The War on Words — part 2

The Omni-word

In every era there's a catch-all label that doesn't really mean anything. But meaning is independent of power, and of perceived meaning.

"The one means that wins the easiest victory over reason: terror and force."
-- Adolph Hitler

If you're given this label you instantly lose all credibility: 'outsider','communist', 'socialist', etc.

Today that word is 'terrorist'. All you need, as in other eras, is to be popular enough and denounce someone with the term, and instantly they lose all credibility with the masses.

The flip side of this, unfortunately, is scary. Are you an activist working for peace and/or democracy? Someone says the magic word, and *poof* goes your credibility. If the political climate is hostile enough, you're also a criminal: usually this is the case.

So much for freedom and democracy.

In the novel 1984, the ruling party is busy revising language so there's only one way to express one concept, and to reduce the amount of usable language with the goal of suppressing dissent: if you can't think of how to rebel, you won't be able to. Pretty simple, huh? Flawed as Orwell's assumptions are (namely, that meaning is dependent upon language and the ability to express it in words) the 20th century has done something similar: by being labeled a terrorist you've:

• Lost all credibility: you can't break into the mainstream because you've been labeled: in essence you are incapable of expressing yourself to the ones who can make a difference.
• Have done something wrong, illegal, immoral -- but it doesn't matter what it is -- because there's only one word to describe everyone who opposes the person doing the labeling. In an ultimate form of efficiency there's only one word to describe