anti-abortionists have submitted to behaviorrnmodification to the extent thatrntlie}- regularly refer to their pro-abortionrnopponents as “pro-choice.”) “Strong”rnlanguage —replacing a true word, abortion,rnwith a manipulatie word, c h o i c e -rnconceals the realit}- of prenatal homicidernand induces masses of people who actuallyrndetest abortion to accept it, for thernreason that opposing it would be to opposern”choice.” The language of choice,rn]io\cer, is used in our society onhrnwhere it serves the purposes of pov’er: hirntoda ‘s America, smoking is not a matterrnfor “choice,” nor is gun ownership.rnUpinsk}’ offers a number of examplesrnfrom French histor’ and contcmporar-rnFrance in proof of his thesis. “The greatrnsystems of our day function in fact on thernreverse of language: the majorih’ is only arnminorih; ccinalit}- implies disparity’; thern’will of the people’ is onK’ that of one part;rnthe presumphon of die innocence ofrnan accused person is onlv a myth; representativerngovernment is only a fiction,rnetc.” If, moving beond France, we lookrnat the U.S. presidential election of 1996,rnwe see what Upinsky means: Fewer thanrnhalf of the eligible voters voted, andrnslight!} fewer than half of tliose voted forrnBill Clinton, who won the prcsidencrnthanks to the support of a minorit}’ of arnminorit)’, of less than 2 5 percent. He becamernpresident, and he rules. Articles ofrnimpeachment were passed bv a majorit’rnof the House of Representatives and onernarticle was approved, albeit with fear andrntrembling, bv over half of the Senate,rnwhere a hvo-thirds majorit)’ is required:rnThere, too, nnnority ruled. PresidentrnClinton has rramed two justices to thernSupreme Court, five out of nine membersrnof which suffice to void the laws ofrn50 states; in Roe v. Wade, decided sevenrnto two, the will of seven old men prevailedrnover a nation of 200 million.rnUpinsk’ wants us to see things as theyrnare. Then it may be possible tornwake from our slumber and deal realisticallvrnwith realiti’- He contends that:rnit is indispensable to develop ourrnpowers of observation, our visualrnacuity and our hearing. We haernto train ourselves to disconnect ourrneye—which has to follow thernfacts—and our ear—which has tornfollow the discussion. Thus wernshall succeed in distinguishing thernmovement of facts from the moementrnof words, and in seeing thatrntoda}- there are h^o sstems tiiat operaternin opposite was. This wasrnthe central contradiction of thern[French] Rcolution: the coexistencernof the speculative discoursernon the Rights of Man with the operationalrndiscourse of the Terror.rnUpinsky considers Jean Jacc[ues Rousseau,rnwhose thinking influenced thernFrench Revolution, a major architectrnof the perersion of language. It wasrnRousseau who frankh’ stated that the proclaimedrngoal of libcrt}- aetnalh’ destroysrnthe bonds that tie indi’iduals to one anotherrnand to small groups and puts themrnentirel}’ at the disposal of the state. Therngoal of eer’ sstem of goernment,rnRousseau wrote, must be the greatestrncommon good, reducible to two principalrnobjects, libert}’ and equalit-: “Libert}-,rnbecause ever}- particular dependency isrnthat much power taken by force fromrnthe bod} of the State, and equality,rnbecause libert- cannot exist withoutrnit.” Were we pa}ing attention when herntold us wfiat these noble-sounding wordsrnreally meant?rnWhat Upinsk calls the “JacobinrnBible” makes it plain that the promises ofrnliberty and equalih- can be used as toolsrnto establish the absolute totalitarian state,rni.e., the state that recognizes no legitimaternbonds outside of itself In the UnitedrnStates toda-, “security” and “safety”rnserve as strong language to gixe our staterneer greater power.rnThe state that claims to enforce onlyrnthe volonte generate, tire “general will,”rncan place demands on everv citizenrnwhich the absolutist monarehs were ruiablernto achie-e on the basis of their roxalrnwill. What l,ouis XIV (the “Sun King”rnwho said, “L’eiat, c’est moi”) eoidd notrndo—namel}-, establish universal militar}-rneonscription in France —the Republic,rnexpressing the volonte genemle, quicklyrndid. Wiat the French people would notrnpermit the king to do to them because itrnwould iolate their traditional riglits, the}’rnpromptly did to themselves —a strangernresult of the quest for “libert-” andrn”equalih’.”rn(Speaking ot the French Rexolution,rnUpinsky notes the power of the impersonalrnword on, or “one.” “One saw thernmonarchy impotent . . . one grew indignantrn. . . and one overthrew it.” Sixrnmonths later, “one grew uneas},” “onernfeared that the Girondins lacked the necessarv’rnenergw” “one outlawed then-i.” InrnAmerican English, we do not use thernword “one” like this, but in place of thernimpersonal “one,” we have the anonymousrnopinion poll, in which the opinionrnof some chosen small sample of severalrnhundred people sways the votes of thern100 senators who chart the destiny of 260rnmillion Americans.)rnLa tete coupee is an extremely thoroughrnand complex book, reaching backrnto the experience of Greece and Romernand examining French histor- from thernbeginning of the monarch}- down to tirernpresent day. It n-ia}- well be described asrn”thrilling,” as Le Figaro called it, }et thernextremely detailed symbolic anahsis ofrnFrench histor}- and institutions would bernhard to translate into Fnglish. Anrnabridged translation, if widelv read, couldrnbe tremendously valuable in helpingrnAmericans miderstand the extent tornwhich we, too, have la tete coupee.rnStrong language defeats true language, inrnwhich majorit}- does not mean minorih.rnIf this awful fact could penetrate Americanrnconsciousness at exer}- level —the political,rnthe educational, the journalistic,rnand the judicial —there might be arnchance for us yet to defeat the forces behindrnlinguistic manipulation and to recoxerrna measure of our former freedomrnand dignih’.rnR E A D Y FOR T H ErnNEXT WAR ?rnBOOKMARK THE AWARD-WINNING WEBSITE:rnWWW.AGAINSTBOMBING.COMrnConstitutional and internationalrnlaw analyses … history of Kosovornand Iraq wars … news updates …rncivil defense … terrorism moviernreviews … bio-chem terror news …rndiverse links … and such items as …rn»^ Clinton War Crimes Indictmentrn»^ Joe Sobran’s “How ManyrnEnemies Do We Want?”rn• Reed Irvine: “Jack Kemp’srnWake-Up Call”rn•^ Lew Rockwell’s “List ofrnConservatives Against War”rn*^ Justin Raimondo’s “Portrait ofrnthe War Party”rn• Jon Basil Utiey: “Talking Pointsrnfor Talk Radio”rnAMERICANS AGAINSTrnWORLD EMPIRErnP.O. Box 287 • MCLEAN, V A 22101rn”AMERICA – A BEACON NOT A POLICEMAN”rn28/CHRONICLESrnrnrn