The Writing on the Wall

The Limits of Language


The usage of language is limited when it is devised in the mind of a Satan. It's structure is for a lack of a better term a matrix. We can either interact with reality through counterfeit languages or by the one and True word of God.

There is a time to be silent and practice solitude. This is undeniably important for breaking out of the movie's depiction of imprisonment. There is also a time to speak. Going back in to remind the willful sinners they're on the wrong path, again hinges on language.

What's the difference between that movie world and reality? Firstly, no one becomes enlightened by taking drugs from some sketchy dude in a trench coat. Jokes apart, there is only one true simulation and it is good because it is His perfectly divine creation. Any other attempts at simulation are illusory and consequently limited. Any claim of escaping this world onto eternal life without Christ is a delusion, because the language of man will never compare to His word.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9

The word of God, is one eternal language, or one set of words - a Uni-verse. The Universe was breathed into existence through His words and became flesh, revealing Christ our Lord and savior. We are merely here to redeem ourselves and listen in faith.

What needs to be addressed is the exaggeration that lesser languages are tools for total control. Thought prisons only occur when you serve the creation instead of the creator. If you are of the spirit, no false language will deceive your heart. From just this power alone, we will explore how evil must appeal to personhood. Without it, there'd be no medium to deliver its corrupted and counterfeit message.

Personhood presupposes Language.

Think about the people who you love unconditionally in life. Which sacrifice would be a greater reduction?

  1. Your only contact with them is over the phone.
  2. You can be with them, but you lose the ability to talk to each other.

If you really give it some thought, being in the presence of family and friends has an irredeemable quality, one which ironically cannot be put into words. Physical presence carries its own form of communication, oft times realer than the words which appear before your eyes.


The gift of language is pragmatic yet imprecise. As put by Orwell,

A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. - Politics and the English Language, 1946
Confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel
Confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel

In Utopia (1516), Thomas More imagines an apparently perfect island society in which citizens share a common language and way of life. Even if Orwell supposes that language can be redeemed through clearer thought and could become closer to that of More's vision, one glance at biblical prophecy warns that a global unifier language will be scattered by God when it's used to serve the selfish desires of man.

With around 1.3 billion speakers, English is rapidly changing in the name of evil, smiting the very gift God gave us to love him. Although we are living under the grace of the new testament, biblical prophecy still prevails: this time the ball is being fumbled by man himself; Modern English is becoming the international language of doublespeak: a potpourri of different tongues reducing intellectual discussion to Latinized quackery. The disconnect from semantics has lurked in all languages and has allowed a mass departure from reality.

Take the concept of race for example. In oriental languages there is no direct translation. To a mandarin speaker, a race war would be a clash of clans. The term race serves to obfuscate and dilute the essence of nations, bloodlines, and traditional customs.

Further reading on the race concept

Language as a Gateway

False language serves as a gate and the conjurers are its keepers. The limits of language lies in the expanse of the gate's opening, for many will find comfort in how easy it is to enter and take pleasure in it's dark abyss of secrets. Moreover, its wide range of entry and interpretation results in confusion and destruction at all scales.

On the other hand, the true language of God presents a simple yet narrow gate, which few will ever enter. Entering means walking with the Father, which can only be done through the keeper Christ.

False language can soften the blow of reality, hiding mental imagery from our minds. Now consider modern slogans such as, minor attracted individuals or forced birth or 72 genders. As repugnant as these catch phrases are, they are finding their way into the language whether genuine people are actually using them or not.

The Dead Internet

As the hypothesis goes, if human activity on the Internet is overwhelmingly outnumbered by bots, then it would follow that authorized language would appear as public consensus. Dissenters would quickly be shot down: it's only human nature to not want to be singled out. This hypothesis would account for the fall of modern English. It will unravel into a language not permitted by humans, but rather one guided by augmented intelligence: a linguistic zombie.

Even if we reject the hypothesis of a dead Internet, the absence of communication through physical presence will inevitably attract hardhearted and bizarre behavior, allowing words to be used incorrectly and lost in meaning. This phenomena notably happens in text based interaction. Words like based and cucked are over used just as on the flip side, homophobic and racist.

Measures of Spiritual Warfare

Once the language has been corrupted, then the rest comes down to pragmatism and effectiveness: How can we make these bots more personable? By the limits of language, bots can only be as convincing as the text they spit out. A personable medium, whether it be people, deep fakes, or Hollywood magic, is still required to craft a narrative, as immersion is the most powerful technique of programming the mind.

This dynamic can become fully automatized, but first the language must be primed. To give automatons a personhood, first it must be linguistically valid to strip a person of their humanity. Pronouns such as it/its/itself not only serve to dehumanize the gullible, but work to establish the opposite: to personify the inanimate.

Now virtual reality bots could be falsely addressed as he or she, and have special quirks and idiosyncrasies. Deep fake technology is already good enough to spoof convincing looking people, the next step is to make the essence of VR avatars more human than humanities anti-social perception of itself. It's to replace the middle management of narrative guidance with personalized fable tellers; an attempt at replacing God's story with the story of our imaginations.

The hyper stimulation of a Ready Player One world will continue Man's spiritual death; it's no coincidence that dead translates to meta in Hebrew. The entire concept behind the Metaverse is to capitalize on people's heightened engagement from personal interaction, as social media has been pushed to its limits. It is a cold fact of reality that narcissistic psychopaths understand human psychology all to well, and that people are more easily persuaded through a raw and emotional medium: This face to face exchange is already compromised and is quickly being replaced with a digital surrogate.


Many times people unconsciously fallback on emojis to express that which transcends language: the feelings of sheer excitement, trauma or love. But when considering the so-called benefits of emojis, we see it makes comments or messages more personal, and encourages engagement - the precise motives of what was just discussed: automatocracy (rule of the bots, an exacerbated version of democracy).

It especially helps camouflage AI on platforms such as twitter. With a claustrophobic 280 character count, emojis allow for more to be artificially said with less, while hindering any substantial conversation (which a bot may or may not be able keep up with).

Emojis are more than just innocent little pictures. There is something off about them, more on that later. Nevertheless, these eye candies are the spoonfuls of sugar to help the medicine of progressivism and positivism go down. They are taking on the role of a neo-hieroglyphics system: a more convenient and vulgar way of communicating. Funny enough Ancient Egyptian used phonetics and was not merely pictures - a sign modern language has become so diluted, that we hesitate to use actual words in our expression.

Oxford Dictionary declared the crying laughing emoji as the word of the year in 2015, with the runner up being lumbersexual of course. This was no mistake: the end goal of newspeak is to make thought crime impossible, quite practical if our language descends into cartoon pictures and shock value.

The word of the year for 2021 was vax. Given that mRNA technology is not consistent with the legal definition of a vaccine, one might wonder why this slang term was pushed while the original was being redefined.

So how does Oxford Dictionary evaluate the most trendy word in a given year? They use Google trends (and probably other secret intelligence). Firstly, this method already does not account for new words being used off the internet, but also completely neglects everything that has been stated up to this point: the majority of online speech is not human. The word of the year is not representative of anything authentic. Any new definitions or subsequent redefining from this top down dictate is covertly done in the name of evil, while being publicly endorsed under the guise of progress and/or justice.

What's more interesting is to observe who decides the content of emojis. As Unicode is the standardized encoding for the writing systems of the world, one would wonder who exactly funds this organization and who gets a vote in passing new emojis? This is public information: listing off a few of the full members we see Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Netflix. But this is not all that surprising: these companies just decided the aesthetics for their own platform, just as there are open source pallets of emojis. But who actually decided on what each emoji would be called and the general idea of what it was trying to convey?

Going back to the membership list, there are also institutional members among the Unicode consortium, namely being foreign governments (and U.C. Berkeley). This also makes sense since Unicode encodes languages such as Arabic, Hindi, or Japanese: these nations are interested in filling new emoji slots with cultural (but now mostly acultural) references.

The Bangladesh Computer Council and the Tamil Virtual Academy both check out, being that they are technical and secular institutions. However, while we could take a guess that the Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs of Oman just wants to promote their culture through emojis, could there be something more shady at play?

Solomon’s Listening Heart: The Queen of Sheba.

From 1 Kings 10, we see the cautionary tale of exchanging the soul for power and knowledge: a deal with the devil, otherwise known as the Faustian bargain. The irony of the story is that once someone knows this special knowledge, they come to realize it's horrifying, evil and taxes their soul. They wish they could unlearn it, but can't because they've become completely desensitized through their own pride.

In the 1950's, an archaeologist by the name of Wendell Phillips set out to unearth the holdings of Queen Sheba in Yemen and Oman. He mysteriously became an oil concessionaire and a top adviser of the Sultanate of Oman. What did he bring to the table? Could it possibly be the forbidden knowledge King Solomon told Queen Sheba for 666 talents of gold?

Many claim The Lesser Key of Solomon was inspired by the King himself. It was compiled in the mid-17th century, being divided into 5 books, the first of which is called the, Ars Goetia, an occultist work about 72 demons and how to summon them. What's peculiar about the number 72, is that in emoji 1.0, the first 72 faces have a disturbing resemblance with the demonic power's sigils. Here are a few:

and there correspondences:

One could call this the original face book. To tie it all together, Emoji 1.0 was published in 2015, the same year the Omanian government became a member of Unicode.

The point of bringing this up is not to scare the reader, or to say the Omanian government is evil. It's to show how evil exists all around us, and how its effect on us is not peculiar to language. God permits evil so we can discern and appreciate the good.

If language is limited, then what will the enemy appeal to? Symbols. Man is made in the image of God, and so personhood is a symbol of divinity (our adversaries cannot perform their dirty work through spells and language alone, they need people!) Emojis, animojis and any other technological pursuit in mimicking or exploiting this symbolism is dispersed to dilute semantics - an attack on personhood and on God's word!

Deception has existed since the garden of Eden, the most persistently deceptive of which came long before the Internet explosion.


The limits of language call upon music to make lyrics more memorable and influential. The medium of music breathes life and personality into lyrics. Music is the super highway to the soul. Reluctantly, people associate the high or the euphoria they get from listening to a song, to the truth behind its message. After all, Lucifer is the minister of music, making it one of the most subliminal yet powerful weapons in spiritual warfare.

I can explain everything better through music. You hypnotize people and when you get people at their weakest point, you can preach into their subconscious what we want to say. – Jimi Hendrix

To further illustrate, look at the lyrics to We are the World, by USA for Africa, recorded in 1985:

We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So, let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

Send them your heart so they'll know that someone cares
And their lives will be stronger and free
As God has shown us by turning stone to bread
And so we all must lend a helping hand

Using iconic people as a delivery mechanism for an illusory message, whether it be Stevie Wonder, Lionel Richie, Billy Joel, Bob Dylan, Tina Turner, Steve Perry or Paul Simon, makes the credibility of its mirage all the more convincing.

If you've never heard the song, the lyrics may have come across as a dry poem. Better yet if this is your first listening, you will hopefully go into it with a trained ear, and understand how a catchy song may be full of lies. By no means are we children of the world, often illustrated as a cheesy graphic of kids chosen from a diversity quota holding hands atop the earth, flamboyantly signifying globalism.

There are many references from scripture that are deliberately twisted and misused. God never turned stone to bread. This is a direct quote of Satan (Matthew 4: 3-4), who was tempting Jesus on His journey through the desert.

The we're saving our own lives lyric directly opposes Luke 9:24: if we try to run things our own way, i.e. save our life, we'll lose it. It's very easy to detect the spirit of the anti-Christ throughout the song, especially as it claims people can set others free, when we know only the Truth can do that (John 8:32).

Scripture on its own is Limiting

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, - 2 Timothy 3:16

The limits of language demonstrate how non-believers are easily put off when scripture is used to proselytize. Instead, it should be used to catechize; it should be spoken to those willing to listen. Listening to God's word and accepting it into your heart will ignite your faith. Anyone can read the Bible; it doesn't imply they know God.

Notice how in Paul's letter to Timothy, there is a distinction that scripture has a usage rather than being an ultimate end, as though it's necessary yet not enough to know the Holy Ghost. Without this spiritual connection, the word of God would not be personable, nor meaningful.

One cannot exclusively read scripture and come to know God. In a traditional Orthodox or Latin Mass, no one should have their nose buried in a Bible, you could do that from home. Being apart of Liturgy calls for chanting scripture with hundreds of people together, not merely reading it by yourself. Mass allows for community building, and proves we can come together for purposes besides consuming.

The next time someone is in a slump and asks you for help, do not simply point them to a Bible quote or lecture them with your limited language. Instead, show them the compassion of Christ through your joyfulness and physical presence.