That’s Right, Get In It

There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn’t.

Why don’t you come on back to the war, that’s right, get in it,
why don’t you come on back to the war, it’s just beginning.

               — Leonard Cohen, from “There is a War”

When Vlad and I were on the EDL radio show last week, the prospect of a future civil war came up again and was discussed by several of the other participants. Vlad pointed out that the war is already going on, and has been for quite a while, only most people in Western countries don’t realize that fact.

I could only agree with Vlad, and added that the major front of the current conflict is the information war. It is the only form of warfare — aside from the occasional terrorist attack — that is taking place within Western countries at the moment.

And, as I have often pointed out, the enemy is winning it hands down.

Since most of us don’t know we’re actually in a war, the enemy can perforate us with virtual machine gun fire, and we don’t even realize we’re hit. We’re lying there with our life’s blood draining into the metaphorical sand, oblivious to what has happened. The opposing army can move in and occupy all our strategic assets, and we’ll just continue to sit there, staring at the TV — until the muttaween eventually pull the plug.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I’ve written about the information war occasionally in the past. It can be approached from a lot of different angles, but tonight I’d like to focus on just one: the control of the language. This is where the enemy has been phenomenally successful over the past ten or fifteen years. Major Stephen Coughlin has analyzed this process at length. He shows how the patient, methodical infiltration of our government and other institutions by the Muslim Brotherhood has rendered us helpless in the face of the enemy’s “narrative”. They have made us literally unable to describe the threat that faces us, or what is being done to us.

To illustrate what has happened, I’ll cite two examples of the manipulation of language for the purpose of controlling and limiting public discussion.

1. Islamophobia

The elevation of a vague, loaded neologism to a position of dominance in political and social discourse is a stupendous success for the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, and a devastating setback for everyone who opposes Shariah and the Islamization of the West.

Most readers will have seen the recent discussions about the definition of “Islamophobia”, which was one of the primary topics raised at last month’s OSCE meeting in Warsaw (see the OSCE Archives, and the ICLA paper “The Problematic Definition of ‘Islamophobia’”).

The ascendancy of the word has managed to convert criticism of Islam into a mental illness (a “phobia”) simultaneously with a concerted effort by the OIC to criminalize it. What a sleight of hand — to make opposition to Shariah into a health issue and a criminal action at the same time!

“Islamophobia” is a vaguely-defined term. It seems to mean nothing more than opposition to Islamic law or fear of the political inroads of Islam in Western societies. There may in fact be valid reasons to oppose Islamic law, in the name of our constitutional liberties. Fear of the political effects of Islamic encroachment could be well-founded, based on empirical evidence.

Yet to examine these possibilities is itself evidence of Islamophobia. To do so thus becomes a symptom of a debilitating psychological condition, or a criminal act: take your pick.

As I pointed out at the plenary in Warsaw, this makes the definition of Islamophobia recursive; it’s self-referential.

That’s some catch, that Catch-22.

2. JIM

The above example described a word that has recently been ruled into the game. Now let’s look at some words that have been ruled out: Jihad, Islam, and Muslim.

If you want to talk about peace, diversity, community understanding, and interfaith outreach, then “Islam” and “Muslim” are perfectly acceptable words to use. “Jihad”, however, is never acceptable — unless you use it to mean “an internal struggle for spiritual purity”; then it’s OK.

If there is a terrorist attack or mass slaughter perpetrated by murderers who shout “Allahu akhbar!” and quote the Koran, it is impermissible to include the J-I-M words when describing the event. This is official United States government policy, and is currently being enforced by the FBI, the State Department, the Pentagon, and other government entities. It is also the official policy of some state and local governments and major media outlets. It is the unofficial policy of almost all other media outlets and charitable organizations, and is informally enforced across a wide swath of civil society.

As a result, we are simply unable to describe the nature of the war that is being fought against us and the ideology that motivates our enemies.

And if we decide to disobey the rule and attempt it anyway, we automatically become “Islamophobes”.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

These are just two examples of the successful assault on the language by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies; many more could be cited. They have shrewdly used our own cultural preoccupations as weapons against us, engineering their own version of political correctness with an adroit manipulation of Multicultural terminology.

Most people in the West are unable to see what is being done to their language. Obviously, the more intelligent and cynical among the trans-national elites who govern us are well aware of what is going on, and the same may probably be said of many of the far-Left operatives who have allied themselves with Islamic fundamentalism.

But hundreds of millions of well-meaning citizens live under this new regime without ever becoming cognizant of it. They are subliminally aware of its strictures — eschewing JIM in order to escape Islamophobia — and help enforce them by propagating the new social norms.

These unfortunate people are unknowing casualties of a major battle in the larger information war, a battle that has already been won by a patient, dedicated, and untiring enemy. And these walking wounded don’t even know there’s a war on — war is something that happens somewhere else, in Afghanistan, in Sudan, in Syria, but not here at home.

Landing the Marines or bombing training camps will not make any difference in this war. We can do all that and more, but unless we can wake up to what the real war is, and what the stakes are in it, in twenty or thirty or fifty years’ time there will be minarets all across our cities braying the call to prayer five times a day, and Islamic law will be enforced by our judicial system.

And we’ll think it’s normal.

We won’t have the language to describe it as anything else.

29 thoughts on “That’s Right, Get In It

  1. For the longest time I didn’t take the enemy’s manipulation of our language seriously – their statements were so obviously illogical and didn’t stand up to scrutiny that I thought no one could possibly take them seriously.

    But I’ve come to realise that people are pliable and can be manipulated by the enemy in just the way the Baron says in the article. So my view now is that whenever anyone uses one of these strange linguistic weapons against the truth – against reality – STOP!

    Go no further. Demand that they define their terms.

    And DON’T let them squirm around and get off the hook.

      • We are clearly losing this battle. Our enemies (a revelation to some) are winning in Islamification and cultural change whether it is our use of language, halal food, acceptance of sharia law and courts, dominance of their foods, negative attitudes towards women, erosion basic freedoms such as freedom of speech.

        This matters for now. The problem that the Islamifiers of our Western societies will come up against however is that once our veneer of tolerance for Islamification wears thin and the general public become aware en masse the only way to further Islamify will be through warfare.

        This is the issue that really matters. For some considerable time now, and increasingly ever more likely is a military clash of civilisations. Our politicians aware of this and be attempting to mely our cultures togather but this is naieve folly.

        To keep our peace we really do need to prepare for war.

      • As a child the teachers would belt the students with a wire threaded leather thong for answering back with a native tongue (Scots), as an adult the Judges incarcerate the citizens for answering back with a native tongue (dissent).

      • I feel bad for you people in europe that have no first amendment, one of the top items on wilders agenda, I speak my mind here in the states. I tell anyone that I am speaking with exactly what I think of Islam and it’s false sexually deviant, murdering, rapsi prophet. I don’t fear muslims, I am self employed and don’t have to fear the PC police at my job. You folks need to push hard for a free speach ammendment in your constitutions.

    • Nick
      You are 100% correct.
      We have to, have to do this; STOP, in mid-sentence, anyone using these deliberately crafted obfuscatory neologisms and MAKE them explain EXACTLY what they mean.
      More, we ourselves have to take control of our own language and REFUSE to use these words.
      Here’s a short handy glossary of words I always DEMAND an EXACT definition of and which I refuse to use myself (I’m sure plenty of people have others to add!):
      • Islamophobia
      • Multicultural/ism
      • Community outreach
      • Community (“the”), i.e. “the gay community”, “the Asian community”, etc
      • Faith-based
      • Abrahamic, i.e. “the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam” (this one’s always a lot of fun).
      • Cultural centre, i.e. “Islamic cultural centre”, i.e. it’s a mosque, stupid!
      • Interfaith (dialogue).
      • Asian, i.e. “Twelve Asian men have been arrested for systematically raping non-muslim children.”
      • Climate change (I use “global warming” all the time when explaining that global temperatures have not increased at all in the past eighteen years and ALL the computer-modelled predictions have proved utterly incorrect).
      • Green, e.g. “green initiatives”, “green energy”, etc
      • Climate (change) denial.
      • Environmentally friendly.
      • Fair Trade, i.e. Fair Trade Coffee”, etc.
      • Vulnerable, i.e. “A great many of those in prison today come from vulnerable backgrounds”, etc.
      • Chaotic, i.e. “many of the most challenging pupils come from chaotic homes”, etc.
      • Gay
      • Queer
      • Straight
      • Partner, i.e. “This is my partner….” (I usually ask what line of business they are in and if they have any company cards on them)
      • Asian-British, African-American or any other possible hyphenated variant.
      I could go on and on but I’m sure you get the picture.
      Yes, it can be tough at first and you will be amazed at just how deeply the conditioning goes in you (I have been). But this is an immediate and important way of freeing ourselves from the linguistic and conceptual chains that are dragging Western Civilisation to Hell.
      As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said: “You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”

      • I read a book a long time ago by George H. Smith, it was an atheistic effort – he was trying to make the argument that when people uttered religious words “they literally don’t know what they’re talking about” – this argument could easily be adapted and improved (a lot!) and used against these destroyers of language we’re facing today.

        They throw these meaningless code words around – and if we HALT the conversation and ask THEM to explain what the words THEY have chosen to use actually mean and they cannot do so – then they don’t actually know what they’re talking about.

        Which would be quite an effective move during a conversation –

        Q: what does [your term] actually mean?

        R: mumble mumble, yabber yabber

        Conclusion: But that doesn’t make ANY SENSE! – If you don’t know what the words YOU employ mean, then you literally don’t know what you’re talking about. Isn’t that correct?

    • They started with the word ‘Islam’ – in the sixties people referred to ‘Mohammedanism’ as often as they did to ‘Islam’ but Muslims made it very plain that they found the term offensive, as they put it. In the late ’70s the blurb of the Penguin book about Islam (clearly written by an editor, not the author) used the word Mohammedanism and the publishers were told that the community would denounce the book as ‘inauthentic’ (a term that they often use for a detached, western approach to their religion) if it was not removed. Now dictionaries routinely describe the word as semi-obsolete and people remark on its use by someone as an eccentric affectation. It must not be called Mohammedanism, of course, because it did not start with Mohammed according to their precepts.

  2. Reza Aslan is a particularly good agent for this.

    Zealot attempts to turn Jesus into a man of blood. Where are the legends or apocryphal gospels that might suggest such a thing? The apocryphal stuff tends to make Jesus even more phantasmic that the gospel of John Anyway.

    No God But God attempts to whitewash all the legends and stories that advertise Muhammad’s violent nature.

    Yet Aslan is a #1 best seller and on the CFR. He gets a regular slot on all sorts of news shows too.

  3. Start by refusing to use the word ‘multicultural,’ which is a bland, nearly meaningless term used to mask the dismantlement of western societies. Neither ‘multicultural’ or ‘multiracial’ accurately describes what European societies have now become, but multiracial is closer. And that is just the benign word.

  4. Believe the Scottish experience of language imposition can contribute to the control of language exploration.

    Thinking in Scottis, but forced to communicate in the Queen’s English, thinking in indigenous but forced to communicate in multiculturalism.

    “The ruling class took English elocution lessons and Scots – sometimes referred to as ‘Lallans’ or ‘Scottis’ – continued mainly among the working classes, which may be why some call it slang. By the Forties, Scotland’s own Education Department said Scots was ‘not the language of educated people anywhere’.”

    Wonder if Benjamin Franklin and David Hume shared ideas, impressions and maybe the occasional joke in Lallans or Scottis.

    • Aye ane a the first things we were telt fin we gied ti school was nae ti speak normally bit ti use English. Cue the approved readin list – I had read a the “English literature” that was lined up for us right through till primary 7 by the time ah got through primary 2 – the teachers hid ti get mair books for us; ah wis readin Mark Twain n Jack London by the time ah went ti “the big school” – Primary 3 onwards. But English was the language that hid ti be used a through school. Wie the teachers like, the pupils a spoke their ain language among thimsels.

      It was only fan I read Irvine Welsh and James Kelman years later as an adult thit I realised that wir ain tongue hid been reduced in status by the English government & we didna even hae a written language.

      Funny thing is nooadays fin abody texts & emails ane anither, we a die it in wir ain tongue.

      Since it’s a much mair efficient way a usin language, & it’s also a form a encodin that wid baffle those egg-heids at the NSA, haha …

      Niver mind the Navajos, if ye wint ti send an encrypted message hire a couple boys fae Aberdeenshire, haha …

      ps. I dinna ken fit way the English think they’re as superior onyway, they canna even say “ch” LOL …

      • Can I suggest that everyone who reads this goes and tracks down a movie called “One Day Removals” – I’ll tell you now though, if you couldn’t handle Deadwood then you’ll never handle that film!

    • On a slightly different note, I recall reading a biography of Jack Kerouac (Gerald Nicosia’s one?) a long time ago & the theory was that he spoke and thought in French (a dialect of French anyhow) and wrote in “extemporaneous prose” as a method of translating his thoughts directly into another language – English. Don’t know if I’d go along with that entirely, but I can kind of see where they were coming from.

      (I used to tell people that I wanted to be a dharma bum when I grew up – hardly anyone got it though, my attempt at humour was wasted, oh well … I also remember getting someone up by yelling, “the goat of dawn is butting the day” and that got me a queer look as well …)

  5. Great information. Keep up the good work here. I only hope this site will never switch to the Disqus commenting system which has privacy issues and aggregates data that de-anonymizes users. Disqus investers (ie North Bridge Venture Partners) also have ties to NSA companies like Facebook.

  6. The deconstruction of this word Islamophobia is one of the key battlegrounds, and while doing so we should make sure that its understand that this is an attempt to place Islamic blasphemy laws on Western people, furthermore it is also a direct attack on political freedoms as Islam is a religious political ideology with its own rules and laws, stop me from criticising it and I have no political freedom.

    The last time I had someone use this word in regards to me, I chewed them up and spat them out in little pieces, I got the ignorant idiot to define a phobia, then went through a number of atrocities that Islam had carried out and then asked him was it irrational to be concerned about Islam and he said no.

    One line I used was this “You could ask the Nestorians if they had an irrational fear of Islam, or perhaps the Bhudists in Afghanistan, but of course you cannot as they are all dead…”

  7. As you know, Baron, I have been working a long time with my book “Daily Life Language of Violence”. It should be ready for publishing within the next few months.

    I actually started participating in this linguistic war more than 20 years ago – at that time against the language used by employees in the Swedish Social Authorities – a war more actual than ever.

    As far as I know, no child is born with a language in the meaning of Swedish, Chinese or Arabic. I try to seek the source – where does it start? And how and why? I am not alone claiming that the linguistic violence is both the fuel and the ignition to physical violence.

    According to my conviction, the linguistic war against islam has the highest priority. My ambition is that my book will be an efficient weapon in this war.

    My method is simple and rapid. One example: It didn’t take me many minutes to “photographe” Ronald Radosh and nail him here at Gates of Vienna. As a contribution to the war against Ms. West – a war she finally won!

    Most of us – including myself, of course! – has thought that language is a means of communication. This is only partly true – it requires that the parties involved are interested in communication. When somebody uses the DLLOV, the intention is not communication but violating the reciever of the message! An understanding of this makes life much easier.

    Bad politicians, criminals, etc. can lye in a very charming way. But they can’t controle their violent language, and that’s where we can get them! Let’s mobilise the Linguistic Army! I won’t mind if somebody calls us “The Kook Army”.


    PS: A few years ago, I asked one of the worlds most acknowlodged linguists if he knew someone who had written something similar to my approach. The answer was no. This is not equal to me being the first. No University in the world have funded the work.

  8. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Get In It

  9. This question is OT so you might not want to include it. It’s really a question.

    About eight years ago there was website with (mostly) videos and some audios which had an audio of Obama talking to a civil rights group (maybe before he was a national senator). Obama said that they had won the right to sit at the lunch counter, but that they did not get someone else to pay for the the lunch. He was talking about redistribution.

    I’ve tried to find this audio but it seems to have been scrubbed. I remembered the site as NakedEmperorNews but now that URL seems to be used by a different site and no signs of the audio.

    I wonder if anyone knows where it is or what happened?

Comments are closed.