Total War

Means War on Meaning Itself

Counter-Hegemony of Meaning: The Gradual, Purposed Attack on Language at the Level of Definition. This essay may not be quite as sexy or controversial, but the information within is everything now.

A natural framework for language adoption and learning exists as a part of the universal human experience. This framework is both biological and sociological. We come into this world without a preconceptualization of meaning and language, yet we do not remain permanently detached from this world. We, through interacting with the world, and with each other, and through the existing neurological structures inherent to man, make some sense of the world, and learn, at best, to call things by their proper name.

The fact is simple: most of the words most of us know and utilize were not learned, nor defined in our minds, by a dictionary. There were learned by a simple process of hearing and association, as repeated in varied circumstances, that allowed us to conceptualize first a broad universe of possible meaning, and then, with time and experience, a more particular definition and common usage. This is how we understand language, and through language understand the world, and one another.

This process of experiential learning is, like all things in this fallen world, corrupted, and corruptible. The counter-hegemonic long-march through meaning itself by the Communist Church has begun asserting itself as the new hegemon of language, and it has thoroughly confused very nearly all of us.

The change of meaning by implication is simply this: merely using a word in a different manner, with different intent, repeatedly, will fix it through repetition by first the adoption of a broader definition by those hearing it – and in turn using it in this nebulous fashion thereby destroying meaning broadly in culture – and then, ultimately, narrowing meaning again around the new definition.

Now, this isn’t merely a think-piece on the marginally interesting topic of abuse of language. My interest is in combatting it and formulating the necessary strategy thereto. As such, the rest of this essay will be focused on the topic of judo-ing, at the level of meaning, and it holds lessons for messaging we all must care to learn.

You see, words, once captured, cannot be utilized by traditionalists without incidentally forwarding the attack on meaning, because those in who the meaning is already expanded will take the traditionalists use of the word in the expanded manner thereby strengthening the association and forwarding Communist ideology. This renders the only tactic available to the traditionalists the abandonment of captured language, and a reorientation towards greater specificity, and precision in language.

This can be thought of in terms of a castle siege. We have allowed, over a long time, many spies and saboteurs to gain access to the castle. So many, in fact, that they outnumbered us, and threw us out without much of a fight. A castle requires maintenance – water, food, etc – just as language does. Hauling water to the castle maintains it just as speaking it maintains a word. The castle is captured: it is not ours. They are within it, and we are without. To continue to haul water to it every day is to provide material aid to the enemy that inhabits it, and this is true of speaking captured language. We should not be carrying water for the enemy.

The proper action to be taken, then, is to affect an information warfare campaign against captured language with the intent of fixing the negative meaning (splitting entirely from the positive connotations), polarizing it, and “aufheben” the enemy’s use of it by making the utterance a taboo. Simultaneously, the positive connotations of the now captured language should be transferred to new language with the intention of defending this new language, and definitions, mercilessly. Ideally, this new language will be existing, known, and more precise than the original language. It is by attacking with precision that we combat obfuscation and expose the abuse of language in which the enemy partakes.

Finally, let’s look at an example. The fact is that America is only kinda, sorta, maybe a democracy – and that’s fine. But what isn’t fine is continuing to use the captured word “democracy.” If you haven’t yet read up on what this means now that Communists have asserted hegemony over it you can find my essay on that here. But, regardless of our status as a kinda, sorta, maybe democracy we must stop using that word now, and I do mean right now. Every time we assent to the use of this term, or, worse, use it ourselves we, in fact, are forwarding the enemy’s line-of-effort in information warfare.

So, it’s a good thing that it’s far more accurate to call America a republic than a democracy. The trouble is that “republic,” isn’t, in the average American, particularly well defined. This leaves it open to attack from the Communists. We mustn’t lose another castle.

We should be working actively to define “republic” along lines of traditional Americanism, and anti-Communism, and we should use this term nearly exclusively in naming our system of government, and always as associated with anti-Communist themes. Conversely, we should be attacking the concept of “democracy” at every opportunity. This shouldn’t be difficult, since our founding fathers left us quite the slew of quotes and history from which to draw anti-democracy sentiment. Democracy is, after all, two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.