CALLING GOOD EVIL AND EVIL GOOD
June 5, 2013
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil . . .” – Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)
Four is five, and five is four.
There is an underlying core issue dividing our country and now is the time to draw the line. If you’ve stepped across and joined me on this side of the line, welcome to the breed of Lt. Col. Travis. This column will lay out one of the greatest weapons we can use to win the ideological war. If you are reading this column it will require some concentration. Fix yourself a cup of coffee or an espresso, because I need you to follow me here.
A couple of weeks ago I was talking with a good friend about the state of the country. He quoted Isaiah 5:20 and said, “I always wondered how a person could call ‘evil good, and good evil,’ but it’s obvious, it’s happening now.” He was right. It’s happening now, and we’re allowing it.
The power of words is remarkable. As someone who writes speeches, sermons, studied law and who, while in college, roomed with a aspiring professional magician and stage hypnotist, I well understand the effect certain words have on the mind. One or two words can change the entire perception of a sentence, and therefore, a thought.
This is what happened to our country. Over the years, one or two words, here and there, created a dramatic shift in the populous toward the liberal agenda. Ironically, no one has brought it to light. From my expertise in words, I believe that if conservative pundits and leaders will adopt the tactic that I explain below, and aggressively use it in their media interactions, we will see the populous shift back to supporting constitutional principles.
First, how it’s happening.
To understand how society has been manipulated by words, let’s take a look at the infamous math riddle George Orwell made famous. In his book, 1984, Orwell explained the slogan “2+2 = 5” as a dogma that the Party presented as truth. The reason for this was because the actual fact that two and two equaled four was politically inexpedient. Since the logic explaining why 2+2 = 5 is bent, the conclusion stood only because the Party said so. The result was indubitable deference to the Party: whatever it said, was the controlled truth.
“The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?” – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Interestingly, 2+2 can, through theory, mathematically equal 5. This gives a spooky awe to Orwell’s proposition. I’ve seen several different theorems that explain how two and two can make five but, in my opinion, two are especially intriguing. The trickiest theorem essentially states that upon starting with the truthful proposition that 20 = 20 (x = x), we can follow a logical sequence of “if thens” to finally prove that 4 = 5 (x = y).
Read the following slowly and do the math with me. Understanding this will prove both necessary and important when I explain how the left has used the tactic.
Instead of going through the full theorem, I’ll sum it up this way. To deduce from 20 = 20 that 4 = 5, you must use square roots. If one takes the equation 4 – 4.5, solves it and then squares it (-.5 x -.5) you’ll get .25; which is the exact same answer as 5 – 4.5 solved and squared (.5 x .5 = .25). So, if the square of the first equation, 4 – 4.5, equals the square of the second, 5 – 4.5, then the two equations are equal to each other. If they equal each other, then we may skip squaring each side and just work with their original forms. So, we have 4 – 4.5 = 5 – 4.5. We then solve each side to get -.5 = .5. Now add 4.5 to each side and, bam! The truth that 20 = 20 has now been deduced to show that it is the exact same as 4 = 5 (or 2+2 = 5) (new truth).
Of course, the presentation is much more convoluted than that, but those who are brushed up will spot the flaw. The problem is that, while the squaring the two equations creates the same result (.25 = .25), a negative number is not the same as a positive number. In other words, -.5 is not the same as .5, even though they both square up to equal .25. It’s all in the “if then” presentation. It’s a matter of the conclusion versus logic.
The second theorem goes through similar steps, but in the end its flaw is that it requires dividing by 0. The novice mathematician doing mental math performs the function despite the error and arrives at the controlled conclusion. The problem is that it’s mathematically impossible to divide any number by zero.
Now, welcome back. So, what does all this fuzzy math have to do with the left’s words? Well, if 4 can be 5, then of course it’s possible for good to be evil, and evil to be good. Fuzzy math teaches us “doublespeak.”
Although the term “doublespeak” is not explicitly used in 1984, most attribute its origins to George Orwell. The word he used in his novel was Newspeak. Same difference. The basic concept is to deliberately disguise, distort, or reverse the meaning of words. In mathematical terms, the target word (x) is assigned a new definition (y). But the definition has a flaw (like dividing by zero or presenting a negative to be equal to a positive). However, with the right presentment, the flaw can be overlooked and I can make good become evil and visa versa. Soon enough the majority of the population believes the new truth, even those on the right.
Let’s turn to some examples. Since the Gosnell trial hasn’t been respectively covered, let’s use that topic.
Somewhere along the line, we accepted the labels of “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” How ridiculous. Where is the word “abortion”? After all, that is the beginning point (20 = 20). The left justifies their it by claiming their label means they support “a woman’s right to choose.” Choose what exactly? To own an AR-15? To support cutting entitlements and scaling back government? Ending affirmative action? Freeing the market from burdensome regulations? Supporting traditional marriage as the only definition of marriage? No, the left vilifies all of these. They support a woman’s choice to have an abortion. Period. So, let’s call it what it is. They are not “pro-choice,” they are “pro-abortion.”
Start saying “pro-abortion” on a regular basis and watch what happens! Since the word “abortion” doesn’t feel very good, I suspect you will see an immediate back-pedal. “No, no, no. We aren’t ‘pro-abortion,’ we just support a woman’s right to choose, for herself, to have an abortion.” Illogical. The pro-abortionist tries to equate positives and negatives. One cannot support a person’s right to choose an abortion without necessarily supporting the practice itself. Their argument is the same as me supporting a woman’s choice to kill her neighbor. “I’m not ‘pro-neighbor-killing myself, but I support a woman’s choice to do it.”
Oh, but neighbor killing isn’t the same as abortion because the neighbor is alive? Now we’re dividing by zero. Is the living cell in the womb not just as alive as the living cell in the neighbor?
Oh? The cell is alive, but the fetus isn’t viable? Nonsense. The 6-moth old baby, the 6-day old newborn, and even the 6-year old child are just as dependent on their mother for survival as the 6-day old zygote.
And deeper we go, exposing how pro-abortionists divide by zero to make abortion equal “supporting a woman’s choice.” This is how four has become five . . . how evil has become good. Words and their presentation.
No. “Pro-choice” is pro-abortion. And pro-abortion is pro-dismembering fetuses. Hmmmm, maybe we should start using the latter term?
Feel the power of words? And that is just one example.
Try “affirmative action.” Break down its logic and you get the actual fact: race preference or race favoring. (Believe me, I’ve studied the line of affirmative action cases. You’d be amazed at the preference systems colleges have tried to give non-Caucasians.)
“Gun control” is doublespeak for gun taking through regulation. The faulty premise here is that the left claims “gun control” bills do not come out and call for an actual gun confiscation. This is their presentation: “No one is taking away your guns.” But they mask the negative integer. The regulations are actually so strict that it becomes nearly impossible to obtain or keep your guns and ammo. It is, at the very core, confiscation via regulation. (Regulatory takings are unconstitutional under Supreme Court case law.)
“Entitlements” is doublespeak for dependence.
“An act of terror” is doublespeak for terrorist attack, or more bluntly, and as is the case in most situations, Islamic terrorist attack.
“Assault rifle.” Laughable. I would argue that every rifle can “assault,” since that word is only a noun and never an adjective. This is doublespeak for semi-automatic rifle.
And of course, “political correctness” is doublespeak for, well, doublespeak.
The list goes on, but the point is this, the left has successfully made evil good by using faulty premises and great presentation. The left is controlling the narrative because the right has rolled over and accepted doublespeak simply because the left has said so. Sadly, I can think of only one political leader who has ever challenged the flaw on the air. Everyone else is deathly afraid of being called “racist,” “sexist,” or whatever (do we need to break down the logic on those words too?).
It’s time to fight back with words.
I call on every patriot, pundit, and conservative who has a voice and a far-reaching medium to quit accepting the left’s manipulative doublespeak and start using truthspeak. Remember, one or two words can change the entire perception of a sentence, and therefore, a thought. Truthspeak resets the public’s perception and thoughts back to the original truth. This is why the left tries to eviscerate leaders like Allen West. Truthspeak is the left’s primary enemy, and he’s the only one I can think of off the top of my head who publicly speaks it.
Therefore, my fellow Americans, let us declare in our dialogues and monologues, our posts and our tweets, speeches and interviews that two and two do not equal five simply because it feels better to say. Good feelings were never the predicate of truth. Two and two make four, but only for as long as we guard its underlying logic. No more passive defensiveness. Go on the offensive! A Spade is not an upside down heart, so why accept the flaw and call it one? Call a spade a spade! Flood their minds with truth and watch the public support for the left buckle and fall.
Mark. My. Words.
“That choice is yours to make. That choice—the dedication to one’s highest potential—is made by accepting the fact that the noblest act you have ever performed is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four.” – John Galt, Atlas Shrugged
We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.