Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Here's a dilly. Orwell, of course, noted how language is used to deceive. This following is on the subject of administration attempts to retroactively protect themselves from their own decisions and policies regarding torture...



Note that "elevate". Wonderful word with its connotations of moral and social improvement. Even a hint of the heavenly in it.

War is peace.

The only problem with putting so much faith in the internet for your news and information is that how do you know what you are reading is correct or not?

It has been shown over and over that anyone can fake almost anything,and make it look official,on th internet.

It's a thought that has occured to me previously. I was wondering if you really exist. Could you please give a link to yourself.

In exchange, I'll give the link to that piece above. Sorry, hadn't realized I'd not added it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276.html

???
Who was that addressed to?

Boy, this is getting really tricky now. It was addressed to someone I'm assuming is someone but who himself or herself or itself has got me wondering whether or not my assumption is wrong. But would a non-someone act in such a way as to create suspicions regarding whether or not his/her/its non-existence is the actual fact of the matter? Head hurting.

This is a key concept regarding the subject of this thread...

Robert G. Vaughn, Professor at American University's Washington School of Law. see page xxxvii, Conservatives Without Conscience, John Dean

mm wrote-



By thinking through how a word like "elevate", or it's vast range of synonyms, might be used once the internet had alerted you.

A precision-sized answer.

The Mounted Policeman is worried about the use of "elevate" in the paragraph he quoted? The Mounted Policeman, like most ignorant non-readers obviously knows nothing about NineteenEightyFour and is probably cribbing from a Cliff's Notes.

First of all, Mr. Blotham obviously does not know that Orwell wrote not about Capitalism but about Socialism. In the Appendix--"The Principles of Newspeak" Orwell wrote:

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible"

First of all, Mr. Blatham is clearly ignorant about the fact that Ingsoc refers to "English Socialism"

Secondly, he does not realize that the purpose of Newspeak was, as Orwell expressly stated----"to make all other modes of thought impossible"

The very existence of venues like The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Nation, and this one, A2K, which feature posts by ignorant Mounties who cribbed the notes of a high school sophmore on 1984, is prima facie evidence that "all other modes of thought are not impossible" and therefore, Orwell was not talking about Newspeak as operating in a capitalistic society with a free press.

Mr.Blatham really ought to read the book, 1984, before he embarasses himself further!!!

... which apparently was the persuasion of Kristol, Himmelfarb et al before they turned into neoconservatives. I think Blatham would agree that while they changed their substantive policy goals, their methods remained the same. Could you agree to this understanding too?

Mr.Thomas- I care nothing about Kristol, Himmelfarb--etc. etc.

I am quoting directly from Orwell;

quote

from "The Principles of Newspeak"

"Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism"

and

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible."


Upon reading the "Priinciples of Newspeak" by ORWELL

and then reading the incredible mishmosh from Mr. Blatham, it is obvious he has never even READ 1984.

Thomas, you know why Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb (count Jean Kirkpatrick in this group as well), who all were quintessential early model Schactmanites for a while and that nut bag David Horowitz turned to the Right? One could make a case ( but poorly) it was because they became disillusioned with the Utopian Dreams of Socialism turned nightmares by doctrinaire-authoritarian Socialists and Communists who took over the Party apparatus for personal gain. But it runs deeper, especially considering that they all maintained the same rigid doctrinaire attitude themselves when they migrated to the Right-Wing camp. Also, each simply swapped their earlier Socialist Utopian dream with one of a Right Wing Marketplace Utopia. It is more likely that they simply sold out, sold out on an idea articulated by a little Dutch girl about 60 plus years ago.



Anne Frank

They sold out on humanity, gave up on it, and decided to get theirs, and it is no mistake that they snuggle so closely with the denizens of the Far and Fat Right to whom concepts like "all men are created equal" and "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are hardly articles of faith in their philosophies. Simply, they do not believe in equality under the law nor in the political process and remain stuck in a mentality where they are still a "vanguard" of a revolution to which the rules do not apply.

They are pigs, Orwellian pigs kin to Squealer and Napolean for whom the philosophy of "All animals are created equal" has been amended to include the clause "but some are more equal than others."

And they and most neo-conservatives in general damn sure believe and act upon the assumption that they are those more equal animals.

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

Thomas, you know why Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb (count Jean Kirkpatrick in this group as well), who all were quintessential early model Schactmanites for a while and that nut bag David Horowitz turned to the Right? One could make a case ( but poorly) it was because they became disillusioned with the Utopian Dreams of Socialism turned nightmares by doctrinaire-authoritarian Socialists and Communists who took over the Party apparatus for personal gain. But it runs deeper, especially considering that they all maintained the same rigid doctrinaire attitude themselves when they migrated to the Right-Wing camp. Also, each simply swapped their earlier Socialist Utopian dream with one of a Right Wing Marketplace Utopia. It is more likely that they simply sold out, sold out on an idea articulated by a little Dutch girl about 60 plus years ago.

Quote:
"It's difficult in times like these: ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality. It's a wonder I haven't abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
end of quote


I am very much afraid that Mr. Kuvasz is lacking critical information. He may wish to believe that Irving Kristol "SWAPPED HIS SOCIALIST UTOPIAN DREAM WITH ONE OF A RIGHT WING MARKET PLACE UTOPIA" but he would be egregiously mistaken.

He would be wrong because as Irving Kristol has written:


Reference- "Neoconservatism" P. 31

quote

"The major event of that period was the student rebellion and the rise of the counterculture, with its messianic expectations and its apocalyptic fears...As the New Left began to reachape lberalism----and eventually, to reshape the Democratic party, disenchanted liberals began to find themselves harboring all kinds of conservative instincts and ideas"

end of quote

Now, Mr. KLuvasz may think he knows the mind of Irving Kristol better than Irving Kristol does, but I doubt it!!!!!


and, as far as Mr. Kuvasz's claim with regard to

"Right WIng Market Place Utopia" goes---I am very much afraid that he is quite mistaken since he is oversimplfying-

As Irving Kristol has written-Referenced above- P. 36

Quote

"There is a lot more necessary for a healthy society and a healthy polity than solid economic growth---as we have discovered in the post World War II decades. Just as erroneous economic actions by government can wreck a society and a polity, so erroneous moral and political beliefs can accomplish the same end, more indirectly but just as effectively."


It is not wise to generalize about the evolving thought of someone like Irving Kristol unless one has read about the changes in his thinking and his rationale for those changes.

Blatham does -- they are prominent neoconservatives, representative of the people who now shape the policies of the Bush administration. The fact that they are former adherents of "Insoc" doesn't contradict but affirms Blatham's view of the Bush administration as Orwellian.

could anyone explain why massegetto is still posting on A2K when he has been banned repeatedly?

Mr. Thomas. I have read Irving Kristol's "Neoconservatism" very carefully.

According to Mr. Kristol, you exaggerate any leanings he may have had about Socialism.

I will quote Mr. Kristol, from his book "Neoconservatism" Preface

CAPITALIZATION MINE

quote

"In sum, this anthology traces the intellectual evolution of one American from a BRIEF, YOUTHFUL SOCIALISM, through a LONG PERIOD of ever more skeptical and self-critical liberalism, to something that has become known as "neoconservatism".

end of quote

I would have said that they switched from one vision of elitists running the lives of regular people to another such vision. That's an incremental step. (And to the extent that I read them, I find neoconservatives conspicuously short on free-market utopianism.) Obviously you and I hold very different views about the humanity of socialism.

You are correct, Mr. Thomas. My reading of Kristol did not find any reference to Free Market Utopianism. But with regard to your point concerning one vision of elitists running the lives of regular people to another vision of elitists doing the same thing.

Mr.Kristol is quite persuasive when he speaks of "Zealous Environmentalists"( the old elite)

quote

"But it turns out that your zealous environmentalists are not really interested in clean air or clean water at all, What does interest them is modern industrial society and modern technological civilization, towards which they have profoundly hostile sentiments. When they protest against the "quality of life" in this society and this civilization, they are protesting against nothing so trivial as air or water pollution, RATHER THEY ARE AT BOTTOM REJECTING A LIBERAL CIVILIZATION WHICHIS GIVEN SHAPE THROUGH A COUNTLESS SUM OF INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES. Since they do not like the shape of that civilization, they are moved to challenge the proces that produces that shape. What environmentalists want is really very simple, THEY WANT THE AUTHORITY, THE POWER TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHICH PLEASES THEM."


It would appear, Mr. Thomas, that Mr. Kristol is aiming at a

COUNTLESS SUM OF INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES( at least in this regard)-----if that is Running the lives of regular people, it really appears very benign!!

thomas and kuv

I've just finished Suskind's new book and it is really worth the read. The small details/anecdotal bits (the administration's strategized deceit re Libya's decision to forgo weapons programs, for example) aren't the interesting thing (we know HOW these people operate) rather, its the illumination of the whys and the means used. Suskind is very bright and there are epiphanies to be had from his observations and thoughts.

Likewise, and perhaps even moreso from John Dean's new book which I've just begun. This is a look at the administration and the moderrn conservative movement through the lens of academic work on "authoritarian personalities". We'd find the Kristols, the Cheneys, the Addingtons, the Bennetts, the Roves, the Murdochs, and all their earlier iterations pretty well described here, it seems. With, I suspect, related insights on the types who we see on these boards...the 'more than happy to be led by authoritarian figures'. I've quoted one bit from the book above.

thomas

By the by...Dean's book began as a co-writing project with his lifelong friend Barry Goldwater on the subject of Conservatism and its changing face. Goldwater died near the beginning of the project and Dean shelved it for a while then continued it more recently.