Conservatives Winning ‘War of Words’ 2023-08-28 14:16

Good morning, everybody. Hope you all had a good weekend. I want to talk to you about some pretty interesting stuff, and then some stuff I cannot talk to you about on YouTube. I want to talk first about what's happening with, I would say, the culture war, and specifically about what Mao Zedong would call power words, the use of language, and imbuing language with the revolutionary potential and so on, in order to make words carry new ideas that it did not originally have. Changing the interpretation of language without having to change the language itself. Now, if you go by what, and then after that, I'll go into some stuff that I cannot talk about on YouTube, so I have to be careful, unfortunately, on YouTube. We'll talk about the next COVID vax, how lockdowns, in my opinion, could actually break the Democrat Party if they decide to move on with them. I'll explain to you exactly how and exactly why it's extremely dangerous for them politically. But let's start by talking about what CNN is calling verbal jujitsu. This cracked me up when I read it. Let me explain this a bit, and then I'll go into my take on it. This is CNN. They're saying how conservatives use verbal jujitsu to turn liberals' language against them. You know, jujitsu meaning someone throws a punch at you, rather than block the punch or absorb the punch, you take the punch and you redirect it. The idea of jujitsu or judo or whatever like that is redirecting a force. And so what they're saying is that conservatives, rather than try to defend themselves against the leftist language, rather than try to fight back, they're taking the language itself and turning the language itself into something against them. And let me explain. They say this, but there is one political battleground where Republicans triumph virtually every time. The control of this arena could determine who wins the White House in 2024. Republicans are masters of verbal jujitsu. Masters of verbal jujitsu, cracks me up. They say it's a form of linguistic combat in which the practitioner takes a political phrase or concept popularized by their opponent and gradually turns into an unusable slur. Like the Japanese martial arts known as jujitsu, its devotees avoid taking opposing arguments head on and instead redirect their opponent's momentum to beat them. If this sounds abstract, consider the evolution of woke. The word is defined as being actively aware of a social injustice, but it has been transformed into a contemporary scourge, one that a politician compared to a virus more dangerous than any pandemic hands down. And I know it's mentioned almost any touchstone phrase adopted by the left in recent years, critical race theory, diversity, global warming, even the word liberal itself. And it has been redefined or tarnished by conservatives. Now I would actually completely agree with them on this. This is actually a phenomenon we've seen and it's interesting they're talking about it. The funny thing with conservatives, I don't think they're doing it intentionally. I don't think conservatives are like, hey, let's all collude together and turn woke into a bad word. Hey, let's all huddle up and think of, let's think of the next word we wanna co-opt and turn against them. It's that the left ironically, or not even the left, that the radicals ironically are so utterly crazy. The people, you look at, for example, these climate protesters sitting in roads and blocking people, people hate them. People despise them. They're doing it in like some of the, they're doing it in some of the wokest countries in wokest areas anyway. Hence my use of the word woke. There's a video going viral right now where a bunch of climate protesters are blocking the people trying to go to Burning Man. Burning Man, I would argue, was among the furthest left events you could possibly block. I mean, more, some libertarians probably do. It's like a giant rave in the desert and the climate protesters chose to block that. I can almost guarantee you the majority of people attending Burning Man already agree with the idea of climate change and whatever else because a lot of them are climate activists. Why are the climate activists targeting them? Hence the word or the phrase climate activist carries a negative connotation because people despise them. There were other uses, for example. They mentioned critical race theory. Critical race theory is now synonymous with communism and ironically with racism because why? The people advocating it are communist racists and people see it for what it is. When you talk about diversity, it has taken on negative connotations because the people pushing diversity are usually the most crazy racists and nutcases you'll ever run into. A lot of them full-on advocate for killing white people and so on like that. If you were to take the average language of half these news outlets and you just changed white people to black people or Jews or something like that, it would sound like the most racist publication you had ever read in your life. Some people, by the way, did that to Huffington Post, by the way. They created an internet extension where you could change white to black or white to Jew. And it reads like, the website begins reading like it's from 1930 or 1940s Germany. You know what I mean? Like they're completely oblivious to the inherent contradictions of their own language. And so obviously, as I've been mentioning, a lot of people are smarter than you'd think. And a lot of people, when they try to use these tricks and stuff like that, they see right through it. And so it becomes an insult. Oh, how's that diversity quota? Oh, that looks like a diversity hire. Oh, how about that diversity? You know, hey, hey, friends, how about we go promote some critical race theory? That guy is totally woke. These things become insult because the connotation, the association with it are negative things. Now, in other words, they're framing this as if it was some kind of like deep lot, you know, the ultra-MAGA meeting in the basements of their grandmas huddling together. And, you know, they're all incels and they're colluding on which words to come up next. There's nothing like that. You know what I mean? It's because, ironically, the people advancing these agendas make themselves look so bad because of the inherent contradictions of the language that they're even using and the inherent contradictions of the movements that the words themselves take on connotations imbued, ironically, by the very actions and agendas pushed by the people who try to peddle them. It's the irony of it all. Now, let me explain to you why this matters. If you understand warfare, words are extremely important. Our own military has only recently begun to realize how extremely important words are. This is why, for example, America adopted COIN, counter, you know, C-O-I-N, counterinsurgency, when dealing, for example, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which, frankly, were disasters because I'd argue our politicians didn't handle them very well. The idea is that there's not only the war of bullets, the war of guns and bombs and A-10s, you know, doing gun runs and so on like that. You know, it's not just that. You also have, for example, the diplomacy element. You have the public relations element. You have the element of the war dedicated to the hearts and minds of the population. This happened as well with Vietnam, where they talked about total war and, of course, the idea of developing relationships with the locals and so on. You're not going to war for just the sake of conquering or just brutalizing the population, like wars in most of history were. You're going to war while trying to win out, while trying to get rid of the radical elements while still trying to work with and help and win over the hearts and minds of the people of the nation. Now, communism tends to focus on different things. Communism tends to focus more directly on hearts and minds, which is where subversion comes into place, cultural subversion and so on. And so if you look, for example, at a lot of the wars during the Cold War, while America was trying to fight more, you know, hard war or spy wars and so on, you had these other individuals, including, for example, in Vietnam and so on, right? In Vietnam, yeah, because EZ Motion 007 notes, Hey, Josh, I think the word warfare is why the Vietnam War was lost. The Vietnamese regarded it like this. The Vietnamese would say that they fought two wars. There was the war of bullets and there was the war of words. They say that they lost the war of bullets. The way America was looking at the war in Vietnam was, you know, they'd count the bodies and they were judging victory or loss based on how many people we killed versus how many people we lost. They were looking at based on like old school conventional warfare. The Vietnamese, through the medium of the Soviets and the Chinese doing, you know, subversion and so on. We're looking at the war of words, the propaganda war, the war for the hearts and minds and the war for the policies that regulate how soldiers can even engage in combat. They say that they lost the war of bullets, but because they won the war of words, they won the war. In other words, the war of language, the war of perception is more valuable, more able to actually, you know, have the final victory than physical combat. And so it's interesting now that the culture war, quote unquote, is hitting this level. And I think the left or these crazies are acknowledging that when it comes to the war of words, conservatives are winning. Yeah, Bren B, you're also mentioning silent weapons for silent wars. I think it's called quiet weapons for silent wars, but I can't remember. That's a document worth reading, by the way. Those of you curious, I believe it's called quiet weapons for silent wars. The story of it is this, and take it as you will, believe it or not. Someone went to a print shop and went to go print. I guess, I don't know what happened. They had bought a printer or got a used one or found it on a street course like that. They took the printer to the shop. They found out there was a document in queue, like, you know, in the printer still. They printed it out, and it was some weird document meant to be like a presentation for one of these big globalist meetings. I believe it was called quiet weapons for silent wars, and it details how to wage war on civilization using non-military means. Believe it or not, accept it or not, believe the narrative or not, the document itself actually lays out very practical forms of very evil warfare, including, for example, what they call shock testing, the nature of how do you gradually increase pressure on a population? How do you gradually kind of boil the frog? It talks about concepts of humans as like sources, using energy theories and so on like that. I mean, it goes into mathematics. It goes into science. It goes into all kinds of pretty advanced stuff that I have not seen in any other document in any other place, meaning that real or not, it suggests that a very smart person wrote a very unbelievably evil document, advocating, of course, for these types of things. Oh, silent weapons for quiet wars. I do recommend reading it. It's horrifying, and it's frankly one of the most evil things you'll ever read in terms of like a globalist agenda and how you might do these things. But the validity of the narrative, you can believe it or not. You know, whether you believe it was actually part of some agenda or not, you know, it's up to you, but it's worth reading, I would say still. That said, let's jump over to Epic TV, where we don't have to deal with censorship, because I want to talk to you about COVID. In particular, I want to talk to you about the next COVID vaccine and how the Biden administration is asking for money for it. And I'm going to also talk about how this will utterly destroy the Democrat Party if they decide to roll it out. And the reason is RFK Jr. RFK Jr. is campaigning on this. RFK Jr. is campaigning on the medical industrial complex. He's campaigning on the unjustified use of force. He's campaigning on these things, and he's campaigning to Democrats. If the Democrats then, or the Democrat establishment, rolls out policies that the Democrat voting base disagrees with, they're going to fracture their base. And so this is something I haven't really seen people talking about, but let's jump over to Epic TV for this, and I will see you there. But first, we do have a flash sale going on right now, 25 cents a week. And I will show you a trailer of a video, which I have to be cautious even naming on YouTube, because YouTube censors just about everything. Check out this trailer. We'll call it the Capitol Hill Tapes. No, that is not paint drying on walls. That is the Capitol Hill Tapes. That is the unreleased video footage of the event, of which we shall not name. Let me show you this. We'll jump over to Epic TV afterwards, and I'll see you there. What was the process of actually putting this all together? Many, many hours of finding the right camera angles and watching it. The first trouble started just after one o'clock. 45 pages, here it is right here. Donald Trump has been indicted. Somber day for the country. This all happened before President Trump's speech was over. The founder of the Oath Keepers Militia Group is headed to prison for more than 18 years. His lawyers didn't have this video. The video we're watching right now, his own lawyers did not have. There was a big question of what did the people do who actually did enter the building. This is where we picked it up with the security footage that is new. At this point, the story dramatically changes. A New Jersey man who assaulted a Capitol police officer on January 6th has been sentenced. So this was withheld. This was not shown to the defense. That could be considered exculpatory evidence. This doesn't seem like what a lot of the media is showing. It's going to change narratives no matter what your political perspective is. What we're after is the truth.