Matt, can you do a series on "Tracking Orwellian change"? We need an encyclopedia of these terms. "Solidarity" now means submission to the state, "inclusion" means exclusion, "anti-racism" means judging character on racial traits, "equity" now means equality of outcome (no longer equality of opportunity) etc.
"When the meanings of noble words are turned inside out, we have to pay attention, and this example is about as infamous as this sort of thing gets."
Lewis Carroll, who was a logician, wrote "Through the Looking Glass" partly to show us what happens when things are turned upside down. Humpty Dumpty argues with Alice about the meaning of words, and when Alice says "It can't mean that," Humpty says "It can mean whatever I say it means." The real question is who is defining the meaning of words.
The really sad part is that the Left, which used to be strident about transparency and an open society, is now all for censorship and shutting down critics. We've come through the looking glass indeed.
Sidenote: Has anyone else ever noticed the nonparallel structure of those slogans? Is it sacrilegious to suggest Orwell should have written them as follows for consistency?
How funny...just received an e-mail last week from a professional colleague in which he pledged to be "fully transparent" in his meaning...my BS detector went off full blast...yes, "transparent" is a great candidate for Dystopian Term of the Year.
In the video of Klaus Schwab, he states "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be afraid."
In response to this, I elevate the words of Edward Snowden who said, "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
Privacy AND freedom of speech are under attack. We must respond.
Having observed American politics, worked at a research university, and studied federal regulatory policy for many decades, I am rarely surprised by stories about bureaucratic behavior or elite tone deafness. Matt's discussion of what I'll call "transparency inversion" is truly shocking, not because government agencies, especially those in the so-called intelligence community, seek private information and surveillance capabilities (see the Snowden revelations or FBI monitoring civil rights leaders). That behavior is old hat. What is truly arresting is the brazen and very public conversion of the concept of transparency from a bulwark of popular sovereignty to a rationale for a panopticon state, supported by the private sector, the academy, and NGOs. Reminds me of what Bertram Gross called "Friendly Fascism."
"At home I stepped hurriedly into the office, handed in my pink coupon, and received the certificate permitting me to lower the shades. This right is granted only on sexual days. At all other times we live behind our transparent walls that seem woven of gleaming air—we are always visible, always washed in light. We have nothing to conceal from one another. Besides, this makes much easier the difficult and noble task of the Guardians. For who knows what might happen otherwise? Perhaps it was precisely those strange, opaque dwellings of the ancients that gave rise to their paltry cage psychology. "
As much as US politicians ramble on about the dangers of foreign propaganda and their desire to "protect" us from such a horrible intrusion into our brains they still vilify people like Mark Crispin Miller whose entire career has been spent teaching students how to recognize propaganda.
They do this because the US government & their media stenographers constantly feed its own citizens more propaganda on any given day than any "foreign actor" could possibly unleash on us.
These are the first 2 sentences of Miller's Wikipedia page.
"Mark Crispin Miller (born 1949) is a professor of media studies at New York University.[1] He has promoted conspiracy theories about U.S. presidential elections, the September 11 attacks and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines."
Anyone who has read the guy or listened to him talk knows that the 2nd sentence is complete bullshit yet there it stands for "fact checkers" & fruit loops to use to debunk him.
I think the real transparency that the elite are shooting for is to make the rest of us completely invisible. There is nothing more "transparent" than that.
Will we need yet another lawsuit, and the tortured climb all the way to SCOTUS, to resolve yet another issue that I once thought was adequately addressed--or at least interpreted--through the Constitution?
And I should add that I no longer have confidence in SCOTUS since two justices are obviously DEI appointments.
Tracking Orwellian Change: The Aristocratic Takeover of "Transparency"
Matt, can you do a series on "Tracking Orwellian change"? We need an encyclopedia of these terms. "Solidarity" now means submission to the state, "inclusion" means exclusion, "anti-racism" means judging character on racial traits, "equity" now means equality of outcome (no longer equality of opportunity) etc.
"When the meanings of noble words are turned inside out, we have to pay attention, and this example is about as infamous as this sort of thing gets."
Lewis Carroll, who was a logician, wrote "Through the Looking Glass" partly to show us what happens when things are turned upside down. Humpty Dumpty argues with Alice about the meaning of words, and when Alice says "It can't mean that," Humpty says "It can mean whatever I say it means." The real question is who is defining the meaning of words.
The really sad part is that the Left, which used to be strident about transparency and an open society, is now all for censorship and shutting down critics. We've come through the looking glass indeed.
Thanks, Matt for taking our fight against these authoritarian zealots on your own shoulders. Have a great, well-deserved vacation.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
SURVEILLANCE IS PRIVACY
—
Sidenote: Has anyone else ever noticed the nonparallel structure of those slogans? Is it sacrilegious to suggest Orwell should have written them as follows for consistency?
WAR IS PEACE
SLAVERY IS FREEDOM
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
How funny...just received an e-mail last week from a professional colleague in which he pledged to be "fully transparent" in his meaning...my BS detector went off full blast...yes, "transparent" is a great candidate for Dystopian Term of the Year.
The Left has a lot of success brainwashing by simply renaming things.
In the video of Klaus Schwab, he states "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be afraid."
In response to this, I elevate the words of Edward Snowden who said, "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
Privacy AND freedom of speech are under attack. We must respond.
Whenever you hear a politician say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear ", you should be afraid, be very afraid.
Having observed American politics, worked at a research university, and studied federal regulatory policy for many decades, I am rarely surprised by stories about bureaucratic behavior or elite tone deafness. Matt's discussion of what I'll call "transparency inversion" is truly shocking, not because government agencies, especially those in the so-called intelligence community, seek private information and surveillance capabilities (see the Snowden revelations or FBI monitoring civil rights leaders). That behavior is old hat. What is truly arresting is the brazen and very public conversion of the concept of transparency from a bulwark of popular sovereignty to a rationale for a panopticon state, supported by the private sector, the academy, and NGOs. Reminds me of what Bertram Gross called "Friendly Fascism."
"At home I stepped hurriedly into the office, handed in my pink coupon, and received the certificate permitting me to lower the shades. This right is granted only on sexual days. At all other times we live behind our transparent walls that seem woven of gleaming air—we are always visible, always washed in light. We have nothing to conceal from one another. Besides, this makes much easier the difficult and noble task of the Guardians. For who knows what might happen otherwise? Perhaps it was precisely those strange, opaque dwellings of the ancients that gave rise to their paltry cage psychology. "
[Yevgeny Zamyatyin,, "We", 1923]
As much as US politicians ramble on about the dangers of foreign propaganda and their desire to "protect" us from such a horrible intrusion into our brains they still vilify people like Mark Crispin Miller whose entire career has been spent teaching students how to recognize propaganda.
They do this because the US government & their media stenographers constantly feed its own citizens more propaganda on any given day than any "foreign actor" could possibly unleash on us.
These are the first 2 sentences of Miller's Wikipedia page.
"Mark Crispin Miller (born 1949) is a professor of media studies at New York University.[1] He has promoted conspiracy theories about U.S. presidential elections, the September 11 attacks and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines."
Anyone who has read the guy or listened to him talk knows that the 2nd sentence is complete bullshit yet there it stands for "fact checkers" & fruit loops to use to debunk him.
I think the real transparency that the elite are shooting for is to make the rest of us completely invisible. There is nothing more "transparent" than that.
So their definition of Transparency is that of a one-way mirror? They can see into our lives, but our view into their corrupt cesspool is obscured?
"Transparency" is another Newspeak term like misinformation, conspiracy theory, and equity: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-coin-a-term-part-2
“If you don’t have anything to hide then you have nothing to worry about.”
I believe the KGB said the same.
Will we need yet another lawsuit, and the tortured climb all the way to SCOTUS, to resolve yet another issue that I once thought was adequately addressed--or at least interpreted--through the Constitution?
And I should add that I no longer have confidence in SCOTUS since two justices are obviously DEI appointments.
I'm starting to hate the 21st century.
Would FOIA pass in today's political environment? I think not.