Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

No, it certainly is not. However, i am perhaps more sanguine than you that these stumble bums are chasing a brass ring which they will never succeed in grasping. Whether one considers rightwingnuts or leftwingnuts, the true believer is never deterred by the presence of mere truth in the maintenance of their preferred belief set. The question then becomes one of what those who maintain an open mind believe or are prepared to believe. The measure of the success of any effort at information control will always be the degree to which those attempting the control can succeed in preventing the undecided from having access to information inimical to the world view the would-be controllers are touting. A very good example of this is the complete poverty of information available to the residents of North Korea about the world beyond their borders. There is very good information out there about what North Koreans do and don't know about the world coming from those who have become economic refugees in China. Their empty bellies have propelled them to a daring which would until very recently have been unthinkable to them, and they cross the Yalu River, entering and remaining in China illegally simply to get enough to eat. The CBC has done some wonderful pieces on the topic which i greatly enjoyed listening to, and which lead me to further research.

I don't believe that the Shrub and Company can acheive that degree of information control. The most they can hope for, and something in which they are constantly and ably abetted by the punditocracy, is to continually confirm the faithful in the beliefs which they cherish. Kim Jong Il presides over a truly Orwellian state in terms of information control. Bush can only longingly look over the water . . .

Both are speech. The first is a contradiction in terms; the second a redundant tautology. Neither is deceptive - they are self-evident.

I think that captures the essence of it.

Blatham does have a point in that governments (and individuals) everywhere choose the language they use to describe their actions so as to put them in a favorable light. However this is not news, nor is it particularly remarkable. It is done equally across the political spectrum, and by most of us in our daily lives.

Indeed this is the force behind the usually absurd euphamisms that constitute 'politically correct' speech. The only remarkable part of any of this is the social approbation that comes from some quarters if one fails to follow the 'politically correct' syntax. That is truly Orwellian.

And political rectitude in speech derives from the right as well as it does from the left. Therefore, for example, one's perceived political opponents are to be described by people on the right as "bleeding-heart liberals," or "tax-and-spend liberals"--depsite the phoney rhetoric of liberating the Iraqis from a vile dictator (after the womd dodge did not pan out) and despite the ruinous deficits of a Republican tax-and-spend Congress. Therefore, applying George's criterion, at the least the pundits of the right, if not actually the administration itself, have succeeded in becoming Orwellian.

I've started a thread on this aspect of right-wing political rectitude in pointing to the increasing tendancy to lump all Muslims together as "islamo-fascists." Of course, it would not be politically correct for any dedicated conservative to acknowledge that case of willful demonization of the other.

My reference to 'politically correct speech' referred mostly to the tortured figures of speech and euphamisms forced on us by the hand-wringers who worry about such things - "hearing impared" for deaf; "disabled" for crippled; "African American" for Black (and 20 years earlier "Black" for Colored; and before that Colored for Negro, etc.); "economically disadvantaged" for poor - and all the rest.

I really didn't have the colorations of political rhetoric in mind, and I do believe that is a different thuing. I will readily agree that the name-calling and selective labelling of their opponents by politicans (and their spokesmen) of both sides of the political spectrum are self-serving, purposeful, and often misleading. That, after all, is the point of most political rhetoric. The difference is that no particular stigma is attached to the failure to use one version or the other. It is merely an indicator of ones political outlook.

I find it laughable that you refer to stigma, and cannot resist referring to "hand-wringers." I am also amused that you attempt to make a distinction between political rectitude in speech and "name-calling and selective labelling of their opponents by politicans (and their spokesmen)"--how do you suggest that one differs from the other? The term is "politically correct." Is the term only applicable when one refers to those alleged to be on the left, but not when one refers to those alleged to be on the right?

The Jesuits would be disappointed in you George--not necessarily for the version of political rectitude you are attempting to peddle, but rather the ham-handed and embarrassingly obvious manner in which you attempt it.

Tell me George, about the difference between "hand-wringers" who referred to the "disabled" and "hand-wringers" who rant about "moral decay."

Stop it this minute.

First of all, you accuse both setanta and kuvasz of mining books they have not read for ideas, strategically placed in your tirade for emphasis when it was your fellow traveler okie who has not read Orwell and who insists on participating in this thread.

I have suggested he read Orwell.

Second, if memory serves me correctly, I believe that neither setanta nor kuvasz describe themselves as liberals. If I am not correct, I would like either s. or k. to correct me, not bernie or ticomayo or geogeob.

Third, over the years here on A2k and earlier on abuzz, it was patently obvious that both setanta and kuvie are extremely well read. Frankly, they generally are correct in the facts they present. I would not challenge either man on factual material without the proper footnotes to support my contradiction. Perhaps, it is their erudition that disturbs you and your envy causes you to be so abusive toward them.

Fourth, you were so determined to make kuvasz look ridiculous yesterday, that you framed one of okie's statements and credited it to kuvie. I have long suspected that you are not as right wing as you appear, but, that it is more interesting to argue from the right.

How long ago did you last read 1984? "War is Peace" was much more than a simple contradiction and it was not self-evident as one.

Conservatives are Extremists.

Best introductory line I've read in a long time. Though I probably would have added, after a comma, "you slut"

Blatham -- I laughed out loud at your response.

I did not think the "lady" Plain Old Me, would think that the crude comment,"You slut" was funny. I think the use of such a term is a violation of the TOS, but perhaps, the lady has been called that term so often she thinks it is funny.

And, with regard to Setanta and Kuvasz being "well-read", I make no comment about that, I do, however, point out by quoting directly from Orwell's "1984" and his "Animal Farm" that their comments do not square with the writings of Orwell.

I have received no direct rebuttal.

As usual, possum is full of ****.

George OB1, as usual, gets to the heart of the topic when he writes:

Blatham does have a point in that governments (and individuals) everywhere choose the language they use to describe their actions so as to put them in a favorable light. However this is not news, nor is it particularly remarkable. It is done equally across the political spectrum, and by most of us in our daily lives.

Indeed this is the force behind the usually absurd euphamisms that constitute 'politically correct' speech. The only remarkable part of any of this is the social approbation that comes from some quarters if one fails to follow the 'politically correct' syntax. That is truly Orwellian.

_end of quote


I do not believe that there are any comments more exquisitely "politically correct" than those touted by the left wing---

C. Vann Woodward, in a beautiful essay--"Freedom and the Universities" pointed out some of the most egregious "politically correct" statements made by the extremist left-

Woodward pointed out that the left, in an abortive effort to EQUALIZE opportunites in Education, demanded that more African-Americans be added to University faculties. This was despite the fact that African-Americans receive only a little more than 2 percent of Ph.D degrees--half of them in Education.

That is Orwellian--See 1984-Principles of Newspeak--Quote

"Countless other words such as honor, justice, Morality...and Religion had simply ceased to exist"


Woodward pointed out that the left, struggling to install the "political correctness" mentioned by George OB1 created illegal monsters such as the rules at the University of Michigan( subsequently struck down by a US District Judge as being "unconstitutionally overbroad")


"Any behavior, verbal or physical that stigmatizes an individual on the basis of Race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status is punishable"

This is Orwellian- see Principles of Newsweek-1984- quote

"words which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them"

and

Woodward continues with his list of incredible left wing idiocies.

The incoming president of the Modern Language Association, Houston Baker of the University of Pennsylvania thinks "reading and writing are merely technologies of control" and considers "literacy" the menace>"

This is Orwellian

See Principles of Newspeak- 1984- quote

"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 also to MAKE ALL OTHER MODES OF THOUGHT IMPOSSIBLE"

(Read again what Mr. Baker said)


The glib usage of the word--"Orwellian"--found mainly in sophomoric bull sessions in College, is almost always off the mark and the term is used by people who really don't know what Orwell meant when he wrote "Principles of Newspeak".

I am positive that Blatham and Setanta would never agree with Orwell in his Newspeak section when he wrote--

"Countless other words such as honor, justice, MORALITY...AND RELIGION had simply ceased to exist"( under Newspeak)

Has massegetto mistaken plainoldme for his own mother?

I think not. Plainoldme doesn't have gills.


(nod to E.B. Farnum)

I don't think that we have reached 1984 yet. I do remember Watergate, when we almost reached that point. Nixon was taking names and persecuting people on the enemies' list. For instance, IRS formed a Special Services (SS, mind you) Division just for this purpose. Senator Scott (R, VA) had a list of those who wrote letters to newspapers criticizing Nixon, checking to see if any were federal employees. He tried to get them fired on the excuse that employees must not criticize their employer.

I know someone who is proud to have been on the Nixon enemy list.

I don't usually apologize to people on A2K but as I was reading past posts, I found that I must make a sincere apology.

I read that Mr.Blatham had a dreadful heart attack, nearly died and then revieved and was put on the road to recovery by the insertion of stents into his heart arteries>

I empathize fully and do understand.

My forty one year old brother had a similar occurence and nearly died. He also received stents--two of them in fact--and is now on the slow road to recovery. It is taking some time and he is still not yet himself.

So, since I empathize with Mr. Blatham's illness, I will not respond to him in any contentious way.

Bernard, you need not worry. I don't think you are capable of bothering Blatham.

Interestingly, the governors are resisting Bush's effort to take total control of the Guard.