Language and Bewitchment (Part Three)

Language and Behaviour

Words Used to Shape Behaviour

In the previous section, I examined the way in which the meaning of words in recent times has become a much more important factor in the legal, educational and social aspects of our lives. In this section, I wish to explore ways in which words can be employed to modify behaviour. George Orwell, was very much aware of this. He explored the way in which our rulers can use language as a mechanism for control: that we can be denied certain (radical) thoughts and ideas if we are denied words capable of expressing them. Changing the meanings of words achieves the same outcome - and Orwell provided some famous examples of this from his novel 1984 where citizens were taught that ‘war is peace’; ‘freedom is slavery’ and ‘ignorance is strength’. These issues will be discussed later but in this chapter I want to show how the creation of certain nouns are being used to label us, attack us and keep us in line.

Laws on ‘hate speech’ owe their existence to anti-Semitism and the holocaust, but the practice of using words in an attempt to change/shape peoples’ behaviour has the same roots. The decision of the West German government to criminalise holocaust denial in 1985 paved the way for an attack on free speech that would have been unimaginable in the decades prior to that. But many European countries followed suit. And so the term ‘holocaust denier’ was born and those believed to be guilty of this faced fines and imprisonment – as David Irving will testify.¹⁷

Not only does outright denial attract censure but so will attempts to distort or understate facts about the holocaust. So there is a danger that someone, while not denying the fact of the holocaust, could fall foul of the law through questioning some of the figures quoted by other historians. If an historian claimed that the holocaust killed 5.9999 million Jews, then this may count as an understatement and would therefore attract a fine or imprisonment in some countries. And this is based on the unlikely assumption that those who made the original claim of 6 millions Jewish deaths were infallible. In view of the above, it may be risky for me to say that I conducted a fair amount of research into holocaust figures (i.e. Jewish holocaust figures) and I used Jewish sources, including one from the US - but I couldn’t get the figures to add up to 6 millions. I am not going to announce the exact figure I came up with because I may get my wrist slapped by someone: it could have been more yet it could have been less.

In my view, this kind of legislation is not only an aberration in itself, but in establishing the principle that people can be imprisoned for what they say, it may have paved the way for some future authoritarian state - as some people here in Scotland will tell you. But this, important as it is, is not my main concern here. Rather, I am more concerned with the way in which the term ‘denier’ has been employed since 1985, both in relation to the holocaust and other matters – especially other matters. In view of the legal and moral force invested in this term, I believe it possible that it has discouraged historical investigation of the holocaust that could have been useful to historians. There should be no ‘no go’ areas in history or any other discipline. Science, including the historical search for facts, is never settled.

But the laws relating to holocaust denial have created a very dangerous precedent, which has been generally accepted due to the moral pressure on us to ensure that another holocaust can never happen. But as I have said previously, it is very difficult to prove that an individual will act badly in consequence of claims made by other people; in this case, claims that the holocaust has been exaggerated or didn’t happen at all. Would denial or underplaying of the holocaust place us in danger of repeating history? Would the claim that only 5.9999 Jews were killed in the holocaust arouse hatred of Jews. As a philosopher, I cannot answer such questions; you must investigate and judge for yourselves.

But in consequence of the German precedent, the term ‘denier’ came to have negative connotations, which were somewhat reinforced by and echoed the biblical denial of Christ. Since Peter thrice denied knowing Christ, before the rooster crowed, deniers have not been popular. So, ‘denier’ became a ready made derogatory and morally reprehensible term that could be made available for other ‘causes ’. Among these causes, which assumes many characteristics of the Judaeo/Christian religion itself, is ‘global warming’ or, as it is now known, ‘climate change’. By another sleight of hand the ‘warmists’ have changed the term used to describe their ideology to something that is less credibly denied than warming – since everyone knows that the climate always changes over time.¹⁸

So within this context, denial is both scientifically and morally suspect. And anyone who is not toing the line can be vilified as stupid as well as immoral. If you state that global warming is not proven (as politely as possible) on a warmist Facebook group you will be greeted, not with arguments, but with the most horrible name calling you can imagine. I can testify to this from personal experience. The name calling will probably include the word fascist, which is the standard ‘argument’ against anyone disagreeing with a left leaning view – on any subject. George Orwell was aware of this trend when he said: ‘the word ‘fascism’ has no meaning except insofar as it signifies ‘something not desirable’’.

The prospect of being accused of denial or even becoming a denier is enough to persuade most people not to challenge this mainstream narrative. Denial of global warming is so morally reprehensible for anyone on the left that it is probably judged to be on a par with holocaust denial – or maybe worse than this because climate deniers stand accused of killing future people rather than underestimating the killing of past people. The possibility that we have absolutely no power over the climate does not, and cannot occur to the warmists. But for deniers such as myself, AGW is the ultimate form of hubris.

However, there may also be a power motive involved in these accusations of denial that is not immediately apparent. When someone says of me that I am a denier – of whatever – they are, in fact, saying that I am denying their version of reality – and it is implied that their version of reality is the only ‘true’ version of reality. This is simply another form of authoritarianism and can be expressed quite adequately by the phrase: ‘the science is settled’.

I dare say that many on the left will label those who do not agree with the mainstream narratives on the ‘pandemic’ as ‘Covid Deniers’ – though I have not come across the term yet. But ‘denier’ is perilously close to ‘sceptic’ and there is a danger that at some point someone will decide to conflate the two. So if sceptics are labelled as harshly as deniers we may be obliged to remove statues of the great philosophical sceptics from Socrates, through David Hume to the present day - though not only for their scepticism perhaps: after all David Hume is supposed to have shared the racist attitudes of his day and Socrates is known to have defended slavery.¹⁹

But this is a pessimistic form of speculation; it is equally possible that the term sceptic comes to be associated with the brave people who faced ridicule, cancellation and censorship and who risked their freedom, their careers, familial relationships and their friendships to tell the truth. As long as we are governed by states, healthy scepticism is as important as good health.

Another term that has been used in a similar way to ‘denier’ is ‘conspiracy theorist’.²⁰ Many people on social media and in the mainstream attempt to link the two terms to suggest that deniers are also conspiracy theorists. Another term that is being linked by such people with the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ is ‘anti-vaxxers’, who are also thought to be conspiracy theorists. But anti-vaxxers are also regarded by some as deniers, because they deny the efficacy and safety of vaccines (or, in the case of Covid, the efficacy/safety of the mRNA injections – which are not vaccines).

Some mainstream news coverage of anti-lockdown demonstrations tried to label the many thousands of demonstrators as conspiracy theorists – all of them. They were also called Covid-deniers and anti-vaxxers. But all this is simply name calling; just like Orange Man Bad.²¹

For one thing, is it really possible that one hundred percent of a hundred thousand demonstrators are conspiracy theorists; Covid deniers and anti-vaxxers? In my experience, there are a huge range of views among those protesting lockdowns and ‘vaccine’ mandates. But apart from being something bad, what are conspiracy theorists anyway, and are they anything more than individuals who believe in theories not approved by the mainstream? This leads into a discussion of the common philosophical fallacy of assuming that because the word exist, the thing it represents also exists.

So, in what sense do people such as conspiracy theorists, deniers or anti-vaxxers actually exist? This is important because sometimes the establishment needs to contrive a threat out of thin air. It needs to create demons and convince people that they exist - just like Krampus and a horned Putin. I think that’s what’s happening here with the demonisation of deniers et al.

In my view, people labelled as such do not exist in a substantive sense and do not, therefore constitute a threat. We will focus on this next time. Best Rob

17 In Feb 2006, Irving was convicted of holocaust denial by an Austrian court and was sentenced to three years in jail.

18 Climate change denier has now been changed to Climate Denier: climate is even more difficult to deny.

19 This is a tongue in cheek reference to the Black Lives Matter practice of removing or damaging statues of past immoral people (during 2020 especially). The absurdity of this commonly made attack on past morality does not occur to some because they do not appreciate what history is: i.e. changes in ideas and values; alongside scientific and technological development. The ‘logic’ of us condemning past people for not having better values (not having our values) unavoidably involves an invitation for future generations to condemn us on the same basis. They may judge that our values were inferior to theirs and should not be exposed to the delicate ears of current – and better – people. So – it will only be fair if future generations pull down our statues and vilify our values likewise. You reap what you sow, so they say.

20 I also deal with this term in the chapter on agnosticism, where I suggest the term is employed by the mainstream in an attempt to delegitimise narratives that challenge the mainstream.

21 The constant refrain of those criticising Donald Trump.