|
|
 |
|
|
Las Palabras de la Nueva
Economía
Doublespeak and the New
World Order
Richard K. Moore
The New World Order (you know
what the NWO is -- the corporate-sponsored
"free-trade" globalization steamroller) exploits language in precisely
the way Orwell predicted. Words are used to mislead and conceal -- not
clarify -- and are twisted to designate the opposite of their true
meanings. Concepts are tagged as being either "good guys" or "bad guys"
by dressing them up in "white hat" words (like "reform" or "free") or
"black hat" words (like "bureaucracy" or "politics").
This use of language is a form of propaganda -- and this _vocabulary
propaganda_ is much more subtle and effective than _content propaganda_.
Content propaganda misinforms about issues, but vocabulary propaganda
interferes with the ability to think or talk about issues in a way that
can lead to understanding or enable effective political organizing.
As Orwell predicted, this kind of propaganda makes language volatile.
In his scenario, one might read in the morning paper about an action
against an enemy, with no mention that the same folks were faithful
allies as recently as yesterday's edition. In actuality, the shifts in
today's doublespeak are more subtle and evolutionary. As you watch new
language being created, you can map out the NWO agenda: the white-hat
items are to be promoted, the black-hat items to be suppressed.
A classic example was the Oliver North hearings. Words like "good
soldier", "patriotic", "freedom fighter", and "legality" -- not to
mention "constitutional balance of powers" -- took quite a beating. By
labeling state-armed mercenary terrorists (ie., the Contras) as "freedom
fighters", the whole linguistic ground of the hearings was warped beyond
hope. Those who should have been indicting the pathetic little desk
colonel and impeaching his boss were instead prefacing their remarks
with kowtows toward the "freedom fighters" (if there was time remaining
after the prayer service). There was no ability to discuss the affair
from a meaningful moral or constitutional perspective, and the hearings
dissolved into circus rhetoric/coverup, as was intended by the NWO
language masters.
If we want to discuss the world situation with any kind of useful
understanding, we need to explicitly decode the NWO doublespeak, and
learn how to translate it into straight language. This is not an easy
task, because the doublespeak process has, over time, warped political
language to the point where it is nearly useless. Words like
"socialism" or "tariffs", being so heavily tarred with the black brush,
can't be used meaningfully without an explanatory preface. Even
the
word "government" is tricky to use -- the echoes of "bureaucrat",
"inefficient", and "corrupt" reverberate unconsciously.
Meanwhile, words like "market" and "competitive" have been promoted with
the white brush to Unquestioned Axioms of The Universe. Easier would
it
be to hold back the tides with a horse and lance, than to resist "market
forces", or so it would seem.
Following is my attempt to associate accurate meanings with some of the
NWO's most topical phrases. Perhaps these definitions will ring true
to
you, and help you better understand what the NWO is about. With the
doublespeak unraveled, the media becomes a source of accurate
information after all -- NWO statements, though coded, are actually
fairly descriptive of the sinister NWO agenda.
____________________________________________
competitiveness: the attractiveness of a venue to
multinational investors, particularly:
laxity of regulation and
taxation; the degree to which a
developed country regresses to
Third-World status.
The phrase "Britain must be made more competitive for today's markets"
decodes as "Britain must have lower wages and lower corporate tax rates
so that it can compete with low-income parts of the world in attracting
_generic_ corporate investments".
_Genuine_ competitiveness, as demonstrated by Japan, involves
marshalling the nation's skills & resources toward adding value in
focused markets -- achieved by promoting synergy and making coordinated
investments. NWO-peddled "competitiveness" is like prostitution -- it
values a nation's human and societal resources at scrap street value.
____________________________________________
conservatism: a policy of radically restructuring
politics
and economics in order to produce
investment opportunities and
undermine democracy; contrast with
_actual_ conservatism: a
policy of preserving existing
institutions in the interest
social and economic stability.
Ronald Reagan was the clearest exemplar of this particular line of
doublespeak. His rhetoric emphasized "returning to traditional values"
while he was in fact dismantling long-evolved institutions and pursuing
policies of unprecedented and untried social and economic
transformation.
_Genuine_ conservatism acts as a societal gyroscope, resisting nearly
every kind of change, regardless of its direction. Conservatism's
catch
prase might be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A very important
point to notice is that the assault by the NWO on existing democratic
institutions has reversed the field in the game of Radical vs.
Conservative: for most of the twentieth century, it has been the
democracy-minded progressives who sought radical change, and the
capitalist right wing who were the conservatives. But since Reagan &
Thatcher, the right-wing has taken the initiative for radical change (in
the wrong directions), and it is now the progressives who have a vital
interest in maintaining the political status quo (ie., constitutional
democracy and national sovereignty).
In this case, doublespeak succeeds in separating the progressives from
their natural constituency. Progressive activists _should_ be reaching
out to the silent majority -- arousing stick-in-the-mud conservatives to
join the cause against reckless NWO-induced changes. By pre-empting
the
term "conservatism", the right-wing radicals have tricked most of the
conservative-tending masses into following the wrong parade.
Progressives _must_ reclaim their natural ground. To have any hope of
assembling a significant constituency, they must find a way to break
through the doublespeak jargon and help the general population to see
that its interests are not being served by the new "conservatism", and
that reckless changes are its true agenda.
We see a bizarre distortion of this desirable conservative reaction in
the Militia mentality in America. Militia "conspiracy theories" are
actually quite close to the mark: the U.S. government _is_ being sold
out to international interests; the U.N. _is_ beginning to establish a
sovereignty-threatening military force; the Constitution _is_ being
trashed; the establishment in Washington _is_ effectively a bunch of
traitors. But it's not the progressives who are bringing this message
to these hard-core backwoods conservatives -- instead the message is
getting to them with a doublespeak reverse spin that manages to label
the sellout of America as a "liberal" conspiracy! Since a Democrat
happens to be in the White House, the NWO myth spinners have been able
to transform anti-establishment sentiment into anti-liberal sentiment.
Instead of addressing the real enemies of the Constitution (the
corporate elite), the Militia tilts its lance toward the liberals and
progressives who should be instead its natural allies in defending
democracy. Divide and Conquer shows up once again as the most potent
tool of autocratic control.
Language is a field of battle, the media is the artillery, and
vocabulary is the ammunition. The NWO has taken the field by storm,
and
is proceeding with coordinated attacks on several fronts, using all the
latest hi-tech vocabulary ammunition. They've laid a bed of land mines
that cripple us when we try to stand on them: "liberalism",
"conservatism", "prosperity", "democracy".
Progressives must wake up to the
attack, and somehow find a way
to fight back. The achilles heal of the NWO lies in its runaway
successes: its high-handed treatment of nearly everyone has created an
awesome potential counter-reaction -- if people can be made to see who
the real perpetrators are, those who are engineering the decline of
democratic civilization. Even its doublespeak successes can be turned
against it, if people can learn to read the NWO agenda by learning to
decode the propaganda it dishes out. The NWO crowd actually reveals
all
in their propaganda, so arrogantly confident are they that their
doublespeak enigma device won't be seen through by the people.
____________________________________________
democracy: a government with a competitive party
electoral
system, in which multinationals are
able to exert effective
influence; Note: unrelated to whether
the government
represents the people or supports
their welfare.
If multinational interests are served, then no amount of popular unrest,
nor vote rigging -- not even civil war -- will serve as credible
evidence that a "democracy" is a sham. If corporate interests aren't
served, no amount of civil accord, prosperity, and popular support
qualifies the government as "democratic".
Doublespeak audacity reached an outrageous climax when CCN broadcast
live coverage of Yeltsin shelling his own Assembly, and billed it as a
victory for "democracy"! (Did they realize they were televising an
exact repeat of Lenin's shelling of an earlier Constituent Assembly?
Would that have altered their assessment?) What Yeltsin's bloody power
grab _was_ a victory for was the corporate-sponsored dismantlement of
the Russian economy, a program the Western-backed Yeltsin has played his
part in flawlessly. With a subtle doublespeak twist within a twist,
the
media refers to Yeltsin as a "liberal element" -- in fact he is a "neo-
liberal" element, which translates as "NWO stooge".
_Genuine_ democracy must be judged by its responsiveness to the informed
desires of the people, its success in promoting their welfare, and their
satisfaction with its performance. The mechanisms used to attain a
functional democracy can have many forms. The media says only
competitive political parties can deliver democracy, but don't believe
it.
The record is clear that multi-party elections are no guarantee whatever
of democratic process. Not only can parties be limited to those
representing elite minority (or foreign) interests, but the autonomous
authority of the military (typically subsidized by major NWO powers)
often overshadows governmental policy.
To understand what democracy is really about, we need to re-examine our
most cherished assumptions. Is the U.S. a democracy? Is Cuba a
democracy? Do you think you can tell?
Cuba doesn't have competitive parties or elections. But policies are
worked out by representatives from different segments of society, are
explained forthrightly (at length!) on the media, and feedback is
listened to. Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels (until
recently) have been the envy of comparable economies. And Castro has
been overwhelmingly popular for most of his tenure.
The U.S. has parties and elections. But policies are worked out by
corporate interests, sold through misleading media rhetoric, and popular
opposition is dismissed as emotional reaction. Literacy, health care,
and nutrition levels -- in fact human welfare by any measure -- are on a
steady decline. The esteem of government and elected officials looms
ever lower on the horizon, nearly ready to set into a sea of total
disgust.
The elections themselves are circuses
where certain topics are
selected as being "the issues" and the crowd is entertained with an
orchestrated wrestling match where Hulk Republican and Pretty Boy
Democrat dance around the limited ring of issues. When the match is
over, the establishment gets back to its un-discussed agendas. Because
there are no substantive issues raised during the campaign, the rhetoric
fades into memory. There's no platform, and no distinct "change of
government", as there used to be in Britain, before Tony Blair
infiltrated the Labour Party.
Such elections are more like a
shuffling of board members in a
corporation -- the faces change, the policies continue to be set as
before -- outside any democratic process.
Pink Floyd asked "Can you tell a
green field from a cold steel
rail?". I ask you: Can you tell a self-governing people from a stone
parliament building?
____________________________________________
development: the restructuring of an economy to
facilitate
extraction of wealth by
multinationals; transforming an economy
so as to become more dependent on
trade with multinationals; the
theft of national assets by
multinationals.
"Development" is usually pursued where the potential profit is greatest.
This means that the investment is as little as possible and the
exportation of eventual revenues is as great as possible. The result
is
a net drain on the "developing" economy. Fair play, you might say, if
the "developing" country is able to take advantage of the situation to
bootstrap its way into general economic prosperity (South Korea?), or if
an infrastructure is created which benefits the general economy.
But these collateral benefits are not the purpose of "development", and
the consequences are usually otherwise. Brazil is an example where
"development" was heralded as a great success (at least for a period),
due to the large flow of money through the country. But the local
benefits were concentrated in relatively small, elite management and
land-owner classes, and the consequence for the general population was
the destruction of their food supply and agricultural economy to the
benefit of agri-export operators. Meanwhile the rainforests burn to
make room for displaced farmers or new agri-business "developments".
In other cases, a country might be left with an infrastructure to
support export operations, such as a selectively deployed highway
system, which may not be appropriate for the general development needs
of the country, and which increases its dependence on oil imports.
In many cases, "development" involves the granting of mineral rights,
land leases, tax discounts, or exemptions from regulations, as
enticements to attract corporate "investment". In rare cases,
such
grants are valued appropriately, but all too frequently a cash-strapped
Third-World country is compelled to give away long-term rights to
valuable national assets while getting very little in return, usually
some low-paying jobs and under-valued royalties. Whether the asset be
copper, oil, or agricultural land, the multinational investor extracts
billions in profits while the host country gets a relatively minor
pittance of the actual value of the arm-twist stolen asset.
____________________________________________
free trade: the systematic destabilization of national
and
regional economic arrangements, by
means of treaties such as
GATT and NAFTA, in order to take
economic decision making as far
as possible from any democratic
process, and centralize global
economic control into the hands of
the corporate elite.
"Free trade", it would seem from the corporate media's propaganda, is
universally accepted by all reputable economists as the One True Path to
prosperity and progress. Such a belief, which does not in fact enjoy a
consensus among economists, is historical nonsense. The Great
Economies, such as those of the U.S., Imperial Britain, and modern
Japan, were developed under nurturing protectionist policies. Only
when
they achieved considerable economic strength did these countries begin
to adopt "free trade" policies, as a way to prevent other nations from
catching up.
An economy (see also: "Reform") is an ecosystem. A strong economy is
one that has diversity and synergy. When "free trade" is imposed on an
underdeveloped economy, it develops in a distorted way, and is over-
dependent on external market fluctuations. Such weakness increases the
bargaining leverage of the multinationals, which is the obvious
objective of "free trade" in the first place.
"Free trade", which is part of the "globalization" agenda, brings a
shift economic sovereignty from nation states, where there is hope of
democratic participation, to corporate-approved international
commissions, where only the corporate voice holds sway.
____________________________________________
globalization: the undermining of the nation state as a
focus
of economic organization; the
reduction to commodity status of
worldwide raw-goods suppliers; the
monopolization of
distribution channels by
transnational trading companies; the
reduction of health & quality
standards to least-common-
denominator levels; the most honest
self-characterization of the
NWO agenda.
Capturing more broadly the scope of the "free trade" campaign,
"globalization" expresses the intent to homogenize the world economy --
to make national borders transparent to the transfer of capital and
goods, and enable a higher-order of centralized global management. The
claim is frequently made that this will lead to a leveling of prosperity
levels on a global basis, but with some exceptions, the evidence is all
to the contrary. What we see instead, and as we should expect from how
"development" is structured and "free trade" is implemented, is that
"globalization" leads to a _greater_ prosperity disparity between the
"developed" and "developing" nations, as measured by the disposable
income and living standards of the general populations. The greatest
_real_ prosperity gains have been achieved by those countries which
created domestic synergy in their economies through selective
protectionism (eg., Japan).
The availability of low-cost worldwide transport and the multinational
scope of corporate operations -- together with deregulation of trade
barriers -- leads to a situation where every producer is competing with
every other producer throughout the world. Distributors can thus shop
for the best deal globally, and continue to sell at whatever price they
can get in their markets. As the distribution channels are
increasingly
concentrated into fewer hands (mega-store chains, conglomerate food
importers, etc.), a classic cartel/robber-baron scenario is developing,
and will become more pronounced as globalization progresses.
The "robber-baron" scenario looks
like this: On one side you
have separated, unorganized producers, all competing with one another to
supply the distributors. On the other side, you have the consumers of
the world, also separated and unorganized, buying what they can afford
from what is offered in their local outlets. In the middle you have
the
distributors, who like robber barons of old, have (increasingly)
monopoly control over the the flow of goods from producer to market.
Not only can producer prices be driven down in one-sided bargaining, but
producers can be selectively driven out of business, and in general the
distributors have the power to dictate whether and how the producers do
business.
The classic example of a robber baron
regime was California in
the heydey of the Southern Pacific Railroad. SP would audit the books
of firms which shipped goods on their lines, and adjust each firm's
shipping rates so that profits on sales were shared "fairly" with SP.
We see this kind of thing today when the same drugs from the same
distributors are sold at radically different prices in different
countries -- those who can afford more, pay more. It's the corporate
version of a graduated income tax -- but for the people, it's taxation
without representation all over again.
As for non-price consumer concerns -- environmental protection, content
labelling, pesticide levels, other health issues -- we can expect to see
a rapid reversal of the "green" gains which have occurred since the
sixties. Initially we see some localized improvements in standards, as
the EU, for example, levels its regulatory playing field. But the
long-term decision-making role for these policies is being shifted to
corporate-dominated entities (WTO, GATT, Brussels). This means that as
the distributors tighten their noose of control, and after local
regulatory power has been disabled, the distributors will wield their
awesome influence to reduce "anti-competitive" environmentalist
"shackles" on "free markets" and "consumer savings". This is of course
already happening. We have the EU telling the Germans that UK beef is
safe, when the UK can't even get its story straight about whether
adequate controls are being implemented. The EU, and even more so the
WTO, have every motivation to go out of their way to decide in favor of
more trade, and minimize appraisal of any negative consequences. Their
business is to increase business, and they are a level removed from the
influence of citizen's concerns. That's why "globalization" amounts to
a partial sovereignty shift from democracy (where it exists) to
corporate feudalism.
"Globalization", among the terms in the NWO phrase book, comes closest
to being an honest use of language. The NWO does indeed, as
"globalization" suggests, want to systematize commerce on a global
scale, to homogenize the world in who-knows-how-many aspects -- to bring
forth a new world order. The deception comes in the implication that
"globalization" will bring increased prosperity, that "free markets"
will get goods to those who need them, and that the abundance of the
earth will become available to humanity on a more equitable basis. As
the song goes, "It ain't necessarily so".
____________________________________________
privatization: (1) the theft of citizen assets by
corporate
interests, achieved through
discounted sell-offs of
intentionally under-valued public
properties; (2) the creation
of new investment opportunities by
means of dismantling
successfully operating public
services.
Media discussion of privatization is generally limited to the narrow
issues of consumer benefits and operating efficiency. Even on these
grounds, the arguments presented are usually far from convincing. They
are frequently simply a recitation of the axioms "public is
inefficient", "private is efficient" -- often in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Privatization is not just a change of managers, it is a change of
ownership. It removes equity from citizens, and removes or minimizes
public control over asset development and pricing. In many cases
following privatization, employment is reduced as an immediate step in
reducing costs and enhancing the profit picture -- without the social
costs of the unemployment being considered in the overall accounting for
the transaction.
The aim of a privatized operation shifts from providing a public
service, to making a profit. Short-term profit pressures may reduce
investment in long-term maintenance and upgrades, since their payback
period may be beyond the horizon of the investor's plans for cashing
out.
Despite inflated claims to the contrary, consumer benefits tend to be
minimal -- any reduction in rates would be a direct loss from the bottom
line, and token reduction are usually enough for PR purposes and to
satisfy regulatory constraints. The obvious fact that the operator
needs to take out a profit is seldom mentioned when the benefits of
privatization are proclaimed, as if efficiency benefits (if any) would
accrue fully to the consumer.
In their personal finances, citizens appreciate the value of asset
ownership. Owning a car or home offers significant cost savings over
the lifetime of the investments, and greatly benefits the citizen in the
face of inflation and fluctuating rental rates. With privatization,
citizens are transformed from owners to renters, and suffer a long-term
equity loss that may be many times greater than the discounted sale
price of the asset. A privatized rail system may offer cheaper rates
the first few years, but in the long run it will charge whatever the
traffic will bear -- in tomorrow's inflated economy.
____________________________________________
reform: the modification or replacement of an existing
economic or political system, so as
to create new corporate
investment opportunities -- it is not
required that the new
system perform effectively, only that
it deliver corporate
profits.
A system is in need of "reform" whenever corporate investors think of a
new angle to make new profits. Obvious failures of the "reform"
process, such as unemployment and poverty, are never the fault of
"reform", but of incomplete implementation. Belief in "reform" is like
religious faith: no amount of counter-evidence can phase the True
Believer.
"Reform" is like clear-cutting. A forest is an ecosystem, with
wildlife, streams, underbrush, etc. Careful forestry can harvest
timber
without destroying the ecosystem -- but clear-cutting destroys all at
once. An existing political/economic arrangement is also an eco-system:
it is the subtle fabric that weaves the society together and enables its
functioning. "Reform" -- as we see in the Soviet breakup/selloff/ripoff
-- can destroy the existing framework all at once, and replace it with
one that doesn't fit, that would take years or decades to take root and
begin producing, and will be owned by someone else at the end of the
day.
_Genuine_ reform would take into account the existing conditions, and if
a change is needed, would make incremental changes over time, evolving a
working system toward sounder functioning. Most significant, it would
reflect local customs and preferences -- it would not seek to impose a
cookie-cutter standard paradigm upon all cultures and traditions.
____________________________________________
third-world assistance: (1) the subsidization of non-
competitive First-World industries by
means of channeling
earmarked funds through Third-World
hands; (2) carrot-money to
entice "development" in preferred NWO
directions; (3) hush-
money to fund domestic suppression in
host countries
In order to encourage acquiescence by the taxpayers who foot the bill
for it, "assistance" or "aid" almost always comes wrapped in the
rhetoric of humanitarianism. Recently in Germany a more honest sales-
pitch has been launched, announcing that for every mark that was spent
as development aid, 1.15 marks came back as orders for German business.
This is no surprise to anyone who's followed the numbers, but perhaps
the publicity will invite the German people to ask why German business
doesn't pay more of the "aid" bill.
Heaven knows the Third World needs _real_ financial aid -- not
interest-bearing loans and not funds earmarked for externally-defined
purposes. When strapped for development funds, it is difficult for a
country to turn down offers, even when strings are attached. But money
which leaves crippling debt in its wake, or which encourages the
development of a dependent economy, would be better refused -- it's like
buying things you don't need using a credit card you know you can never
pay off.
In fact, the bulk of "assistance" has been channeled directly to
military and "security" forces, in the form of weapons, training, and
cash. In some cases this results in lucrative contracts for First
World
arms manufacturers, but the main objective is to create a political
climate subservient to NWO designs. The military muscle enables
unpopular and NWO-submissive regimes to retain power and drain their
country's resources by participating recklessly in the "aid/development"
game -- running up their country's credit cards at the NWO bank.
Viewed from the broadest perspective, the definition of "Third-World
assistance" is "the NWO version of imperialism". It succeeds -- in too
many cases -- in accomplishing the following imperialist objectives:
(1) controls the development
priorities of the subject states
(2) manages the ruling class in the
subject states
(3) puts the subject states into a
condition of eternal debt
(4) extracts profits and resources
with minimal taxation and
labor costs
(5) provides markets for First-World
goods, enhanced by absence
of
development in directions of self-sufficiency
Like all highly-leveraged NWO enterprises, this is all accomplished with
minimal occupation forces, no colonial administrations, and no public
understanding of what's going on -- and the bill is being paid by those
who benefit the least. If the NWO strategists weren't so sinister,
you'd have to respect them.
(New Dawn, 35, March-April 1996)
|
 |
|
|
|
Back to top