SLAVESPEAK: The Primary Means Terrocrats Use to Subjugate, Control, and Dominate Their Victims is WORDS!
By: Jonathan Swift
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
— Joseph Stalin
“Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us.”
— Robert Anton Wilson, Introduction toThe Tree of Lies(by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.)
“It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head.”
— Sally Kempton
“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”
— Steve Biko
The first thing I want you to realize is that the primary tool or WEAPON terrocrats use to subjugate, control, and dominate their victims is WORDS. By “terrocrat” I mean “coercive political agent” or “terrorist bureaucrat.” A terrocrat is always an individual human being.
Please think about this issue. How often has a terrocrat stuck a gun in your face and said, “Pay your taxes or else?” Compare this to the number of times terrocrats have sent you pieces of paper with words on them, telling you what to do or what not to do — and what penalties you may be subjected to, if you don’t obey?
Now, please stretch your imagination and imagine a world in which nobody takes the words of terrocrats seriously. They say, “We are the government,” and everyone laughs at them and asks, “Government? — what’s that?” And, whatever they reply, they are greeted with more laughter.
Then they say, “Our word is law; and you must obey.” Everyone just laughs at the terrocrats and asks, “Law? — what’s that?” Again, whatever they reply, they are greeted with more laughter. How much power would terrocrats have in such a world?
I don’t care how much thought you have to put into this, but it’s absolutely vital that you understand that the primary means terrocrats use to subjugate, control, and dominate their victims iswords.
Actually, there are three kinds of “things” terrocrats use to control their victims. The first isviolence. The second ismoney. And the third iswords. By violence, here, I mean actual physical violence. (Threats of violence are almost always expressed in words.)
How often has a terrocrat used actualviolenceto control you? Were you physically dragged into school, or were you persuaded by words to go to school? Has any terrocrat ever used actual physical violence to make you pay taxes, or were you persuaded by words to pay up?
Have you ever been arrested? If so, in what proportion did the cop use actual physical violence compared to words. Did he tell you to put your hands behind your back, or did he force your hands behind your back without saying anything? Notice that even during most arrests, cops use more words than actual physical violence to control their victims.
Have you ever been to court? To what proportion do the terrocrats and lawyers use words in court compared to actual physical violence?
Have you ever been to jail? To what proportion do the terrocrats use words in jail compared to actual physical violence?
How much power would terrocrats have in a world in which everyone says “NO!” to them and laughs at whatever they say? Can you begin to appreciate that the power of terrocrats depends largely on victims accepting terrocrat words and obeying them?
What aboutmoney? To what extent do terrocrats use money to subjugate, control, and dominate their victims? Well, they say their “law” (words) is that you must use their money; you’re not allowed to print your own. And doesn’t their money largely consist of pieces of paper with words (and a few pictures) on them? In the absence of words, could terrocrats use money to control people? And don’t their “legal tender laws” consist entirely of words?
What I want you to get, to grasp, to understand is thatthe power of terrocrats depends more on words than on anything else. Of course, their words have to be accepted, believed, and obeyed by the vast majority of victims. But what would happen if a critical mass of enlightened, emancipated former victims were to reject terrocrat words, were to stop believing them, were to attack and ridicule them whenever appropriate, and were tocarefully and judiciously stop obeying them?
Some of the ideas in this report may be threatening to your current knowledge. In his classic book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, George Orwell coined terms like “thoughtcrime” and “crimestop.”
If your current knowledge is “legal,” then some of the ideas presented here are “thoughtcrimes.” From the terrocrat perspective, attacking and ridiculing their words is no doubt a thought crime.
Your mind may find it difficult to deal with some of these ideas. Orwell wrote: “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought… crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.” So, please don’t let crimestop stop you!