FTM - Word-based brainwashing

WARNING You MUST read the disclaimer before viewing this website. If you have not read the disclaimer, you MUST click here NOW or Close your browser NOW. The manipulation of word definitions as a tool of societal Brainwashing
Hello. This page is all about how society uses invalid and manipulated meanings and definitions of words. These lie-based definitions of words are literally used by societies to hide and deny the Forbidden Truths of life, to brainwash the masses into acccepting the endless stream of malevolent lies that their society inflicts upon them. These false definitions are then printed in dictionaries by individuals who use the societal versions of words themselves. They just print what they have been falsely taught to be correct, with censor-whores paid to check over all publications before printing. According to society, dictionaries are books that contain the meaning of common words that are also fit for educational purposes. Is that claim honest, True or accurate? Absolutely not! The first part is accurate. Dictionaries are books. However, they do not contain the honest, real and Truth-based meaning of words, they fascistly dictate what society wants the meanings of certain words to be. Dictionaries are used to control thinking, and use of words in conversation and debate in such a way that the outcomes are rigged in favour of the false and malevolent societal policies. This is done by making the available words as commonly defined as to be lie-based and therefore insufficent to accurately express certain Forbidden Truths using those definitions. Legitimate definitions follow this structure/guideline : 1. Some new or unique object, idea etc is discovered/sought to be defined for use in the communication of ideas. 2. A new word is invented to refer to said thing, as a shortcut, or linguistic macro, to save time in having to repeat the big description/explanation of that thing. 3. As part of that macro, a description is given to tell us what the new word or 'macro' refers to in reality. 4. The definition cannot contain the word that it itself defines.
	Example : A "tree". The word "tree" was coined as a shortcut to describe an actual and real thing. The definition or description of a tree describes the tree, and defines it objectively. Only properties of the tree can be used in the definition, not the actual external opinion of the tree. This new word or macro does not do anything other than point to what we refer to. It does not make any comment on human views about trees. Even if the definition does not contain some detail of what a tree is (such as the detail of how sap moves throughout the tree), a tree is still a tree, and we still know what a tree is. The definition of "tree" might be short because of brevity. Sap still moves through the tree and to claim that actual trees do not contain sap because the definition of a tree does not specifically mention sap is insane. Sap exists in trees. That is just a fact. A definition of "tree" may just be incomplete, but the fact about trees are still the same. In the case of "trees", we get a reasonable and honest definition. Why? Because the definition of what constitutes a tree is not revealing any Forbidden Truth. To recap, the word and its definition is just a description to tell us what we refer to. Words are shorthand versions of concepts or things that are used in verbal communication.
However, society is so illegitimate and lie-based it does not honestly define certain words. These words are related to Forbidden Truths. Society creates false and lie-based definitions of words in order to try and "rig" debates and generally control and distort rational thinking. It does so to support the endless stream of lies it tells it's citizen-slaves. So, lets look at one such case below. Example 2 : Let's take the word "murder". "Murder" is defined as the "The unlawful killing of a human being, with malice and intent.", or words to that same effect. The key word here is "unlawful". Unlawful has no legitimate nor fixed definition, and is arbitrary and capricious. Further, "unlawful" does not describe any objective property or thing related to what is being attempted to be described. It adds nothing legitimate. It leaves the definition open to selective dictates via legal authority. So the definition of murder is not fixed and defined, it is in flux. Therefore, the "definition" remains undefined - so it is not a legitimate definition of anything real. We already have a word for killing, we already know what 'deliberate', 'intent' and 'malice' are. We could also add further words if need be. The Truth is that the act of murder can easily and honestly be described without the use of the word "unlawful". The word "unlawful" is arbitrary and therefore has absolutely no legitimate place in the words' definition. The only reason why this word appears in the definition of murder is because society commits murder itself, and society wants to deny it is doing so. It would be impossible for society to hide the fact it does acts of murder, because it does so many murders so often. So societal leaders simply placed an arbitrary clause in the words definition, so it's trusted whore-representatives can just declare certain types of murder as lawful killing and other exact same acts as murder based on what suits society at the time. It is easy to logically prove that society's use of the word murder is false. In terms of the word "murder" being used in an application, we have a sort of "masked man" logical fallacy, or a comparison between two things using a non-objective arbitrary judgment of those two things. To compare things by people's view of them is irrational. For example, we can compare two items and decide they are the same or different based on the actual attributes of the them :

We can see that A and B are both different items. That is why there is a different word for each item. In this case, we know it is pencil and ruler. However, C and D are exactly the same. We cannot correctly state that pencils C and D should have a different term or label for them, simply because they are the same. Even if we had two words, they would have to be interchangable. But if we take that diagram as an analogy to the at of murder, we see that this is precisely what society is trying to do. It does so by labelling one form of murder (we will use the death penalty) as "legal" and another form as "illegal". The term legal is arbitrary and does not point to an objective property of murder, nor the intent of the individual carring out a murder. Compare this legal / illegal argument with the diagrams above. If we made C a "legal" pencil and D an "illegal" pencil, they are still both exactly the same. The external views and dictates of society cannot magically make them two different things. The same with murder. If an act of killing a human being is deliberate, malicious and unneccesary, that is murder. (That was one possible Truth-based definition of murder). Calling one act of this murder "legal" or "illegal" cannot possibly somehow make it any different. Only if one or more of the criteria in the act as we saw in the honest definition of murder can it said not to be a murder. You simply cannot just personally judge one act as "unlawful" to compare them. You must use concrete criteria. For example, both the death penalty and serial killing are acts of murder. One being unlawful and the other lawful cannot change that. Reason cannot be selective. It is simply the invalid definition offered by society that is the problem. Although there is no legitimacy to the definition society offers to the word "murder", society literally demands that you use it's definition of the word murder exclusively with that exact definitional fault. The reason why society does this is simply because it knows it cannot rationally win an argument and prove it's case, and also because society wants to allow certain forms of murder, while making others "unacceptable" and wrong. Societal leaders knew (and still do) that illegal and legal murders are exactly the same thing. Again, any application of an arbitrary term such as "illegal" results in a masked man fallacy of logic.

The next invalid word-definition group I will examine are the ones used by society to support child abuse. All child abuse is actually sponsored by society as long as it occurs within the family unit mythology and other guidelines laid down by society.

In order to deny that society allows the routine assault of children, society simply invents a label called "spanking" for assaulting children. Sometimes a society also uses the term "discipline" either in conjunction with "spanking" or on it's own. Like in the example above spanking, discipline and assault are the exact same actions.

I will prove this via a scenario comparison. If the legal child slave-owner or "parent" strikes the child with violence, it is labelled spanking and/or discipline instead of assault. But if the exact same child did the exact same thing and was hit by a total stranger, that would be labelled an "assault" and likely the man labelled a "pervert" or a "criminal" or something like that. But the actual actions are exactly the same. The only reason why society used a different label is because it grants the biological creators of children the right to assault their children, but also wants to deny that it allows children to be assaulted.

[Credit to ChristArt.com for the above image.]

What we see in the two above examples is how society's invalid word definitions run into a "masked man" fallacy. It just makes no rational sense. The laws of logic clearly show the societal version of these words are invalid. Society his simply included an arbitrary loophole in the definition. This loophole acts as a cowardly escape hatch. Every time an action society promotes is a murder, and its hypocritical policy is challenged, it simply wheels out its bogus definition of "murder" to pretend that somehow these things could be different.

Somehow, the exact same thing has become different simply because a different word, or shortcut, was used, even though these are both exactly the same thing. So what some illegitimate word is different?

Therefore, you should all reject the ridiculous dictionary's/societal definition of "murder". It makes no sense and is fallacious.

Murders committed by society under the guise of the "death penalty" and by "war" are both exactly the same thing as the "illegal" criminal murders. Society is just trying to play an immature word-game because it is guilty of murder and needs to deny this Truth.

Take note : Through-out all other pages this website, the word "murder" (unless otherwise specified) is used under the following legitimate Truth-based definition :

Murder : "A deliberate and malevolent act that causes a life-form to be killed."

In other words, murder = killing + deliberately + malicious intent. Makes sense, has no definitional faults. This definition is flexible enough to allow all arguments and opinions a fair go. For example, we can say killing instead of murder using this definition if it was an accident. We also could say "justified murder", we could say "needless murder" in order to exactly specify what we want to mean. The most important point is the removal of the word "unlawful".

Please note that I have given detailed reason why I rejected the "official" definition of murder. I showed why it was false, and then gave a Truth-compatible definition. I did not just reject it without grounds.

However, society and even many so-called intellectuals will still demand that the "official" dictionary definitions must be used. They, however, cannot refute what I just said above. Nor can they provide any legitimate reason why that should be the case.

This concludes the major portion of this essay. Click here to go back to the Crime essay if you used that link. Or continue navigation. There is also an appendix below with additional examples and material.

Important Update - 20th January 2011 :

Recently, a courageous individual named Jared Lee Loughner has revealed some Truth about his american society, and then proceeded on one of the most noteworthy mass-shootings in many years.
This philosophical statements of Jared are glorious, and are directly related to the issue of the societal manipulation of word meanings for the purpose of brainwashing as discussed on this page.

Click here to access the new Jared Lee Loughner file.

Appendix I : Example of application of discussed words:

Another obvious flaw in the legal murder arguments is that society itself will commit murder via a hired societal agent. Hyprocritically, society will not allow any individual to murder even in the in the exact same case/scenario of murder.

Take this example :

A. Ted Bundy is be murdered under the smokescreen of a "death penalty". Agent acting on behalf of society carries out orders and murders Ted Bundy.

B. As per A, but a prison officer sneaks into the chamber when he was not officially supposed to do so. He murders Ted Bundy in the death chamber earier than allowed, before the spectators have arrived. He just wanted to do what he was taught by society as the "job" himself.

In A, we have a societally-sponsored murder. That is deemed a "lawful" act and thus society claims it is not murder.

In B, we have a "crime" committed. It is deemed a "murder" by society because it is "unlawful".

But the actions are exactly the same. Yet, society claims that one is murder and the other not. This simply cannot be correct.

The only selector society used was the word "unlawful", which is not related to any attribute, property or intent of the murders and the individual who carried out the murder. Yet "unlawful" is just an arbitrary dictate or judgment.

Clearly, to any sane thinker, the act of society deliberately and malevolently killing a human being when society had a plenty of other choices and options is an act of murder. This un-neccesary and deliberate act resulted in the death of a human being, often an extemely painful and brutal death. There is no logical explanation for this act except that there was a malicious motivation to do so. This societally-sponsored murder is watched by an audience, for the purpose of venting anger and hate at the criminal for some crime or other.

It was only declared a murder because it was not done with the permission and sponsership of society/authority. It has nothing to do with the facts of the murder itself.

This is a ridiculous and deranged assertion. It is illogical and impossible. Its a masked man fallacy to compare any 2 things and conclude that they are the same or different based on non-objective properties such as the views or attitudes of a third party. Most certainly based on permission.

Appendix II : Arguments used to try and refute this essay:

One argument we see against such "custom" definitions is that we rejected the dictionary definition and "made up" an new one. Let look at that below :

1. It was not "made up" in that sense at all. I used the actual attributes regarding the act and intent of murder. The new definition was only "made-up" in the sense that I came up with a new definition. The fact of the matter is that all definitions and words are "made up" by humans in that latter sense, and they are only True by definitional accuracy about what they describe in the real world.

2. We had good reason to reject the dictionary definiton.

3. No fault exists in the new definition.

Another example from an online debate forum :
Quote : "Boogs, be reasonable here. You should know for a fact that it isn't murder. Murder is the illegal taking of an individuals life. Abortion is legal. Hence, abortion is not murder. You should know this. You're a smart person."

This is a beginner's attempt at comparative logic. It also tries to sucker you in by suggesting you are only smart if you accept his faulty and deranged attempts at logic.

Comparative logic only works on objective properties, and real and sane actual properties. Comparison cannot function using third-party human perceptions, judgments and views. Again we have the masked man logical fallacy. This means to compare two things that are otherwise the same by inventing a property for one of the compared objects based on an arbitrary human belief or judgment, instead of the attributes of the compared items themselves.

Say we compare two identical triangles. We call this T1 and T2. T1 is arbitrality and insanely declared to be a "legal" triangle, and T2 is not.

Then T1 is said to be different to T2 because of "legal", thus attempting to justify the original claim by its re-appearance as a supposed "property" of the triangle.

Just because someone declares it "legal" or "illegal" does not make it different, it only begs the question as to why it is so different to have one labelled "legal" or "illegal" and not the other in the first place.

Another lame argument is that "self-defence" would be classed as murder without the word "unlawful". That is not correct. The criteria such as malice afrethought and deliberate are not met. Notice that the word "unlawful" is not required. Notice that My definition was flexible enough never to exclude any possibility. Society has been caught in its web of lies.

Appendix III : Example of a rigged court case or debate based on lie-based word definitions:

Ok. Lets look now at exactly how the lie-based, or societal, version of "murder" is used to rig debates and court-cases. Lets use abortion and axe-murders as an example :

The axe-murderer murders a human life in order to prevent the abortion-based murder of two children. According to law, he is wrong, he is morally responsible. (Of course, I am not suggesting that this IS True, or it is not. This is just according to law).

Now, he might try and argue that he had not done so with malice, but only to save the life of two children. This is analogous to shooting dead a gunman in order to save children being shot during a mass-shooting.

I won't get into the specifics of My stance on such cases, but society would catagorically reject his defence, because it would claim he "murdered" a human being, whereas he only prevented two acts of "abortion". In the second case of the gunman, society would claim he was not guilty of murder. Any sane thinker who understands this page can see that this argument is just invalid and insane.

Appendix IV : Philosophical investigations into the use and meaning of "malice":

It is important to realise that "malice" raises serious practical and philosophical problems when used in a definition of murder. This is an advaned topic of discussion, so ensure you are feeling bright and alert before proceeding.

It is hard, if not impossible, for any person other than the murderer her/himself to know if he acted with malevolent and invalid intent. Everyone's intent and purpose is relative to their own True Reality.

Society just chooses to ignore this problem, however, and simply claim that all cases of murder it deems illegal are acts of malice, while all legal acts of murder it chooses to sponsor are not done with malice. This is despite society not doing anything to assert why it's murders are not malevolent. It makes no attempt to investigate the intent in societally-sponsored forms of murder and jst declares that they are not malicious acts for no reason.

Again society is being selective. It simply announces that all "unlawful" murders are "malicious", "cowardly" and so on, even if the perpetrator of the murder remains unknown to police and the case is never "solved", or does not give an account of why he killed when caught.

Automatically, society states that war, abortion, death-penalty murders are somehow not malicious, despite the fact that they clearly are murders, and no reason is ever given by society of it's lie-based and invalid claims. Remember, in all cases of illegal murder society simply has no way of telling if the actions are maliciously motivated, in both legal and illegal murders, because we are dealing with subjective ideas in the minds of others.

However, in all cases of societally-sponsored murder, the leaders know what that there is malevolent/malice aforethought because they themselves have that intent!

Exactly how and why should illegal murders be malicious by default of the act of deliberate killing, and yet automatically presumed otherwise for "legal" acts of deliberate killing? This presumption is self-serving and makes not one iota of rational sense!