Semantics has been used to disguise language infiltration, the left has used it throughout the 20th century to twist what they were really up to. Replacing words with others, that lead to the same end result, but changes the meaning of words used. Use the lamestream media at your own peril.
It’s how sheeple(people) are herded …
You need to adjust your word processors and word usage. Just everywhere you said “global warming”, just make sure you substitute “sustainable development”. Got it? Same results, different words used, same goals, ban fossil fuels … that produce the atmosphere killing CO2.
OK, so now global warming and the war on fossil fuel has become sustainable development. And the UN gladly complies, and so do the lamestream media, with the new tact in press reports. So now you know …
Semantic infiltration, complete.
A current example of the phenomenon is occurring in what you could call the “liberal body snatching operation” on Ronald Reagan,
The media-academic complex line on Reagan relies overwhelmingly on one idea or one term, namely, that far from being an ideologue, Reagan was a “pragmatist.” And guess who else the media mentats call a “pragmatist”? Why, Barack Obama himself. Obama’s ostensible “move to the center” following the November “shellacking” is seen as “pragmatism,” though cynics might call it more like “survival instinct.”
Pragmatism as ordinary people use the word just means practicality, and in political terms it means reaching compromises. Every successful politician makes compromises; every good politician, then, can be called a “pragmatist.” So are we really saying anything important or distinctive by calling someone a pragmatist? Yes, I think we are.
Read more here. More about semantic infiltration argumentation with examples is here.
It may be a fluke, but it seems too coincidental. What it may be is a leading indicator that the establishment press and international advocates of global wealth redistribution have figured out that “global warming” and “climate change,” its deceptive substitute term, have lost their luster thanks to a lack of scientific rigor, scandals, and deception.
Death by truth … It’s people have at there disposal.
Now watch as the lamestream applies the new sanitized terms for the war on fossil fuels.
What I’m referring to is the fact that in reviewing three Associated Press items which would appear to have been opportunities to bring up the topic of “global warming” and “climate” in connection with the U.N.’s latest “earth summit,” none of them contained either word. It seems that “sustainable development,” a term which has been around for a while and which basically means “stopping most development regardless of merit,” is now the go-to term when one wishes to avoid the aforementioned W-word or C-word.
Thtink Agenda 21 which had been the term used by the UN up until now.
The earliest of the three is from Monday, and concerns the amount of money invested worldwide in “renewable” energy. Note how this week’s upcoming UN summit, which is all about using climate change and global warming as excuses for arresting development in the Third World, is described:
The U.N. is hoping that countries will use an environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, next week to commit to further investments in renewable energy, which covered just 16.7 percent of global energy consumption in 2010. Of this share, modern technologies such as solar and wind accounted for just 8.2 percent, less than the 8.5 percent contributed by biomass.
By comparison, more than 80 percent of electricity consumed worldwide still comes from fossil fuels that are blamed for a rise in carbon in the atmosphere.
AP reporter Frank Jordans never tells us why should we care about a rise in carbon, or even how he knows that fossil fuels really are to blame for the rise.
Don’t worry, the global charge to ban fossil fuel, which drives the evil western countries, is still on full — They just changed the words to disguise what is really going on. Do you notice?
Watch for it, in news reports near you …