A more elaborate linguistic dodge (if you were writing a revolutionary manifesto or such) would be to create a detailed outline of your intended message and then set it aside. Go read works from an author, genre, or time period that you normally wouldn't be interested in. Absorb the linguistic quirks of this alter-canon and then "channel" it while you expand your manifesto's outline into a draft.
Take for instance, the distinctive voice of Thomas Paine's Common Sense :
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness.
I normally use "people" instead of "writers" and "confused" instead of "confounded", avoid multiple negatives/inversions in the same sentence ("little or no"... "whereas"... "not only"... "but"), use more parenthetical comments, write complete sentences after a {comma, conjuction} combination, and avoid the words "whereas" or "wicked". So if I channeled Paine successfully (and had some level awareness of my own quirks), I'd probably produce a linguistically distinct text.
Potential drawbacks include (1) being long-winded when you need to be succinct, (2) coming across as gimmicky b/c your speech isn't normal, or (3) coming across as fake b/c you're busy injecting artifice instead of genuine passion.
Perhaps a more interesting use of this approach would be to "frame" or draw suspicion to someone by producing an manifesto that matches other works they have published.