Guest Column: The Magical World Of Political Speech

4 06 2014

As a novice “wordsmith” myself, I have noticed the increase in carefully selected words and phrases by politicians over the last 25 years or so. This language is always intended to deceive as well as deflect and shelter from possible repercussions in the future while not avoiding posed media attempts at reporting, and give legal cover in the event of actual moves to be held accountable for either word, or deed.

The following article came to me via email and was first published on Bob Livingston’s website, PersonalLiberty.com. His complete article follows:

June 2, 2014 by Bob Livingston

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell

I keep the above George Orwell quote near me at all times. It serves as a reminder to me to decipher political speech whenever I see or hear it.
Political speech contains magical properties. It mesmerizes the masses because it is more illusory than a David Copperfield grand finale.
But political speech is dangerous. While it sounds innocuous, it is as deadly as a bear trap hidden beneath the leaves or a siren singing her song. It can grab you suddenly, or it can ensnare you subtly. Either way, you learn too late that you have been conned and there is no escape.
The magic of political speech is not happenstance. There are change agents at work in the inner sanctums of power whose job it is to create special words and phrases that are used in political speech. Those words and phrases are repeated over and over by the elites in order to dumb us down and create a conditioned response.

The process of dumbing down and the conditioning of the mind to create a nation of good, obedient subjects loyal and subservient to political authority and to the legitimacy of the political order begins early on. We are now several generations into the plan by the elites to create a Nation of state-worshiping ignoramuses taught pseudo-history and inculcated with a loyalty to and dependence upon big government. For many — if not most — of the Nation’s young people below the age of 25, government provided them with most of their meals while the majority of their days were spent submitting to government authority figures (teachers/principals/school officers) in rigid, structured environments that dissuade original thought.

Also aiding the elites and politicians in this effort is an army of “journalists” who never stray far from the official line of the State apparatus. They are eager to spread their lies and half-truths because that ensures them their seats near (or even inside, in the case of the Barack Obama Administration) the halls of power. On that rare occasion one of them strays too far from the party line, retribution is swift and harsh (see Helen Thomas and Sharyl Attkisson). This discourages dissent.

Politicians have learned that the more lies they tell, the more lies we believe. And the more lies we believe, the more dependent we become. Conversely, the fewer myths, lies and deceptions we succumb to, the less dependent we are and, therefore, the more liberty we enjoy.
I long ago learned the power of propaganda. I have watched as otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people have had their minds so manipulated by political speech that they acted contrary to their own best interests without a second thought. It seems that organized and sophisticated propaganda is able to operate outside the threshold of intelligence. In other words, without some imperative to trigger inquiry, very intelligent people buy into lies and myths the same as the general population. The lies and myths then become conventional wisdom. The human mind rarely accepts a challenge to conventional wisdom.

When confronted with a challenge to the established belief system, the mind closes off. When this happens, the individual employs avoidance behavior, writes off the new knowledge as conspiracy theory and labels it as kooky, insane or stupid. The information is then dismissed, never to be considered again, even when the facts support the new knowledge. Psychologists call this quirk of human nature cognitive dissonance. It means the rejection of information not in harmony with previous beliefs.

The esoteric purpose of propaganda is to extract wealth and labor illegally as concealed involuntary servitude or to steal the people’s liberty right out from under them, and even have the populace to thank the thieves for doing so, especially if it is done under the guise of keeping the people “safe” or to “save the children” from some danger, real or imagined. Those who use propaganda to persuade the populace against their best interests create myths and sell them as benefits.

The elites also use distractions for this purpose. These distractions serve to draw the people’s attention away from the important issues and focus it on the mundane and the trivial, much as the illusionist uses sleight of hand. These distractions can be events that occur naturally or by chance, which are then seized upon by the elites. But sometimes the distractions are artificial creations — also called “false flag events” — designed and triggered for the specific purpose of refocusing the attention of the populace. (Bill Clinton’s bombing of a Sudanese aspirin factory at the time of his deposition in the Paula Jones case and at the peak of the Monica Lewinsky scandal is a prime example.)
Often, these distractions serve a dual purpose. For instance, the callous and senseless murder of six people by the mentally depraved Elliot Rodger on May 23 has mesmerized the populace. It has created some distraction away from the burgeoning Veterans Affairs scandal, the Internal Revenue Service scandal, the Benghazi scandal and the ongoing collapse of the economy and Obamacare. But more sinister is its use by the gun controllers and hoplophobes to once again attempt to advance their assault on the 2nd Amendment.

Congressman Steny Hoyer employed classic political speech (or doublethink) in announcing that Democrats will try to steal more 2nd Amendment liberties by expanding background checks on weapons purchases through an amendment to an upcoming bill. While acknowledging that expanded background checks would have made no difference in the Rodger case, Hoyer said Congress must do something. (By the way, half of Rodger’s victims were killed with knives and five of the 13 injured were struck with his car. Curiously, Hoyer did not call for background checks on knife and car purchases.)
There is nothing lawmakers love more than making laws, even when they know their laws won’t accomplish their stated purpose. This is particularly true of those laws that take more authority for the state, or if they enrich the fascist system. For lawmakers, the “unintended consequences” of their laws are just like gravy, because then they get to pass more laws to correct the unintended consequences. This, of course, leads to more “unintended consequences” and the passage of more laws.

Obama is a master of classic political speech. In a political fundraiser in Chicago last week, he moved from blaming George W. Bush for his problems and put the onus on the Founding Fathers.

According to Obama, he is unable to move his agenda forward because the Constitution requires each State be represented by two Senators. “Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage.”

This, of course, is nonsensical on its face and is pure argle-bargle. Democrats control the Senate 53-45 with one socialist and one independent, both of whom vote with Democrats. However, it reveals something of Obama’s true nature. That is, he wishes to be a dictator and he detests the republican system of government our Founders gave us, but which we have almost totally lost to fascism.
But of course, in the world of political speech, such tommyrot as this is accepted as great political philosophy and applauded by the sychophants and toadies.

Certainly, the current regime has not cornered the market on magical political speech and propaganda; but it has more weapons in its arsenal than any before it.





“The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Would Slander the Prophet of Islam”

1 10 2012

“The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.”

A friend had called and told me of this quote by the President of the United States and I must admit, I did not believe it.  This friend calls me often to discuss world events and usually has his facts right.  He is the only person I know who can read a newspaper, listen to the television, and carry on a coherent conversation all at the same time, and tell you detailed information from all three sources.  I am jealous!

I asked him to see if he could confirm that with another source while I began to research myself.  A news break confirmed it, and I still couldn’t believe it!  I began to text a few close and trusted friends who hadn’t yet heard it.  Then a while later they began texting back that “…Obama also spoke against violence against Christians.”  So I watched the entire speech at the UN myself. Then again.  And finally a third and fourth time, rewinding and replaying several key points.  So here is my analysis of Barack Obama’s speech before the UN General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2012.

The underlying theme of the entire speech was “Tolerance”.  This should not surprise anyone, anywhere, as it is the prevailing theme of Leftist/Progressive/Socialist ideology around the world, particularly in the West.  The only problem with those who preach tolerance, is they aren’t.  Most of the time when someone demands your tolerance of something be it speech, morality, or behavior, is not asking for your mere “tolerance” of them, but demand your codification of whatever it is. But I digress!

While the “overt” theme was tolerance and “mutual respect”, the main subject matter related directly to the stupid little Youtube video which made fun of Muhammad and Islam.  It looked like something high school kids might come up with. Very poorly done and amateurish.  I question not only the source of production, but also the fact that United States Government officials are bending over backwards to disavow the stupid thing.  As Shakespeare would say, “Methinks he doth protest too much”.

The President did the right thing by formally paying tribute to Ambassador Chris Stevens killed by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.  Next he posed a valiant effort in standing up for freedom of speech, especially as we know and understand it in America, while recognizing that “not all countries” share our belief in free speech.

Mr. Obama then addressed the violent reactions to the video, blaming the actions of a few backward extremists for the attacks and calling them to leave the cause of violence  and politics of destruction behind and join with us to create a better future….Kumbayah!  Oh, I have no problem with what he said, and he said it well, but either his naivety or his chronic narcissism has clouded his view of the real world.  Especially, the Islamic world.  You see, these “extremist impulses” which “divide the world into us and them”, are part and parcel of the Sharia which all Muslims are obligated to establish so that there is no more “us and them”; that is Dar al-Harb (“House of War”-anywhere that is not under Islamic control) has been absorbed by Dar al-Islam  (“House of Submission”) and “Allah’s religion shall reign supreme!” (Quran 8:36)

No Mr. President, this violent Islamic extremist activity has been going on now for over 14 centuries, and will not ever cease until the 2nd Coming of Christ!  It is not the result of the infidel Americans casting aspersions upon the “prophet”, nor the result of American or even Western intervention in Islamic lands or Colonialism of 3 centuries gone by.  It has been going on since the “Prophet” was exiled from Mecca in 623 AD!

Back to the speech.  Nearly 20 minutes into the speech, Mr. Obama began a series of comments about “the future”.   Now, lest I be accused of taking the lead quotation out of context, I will include the whole of these comments here in block quotes and follow each phrase with commentary in [brackets].

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt, it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted ‘Muslims/Christians, We are One!’.

[I have no problem with this statement and commend the President for drawing attention to the Coptic’s plight at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

The future must not belong to those who bully women, it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.  [Again, the words of the President are spot on.]

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources, it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who see a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stand with. Theirs is the vision we will support.  [Not quite sure what Mr. Obama is driving at here but will assume that he is speaking to historic European Colonialism.]

The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam. But, to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated,  or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.  [I want to come back to this!]

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shia Pilgrims.  [Let’s do that!]

It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” [Gandhi also said, “A religion which takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them is no religion.”]

In analyzing this portion of the speech, which in my opinion was the most interesting, I consulted with an attorney friend of mine.  As we went through the points about “The future must not belong to _____”, she brought to my attention that each of the crimes pointed out; violence/assault/murder (specifically here against the Copts) against any  people, beating/bullying women, stealing, these are all crimes recognized quite objectively by any legal system.

Slander on the other hand, i.e. “The future must not belong to those who would slander the Prophet of Islam.”, is quite subjective and as Muhammad has been dead for, well a long time, a dead man cannot be slandered or defamed.  Especially under American jurisdiction, where an opinion is freely expressed about anything or anyone.  Free Speech according to our First Amendment of the Constitution.  Legally, a plaintiff charging slander must prove in court that he/she has been defamed by the defendant at a personal cost, be it economic or social.  Muhammad cannot do that and since no one is alive who actually knew him to speak on his behalf, the charge is not provable.  If I call Muhammad a pedophile I am not slandering, because he actually had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl, molesting her much earlier at the age of 6.  If I call him a robber and a thief, I am not slandering because his raids of caravans are documented.  If I call him demon possessed, I am not slandering because Muhammad himself thought he was demon possessed and contemplated suicide.  If I call him an idiot, that is my opinion, and as such that is all it is worth.  Sharia cannot stand either historical fact or the opinion of a dissident!

Only under Islamic Law, ala the Sharia, can someone be charged with slander by criticizing Muhammad, or Islam, or even Muslims.  In America you can criticize any religious figure, book, government official, teacher, neighbor, or family member without fear of retribution.  It is an essential and inherent right, and the Founders understood freedom of speech to be so, in order to arrive at the truth of any matter and specifically to maintain personal liberty without fear of an oppressive governmental authority.  In Islam, Sharia is the government.

The other thing about this sentence in Mr. Obama’s speech is this.  This is a stand alone statement.  Anything that he adds afterward is merely window dressing, but taken at face value, all he is saying here is “if you condemn the slander of Muhammad you must also condemn hate.”  Hate, which presumably results in actions of desecration of icons, destruction of churches, or denying the Holocaust.  So are we to simply condemn the hate and not the action, or should we include hate as a crime, or what about prosecuting those who actually committed the crimes of destruction of property or causing personal injury?

Sometimes I wonder what planet these ideologues come from where they deny basic human instinct and behavior!  They never consider that aspect of human nature which, as fallen from the original state of Creation, is selfish, driven by his own lusts, and violent.  In the Psalms, King David writes the rhetorical question, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?”  The answer of course is “Because they are heathen and people are vain!”   But David says it better, “The kings of the Earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.'”  Rebellion against God always results in destruction, whether personal, or national, or cultural.  Islam has chosen another god from the God of the Bible and the result is darkness, blood and pain, not only for those who are in it, but now it has come to all the world.

Barack Obama’s eloquent speech was just so much white noise in the chambers of the UN General Assembly.  Immediately following Obama, Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari demanded insults to religion be criminalized.  Over a dozen people were killed there in protests against the film, while they burned President Obama in effigy.  “The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression,” he said.

Mohamed Mursi, the new Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt echoed that sentiment on Wednesday.  “Egypt respects freedom of expression, freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone,” he said. “We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us.”

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time to put an end to the protection of Islamophobia masquerading as the freedom to speak freely.

Outside the United Nations in New York, about 150 protesters demanded “justice” and chanted “there is no god but Allah” outside the U.N. building on Thursday. One placard read: “Blaspheming my Prophet must be made a crime at the U.N.

Islamic leaders in Dearborn, MI, held a protest on Friday, Sept 28, protesting freedom of speech, demanding laws that criminalize hurting the feelings of Muslims.

Yeah, me too…








%d bloggers like this: