language used for mind control and reality construction

[pam69ur]

What do you think of the idea that feminisim and queer theory are a theories of propaganda and mind control and self image creation. That they are no more than ideologies trying to manufacture identites based upon insights from mysticism. Dean argues that feminism has taken up a postsructualist view of lanaguage ie language does not relect reality but in fact contsructs it . Language being relational words only have meaning interms of other words and not reality. Dean shows how these ideas are mirrored in budhism but where budhism seeks to use these insight to liberate one from reality and deconstruct the ego or self image feminism et al use them for mind control and ideological propaganda to create feminist et al images/egos and views about reality- a sort of newspeak as seen in 1984 where language is used to construct reality A book that show that this is so is called

Prologomenon to the study of the mystical elements in ..... femimisim and queer theory
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ry/prolog2.pdf

This use of language for mind control and reality construction is allso used - and the aware can see it- to control thought and construct reality by politicians and adverstiser. Dean at least shows you the theories upon which these lingustic manipulators mind controlers draw their theortical food

But for those who are interested the attempt in 1984 via newspeack to construct reality and the feminist et al attempts to construct egos/images has been proven to be a futile excersise in mind control by dean in his book contentless thought; A case stdudy in the madhyamika demonstrations of the meaninglessness of all views http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...essthought.pdf- This is because as dean shows thought is pre-language -so humans will always have a small amount of independent thought to rebel against the linguistic programing of mind controlers- some will like winston in 1984 excape the language net

[Di Wu]

hmm...this topic reminded me of what Orwell thought about language. His thoughts on language are made clear in his novel 1984. Language when abused can be a tyrannous tool for propaganda and vacuous image creation. Our language is our reality. We can't conceptualise things that we don't have words for. We don't notice nor can we understanding any element that has not been branded with name.

Such is our loose grip on reality.

[gnosis]

okay, but can we understand anything in our lives without it? sure language can be minipulated, but what cant? With language, i feel if there is a tool to prevent us from being manipulated, its taking our listening from an objective point of view, and actualy conceptualizing its content, reather then our intuitive first response...this i feel we should be teaching our youngsters...like MLK JR said, "the aim objective of education is to sift and weight information"

[Di Wu]

Originally Posted by gnosis

sure language can be minipulated, but what cant?

I don't think you can casually attribute 'Language' to just another one of those things that can be manipulated. It is above all of it.

So the real question is: Is there anything in the world that can be manipulated WITHOUT language?

The answer (someone prove me wrong on this) is I believe, nothing.

[Aristoddler]

Originally Posted by Di Wu

So the real question is: Is there anything in the world that can be manipulated WITHOUT language?

The answer (someone prove me wrong on this) is I believe, nothing.

A man wearing a mask walks into a store.
He points a gun at the cashier and gestures to the cash register.
Holding out a bag, he has communicated without language that the cashier's life is forfeit unless the bag is filled with the money from the cash.

Unless of course, it's 40 below freezing, and he just bought the gun at the store, in which case he needs to pay for it and even brought his own bag to carry it in...but that's a stretch.

My wife just walked in the room.
I held up my coffee cup and grunted.
I now have a new cup of coffee.
I have manipulated her.

Sexual foreplay needs no language to manipulate someone into doing what you desire them to do.


How do you train your dog?
He doesn't understand your language, does he?

Have you ever taken the lead in a dance?

Have you ever seen a mute person communicate with a blind person?

Language is a formality that we have become accustomed to using, but it is not entirely necessary to manipulate or communicate.


As to the OP, I think that conspiracies are interesting, but this one is too abstract to have a serious debate around. There's nothing solid in the subject matter to really gain a foothold for either side of the debate in my personal opinion.

[l0ck]

language i guess could be abused this way
language to me is an odd occurance perhaps even an illusion
because i believe everyones reality is different
but if they are different how do things like communication exist?
the differences are scaled accross each person experience so uniting experiences is possable through things like language because we are both experiencing something it just happens to be interpreted different in our brains
so in a way teaching everyone the same language is control, because if they werent taught a language they would create their own unique language
how free do you want to be thought? heh
and think of how far communication has gotton us and the belief that what i see is exactly what you see has gotton us

[speakerchef]

What is language anyway?
Define language.
Is it different from Language?

I always thought of language as a systematized (though not necessarily understood) form of communication e.g. body language, sign language.

[l0ck]

i think the definition of language your assuming we are using is the correct one.. like english,spanish.. ect
its a medium for us to share our observations
which for some reason humans have an urge to do
we have an urge to communicate and feel understood.. why?
i dont know..
its safe to assume the urge existed before we were aware of it existing

[speakerchef]

If language is indeed a systematized form of communication then language could be used to manipulate, but not as mind control.

While one might be able to shepherd thoughts using language, one would never possess enough control of the system (i.e. language) to control others thought. This 'controller' would be only able to lead thought in a direction, but would be unable to force others to think or do (if you accept free will) precisely what he/she wanted. The 'controller' could not 'language' others to do something, because despite language's systematization it is far too complex to dominate. Moreover, this 'controller' would be playing with fire and may very well get burned.

If language is merely "a medium for us to share our observations" would someone else really be able to control our observations? (The way I use observations is that observations= perceptions and their evaluations).

Control over our observations could only come by changing the input of our mind i.e. perceptions. Since, (if you accept free will) we control our evaluations no person could have 'mind control' in regards to language. Again, it appears that the best a 'controller' could do is to shepherd us.

Furthermore, language as "a medium for us to share our observations" appears to be an incomplete definition. Firstly, What about the desire for that cup of coffee? That was not an observation, but is a desire. "I am thirsty" , if true, indicates a fact and not an observation. Thirdly, teaching a person something is not a sharing of observation, it is sharing of knowledge that is not always based in observation. Finally "Oh, $#!%" Is exclamatory and does not share an observation, but rather pain, fear, or some other feeling or emotion.

[backworldman]

Mind controllers dont actually use the language to controll people, they use their positive and negative emotions connected to things the words are describing.