Changing Words and Profound Implications

From famous comedians to narcicistic friends, everyone's "ironically mused" about the evolution of titles and terminology in modern society. "Garbage Men" becoming "Sanitation Engineers" and "dead" becoming "passed-away" aren't the first examples of this trend. Language is constantly evolving and has been since the beginning of written history. There's a science related to this subject called Etymology. One word at a time, a language gradually adapts to shifting sociological and political climates, and becomes dramatically different from what it was just a few hundred years prior. For example, thee may findeth sore the present day to communicateth to an Englishman five centuries past (Middle English 1500AD), lætan ane an Angelcynn fram an þusend gear ær (Old English 1000AD). It's for this reason that the United States government funded a study a few years back intent of discovering an effective method of communicating with our descendants ten thousand years from now, on account of wanting to place warnings at our toxic waste sites. Warnings that our descendants could understand.

Why is this relevant on a conspiracy website? Just as governments took an interest in speeding up biological evolution through eugenics in the early 20th century, they also chose to change how we speak, in order that they change how we think. Thanks to George Orwell's "1984," the term "newspeak" is a familiar one to members of the conspiracy community. Most agree that the theme and events depicted in the novel very accurately represents the present day, and newspeak is one of those examples. Consider for instance the term "slavery."

This is a word still in common use today, but the leaders of our society worked to confuse the concept over the past several centuries, in order to make it more palletable to the masses. Slaves were forced to perform labor for their owners via the taskmasters supervising their work. Nobles discovered that the illusion of freedom allowed for greater morale and productivity, and so slaves transitioned into serfs, who worked for their lords without taskmasters, so long as the job got done. Following the plague, popular revolts arose throughout Europe, leading to serfs becoming "freemen" or "peasants." Now the people were paid for their labor and could work for whoever they pleased and live wherever they pleased. At the end of the day, they had the same amount of resources as before, and still lived in the same huts they resided in as serfs - as they lived in as slaves. Just as life for the serfs was little different from their lives as slaves, the lives of the peasants was practically identical to their lives as serfs. Life just took on a new flavor; the fundementals remained.

Today, we peasants are paid a small fraction of the fruit of our labor, just as in centuries past. While the overall quality of our lives has vastly improved since our days as serfs, equally has the quality of the lives of our noblemen. We've left our huts for our houses, and our masters left their manors for mansions. We spend the vast majority of our lives working as our ancestors did, and our nobles spend the majority of their lives playing like their ancestors did. Our status has changed more in theory than in reality. Our ancestors might marvel at our lifestyles and possessions today, but the ancestors of our nobles would surely marvel equally. The improvement of our social status is illusory - just another flavor of the very same coolaid which the peasants once drank, the serfs before them, and the slaves before that. We are free-range slaves, paid just enough to keep us coming back each day and nothing more.

Consider also the military progression from slavery to conscription to draft. There's no difference. Peasants are uprooted from their lives and forced to drill and fight the wars of their masters. Yet the terminology was altered in order to influence the people into believing the situation had improved somehow. The connection is so immediately obvious, yet so few seem to recognize it. Even today we're on notice that should the US government desire to "draft" again, it will do so, and we will again slave in their wars. The reality though is that we're then slaves in reserve even today, and in fact slaves in general if so. While we're paid a quarter of the revenue we generate and then compelled to pay thirty percent of those earnings to the government, our modern nobles no doubt see us little differently from how their ancestors viewed ours. You and I are slaves, regardless of what terminology you choose to use, or of what flavor coolaid you prefer. We're slaves, and we probably always will be.

a reply to: Navarro

Thanks for a great thread

For sure the art of deception has worked well

quick examples - off to work


there is only us and there is the Terrorist
If you're not with us you're against us
Operation Enduring freedom

Heroes returning home (not your dead children)
He died so you could be free
Benelovent Government


www.linguisticsociety.org...
Does the Language I Speak Influence the Way I Think

What we have learned is that the answer to this question is complicated. To some extent, it's a chicken-and-egg question: Are you unable to think about things you don't have words for, or do you lack words for them because you don't think about them? Part of the problem is that there is more involved than just language and thought; there is also culture. Your culture—the traditions, lifestyle, habits, and so on that you pick up from the people you live and interact with—shapes the way you think, and also shapes the way you talk.....

In other words, the influence of language isn't so much on what we can think about, or even what we do think about, but rather on how we break up reality into categories and label them. And in this, our language and our thoughts are probably both greatly influenced by our culture.

Yeah but we still have bread and circuses.

*breaks into song* Peanut Butter Jelly Time!

a reply to: Navarro
Runway becomes Tarmac; A picture taken of oneself becomes a Selfie. Who sets these verbal trends that replace the familiar and why? All of sudden taking a pic of oneself is such a fad has to evolve the idea into renaming it for ANOTHER greater importance than what it is (capturing a likeness of oneself).

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Navarro

Thanks for a great thread

For sure the art of deception has worked well

quick examples - off to work


there is only us and there is the Terrorist
If you're not with us you're against us
Operation Enduring freedom

Heroes returning home (not your dead children)
He died so you could be free
Benelovent Government


www.linguisticsociety.org...
Does the Language I Speak Influence the Way I Think

What we have learned is that the answer to this question is complicated. To some extent, it's a chicken-and-egg question: Are you unable to think about things you don't have words for, or do you lack words for them because you don't think about them? Part of the problem is that there is more involved than just language and thought; there is also culture. Your culture—the traditions, lifestyle, habits, and so on that you pick up from the people you live and interact with—shapes the way you think, and also shapes the way you talk.....

In other words, the influence of language isn't so much on what we can think about, or even what we do think about, but rather on how we break up reality into categories and label them. And in this, our language and our thoughts are probably both greatly influenced by our culture.

Absolutely. Terrorism is an example of a very rapid shift in terminology and meaning. In 2001, "terrorism" meant to engage in violence for political purposes. Today we commonly hear of "cyber terrorism," where everyone understands there's no violence here - they've merely evolved the word "hacker" into "cyber terrorist" in order to associate hackers with Al Qaeda and 9/11 in an effort to demonize their enemy. That is, enemies of the state. It was immediately after 9/11 that Bush announced Al Qaeda's motivations for attacking us: they're "jealous of our freedom," he said. It takes a masterfully unthinking public to find that explanation reasonable.

The primary word in that statement is "freedom," and few could describe what "freedom" is in practice. It's difficult to disagree with a statement on a subject which you know nothing about, because you've never experienced it before. Americans assume they're free because they've heard it said constantly over the course of their lives, and so they're left to assume a statement pointing to our supposed "freedom" must also be true. However, I don't think many of us here would disagree with the statement that what "freedom" meant to George Washington is certainly not what "freedom" means to Americans today. Washington was after all an aristocrat and slave owner, so at least he experienced freedom himself, and was in a position to closely observe a lack there-of, through himself depriving them of freedom. Yet there exists no man who Americans would sooner consider a symbol of freedom, than a slave owner since the age of eleven.

There is no freedom; not for you or I.

Wow.. This is the first time I have logged in to ATS in at the very least 14 months.. Absolutly fantastic topic, with an OP that ripples through each and every interaction, with, every single person, throughout the course of every single day. The causality of newspeak as related to major nexus points throughout history, or even that feeling of being worthless, or, elite.. All scenarios are built upon the suduction of language.. This topic is a great ming massager.. reply to: Navarro

a reply to: Navarro

This is precisely why I do not trust the modern way of communicating. Those who insist on using a Twitter account, a medium of communication which, by its very definition, is incapable of conveying anything of import in exacting detail, owing to the limitation placed on character count, are helping to destroy the language we speak by appeasing those who want to place limitations on our already eroded language.

I realise that our language has changed, is changing, and will change. But that is not necessarily a good thing, as your post makes fantastically clear. In my estimation, it is the responsibility of every generation to produce a significant number of individuals who will eschew certain aspects of modernity, in favour of making life choices which remind the rest of their generation what the dickens we are all doing here.

Life is not a rehearsal, but it seems as though the only way to ensure that we do not keep repeating the mistakes of the past, is to never be allowed to forget them for a moment. A good place to start, is to ensure that ones vernacular does not alter too far from that of ones ancestors, to make certain that you understand what remains of their writings, musings, and thoughts on matters pertaining to their daily lives.

If one allows ones language to change to the point where one cannot understand ones elders, one looses out on the ability to learn from their experiences, which is a bloody foolish thing to do.

Also, let's face it, most linguistic malformations these days come from an absence of culture, rather than counter-culture. For example, Stree Culcha (which is how the culture deficient knuckle draggers who personify the term pronounce it) is not actually a culture in and of itself, but a determination to abandon it, and any genteel or laudable virtue that might have come from it. Speaking as if one is always about to be recorded as part of a documentary on Grime music therefore, does not make one a culture vulture. It does succeed in making one appear to have all the wit of a baked potato, but most people who get into that scene are not going for that end result, it's just the one they end up with!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Navarro

...most linguistic malformations these days come from an absence of culture, rather than counter-culture.

I would offer that the idea of culture, and even more so counter-culture, sells. I would say that the rapidity with which our (closely related) language changes is the real issue and is driven by the marketers and merchandisers looking for the next big thing. The new hook, and if that doesn't work we'll get a new one. Sell products.

Keep them biting and if that bait doesn't work put a new one on the hook quick.

The evolution of language is a natural and sensible progression, until salesman get involved.


ETA: In response to the OP: It's not our governments that are tweaking our language to suit their nefarious plans, it's the ad men hoping for the next contract and the salesman counting on their next commission.

Good & okay have been replaced with AWESOME!!

Thank You has been replaced with, "oh thank you so so much"!!

I think there's a massive cheapening of words coinciding with a general dumbing-down of the culture.

It used to weird me out, but I accept it as-is and mostly keep to myself. That solution is so far not so bad.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

We have a culture now that tweets or texts with 120 key strokes including spacing. EVERY idea form HAS to become an a Acronym now of a much larger idea form communicated. You are witnessing the destruction of this civilization. How would a 'tweeted' novel actually read? Nothing like "The Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad; or any Dickens/Austen novel. A short one page poem; Yeats or Donne quality? I doubt it.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I have more of an issue with people over-emphasizing words, and taking it to the extreme. Honestly the people who are best able to shorten their txt and adapt to the digital landscape are the most intelligent. The most resistant are not so wise.

The only thing I'm not into is social media, but everything else I see as a natural process.

Look at it like this. It's so very easy to be mindlessly entertained, but also if you're intelligent with a mind like a sponge it's also very easy to be more knowledgeable in the 21st century than perhaps any time in our history. So the majority take the easy way out and are sliding down, but the intellectual powerhouses are leap-frogging, innovating, and loving all the ways in which they can be fulfilled.

My solution has been to keep learning and only connect with people who have a love to learn. So I'm a nerd and herd online with other nerds. I also allow the culture to do what it will, because fighting this flow is far too wasteful of my energies which become slightly less each trip around the sun.

Sound money and small government would improve us to slavery to our biological needs.

The root of slavery is giving humans life and death control over other humans.

Someday the State and rule by experts will be as unjustifiable as chattel slavery is today.

Freedom means ownership by individuals and voluntary associations. The State is always a slaver.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: vethumanbeing

pl3bscheese:I have more of an issue with people over-emphasizing words, and taking it to the extreme. Honestly the people who are best able to shorten their txt and adapt to the digital landscape are the most intelligent. The most resistant are not so wise.

ALL CAPS ARE IRRITATING as is punctuation!!!!!,,??.

pl3bscheese: The only thing I'm not into is social media, but everything else I see as a natural process

Forgive me this question (apologize) what Cheese 3bpl are you in your state of naturalizing/fermenting?

pl3bscheese; Look at it like this. It's so very easy to be mindlessly entertained, but also if you're intelligent with a mind like a sponge it's also very easy to be more knowledgeable in the 21st century than perhaps any time in our history. So the majority take the easy way out and are sliding down, but the intellectual powerhouses are leap-frogging, innovating, and loving all the ways in which they can be fulfilled.

I realize this if in regards to an older population..the Generation X'ers; you cannot seriously believe this of Millennials?

pl3bscheese: My solution has been to keep learning and only connect with people who have a love to learn. So I'm a nerd and herd online with other nerds. I also allow the culture to do what it will, because fighting this flow is far too wasteful of my energies which become slightly less each trip around the sun.

That is so positive I have to repeat it "that is so positive"; keep the faith. I don't fight the flow either; I just change the rivers/energy direction using Beavers as my handymen

a reply to: Navarro

In keeping up with the Times ,The Term Conspiracy Theory should now be Redefined as " The TRUTH that is DENIED " Belief . It sounds more Respectable considering the Old Term was used as one of Ridicule to those who Saw through the Bodyguard of Lies of the Propagandists . .....

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Navarro

In keeping up with the Times ,The Term Conspiracy Theory should now be Redefined as " The TRUTH that is DENIED " Belief . It sounds more Respectable considering the Old Term was used as one of Ridicule to those who Saw through the Bodyguard of Lies of the Propagandists . .....

The Truth FINALLY WINS out (just because) a majority of thoughts combined demand it to be revealed. After all it is in our nature as curious beings to not question our beginnings (reason for being) and our relationship to a creator. We did not invent ourselves.

originally posted by: Navarro
From famous comedians to narcicistic friends, everyone's "ironically mused" about the evolution of titles and terminology in modern society. "Garbage Men" becoming "Sanitation Engineers"...

And you think your brothers and sisters should be referred to as 'garbage men'?
Are YOU a 'garbage man'?

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Yes, words can be used to manipulate, but words also evolve as our understandings evolve, naturally.
Old words find new meaning, new Perspective.

It seems more like 'evolution', ultimately, then 'conspiracy'.

"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole.." - Rene' Guenon

But, frankly, it makes no difference to me because I already know that "to speak is to lie!"
And I do not 'believe' anything, which mMakes manipulation difficult, especially in the presence of original critical thought.

My personal knowledge/experience is that as our understanding and "experience/Knowledge/Perspective" grows, so do our concepts of 'definitions' of common used words.
'Sky' (as word and concept) might mean much more to an aviator than to a blind man (who might well have his own excellent definition!).
The arcane becomes the mundane.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Navarro
This is precisely why I do not trust the modern way of communicating. Those who insist on using a Twitter account, a medium of communication which, by its very definition, is incapable of conveying anything of import in exacting detail, owing to the limitation placed on character count, are helping to destroy the language we speak by appeasing those who want to place limitations on our already eroded language.

I realise that our language has changed, is changing, and will change. But that is not necessarily a good thing, as your post makes fantastically clear. In my estimation, it is the responsibility of every generation to produce a significant number of individuals who will eschew certain aspects of modernity, in favour of making life choices which remind the rest of their generation what the dickens we are all doing here.

Life is not a rehearsal, but it seems as though the only way to ensure that we do not keep repeating the mistakes of the past, is to never be allowed to forget them for a moment. A good place to start, is to ensure that ones vernacular does not alter too far from that of ones ancestors, to make certain that you understand what remains of their writings, musings, and thoughts on matters pertaining to their daily lives.

If one allows ones language to change to the point where one cannot understand ones elders, one looses out on the ability to learn from their experiences, which is a bloody foolish thing to do.

Also, let's face it, most linguistic malformations these days come from an absence of culture, rather than counter-culture. For example, Stree Culcha (which is how the culture deficient knuckle draggers who personify the term pronounce it) is not actually a culture in and of itself, but a determination to abandon it, and any genteel or laudable virtue that might have come from it. Speaking as if one is always about to be recorded as part of a documentary on Grime music therefore, does not make one a culture vulture. It does succeed in making one appear to have all the wit of a baked potato, but most people who get into that scene are not going for that end result, it's just the one they end up with!

The start of the millennium was a brief but unique period for linguistics and culture in the west. The popularity of the personal computer and internet lead to a vast expansion of the information easily available to the average person, while simultaneously leading to a vast reduction in communication length. This was the beginning of the golden age of brevity, where instant messaging and text messaging stood as the catalysts for more commonly utilized abbreviation and acronyms than perhaps all previous eras combined. Many even began verbalizing this brevity in everyday spoken conversations. I can't tell you how strange I found it in the early days whenever I heard "LOL" said aloud as opposed to actual audible laughter. Human Resources personnel even began speaking of the troubling frequency in which employment applications were being submitted to them which contained the lingo of the internet. This was so prevalent that many schools began instructing their students against this newly developing practice.

Today we observe the evolution of that situation, through spoken abbreviations like "YOLO" and websites like Twitter. I personally have a Twitter account which I've used specifically for the purpose of practicing brevity, a trait more useful now than ever to maximize the effectiveness of ones message. You probably don't need me to tell you that it's extremely difficult to communicate complex concepts in only 140 characters. In fact, it's nearly impossible. I've found that the very best I could achieve would be to strongly allude to a concept rather than to adequately explain it. For instance:

When you place 535 men in a room, tell them to write laws for 239 years, is #tyranny and #oppression not a predictable outcome? #congress

The group which would be soonest impressed by that sentence also happens to be the group who would've been willing to read an explanation expanded into several paragraphs, providing greater depth and meaning to the idea proposed. Still, I think that Twitter shows a more effective means to propagate information to the yet-to-be disillusioned than current methods. For someone who has a sufficient follower base, and who isn't necessarily already preaching to the choir, sentence-long arguments as those could be very effective at informing those who once lived in the New York minute, and who now resides in the Twitter second. The question is whether or not one could attract the attention of a large number of currently illusioned, and whether or not they'd be capable of adequately comprehending the implications of the brief arguments presented.

In the long-term, the growing trend of popular brevity may have the effect of reducing the average individuals comprehension. The day may arise when a 280 character argument seems verbose even beyond the internet. Twitter could lead to the advancement of ADD in such a way that the average individual won't even be capable of maintaining clarity of thought long enough to fully hear such a 280 character argument. Communication would be supremely streamlined, and the quality of information communicated would be severely depressed. Communication miniaturization would lead to a dark age, where complex information cannot be adequately conveyed, and thoughtlessness would prevail in a way which you and I can't even imagine today. Not a single meaningful argument could be both heard and understood, because the attention-span of the public would be sufficiently reduced to prevent it. When one can only stand to read 140 characters, they can only stand to think 140 characters. Ignorance would be immutable.

originally posted by: quercusrex

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Navarro

...most linguistic malformations these days come from an absence of culture, rather than counter-culture.

I would offer that the idea of culture, and even more so counter-culture, sells. I would say that the rapidity with which our (closely related) language changes is the real issue and is driven by the marketers and merchandisers looking for the next big thing. The new hook, and if that doesn't work we'll get a new one. Sell products.

Keep them biting and if that bait doesn't work put a new one on the hook quick.

The evolution of language is a natural and sensible progression, until salesman get involved.

ETA: In response to the OP: It's not our governments that are tweaking our language to suit their nefarious plans, it's the ad men hoping for the next contract and the salesman counting on their next commission.

The suggestion that "the government" is behind the changing culture is certainly an oversimplification. However, the concept is simplified overall. Regardless of whether or not we're discussing feudalism and monarchs or capitalism and oligarchy, we're really discussing the same topic in actuality. For the thinking individual, the Mafia appears strikingly similar to the government which stood in opposition to it. Mafia controlled territory and the human-beings which resided within that territory. They required compensation for their direct and indirect services, usually described as "protection." One who wasn't inclined to pay their dues were frequently met with hostility - the protection the Mafia offered was protection from itself, for the most part. I think you'll agree that any differences between between Mafia and government are superficial. Similarly, the difference between a Lord and a CEO or a King and a President are equally superfiscial.

It's no secret that men with power seek to maintain and expand that power. One means of achieving this is through thought. To fool a man into believing a thing is far cheaper than actually making that thing true. In Medieval times, Lords were deeply involved in government just as CEOs are today. Oligarchy prevailed in those times just as they do now. When few dominate many, control of thought is necessary to maintain order. This is why Kings were said to be agents of God, and religious institutions preached that obidience to law is obidience to God. Which, in itself, sounds strikingly similar to the book "1984." Advertising plays a role in these things, but marketing products and marketing ideas are both marketing, regardless of whether or not we're talking about a business empire of a state empire.

The ruling class has always sought to placate the majority through alteration of perception in order to maintain and expand their domination over others. It would be a mistake to believe they'd be otherwise inclined. Even America's Founding Fathers referred to Direct-Democracy as "rule of the rable." The people demanded democracy, and so they provided them the illusion of a republic while labeling that illusion a "democracy." In that very instance, you observe the ruling class converting the word "republic" into "democracy," and "democracy" into "direct-democracy." History is inundated by such things. Our Lords may not be responsible for every alteration of our languages, but they're certainly responsible for the more meaningful changes.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

I'm a millennial. Born in 82. Yes, I witness it first hand. It may be that I'm in an upper middle-class area, but the bright around here are far more capable with a broad range or skills and knowledge-base than the generation that grew up in a world without the internet. There's completely different vibes in areas of lower socioeconomic status. One of my current business partners is a decade younger than I. He's proven to be very resilient and capable. I have no inherent bias towards individuals within a generation, but do accept there can be marked differences stemming from the way in which each grew up. We are all adapting to different circumstances, from area to area, and time of development. I can't say with any certainty that my life would be the same, or I would form my personality the same transported halfway around the world for my youth, or born in a different decade.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: pl3bscheese

We have a culture now that tweets or texts with 120 key strokes including spacing. EVERY idea form HAS to become an a Acronym now of a much larger idea form communicated. You are witnessing the destruction of this civilization. How would a 'tweeted' novel actually read? Nothing like "The Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad; or any Dickens/Austen novel. A short one page poem; Yeats or Donne quality? I doubt it.

In fact, we're witness to a culture that increasingly frequently reTweets at 120 characters. We observe unthinking individuals who don't simply lack the capacity to read and write beyond 120 characters, but neither can they think beyond it. Nor are they capable of meaningful, original thought at all. We observe parrots that understand nothing, but repeat everything - not because the idea is important, but because that particular sentence was entertaining. It's increasingly less fashionable to convey or consider complex ideas, and tolerance for the unfashionable is waning.