- The New World Order (you know what the
NWO is -- the corporate-sponsored "free-trade" globalization
steamroller) exploits language in precisely the way Orwell predicted. Words
are used to mislead and conceal -- not clarify -- and are twisted to designate
the opposite of their true meanings. Concepts are tagged as being either
"good guys" or "bad guys" by dressing them up in "white
hat" words (like "reform" or "free") or "black
hat" words (like "bureaucracy" or "politics").
-
- This use of language is a form of propaganda
-- and this _vocabulary propaganda_ is much more subtle and effective than
_content propaganda_. Content propaganda misinforms about issues, but vocabulary
propaganda interferes with the ability to think or talk about issues in
a way that can lead to understanding or enable effective political organizing.
-
- As Orwell predicted, this kind of propaganda
makes language volatile. In his scenario, one might read in the morning
paper about an action against an enemy, with no mention that the same folks
were faithful allies as recently as yesterday's edition. In actuality,
the shifts in today's doublespeak are more subtle and evolutionary. As
you watch new language being created, you can map out the NWO agenda: the
white-hat items are to be promoted, the black-hat items to be suppressed.
-
- A classic example was the Oliver North
hearings. Words like "good soldier", "patriotic", "freedom
fighter", and "legality" -- not to mention "constitutional
balance of powers" -- took quite a beating. By labeling state-armed
mercenary terrorists (ie., the Contras) as "freedom fighters",
the whole linguistic ground of the hearings was warped beyond hope. Those
who should have been indicting the pathetic little desk colonel and impeaching
his boss were instead prefacing their remarks with kowtows toward the "freedom
fighters" (if there was time remaining after the prayer service).
There was no ability to discuss the affair from a meaningful moral or constitutional
perspective, and the hearings dissolved into circus rhetoric/coverup, as
was intended by the NWO language masters.
-
- If we want to discuss the world situation
with any kind of useful understanding, we need to explicitly decode the
NWO doublespeak, and learn how to translate it into straight language.
This is not an easy task, because the doublespeak process has, over time,
warped political language to the point where it is nearly useless. Words
like "socialism" or "tariffs", being so heavily tarred
with the black brush, can't be used meaningfully without an explanatory
preface. Even the word "government" is tricky to use -- the echoes
of "bureaucrat", "inefficient", and "corrupt"
reverberate unconsciously.
-
- Meanwhile, words like "market"
and "competitive" have been promoted with the white brush to
Unquestioned Axioms of The Universe. Easier would it be to hold back the
tides with a horse and lance, than to resist "market forces",
or so it would seem.
-
- Following is my attempt to associate
accurate meanings with some of the NWO's most topical phrases. Perhaps
these definitions will ring true to you, and help you better understand
what the NWO is about. With the doublespeak unraveled, the media becomes
a source of accurate information after all -- NWO statements, though coded,
are actually fairly descriptive of the sinister NWO agenda.
-
- ________________________
-
- "COMPETITIVENESS": the attractiveness
of a venue to multinational investors, particularly: laxity of regulation
and taxation; the degree to which a developed country regresses to Third-World
status.
-
- The phrase "Britain must be made
more competitive for today's markets" decodes as "Britain must
have lower wages and lower corporate tax rates so that it can compete with
low-income parts of the world in attracting _generic_ corporate investments".
-
- _Genuine_ competitiveness, as demonstrated
by Japan, involves marshalling the nation's skills & resources toward
adding value in focused markets -- achieved by promoting synergy and making
coordinated investments. NWO-peddled "competitiveness" is like
prostitution -- it values a nation's human and societal resources at scrap
street value.
-
- __________________________
-
- "CONSERVATISM": a policy of
radically restructuring politics and economics in order to produce investment
opportunities and undermine democracy; contrast with _actual_ conservatism:
a policy of preserving existing institutions in the interest social and
economic stability.
-
- Ronald Reagan was the clearest exemplar
of this particular line of doublespeak. His rhetoric emphasized "returning
to traditional values" while he was in fact dismantling long-evolved
institutions and pursuing policies of unprecedented and untried social
and economic transformation.
-
- _Genuine_ conservatism acts as a societal
gyroscope, resisting nearly every kind of change, regardless of its direction.
Conservatism's catch prase might be "If it ain't broke, don't fix
it." A very important point to notice is that the assault by the NWO
on existing democratic institutions has reversed the field in the game
of Radical vs. Conservative: for most of the twentieth century, it has
been the democracy-minded progressives who sought radical change, and the
capitalist right wing who were the conservatives. But since Reagan &
Thatcher, the right-wing has taken the initiative for radical change (in
the wrong directions), and it is now the progressives who have a vital
interest in maintaining the political status quo (ie., constitutional democracy
and national sovereignty).
-
- In this case, doublespeak succeeds in
separating the progressives from their natural constituency. Progressive
activists _should_ be reaching out to the silent majority -- arousing stick-in-the-mud
conservatives to join the cause against reckless NWO-induced changes. By
pre-empting the term "conservatism", the right-wing radicals
have tricked most of the conservative-tending masses into following the
wrong parade.
-
- Progressives _must_ reclaim their natural
ground. To have any hope of assembling a significant constituency, they
must find a way to break through the doublespeak jargon and help the general
population to see that its interests are not being served by the new "conservatism",
and that reckless changes are its true agenda.
-
- We see a bizarre distortion of this desirable
conservative reaction in the Militia mentality in America. Militia "conspiracy
theories" are actually quite close to the mark: the U.S. government
_is_ being sold out to international interests; the U.N. _is_ beginning
to establish a sovereignty-threatening military force; the Constitution
_is_ being trashed; the establishment in Washington _is_ effectively a
bunch of traitors. But it's not the progressives who are bringing this
message to these hard-core backwoods conservatives -- instead the message
is getting to them with a doublespeak reverse spin that manages to label
the sellout of America as a "liberal" conspiracy! Since a Democrat
happens to be in the White House, the NWO myth spinners have been able
to transform anti-establishment sentiment into anti-liberal sentiment.
Instead of addressing the real enemies of the Constitution (the corporate
elite), the Militia tilts its lance toward the liberals and progressives
who should be instead its natural allies in defending democracy. Divide
and Conquer shows up once again as the most potent tool of autocratic control.
-
- Language is a field of battle, the media
is the artillery, and vocabulary is the ammunition. The NWO has taken the
field by storm, and is proceeding with coordinated attacks on several fronts,
using all the latest hi-tech vocabulary ammunition. They've laid a bed
of land mines that cripple us when we try to stand on them: "liberalism",
"conservatism", "prosperity", "democracy".
-
- Progressives must wake up to the attack,
and somehow find a way to fight back. The achilles heal of the NWO lies
in its runaway successes: its high-handed treatment of nearly everyone
has created an awesome potential counter-reaction -- if people can be made
to see who the real perpetrators are, those who are engineering the decline
of democratic civilization. Even its doublespeak successes can be turned
against it, if people can learn to read the NWO agenda by learning to decode
the propaganda it dishes out. The NWO crowd actually reveals all in their
propaganda, so arrogantly confident are they that their doublespeak enigma
device won't be seen through by the people.
-
- _________________________
-
- "DEMOCRACY": a government with
a competitive party electoral system, in which multinationals are able
to exert effective influence; Note: unrelated to whether the government
represents the people or supports their welfare.
-
- If multinational interests are served,
then no amount of popular unrest, nor vote rigging -- not even civil war
-- will serve as credible evidence that a "democracy" is a sham.
If corporate interests aren't served, no amount of civil accord, prosperity,
and popular support qualifies the government as "democratic".
-
- Doublespeak audacity reached an outrageous
climax when CCN broadcast live coverage of Yeltsin shelling his own Assembly,
and billed it as a victory for "democracy"! (Did they realize
they were televising an exact repeat of Lenin's shelling of an earlier
Constituent Assembly? Would that have altered their assessment?) What Yeltsin's
bloody power grab _was_ a victory for was the corporate-sponsored dismantlement
of the Russian economy, a program the Western-backed Yeltsin has played
his part in flawlessly. With a subtle doublespeak twist within a twist,
the media refers to Yeltsin as a "liberal element" -- in fact
he is a "neo- liberal" element, which translates as "NWO
stooge".
-
- _Genuine_ democracy must be judged by
its responsiveness to the informed desires of the people, its success in
promoting their welfare, and their satisfaction with its performance. The
mechanisms used to attain a functional democracy can have many forms. The
media says only competitive political parties can deliver democracy, but
don't believe it.
-
- The record is clear that multi-party
elections are no guarantee whatever of democratic process. Not only can
parties be limited to those representing elite minority (or foreign) interests,
but the autonomous authority of the military (typically subsidized by major
NWO powers) often overshadows governmental policy.
-
- To understand what democracy is really
about, we need to re-examine our most cherished assumptions. Is the U.S.
a democracy? Is Cuba a democracy? Do you think you can tell?
-
- Cuba doesn't have competitive parties
or elections. But policies are worked out by representatives from different
segments of society, are explained forthrightly (at length!) on the media,
and feedback is listened to. Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels
(until recently) have been the envy of comparable economies. And Castro
has been overwhelmingly popular for most of his tenure.
-
- The U.S. has parties and elections. But
policies are worked out by corporate interests, sold through misleading
media rhetoric, and popular opposition is dismissed as emotional reaction.
Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels -- in fact human welfare by
any measure -- are on a steady decline. The esteem of government and elected
officials looms ever lower on the horizon, nearly ready to set into a sea
of total disgust.
-
- The elections themselves are circuses
where certain topics are selected as being "the issues" and the
crowd is entertained with an orchestrated wrestling match where Hulk Republican
and Pretty Boy Democrat dance around the limited ring of issues. When the
match is over, the establishment gets back to its un-discussed agendas.
Because there are no substantive issues raised during the campaign, the
rhetoric fades into memory. There's no platform, and no distinct "change
of government", as there used to be in Britain, before Tony Blair
infiltrated the Labour Party.
-
- Such elections are more like a shuffling
of board members in a corporation -- the faces change, the policies continue
to be set as before -- outside any democratic process.
-
- Pink Floyd asked "Can you tell a
green field from a cold steel rail?". I ask you: Can you tell a self-governing
people from a stone parliament building?
-
- ________________________
-
- "DEVELOPMENT": the restructuring
of an economy to facilitate extraction of wealth by multinationals; transforming
an economy so as to become more dependent on trade with multinationals;
the theft of national assets by multinationals.
-
- "Development" is usually pursued
where the potential profit is greatest. This means that the investment
is as little as possible and the exportation of eventual revenues is as
great as possible. The result is a net drain on the "developing"
economy. Fair play, you might say, if the "developing" country
is able to take advantage of the situation to bootstrap its way into general
economic prosperity (South Korea?), or if an infrastructure is created
which benefits the general economy.
-
- But these collateral benefits are not
the purpose of "development", and the consequences are usually
otherwise. Brazil is an example where "development" was heralded
as a great success (at least for a period), due to the large flow of money
through the country. But the local benefits were concentrated in relatively
small, elite management and land-owner classes, and the consequence for
the general population was the destruction of their food supply and agricultural
economy to the benefit of agri-export operators. Meanwhile the rainforests
burn to make room for displaced farmers or new agri-business "developments".
-
- In other cases, a country might be left
with an infrastructure to support export operations, such as a selectively
deployed highway system, which may not be appropriate for the general development
needs of the country, and which increases its dependence on oil imports.
-
- In many cases, "development"
involves the granting of mineral rights, land leases, tax discounts, or
exemptions from regulations, as enticements to attract corporate "investment".
In rare cases, such grants are valued appropriately, but all too frequently
a cash-strapped Third-World country is compelled to give away long-term
rights to valuable national assets while getting very little in return,
usually some low-paying jobs and under-valued royalties. Whether the asset
be copper, oil, or agricultural land, the multinational investor extracts
billions in profits while the host country gets a relatively minor pittance
of the actual value of the arm-twist stolen asset.
-
- __________________________
-
- "FREE TRADE": the systematic
destabilization of national and regional economic arrangements, by means
of treaties such as GATT and NAFTA, in order to take economic decision
making as far as possible from any democratic process, and centralize global
economic control into the hands of the corporate elite.
-
- "Free trade", it would seem
from the corporate media's propaganda, is universally accepted by all reputable
economists as the One True Path to prosperity and progress. Such a belief,
which does not in fact enjoy a consensus among economists, is historical
nonsense. The Great Economies, such as those of the U.S., Imperial Britain,
and modern Japan, were developed under nurturing protectionist policies.
Only when they achieved considerable economic strength did these countries
begin to adopt "free trade" policies, as a way to prevent other
nations from catching up.
-
- An economy (see also: "Reform")
is an ecosystem. A strong economy is one that has diversity and synergy.
When "free trade" is imposed on an underdeveloped economy, it
develops in a distorted way, and is over- dependent on external market
fluctuations. Such weakness increases the bargaining leverage of the multinationals,
which is the obvious objective of "free trade" in the first place.
-
- "Free trade", which is part
of the "globalization" agenda, brings a shift economic sovereignty
from nation states, where there is hope of democratic participation, to
corporate-approved international commissions, where only the corporate
voice holds sway.
-
- ________________________
-
- "GLOBALIZATION": the undermining
of the nation state as a focus of economic organization; the reduction
to commodity status of worldwide raw-goods suppliers; the monopolization
of distribution channels by transnational trading companies; the reduction
of health & quality standards to least-common- denominator levels;
the most honest self-characterization of the NWO agenda.
-
- Capturing more broadly the scope of the
"free trade" campaign, "globalization" expresses the
intent to homogenize the world economy -- to make national borders transparent
to the transfer of capital and goods, and enable a higher-order of centralized
global management. The claim is frequently made that this will lead to
a leveling of prosperity levels on a global basis, but with some exceptions,
the evidence is all to the contrary. What we see instead, and as we should
expect from how "development" is structured and "free trade"
is implemented, is that "globalization" leads to a _greater_
prosperity disparity between the "developed" and "developing"
nations, as measured by the disposable income and living standards of the
general populations. The greatest _real_ prosperity gains have been achieved
by those countries which created domestic synergy in their economies through
selective protectionism (eg., Japan).
-
- The availability of low-cost worldwide
transport and the multinational scope of corporate operations -- together
with deregulation of trade barriers -- leads to a situation where every
producer is competing with every other producer throughout the world. Distributors
can thus shop for the best deal globally, and continue to sell at whatever
price they can get in their markets. As the distribution channels are increasingly
concentrated into fewer hands (mega-store chains, conglomerate food importers,
etc.), a classic cartel/robber-baron scenario is developing, and will become
more pronounced as globalization progresses.
-
- The "robber-baron" scenario
looks like this: On one side you have separated, unorganized producers,
all competing with one another to supply the distributors. On the other
side, you have the consumers of the world, also separated and unorganized,
buying what they can afford from what is offered in their local outlets.
In the middle you have the distributors, who like robber barons of old,
have (increasingly) monopoly control over the the flow of goods from producer
to market. Not only can producer prices be driven down in one-sided bargaining,
but producers can be selectively driven out of business, and in general
the distributors have the power to dictate whether and how the producers
do business.
-
- The classic example of a robber baron
regime was California in the heydey of the Southern Pacific Railroad. SP
would audit the books of firms which shipped goods on their lines, and
adjust each firm's shipping rates so that profits on sales were shared
"fairly" with SP. We see this kind of thing today when the same
drugs from the same distributors are sold at radically different prices
in different countries -- those who can afford more, pay more. It's the
corporate version of a graduated income tax -- but for the people, it's
taxation without representation all over again.
-
- As for non-price consumer concerns --
environmental protection, content labelling, pesticide levels, other health
issues -- we can expect to see a rapid reversal of the "green"
gains which have occurred since the sixties. Initially we see some localized
improvements in standards, as the EU, for example, levels its regulatory
playing field. But the long-term decision-making role for these policies
is being shifted to corporate-dominated entities (WTO, GATT, Brussels).
This means that as the distributors tighten their noose of control, and
after local regulatory power has been disabled, the distributors will wield
their awesome influence to reduce "anti-competitive" environmentalist
"shackles" on "free markets" and "consumer savings".
This is of course already happening. We have the EU telling the Germans
that UK beef is safe, when the UK can't even get its story straight about
whether adequate controls are being implemented. The EU, and even more
so the WTO, have every motivation to go out of their way to decide in favor
of more trade, and minimize appraisal of any negative consequences. Their
business is to increase business, and they are a level removed from the
influence of citizen's concerns. That's why "globalization" amounts
to a partial sovereignty shift from democracy (where it exists) to corporate
feudalism.
-
- "Globalization", among the
terms in the NWO phrase book, comes closest to being an honest use of language.
The NWO does indeed, as "globalization" suggests, want to systematize
commerce on a global scale, to homogenize the world in who-knows-how-many
aspects -- to bring forth a new world order. The deception comes in the
implication that "globalization" will bring increased prosperity,
that "free markets" will get goods to those who need them, and
that the abundance of the earth will become available to humanity on a
more equitable basis. As the song goes, "It ain't necessarily so".
-
- ___________________________
-
- "PRIVATIZATION": (1) the theft
of citizen assets by corporate interests, achieved through discounted sell-offs
of intentionally under-valued public properties; (2) the creation of new
investment opportunities by means of dismantling successfully operating
public services.
-
- Media discussion of privatization is
generally limited to the narrow issues of consumer benefits and operating
efficiency. Even on these grounds, the arguments presented are usually
far from convincing. They are frequently simply a recitation of the axioms
"public is inefficient", "private is efficient" --
often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
-
- Privatization is not just a change of
managers, it is a change of ownership. It removes equity from citizens,
and removes or minimizes public control over asset development and pricing.
In many cases following privatization, employment is reduced as an immediate
step in reducing costs and enhancing the profit picture -- without the
social costs of the unemployment being considered in the overall accounting
for the transaction.
-
- The aim of a privatized operation shifts
from providing a public service, to making a profit. Short-term profit
pressures may reduce investment in long-term maintenance and upgrades,
since their payback period may be beyond the horizon of the investor's
plans for cashing out.
-
- Despite inflated claims to the contrary,
consumer benefits tend to be minimal -- any reduction in rates would be
a direct loss from the bottom line, and token reduction are usually enough
for PR purposes and to satisfy regulatory constraints. The obvious fact
that the operator needs to take out a profit is seldom mentioned when the
benefits of privatization are proclaimed, as if efficiency benefits (if
any) would accrue fully to the consumer.
-
- In their personal finances, citizens
appreciate the value of asset ownership. Owning a car or home offers significant
cost savings over the lifetime of the investments, and greatly benefits
the citizen in the face of inflation and fluctuating rental rates. With
privatization, citizens are transformed from owners to renters, and suffer
a long-term equity loss that may be many times greater than the discounted
sale price of the asset. A privatized rail system may offer cheaper rates
the first few years, but in the long run it will charge whatever the traffic
will bear -- in tomorrow's inflated economy.
-
- ___________________________
-
- "REFORM": the modification
or replacement of an existing economic or political system, so as to create
new corporate investment opportunities -- it is not required that the new
system perform effectively, only that it deliver corporate profits.
-
- A system is in need of "reform"
whenever corporate investors think of a new angle to make new profits.
Obvious failures of the "reform" process, such as unemployment
and poverty, are never the fault of "reform", but of incomplete
implementation. Belief in "reform" is like religious faith: no
amount of counter-evidence can phase the True Believer.
-
- "Reform" is like clear-cutting.
A forest is an ecosystem, with wildlife, streams, underbrush, etc. Careful
forestry can harvest timber without destroying the ecosystem -- but clear-cutting
destroys all at once. An existing political/economic arrangement is also
an eco-system: it is the subtle fabric that weaves the society together
and enables its functioning. "Reform" -- as we see in the Soviet
breakup/selloff/ripoff -- can destroy the existing framework all at once,
and replace it with one that doesn't fit, that would take years or decades
to take root and begin producing, and will be owned by someone else at
the end of the day.
-
- _Genuine_ reform would take into account
the existing conditions, and if a change is needed, would make incremental
changes over time, evolving a working system toward sounder functioning.
Most significant, it would reflect local customs and preferences -- it
would not seek to impose a cookie-cutter standard paradigm upon all cultures
and traditions.
-
- __________________________
-
- "THIRD-WORLD ASSISTANCE": (1)
the subsidization of non- competitive First-World industries by means of
channeling earmarked funds through Third-World hands; (2) carrot-money
to entice "development" in preferred NWO directions; (3) hush-
money to fund domestic suppression in host countries
-
- In order to encourage acquiescence by
the taxpayers who foot the bill for it, "assistance" or "aid"
almost always comes wrapped in the rhetoric of humanitarianism. Recently
in Germany a more honest sales- pitch has been launched, announcing that
for every mark that was spent as development aid, 1.15 marks came back
as orders for German business. This is no surprise to anyone who's followed
the numbers, but perhaps the publicity will invite the German people to
ask why German business doesn't pay more of the "aid" bill.
-
- Heaven knows the Third World needs _real_
financial aid -- not interest-bearing loans and not funds earmarked for
externally-defined purposes. When strapped for development funds, it is
difficult for a country to turn down offers, even when strings are attached.
But money which leaves crippling debt in its wake, or which encourages
the development of a dependent economy, would be better refused -- it's
like buying things you don't need using a credit card you know you can
never pay off.
-
- In fact, the bulk of "assistance"
has been channeled directly to military and "security" forces,
in the form of weapons, training, and cash. In some cases this results
in lucrative contracts for First World arms manufacturers, but the main
objective is to create a political climate subservient to NWO designs.
The military muscle enables unpopular and NWO-submissive regimes to retain
power and drain their country's resources by participating recklessly in
the "aid/development" game -- running up their country's credit
cards at the NWO bank.
-
- Viewed from the broadest perspective,
the definition of "Third-World assistance" is "the NWO version
of imperialism". It succeeds -- in too many cases -- in accomplishing
the following imperialist objectives: (1) controls the development priorities
of the subject states (2) manages the ruling class in the subject states
(3) puts the subject states into a condition of eternal debt (4) extracts
profits and resources with minimal taxation and labor costs (5) provides
markets for First-World goods, enhanced by absence of development in directions
of self-sufficiency
-
- Like all highly-leveraged NWO enterprises,
this is all accomplished with minimal occupation forces, no colonial administrations,
and no public understanding of what's going on -- and the bill is being
paid by those who benefit the least. If the NWO strategists weren't so
sinister, you'd have to respect them.
-
- __________________________ CyberLib maintained
by Richard K. Moore rkmoore@iol.ie PO Box 26 www or ftp: Wexford, Ireland
ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore
|
