Control The Language And You Control The Mind

The top tennis player in the world is called “No Vac Joke Covid”.

His first name “Novak” is a perfect phonetic match. The letters of his last name “Djokovic” need to be slightly shifted: “Jok Covid” is the actual anagram.

What do you know, not only has Novak Djokovic come out against the vaccine, but this fact has been widely publicized. You’d think the New York Times of all outlets wouldn’t publish such a story if the agenda was as it seems on the surface (on either side of the dialectic).

There are two ways to explain this amazing wordplay:

  • A synchronicity. Either the Universe really has a great sense of humor, or it is a manifestation of chaos magic (or both). We are not ready to get into that, as we first need to explain the actual nature of consciousness. This will be the topic of future posts.
  • Subliminal programming meant to create resistance to the allegedly planned vaccine. This would fit right into our psyop theory (part1, part2); it is also a perfect illustration of the kind of game propagandists are playing; they excel at language, and that is the main tool they use against us.

The two explanations are not mutually exclusive; and indeed, they probably both hold a part of the truth. It is the second aspect we will be exploring today.

But first, let’s see how words and their definitions are hijacked.


Let’s briefly give the stage to M. Orwell. Here if a full PDF copy of the original edition of his book 1984; the passages below come from the Appendix, The Principles Of Newspeak (emphasis ours).

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world−view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.

Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.

To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds”. It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. […]

The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral, as nearly as possible independent of consciousness. For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgement should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets. […]

Newspeak, indeed, differed from most all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. […]

It would have been possible, for example, to say Big Brother is ungood. But this statement, which to an orthodox ear merely conveyed a self−evident absurdity, could not have been sustained by reasoned argument, because the necessary words were not available. Ideas inimical to Ingsoc could only be entertained in a vague wordless form, and could only be named in very broad terms which lumped together and condemned whole groups of heresies without defining them in doing so. […]

For example, “All mans are equal” was a possible Newspeak sentence, but only in the same sense in which “All men are redhaired” is a possible Oldspeak sentence. It did not contain a grammatical error, but it expressed a palpable untruth−i.e. that all men are of equal size, weight, or strength. The concept of political equality no longer existed, and this secondary meaning had accordingly been purged out of the word equal. […]

A person growing up with Newspeak as his sole language would no more know that equal had once had the secondary meaning of “politically equal”, or that free had once meant “intellectually free”, than for instance, a person who had never heard of chess would be aware of the secondary meanings attaching to queen and rook.

There would be many crimes and errors which it would be beyond his power to commit, simply because they were nameless and therefore unimaginable.

A Question of Definition

Next, here are a few examples of words which have had their definitions tampered with, much like in Orwell’s 1984.


That word comes from the Greek σκέπτομαι (skeptomai), meaning “I search / I consider / I think about”. It refers to a questioning attitude or doubt towards putative knowledge or belief.

A skeptic, when that word is correctly employed, points at someone who goes against the common knowledge or the generally-held belief; someone who doubts the “classical explanation”. In the early 17th century, the skeptic would have been Galileo; in the 21st century however, the skeptics would be the Catholic cardinals (Galileo simply labelled a “denier”, the modernized version of “heretic”).

The so-called Skeptic Society exemplifies the new (inverted) definition of that word. According to its own mission statement, it is an “organization whose mission is to engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds […]“.

In other words, it purports to be skeptical by defending the leading understanding, the normal, the mainstream, and the most ordinary claims.

Skepticism has come to mean conformism; it is absurd.


Science, in the strict and true sense, denotes knowledge. Because knowledge is boundless, a scientist is an eternal revisionist; his overarching goal is to falsify his existing understanding, either by making new, contradictory observations, or by proposing better theories.

Nowadays, science is used interchangeably with scientism. It is akin to a belief system. And indeed it isn’t rare to hear the phrase “believe in science”. That is a complete oxymoron. Even in the sense “believe in the scientific method” it doesn’t make much sense.

Google Trends 2004-present (worldwide) for the term “believe in science”

See this example from a “reputable” publication (archive). The author equates “belief in science” with belief in vaccines or belief in anthropogenic climate change. This is obscurantist. It implies skepticism (in the actual sense) is unscientific; it involves knowledge (e.g. awareness of the vaccine court) being mutually exclusive from reason.

Science has become the name of another belief system; it is absurd.


In the strict sense that word denotes the act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference. In the context of civil rights, it had come to mean discrimination by the State, or inequality before the law.

In other words, if a State herds individuals into categories and classes, and treats groups differently, that is discrimination. It is a mainstay of political collectivism.

Here is the modern acceptance of that word, according to Wikipedia:

Discrimination is the act of making distinctions between human beings based on age, caste, criminal record, height, disability, family status, gender identity, gender expression, generation, genetic characteristics, marital status, nationality, color, race and ethnicity, religion, sex and sex characteristics, sexual orientation, social class, personality, species, as well as other categories.

Please read that again to realize how absurd it is.

The definition was hijacked to remove the most important part, where it refers to inequality before the law. Now it simply means individual preference. You dislike selfishness? Discrimination! You won’t hire a convicted felon? Discrimination! You’re not attracted to geriatric, morbidly obese velociraptors? Discrimination!

Of course, by erasing the proper definition, actual discrimination – i.e. discrimination by the State – now has free reign.

Discrimination has come to mean personal preference; it is absurd.


This is a direct corollary of the previous definition. Equality in the political and legal context was used as in the first article of the 1789 declaration: men are born and remain free and equal in rights. This is what it means in the famous “liberté, égalité, fraternité”.

Equality in rights is not the same as equality full stop. Actually, it is diametrically opposed. That latter acceptance is congruent with death, as living beings are only equal in death. Life is intrinsically unique; no two living beings are identical; even identical twins have different personalities at birth. Similarly, women are in aggregate different from men (claiming otherwise is misogynistic); blacks are in aggregate different from whites (claiming otherwise is prejudiced). Differences are to be celebrated instead of denied.

If everyone is equal, any individual can be identically replaced with any other one; therefore, it becomes possible to sacrifice a minority for the sake of the majority. If, on the other hand, individuals are unique (and therefore unequal to any other), individuals are irreplaceable.

Equality has come to mean homogeneity; it is absurd.

Racism / Sexism

This is again related to the previous definitions. Racism in the proper sense means racial supremacism; the belief that one ethnicity is in every regard superior to all others, i.e. absolutely favored by Creation. A racist country is one that enacts racially discriminatory laws, not one where individuals perceive differences.

Hating someone because of his ethnic background is absurd not because races are indistinguishable, but because individuals are so vastly different that ethnicity is a trivial common denominator.

In other words the definition was turned upside down. The modern “anti-racists” are the most racists, as they deny differences instead of celebrating them.

The exact same argument applies to sexism. Whoever claims women are equal to men is committing hate speech.

Racism and sexism have come to deny heterogeneity; it is absurd.


Feminism implies philogyny. Women are so glorious that the least we can do is to protect their appellation; much as oenophilia involves protecting the name Champagne.

Claiming anyone can deserve the privilege of that appellation, or that women are indistinguishable from men, is hateful.

Feminism has come to deny women actually exist; it is absurd.

A Question of Identity

Let’s continue by giving a few examples of ambiguous words that have such identity attached to them that they are useless to reach any kind of consensus.


That is a Marxist word. But what does it mean? Does it mean economic freedom? If so, an economy that is centrally planned by a politburo of old men who move trillions in asset valuations with mere utterances (such komissars are euphemistically called “central bankers”) surely does not qualify.

And yet, many people would say the USA for example has a “capitalist” system, one characterized by “unbridled economic liberalism”, while not denying the central economic planning. That is very contradictory.

Indeed that word has almost as many definitions as people using it; it has become very ambiguous. But most importantly, it has a very strong identity attached to it. Those who use it tend to think it’s either very good or very bad.

In effect, that word alone all but guarantees that people “on the left” and those “on the right” can ever agree. They may share the same diagnostic (we are ruled by an unproductive oligarchy), the same ambition (we should leave a free and prosperous society to our children), they will still see each other as belonging to two different “camps”.

The truth is that at the apex of power, the private sector, public sector and organized crime converge; there is no real distinction to be made. In this warfare/welfare slave system, a surplus of liberty is not to blame, but a deficit thereof.


In a previous post we explained what that word actually means, and what it entails. In a nutshell, the people are sovereign, and the State is subservient to them; as we have logically shown, that implies individual liberty.

Nowadays, democracy has been reduced to universal suffrage and plebiscite; in other words, mob rule. If the majority says so, it is legitimate by definition. Those who defend this notion ignore the fact medieval kings tended to be very popular.

More than the semantic ambiguity, it is the identity of that word that is the strongest. “We live in a democracy” is shorthand for “you should bend to the will of the hordes”; anyone who disagrees is “anti-democratic”, and the conversation ends there. That’s why, by the way, we preferred redefining that word rather than rejecting it altogether.


The words “extremism” and “extremist” aren’t even present in Webster’s 1828 dictionary. Indeed it was contrived relatively recently, and a very negative connotation was attached to it; it ties into the completely fake right/left dialectic, where each “side” purports to defend liberty in a different, mutually exclusive domain (the “left” pretends to defend social liberty, whereas the “right” pretends to defend economic liberty).

Whoever actually defends liberty in either of those domains or, God forbid, actually defends liberty in both domains, is an extremist. Try asking an archetypical “pro-choice” proponent whether mandatory vaccinations are moral, or an average “pro-life” advocate whether the death penalty should be abolished, and assess who is the actual extremist.

Martin Luther King famously riled against the fake connotation of that word, in a letter from Birmingham Jail:

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love […] Was not Amos an extremist for justice […] Was not Martin Luther an extremist […] So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?


This is the last example we’ll be giving today, although there are many more. That word has a very different connotation than liberty, and that’s why it is vastly preferred by the central planners.

Liberty is derived from the Latin liber, which both means “free” and “book”. As such liberty does not denote absolute “do as thou wilt” freedom, but rather a freedom constrained by instruction, or the kind of self-control and self-discipline reached through proper upbringing. That book can also be the “book of Nature”, or Natural Law (liberty is thus a state of freedom constrained by Natural Law, i.e. morality).

Freedom on the other hand is associated with a lack of constraint. The distinction appears in that you can have freedom from limiting forces; you can say “the freedom to kill others” while “the liberty to kill others” doesn’t sound right.

In other words, it is much easier to argue in favor of limiting our individual natural rights by substituting the correct word liberty with the more general term freedom. The distinction is subtle, but it is crucial, and master propagandists understand it well.


The motivation behind such tampering of vocabulary becomes clear after reading the passages from 1984 above; he who controls language controls the mind, insofar as the mind becomes unable to express the forbidden thought, or automatically generates a certain thought depending on the identity of the word being heard.

A word like discrimination was very powerful as it restricted the tyrant; by changing its meaning, it becomes harder to identify the evil that collectivism represents. It was similarly important to conflate equality with identicality, as that is the only way to deny talent, and therefore beauty (which the barbarians recoil before).

Yet, and this is very good news, ideas precede language, not the other way around. This makes human beings very susceptible to recognizing the truth. Here is a simple illustration.

Take the notion of injustice. It is intuitively understood by very small children; scold a toddler unfairly, e.g. by accusing him of doing something he didn’t do, and his reaction/emotion will be very different from the same thing happening but without the injustice. The tone of the voice may be the same, the punishment may be identical, yet both situations would be radically different to him.

In other words, a child perceives injustice, intuitively grasps it, even before being exposed to the abstract concept or the word. If you never tell him about injustice, he’d never be able to express that feeling, he wouldn’t ever talk about it, i.e. the thought would never crystallize in his mind, but it would still exist in his internal realm.

Another example is the very abstract notion of intention. That word is very hard to define without using the verb “intend”, or a close analog (such as “will”, equally difficult to define). Yet everyone understands what it means. Indeed a small child intuitively perceives the fundamental difference between a situation where he is hurt intentionally, and one where he is hurt unintentionally. Again, the concept precedes the word. Without the language, we can’t think about it, we can’t express it, we can’t crystallize it internally, but the abstract idea still exists in some recess of our consciousness.

If you are able to explain an unfamiliar natural idea to someone, and at the same time propose a word for it, that idea will crystallize in your interlocutor’s mind, and he will never forget it. A very popular example is the German word Gestalt, for which no English equivalent exists; once it is understood, English speakers will simply use the German word.

That’s why a phrase like “feminism can’t abhor femininity” is so powerful. In one instant, it negates the propagandists’ sabotage. It immediately emerges as a self-evident idea; only deep layers of indoctrination and intellectual masturbation can prevent it.

What this means is the barbarians invest considerable resources to suppress meaning from our vocabulary, but that meaning is still there irrespective of anyone’s ability to express it. It is much easier to re-enable it than it was to suppress it. It’s as if something miraculous is attracting human consciousness towards the truth.

To borrow a bit from the hermeticists, we could say humanity is destined to rediscover the language of the birds, and therefore the truth. All these attempts to sabotage our vocabulary merely delay the inevitable.

Back On Topic

We’ve digressed very far from the coronacircus and Novak Djokovic. Still it was important to show the obvious power language may have on our thought processes.

There is one congruent aspect which is much less obvious, and that is being extensively used by the propagandists in the current coronacircus crisis: subliminal programming in general, and semantic or associative priming in particular. That is, one may influence behavior by carefully choosing certain words or concepts.

An example of this was done by Bargh et al. in 1996. Subjects were implicitly primed with words related to the stereotype of elderly people (example: Florida, forgetful, wrinkle). While the words did not explicitly mention speed or slowness, those who were primed with these words walked more slowly upon exiting the testing booth than those who were primed with neutral stimuli.

Here is a concrete example of how this is currently being used: the expression social distancing. Everyone has heard it by now. But doesn’t it sound weird? Why not physical distancing? Before the coronacircus, it would have been difficult to derive obvious meaning from such a contrived phrase.

The reason it was chosen is because humans are social beings. Social interaction is critical to our mental and physical health, and they know it well. The expression social distancing is unconsciously depressing; it suggests we are alone in facing the crisis; and this idea is being reinforced with countless planted stories of people dying alone (more, more, more, more and more!). That choice of language is a critical part of the criminal psychological war being waged.

Another example is lockdown: it designates the confinement of prisoners to their cells. The morpheme “lock” is the literal key. Flatten the curve is equally depressing; it is profoundly dehumanizing; you are a point on a curve; it suggests everyone will be sick, and that the goal is not to save anyone, but to merely space out their deaths.

Other expressions could very well have been chosen. All of this is done on purpose. It is causing revolt in a critical mass of people, and for those who don’t have the strength, learned helplessness.

Back to Novak Djokovic, which we opened the article with. It is a trivial, anecdotal example. By coming across such a story, the unconscious mind reads “No Vac Joke Covid Oppose Vaccination”. It is subtle but extremely powerful.

Again, if you doubt this is done on purpose, please ask yourself: why would the story of his opposition to the vaccine be given so much free publicity? This is something he said in an obscure chat, not during a live press conference! Nobody would have ever known about it if it wasn’t broadcast everywhere.


Language is admittedly the strongest social marker. More than skin color, more than clothes, more than money, more than friends: tell us what words you use, we’ll tell you who you are. Language has such an influence on thought and behavior that it is the propagandist’s main tool.

For the past few weeks we have been systematically deconstructing the mind control principles that are being used by the coronacircus propagandists. First, we highlighted their goals; today, we have given more details on their means.

We are far from done. Until our next article, and for those who enjoy learning about these concepts the most, we recommend this excellent book by Joost Meerloo called The Rape of the Mind. Here it is in PDF, and here it is in epub, for evaluation purposes only; if you choose to keep the book, please consider buying a copy.

I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.

— George W. Bush

We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.

— Vladimir Lenin