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.
I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF MEN THINKING THAT THEY CAN TELL WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR FUCKING BODY!
I live near Idaho, a state that has outlawed abortions, and the women of Sandpoint do not have an OB/GYN because the OB/GYNs are leaving the state. If one of their patients needs a D&C because she had a miscarriage, the doctors won't touch her. They worry they can be charged with murder. The women of Sandpoint must travel 90 miles for fucking healthcare!
For people, in this day and age, to claim they should be able to choose a vaccine for themselves (of course to be allowed to be in charge of their own healthcare) but deny women the same fucking choice is absolutely in-fucking-sane!!!!
nobody gives a shit about your body but by conceiving you’ve forced a human being to live inside you.
If I buy a dog I can’t just legally kill the dog because “he can’t survive on his own without me and this is really dragging my life down, man.” I took on a responsibility. How much more serious is it when you create a life?
I don’t even know if I care if its legal or not, just women like you disgust me.
And I live right acrosss the state line and I am just as sick of idiots trying to take my rights away vis-a-vis firearms and freedom of speach. I moved here originally due to both abortions and guns being treated possitively, but alas. That said, the left doesn't seem to quite understand, or wont admit to themselves, that for a huge portion of the country, abortion is murder. That freedom of choice, so to speak, is nothing but cold blooded murder in their eyes, and is no different then a woman or man smothering their three year old. RvW did not change that in their eyes, and only delayed the debate, which we are now having. I am pro-choice, but I do understand what it means in many peoples eyes, and that happens to be more women then men.
I don't believe you about doctors refusing to treat miscarriages. If it's true, the spineless MDs are to blame.
Women who find themselves negligently or accidentally pregnant, or who are impregnated by a rapist, have the so-called "morning after pill." This is true "autonomy" when it comes to pregnancy.
The trouble with aborting a fetus, a growing, sentient individual, is that women need to enlist a third-party to accomplish the deed. Furthermore, a growing child is not an "organ," nor is it a "parasite" or piece of "property" owned by the mother, so getting an abortion is not quite the exercise of autonomy you claim it is.
I have no problem with women killing their pregnancies, but everyone ought to stop rationalizing to save face or avoid guilt..
Which is to say the left likes to play with words until they mean nothing, and can therefore be used to mean anything - and the reason is clear, as per Samir Ahmed's and Starry Gordon's references below:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
I think we know what and whom the left wants to be master -and it's never the people.
"Extremist" means anyone who disagrees in any way with progressive ideas. "Hate group" is any organization that actually has the audacity to organize and speak out against their progressive, authoritarian ideas.
"Extremist" and "radical" are applied to non-liberals, also, usually with some kind of right-wing label. In that context they mean anyone to the right of (or left of) said liberal.
I think that the point is that a college degree has become seriously devalued. I would concur. Having taught at a couple universities, I have become convinced that most people neither want nor need a (modern) college degree. There is extreme uniformity of thought on many or most campuses and expressing contrary opinions is now rather dangerous. It's quite sad. When I went to college, the diversity of thought was celebrated and encouraged, not scorned.
College curricula have become so diluted and there is so little emphasis on foundations, that the resulting degrees frequently have little value. The example of "grievance studies" is both amusing and accurate. The student has often learned very little of substance but has taken on enormous debt.
To finish the thought, a "college education" went from something relatively rare to a prerequisite for employment despite often having little direct relation. College became big business which has resulted in the union of colleges and the student loan industry. Rather than "canceling" student debt, Congress should pass a law so that a person can get out from under such an onerous burden via bankruptcy, which is currently prohibited. Colleges and universities enjoy a steady cash flow while not taking any risk for the financial burden incurred by students. Colleges and universities are under no requirement or compunction that students who take on this debt will likely be able to repay it. It's risk-free for the school and that is unfair; no business functions this way. Banks (are supposed to) ensure that the loans they issue are to parties who have the financial means to repay the loans. The pushing of home mortgages to unqualified buyers which resulted in the financial crisis of 2007 - 2009 is similar, except the colleges and universities have no risk in the affair. Digressing slightly, some savings-and-loans that engaged in such predatory practices were able to escape largely unscathed via federal seizure. I wonder what would happen to many schools. The story of Superior Bank of Chicago might be of interest.
A potentially relevant analogy is to look at the growth of university administration, not faculty, in comparison to the rate of increase of tuition.
We developed this idea in a separate group after the London meeting. The idea was a "Dictionary of Dystopian Terms". A good opportunity to get this ball rolling.
Holy crap does this book sound funny! I bought it. Matt's commenters are among the smartest I read. My mom bought me a subscription to National Lampoon when I was in high school in the early 80s and it was amazing. Thank you for the recommendation.
Excellent piece Matt. Elena Louise Lange read my thoughts. I uttered to myself ‘War is Peace...etc. The bare faced bending of noble concepts and rights to the interests of the power elite is chilling. We need to track it and both a glossary of the terms and ensure that we counter-explain. It would also be a great Christmas present if you guys could put together a book on what you have uncovered from what are not to be known as the X files.
I think you want a Wiki, a form which can support multiple opinions. Those who pervert language often seem to like the practice itself, so they continue to produce new jargon. It might also be good to allow for source identification.
Analogous to George Carlin's comparison of flammable and inflammable, we might note that equity and inequity now mean the same thing! Maybe we need a new word!
However, though arguably parallel to Carlin's example, "nonequity" definitely does not have the right ring to it!
Other than “anti-racist,” all of the words on your list mean what they’ve always meant. I’m excepting “anti-racist” because the meaning you have in mind — description of people who would like to exclude race from most conversations — isn’t in common usage yet.
What’s actually happened is that whackadoodle conspiracy theorizing has moved from the fringe to the mainstream, so now the phrase conspiracy theorist (unfortunately) describes a larger group of people.
Ordinary Republicans have become more openly fascist, so again, the word “fascist” is being used to describe more than just a fringe group. But they’re still fascists.
“Misinformation” has always been a relativistic term. There isn’t any widespread conspiracy afoot to rebrand true statements as “misinformation.” It’s just an over-used term.
I don’t know where you’ve seen “transparency” being widely used to mean “policing of thought.” In Taibbi’s article, yeah, some petty authoritarian misuses the word to support government invasion of privacy — that’s one guy.
As far as people who’d like to eliminate discussion of race calling themselves “anti-racists,” that’s a ridiculous stretch of “anti-racist.” A lot of political and social topics in America have to involve a discussion of race. People who reject that idea probably are at some level racists.
That ignores that both political parties are neofascist. And I don't just mean things like Democrats building concentration camps and then blaming Republicans
I mean corporate capture of both parties, thus the government. When business and government co-rule us all, that's fascism.
Read Eco's essay again. It's striking how much the greater and the lesser of two evils of politics operate in that way.
No, I don’t think Trump is a “Russian asset” in the sense that he’s got some direct tie to Russia or that he favors particular policies because he has a secret pro-Russia agenda.
I do think Trump admires strongmen and authoritarians, and that makes him susceptible to misunderstanding Russia’s aims, and under-estimating Russia’s authoritarian goals.
His bleach speech was pretty nutty. I’m not sure what he was trying to say. I haven’t gone back and listened to it recently, but my memory is that a lot of media interpreted Trump’s disjointedness to mean that he was advocating drinking or injecting bleach, when he was probably just (for lack of a better term) babbling nonsense. I think Trump is not widely educated, but I don’t think he’s stupid enough to believe that drinking or injecting bleach is a good idea.
> he’s got some direct tie to Russia or that he favors particular policies because he has a secret pro-Russia agenda
I haven't read Le Carre (how do I do the accent here?) in a while, but I think that's a limited definition of asset. Trump may well be an asset of several agencies, but I don't think he is willingly doing their bidding. He's too egotistical for that!
The bleach thing was clearly a metaphor. But whenever anyone gets one over on Trump, he's going to hit back harder. (If Obama hadn't embarrassed him at the Nat Press Club dinner, he'd never have been President! Not that Trump didn't deserve embarrassing.)
If the MSM combed every "disjointedness" from Biden with such intensity, I can't imagine what he's really saying. Signaling to someone by walking the wrong way off of stages? What wonderful "Biden spycraft!" We all assumed he was a doddering fool, but he was publicly signaling the enemy!
Trump tries to seem street but went to a private school, then an Ivy. He got his MBA from an Ivy. His uncle was a professor at MIT, who thought Don was smart. He was no slouch.
I absolutely loathe Trump and Biden and would love to chain them together and throw them off a tall building. Don't take any of this as partisan, please.
words that have lost meaning or meaning now obscured:
1. Sustainability: Used whenever they want to obscure policy details and outcomes
2. Harm-reduction- deliberate creation of harms for citizenry that live in and around areas where "harm reduction" policies are enacted
Racist: applied now only to populations that are : "minorities" and only when the application is in service of obliterating discussion
3. Stakeholders: minority of individuals that may hold some quality required to be included in the conversation, but more often are bureaucrats and NGO higher ups that proport to speak for the entire "community" while obviously avoiding those voices within the "community" that do not hold the dogmatic, victimhood narrative.
4. Community: see above
5. Hate speech- speech that does not conform to the narrative of the "stakeholders", never well defined, inclusive of any word or phrase that falls outside the approved doctrine.
Its obviously incomplete, and requires more thought and editing, but a start?
"Stakeholder" means any organization (usually a large mega-corp) who bribes the Electeds to make laws that allow them to fuck over the People. That's the real definition.
I been asking for something along the idea of a "Censorship Industrial Complex for Dummies" type standalone website that succcintly lays out the basic story, structure and revelations of the Twitter Files etc. or something similar.
the problem I have when trying to discuss this major issue with family and friends is that it sounds too conspiritorial (cuz it is), but unfortunately the Google search results throw back the huge nothing burger narrative surrounding the Twitter Files. Wikipedia is the same. if we had the basic story up somewhere with links and documentation, it might go a long way into helping people understand and wake up.
we can't rely on Google search results or the MSM to be the first and last voice on this topic...
When I first came to the US we were staying in a Hotel while we went through buying a house.
My son got cut in the swimming pool and I asked for an elastoplast........no it was a Band Aid in the US. IF an English person asked for a Hoover to clean up some mess..............NO. It is a vaccum cleaner.
Then i realised that although people spoke English in the US it was full of words I had never heard. This was OK with me I learned.
I am a wordsmith and love how words change and can co-exist in English speaking countrys.
These are my daily go-to sites and the ones I recommend to friends and family (if asked.) :) Every one of these independent journalists is a self-professed leftist/Democrat (or former leftist/Democrat) which MIGHT lend them some credibility to those still following legacy media exclusively. Brownstone Institute came to exist during the Covid era, and is self-described as non-partisan.).
I agree those are great and I use them myself, however I can't ask my shit lib friends to pay 10 bucks a month to sort thru hundreds of back posts to sus out the story. everyone is too lazy these days.
we need a standalone website that lays out the whole damn mess with links to further invesigation and substacks etc...
I agree. I would completely support a "standalone website that lays out the whole damn mess" - but in the meantime I continue to read, promote, and support as many of these independent journalists/writers as I can afford. Sadly, most of the people I would most like to "reach" are not open to reading or hearing these dissenting views - all have been labeled "right wing extremists" by legacy media.
The Brownstone Institute! Helmed and orchestrated by Jeffrey Tucker, the Pee Wee Herman of Bitcoin touts? One of Ron "Skipjack" Paul's heavily valorized former valets and lunch-date organizer for "Sweet" Lew Rockwell?
Self-described "anarcho-capitalist" and Covid-19 propagandist extraordinaire? Blockchain mouth-breather and inveterate joiner of all manner of libertarian and far-out and far-right clubs and societies? Former publicist for Neo-Confederates and White Supremacists? Not THIS Jeffrey Tucker?
Hmmm. Guess Brownstone is also tagged as “right wing extremist.” I encourage anyone to check them out themselves and to then decide if they are not what they claim to be - bipartisan seekers of truth.
Personal privacy, which was once interpreted by the Supreme Court as being implied by the Constitution/Bill of Rights, and was at the center of decisions like Roe v. Wade, has now been made a dirty word in many quarters, especially the new-look Democrats, but including some self-described "leftists," mostly of the phony laptop variety, who've decided that any concepts from liberalism are outdated, fraught, or at odds with the ultimate governmental power they desire.
The concepts of both privacy and transparency have been twisted and perverted, and they're in concert with one another.
There's a clip of Biden — as candidate — in this Reason interview on Missouri v. Biden with Jay Bhattacharya and his lawyer that I hadn't heard where he's demanding the repeal of Section 230, and demanding all social media companies be treated essentially as newspapers, and he claims it's "for privacy," like the Europeans have. (At around 51:15) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9nrlw5OLx4
Now, I would understand anti-trust legislation against some of these entities, and privacy laws that would limit or stop surveillance capitalism. But why would treating social media like newspapers, which would almost guarantee they'd become permanent monopolies, and shut most normal people out of the internet for good, and/or allow the government to violate their privacy at will (transparency!), have to do with people's personal privacy? Nothing, because it's actually violative of people's privacy. This is as incoherent as everything else that's come out of that man's mouth, when he's not looking and sounding lost like he's suffering full-blown dementia, that is.
Treating social media like newspapers would not “almost guaranty” that social media would have a permanent monopoly (if that’s what you meant). If that were the case, the social media platforms would be clamoring for repeal of Section 230, and they’re not (in fact, the SM platforms favor keeping Section 230 protections).
And, repealing Section 230 might indeed protect personal privacy, because it would open the social media platforms up to being sued for invasion of privacy and defamation. Section 230 essentially insulates social media platforms from suit for the various torts know as “invasion of privacy,” as well as for defamation.
I’m not personally in favor of repealing Section 230. I’m just pointing out that your argument makes no sense.
Actually Facebook is in favor of conditional Section 230 reform. Quoth Herr Lex Zuckerberg himself: “Instead of being granted immunity, platforms should be required to demonstrate that they have systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it." In other words, he thinks Section 230 should be revoked/reformed except for companies that have the near-unlimited resources for censorshi...um, "content moderation," i.e. Facebook.
So called anti-monopolist Elizabeth Warren even said something of this nature, that companies like Meta and Alphabet are the only companies that can censor at the scale she requires, so she's fine repealing Section 230 and essentially permanently entrenching them as monopolies if they get rid of the info she doesn't like. And if they make sure the government has an (illegal) censor button through the back door at all times. The House dragging the CEOs of these companies in to give them "sure would be a shame if you didn't censor and we had to take away your protections" spiel is part of this.
You see where this would essentially make smaller competitors, who don't have the billions in lawyers' fees and content moderation unable to ever enter the fray? I personally think that this is the goal: to have Meta and Apple and Alphabet be gifted the internet and close it to smaller/normal folks for good. I like the idea of smaller, fragmented, specialized social media sites with hundreds of thousands of users as opposed to billions, but Section 230 reform would stop that from happening.
Treating internet companies with over a billion users that have zero connections to the company as a whole as if they're a newspaper with maybe 100 hundred staff and freelance writers is just crazy. I can certainly see the arguments for some level of reform for companies heavily using algorithms as if they're a sort of editor — although I'm becoming more sympathetic to Jack Dorsey's idea of having benevolent, open-source algorithms run the show and take censor power out of human hands altogether — but Section 230 reform as currently discussed would give Zuck a permanent monopoly. Trust me, he wants it, and the government wants to give it to him.
We've seen Jen Psaki say that the White House was speaking to cell phone providers about censoring vaccine misinformation in people's personal text messages (!), so I'd assume that would be next. Tech needs to stay libertarian, or it's going to be over quick.
(As an aside: an act of the government, like a guarantee of privacy amendment, to make tech's selling of private information illegal or voluntary would be fine, but it doesn't need to be tethered to Section 230.)
"Fight for the Future director Evan Greer, responding to testimony from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg--who, along with Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, addressed the House Energy and Commerce Committee Thursday--said Zuckerberg's support for reforming 230 was not surprising.
'Of course Facebook wants to see changes to Section 230. Because they know it will simply serve to solidify their monopoly power and crush competition from smaller and more decentralized platforms,' said Greer.
'Facebook can afford the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that will be needed to navigate a world where Section 230 is gutted or weakened,' she added, 'And they've shown repeatedly that they don't care about the impact that Section 230 changes could have on the human rights or freedom of expression of marginalized people--they are happy to sanitize your news feed and suppress content en masse in order to avoid liability or respond to public criticism.'
Greer urged lawmakers to 'take actual steps to address the harms of Big Tech, like passing strong federal data privacy legislation, enforcing antitrust laws, and targeting harmful business practices like microtargeting and nontransparent algorithmic manipulation.'"
Every historical record known, reveals that the inability of those in possession of immense wealth, to accept the consequences of their own hubris, leads to cataclysmic disaster for the world around them. We've long departed the political and are squarely in the realm of the pathological. The entire narrative, as currently manufactured, is totalitarian 20th Century retro. As proof, I point to the inclusion of the Atomic bomb in the list of optional solutions to a war self-serving greed and corruption created. The obvious ineptitude, willingness to openly lie, the venality of every action, and current attempts to hold the future hostage to repression and fear says clearly, that the newly born consciousness of this age and the genuine possibility it holds for mankind, is beyond the limits of the would be world aristocracy to steward.
It is time to speak to disease not symptom. The opinion of many today, is that a cabal of Globalist financiers is attempting to impose a CCP style surveillance apparatus on the free peoples of the world. Reports of the EU/WEF assault on the peoples of Europe more than confirm the reality. It's happening there. And it's happening here. The conversation needs to be both American and global. The perps certainly operate that way.
Americans need a clear understanding of the depth, corruption and capture of elected American political leadership and the creation of workable solutions for its ouster. Tax dollars should not be funneled to groups, individuals and institutions planning the overthrow of the Republic. The use of poseur social concern as a means for the tax dollar funding of groups intent on our destruction must stop. American elected representation put in place by Soros/Davos dollars identified and removed. There has to be a clear line of demarcation for each American as an individual. Only truth/fact can create a place to stand. We need political and financial baseball style player cards reports that present a factual bio for each individual player. The CIC graphic was hard work extraordinary. The only clear frame of reference is obviously the Republic and the Constitution. "Ism's" are dead as a door nail.
You know, Assange and Snowden are object lessons aimed at us all. Heads on a pike above the castle wall. For the last two centuries, all there has ever been, up, down and sideways is the Constitution, the Republic and the citizen. Look at Schwab in the video. Or, any member of the billionaire WEF/DNC/CCP. Globalist fascists destroying lives and economies while calling for the repression of free speech and imprisonment. They've wrecked and looted everything they've touched. Salvation is the survival of the Republic and the Constitution. The rest is smoke and mirrors. If they stand. We stand.
Truth matters. The general response to the Twitter file report and the reaction of the DNC in particular says we can win. But we need clarity. The American psyche has been subsumed and damaged by a manufactured hyperreality emanating from an immoral low ground birthed and bulwarked by an expedient lie. Truth is indeed, freedom.
The way we fight back is simple. It’s not easy, but it is simple. It starts with swarming. A new kind of technology where we can make our own decentralized and transparent systems separated from government and plug them into the existing corrupted ones.
Swarming isn’t fully developed yet. It isn’t trustworthy enough to scale up for large swarms yet. But it will be soon.
If you really want to fight back, learn about swarming, decentralization, and transparent systems (not transparency for individuals like good ol Klaus is suggesting here)
No we don't. I spent two sessions doing volunteer lobbying in my Statehouse. What I found: every single one of the Electeds are dickheads with a monetary agenda. And if they aren't snakes going in, they find their dickheaded-ness once in office.
Ever see "House of Cards" where they blackmail the junior representative to make sure he behaves the way that's needed by the Establishment? Yeah, that's not fiction.
"Trust the Science" = Show blind faith in the commands of bureaucrats in the name of science, no matter how little scientific method is offered. Also, denigrate and shout down any perspectives heretical to The Science.
"Our democracy" is another phrase that has taken on a unique meaning. It's become similar to the way the Khmer Rouge renamed Cambodia "Democratic Kampuchea", North Korea is officially the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and so on.
Yeah, I've noticed that Turdeau perpetually kisses Xi's ***. His actions show him to be a puppet of the CCP. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? Is there anyone out there that does not think Turdeau is a puppet of the CCP?
Trudeau is a puppet of the WEF. The WEF want to control the rest of the world in the same way China controls their own people. China is the blueprint for what the WEF is bringing to the rest of us. It's why they use Australia as the pilot zone for all the new ideas.
“Democracy” is now the action of complying with approved ideals and principles, conforming to the rules set by the elite. You are “saving democracy” if you “vote” for the acceptable candidate and follow the approved script.
Do you seriously believe that voting for Trump or pro-Trump candidates (and most GOP candidates for lower offices at least claim to be pro-Trump) “furthers democracy?”
Trump could give two shits about “democracy” or whatever you want to call the traditional form of American governance.
So yeah, at the moment, most of the candidates even vaguely likely to “further democracy” are Democrats.
Are you replying to me? Because I didn’t say anything about the T.
I’m sorry to expose reality, but in the current environment, any contrarian to the establishment, — to the approved narrative, to textbook academia, to Dems — is labeled “anti-democratic”, or “racist”, etc.
Why is Robert F Kennedy Jr. being shut out of the Dem political process? Why did Bernie get sidelined, twice? Why are the Dems not holding a primary? Why did doctors and nurses lose their jobs and platforms for critiquing the FDA, CDC, and even Biden?
Please explain the “democracy” in censorship? Dems political shutouts?
Hate them as you wish, but the R’s and Libertarians are not locking out or censoring those that critique the establishment.
“Why are Dems not holding a primary?” — the Dems will be holding a primary or a caucus in every state. I have no idea where you got the idea there won’t be a Democratic primary.
RFK, Jr. is being “shut out” of the Democratic party’s “political process” because a.) he’s an unelectable nutcase, and b.) the way political parties work in general is that the party has some control over which candidates it supports — what’s wrong with that?
“Why did Bernie get sidelined?” Bernie failed to win in the primaries. Winning in the primaries is a prerequisite to becoming the party nominee. In other words, Bernie got “shut out” or “sidelined” because the voters didn’t vote for him. Yes, there’s evidence the national party favored Hillary, but again, parties are allowed to have favorites.
“Why did doctors and nurses lose their jobs and platforms for critiquing the FDA, CDC, and even Biden?” I don’t know about the specific cases you’re referring to. The most I can say is that, if privately employed doctors and nurses lost their jobs for critiquing those agencies and Biden, their job loss would have something to do with their employers’ policies, wouldn’t it?
There’s a well known phrase that describes the labeling of people as “racist” or “anti-Democratic” — the phrase is “free speech.” If I call you an “anti-Democratic racist,” that’s an opinion. I can call you those things because I’m allowed to express my opinion about your ideas, etc. You can respond by calling me a fucking idiot, and we can go on and on calling each other all kinds of things (just don’t talk shit about my mother) — surely you’re OK with free speech? Surely you’re OK with people having strongly held opinions that result in those people calling other people nasty names?
“Anything contrary to the approved narrative …..” are you serious? There’s a shitload of right-wing media and right-wing platforms that are doing just fine — thriving, in fact. Polls show Biden and Trump in a tight race. Clearly, people are not being tied down to an “approved narrative.” If you’re personally afraid to voice your opinions, that’s your issue. Don’t blame everyone else.
Language changes to meet the needs of those who use it. Besides attempting to describe things as they are or seem to be, some language needs to support lying, obfuscation, obscurantism, secrecy, misdirection, and so on.
If you believe that only the left misuses language to further a political agenda then I suggest you subject yourself to more right-wing media — both sides have been co-opting words to further (or obscure) political ends for a long time.
Incidentally, Orwell whose work keeps many of us anchored in our defence of freedom and autonomy is coming in for some subtle (soon to be less so), criticism . The Economist started it two weeks ago with a piece on the fact that like a lot of creatives of his time and class, he was a bit of a cad. He apparently had affairs and wasn’t very nice to his women. Expect him to be a candidate for wholesale re-appraisal, text modification and cancellation. That’s the way things work now.
Huxley was a member of the elite social engineering think tank 'The Fabian Society'. It was his eavesdropping on the elite's plans for future society (social engineering) that gave him the material for BNW. Orwell was his pupil at Eton (Huxley was a French teacher I think).
The two became friends and would argue about the 'flavour' of tyranny that would be imposed, with Huxley going for a more hedonistic, technology based tyranny and Orwell going for a more jackboots style tyranny. I think they were both right.
People often throw their arms up and say BNW (or 1984) were not supposed to be instruction manuals, but really that's what they are. They are works of fiction based on the elite's instruction manuals for how to engineer future society. They had it all mapped out even as far back as the 1930's.
They were not so much warning society as just telling us what was planned... much like the WEF does today with its cringe worthy promotional videos ("you will own nothing and be happy").
When did people stop reading, understanding, and fearing 1984? Perhaps they think that's a history lesson, maybe it needs to be republished as 2048 to give it currency.
"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.
For some reason the most recent allusion to it omitted the direct quotation, but I have long appreciated its succinct power and made sure everyone had seen it -- yet again.
"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."
if you build any tool that can be used as a doomsday device, there will never be a shortage of psychos that lust to push the buttons and pull the levers.
Exactly when was that 'used to be' that wasn't just a talking point of persuasion? The uniparty has always counted the known votes and allowed members from either side to vote in defiance just for their campaign record. Why just this year Congress voted to make vaccine records available so constituents could be reminded when their next jab was due.
Words are very powerful. Repetition of specific words and changing of defintions certainly help condition people over time to accept new norms that they wouldn't previosly otherwise accept.
This old trope? You keep troting it out but it gets just as sad each time.
The left, here in the US, refers to the left half of the political aisle. That there is no one with politics that you like is of no matter to the rest of us. We don't want any part of the European left either, not Natinal Socicalists nor Communists.
The "left," as you use it here, only refers to the left side of the aisle by the nubs who populate reactionary comment sections such the one where we are now all commenting...
...or Leftists, Marxists, Commies, Pinkos, Bolsheviks, Trotskyists, etc, = those who enjoy chortling at the numbskullery of the Conspiracy Theorists...
So this whole right-wing push to ban books from libraries is not censorship?
Florida legislating what teachers can say in front of their students is not censorship?
The Texas law that gives special protection to right-wing speech on social media platforms is not censorship?
Laws that dictate how public schools teach the history of race in the U.S. are not censorship?
The left has its problems with a creeping tendency toward shutting down speech. But it’s the GOP legislatures that are passing laws that directly regulate speech based on the content of the speech, which is classic hardcore censorship.
Am from the old-fashioned left where transparency in the original sense was a value along with fairness and equality. It all used to seem self-evident. Now all of us from that tradition are under attack by the right, tarred with the same brush as the new left who have betrayed our origins.
We are in the process of becoming CHyna..CCP was the wire frame developed with aid of CFR of Kissinger & Bereneskvy(?)..they helped Mao develop the cultural revolution..if ppl don’t open up their eyes it’s where we are heading..the reason they want smaller population it’s easier to control..Ppl in the West took Freedom for granted and it’s slipping out of their grasp..
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?
Maybe Orwell used that structure because it's easier to convince people that war will lead to peace and ignorance can be a strength than it is to convince them slavery is actually freedom. Better to diss freedom by positing that it is really slavery in disguise. Or something like that.
But they extole toiling ones life at a meaningless job day in day out as virtue “hard work” is “slave labor” more often than not just to keep their criminal machine running
I don’t think that state of affairs can be attributed to the government, although I do remember some old ante-bellum Southerners trying equate wage-slavery to their peculiar institution.
Keeps us plebes from having to think too deeply. Less words the better. And transparency is too long a word. I’m sure the majority can’t understand it.
I’ve heard that hypothesis before, and it is intriguing. Having read nearly every published word by Orwell, however, I find it difficult to believe his entire oeuvre is a lie, particularly when he may be more responsible than anyone else for alerting us to the warning signs of tyranny, propaganda, and linguistic manipulations, and it is only by awareness of those tactics that we can develop resilience to them.
I realize Aldous’s proximity to Julian makes him suspect, but I also feel it stretches credibility to believe the person who summoned people to resist the dictatorship of the future before it was too late was merely a tool of the perpetrators:
“They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions, and his physiology even, and so, making him actually love his slavery.… this is the danger that actually people may be, in some ways, happy under the new regime, but that they will be happy in situations where they oughtn’t to be happy.… That’s why I feel it so extremely important here and now, to start thinking about these problems. Not to let ourselves be taken by surprise by the new advances in technology.” (see longer excerpt and original interview in this piece: https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-the-german-bundestag)
Orwell also took a bullet through the throat fighting for socialism in Spain. It is unfortunate though that Animal Farm has become a darling of conservatives and liberals warning against socialism. Reading Animal Farm, to me, it seems like the pigs are actually capitalist oligarchs, getting everyone to labor for them.
Ive often thought "sci fi" is helping the masses understand their future before it happens. It seems to just keep coming true. Like AI now actually threatening mankind.
... in order not to provide a template for critical thought? But then, is it likely the author of “Politics and the English Language,” would be concerned with such matters?
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.
Mine shrieks every minute of every day at every sound coming from the lips of humans. I trust no one. My bride. I trust her. Otherwise...nah. Especially the tv and radio.
Actually I take it to mean the acquiescence of normal thinking humans to agree,or understand, and accept mental disorder as normal, acceptable behavior. Hence the "affirming" part. To affirm one's gender other than male or female,as proven by the genitalia they are born with, is an acceptance of insanity.
“Gender affirmation” is a form of therapy. Therapies tend to have names that make the therapy non-threatening to the person most likely to need that form of therapy. That’s hardly dystopian.
The name “gender affirming” is also appropriate and accurate, because the goal of the therapy is to help the person with doubts about their gender ultimately “affirm” a particular gender. That could mean affirming their biological sex, or it could mean affirming a different gender (or no gender).
We’re talking about a small percentage of the population, who are already the object of a disproportionate, shit-ton of hate. No need to pile on.
“Gender Affirmation” is medicalization of anyone that states they believe they are transgender. The goal is to medicalize and is based on a belief system. To state that one’s biological sex may be affirmed shows a lack of knowledge about the pharmaceutical and medical goals of this destructive treatment that forbids any psychotherapy that explores the source of gender dysphoria.
Gender Affirmation as terminology ignores this current medical atrocity and the financial incentives behind the trans agenda.
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.
Gosh I felt that way too after 911, W got what he wanted after scaring the shit out of all of us. Now? Nah, Covid opened my eyes to so much about the lies we’ve been told for all my life. Lived through the missile crisis, JFK, RObert Kennedy, MLK assassinations, Vietnam etc. I feel like a fool now.
Cheryl... I too have lived through the stuff you mention. It brings to mind the Who song... “we won’t get fooled again”!😉
I suppose it is up to those of us who have been polite out of “respectful” upbringings to put our feet down and call bullshit on the MSM; the 8% or so of the population that is responsible for 99% of the woke nonsense happening now, and the lying creeps that we’ve managed to put in office.
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.
It's OK as a first pass at subjects that are purely technical/engineering. I can use it to reliably find out the first year a Piper Cub was offered with an 85 hp engine, or the shear and compression properties of spruce plywood. Anything that is the slightest bit susceptible of having a political, economic, or sociocultural component, however...
Having driven from Minneapolis to Anchorage to Skagway to Fredericksburg in the summer/fall of 2002 -- I can guarantee you there are many Canadians to the right of anyone you would identify as a "conservative American logger." I'm a dyed-in-the-wool 2A supporter, but one of the guys I met in the Yukon scared the shit out of me.
Of course, it is the fear that gives them power. Freedom and fear are opposite ends of the same thing: belief. Life is short, but eternity lasts forever. Live free or die is not just a slogan, it is the truth. Free will makes it ours to choose each day.
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.
Oh no, it would have no chance. I can hear the Deep State-ufactured slogans now: “Only [white nationalists/terrorists/Trumpers/Russia-lovers] are curious about the inner-workings of government.”
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.
Good idea. I can try. Suggestions VERY welcome
"Educated"means indoctrinated. "Low-information" means independent-minded.
"Liberal" no longer means open to new ideas and opinions. That definition has changed to closed minded and believing totalitarian authority is fine.
It now means ‘Marxism’?
My opinion is that the Marxism and Communism definitions have also been changed to mean totalitarianism. They do all mean different things.
I also need to add that Socialism has also been redefined so that socialism for the big corporations is okay, but it's evil for us plebs.
The new big corporation formula is "Capitalism for profits, Socialism for losses".
OF course this means propaganda.
Rubbish. It's a man sitting on a fence.
Liberal and Leftist now mean that totalitarianism is OK, as long as they get free shit and abortions.
I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF MEN THINKING THAT THEY CAN TELL WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR FUCKING BODY!
I live near Idaho, a state that has outlawed abortions, and the women of Sandpoint do not have an OB/GYN because the OB/GYNs are leaving the state. If one of their patients needs a D&C because she had a miscarriage, the doctors won't touch her. They worry they can be charged with murder. The women of Sandpoint must travel 90 miles for fucking healthcare!
For people, in this day and age, to claim they should be able to choose a vaccine for themselves (of course to be allowed to be in charge of their own healthcare) but deny women the same fucking choice is absolutely in-fucking-sane!!!!
nobody gives a shit about your body but by conceiving you’ve forced a human being to live inside you.
If I buy a dog I can’t just legally kill the dog because “he can’t survive on his own without me and this is really dragging my life down, man.” I took on a responsibility. How much more serious is it when you create a life?
I don’t even know if I care if its legal or not, just women like you disgust me.
And I live right acrosss the state line and I am just as sick of idiots trying to take my rights away vis-a-vis firearms and freedom of speach. I moved here originally due to both abortions and guns being treated possitively, but alas. That said, the left doesn't seem to quite understand, or wont admit to themselves, that for a huge portion of the country, abortion is murder. That freedom of choice, so to speak, is nothing but cold blooded murder in their eyes, and is no different then a woman or man smothering their three year old. RvW did not change that in their eyes, and only delayed the debate, which we are now having. I am pro-choice, but I do understand what it means in many peoples eyes, and that happens to be more women then men.
For what it's worth the problem isn't men.
If all the men told all the women what to do, there wouldn't be enough of them to make it stick.
Women want to control your body, too.
Next topic: why do all the libruls want to make me wear a mask? I'm not a robber! My body, my choice!
Take a few deep breaths, Martha.
I don't believe you about doctors refusing to treat miscarriages. If it's true, the spineless MDs are to blame.
Women who find themselves negligently or accidentally pregnant, or who are impregnated by a rapist, have the so-called "morning after pill." This is true "autonomy" when it comes to pregnancy.
The trouble with aborting a fetus, a growing, sentient individual, is that women need to enlist a third-party to accomplish the deed. Furthermore, a growing child is not an "organ," nor is it a "parasite" or piece of "property" owned by the mother, so getting an abortion is not quite the exercise of autonomy you claim it is.
I have no problem with women killing their pregnancies, but everyone ought to stop rationalizing to save face or avoid guilt..
And BTW, the most "free shit" has been going to the mega Corp, like Amazon and Halliburton. So shut the fuck up.
I get along with the MAGA crowd until they pull out ignorant rants like yours.
Again, did I say WHERE the free shit was going? No. Did I ever at any point say I was a Trump supporter? No.
Speaking of ignorant, you sure as shit are showing it. But, please, keep talking.
I'm an actual leftist and the farthest thing from totalitarianist.
Now the capitalist pigs are going to charge me to shit? Outrageous!
You may be a man, but you are not upright.
You are right, I am sitting in a chair at this very moment.
In addition to “liberal” losing all meaning, so have “progressive” and even “left,” much to my chagrin. :/
The meaning of "hysterical" seems to soldier on, unchanged however.
"Left" hasn't meant the actual left to most people for at least half a century.
Liberals have always been like that though. "Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" is not a phrase invented yesterday.
Which is to say the left likes to play with words until they mean nothing, and can therefore be used to mean anything - and the reason is clear, as per Samir Ahmed's and Starry Gordon's references below:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
I think we know what and whom the left wants to be master -and it's never the people.
"Extremist" means anyone who disagrees in any way with progressive ideas. "Hate group" is any organization that actually has the audacity to organize and speak out against their progressive, authoritarian ideas.
"Extremist" and "radical" are applied to non-liberals, also, usually with some kind of right-wing label. In that context they mean anyone to the right of (or left of) said liberal.
Example: Mr. Taibbi is a right wing extremist now, I believe.
I think James Lindsay has a "woke" lexicon available.
I bet Jimmy does.
I thought "low-information" meant "stupid." Already a clash in meaning. A lexicon is most needed.
That's what they WANT us to think it means. What it really means is those who have not absorbed the groupthink as they want us all to.
Who is "they?"
Trans kids.
It ought to mean "uninformed" or "uneducated," which also means a person who could become informed or educated, presumably.
Now it's a failure of purity test and not an opportunity to convince.
Means people who watch Teevee and don't have to think?
"Low-information" means poorly informed moron.
Low info.........means too much TV
Educated means ...........college.
If you went to college 60 years ago, maybe.
A degree in Grievance Studies is not a guarantee - rather the reverse, if anything.
What?
I think that the point is that a college degree has become seriously devalued. I would concur. Having taught at a couple universities, I have become convinced that most people neither want nor need a (modern) college degree. There is extreme uniformity of thought on many or most campuses and expressing contrary opinions is now rather dangerous. It's quite sad. When I went to college, the diversity of thought was celebrated and encouraged, not scorned.
College curricula have become so diluted and there is so little emphasis on foundations, that the resulting degrees frequently have little value. The example of "grievance studies" is both amusing and accurate. The student has often learned very little of substance but has taken on enormous debt.
To finish the thought, a "college education" went from something relatively rare to a prerequisite for employment despite often having little direct relation. College became big business which has resulted in the union of colleges and the student loan industry. Rather than "canceling" student debt, Congress should pass a law so that a person can get out from under such an onerous burden via bankruptcy, which is currently prohibited. Colleges and universities enjoy a steady cash flow while not taking any risk for the financial burden incurred by students. Colleges and universities are under no requirement or compunction that students who take on this debt will likely be able to repay it. It's risk-free for the school and that is unfair; no business functions this way. Banks (are supposed to) ensure that the loans they issue are to parties who have the financial means to repay the loans. The pushing of home mortgages to unqualified buyers which resulted in the financial crisis of 2007 - 2009 is similar, except the colleges and universities have no risk in the affair. Digressing slightly, some savings-and-loans that engaged in such predatory practices were able to escape largely unscathed via federal seizure. I wonder what would happen to many schools. The story of Superior Bank of Chicago might be of interest.
A potentially relevant analogy is to look at the growth of university administration, not faculty, in comparison to the rate of increase of tuition.
Well, Jenn is well "educated."
"Ellen" means "reactionary."
Mine is fading. I had hoped I would not have to reorder. No such luck!
We developed this idea in a separate group after the London meeting. The idea was a "Dictionary of Dystopian Terms". A good opportunity to get this ball rolling.
And it doesn’t have to be only existing words given new meaning. Newly minted words like “malinformation” belong there too!
Everything in MSM is misinformation and malinformation! It’s ‘word fare’ and most politicians when speaking are using ‘wordsalad’!
actually it’s propaganda in disguise with a cyber dictionary
Yep. Propaganda=Misinformation.
Dictionary of Dystopian Terms, or DDT.
Devil’s Dictionary, Redux!
Additionally, Henry Beard, one of the founders of "National Lampoon" has written a relevant tome:
Spinglish: The Definitive Dictionary of Deliberately Deceptive Language (with Christopher Cerf) (2015)
Awesome! Ambrose Bierce would approve.
Dug a bit deeper and found that Beard was prescient in recognizing the market back in 1992!
"The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Official_Politically_Correct_Dictionary_and_Handbook
Why is it unsurprising that a founder and former editor of National Lampoon would see the opportunity?
"Woke", "Politically Correct", and the like: as with life, with labels, what is old is new again.
Holy crap does this book sound funny! I bought it. Matt's commenters are among the smartest I read. My mom bought me a subscription to National Lampoon when I was in high school in the early 80s and it was amazing. Thank you for the recommendation.
Excellent piece Matt. Elena Louise Lange read my thoughts. I uttered to myself ‘War is Peace...etc. The bare faced bending of noble concepts and rights to the interests of the power elite is chilling. We need to track it and both a glossary of the terms and ensure that we counter-explain. It would also be a great Christmas present if you guys could put together a book on what you have uncovered from what are not to be known as the X files.
"The New User's Guide to Doublespeak"
Publishing a thinking-person’s Guide to American Newspeak would be a cool project ;)
Equity
Diversity
Insurrection
Racist
Bigot
Fairness
Border
Rule of Law
Justice
...shall we continue?
(edit... I forgot my favorite: LITERALLY)
I think you want a Wiki, a form which can support multiple opinions. Those who pervert language often seem to like the practice itself, so they continue to produce new jargon. It might also be good to allow for source identification.
James Lindsay has already completed much of this.
Just to add a couple:
National security
Vital interests
“Democrat”
I'm particularly fond of that last one myself.
"Trust the Science™" means "believe the propaganda"
"Conspiracy Theorist" means "free thinker" (see also "open minded" or "scientist")
"Fascist" means "Conservative"
"Anti-Racist" means "racist"
"Misinformation" means "truth"
and "Transparency" is "policing of thought"
Analogous to George Carlin's comparison of flammable and inflammable, we might note that equity and inequity now mean the same thing! Maybe we need a new word!
However, though arguably parallel to Carlin's example, "nonequity" definitely does not have the right ring to it!
Other than “anti-racist,” all of the words on your list mean what they’ve always meant. I’m excepting “anti-racist” because the meaning you have in mind — description of people who would like to exclude race from most conversations — isn’t in common usage yet.
What’s actually happened is that whackadoodle conspiracy theorizing has moved from the fringe to the mainstream, so now the phrase conspiracy theorist (unfortunately) describes a larger group of people.
Ordinary Republicans have become more openly fascist, so again, the word “fascist” is being used to describe more than just a fringe group. But they’re still fascists.
“Misinformation” has always been a relativistic term. There isn’t any widespread conspiracy afoot to rebrand true statements as “misinformation.” It’s just an over-used term.
I don’t know where you’ve seen “transparency” being widely used to mean “policing of thought.” In Taibbi’s article, yeah, some petty authoritarian misuses the word to support government invasion of privacy — that’s one guy.
As far as people who’d like to eliminate discussion of race calling themselves “anti-racists,” that’s a ridiculous stretch of “anti-racist.” A lot of political and social topics in America have to involve a discussion of race. People who reject that idea probably are at some level racists.
That ignores that both political parties are neofascist. And I don't just mean things like Democrats building concentration camps and then blaming Republicans
I mean corporate capture of both parties, thus the government. When business and government co-rule us all, that's fascism.
Read Eco's essay again. It's striking how much the greater and the lesser of two evils of politics operate in that way.
https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
"What’s actually happened is that whackadoodle conspiracy theorizing has moved from the fringe to the mainstream..."
Agree.
Incidentally, do you believe Trump is a Russian Asset? Do you believe he recommended we ingest Bleach?
No, I don’t think Trump is a “Russian asset” in the sense that he’s got some direct tie to Russia or that he favors particular policies because he has a secret pro-Russia agenda.
I do think Trump admires strongmen and authoritarians, and that makes him susceptible to misunderstanding Russia’s aims, and under-estimating Russia’s authoritarian goals.
His bleach speech was pretty nutty. I’m not sure what he was trying to say. I haven’t gone back and listened to it recently, but my memory is that a lot of media interpreted Trump’s disjointedness to mean that he was advocating drinking or injecting bleach, when he was probably just (for lack of a better term) babbling nonsense. I think Trump is not widely educated, but I don’t think he’s stupid enough to believe that drinking or injecting bleach is a good idea.
> he’s got some direct tie to Russia or that he favors particular policies because he has a secret pro-Russia agenda
I haven't read Le Carre (how do I do the accent here?) in a while, but I think that's a limited definition of asset. Trump may well be an asset of several agencies, but I don't think he is willingly doing their bidding. He's too egotistical for that!
The bleach thing was clearly a metaphor. But whenever anyone gets one over on Trump, he's going to hit back harder. (If Obama hadn't embarrassed him at the Nat Press Club dinner, he'd never have been President! Not that Trump didn't deserve embarrassing.)
If the MSM combed every "disjointedness" from Biden with such intensity, I can't imagine what he's really saying. Signaling to someone by walking the wrong way off of stages? What wonderful "Biden spycraft!" We all assumed he was a doddering fool, but he was publicly signaling the enemy!
Trump tries to seem street but went to a private school, then an Ivy. He got his MBA from an Ivy. His uncle was a professor at MIT, who thought Don was smart. He was no slouch.
I absolutely loathe Trump and Biden and would love to chain them together and throw them off a tall building. Don't take any of this as partisan, please.
Homeless means dereliction.
Would love to contribute. Here's a start: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-coin-a-term-part-2
words that have lost meaning or meaning now obscured:
1. Sustainability: Used whenever they want to obscure policy details and outcomes
2. Harm-reduction- deliberate creation of harms for citizenry that live in and around areas where "harm reduction" policies are enacted
Racist: applied now only to populations that are : "minorities" and only when the application is in service of obliterating discussion
3. Stakeholders: minority of individuals that may hold some quality required to be included in the conversation, but more often are bureaucrats and NGO higher ups that proport to speak for the entire "community" while obviously avoiding those voices within the "community" that do not hold the dogmatic, victimhood narrative.
4. Community: see above
5. Hate speech- speech that does not conform to the narrative of the "stakeholders", never well defined, inclusive of any word or phrase that falls outside the approved doctrine.
Its obviously incomplete, and requires more thought and editing, but a start?
"Stakeholder" means any organization (usually a large mega-corp) who bribes the Electeds to make laws that allow them to fuck over the People. That's the real definition.
"Reproductive health care." Could be a whole chapter. Coining a phrase that stands for hurting the human race in many, many ways. Sad.
Along with “sustainability” there is “green” and “renewable.” All meaningless.
add also: Migrant, Immigrant, inclusion/inclusive, compassionate,
extreme/extremist...
I been asking for something along the idea of a "Censorship Industrial Complex for Dummies" type standalone website that succcintly lays out the basic story, structure and revelations of the Twitter Files etc. or something similar.
the problem I have when trying to discuss this major issue with family and friends is that it sounds too conspiritorial (cuz it is), but unfortunately the Google search results throw back the huge nothing burger narrative surrounding the Twitter Files. Wikipedia is the same. if we had the basic story up somewhere with links and documentation, it might go a long way into helping people understand and wake up.
we can't rely on Google search results or the MSM to be the first and last voice on this topic...
One suggestion: use Duck Duck Go or some other non-distorting search engine rather than Google, and encourage friends and family to do the same.
When I first came to the US we were staying in a Hotel while we went through buying a house.
My son got cut in the swimming pool and I asked for an elastoplast........no it was a Band Aid in the US. IF an English person asked for a Hoover to clean up some mess..............NO. It is a vaccum cleaner.
Then i realised that although people spoke English in the US it was full of words I had never heard. This was OK with me I learned.
I am a wordsmith and love how words change and can co-exist in English speaking countrys.
These are my daily go-to sites and the ones I recommend to friends and family (if asked.) :) Every one of these independent journalists is a self-professed leftist/Democrat (or former leftist/Democrat) which MIGHT lend them some credibility to those still following legacy media exclusively. Brownstone Institute came to exist during the Covid era, and is self-described as non-partisan.).
public.substack.com (Michael Shellenberger)
racket.news (Matt Taibbi)
thefp.com (Bari Weiss)
sashastone.substack.com (Sasha Stone)
brownstone.org (read the "About Brownstone" section)
I would add Russel Brand on Rumble and Glenn Greenwald
YES!
I agree those are great and I use them myself, however I can't ask my shit lib friends to pay 10 bucks a month to sort thru hundreds of back posts to sus out the story. everyone is too lazy these days.
we need a standalone website that lays out the whole damn mess with links to further invesigation and substacks etc...
I agree. I would completely support a "standalone website that lays out the whole damn mess" - but in the meantime I continue to read, promote, and support as many of these independent journalists/writers as I can afford. Sadly, most of the people I would most like to "reach" are not open to reading or hearing these dissenting views - all have been labeled "right wing extremists" by legacy media.
The Brownstone Institute! Helmed and orchestrated by Jeffrey Tucker, the Pee Wee Herman of Bitcoin touts? One of Ron "Skipjack" Paul's heavily valorized former valets and lunch-date organizer for "Sweet" Lew Rockwell?
Self-described "anarcho-capitalist" and Covid-19 propagandist extraordinaire? Blockchain mouth-breather and inveterate joiner of all manner of libertarian and far-out and far-right clubs and societies? Former publicist for Neo-Confederates and White Supremacists? Not THIS Jeffrey Tucker?
Hmmm. Guess Brownstone is also tagged as “right wing extremist.” I encourage anyone to check them out themselves and to then decide if they are not what they claim to be - bipartisan seekers of truth.
"Bipartisan seekers of truth." Yes, and I am the King of both Scotland and England, thrice removed...
Personal privacy, which was once interpreted by the Supreme Court as being implied by the Constitution/Bill of Rights, and was at the center of decisions like Roe v. Wade, has now been made a dirty word in many quarters, especially the new-look Democrats, but including some self-described "leftists," mostly of the phony laptop variety, who've decided that any concepts from liberalism are outdated, fraught, or at odds with the ultimate governmental power they desire.
The concepts of both privacy and transparency have been twisted and perverted, and they're in concert with one another.
There's a clip of Biden — as candidate — in this Reason interview on Missouri v. Biden with Jay Bhattacharya and his lawyer that I hadn't heard where he's demanding the repeal of Section 230, and demanding all social media companies be treated essentially as newspapers, and he claims it's "for privacy," like the Europeans have. (At around 51:15) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9nrlw5OLx4
Now, I would understand anti-trust legislation against some of these entities, and privacy laws that would limit or stop surveillance capitalism. But why would treating social media like newspapers, which would almost guarantee they'd become permanent monopolies, and shut most normal people out of the internet for good, and/or allow the government to violate their privacy at will (transparency!), have to do with people's personal privacy? Nothing, because it's actually violative of people's privacy. This is as incoherent as everything else that's come out of that man's mouth, when he's not looking and sounding lost like he's suffering full-blown dementia, that is.
Treating social media like newspapers would not “almost guaranty” that social media would have a permanent monopoly (if that’s what you meant). If that were the case, the social media platforms would be clamoring for repeal of Section 230, and they’re not (in fact, the SM platforms favor keeping Section 230 protections).
And, repealing Section 230 might indeed protect personal privacy, because it would open the social media platforms up to being sued for invasion of privacy and defamation. Section 230 essentially insulates social media platforms from suit for the various torts know as “invasion of privacy,” as well as for defamation.
I’m not personally in favor of repealing Section 230. I’m just pointing out that your argument makes no sense.
Actually Facebook is in favor of conditional Section 230 reform. Quoth Herr Lex Zuckerberg himself: “Instead of being granted immunity, platforms should be required to demonstrate that they have systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it." In other words, he thinks Section 230 should be revoked/reformed except for companies that have the near-unlimited resources for censorshi...um, "content moderation," i.e. Facebook.
So called anti-monopolist Elizabeth Warren even said something of this nature, that companies like Meta and Alphabet are the only companies that can censor at the scale she requires, so she's fine repealing Section 230 and essentially permanently entrenching them as monopolies if they get rid of the info she doesn't like. And if they make sure the government has an (illegal) censor button through the back door at all times. The House dragging the CEOs of these companies in to give them "sure would be a shame if you didn't censor and we had to take away your protections" spiel is part of this.
You see where this would essentially make smaller competitors, who don't have the billions in lawyers' fees and content moderation unable to ever enter the fray? I personally think that this is the goal: to have Meta and Apple and Alphabet be gifted the internet and close it to smaller/normal folks for good. I like the idea of smaller, fragmented, specialized social media sites with hundreds of thousands of users as opposed to billions, but Section 230 reform would stop that from happening.
Treating internet companies with over a billion users that have zero connections to the company as a whole as if they're a newspaper with maybe 100 hundred staff and freelance writers is just crazy. I can certainly see the arguments for some level of reform for companies heavily using algorithms as if they're a sort of editor — although I'm becoming more sympathetic to Jack Dorsey's idea of having benevolent, open-source algorithms run the show and take censor power out of human hands altogether — but Section 230 reform as currently discussed would give Zuck a permanent monopoly. Trust me, he wants it, and the government wants to give it to him.
We've seen Jen Psaki say that the White House was speaking to cell phone providers about censoring vaccine misinformation in people's personal text messages (!), so I'd assume that would be next. Tech needs to stay libertarian, or it's going to be over quick.
(As an aside: an act of the government, like a guarantee of privacy amendment, to make tech's selling of private information illegal or voluntary would be fine, but it doesn't need to be tethered to Section 230.)
From https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/25/groups-urge-lawmakers-against-gutting-section-230-big-tech-ceos-testify:
"Fight for the Future director Evan Greer, responding to testimony from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg--who, along with Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, addressed the House Energy and Commerce Committee Thursday--said Zuckerberg's support for reforming 230 was not surprising.
'Of course Facebook wants to see changes to Section 230. Because they know it will simply serve to solidify their monopoly power and crush competition from smaller and more decentralized platforms,' said Greer.
'Facebook can afford the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that will be needed to navigate a world where Section 230 is gutted or weakened,' she added, 'And they've shown repeatedly that they don't care about the impact that Section 230 changes could have on the human rights or freedom of expression of marginalized people--they are happy to sanitize your news feed and suppress content en masse in order to avoid liability or respond to public criticism.'
Greer urged lawmakers to 'take actual steps to address the harms of Big Tech, like passing strong federal data privacy legislation, enforcing antitrust laws, and targeting harmful business practices like microtargeting and nontransparent algorithmic manipulation.'"
Every historical record known, reveals that the inability of those in possession of immense wealth, to accept the consequences of their own hubris, leads to cataclysmic disaster for the world around them. We've long departed the political and are squarely in the realm of the pathological. The entire narrative, as currently manufactured, is totalitarian 20th Century retro. As proof, I point to the inclusion of the Atomic bomb in the list of optional solutions to a war self-serving greed and corruption created. The obvious ineptitude, willingness to openly lie, the venality of every action, and current attempts to hold the future hostage to repression and fear says clearly, that the newly born consciousness of this age and the genuine possibility it holds for mankind, is beyond the limits of the would be world aristocracy to steward.
It is time to speak to disease not symptom. The opinion of many today, is that a cabal of Globalist financiers is attempting to impose a CCP style surveillance apparatus on the free peoples of the world. Reports of the EU/WEF assault on the peoples of Europe more than confirm the reality. It's happening there. And it's happening here. The conversation needs to be both American and global. The perps certainly operate that way.
Americans need a clear understanding of the depth, corruption and capture of elected American political leadership and the creation of workable solutions for its ouster. Tax dollars should not be funneled to groups, individuals and institutions planning the overthrow of the Republic. The use of poseur social concern as a means for the tax dollar funding of groups intent on our destruction must stop. American elected representation put in place by Soros/Davos dollars identified and removed. There has to be a clear line of demarcation for each American as an individual. Only truth/fact can create a place to stand. We need political and financial baseball style player cards reports that present a factual bio for each individual player. The CIC graphic was hard work extraordinary. The only clear frame of reference is obviously the Republic and the Constitution. "Ism's" are dead as a door nail.
You know, Assange and Snowden are object lessons aimed at us all. Heads on a pike above the castle wall. For the last two centuries, all there has ever been, up, down and sideways is the Constitution, the Republic and the citizen. Look at Schwab in the video. Or, any member of the billionaire WEF/DNC/CCP. Globalist fascists destroying lives and economies while calling for the repression of free speech and imprisonment. They've wrecked and looted everything they've touched. Salvation is the survival of the Republic and the Constitution. The rest is smoke and mirrors. If they stand. We stand.
Truth matters. The general response to the Twitter file report and the reaction of the DNC in particular says we can win. But we need clarity. The American psyche has been subsumed and damaged by a manufactured hyperreality emanating from an immoral low ground birthed and bulwarked by an expedient lie. Truth is indeed, freedom.
https://science1arts2and3politics.substack.com/p/the-orwellization-of-words
My fave is the brand new "aggressively neutral," used to justify the imprisonment of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan.
We need social credit scores.... for politicians.
The way we fight back is simple. It’s not easy, but it is simple. It starts with swarming. A new kind of technology where we can make our own decentralized and transparent systems separated from government and plug them into the existing corrupted ones.
Swarming isn’t fully developed yet. It isn’t trustworthy enough to scale up for large swarms yet. But it will be soon.
If you really want to fight back, learn about swarming, decentralization, and transparent systems (not transparency for individuals like good ol Klaus is suggesting here)
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/human-swarm-intelligence-the-most?r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
No we don't. I spent two sessions doing volunteer lobbying in my Statehouse. What I found: every single one of the Electeds are dickheads with a monetary agenda. And if they aren't snakes going in, they find their dickheaded-ness once in office.
Ever see "House of Cards" where they blackmail the junior representative to make sure he behaves the way that's needed by the Establishment? Yeah, that's not fiction.
Fringe
Means "supported by a majority who know they will be cancelled if they say so."
Election definition: a ritual used to enforce a myth (posted on another SS in the past by Aldous Huxtable).
A "woman" is now a biological male who fights other biological women in MMA and cracks their skulls.
"Trust the Science" = Show blind faith in the commands of bureaucrats in the name of science, no matter how little scientific method is offered. Also, denigrate and shout down any perspectives heretical to The Science.
"Our democracy" is another phrase that has taken on a unique meaning. It's become similar to the way the Khmer Rouge renamed Cambodia "Democratic Kampuchea", North Korea is officially the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and so on.
Patriotism is another word too.
Canada is now CCP.. ‘CanadaCommunistParty!
Yeah, I've noticed that Turdeau perpetually kisses Xi's ***. His actions show him to be a puppet of the CCP. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? Is there anyone out there that does not think Turdeau is a puppet of the CCP?
Trudeau is a puppet of the WEF. The WEF want to control the rest of the world in the same way China controls their own people. China is the blueprint for what the WEF is bringing to the rest of us. It's why they use Australia as the pilot zone for all the new ideas.
Ha!
...mis/dis-information, meaning if it does not agree with the bafflegarb the government puts out. Those two words are really getting some b-time use!
“Democracy” is now the action of complying with approved ideals and principles, conforming to the rules set by the elite. You are “saving democracy” if you “vote” for the acceptable candidate and follow the approved script.
Do you seriously believe that voting for Trump or pro-Trump candidates (and most GOP candidates for lower offices at least claim to be pro-Trump) “furthers democracy?”
Trump could give two shits about “democracy” or whatever you want to call the traditional form of American governance.
So yeah, at the moment, most of the candidates even vaguely likely to “further democracy” are Democrats.
Are you replying to me? Because I didn’t say anything about the T.
I’m sorry to expose reality, but in the current environment, any contrarian to the establishment, — to the approved narrative, to textbook academia, to Dems — is labeled “anti-democratic”, or “racist”, etc.
Why is Robert F Kennedy Jr. being shut out of the Dem political process? Why did Bernie get sidelined, twice? Why are the Dems not holding a primary? Why did doctors and nurses lose their jobs and platforms for critiquing the FDA, CDC, and even Biden?
Please explain the “democracy” in censorship? Dems political shutouts?
Hate them as you wish, but the R’s and Libertarians are not locking out or censoring those that critique the establishment.
“Why are Dems not holding a primary?” — the Dems will be holding a primary or a caucus in every state. I have no idea where you got the idea there won’t be a Democratic primary.
RFK, Jr. is being “shut out” of the Democratic party’s “political process” because a.) he’s an unelectable nutcase, and b.) the way political parties work in general is that the party has some control over which candidates it supports — what’s wrong with that?
“Why did Bernie get sidelined?” Bernie failed to win in the primaries. Winning in the primaries is a prerequisite to becoming the party nominee. In other words, Bernie got “shut out” or “sidelined” because the voters didn’t vote for him. Yes, there’s evidence the national party favored Hillary, but again, parties are allowed to have favorites.
“Why did doctors and nurses lose their jobs and platforms for critiquing the FDA, CDC, and even Biden?” I don’t know about the specific cases you’re referring to. The most I can say is that, if privately employed doctors and nurses lost their jobs for critiquing those agencies and Biden, their job loss would have something to do with their employers’ policies, wouldn’t it?
There’s a well known phrase that describes the labeling of people as “racist” or “anti-Democratic” — the phrase is “free speech.” If I call you an “anti-Democratic racist,” that’s an opinion. I can call you those things because I’m allowed to express my opinion about your ideas, etc. You can respond by calling me a fucking idiot, and we can go on and on calling each other all kinds of things (just don’t talk shit about my mother) — surely you’re OK with free speech? Surely you’re OK with people having strongly held opinions that result in those people calling other people nasty names?
“Anything contrary to the approved narrative …..” are you serious? There’s a shitload of right-wing media and right-wing platforms that are doing just fine — thriving, in fact. Polls show Biden and Trump in a tight race. Clearly, people are not being tied down to an “approved narrative.” If you’re personally afraid to voice your opinions, that’s your issue. Don’t blame everyone else.
Are you thinking beyond the chart that Shellenberger has compiled? (Not sure if Taibbi was in on it.)
Or are you thinking of evolution and devolution of words?
I ask because I find the decay of language to be in the top five indicators of societal decline.
Language changes to meet the needs of those who use it. Besides attempting to describe things as they are or seem to be, some language needs to support lying, obfuscation, obscurantism, secrecy, misdirection, and so on.
Let's add "conspiracy theorist" to describe anyone who questions authority
Conspiracy theorist now just means "ahead of the curve," or "knows the truth about to release 18 months from now."
...or "more than 50% of Racket News commenters."
Fortunately DICKHEAD still defines people like you.
I feel left out. What do I have to do to get called a Dickhead?
Don't forget the word "democratic" itself, which now means something like "tending to enable the permanent rule of ideologically vetted elites".
"Literally Hitler" means nothing close to Hitler.
"Existential threat," means Sam Harris's latest fever dream.
Somewhat related, “cishet” in some circles now is shorthand for “literally Hitler.”
I completely agree. We need to track these verbal subversions.
Great idea. They seem to invert and undermine nearly every old definition. Science just means whatever government agencies say. Etc.
Could include terms of art, like Russiagate's 'sowing discord', or Caitlin Johnstone's take on 'unprovoked attack.'
If you believe that only the left misuses language to further a political agenda then I suggest you subject yourself to more right-wing media — both sides have been co-opting words to further (or obscure) political ends for a long time.
Yes..it would help to pay attention to these ‘words’ misuse..like..’diverse & sustainability?
Incidentally, Orwell whose work keeps many of us anchored in our defence of freedom and autonomy is coming in for some subtle (soon to be less so), criticism . The Economist started it two weeks ago with a piece on the fact that like a lot of creatives of his time and class, he was a bit of a cad. He apparently had affairs and wasn’t very nice to his women. Expect him to be a candidate for wholesale re-appraisal, text modification and cancellation. That’s the way things work now.
Huxley was a member of the elite social engineering think tank 'The Fabian Society'. It was his eavesdropping on the elite's plans for future society (social engineering) that gave him the material for BNW. Orwell was his pupil at Eton (Huxley was a French teacher I think).
The two became friends and would argue about the 'flavour' of tyranny that would be imposed, with Huxley going for a more hedonistic, technology based tyranny and Orwell going for a more jackboots style tyranny. I think they were both right.
People often throw their arms up and say BNW (or 1984) were not supposed to be instruction manuals, but really that's what they are. They are works of fiction based on the elite's instruction manuals for how to engineer future society. They had it all mapped out even as far back as the 1930's.
They were not so much warning society as just telling us what was planned... much like the WEF does today with its cringe worthy promotional videos ("you will own nothing and be happy").
When did people stop reading, understanding, and fearing 1984? Perhaps they think that's a history lesson, maybe it needs to be republished as 2048 to give it currency.
"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.
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
I have been quoting that particular passage on comment boards for years - and years.
For some reason the most recent allusion to it omitted the direct quotation, but I have long appreciated its succinct power and made sure everyone had seen it -- yet again.
"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."
What happened was the liberals got the whip hand.
Gift-wrapped for them by Bush and the neocons.
And Bush’s neocons have now basically joined the Democratic Party.
my point made elsewhere. someone show me that tis was not the plan all along.
if you build any tool that can be used as a doomsday device, there will never be a shortage of psychos that lust to push the buttons and pull the levers.
Power is to sociopaths what catnip is to cats, except that sociopaths are the last people who should have power, while catnip is basically harmless.
That the Bush era neocons seamlessly shifted to Team D is most instructive.
The military is in charge.
Exactly when was that 'used to be' that wasn't just a talking point of persuasion? The uniparty has always counted the known votes and allowed members from either side to vote in defiance just for their campaign record. Why just this year Congress voted to make vaccine records available so constituents could be reminded when their next jab was due.
🛎️
Talk of liberalism was a tactic, not a principle.
Inversion is at the heart of clown world.
Words are very powerful. Repetition of specific words and changing of defintions certainly help condition people over time to accept new norms that they wouldn't previosly otherwise accept.
Remeber that Laurie Anderson song, "Language is a Virus"? Elites can frame words that work to their benefit and change the way we think.
I was not familiar with the song, but just watched the music video on YouTube. What a blast from the past. She nailed it!
Yes, I think so, too.
Loved the “body snatchers “ clip ! OMG 😱👽🤬
What 'left?'
This old trope? You keep troting it out but it gets just as sad each time.
The left, here in the US, refers to the left half of the political aisle. That there is no one with politics that you like is of no matter to the rest of us. We don't want any part of the European left either, not Natinal Socicalists nor Communists.
The "left," as you use it here, only refers to the left side of the aisle by the nubs who populate reactionary comment sections such the one where we are now all commenting...
EVERBODY HUSH, THE FERRETT SPEAKS.
Ferret," by the way---not "ferrett."
Salutations from a "hob" to a "nub."
...or Leftists, Marxists, Commies, Pinkos, Bolsheviks, Trotskyists, etc, = those who enjoy chortling at the numbskullery of the Conspiracy Theorists...
As those are all covered by the "left side of the aisle", I can only assume that you don't quite understand reading yet.
Numbskull indeed.
So this whole right-wing push to ban books from libraries is not censorship?
Florida legislating what teachers can say in front of their students is not censorship?
The Texas law that gives special protection to right-wing speech on social media platforms is not censorship?
Laws that dictate how public schools teach the history of race in the U.S. are not censorship?
The left has its problems with a creeping tendency toward shutting down speech. But it’s the GOP legislatures that are passing laws that directly regulate speech based on the content of the speech, which is classic hardcore censorship.
Am from the old-fashioned left where transparency in the original sense was a value along with fairness and equality. It all used to seem self-evident. Now all of us from that tradition are under attack by the right, tarred with the same brush as the new left who have betrayed our origins.
Don't mistake Liberals as Left. Classic Liberals are actually conservative in every sense of the word.
We are in the process of becoming CHyna..CCP was the wire frame developed with aid of CFR of Kissinger & Bereneskvy(?)..they helped Mao develop the cultural revolution..if ppl don’t open up their eyes it’s where we are heading..the reason they want smaller population it’s easier to control..Ppl in the West took Freedom for granted and it’s slipping out of their grasp..
And I see Soman Chainani's SCHOOL FOR GOOD AND EVIL is now a movie.
They are all but openly parroting Humpty Dumpty at this point.
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
Maybe Orwell used that structure because it's easier to convince people that war will lead to peace and ignorance can be a strength than it is to convince them slavery is actually freedom. Better to diss freedom by positing that it is really slavery in disguise. Or something like that.
Yes, that’s basically it, I think. If I recall correctly, the state doesn’t actually extoll slavery as a virtue, unlike war and ignorance.
But they extole toiling ones life at a meaningless job day in day out as virtue “hard work” is “slave labor” more often than not just to keep their criminal machine running
I don’t think that state of affairs can be attributed to the government, although I do remember some old ante-bellum Southerners trying equate wage-slavery to their peculiar institution.
Great insight, Leah!
Keeps us plebes from having to think too deeply. Less words the better. And transparency is too long a word. I’m sure the majority can’t understand it.
Brave New World and 1984 were nothing more than predictive programming for the masses:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-brave-new-world-of-1984-part
I’ve heard that hypothesis before, and it is intriguing. Having read nearly every published word by Orwell, however, I find it difficult to believe his entire oeuvre is a lie, particularly when he may be more responsible than anyone else for alerting us to the warning signs of tyranny, propaganda, and linguistic manipulations, and it is only by awareness of those tactics that we can develop resilience to them.
I realize Aldous’s proximity to Julian makes him suspect, but I also feel it stretches credibility to believe the person who summoned people to resist the dictatorship of the future before it was too late was merely a tool of the perpetrators:
“They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions, and his physiology even, and so, making him actually love his slavery.… this is the danger that actually people may be, in some ways, happy under the new regime, but that they will be happy in situations where they oughtn’t to be happy.… That’s why I feel it so extremely important here and now, to start thinking about these problems. Not to let ourselves be taken by surprise by the new advances in technology.” (see longer excerpt and original interview in this piece: https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-the-german-bundestag)
Chilling
Orwell also took a bullet through the throat fighting for socialism in Spain. It is unfortunate though that Animal Farm has become a darling of conservatives and liberals warning against socialism. Reading Animal Farm, to me, it seems like the pigs are actually capitalist oligarchs, getting everyone to labor for them.
You are too kind to this mist
(Clumsy fingers today. To continue) ...this mistaken view of what Orwell was about.
And then there are those Huxley/CIA rumors.
I haven't heard that. Interesting.
Ive often thought "sci fi" is helping the masses understand their future before it happens. It seems to just keep coming true. Like AI now actually threatening mankind.
Scary shit. Glad I've lived a long life
Bullshit. Does no one read to the end?
Arbeit Macht Frei. You forgot that one!
Perhaps Orwell was pointing out the way in which totalitarian societies eschew logical thinking, in ord
... in order not to provide a template for critical thought? But then, is it likely the author of “Politics and the English Language,” would be concerned with such matters?
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.
I, too, have a BS detector. It shrieks on the occasions I watch TV news and listen to an insurance company representative.
Mine shrieks every minute of every day at every sound coming from the lips of humans. I trust no one. My bride. I trust her. Otherwise...nah. Especially the tv and radio.
The Left has a lot of success brainwashing by simply renaming things.
Like "gender affirmation" which of course means changing one's biological gender.
Actually I take it to mean the acquiescence of normal thinking humans to agree,or understand, and accept mental disorder as normal, acceptable behavior. Hence the "affirming" part. To affirm one's gender other than male or female,as proven by the genitalia they are born with, is an acceptance of insanity.
What a fucked up question. You a tranny, low priced almost worthless gem?
Are you prepared, devoalan, to go "full transparent" with your own genitalia?
If Devoalan went “full transparent” with his genitalia, no one would notice (I’m pretty sure this commenter is a guy).
“Gender affirmation” is a form of therapy. Therapies tend to have names that make the therapy non-threatening to the person most likely to need that form of therapy. That’s hardly dystopian.
The name “gender affirming” is also appropriate and accurate, because the goal of the therapy is to help the person with doubts about their gender ultimately “affirm” a particular gender. That could mean affirming their biological sex, or it could mean affirming a different gender (or no gender).
We’re talking about a small percentage of the population, who are already the object of a disproportionate, shit-ton of hate. No need to pile on.
“Gender Affirmation” is medicalization of anyone that states they believe they are transgender. The goal is to medicalize and is based on a belief system. To state that one’s biological sex may be affirmed shows a lack of knowledge about the pharmaceutical and medical goals of this destructive treatment that forbids any psychotherapy that explores the source of gender dysphoria.
Gender Affirmation as terminology ignores this current medical atrocity and the financial incentives behind the trans agenda.
Thanks for moronsplaining.
No problem. I know you depend on moronsplaining, happy to help out.
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.
100%. Chilling.
I am afraid. This whole subject scares the hell out of me.
Gosh I felt that way too after 911, W got what he wanted after scaring the shit out of all of us. Now? Nah, Covid opened my eyes to so much about the lies we’ve been told for all my life. Lived through the missile crisis, JFK, RObert Kennedy, MLK assassinations, Vietnam etc. I feel like a fool now.
Cheryl... I too have lived through the stuff you mention. It brings to mind the Who song... “we won’t get fooled again”!😉
I suppose it is up to those of us who have been polite out of “respectful” upbringings to put our feet down and call bullshit on the MSM; the 8% or so of the population that is responsible for 99% of the woke nonsense happening now, and the lying creeps that we’ve managed to put in office.
“Beware the patient man”...
Precisely.
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."
“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism because it is the merger of State and Corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini
99% who cry “fascist!” Have never read that quote. I also suspect most of them would give you a blank stare when asked who Mussolini was.
Manufacturers of flash Italian cars?
High end shoe designer.
Of course, my mistake.
🥸
Good, they can Google it. That’s why I shared it, to wake their sorry woke @$$es up!
I’m fairly certain that the wokies don’t read Taibbi unfortunately.
No, you’re right. But those who do now can repeat that quote to those who don’t.
I’m in.
"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]
Wow
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.
Anyone who uses Wikipedia as a source for anything is by definition delusional.
It's OK as a first pass at subjects that are purely technical/engineering. I can use it to reliably find out the first year a Piper Cub was offered with an 85 hp engine, or the shear and compression properties of spruce plywood. Anything that is the slightest bit susceptible of having a political, economic, or sociocultural component, however...
That plywood would have to be made from Canadian trees, lest it be cut by conservative American loggers.
Having driven from Minneapolis to Anchorage to Skagway to Fredericksburg in the summer/fall of 2002 -- I can guarantee you there are many Canadians to the right of anyone you would identify as a "conservative American logger." I'm a dyed-in-the-wool 2A supporter, but one of the guys I met in the Yukon scared the shit out of me.
One caveat - it's a pretty good source for what the globalist uniparty wants us to believe.
True.
It's a _qualified_ source, where "qualified" means the opposite of qualified.
I don't disagree but their are a hell of a lot of delusional people wandering around these days.
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
How bout “threat to democracy” used by Democrats anytime you question one of their wacky, illegal ploys.
And the corollary “ save our democracy”--which is about doing things in their economic interest.
The worst was “Democracy is on the ballot!”.
It’s a ballot fool, it’s by its nature democracy. I’m much more concerned about our Republic…
“If you don’t have anything to hide then you have nothing to worry about.”
I believe the KGB said the same.
Also, the Stasi, the SS, the Khmer Rouge, the Securitate, etc....
And probably GW Bush
Of course, it is the fear that gives them power. Freedom and fear are opposite ends of the same thing: belief. Life is short, but eternity lasts forever. Live free or die is not just a slogan, it is the truth. Free will makes it ours to choose each day.
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.
Life is short, but eternity lasts forever. Live free or die. Some things never change.
Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett?
Would FOIA pass in today's political environment? I think not.
It would pass to much fanfare, but the exceptions would basically render it meaningless.
Oh no, it would have no chance. I can hear the Deep State-ufactured slogans now: “Only [white nationalists/terrorists/Trumpers/Russia-lovers] are curious about the inner-workings of government.”
My thoughts exactly.