Hi Everyone,
The western world has descended into an era of insanity. Sadly, this insanity is being portrayed as normal. Sadly, many people are pulled into this insanity and are believing it to be progress.
How does this happen?
Mainstream media, celebrities, politicians, movies, commercials, and people on social media are bombarding us with this insanity. If something is everywhere, it is more likely to start to feel normal. Most people do not have an abundance of time. Therefore, they are less able to challenge what they are being force-fed on a daily basis.
Despite the bombardment of insanity, we should be able to identify what is blatantly ridiculous. This is a little more difficult than it sounds. This is because language is being twisted to mislead us. Words and/or phrases are being twisted to mean something else. Sometimes an ideology is presented as meaning one thing when in practice it represents almost the exact opposite.
In this post, I discuss several areas where language is being used to manipulate meaning and ideology.
In several other posts, I have covered, indirectly or partially, how our language has been twisted to imply something different than it means. See below.
Dictionaries are the easiest tools to access to help us find the meaning of a word. In many cases, words have multiple meanings. These meanings can change further when we consider the context of their usage. For example, a word with disparaging meaning could be used as form of endearment and a word with a flattering meaning could be used disparagingly as a sarcastic insult.
Usage of words can change or certain definitions become used more or less. Dictionaries claim to change definitions of words based on usage (June29). Therefore, if a large proportion of the English speaking population are believed to repeatedly use a word differently, the meaning of the word could be changed to align with this usage. An example of this would be the change in the meaning of the word ‘gender’.
Gender is the state of being male or female (Collins Dictionary 1999)
Gender is the state of being male or female in relation to the social and cultural roles that are considered appropriate for men and women (Collins Dictionary 2023)
Words could naturally be used differently over time as interactions between people change. These differences would likely be subtle or a word could be given additional meanings. I would argue that the initial meanings of a word should still be considered relevant.
It appears many words are being changed through pressure. This could be from academics, media, or Government. Some of these words such as ‘gender’ have had their definitions changed in the majority of dictionaries. Other words such as ‘diversity’ have had their definitions tweaked or their emphasis has shifted.
Diversity is quality of being different and varied (Collins Dictionary 1999)
The diversity of something is the fact that it contains many very different elements. Diversity involves the deliberate inclusion in a group or activity of people who are, for example, of different races, genders, and religions (Collins Dictionary 2023)
Changing the meaning of words based on pressure from various groups can create problems. Some people are still going to use the previous definition of a word. This is the case with the word ‘gender’. Many people still use gender as a synonym for ‘sex’, which aligns with its former definition. Gender has been used in many different contexts and terminology prior to its changed definition. The new definition creates confusion regarding previous usage. This has led to its previous definitions still being used. I believe this confusion is deliberate and is being used to assert certain agendas.
In many of my posts, I have relied on dictionary definitions to clarify the meaning of words and the context I use them in the post. For this post, I am also using the etymology to shed more light on how words have been changed.
The extent of manipulation of words and terminology is quite astonishing. It would be impossible to cover all of them or even all the main ones. Below are the examples that I focus on in this post. These should provide an adequate idea of how this manipulation occurs. Some people will disagree or even be offended with how I have dissected their usage. I believe triggering the thought process is more important than agreement.
The word ‘phobia’ relates to extreme or irrational fear of something. It is often used as suffix to a word as a way of expressing fear relating to that word. For example, claustrophobia is a morbid fear of being shut up in a confined space (Online Etymology Dictionary). These fears are often considered so excessive that people that experience them are considered to have a disorder.
The more recent usage of the suffix ‘phobia’ has not related to fear. It has been used to describe opposition to an ideology or to a group of people. For example, transphobia, biphobia, and islamophobia. There is no evidence to suggest that people have an actual phobia of any of these groups. It is more likely that people are prejudiced and discriminate against these groups because they strongly dislike their ideology. I would argue that discrimination is also not the most common context for these words. Instead, they are used to attack people that do not conform to the ideology pushed by these groups. This is particularly true for trans ideology.
The word ‘trans’ relates to crossing over. It is used as a prefix to suggest crossing over or changing. For example, transform is changing of form (Online Etymology Dictionary). In today’s language, trans is also used as a short form for the word ‘transgender’. Transgender is a relatively new word but existed prior to the change in the definition of ‘gender’. The use of the prefix ‘trans’ should indicate that ‘transgender’ means changing of ‘gender’ or ‘sex’. However, transgender is defined as persons whose sense of personal identity does not correspond with their anatomical sex (Online Etymology Dictionary). It still relates to the original definition of gender, which refers to sex. The change in the meaning of the word ‘gender’ adds further confusion for many.
Instead of using transgender, gender dysphoria could have been used and after the change in the definition of ‘gender’, sex dysphoria could be used. In some cases, dysphoria might be too strong a word to use. Instead, ‘sex incongruence’ could be used to describe the clash between identity and biology.
The problem caused by the word ‘transgender’ is compounded further when terminology such as trans men and trans women are used. These terminologies are not defined in all dictionaries. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines trans woman as a woman who was identified as male at birth. This definition implies doctors made a mistake in identifying the sex of a child. This can occur when a babies external and internal genitals do not match (Medline Plus).
The terminology trans women and trans men are not used in that way by the media. The definition they use aligns more closely aligns to the one stated in Wikipedia
A trans woman (short for transgender woman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Trans women have a female gender identity and may experience gender dysphoria.
The usage of ‘trans’, ‘gender’, and ‘woman’ are inconsistent with the definitions and origins of the words. The word ‘assign’ adds even more confusion. ‘Sex’ is not assigned. It is identified based on biology. ‘Assigned’ implies doctors choose the sex of a child at birth. A trans woman is a male suffering from sex dysphoria or sex incongruence.
The inappropriate usage of words and terminology has created considerable confusion. People argue that trans women are women. That would be correct if appropriate definitions were used. For humans, it is impossible for a male to change into a female. Maybe one day, some humans could be modified with amphibian DNA or people’s consciousness could be transferred to another body. Until something like this is possible, the appropriate use of the terminology trans women or men is not possible.
Alternatively, we could redefine transgender. Since the word 'gender' has changed, the word transgender should change to reflect the new definition. Since gender relates to roles, transgender should relate to changing roles. Transgender men could relate to men who have taken on feminine roles and transgender women could relate to women who have taken on masculine roles. Gender changes would be from masculine to feminine or feminine to masculine or any of the other 50+ varieties of gender. Sex would then become irrelevant to this definition.
To add even more confusion. There is such a thing as ‘gender affirming care’. Does gender in this context refer to the new or old definition of gender? If in the context of the new definition (i.e. based on feminine and masculine roles), I would argue that people should be able to live any life they choose as long as it is not to the detriment of others. However, it appears ‘gender affirming care’ relates to sex. Therefore, it appears to be supporting a person’s delusion of being the opposite sex. Many healthcare professionals apparently support ‘gender affirming care’. This ‘care’ can include hormone therapy, hair removal, voice therapy, and surgery (John Hopkins Medecine).
I wonder if affirming people’s delusions is going to become common medical practice. Will people be told that they should identify as different races, species, or even objects if it aligns with their beliefs? For example, some children in the UK are identifying as animals (Express). Will schizophrenia be supported with affirmation instead of treatment?
It is shocking that the root causes of people’s delusions regarding sex are not addressed first. There are reasons why people are unable to identify with their sex. Medical professionals have a duty to determine these reasons and the underlying causes. Once determined, they have a duty to address these underlying causes. It is possible that affirmation could be the best path forward but it should not be considered the first or only path forward.
The medical and pharmaceutical industries most likely support affirmation ‘care’ because it is profitable. Confusion caused through word usage is a strategy used by Government and media to gain support from the public for trans ideology and the affirmation approach. This helps their friends in business as well creates division amongst the people who support this approach and those who do not. Those who suffer the most are the people who suffer from sex dysphoria. Their lives can be destroyed by medical procedures, medication, and therapy. This is especially true for young people and children who have been manipulated into believing they can simply just change sex (Daily Mail).
The trans movement are targeting children in schools and through social media. This appears to be an attempt to confuse children about sex, gender, and sexuality. Raising such topics at such a young age as well as exposing children to explicit sex content through books, videos, and performances (Daily Mail) is a form of sexual grooming. Sexualised children become much easier targets for paedophiles and sexual predators, as they are likely to be more forthcoming.
The word ‘Semite’ relates to people who originated from southwestern Asia. These include the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs (Merriam Webster). These ethnicities are based on bible anthropology. They are described to have descended from Noah's son, Shem (Online Etymology Dictionary).
Based on the origin of the word ‘Semite’, anti-Semitism should relate to a dislike of people from southwest Asia. However, anti-Semitism relates to dislike and discrimination against Jewish people. Judaism is a religion. People of Jewish faith can be of any race. They may have Hebrew ancestors but through marriage could be more genetically related to other races through migration. According to a study, only 3% of the DNA of Ashkenazic Jews can be linked to the Levant Region in the Middle East (i.e. Israel, Lebanon, parts of Syria, and western Jordan) (Das, R. et al. 2017 cited by the Conservation). Some people have ancestors that were converted to Judaism and may not have any genetic link to the Semite ethnicities (National Library of Medicine).
In the mainstream media, anti-Semitism is called racism. Arguably, this is correct in the context of racism against people of Semite ancestry. However, it is used in the context of Jewish people. Judaism is a religion not a race. Therefore, anti-Judaism should be considered discrimination against people of Jewish faith.
The World War 2 genocide of Jews was based on race. Jews were defined as Jewish based on ancestry and not faith. For example, a person could have been of Christian faith but still persecuted as being Jewish based on ancestry or believed ancestry (e.g. Mischling Test}. This adds confusion as Jews have been persecuted based on an assumption of a common race.
The word ‘anti-Semitism’ has been used divisively. I believe this is possible because of the race-based genocide of Jews in World War 2. The confusion between race and faith is deliberate. People who question or criticise the Israeli Government or Zionism have been labelled as anti-Semitic. Criticism of an ideology is not racism. People of Jewish faith are divided regarding many issues, one of them being the creation of a Jewish homeland in Israel and Palestine.
Actual discrimination against Jews still occurs. This could be based on faith or even the perception or stereotype of race. Discrimination against Jews often relates to their success in various areas as well as the accumulation of wealth. The reasons for their success could be related to the ideology of their religion, the accompanying culture, hard work, or other factors we cannot easily define.
Black and white is used to describe exact opposites. White is made up of all colours and black is the absence of colour. Black represents bad. White represents good. The word ‘black’ is placed in front of another word to indicate something bad. For example:
The word ‘white’ is placed in front of another word to indicate something good. For example:
Villains are often dressed in black and heroes are often dressed in white. In western culture, weddings are decorated in white and funerals in black. Heaven and angels are depicted in white and demons are often depicted to be black. To see the world in black and white refers to relating to everything as right or wrong, or good or bad.
The terminology black and white has been extended to relate to race. Light-skinned ethnicities such as the European ethnicities are referred as white people. Dark skinned ethnicities such as African and native Australians are referred to as black people. In terms of skin colour, so-called white people are not close to white and so-called black people are not close to black. The usage of black and white to describe dark-skinned and fair-skinned ethnicities is not a new development but the formalising of such language and frequent usage of it is. See figure below for the usage of the terminology of ‘black people’ and ‘white people’ in American English books.
Source: Google Books Ngram Viewer
People are being guided towards this terminology even though it makes little sense. Cultures of European ethnicities are very different. There are a wide variety of languages (40 widely spoken (Jakub Marian)), widely varying customs, different food, different religions (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), and a long history of wars and conflict with each other. There is a long history of discrimination between the various ethnicities of Europe. The same arguments can be made about the many African ethnicities (Wikipedia). However, western media and Government think that these very diverse groups should be categorised based on similarity of skin tone.
Black is often used to describe African-American people. Many of these people do not have a defined link to any African country as they were forcibly taken to the Americas as slaves. African-American is a logical identifier of ethnicity. However, the terminology ‘black’ is still pursued and has become normalised in American culture as well as across the Atlantic in the UK. Ironically, the word ‘negro’, which is considered offensive and taboo in western culture, is the Spanish and Portuguese word for ‘black’ (Spanish Dictionary).
The skin colour identifier of race has become so ridiculous that the US censor considers Middle Eastern and North African people as white because they have fairer skin (NPR).
The obsession with labelling people as either white or black is intended to stoke division based on skin colour. This is amplified by white and black being opposites. The consistent reference of white symbolising good and black symbolising bad is most likely being used to subconsciously influence the perceptions races have of each other and even of themselves. This a very nasty form of subconscious programming.
It is easy to divide people based on skin colour, as it can be seen, it is much easier to identify quickly compared to ethnicity or culture, which often cannot be known based on appearance. However, culture is more relevant in how people define themselves. This is because culture is a strong determinant of how people behave and choose to live their lives. To be a cohesive society we need to move away from race and visual differences, we are all human beings.
What is diversity? The usage of the word ‘diversity’ has drifted towards differences between people based on race or gender. See definitions provided earlier in the post.
Governments encourage diversity in the context of business operations. The value of diversity is subjective and most likely depends on the nature of the business and operations. Diversity is useful for dealing with broad topics and areas that benefit from a wide range of input. For example, marketing, management and human resources could benefit from a diverse group of people. Diversity is less beneficial for specialised areas of work. This is because a defined set of skills are needed.
Diversity in terms of race and religion offers minimal relevant diversity to most businesses and operations. There is more relevant diversity between an economist and an engineer than two economists of different races. Race does not define how people think. Religion affects how people think but is not applicable to most relevant work tasks. Some aspects of religion could be more of a hindrance than help.
Culture could affect how people think in the context of certain aspects of a job. Tasks and people could be approached differently. This could be a great benefit to engaging with people outside of an organisation. However, it could cause conflict within an organisation if cultures of different employees tend to clash.
Diversity based on sex could be of an advantage as men and women tend to think differently and approach problems differently. Combined different approaches is likely to be beneficial to a business. However, there is still the possibility of conflict.
Ultimately, type and quality of output of individuals and teams is most relevant. The pros and cons of relevant diversity should naturally sort itself out. In competitive markets, businesses seek employees who are most suited to enabling them to succeed. This would normally relate to areas such as efficiency, quality of output, and meeting the needs and wants of the customer. If a certain type of diversity increases the business’ chances of success, it will be sort.
Governments intervening with diversity requirements is harmful to businesses, employees, and customers. Businesses will choose to meet a diversity requirement if it is more profitable than running a business that efficiently and effectively meets the needs of its customers. In some cases, Governments intervene by becoming the proxy customer. Businesses are required to meet the demands of the Government instead of actual customers. Under these circumstances, it is easy for the Government to force their diversity requirements on businesses.
Governments encourage diversity in the context of communities. Diversity is important to any community. In order to function, all communities need a diversity of talent, skills and perspectives. However, Government refer to diversity in context of race, religion and culture. Different religions and cultures can add value to a community. People from cultures can and should share aspects of their culture with other people in the community. They offer goods and services linked to their culture such as art, food, and entertainment.
Ultimately, people from different cultures need to assimilate into the established or original culture of a community. I lived in Singapore for 15 years. Singapore consists of a wide variety of different cultures and ethnicities from around the world. The people openly share their own cultures and they are respectful of each other’s culture. Singapore has also achieved their own Singaporean culture, which is held above any of the imported cultures. Migrants need to accept this established culture. I did for the years when I lived in Singapore. Attempting to impose another culture on an established culture will create conflict. Creating sub-cultural communities also creates potentially unhealthy division within the community.
What could be the motives for Governments and mainstream media to push their skewed ideology about diversity?
Their version of diversity suits big business, as they are able to meet diversity requirements more easily than small businesses. They generally have more employees, more departments, and money to do so. Meeting these diversity requirements can bring in extra revenue from bonuses or rewards from Government for meeting their diversity goals. Businesses who fail to meet the diversity requirements are more likely to struggle to compete; thus, reduced competition is another advantage to big business.
Enabling a foreign culture to impose itself on an existing culture dilutes the existing culture especially if the imposed culture is highly fervent. Many western cultures strongly value freedom. There is a strong emphasis on freedom of speech and democracy. Western Governments lose some authority and power as they are forced to give concessions to the public or they will revolt. Diluting western cultures is likely to dilute the values that encourage opposition to authority.
Forcing different cultures together is likely to create conflict between the people of these cultures. Conflict between different groups in society, normally two, is good for the Government. If people are opposing each other, they are less likely to be opposing the Government.
Political ideology has been forcibly split between the left-wing and the right-wing. Left-wing ideology has been meshed with proclaimed ‘liberal’ ideology. Right-wing ideology has been meshed with proclaimed ‘conservative’ ideology.
To be liberal is to be open-minded to many different ideas and beliefs. To be conservative is to support tradition and resist sudden change. Neither should be stated as political ideology. Older people are more likely to have conservative views and younger people are more likely to have liberal views (The Conversation). I would argue that older people are more likely to hold onto the familiar and younger people are still exploring and learning more about the world.
Liberal-minded people could support any ideology because they are open to any ideas. They should arguably be incredibly diverse. Left-wing (socialist) ideology is not diverse. It is focused around removing economic and social class. It aims to reward labour over capital. This has only been possible in modern society through authoritarian Governments who forcibly redistribute wealth through taxation and/or through control of income, distribution, and output through state ownership. This is done in an attempt to eliminate poverty. At the same time, innovative and creativity is stifled as there is no incentive to strive for them. This does not align with liberal ideology. Lack of change and stagnation would more closely align with people with a conservative mind-set.
Liberalism and left-wing ideology are likely to be at odds in many areas. Liberals are likely to support globalism, freedom of expression and speech, multiculturalism, free and open markets, and anything else that would enable them to experience new ideas and different cultures. Liberal views are more likely to align with right-wing ideology than left-wing but probably suited to a mixture of both.
Is the supposed left-wing/liberal mesh up more left-wing or more liberal? It is neither. It is authoritarianism. It promotes socialist values in a manner appearing to align with liberal values. For example, liberals are likely to support to immigration. The left-wing/liberal mesh up parties encourage mass migration to win support from liberal-minded voters. They bring in people from different cultures as well as offer them opportunities to improve the quality of their lives; thus, sounding quite socialist. However, this is counter to left-wing ideology. Skilled workers are not attracted to left-wing countries because they are penalised for having a capacity to earn higher incomes. Immigration of unskilled workers forces the wages of the working class down. This favours big business by providing them access to cheap labour. Not exactly consistent with socialist ideology.
The two party/ideology systems have become so divisive that people have become rigid and in some cases cult-like in their beliefs. This is apparent on both sides. However, rigid and cult-like beliefs are completely contrary to liberalism, which is supposed to embody many different opinions and perspectives. Wokeism is considered liberal ‘ideology’. It is not. It embodies the exact opposite of liberal values. I could even argue that faux liberal ideology is the death of liberalism. Anyone who is able to maintain liberal values has no political home.
Right-wing ideology and conservatism have been paired together (Note: conservatism in most western countries is considerably more liberal than conservatism in many other parts of the world such as the Middle East). For the wealthy upper class in society, this is a great pairing. It supports maintaining wealth in the same way as it has for previous generations of wealthy upper class. For the majority, right-wing ideology and liberalism is a better match. It is like the old USA when people from around the world would migrate there for the opportunity to become wealthy in a young capitalist economy. These opportunities no longer exist.
The so-called ‘right-wing’ ideology is no longer ‘right-wing’. It is divided into a toned down version of the fake ‘left-wing’ and liberal mesh up and the champions of ‘conspiracy theories’. In the USA, they could be divided into the RINOs (Republicans in name only) and Trumpers (supporters of Donald Trump). One group serves the Establishment and the other are controlled opposition. The ultimate goal is to have two groups of people fighting each other to maintain a two party/ideology system.
Right-wing ideology in the context of supporting free markets is no longer considered mainstream. It is supported by libertarians but they are granted little to no public forum. Former US Senator Dr. Ron Paul is one of the most prominent libertarians but has been greatly suppressed his whole career.
Genuine left-wing ideology that aims to support working class people and families barely exists. It is in direct conflict with big business interests. The faux ‘left-wing’ support high taxes and big Government but not for the purpose of creating greater equality but for the purpose of controlling consumption and feeding crony capitalism by supporting big business through the outsourcing of projects.
Environmental issues are incredibly broad. However, if the mainstream media is your main source of information, you might believe that climate change is the only environmental problem we need to consider. Climate change is not a problem. It is a possible cause of environmental problems. Climate change can have negative and positive effects on the environment. The mainstream media only focus on the negative aspects.
There many other environmental problems relating to air, water, land and noise pollution. There is the destruction of biodiversity. The depletion of the ozone layer and increasing ultra-violet radiation. Disruption of weather patterns caused by geo-engineering. I discuss these genuine environmental problems in my posts Environment – Prevent, Solve, or Manage and Our Relationship with the Environment.
There are Government initiatives such as smart cities that claim to offer the environmental benefits of reduced carbon dioxide. Mainstream media claim with the support of a high percentage of scientists that carbon dioxide is a major culprit of manmade climate change.
The expressed opinions of scientists are greatly swayed by access to funding and the requirements of journals (Telegraph and The Free Press). Publishing articles and research is critical for the careers of scientists and academics. Failing to do so is greatly detrimental to their careers. Therefore, many scientists are likely to cave to the demands of the journals and the people and organisations funding them.
The extent of the environmental benefits of reduced carbon emissions from smart cities in western countries can be expected to negligible considering the extent of reductions on a global scale. However, for most people, the costs of smart cities in terms restrictions on freedom can be expected to be enormous. I discuss smart cities in detail in my post Smart Cities: Our dream future or dystopian nightmare?.
The London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) initiatives are a massive contradiction. The initiatives aim to improve air quality by reducing the number of cars travelling between neighbourhoods and within urban areas. Many people will be forced out of their cars and onto public transport. A main form of public transport in London is the underground rail network. The quality of air in the underground network is very bad (King’s College London 2019 and Envirotech Online 2023). LBC (Leading Britain’s Conversation) compared the quality of the air in the London Underground with quality of the air above ground. The quality was recorded as hazardous at rail level but good at ground level. ULEZ will be forcing people to endure this awful air quality twice a day on commutes.
The Maui fires were immediately blamed on climate change. A book was even published about the fires blaming them on climate change while the fires were still burning. The book was sold on Amazon but has since been removed. Below is a screenshot of the book and details.
People cause the vast majority of wildfires. According to Smithonsian Magazine, 84% of fires in the USA are caused by people. According to the New York Times, almost 95% of the wildfires in California were caused by people. Wildfires can be worsened by strong winds and prolonged dry weather. This is also not necessary a product of climate change.
I have included many examples of the manipulation of words and terminology. There are still many more I could cover but this post would become too long. A few others that stand out to me are:
Words and terminology are powerful. They shape ideas and ideology as well as how powerfully they can be delivered. They can stifle debate or rig it in a particular direction before it even begins. The skewing of words and terminology is a method of framing what should be considered as blatantly illogical conjecture as logical and somewhat convincing arguments to many. To avoid this problem, we need to revisit the language being used to describe something. It is impossible to have a meaningful debate or discussion if we cannot agree on how something should be defined or if a definition is misleading. We will have perpetual disagreement, as we are not even discussing something within the same context.
I would argue that the twisted use of language serves the purpose of pushing insane ideology supported by authoritarianism as well as keeps people opposing each other, as two sides are working off incompatible paradigms.
I have several collection of posts. I have organised these collections based on content and purpose.
The first collection contains six collection posts created before PeakD had the collection feature. Four of these posts relate to the core of my content, one of them contains all my Actifit Posts, and one of them contains my video course ‘Economics is Everyone’.
The second collection consists of the posts that I consider define my channel. These posts are significant in terms of content as well as how they contribute to the growth of the channel. These posts reveal the most about what I believe in.
The third and fourth collection is what I call my ‘Freedom-base Economics living book’. They contain all the posts that support my ideas about the value and power of freedom. Some of these posts explain what we can achieve with freedom and what we need to utilise it. Some of them explain how we are deprived of freedom and how we often give up freedom for security and comfort. The third collection concludes with possible scenarios depending on what we (society) choose to do.
