Archive for March 2015

Words have their meanings adjusted to suit the global agenda

This brief video, with a little humour from the irrepressible and timeless George Carlin entitled Orwellian Euphemisms: It’s not ‘mass surveillance’, it’s ‘bulk collection’ now is a great entrée to a subject I want to cover. It’s not only important to understand in its own right, but it provides an important brush stroke in a broader picture I wish to paint for you in the future.

We were warned in a speech in 1969 that the meanings of words would change, even the wording of books would change. I quote:

In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word – and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually that word replaced with another word.” I don’t know if I’m making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won’t know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, “the few who do notice the difference won’t be enough to matter.”

Do not think this will or has been restricted to the Bible. It will and has been done to foster and support other changes or obfuscations, as the above video explains. And we are all aware of this to varying degrees.

Let me give you another very significant example: the term “Ground Zero”. Today, most people in the Western world at least immediately think of the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11. But where did the term come from and how has its meaning changed since 9/11?

In his book 9/11thology: The “third” truth about 9/11, Dimitri Khalezov discusses and illustrates this in great detail.

Firstly, he shares the original meaning from many dictionaries. Let me share just a few:

“ground zero” point on the ground directly above or beneath an exploding atomic bomb.

The New York Times Everyday Dictionary (Published in 1982, Congress Library Catalog Card Number:

81-84903; ISBN 0-8129-0910-0).

“ground ze-ro” n. The point on the ground vertically beneath or above the point of detonation of an atomic bomb.

Webster’s Dictionary 1997 (Webster’s Classic Reference Library for home, school, and office; over

350,000 Words & Meanings; complete and up-to-date; published by Landoll’s Inc.; ISBN 9781569873502).

“ground zero” n : the point on the surface of the ground or water directly below which, above which, or at which the explosion of an atom bomb occurs

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (published in 1986 by Merriam-Webster Inc; Library of

Congress Catalog Card Number: 85-31018; ISBN 0-87779-206-2).

Pretty clear-cut.

Here is one from post 9/11:

“ground zero” noun 1 [C usually singular] the exact place where a nuclear bomb explodes: The blast was felt as far as 30 miles from ground zero. 2 [U] the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City, which was destroyed in an attack on September 11, 2001.

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2003 – 2005 – 2008 – 2010 editions. (These are post-9/11

editions, widely available).

Innocent enough, you might consider. Evolutionary, perhaps, in the light of the events.

But now let’s step into the time warp. The following is an example from two copies of ostensibly the same 1996 dictionary (p598).

Pre 9_11 dictionary


Now for the retrospectively changed example (p 604):

Altered Pre 9_11 dictionary


Dimitri’s reason for including the Hong Kong example is because the updated version, ostensibly from 1996, refers to the changes in Hong Kong in PAST TENSE, whereas they only happened in 1967, a year after the supposed printing of the dictionary. I have given you just this example, but Dmitri has made an extensive study of this and has copies of many pre and post dictionaries.

So, the definition of Ground Zero has been RETROSPECTIVELY changed in dictionaries which pre-date 9/11, to hide the fact that it was a nuclear event and replaced them in libraries globally and wherever possible elsewhere.

The term “Ground Zero” began to be applied on 9/11 because it was the truth of the matter; but then those running the show realised they had a problem, and undertook a global programme to change dictionary definitions of Ground Zero in retrospect, in order to hide that 9/11 was a nuclear event. Does it shake you up? It did me when I first saw it. Think of the power and the resources to do something like this – in secret. What else are they up to that we don’t know about?

Welcome to the world we live in. So, do you consider books could be written or changed in retrospect to provide evidence that something is false when it is in fact true? We have seen it in dictionaries. Dr. Richard Day warned us in 1969 to expect it. I expect it, and so should you.

So little of what is taught as history is accurate, and nor is much of so-called science. Only when we begin to look outside what we are taught or shown by the mainstream can we hope to find what is true.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By :
Follow by Email