| « | That Moron Bush Dept. -- VII. |
»
|
|
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Unthinkable
This one will be in my own voice.
Ever since the Curmudgeon penned this essay, I've been pondering the efficacy of the Left's speech and thought control strategy. Can it work? If it can, will it? And of course, what could anyone do to thwart it?
The key conception beneath all other considerations of the subject is this one:
Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'
That snippet is, of course, from 1984, which remains the foremost of all works on the totalitarian ideal. The sincere totalitarian, who is conscious of his true motives and unwilling to conceal them from anyone, wants exactly what Syme articulates above: to suppress others' capacity even to think an unapproved thought. The sole route toward that goal is the elimination of the fundamental tools of thought: words and language.
America of 2010 isn't "Airstrip One" of 1984, of course. There's no committee working on "purifying" American English of words that mean or suggest political freedom...at least, as far as I'm aware. But we do have a healthy gaggle of self-appointed censors among us, who labor tirelessly to render certain conceptions and opinions unspeakable, by denouncing and vilifying those who dare to speak them. They believe that they can halt all discussion of certain notions by relentlessly punishing them. More, they believe, as Syme does, that if an idea goes unexpressed for a sufficient period, it will vanish from our mental range...as will the words required to express it.
Are they correct?
At this time, the Western world is embroiled in a "low-intensity war" with a group of "non-state actors," a great many of whom have the covert backing of one or more nation-states. If you're familiar with current events -- and what Gentle Reader of Eternity Road wouldn't be? -- you immediately translated the quoted euphemisms into their informational equivalents: "terrorism" and "militant Muslims."
None of this could possibly be concealed from the American public. Yet the Obama Administration has utterly expunged all mention of Islam from its discussions of our problem with terrorism and Islamic terrorists. A recent confrontation between Congressman Lamar Smith and Attorney-General Eric "A Nation of Cowards" Holder threw the matter into sharp relief:
Representative Lamar Smith of Texas: "Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions they did because of radical Islam?" meaning the Times Square bomber and a number of other would-be terrorists. "Do you think they took the actions they did because of radical Islam?"HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. One I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we're in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action he took.
SMITH: Okay. But radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people --
SMITH: But was radical Islam one of them?
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious cases, so --
SMITH: But all I'm asking is if you think, among those variety of reasons, radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did?
HOLDER: You see, you say "radical Islam."
SMITH: Yes.
HOLDER: I mean, I think those people who espouse a version of Islam that is not --
SMITH: Are you uncomfortable attributing any of their actions to radical Islam? It sounds like it.
HOLDER: No. I don't want to say anything negative about a religion.
Clearly, Holder feels the consequences of saying "radical Islam" in connection with a terrorist incident would be unacceptable...to him. Yet never has the ideological power behind a string of violent acts been clearer. From Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to our present day, Islam has been the driving force behind every terrorist act that's occurred in the Western world.
We know he cannot speak this concept. Can he still think it? How would we know?
The Obama Administration has repeatedly attributed the easily foreseen negative consequences of its policies to the Bush Administration. The pattern is so pronounced that, just as with Islam's presence behind all contemporary terrorism, no one could sincerely deny it. Indeed, one of the gags currently making the rounds of the Web runs as follows:
Michelle: Honey, I'm pregnant!
Barack: Bush did it!
Be it noted:
- The Bush Administration didn't quadruple the annual federal deficit.
- The Bush Administration didn't arrogate unConstitutional powers over medical insurance.
- The Bush Administration didn't attempt to bring back the hyper-Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine."
- The Bush Administration didn't assault its media critics as "not a real news source."
- The Bush Administration didn't appoint a horde of unaccountable "czars" over every aspect of American life, or attempt to criminalize exhaling, or tell major corporations to default on their solemn obligations, or nationalize everything it could see.
Nor did the Bush Administration make the promises Barack Hussein Obama made during his 2008 presidential campaign, on which he's reversed himself so predictably.
But anyone who dares to criticize The Won is immediately lambasted as a racist. After all, his skin color is darker than yours or mine; therefore, it must be that we oppose him for that reason alone!
Racism is the Left's perennial club with which to bash anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy. It's served leftists well at the all-important task of averting objective discussion of the issues. Perhaps it's losing its force from overuse, but a habit such as that one is exceedingly hard to break, and besides, it still serves to silence some of us.
By God, I've been counseled not to say it, but say it I will: If Barack Hussein Obama's anti-Constitutional actions and social-fascist policies were proved to flow directly from the fact that his father was black, that would be adequate justification for real racism all by itself!
But the Left isn't interested in evidence or reasoned argument about causes and effects. It wants only to suppress our ability to differ with it, in word, thought, or deed.
On one front, at least, the tide has turned in the direction of truth: the so-called "global warming crisis." Fortunately, the East Anglia CRU document leak has established that the "scientists" enlisted in the warmista cause are, to a man, liars and frauds. They certainly can't claim to be doing actual science. Not one of them can produce a satisfactory innocent explanation for the indications in those documents that they were deceiving the public with malice aforethought, beneath a scientific facade. In consequence, the warmista chants about the "oil industry-funded skeptics" and how we dissenters are "deniers" comparable to Holocaust deniers have fallen completely flat. Hopefully, the cap-and-trade legislation before the Senate is doomed as well.
Yet many undiscussed harms have already been done to the American economy by the warmistas' fraud. Numerous companies have embraced irrational "carbon reduction" initiatives that do nothing but increase the cost of their products and operations. Other companies have grown fat -- no apologies to Al Gore -- by selling fictitious "carbon offset credits" that supposedly exonerate the purchaser for his CO2 emissions. Many individuals have been induced to waste their money on expensive hybrid automobiles, whose principal environmental impact will be to worsen our problems with battery disposal.
How pleasantly does the shoe fit your foot, sanctimonious doom-mongering warmista frauds?
The list goes on:
- Object to preferential treatment / "affirmative action?" You're a racist and a sexist.
- Object to lax border control that's resulted in a silent invasion by aliens unwilling to assimilate to American norms? You're a chauvinist and a racist.
- Object to the use of the schools to spread sexual propaganda? You're a prude.
- Object to open-ended welfare programs that encourage indolence and the production of illegitimate children? You hate the poor.
- Object to the destruction of the meaning of marriage by granting same-sex couples state recognition as married? You hate homosexuals.
- Object to environmental regulations that both forbid the expansion of existing power generation technologies and impede the advance of new ones? You want to rape the planet.
- Object to tax policy that imposes disproportionate burdens on working Americans for the benefit of race-hustlers, poverty pimps, and bureaucrats? You're an anarchist.
- Object to laws that disarm honest men to the advantage of criminals? You're a bloodthirsty redneck.
- Argue for a proactive anti-terrorism policy that accurately identifies our enemies? You're a bigot who just wants to oppress "brown people."
- Object to the murder of unborn children? There are no epithets foul enough to describe you! You must be a Christian.
Denunciation is the norm. Not one topic in our public discourse goes unpolluted by it. Sometimes it seems to be the Left's one and only tactic. Their hope is that a sufficiency of it will prevent us, not just from speaking against their positions, but from even entertaining the thought that they might be misconceived...much less morally wrong.
Are you willing to be muzzled any longer? Or are you ready to strike back?
Forgive me, Gentle Reader. I know how ranty the above sounds. But I could no longer hold it in. And I pray that there are many millions more Americans who feel the same. It will take many millions of us to effect a substantial change.
For now, I can think about it. And write about it. I give thanks for that, at least.
Be well.
Comments
There are millions more who feel the same, and not all of them Americans. A lot of us are in insignificant little places, fighting the same fight.
Because-as the Canada Free Press masthead says- without America, there is no free world.Posted by KG on 05/20/2010 at 04:25 PMMany individuals have been induced to waste their money on expensive hybrid automobiles, whose principal environmental impact will be to worsen our problems with battery disposal.
Which, ironically, is exactly the sort of environmental impact that sensible people can readily get behind efforts to reduce. That is, one with a provable negative impact on human life and the natural environment.
Posted by Matt on 05/20/2010 at 11:52 PMdittos.
Posted by on 05/21/2010 at 12:25 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
