Monday, June 18, 2007

Clear Meaning

(Original posting date 06.04.2007)

Last week, I was skimming through a section of one of my favorite political books, Orwell's 1984. One part of it deals with the Party's alteration, and finally, elimination, of certain words. Words are symbols of thought; disconnect the original thought from the word, replace it with a new thought, reattach the old thought to a new word or drop it altogether, and voila! One can no longer express the same thought as before.

To be sure, words change meaning by usage over time in all languages. "To kill" used to mean "to murder", with premeditation (and what we mean by "kill" nowadays was conveyed by "slay"). Likewise, "gay" used to mean "happy", not homosexual; and "rap" meant striking one's knuckles on wood, or a jail sentence. But what we have today is a calculated redefining of the very meanings words can have.

The premise is a chilling one. If the powers in a society want to eliminate dissent on a particular subject, one reliable means to do so is to make it impossible for you to name what bothers you. The really worrisome part is, it's happening right now, in the real world.

What triggered the thought was the CNN coverage of the torture-murders of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom in Knoxville, Tennessee. The national media has steered clear of this case since it happened many months ago, and only after constant commentary on the internet about that silence have they reluctantly "covered" it. The head stooge for CNN on this topic was Paula Zahn on her euphemistically-named show, "Out in the Open".

The premise of the show was, we are told, to decide whether or not it was a "hate crime". Apparently, if a crime is committed by 4 Black people (with a 5th as an accessory), in which the [White] victims are carjacked, abducted, robbed, raped, sodomized, sexually mutilated, shot, doused with gasoline, set afire, and dismembered, unless it includes explicit anti-White"hate", it must not be important enough for CNN to air nationally. We must suppose that the act itself is something other than the embodiment of "hate" per se and that the perpetrators' frame of mind was kind, benevolent and loving.

The video's talking head, a Nepalese-born woman named Kiran Chetry, makes two points at the outset: 1) Nobody (including the authorities, she says) believes it to be a hate crime, and 2) it wouldn't be such a big deal except for "White supremacists" playing it up on the internet. There's lots more, so here's the video so you can listen for yourselves.

The point here, however, is that we are told that only "White supremacists" are concerned about this case, angered by the lack of coverage and frustrated by the fact that, had the perps' and victims' races been reversed, the media coverage would have been endless.

What the "non-immunized" in the masses hear and conclude is this: Only "White supremacists" think this is a problem. Being evil racists, they simply hate these innocent Blacks because of their race. It's just a murder to me, because that's what the authorities and CNN tell us. And besides, I am NO "White supremacist"!

This is a perfect example of redefining the thought which a word can symbolize. If only "White supremacists" can be self-protective, or believe that the media glosses over certain news items or intentionally fails to cover them, or in any way oppose a particular group because of the anti-White activities of that group, well, that precludes most of the White folks out there having such thoughts. And soon, just saying you are a White person will be deemed "offensive"; after all, the media wants us to believe that race is a social construct. What then? If there are no restrictions on Black, "hispanic", Asian, Eskimo or any other "pride" except among Whites, and we alone are socially forced to accept ourselves as part of "one race, the human race"?

In that case, we will mentally cease to exist shortly before we are physically merged out of existence.

Welcome to 1984. It's just a few years late.

No comments: