Godwords for Mindwars

Introducing a fusion concept for persuasive rhetoric as we set out to build an Empire of the Mind.

Richard Weaver, in his book, Ethics of Rhetoric, calls a "god-term": a charismatic expression drained dry of any objective significance, but remaining an empty symbol intended to win unthinking applause.
—Russell Kirk

Richard Weaver's "God terms" and Michael McGee's "ideographs" are similar concepts from the theory of rhetoric that help us better examine how certain words carry cultural and political power. These conceptions differ in significant ways, so I want to set out a few of those differences. Both, however, suggest certain words have the power to tap into our deepest, most ingrained biases.

Borrowing from each, I hope to combine them into a single, useful concept: godwords.

God Terms

Richard Weaver is a conservative intellectual icon who set out a theory of powerful terms in his 1953 work, The Ethics of Rhetoric.

Weaver’s “God terms” are words that carry ultimate positive value in a culture and demand reverence without question. They represent the highest goods that a society recognizes. Examples include "progress," "fact," "science," and "democracy" in modern Western culture.

These terms function as sources of argument when one invokes them, and they're supposed to end debate rather than start it. Weaver saw them as expressions of a culture's deepest values and believed they revealed the metaphysical dream of a people. He also identified "Devil terms"—words with inherently negative connotations like "prejudice" or "communism" (in his era).

While Weaver’s thesis can be a bit manichaean, it carries valuable insights. Under his conception, a God- or Devil term can be broadly cultural, overtly political, or overlapping in potency.

Ideographs

Michael McGee is a leftwing scholar who set out the concept of the ideograph in his 1983, “The 'Ideograph': A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology.” Originally, ideographs refer to pictures or symbols, especially those used by ancient scribes. But McGee appropriated the term for his peculiar use.

Ideographs are culture-bound political terms that function as basic structural elements of one’s ideology. McGee focused specifically on how these terms work in political discourse to justify power and guide collective action.

Examples include <liberty>, <equality>, and <property>. (McGee used angle brackets to emphasize their special status). And these are his examples, not mine, but I dare say it’s no accident McGee selected these, especially as they once held more potency in the American psyche.

Unlike Weaver's broader cultural focus, McGee was primarily concerned with how these terms function in the maintenance of political order and the exercise of power.

Enter Godwords

Both of these concepts—God terms and ideographs—mean essentially that certain words contain cultural potency. Such words not only have the ability to summon a cluster of associated concepts in the associative networks of one’s mind, but they are almost always freighted with cultural values, as well. So, I want to merge these two concepts for use in subversive communication.

Let’s call the fusion concept godwords.

While there are subtle differences between Weaver’s and McGee’s conceptions, it will be far more helpful to mash them together and poach bits from each thesis. In my framing, “God-” signifies potency, but not necessarily positive or negative connotations a la Weaver. While I like the ideo- prefix, McGee’s term still has to contend with an older, more familiar definition of ideograms/ideographs.

Godwords are potent, culturally significant terms that compete against other words in terms of potency, as well as in terms of their extent and frequency of use. Yet the breadth of adoption and use frequency doesn’t guarantee potency. Overuse can sap a godword of its power. Underuse can send a term into obscurity. Godwords have golden means.

From Weaver, we can steal a couple of important conclusions:

Old Rhetoric. Classical rhetoric was superior because it recognized the relationship between truth, goodness, and effective persuasion. Modern rhetoric has become mere rhetoric, which is to say fragmented and divorced from solid philosophical grounding or the enterprise of truth tracking.

Contemporary Rhetoric. Weaver analyzes how terms like "progress" and "science" (or better “the Science™”) function as contemporary God terms, often without adequate examination of their underlying assumptions or consequences. We can add terms like democracy and climate.

Relativism vs. Right. Weaver argues against moral relativism in rhetoric, contending that some positions are better than others and that rhetoric should serve truth-tracking rather than mere expedience. (See related piece on this.)

Cultural Diagnosis. Weaver critiques modern leftish *progressive* culture, which Weaver saw as having lost its connection to transcendent values and absolute standards of truth and morality. (Today, one can say this about the right, for better or worse.) We must take care not to stray into rhetorical absolutism.

From McGee, we can steal his Lacanian interpretive framework. Note that these are not literal, clinically-diagnosed psychopathologies, but rather linguistic orientations:

Neurosis (most common). Subjects question existence but remain in denial of fundamental lack and are most susceptible to ideological persuasion. Think of those who become obsessed with a political party or ideology to avoid dealing with personal problems. Neurotics become the primary target of godwords.

Perversion. Subjects believe their desire perfectly matches the Other's desire, so they conform enthusiastically rather than being disciplined to comply. Think of the "teacher's pet" who enthusiastically follows every rule because they think that's what makes them perfect. Perverts are already converted and compliant.

Psychosis. Subjects reject symbolic order entirely, thus cannot engage meaningfully with ideographs due to the foreclosure of signification. Think of someone so disconnected from socio-political reality that politicized language makes no sense to them. Psychotics are tough outliers who are less vulnerable to godwords.

In essence, neurotics are ideographs' primary targets, perverts are their willing servants, and psychotics are beyond their reach entirely.

Merging the Weaver and McGee conceptions is either half-arsed dialectics or brilliant heuristics, but we won’t know which until we sally forth and practice. Either’s ideological tilt is largely irrelevant here. Both offer insights we can wield as we set out to engage in mind war against competing frames.

Minted. Mutated. Meaningful. Memetic.

Remember that wielding godwords can help us build an empire of the mind, as well as overcome competitors’ rhetoric. To function as weapons in mind war, we must mint new godwords, mutate some old ones, ensure each has a deeper meaning, and endeavor to charge them with some memetic velocity.

Minting involves creating new godwords, while mutating involves transforming inert words into godwords. For a weak example, I have tried to squat on the word decentralization, because I want to infuse it with a higher degree of normativity. When people read the word, I hope they will not just imagine a process, but recognize that this process is beneficial for humanity in most contexts. I regard this example as weak in the sense that it is a less potent godword. For some stronger examples of newly minted or mutated godwords, consider:

Left

• "Intersectionality" Became a mainstream godword around 2015-2020

• “Genocide” Accelerated, emotionally charged use regarding the Gaza conflict

• "Mis-/Disinformation" Gained intense charge after 2016, peaking w/ COVID

Right

• "Woke/Wokeness" went from a positive term to an insurgent rallying cry

• "Groomer" was repurposed in culture war battles about kids and sexuality

• "Deep State" moved from fringe to mainstream discourse

Libertarian

• "Censorship-industrial complex" reframes content moderation networks

• “Regime” reframes government as authoritarian or top-down

• “CBDC” embodies concerns about financial surveillance and control

Centrist

• "Polarization" became a dominant explanatory framework of politics

• "Norms" (as in "democratic norms") gained purchase during the Trump era

• "Guardrails" is a metaphor for institutional protections against polarization

"Gaslighting" has evolved from a psychological term to a political accusation that is now widely used. Notice also how all of the above examples have negative connotations.

Some godwords get set against each other and can stay locked in mind war: security vs. freedom, Zionist vs. antisemite, tradition vs. progress come to mind.

One of the downsides of godwords in the digital age is that they can be shallow, which means they are superficially powerful but not necessarily meaningful or truth-conducive. As decentralists and subversive innovators, we must find opportunities to deepen the meaning of our favored godwords. And of course, we find ways to make them more memetic.

Some of the terms I’d like to see gain purchase and rise as godwords would be integrity, generativity, virtue, pluralism, subversion, and, of course, underthrow. I also think that combinations of extant godwords can be particularly potent. (*Subversive innovation* is one such attempt I’ve made. More familiar examples include *climate crisis,* *family values,* *social justice,* and *human rights*.)

Edwin Klint Bywater helped me find Michael McGee and inspired this post.