Not too long ago I read the book 1984. It was both good and disturbing. There are a few key ideas from that book that seem to be revealing themselves now. There are so many more I could get into but here are three I'd like to elaborate on.
-The snitch squad or thought police
-Control system manipulation
PC culture is the best way to distort perception. Words are nothing more than containers for meaning. It doesn't matter which word you use if the meaning is the same. Synonyms are interchangeable, but not in the PC culture where the container is apparently all that matters. Historically, the clinical term for mentally ill was retarded, making them synonymous. The word retard by definition is something that is lesser-than. Take flame retardant material for example. It refers to a material that reduces flames. A mentally retarded person was a person who's mental abilities are lesser than the average. This was the definition. When I was young people began calling others retards as an insult. The meaning of the word didn't change, but the word became rejected for everyone based on how some were using it. The meaning was the same. Today, if you say a person is mentally retarded, it is considered blatantly offensive. This never made any sense to me.
As language changes, the containers for meaning also change. The ability to forcefully compel people to say certain things is a very new and dangerous development in law and language. In the past, the law only established things you can't say. Preventing people from saying certain words does not prevent them from thinking them or acting on them. It deals only in the superficial, surface level of the matter. Furthermore, if people can't say what they think or are made to say what they don't, you really have no idea what they actually think at all since speech is how we communicate the meaning of things that reside inside our heads.
If I make my five year old say sorry, it does not make him sorry. Making people use certain pronouns in no way makes those pronouns true or valid. Dare I say words that are the same are the same and words that have a qualifier are not the same. In this sense, if you have a woman and a trans woman, they are different based on the fact that one has a different qualifier in front of it...trans. This language recognition has nothing to do with my feelings for or against the topic. It simply recognizes that distinctions are what enable us to recognize differences between two things that are not the same. So trans woman is different than woman, as the term trans is a distinction. No one would not use the word trans to describe a natural, biological woman. Even a person criticizing another for not using the proper words relative to all this would have to use these distinctions to make their point.
When reporting on a person calling a trans person by the wrong pronoun the reporter will say (example) Sally, a trans woman, was offended to be called a man by...... and so on. What is the definition of trans woman? A woman who is transitioning from being am man. Man to woman transition or the phrase trans itself shows that this is a process and not as fixed as a man or woman in the traditional sense. It is not wrong to refer to a person with the proper pronouns. I have a friend who is a trans woman and I now refer to as a her since the transition from him/ Josh. I am not a rude person but I do not think that the state should attempt to force a person to say these things. I don't think kindness can be forced.
This debate is a strange one and in the end, if anyone can call themselves any gender, man, woman, zir, or any of the others on the growing pronoun list, who would know if and when one changes or what to call anyone? To circle back around to the point: the complexity of the numerous pronouns gets so complex that the result is simplification to a genderless word. No men, no woman, and yet trans implies transitioning from one of these now non existent things to the other. Very confusing and the result is Newspeak from 1984.
In 1984 the process of language reduction allowed for more control as it forced people to only speak in a limited way. If you view math as a language removing certain base numbers in turn removes certain outcomes; outcomes desired by the control system doing the removing. I am approaching this entire topic as If I was an alien trying to understand human language. Confused about why one distinction is different than another or why a synonym would be more or less preferable.
None of this is meant to be critical of anyone's pronouns, just pointing out that I authentically have no way of making sense of it all. I really don't know what to think of all this. I posted the picture above once on facebook. It shows a trans woman who is (I have no idea how to say it, biologically a white man, and I haven't even got into race stuff) wrestling an African American woman.From my perspective traditional feminism involved biologically natural woman and excluded white males claiming to be women. Honestly, who should I root for in this picture? It seems to me that the woman who fought so hard for women's rights in the 60s would cringe at the idea of men being able to call themselves women and physically dominating them publicly in sporting events. It feels too much like a can't beat them, join them scenario.
Once again, very confusing for a person who doesn't want to offend anyone but really can't make sense of it all. Can I simply call myself a woman when it benefits me and then go back when it doesn't, and call it gender fluidity? I wouldn't have to change my appearance at all because a change in appearance implies gender, and that would be a gender stereotype. How would anyone legally enforce any of this? I have no idea. I'll move on now.
The thought police.
In the US we can look to see what is happening in other places and countries to see what is coming in some form or another. The article below describes how Italy is preparing to use 60,000 social distancing snitches that will not be paid but will receive financial benefits in the form of continued unemployment. For me the benefits a person receives for an action is their pay. These people would be indirectly paid to push social distancing on others.
Italy To Recruit Army Of 60,000 Volunteers To Enforce Social Distancing
"The “civic assistants”, as they would be known, would monitor gatherings and pass on information to the police and the Civil Protection Agency. They would not be able to force people to disperse.
They would work up to three days a week for a maximum of 16 hours. The scheme will be voluntary – they will not be paid but will be able to continue claiming unemployment and other benefits."
This has far reaching implications relative to vaccination or other government mandates that are already in the works. The surveillance equipment involved will be paid for by the person being watched in the form of a cell phone.
Slaves are people who don't want to be enslaved. People who long to give up their individual liberties to serve the sate are something else entirely. These people are far more easy to manage as willing participants. Getting into the psychology and the identity of the person is key. Many manipulative people who seek to control others first attempt to get them to submit to the will of the manipulator without the use of force. Force requires lots of resources, guards, and enforcement. If the control system can accomplish the same task without the use of force they can divert those resources to other areas. Most people who are victims of manipulation are not physically coerced but manipulated into submitting by their own free will. All control systems use the same tactics.
In my Consciousness blog series I dove into the psychological tactics that all major religions use so people continue to give up their time, money, and energy to the cause. Governments are no different. Patriotism and ideological manipulation are the tools that direct the general public. Identity is the key. A persons identity can be engulfed by an ideology that serves the agenda of another and I see this in the polarisation programs used by governments. The way that the left tends to use this strategy is by taking ideas that are good and then trying to enforce them using force. This instantly removes the goodness from the idea.
The enforcement of equality or fairness, which are subjectively established is dangerous because what is fair for one may not be fair for another. So the state, the monopoly of force can and will always determine fairness in it's interest and away from the individual. Enforced fairness by its very nature cannot be fair as the one enforcing it has the ability to use force and the one fairness is being forced on does not. Kindness as a result of physical punishment is not kindness, it is using the word kindness without the meaning as explained at the beginning of this blog. If I tell my lady to love me or else I'll punch her in the face anything she says or does is not and can not be love as coercion removes it. A prerequisite of authentic love, kindness, fairness ect. is that it must be voluntary.
1984 was good because it shows how individuals in groups become subject to systems that don't actually exist. It warns us about the system of government. Not one party or the other but the system itself; the same system that uses a two party system to keep people polarised and easily controllable. The institutions that seek to control us are not tangible. They are ideas. Governments, religions, institutions are mind control institutions and are not physical things. They are large scale archetypal forces that are shape-shifters. You can cut off the head and it grows a new one. Every person who is part of the organisation could die and in time the institution will grow and resume. They are just ideas and they are terrifying. Truth is, everything in existence originates from thoughts and ideas.
Rob Alexander is on a journey to learn not just about health but everything else.
This website does not provide medical advice.
The information, including but not limited to text, graphics, images and other material contained on this website are for informational purposes only. The purpose of this website is to promote broad consumer understanding knowledge of various health topics. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified Health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment and before undertaking a new health care regimen. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website.