Here are a few examples of intentionally misleading–and dangerous–doubletalk:
- Defund The Police
- Black Lives Matter
- Me Too
- Mostly Peaceful
That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.
Today’s Key Point: The groups and political forces using intentionally misleading doubletalk are cynically looking to appeal to groups that have different thoughts about each of these slogans. They will speak out of different parts of their mouths depending upon which group they are addressing. They keep the different interest groups supporting them with the various topics and agendas, while expressing false amazement at how any interpretation of the slogan, save the one they are putting forward at that moment, could be believed by any non neanderthal. Let’s look at these examples.
Defund the police: The word “defund” has never before been open to interpretation. Let’s get some help from the dictionary. “De·fund /dēˈfənd/ Verb, gerund or present participle: defunding. “prevent from continuing to receive funds.” I think we all know what the word means, but here we have confirmation, “prevent from continuing to receive funds.” Those using the term want to rally support from groups who want to completely abolish the police to those who want to reduce funding by, say, 10%, and those who want to keep the overall funding level the same, but send civilians, non sworn personnel, on calls that may, for example, involve mental health issues. They will say different things at different times in different places to the different interest groups. As they will when questioned by critics. “What will this city be like when you take all of law enforcement’s money away by defunding the police? Won’t the criminals be even more bold?” “What? Who is talking about that? We simply want to refocus some of the funds more intelligently.” Ask these very same people how they would react to demands to “Defund Planned Parenthood” or “Defund Public Broadcasting.” They would know, correctly, that the call is clearly to completely remove taxpayer funding.
Let’s deal with what “Black Lives Matter” means. Does it mean that:
- Reparations are mandatory, and long overdue?
- Affirmative Action and race preferences in hiring, promotion, awards, academics, business and home ownership, etc., must be enforced?
- Black lives matter differently because of how many have been treated; racist treatment that while perhaps falling short of physical harm needs to be acknowledged and dealt with?
- America is deeply racist, racist to its systemic core, and must be torn down and rebuilt along different lines with different rules and principles?
It means all of the above, and the BLM leaders are targeting the different messages to the different interest groups. To the many of the people still resonating, as I am, to the seemingly indifferent murder of George Floyd, the appeal is to reduce the incidents of racism, from the simply irritating to the murderous. When they can get away with it, the BLM claim expands from observing, correctly, that racism exists in systems to the claim that there is systemic racism. And then expand the claim to hold that America itself is systemically racist. Systemic, by the way, means that something pervades the entire system. For example, if you take a pain pill because of discomfort in your knee, the pill affects your entire body; it cannot contain itself to just your knee. Simple statistics would prove there is no systemic racism in law enforcement. Of the 10M arrests each year, if 10K of them were shown to be based on racism, that would add up to only 1%. And most people could not come up with the names of 10 victims of alleged racist arrests or incidents of racist cop violence without a Google search. We have sufficient anecdotal evidence that we must have police reform, including different and better training, and likely different hiring practices. And we have statistical evidence that there is no systemic racism.
Me Too: This started out as a credible movement to stop the physical and mental abuse of women, mostly by men, on campuses, in business, and in life. Apparently, that is too much work for too little personal reward, so it quickly morphed into a female v male power struggle, by expanding the target from those abuses to extremes like an innocent wink, or complimenting a woman on her chosen outfit. The deceit comes in putting all of this under the same umbrella, with tactics like including the winks and compliments in with real abuse statistics, then calling them all “sexual assaults.”
Antifa: This one is so easy. The name is supposed to mean Anti-fascist. And this by people who define fascist as anyone or any authority who disagrees with them. The powerful irony, entirely lost on them and their supporters, is that they use classic facsist thinking and tactics to fight what they call fascist. At least for the moment, Antifa is the doubletalk leader. Be warned, these physically unimposing and overall cowardly people are coming to a neighborhood near you. They announced it, and they are doing it.
Mostly peaceful: To start off with, I agree that protesters over time, including the recent vastly increased wave of protesters, are mostly peaceful. But how much comfort can we take from that observation? For example, if your doctor said to you after a first time cancer screening, “Good news. Your body is mostly free of cancer.” Or, “Good news, you tires are mostly not flat.” That would not be good news. Imagine this post hurricane announcement on TV or in print. “Yesterday’s huricane was mostly harmless. For 23 hours and 40 minutes, there was very little wind, and no damage. For just 20 minutes, 1% of the time yesterday, and very late in the day, the wind picked up and destroyed half of the town, leaving 75K families without food or shelter.” Preposterous, of course. But how different is it from reports like this, “Yesterday’s protests were mostly peaceful. It was not until well after dark, and with a much smaller group of people, that the looting, burning and attacks on government buildings started.”
How much comfort should street after street of burned out and looted business owners take from the media announcing that the “protests” that destroyed their livelihoods were “mostly peaceful.” Pause for needed definitions. Protesters do not cause damage. Vandals cause minor damage. Criminals block streets and physically and verbally intimate those who disagree with them. Rioters loot, wreck and burn, mostly reacting to the frenzy of the mob. There is nothing political about rioting. Rioting is just that; it is simply rioting, theft and destruction for its own sake. Let’s look at two more definitions. Police help to deter crime, and arrest criminals. Bystanders, in uniform or not, are just that, bystanders.
Nothing can be more false and cynical than to be intentionally saying different things to different groups about the same topics. The idea is to get elected by “whatever means necessary”, then “explain” how the people pointing out this deception are all bitter “ists” of some sort or another. Then just ignore the issue after your critics have been silenced.
Tell me what you believe. I and many others want to know.
As always, whatever you do, do it in love. Without love, anything we do is empty.
As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the episodes with comments or questions about this episode or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me on Twitter, @willluden, Facebook, facebook.com/will.luden, and LinkedIn, www.linkedin.com/in/willluden/. And you can subscribe on your favorite device through Apple, Google, or Stitcher.
If you liked today’s episode, other episodes or the revolution2-0.org site itself, comment, subscribe, and encourage others to subscribe with you. Each One Reach One will help spread the word about Revolution 2.0™.
Will Luden, coming to you from 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.
- Supreme Court As A Legislature: Getting It Terribly Wrong(EP.267) - September 25, 2020
- 2020 Presidential Voting Guide: Biden v Trump (EP.266) - September 22, 2020
- The Homogenization of America (EP.265) - September 18, 2020