I mean, is this like an Orwellian thing? George Orwell’s 1949 novel, 1984, treated the reader to a dystopian world where society was largely controlled by the contraction and dissolution of language, a creation Orwell dubbed Newspeak. His invention gave us gems like:
Oldspeak — Standard English with intact definitions
blackwhite — The concept that all of the party’s directives are unquestionably benign
doublethink — Simultaneously believing two contradictory ideas
Miniplenty — The Ministry of Plenty, which ensures marginal starvation and rationing
oldthink — Objectivity, rationalism and other pre-revolution ideas
Recdep — The Ministry of Truth's Records Department, where history is rewritten
unperson — An executed person whose existence is erased from history and memory
goodsex — Impersonal, utilitarian sex, strictly for procreation
Though a comparative analysis of these terms and current trends and terms would be entertaining, there is another set of not-so-fun words to review, most of which are just Oldspeak words, like vaccine, with new definitions—something much more sinister than Orwell’s fictional Oceana creating new words to replace the old. The redefining of medically related words is an insidious process that’s been afoot for more than a century.
If we allow the redefinition of words by those segments of society that have some ideological axe to grind or profit center to exploit, we are in a worse place than the characters in Orwell’s Oceania.
The online Free Dictionary, by Farlex, has separate “Dictionary” and “Medical Dictionary” tabs. Under the Dictionary tab, for the word “conception” the first definition is, “formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.” However, under the Medical Dictionary tab, we find the first definition to be, “the onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst...” (Source: Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003).
In the cited medical dictionary innovation, the concept of a new human life goes out the window and that tiny life’s effect on the woman’s body takes center stage: “the onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation…”.
If we allow the redefinition of words by those segments of society that have some ideological axe to grind or profit center to exploit, we are in a worse place than the characters in Orwell’s Oceania—his fictitious assault on language was blatant, not sneaked in unsuspectingly by the intelligentsia.
The innovation above allows a medical practitioner to tell a patient that the birth control pill she is taking is “not abortifacient”, that it “prevents conception”, and to do so with a straight face, because their profession has redefined conception as implantation (and sadly, many new young doctors have no clue that anything has changed).
The main takeaway here, other than that this was done expressly to mislead patients, is that certain medical tyrants believe that it is within their jurisdiction to legislate life and death.
The main takeaway here, other than that this was done expressly to mislead patients, is that certain medical tyrants believe that it is within their jurisdiction to legislate life and death by simply redefining words as suits their ideology. Uncurbed and unchallenged, it literally gives them a power greater than that of the legislature: the power of the law is lost if defining the terms that comprise it is left to the criminal.
The potential for that insidious power is obvious in the term the fourth trimester. Four thirds of a pregnancy now add up to one pregnancy. See how that works? And you thought Orwell was pushing the limits of believability with a fictional government that would get the minions to declare that 2 + 2 = 5! Med-speak makes Newspeak look like child’s play.
Two years ago, Congressional Democrats voted nearly unanimously against The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Unsurprisingly, a political class that nearly unanimously supports third-trimester abortion, for any reason, has no problem with fourth-trimester abortion—after all, it’s just a fetus. They’re all about moving that line, and are very happy to pass that baton to a medical tyranny that’s ready and willing to play god. Just as the change in definition of conception moved the focus from the baby to the mother, so it does in the case of the fourth-trimester.
Let’s be fair. The majority of people working in medicine are as much outraged by the corruption as anybody, and I’m not suggesting anything nefarious on the part of the pediatrician who coined the goofball, gimmicky fourth-trimester concept. That said, when it comes to moving a society in a certain direction, evil, vain people are forever grabbing the reins, and nothing on earth brings a more visceral thrill of power than playing Caesar at the Circus: controlling who lives and who dies (I’m in my 287th trimester, and I’m sleeping with one eye open).
To some, a baby is not a baby; it is now a fetus for the first three months after birth.
To some, a baby is not a baby; it is now a fetus for the first three months after birth. If you really want to be chilled to the bone, do a little web searching on the topic of fourth-trimester abortions and read some of the posts supporting it—the evil walking amongst us is palpable and horrifying. Hide your kids.
Hide them really well if you live in Virginia, the home of former Governor Ralph Northam. Northam informed us that, in the case of a third-trimester abortion, should the mother go into natural labor, “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
What’s there to discuss, Ralph?
The history of wayward medicine is long and horrendous, the breadth of which can’t be addressed here. I mean, there’s scarcely enough room to discuss Ralph. You see, Northam is, unbelievably, a pediatric neurologist. I repeat, hide your kids!
Suffice it to say that Americans were, less than a century ago, dragged into court by their Ralphs, declared “feeble-minded” by courts under the advice of psychologists (corrupt eugenics-tainted practitioners of a soft-science barely out of its proverbial diapers), at hearings quite devoid of any real due-process, and ordered to be “sterilized”, as though forcibly removing a socially-stigmatized person’s procreative capacity accomplished, in some warped neo-Levitical way, rendering the populace antiseptically clean. All this under a law upheld by the Supreme Court no less.
The term sterilization is, of course, another horrendous Med-speak term—one still dripping with deranged Sanger-esque eugenicist-racist implications.
In the world of forced sterilization, the State of Virginia was a global leader; Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger invited Nazis there to observe and learn.
Way to uphold the legacy, Ralph!
The above usage of the term sterilization is, of course, another horrendous Med-speak term—one still dripping with deranged Sanger-esque eugenicist-racist implications. And yes, the first definition for sterilization in the Farlex Free Dictionary is “to make free from live bacteria…” and the first in their Medical Dictionary is—you guessed it— “the process of rendering an individual incapable of reproduction.”
Is this just an unfortunate carryover from twentieth-century genocide, or has Med-speak once again outdone Newspeak? Orwell’s Godlessly puritanical goodsex, though soulless, utilitarian breeding, was relatively benign compared to Med-speak’s egregious, metastasized omni-eugenic sterilization: the world needs to be sterilized; we are the infection.
Forced vaccination? Child’s play in comparison to forced sterilization, and potentially a tool for the same.
Forced vaccination? Child’s play in comparison to forced sterilization, and potentially a tool for the same. The possibilities are, unnervingly, very predictable. In the warning words of Senator Ron Johnson, “The worst is yet to come from Biden’s vaccine coercion.” Indeed. The recent SCOTUS decisions on those mandates are so riddled with flawed, non-constitutional logic that little hope seems in sight.
The road to dystopia often begins with letting others redefine the terms. Euphemistic slogans—comprised of corrupted words—can quickly become cultural mantras: the beginnings of cultural mandates. The law, no matter how just—in the hands of a trendy, gutted justice system—is never impervious to cultural mandate.
True to its eugenic roots, Med-speak stalks the vulnerable in society. In review, the terms we’ve identified are vaccine, conception, the invention of a fourth trimester (and, therefore, fetus redefined), feeble-minded (genetically unacceptable), and sterilization (sexual). Having had great success at redefining the beginning of life—or perhaps, more accurately and heinously, successfully down-grading life’s relative importance—the intelligentsia have their heart set on the last great prize: the redefinition of death.
Or not. Yeah, probably not.
I mean, not even Orwell saw this one coming. Because the intelligentsia have become a bastion of postmodernism, which celebrates the deconstruction of language, hard definitions are anathema to their class. They simply want to be in charge, to assign value and meaning in real time—if documents are found necessary, let them be living documents, which, of course, means no documents at all.
So, what’s the next great Med-speak term to watch for? "Consent." Like its hallowed forerunner, choice, who could possibly have a problem with consent?
No single issue has brought the definition of death more into the spotlight than has organ transplantation. China has already solved the semantic problem: You’re dead if they say you are. Or, to put it into Newspeak for you, my dear unpersons, you never existed.
So, what’s the next great Med-speak term to watch for?
Like its hallowed forerunner, choice, who could possibly have a problem with consent? Both are just so totally libertarian.
But consent, unlike choice, has a specifically medical nuance to it, making it quite possibly the word closest to the hearts of inventive medical ethicists and Ralphs everywhere. All manner of sexual deviation is being deemed admissible under the banner of consent, which, as concepts go, is just a little slipperier than demon puke.
As with the word life, the word death will not be redefined—definitions are too rigid, too pre-postmodern. Similarly, consent will be exploited, but never defined.
And, as in the case of the consent required for assisted suicide, the word is easily the largest can of worms possible in the area of death and organ donation. If one can consent to assisted suicide, is that not a small step away from donating one’s heart or liver in the process? It will be argued that at least some good will come of a death that is already culturally and legally sanctioned.
Of course, consent will not be held as an absolute. Take for example the plethora of anti-conversion therapy laws that are being written to prevent psychologists from working with individuals who are victims of unwanted attraction to their own sex. Such therapy represents an obvious case of two consenting adults simply exercising their rights of free association and medical freedom. Such consent is held in demonic disdain. Doublethink is thriving.
That aside, make no mistake: like its forerunner sterilization, consent is the gateway to murderous fraud. As with the word life, the word death will not be redefined—definitions are too rigid, too pre-postmodern. Similarly, consent will be exploited, but never defined.
And in the ultimate irony, the word death—in accord with all activist juris-imprudent deconstruction of the American Constitution—will become a “living” concept.
Don't miss the latest from Remnant TV — UK CANCELS ALL COVID MANDATES (Globalist Pope Exposed)