At a time when even dictionaries are changing the definition of words to promote agendas, I think we should be conscious of the language we are using as a means of embodying the world we want to live in. In this piece, I’m going to give a few examples of words I hear banded about often amongst the truth and freedom movement, and give my take on language I prefer using instead.
“Legacy Media” instead of “Mainstream Media”
To me, if something is “mainstream”, it means it has control. I believe media outlets like CNN, BBC, CBC and the likes are losing their control rapidly. They certainly aren’t “mainstream” for many of us in the truth and freedom movement. I believe that, by adjusting our mindsets so that we can embody the idea that these propaganda-pushing organisations are no longer “mainstream”, then it may encourage their fall even quicker.
I picked up the term “legacy media” from Jordan Peterson. I like this term, as the media outlets we have grown up with will certainly have a legacy. And it won’t be a good one. I know Dr Mark Trozzi likes using the term “dinosaur media”, which seems like an attractive option too for describing these organisations, so feel free to use either of these if they resonate with you.
“Complementary” and “Alternative” Medicine? Not in my lexicon.
I certainly get the impression that the mechanistic, reductionist approach that many doctors in the West have adopted, and that the pharmaceutical industry readily promotes, has had its time. However, I think we do a disservice to the many forms of medicine and healing by calling them “complementary” or “alternative”. Both of these terms assume that the reductionist modern approach in the West – which homeopathy’s creator Samuel Hahnemann termed “allopathic” medicine – must maintain its dominance for other forms of healing to have any relevance. From personal experience and from hearing the success stories of others, I wholeheartedly disagree with such a notion. “Holistic” and “ecological” medicine fit the bill well for me as better phrases, referring to forms of medicine that respect the whole body and the environment the body is in respectively. That said, those who’ve had conversations directly with me may know I enjoy referring to many of these approaches simply as “real” medicine.
There is nothing ‘elite’ about the “Global Elite”
An idea that came to be thanks to over Over To The Youth members and from James Corbett is to not call the technocrats who are trying to govern society “elites”. “Elite” assumes they are the best people we could want in governing society, but they are consistently showing the opposite. Referring to them as a “parasitic” or “predator” class seem like far more accurate descriptions that say far more about the nature of their actions and motives.
Why call them “Big” Banks and “Big” Pharma when we want them to be small?
The “Big” institutions that many of us will have criticisms of only stay big if a) we keep funding them and b) we keep thinking of them as “big”. On this second front, it seems reasonable to assume that “Big Pharma” or “Big Media” are no longer a big part of readers lives, or their role is rapidly shrinking, so why should we still call them this? To me, it only serves to reinforce a mindset that we cannot take down these forces because they are “big”. At the moment, I’m resorting to terms like “pharmaceutical industry”, but I think there’s perhaps a better term out there somewhere. I’d love to hear some suggestions in the comments below.
They are not “sheep”, “normies” or even “asleep” – they are “captured”
These terms particularly bug me, as they feed in to the exact same energy of dehumanisation that the global predator class (to use our term from earlier) rely on to divide and conquer a populous. These people are not animals; they are people, just like us, with the difference being that they have become captured in fear, false narratives and methods of manipulation, likely without realising it. If our mission as truth-seekers and good people is to shine a light on the darkness and create unity, then we need a mindset of reaching people, ideally in a way that allows them to free themselves of the psychological chains created by their abusers. If we adopt a dehumanising, aggressive, isolating mindset, all we do is make ourselves and everyone else weaker.
On this subject, I’m also not a fan of the terms “awake” or “asleep”. For me, this process of unravelling myself from various false narratives has not been a sudden “awakening”, but rather a gradual process that still continues now and likely for much of my life. That said, I’m still yet to find a better idea than the “awake” and “asleep” analogy. MayCee Holmes of Over To The Youth has suggested “aware” and “unaware”, which I think is an improvement, but again I’m very open to suggestions in the comments.
“I” and “We” statements instead of “You” statements
I credit Over To The Youth Mentor and Council Member David Cordes for this particular tool, which is proving particularly powerful for my own development, and in communicating what I know to be true. Too often, when talking about personal experiences, we move from something personal to impersonal. As an arbitrary example, let’s take the sentence “when you find yourself in a forest, you feel you are much more in-tune with the world”, and compare that to “when I find myself in a forest, I feel I am much more in-tune with the world.” Which one best conveys truth? I would argue the second one, as it is talking from a place of personal experience rather than forcing an assumption onto other people about how they must feel. I find it to be a far more effective way of creating a space where more people feel welcome in sharing whatever it is they believe or have been bottling up, as it demonstrates the act of taking responsibility for our words, language and experience.
Don’t “think” when it is better to “feel”
Again, I must credit this idea to David about the difference between “thinking” and “feeling”. We have more connections running from the heart to the brain than we do from the brain to the heart, which speaks to something important about what it is to experience the world. We don’t have phrases like “speaking from the heart” for nothing – to me there is something incredibly revealing and even truthful about someone who can speak “wholeheartedly”. We don’t think love, we feel love, in the heart and not the head. Feeling implies we can incorporate everything our body is telling us, including what happens in the brain, and allows us to live as people, not just brains in a body. There is a time and place for thinking, absolutely, but for me it is the emissary to the master of the body as a whole.
Owning the words we speak
I hope you find these tools useful in beginning to speak to and embody the world in which so many of us are trying to create. If you have any more suggestions that you think are worthwhile for others to hear, feel free to share them as a comment.