By: Frank J. Verderber
Self-Radicals and Lone Wolves are new jargon; associated with Muslim jihad activity. However, the reader need not take a course on the middle east to understand what some words or phrases mean. The reader needs to reflect on common sense and Biblical principles of discernment.
Of the Bible verses that reflect a commonsense approach to recognizing subterfuge and evil, Jesus gave the reader insight for discernment. Here are a few:
- “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves [Mt.7:15]. A pithy statement if ever there was one. Who cannot understand this simile? It reflects a pictorial in the mind that one would find both humorous and frightening; like that of the fabled Red Riding Hood.
- “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. … “Look, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves? [Mt.10:16; Lk.10:13].
- ?… And wolves shall cry in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. …? [Is.:13:22]. Isaiah?s reference is of Babylon; the city that represents the system, which is with us today.
Language is not simply conveyed with words, but with juxtapositions, accents, and volume. It uses similes, metaphors, hyperboles, syllogisms and dysphemisms. Everyone uses subtlety for the purpose of making the listener think, and pricking their emotional response. The Bible is filled with esoteric ideas, similes, syllogisms, metaphors and dysphemisms ? all for the purpose of pricking the mind and conscience, and illuminating the listener, so as to reveal truth and expand freedom of thought.
Note that Isaiah [Is.13:22] described wolves, as those who live in castles [expensive homes] and pleasant places. Jesus further adds to the description of wolves, in Mt.11:8-9 and Lk.7:25, as the ?rich? [KJV, kings ? Gk. ?Balileios? meaning, palaces or courtly residences] and the ?effeminate? [KJV, soft ? Gk. ?malakos,? meaning plush, soft, or voluptuous]. The explanation expresses that when looking for God or Truth, one does not go to rich people, or their friends – many of which are perverts ? those who hold desires for the things perfumed, soft, elegant, and are addicted to the flesh.
So wolves are people bound up with money and title – having perverted friends. Examples can be; George Soros, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hollywood producers, directors and actors, and old politicians.
Consequently, the Devil has a similar method of descriptions and definitions, where he uses subtle expression that confuses the mind and retards a listener?s wisdom. The ?rich? and their ?effeminate? associates use this language to soften minds. This linguistics greatly uses allegory [symbolism, art and fictional situations] with their linguistics of subtleties.
In the novel ?1984,? by H. G. Wells, the phrase, ?New Speak? was coined ? a sort of conversation only for the most initiated protractors of evil ? inspired and manifested for the confusion of the masses.
?Newspeak is a controlled language, of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, a linguistic design meant to limit the freedom of thought?personal identity, self-expression, free will?that ideologically threatens the r?gime of Big Brother and the Party, who thus criminalized such concepts as thought-crime, contradictions of Ingsoc [Ministry of Truth] orthodoxy?In “The Principles of Newspeak”, the appendix to the novel, George Orwell explains that Newspeak usage follows most of the English grammar, yet is a language characterized by a continually diminishing vocabulary; complete thoughts reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning.?
[source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak ]
The focus in Orwell?s novel was to demonstrate how a totalitarian regime could cripple creative thought, by devilish nuances of re-definitions and crafty wordplay supplied in little bites or phrases – as propaganda – that fool people into thinking the opposite of what the reality is.
Richard Nixon was celebrated for his Administrations quagmire of phrases that lessoned what we thought we heard. Example: ?Peace with Honor? – when we were capitulating to a stalemate that we couldn?t win, unless we wholesale invade North Vietnam, and exacerbate a potential war with China. Note the softness to it. Peace with Honor sound better than a treaty to end the war [that we couldn?t win ideologically and morally]. He also said, concerning his lies that were caught on tape – that his words were, ?at variance with certain of my previous statements?? ?Variance? sounds a whole lot better than exaggerations and falsehoods.
However under the guise of safety and education our U.S. bureaucratic apparatus has developed ?NEWSPEAK? to a higher level of rhetoric and confusion, than that of George Orwell?s novel, ?1984.? The purpose is for disseminating disinformation.
Wolves change a term like Ice-cream into I-scream, spirtuality into spirit for all of thee, and democracy into demon-ocracy!
Consider the phrase, ?Patriot Act,? as if the act was patriotic for the government to spy on its citizenry without a warrant, through unconstitutional abridgment of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution.
The NGO, Soufan Center, produced an October 2017 document entitled, ?Beyond the Caliphate: Foreign Fighters and the Threat of Returnees.? The report deals with the return of ISIS fighters that have been dislodged from the Syria and Iraq. These men are logically considered a threat to European and US internal security, regardless of their category or level of expected terrorist activity. Why they are allowed back in to structured societies is the work of political writers, and hacks for the rich wolves of the world plutocracy.
For our purposes, these will be referred to as, ?enemy combatants? a New Speak jargon – which [confuses what is military with criminality] – that have – to some degree – engaged in wanton murder, mayhem and rape. Their religious fanaticism and personal sadism has not been quenched. They are antichrist in their world view; neither have they learned any moral lessons. They engaged in brutal murders of woman and children, decapitations, disemboweling and hideous creative exterminations similar to the WWII German Gestapo and SS.
Besides recruiting men and women, ISIS also trained children. Further, some children, as young as five years old, were pictured in videos executing prisoners. We can be sure that many of these children will become sociopaths and psychopaths within the Western culture.
How can we detect them, if what they are called in ?newspeak? or ?legalese? is something other than what they are? By calling them ?returning refugees? and ?peaceful Muslims,? no one looks for a wolf.
Once back in country, they have the probability of becoming Lone Wolves. Here again is the New Speak. They are NOT categorized as trained operatives of a mercenary religious army or militarized criminals, but are referred to as, ?lone? – as if they just came up with serendipity evil intents on their own. This simplifies the visual thought as some guy out there ? somewhere.
Yet, the political leaders use the term ?wolfs? – which implies these returnees will be powerful hunters. If so, the idea that is solicited to the unsuspecting public is that the ?lone wolf? will create great damage by him or herself, not as a group. He will do it by himself ? unaided ? without training or planning. The extended notion suggests that the police, military, or individual citizen, can never know who is to be a ?lone wolf.?
Similarly, with the phrase, ?Self-Radicalized? we are hearing a confusion of meanings. This phrase leaves the impression that a person – has by himself – believed something wrong – out of tune with the main belief.
Ask yourself; how else is a person sold on an idea except by believing it by their own volition. Hence, the phrase ?Self-Induced? or ?Self-Radicalized? has become personally acceptable as a confusion phrase.
If a belief has never changed through time, or its archaic meaning is the only one received by any individual, and that individual has accepted the belief?s radical [original] elements, he is no more than anyone of us would be as a fundamentalist. A person that believes the original idea is a fundamentalist or radicle; such as, Protestant Fundamentalism, or Republican or Democratic Fundamentalism. Radical or fundamentalist does NOT mean that an idea is necessarily bad, only that the original meaning hasn?t changed. We then can say that the person is a radical believer.
Fundamentalist Christians are Self-Radicalized and so are Orthodox Jews, because they adhere to the first things of their religion.
If a person was NOT Self-induced into a belief, we would then use the term that he was ?Brainwashed.? Therefore, ?Self Induced? actually means that a person made an intellectual or emotional and cognizant free-will choice.
ISIS and Al Qaida have accepted the original fundamental beliefs of Islam and it founder, Mohammad. Their victims are NOT Self-Radicalized, but tormented into believing for the sake of surviving; and that is called: brainwashing, extortion and coercion.
Pleases note that the globalists and liberals NEVER say that a Muslim terrorist is Brainwashed, because they know that the terrorist has accepted the original fundamental or radical principles of Islam. So self-induced and self-radicalize are New Speak terms, crafted to confuse the hearer into thinking that main line Islam is different than what a terrorist believes and acts upon. We know that most Muslims believe in the fundamental or radical teaching of Mohammad as found in the Quran.
New Speak is propaganda and absolutely reverses meaning in its phrases. The twisted simile of a Lone-Wolf in New Speak cannot logically equate to a literal lone-wolf in the wild. The terrorist who returns to civilization will not follow what we know about lone wolves in nature. IT IS A FALSE PREMISE!
In the wild, wolves hunt in pacts – between 12 to 40 animals. There is always an Alpha male and a Beta female. A lone-wolf comes about because an animal is too old to keep up, or a young male is driven from the pact and will be considered an outsider, but mostly, the lone-wolfs are females that desire to leave the pack, so that they can mate and join into a new pact. When a lone-wolf leaves or is forced out, it breaks all contact with the original group. In order to survive, it eats small rodents, rabbits and carrion. It will not attack large groupings and powerful herbivores; because it knows it can be badly hurt or killed. It only takes what is weak and small, because it does not have help to do big damage – much like common pedophiles, drug addicts, bullies, and burglars.
What this tells us is that the definitions of New Speak phrases, – supplied by the bureaucratic apparatus – are meant to lull us into the idea that they cannot know when a terrorist will attack and do significant harm. Lone wolves do not do great harm, they are cowards and careful and stay to the shadows. However, we know that wolves hunt in packs – and so, the justified and proper simile to follow is; if there is a major attack, the attacker has confederates with whom he planned his violence. The use of the term ?lone-wolf? demonstrates a New Speak reversal of the clearly known definition of behavior.
[SEE: http://www.wolfworlds.com/facts-about-wolves/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(trait)]
This is similar with lionesses who hunt in pacts. One may see one lioness creeping toward a prey, but if you look behind her – some 200 feet – there will be a deadly cabal of helpers following.
Why does the political and security apparatus reverse the true meaning and character of evil persons? Simply stated, they do this because it is easier to make an excuse for a tragic event, then to do what is right and good, and call a group or religion, or ideology, evil ? from its core root. It?s easier to act shocked and mystified than to go out and hunt the attackers or track them back to their meeting place. To do so costs socially, financially, and is dangerous.
This again is why the ?Newspeak? bureaucrats in the West distain the term, ?Radical Islam,? True Islam at its base; has predatory beliefs, is antichrist, universally enslaving, and bent on the destruction of all religious and political and social beliefs, except its own. It isn?t politically correct to say that 1.6 Billion Muslim people are part of a destructive political ideology wrapped in the garb of religion, but it is truthful!
Hence, true Islam is Radical; meaning at its core, its doctrines have never changed from its inception and remain sociopathic and malevolent. There is no mitigation in Sharia Law, when pronouncing the most inane penalties – for what in the west – we would consider minor crimes. Islam is medieval and retrograde in human development.
Though the global leadership CANNOT bring itself to define the evil of Islam, it is willing to call out dissenters of Islam – whether political, safety oriented or Christian ? as hateful, ill-tempered, and socially disreputable. The world leadership will ply their power to prevent dissent, simply because it is easier to intimidate well-meaning and powerless people, in preference to Islam, even though those dissenting groups are the epitome of diversity and responsible citizenship. Islam, however, is the embodiment of singularity. There is no diversity in Islam – religious, social or political.
Lacking the political or moral will to denounce a large group as evil, they use lies to describe the medial culture of Islam. They call it peaceful and moderate. This conveys publically that the global powers rate the religion of Muslims as a reasonable form of civil religion.
So upside-down is the globalist?s New Speak, the Muslims and their lone-wolves are considered as diverse and inclusive – within their religion and cultural – while the diverse groups of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Asians, are considered bigots and culturally backward. This globalist world view is the essence of reprobate thinking.
Even Muslims admit they do not think of themselves as moderate or peaceful. A good example is Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdo?an who was quoted in the ?Daily Sabah? ? on Nov. 10, 2017;
?The term ?moderate Islam? is being lathered up again. The patent of moderate Islam belongs to the West. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam; Islam is one. The aim of using such terms is to weaken Islam? ?They say we will return to moderate Islam, but they [Saudis] still don?t give women the right to drive. Is there such a thing [moderate] in Islam? I guess they will give this right when they [Saudis] turn [in] to the moderate one,? he added.
The term ?Moderate Islam? is an example of ?Newspeak? ? it?s a Western invention, and a Muslim world leader says so!
The word ?radicle? is from the Latin, meaning; ?primary, or from the root of.?
?Radical Islam? is NOT a ?New Speak? term, because it is modifying the facts that exist. Whether Sunni or Shia, the main focus is to blanket the world with Islam, by infiltration, coercion, mayhem, and violence. The ends justify the means, and this is how Islam has been from the beginning. It is therefore, radical ? never changing!
As an added thought, the Muslim sects of Sufi, Dervish and Baha?i are not Islam, but cults of Islam melded with Zoroastrianism and Platonism. It would be like calling Mormonism an element of Christianity. But Mormonism is a cult that utilizes the Bible and a fabricated and plagiarized book, to syncretize Christianity with Gnosticism. Christian Science is also a Christian-cult.
Defining the character of any movement, religious or secular, is not hate, but a form of geography; or as the ancient Greek philosophers would say, ontological [the nature of a thing] and epistemological [the study of that nature and its limits]. These are the studies of what exists, and their analysis, and how we know a thing can be justified? It is a form of secular logic that uses both inductive and deductive reasoning. This form of rationale is universal in character, even in uneducated people, and found in Christian thesis of the scriptures.
Because the defining a nature is associated with logical and rational principles of constructing or deconstructing a belief system – for the purpose of understanding it – a critic cannot be lightly charged with bios or hate. To do so, removes the very essence of knowledge [Gk. ?gnosis;? Lat. ?scientia?]. A similar construct is used with animals even though they react only to their environment or stimuli.
When Jesus warned us of the wolves, he meant those that appear human in form and were financially and politically powerful. Their thinking is reprobate, without mercy or natural affection. Their followers are perverts. When you hear New Speak, you are hearing the Devil!
It behooves the Christian not to be taken up in philosophies loosely cast-off into the social arena of ideas. Marx was the close friend and sycophant of Engels ? a rich textile owner and merchant. This group of wolves made the word ?bourgeoisie? disreputable even today. They defined a class of people greedy and callas toward the plight of the poor. However this French word which means people of the gated town [gated communities] also means the Middle Class, not the Royals or the very rich.
One would think that Marx would degrade the Royals, but his sponsor was Friedrich Engels – a rich textile owner. Marx didn?t want the impoverished to dream like any middle-class person. This wolf, or effeminate, lived in the house of a rich-man. His goal was to confuse the ill-educated and make them slaves for his revolution to power. To reiterate Jesus, beware of the wolves, who live in castles and cry out. They come to men as lambs ? well spoken, refined clothes, and soft speech and flatteries – but speak the language of devils.
Other political groups or movements can be added to this, but suffice to say that lone-wolves will not do much damage and stay to the shadows, but wolves in castles have minions of effeminates to go out and grind upon the ear – their duplicitous language of New Speak. Mark well those of wealth who marginalize or work against the common dream for success, or castigate those who wish to help the poor out of their own pocket. It?s all in what you hear.
Hence the reason Jesus said, ?Let him who has ears hear,? to what the spirit is saying. [Mt.11:15; Mk.4:23]. Let him who has ears hear the sound of wolves.