranny begins with the abuse of language." Words are the currency in the marketplace of ideas. They are the medium of thought. Like money, words can be devalued, debased and distorted by changing the denomination of the one and by changing the denomination of the other.

. . . . Orwell described a tyranny which knew the value of words in thought and in communication from one thinker to another. Thus did the dictatorship of Big Brother strive to eliminate certain words and to change the meaning of others. Even if one harbored rebellious thoughts, he would eventually lose the means of expressing them to others who would eventually lose the means to comprehend them.

. . . . This is exactly our situation today. Ancient Semites believed that a word gave one power over the thought or creature it described. By depriving one of the word, one is deprived of the power to think about that which the word names or describes. "In the Beginning, there was the word . . ."

. . . . Linguists have noted that few African tribes have a word for "freedom". "Uhuru", which was recently adopted to mean "freedom" is said to describe an antelope running across the veld. This would indicate some confusion between "freedom" and "flight"! Non-Africans seem to make a distinction: to be "free" is not the same as "to flee".

. . . . Imagine if we had no word for "freedom". What concept could replace it? Would anyone have a concept without a word to describe it? Someone might, but how would he communicate that concept to others, without the word? He could start from scratch by inventing a word for the concept, as one might re-invent the wheel. The concept of freedom is described by the word, but the word has been debased, as any of our ancestors would tell us, after a cursory examination of our way of life under ZOG.

. . . . In order to get the maximum output from a slave, he must be well-fed, as any master knows. Slaves traditionally own nothing, for they are owned by their masters. Since it is the bank which owns the property of the majority, it is obvious that the majority work for the bank. The bankster is more clever than previous slave-masters, for he profits from the possessions he allows the slave to use. Debt-slavery is much more profitable than older versions of slavery, and no fetters nor shackles are required. Some debt-slaves even confuse their invisible shackles with `freedom', when they obtain credit, for credit is debt, and debt is slavery. That is the price one pays for consumption beyond his means.

. . . . "Ownership" is a peculiar term, which has also become distorted and debased. In Roman-Dutch law, ownership conferred upon the owner the right to use his property as he saw fit, to alienate or sell it, and to destroy it if he wished. Naturally, the sharing of living-space with others caused these rights to be infringed upon with numerous bylaws, ordinances and 'environmental protection' laws. Mortgage contracts also infringe upon an ‘owner’s’ rights. With such obvious restrictions, we may question the real definition of ‘ownership', which is really an illusion here in USZOGLAND. Let's say one `owns' a piece of land in fee simple; that is, without encumbrances such as a mortgage. What if one wished to opt out of the cash economy and live off his land? Americans used to have that option, until the advent of property taxes. The land-owner is now obliged to earn sufficient money to pay those taxes. If not, the property will be seized and auctioned by the local sheriff. Most people are so accustomed to these imposed debt-shackles that they never consider them as such. But these shackles, like the income tax, did not exist in former times. On the other hand, the property owner must consider his need for public roads, utilities, prisons, schools, hospitals, police and emergency forces which exist from his taxes. In other words, society requires his active participation as a tax-payer; otherwise, he will be deprived of his ownership. Obviously, most `owners' appear to believe that the 'rights' they enjoy are justified by the obligations they incur. But the point is that 'ownership' is provisional at best, when we consider immovable assets.

. . . . When we consider movable assets such as cars, home appliances, clothing, food, &c. we have a bit more freedom, although many people owe money on'`durable goods', which are subject to repossession by the real owner, the money-lender. However, when a movable asset is worn out or consumed, the 'owner' cannot he deprived of it. But he must borrow more money to replace it! Conclusion: there are no owners, but only users. That is reality. Words are truly magical, for they can free us, enslave us, inform us, mislead us, enlighten us and confuse us, as we, the users, choose to interpret them. Most people are slaves without knowing it, and all of us are freer than we think, whenever we choose to think!

. . . . Orwell's dystopian tyranny under Big Brother had charming euphemisms for grim realities. There was The Ministry of Truth (propaganda), The Ministry of Plenty (rationing) and The Ministry of Love (the police). By adopting such terms, anyone who hated this government would be accused of hating Truth, Plenty and Love! How could one conceive of hating Big Brother who provided us with such good things? Orwell (Eric Blair) was not imagining things, for he was aware of such policies in the USSR and in Britain, where he worked for a time in The Ministry of Information (propaganda). Since Soviet workers lived in 'a workers' paradise', anyone who suggested otherwise could be deemed crazy, and confined in an insane asylum. Otherwise, he could be punished for treason, in the pay of the enemy.

. . . . The Ministry of Truth (Mini-Tru) not only wrote the news; it wrote and rewrote history, while conducting its campaign of "Newspeak", which sought to control the people's thoughts by con- trolling the words they used. "Politically correct" (PC) is the current term for "Newspeak". Under Big Brother, some words were outlawed. Under ZOG, "nigger" would fit that description. As Orwell described Big Brother, ZOG distorts the meanings of words, even using words to mean the opposite of their original denotations. Certain practices which were forbidden by ZOG are permitted and promoted under different names, when the practitioners are different. Big Brother's job was to control thought by depriving people of words and information, while providing them with distortions and omissions, as well as distractions to occupy their befuddled minds. ZOG does the same job. Like Big Brother, it gives us someone to hate now and forever: Hitler! All of Big Brother's opponents were agents of "Goldstein" (Trotsky), while all of ZOG's opponents are agents of Hitler. As ZOG becomes more arrogant and the populace more stupid, these procedures become more obvious.

. . . . Libraries regularly purge their inventories of un-PC content, replacing them with rewritten books of the same titles. The printed word can be embarrassing to thought-controllers and mind-manipulators, because it lasts so much longer than statements conveyed by the electronic media. `Books' on computer are suited to instant rewrites and alterations, as anyone knows. In the 1940s, the FDR regime commanded the destruction of printing plates, ostensibly for `strategic war materiel', but actually to suppress un-PC literature by preventing reprinting. This tactic, in addition to the kosher library policy of destroying un-PC books is the same as Orwell's Memory Hole, which performed the same function: the destruction of information.

. . . . The ZOG's school system performs the totalitarian functions of (1) Indoctrination and (2) Segregation of the indoctrinatees from ‘contamination’ by other age groups, including parents. What we were taught in 'our' schools was quite different from that which was taught our predecessors and our successors, so that a 'generation gap' has been created as a barrier to communication. By successfully breaking the transfer of knowledge between generations, the ZOG's indoctrination proceeds unopposed, with few exceptions. Most people are indoctrinated to believe that 'new is better', that current ideas are truer and wiser than those of the past; that 'change' is 'progress', &c. I was 'taught' such things when I was in school, although I did not see that old people were automatically inferior in knowledge to young people. Because I did not see that, I became a Nazi (pronounced `not-see'), and my visits to the principal's office were fairly frequent in elementary school, until I realized the difference between a democracy and a hypocrisy. Once I understood that I was called upon to participate in the latter, I settled down to `serving my time' and earning good grades, like a model prisoner.





Over to
Back to The Thought 4 The Day
Back to Stuff I Wish I Had Written -- But Didn't -- Resistance Columnists
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line or