|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)|
|News||Politics and the English Language||Recommended Links||Doublespeak||Fake News scare and US NeoMcCartyism||Deconstructing neoliberalism's definition of 'freedom'|
|Corruption of the language||Demonization of Putin||Discrediting the opponent as favorite tactic of neoliberals||Patterns of Propaganda||The importance of controlling the narrative||Deception as an art form|
|The Guardian Slips Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment||MSM Sochi Bashing Rampage||Freedom of speech played by Western MSM as three card monte||The attempt to secure global hegemony||US and British media are servants of security apparatus||Anti Trump Hysteria|
|The Deep State||Cold War II||"Fuck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place||Neoconservatism as the USA version of Neoliberal ideology||Charlie Hebdo - more questions then answers||New American Militarism|
|Manipulation of the term "freedom of press"||Pussy Riot Provocation and "Deranged Pussy Worship Syndrome"||Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair||American Exceptionalism||National Security State||Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law|
|Lewis Powell Memo||Anatol Leiven on American Messianism||Co-opting of the Human Rights to embarrass governments who oppose neoliberalism||Edward Lucas as agent provocateur||Groupthink||Soft propaganda|
|Diplomacy by deception||Democracy as a universal opener for access to natural resources||Deconstructing neoliberalism's definition of 'freedom'||The Real War on Reality||Nation under attack meme||Bullshit as MSM communication method|
|Neo-fascism||Classic Hypocrisy of British Ruling Elite||Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ?||Big Uncle is Watching You||What's the Matter with Kansas||Media as a weapon of mass deception|
|Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism||The Good Soldier Svejk||Nineteen Eighty-Four||Propaganda Quotes||Humor||Etc|
Adapted from Bourdieu and Wacquant NewLiberal Newspeak
Orwell relates what he believes to be a close association between bad prose and oppressive ideology:
Within a matter of a few years, in all the advanced societies, employers, international ofﬁcials, high-ranking civil servants, media intellectuals and high-ﬂying journalists have all started to use Neoliberal Newspeak. Its vocabulary, which seems to have emerged out of nowhere, now enetered the standard Enlish disctonaties and used in daily coverage of event by neoliberal MSM. Among the word introduced by this "neoliberal newspeak" are ʻglobalizationʼ and ʻﬂexibilityʼ, ʻgovernanceʼ and ʻemployabilityʼ, ʻunderclassʼand ʻexclusionʼ, ʻnew economyʼ and ʻzero toleranceʼ, ʻmulti-culturalismʼ, not to mention their so-called postmodern cousins, ʻminorityʼ, ʻethnicityʼ, ʻidentityʼ, ʻfragmentationʼ, and so on.
The diffusion of this new neoliberal speak – from which the terms ʻcapitalismʼ, ʻclassʼ, ʻexploitationʼ, ʻdominationʼ and ʻinequalityʼ are excluded as "undesirables" under the fake pretext that they are obsolete – is the result of a new type of imperialism.
Its effects are all the more powerful and pernicious in that it is promoted not only by the partisans of the neoliberal revolution who, under cover of ʻmodernizationʼ, intendto remake the world by sweeping away the social and economic conquests of a century of social struggles, henceforth depicted as so many archaisms and obstacles to the emergent new order, but also by cultural producers (researchers, writers and artists) and left-wing activists, the vast majority of whom still think of themselves as progressives.
Like ethnic or gender domination, cultural imperialism is a form of symbolic violence that relies on a relationship of constrained communication to extort submission. In the case at hand, its particularity consists in universalizing the particularisms bound up with a singular historical experience.
Thus, just as, in the nineteenth century, a number of so-called philosophical questions that were debated throughout Europe, such as Spenglerʼs theme of ʻdecadenceʼ or Diltheyʼs dichotomy between explanation and understanding, originated, as historian Fritz Ringer has demonstrated, in the historical predicaments and conﬂicts speciﬁc to the peculiar world of German universities, so today many topics directly issued from the particularities and particularisms of US society and universities have been imposed upon the whole planet under apparently de-historicized guises. These commonplaces (in the Aristotelian sense of notions ortheses with which one argues but over which there is no argument), these undiscussed presuppositions of the discussion owe most of their power to convince to the prestige of the place whence they emanate, and to the fact that, circulating in continuousﬂow from Berlin to Buenos Aires and from London to Lisbon, they are everywhere powerfully relayed by supposedly neutral agencies ranging from major international organizations (the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, European Commissionand OECD), conservative think-tanks (the Manhattan Institute in New York City,t he Adam Smith Institute in London, the Foundation Saint-Simon in Paris, and the Deutsche Bank Fundation in Frankfurt) and philanthropic foundations, to the schools of power (Science-Po in France, the London School of Economics in England, Harvardʼs
Kennedy School of Government in America, etc.).
In addition to the automatic effect of the international circulation of ideas, which tends, by its very logic, to conceal their original conditions of production and signification, the play of preliminary definitions and scholastic deductions replaces the contingency of denegated sociological necessities with the appearance of logical necessity and tends to mask the historical roots of a whole set of questions and notions:
the ʻefficiencyʼ of the (free) market, the need for the recognition of (cultural) ʻidentitiesʼor the celebratory reassertion of (individual) ʻresponsibilityʼ.
These will be said to be philosophical, sociological, economic or political, depending on the place and moment of reception. Thus ʻplanetarizedʼ, or globalized in the strictly geographical sense of the term, by this uprooting and, at the same time, departicularized as a result of the illusory break effected by conceptualization, these commonplaces, which the perpetual media repetition has gradually transformed into a universal common sense, succeed in making us forget that, in many cases, they do nothing but express, in a truncated
and unrecognizable form (including to those who are promoting it), the complex and contested realities of a particular historical society, tacitly constituted into the model
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.
One of Orwell's points is:
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.
The insincerity of the writer perpetuates the decline of the language as people (particularly politicians, Orwell later notes) attempt to disguise their intentions behind euphemisms and convoluted phrasing. Orwell says that this decline is self-perpetuating. He argues that it is easier to think with poor English because the language is in decline, as the language declines, "foolish" thoughts become even easier, reinforcing the original cause:
A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.
Orwell discusses "pretentious diction" and "meaningless words". "Pretentious diction" is used to make biases look impartial and scientific, while "meaningless words" are used to stop the reader from seeing the point of the statement. According to Orwell: "In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning."
Orwell chooses 5 passages of text which "illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now suffer." The samples are: by Harold Laski ("five negatives in 53 words"), Lancelot Hogben (mixed metaphors), an essay on psychology in politics ("simply meaningless"), a communist pamphlet ("an accumulation of stale phrases") and a reader's letter in Tribune (in which "words and meaning have parted company"). From these, Orwell identifies a "catalogue of swindles and perversions" which he classifies as "dying metaphors", "operators or verbal false limbs", "pretentious diction" and "meaningless words". (see cliches, prolixity, peacock terms and weasel words).
Orwell notes that writers of modern prose tend not to write in concrete terms but use a "pretentious latinized style" (compare Anglish). He claims writers find it is easier to gum together long strings of words than to pick words specifically for their meaning, particularly in political writing, where Orwell notes that "[o]rthodoxy ... seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style." Political speech and writing are generally in defence of the indefensible and so lead to a euphemistic inflated style.
Orwell criticises bad writing habits which spread by imitation. He argues that writers must think more clearly because thinking clearly "is a necessary first step toward political regeneration". He later emphasises that he was not "considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought."
As a further example, Orwell "translates" Ecclesiastes 9:11:
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
— into "modern English of the worst sort":
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
Orwell points out that this "translation" contains many more syllables but gives no concrete illustrations, as the original did, nor does it contain any vivid, arresting, images or phrases.
The headmaster's wife at St Cyprian's School, Mrs. Cicely Vaughan Wilkes (nicknamed "Flip"), taught English to Orwell and used the same method to illustrate good writing to her pupils. She would use simple passages from the King James Bible and then "translate" them into poor English to show the clarity and brilliance of the original. Walter John Christie, who followed Orwell to Eton College, wrote that she preached the virtues of "simplicity, honesty, and avoidance of verbiage", and pointed out that the qualities Flip most prized were later to be seen in Orwell's writing.
Orwell said it was easy for his contemporaries to slip into bad writing of the sort he had described and that the temptation to use meaningless or hackneyed phrases was like a "packet of aspirins always at one's elbow". In particular, such phrases are always ready to form the writer's thoughts for him to save him the bother of thinking, or writing, clearly. However, he concluded that the progressive decline of the English language was reversible, and suggested six rules which, he claimed, would prevent many of these faults although, "one could keep all of them and still write bad English".
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Double-talk.
Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.
Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable.
It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace").
In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated
with political language.
1 Origins and concepts
2 Theoretical approaches 2.1 Conflict theories
2.2 Contemporary writings
3 Main contributors to Doublespeak 3.1 William Lutz
3.2 The NCTE Committee on Public Doublespeak 3.2.1 Hugh Rank
3.2.2 Daniel Dieterich
3.2.3 Critique of NCTE
4 Modern uses of Doublespeak 4.1 Doublespeak in advertising 4.1.1 The Rule of Parity
4.2 Education to combat Doublespeak 4.2.1 Intensify/Downplay pattern
4.3 Doublespeak in politics 4.3.1 The Doublespeak Award
5 See also
8 External links
Origins and concepts
The term "doublespeak" probably has its roots in George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although the term is not used in the book, it is a close relative of one of the book's central concepts, "doublethink". Another variant, "doubletalk," also referring to deliberately ambiguous speech, did exist at the time Orwell wrote his book, but the usage of "doublespeak" as well as of "doubletalk" in the sense emphasizing ambiguity clearly postdates the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Parallels have also been drawn between Doublespeak and Orwell's classic essay Politics and the English Language, which discusses the distortion of language for political purposes.
Edward S. Herman, political economist and media analyst, has highlighted some examples of doublespeak and doublethink in modern society. Herman describes in his book, Beyond Hypocrisy the principal characteristics of doublespeak:
What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.
In his essay "Politics and the English Language", George Orwell observes that political language
serves to distort and obfuscate reality. Orwell’s description of political speech is extremely similar
to the contemporary definition of doublespeak;
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, ...
Although the theories that premise doublespeak are still indefinite, there are some theories that have parallels with the theory of doublespeak and Orwell's ideology in Nineteen Eighty-Four and might possibly provide a better understanding of where doublespeak's theories could have come from.
Due to the inherently deceptive nature of doublespeak as well as its prominent use in politics, doublespeak has been linked to the sociological perspective known as conflict theories. Conflict theories detract from ideas of society being naturally in harmony, instead placing emphasis on political and material inequality as its structural features. Antonio Gramsci's concepts on cultural hegemony, in particular, suggest that the culture and values of the economic elite – the bourgeoisie – become indoctrinated as ‘common sense’ to the working-class, allowing for the maintenance of the status quo through misplaced belief. Being himself one of the leaders of the Communist Party of Italy, (CPI), his theories had, in turn, been strongly influenced by the German social thinker Karl Marx, and have their ideological roots grounded in Marxist theory of false consciousness and capitalist exploitation. While Gramsci's views argue that culture (beliefs, perceptions and values) allows the ruling class to maintain domination, Marx's explanation is along more economic lines, with concepts such as commodity fetishism demonstrating how the ideology of the bourgeoisie (in this case, the existence of property as a social creation rather than an 'eternal entity') dominate over that of the working classes. In both cases, both philosophers argue that one view - that of the bourgeoisie - dominates over others, hence the term conflict theories.
On the other hand, Terrence P. Moran of the NCTE has compared the use of doublespeak in the mass media to laboratory experiments conducted on rats, where a batch of rats were deprived of food, before one half was fed sugar and water and the other half a saccharine solution. Both groups exhibited behavior indicating that their hunger was satisfied, but rats in the second group (which were fed saccharine solution) died from malnutrition. Moran highlights the structural nature of doublespeak, and notes that social institutions such as the mass media adopt an active, top-down approach in managing opinion. Therefore, Moran parallels doublespeak to producing an illusionary effect;
This experiment suggests certain analogies between the environments created for rats by the scientists and the environments created for us humans by language and the various mass media of communication. Like the saccharine environment, an environment created or infiltrated by doublespeak provides the appearance of nourishment and the promise of survival, but the appearance is illusionary and the promise false.
Doublespeak might also have some connections with contemporary theories as well. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky note in their book that Orwellian Doublespeak is an important component of the manipulation of the English language in American media, through a process called ‘dichotomization’; a component of media propaganda involving ‘deeply embedded double standards in the reporting of news’. For example, the use of state funds by the poor and financially needy is commonly referred to as 'social welfare' or 'handouts', which the 'coddled' poor 'take advantage of'. These terms, however, do not apply to other beneficiaries of government spending such as tax incentives and military spending.
Examples of the structural nature of the use of Doublespeak have been made by modern scholars. Noam Chomsky argues in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media that people in modern society consist of decision-makers and social participants who have to be made to agree. According to Chomsky, the media and public relations industry actively shape public opinion, working to present messages in line with their economic agenda for the purposes of controlling of the 'public mind'. Contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy, Chomsky goes so far as to argue that 'it's the essence of democracy.'
The point is that in a ... totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because ... you can control what they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be heard, ... you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.
Edward Herman's book Beyond Hypocrisy also includes a doublespeak dictionary of commonly employed media terms and phrases into plain English.
Henceforth, conflict theories demonstrates the dominating ideology of the bourgeoisie and Moran's theory highlights that doublespeak produces an illusionary effect; both theories having parallels to Orwell's ideology in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Similarly, Herman's theory of doublespeak having an inherent nature to be manipulative and Chomsky's theory of 'dichotomization' relates directly to the practice of doublespeak and how doublespeak is deliberately deceptive in nature.
Main contributors to Doublespeak
William D. Lutz, serves as the third chairman of the Doublespeak Committee since 1975 to the present. In 1989, both his own book Doublespeak and, under his editorship, the committee's third book, Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four, were published. Lutz was also the former editor of the now defunct Quarterly Review of Doublespeak, which examines ways that jargon has polluted the public vocabulary with phrases, words and usages of words designed to obscure the meaning of plain English. His book, Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four, consists of 220 pages and eighteen articles contributed by long-time Committee members and others whose body of work has made important contributions to understandings about language, as well as a bibliography of 103 sources on doublespeak. 
Lutz is one of the main contributors to the committee as well as promoting the term "doublespeak" to a mass audience so as to inform them of the deceptive qualities that doublespeak contains. He mentions:
There is more to being an effective consumer of language than just expressing dismay at dangling modifiers, faulty subject and verb agreement, or questionable usage. All who use language should be concerned whether statements and facts agree, whether language is, in Orwell's words 'largely the defense of the indefensible' and whether language 'is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'" 
He also mentions that the NCTE Committee on Public Doublespeak and their works with regards to educating the public on doublespeak is responsible for "the rather awesome task of combating the advertisers, the politicians, and the major manipulators of public language in our society." 
Lutz states that it is important to highlight doublespeak to the public because "language isn't the invention of human beings to lie, deceive, mislead, and manipulate" and the "purpose of language is to communicate the truth and to facilitate social groups getting together". Thus, according to Lutz, doublespeak is a form of language that defeats the purpose of inventing language because doublespeak does not communicate the truth but seeks to do the opposite and the doublespeak committee is tasked with correcting this problem that doublespeak has created in the world of language.
The NCTE Committee on Public Doublespeak
Main article: National Council of Teachers of English
The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Committee on Public Doublespeak was formed in 1971, in the midst of the Watergate scandal, at a point when there was widespread skepticism about the degree of truth which characterized relationships between the public and the worlds of politics, the military, and business. NCTE passed two resolutions. One called for the Council to find means to study dishonest and inhumane uses of language and literature by advertisers, to bring offenses to public attention, and to propose classroom techniques for preparing children to cope with commercial propaganda. The other called for the Council to find means to study the relations of language to public policy, to keep track of, publicize, and combat semantic distortion by public officials, candidates for office, political commentators, and all those who transmit through the mass media. Bringing the charges of the two resolutions to life was accomplished by forming NCTE's Committee on Public Doublespeak, a body which has acquitted itself with notable achievements since its inception. The National Council's publications on doublespeak have made significant contributions in describing the need for reform where clarity in communication has been deliberately distorted. Such structures can be applied to the field of education, where they could conceivably initiate an anti-pollution bandwagon in educational communication and educate people on how to counter doublespeak.
William Lutz stated that "the doublespeak committee was formed to combat the use of public language by increasing people's awareness of what is good, clear, solid use of language and what is not." "The committee does more than help students and the general public recognize what doublespeak is; it dramatizes that clarity of expression reflects clarity of thought."
Hugh Rank formed the Doublespeak committee and was the first chairman of this committee. Under his editorship, the committee produced a book called Language and Public Policy (1974), with the aim of informing readers of the extensive scope of doublespeak being used to deliberately mislead and deceive the audience. He highlighted the deliberate public misuses of language and provided strategies for countering doublespeak by focusing on educating people in the English language so as to help them identify when doublespeak is being put into play. He was also the founder of the Intensify/Downplay pattern that has been widely used to identify instances of Doublespeak being used.
Daniel Dieterich served as the second chairman of the Doublespeak committee after Hugh Rank in 1975. He served as editor of its second publication, Teaching about Doublespeak (1976),which carried forward the Committee's charge to inform teachers of ways of teaching students how to recognize and combat language designed to mislead and misinform.
Critique of NCTE
A. M. Tibbetts is one of the main critics of the NCTE, claiming that 'the Committee's very approach to the misuse of language and what it calls "doublespeak" may in the long run limit its usefulness'. According to him, the 'Committee's use of Orwell is both confused and confusing'. The NCTE's publications resonate with George Orwell's name, and allusions to him abound in statements on doublespeak; for example, the committee quoted Orwell's remark that "language is often used as an instrument of social control" in Language and Public Policy. Tibbetts argues that such a relation between NCTE and Orwell's work is contradicting because 'the Committee's attitude towards language is liberal, even radical' while 'Orwell's attitude was conservative, even reactionary'. He also criticizes on the Committee's 'continual attack' against linguistic 'purism'.
Modern uses of Doublespeak
Whereas in the early days of the practice it was considered wrong to construct words to disguise meaning, this is now an accepted and established practice. There is a thriving industry in constructing words without explicit meaning but with particular connotations for new products or companies. Doublespeak is also employed in the field of politics. Hence, education is necessary to recognize and combat against doublespeak-use effectively.
Doublespeak in advertising
Advertisers can use doublespeak to mask their commercial intent from users, as users' defenses against advertising become more well entrenched. Some are attempting to counter this technique, however, with a number of systems which offer diverse views and information which highlights the manipulative and dishonest methods that advertisers employ.
According to Jacques Ellul, “the aim is not to even modify people’s ideas on a given subject, rather, it is to achieve conformity in the way that people act." He demonstrates this view by offering an example from drug advertising. By using doublespeak in advertisements, aspirin production rose by almost 50 percent from over 23 million pounds in 1960 to over 35 million pounds in 1970.
The Rule of Parity
William Lutz's book on "The Rule of Parity" illustrates how doublespeak is being employed in the advertising industry.
Lutz uses the example of parity products: products in which most, if not all, brands in a class or category are of similar quality. To highlight the uniqueness of their product, advertisers may choose to market it differently from their competitors. Advertising is used to create the impression of superiority. This is shown in the first rule of parity, which involves the use of the words "better" and "best". In parity claims, "better" means "best", and "best" means "equal to".
Lutz goes on to say that when advertisers state that their product is “good", it is equivalent in meaning to saying that their product is the best. If all the brands are similar, they must all be similarly good. When they claim that their product is the "best", they mean that the product is as good as the other superior products in its category. Using the toothpaste industry as an example, Lutz says that, because there is no dramatic difference among the products of the major toothpaste companies today, they are equal. However, if all of the different toothpastes are good and equal, there is no need to prove their claim. On the contrary, advertisers cannot market their products as “better” as it is a comparative term, and a claim of superiority.
Education to combat Doublespeak
Educating students has been suggested by experts to be one of the ways to counter doublespeak. Educating students in the English language is important to help them identify how doublespeak is being used to mislead and conceal information.
Charles Weingartner, one of the founding members of the NCTE committee on Public Doublespeak mentioned: “people do not know enough about the subject (the reality) to recognize that the language being used conceals, distorts, misleads”. There is a crucial need for English language teachers to educate and become experts in teaching about linguistic vulnerability. “Teachers of English should teach our students that words are not things, but verbal tokens or signs of things that should finally be carried back to the things that they stand for to be verified. Students should be taught a healthy skepticism about the potential abuse of language but duly warned about the dangers of an unhealthy cynicism.
According to William Lutz: “Only by teaching respect and love for the language can teachers of English instill in students the sense of outrage they should experience when they encounter doublespeak." "Students must first learn to use the language effectively, to understand its beauty and power.” “Only by using language well will we come to appreciate the perversion inherent in doublespeak.” 
This pattern was formulated by Hugh Rank and is a simple tool designed to teach some basic patterns of persuasion used in political propaganda and commercial advertising. As it was formulated to educate the public on how to counter doublespeak via education, its aim was to reach the widest possible audience of citizens. It was prepared to be incorporated within a wide variety of existing programs and textbooks in English, speech, media, communications, journalism, social studies. The NCTE has endorsed this pattern as a useful way of teaching students to cope with propaganda from any source.
The function of the Intensify/Downplay pattern is not to dictate what should be discussed but to encourage coherent thought and systematic organization. The pattern works in two ways: intensifying and downplaying. All people intensify and this is done via repetition, association and composition. Downplay is commonly done via omission, diversion and confusion as they communicate in words, gestures, numbers, et cetera. Individuals can better cope with organized persuasion by recognizing the common ways whereby communication is intensified or downplayed, so as to counter doublespeak.
Doublespeak in politics
Doublespeak is often used to avoid answering questions or to avoid the public's questions without directly stating that the specific politician is ignoring or rephrasing the question.
The Doublespeak Award
Main article: Doublespeak Award
Doublespeak is often used by politicians for the advancement of their agenda. The Doublespeak Award is an "ironic tribute to public speakers who have perpetuated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing, or self-centered." It has been issued by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) since 1974. The recipients of the Doublespeak Award are usually politicians, national administration or departments. An example of this is the United States Department of Defense, which won the award three times in 1991, 1993, and 2001 respectively. For the 1991 award, the United States Department of Defense 'swept the first six places in the Doublespeak top ten'  for using euphemisms like "servicing the target" (bombing) and "force packages" (warplanes). Among the other phrases in contention were "difficult exercise in labor relations", meaning a strike, and "meaningful downturn in aggregate output," an attempt to avoid saying the word "recession".
1.^ Jump up to: a b "Pentagon Is Given an Award, but It's No Prize". The New York Times. November 24, 1991.
2.Jump up ^ Orwell, George (2008). 1984. Penguin Books Ltd. ISBN 978-0-14-103614-4.
3.Jump up ^ Herman 1992.
4.Jump up ^ "double, adj.1 and adv.". OED Online. Oxford University Press. 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2013.
5.Jump up ^ "double-talk, n.". OED Online. Oxford University Press. 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2013.
6.Jump up ^ Kehl, D.G.; Livingston, Howard (July 1999). "Doublespeak Detection for the English Classroom". The English Journal 88 (6): 78. JSTOR 822191.
7.Jump up ^ Herman 1992, p. 25.
8.Jump up ^ Herman 1992. p. 3.
9.Jump up ^ Orwell, George (1949). 1984. New York:Signet Books. p. 163.
10.Jump up ^ Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich; Engels, Friedrich (1970). The German Ideology (2004 ed.). International Publishers Co,1970. pp. 18–19. ISBN 0-7178-0302-3.
11.Jump up ^ Moran, Terrence (Oct 1975). "Public Doublespeak; 1984 and Beyond". College English 37 (2): 224. JSTOR 375076.
12.Jump up ^ Goodwin, Jeff (March 1994). "What's Right (And Wrong) about Left Media Criticism? Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model". Sociological Forum 9 (1): 102–103. JSTOR 684944.
13.^ Jump up to: a b c d Chomsky, Noam; Herman, Edward S. (1991). Manufacturing Consent. 52: Black Rose Books. ISBN 1-55164-002-3.
14.^ Jump up to: a b Hasselriis, Peter (February 1991). "From Pearl Harbor to Watergate to Kuwait: "Language in Thought and Action"". The English Journal 80 (2): 28–35.
15.^ Jump up to: a b c d "A new look at 'doublespeak'". Advertising Age. November 6, 1989.
16.^ Jump up to: a b c Zais, Robert S. (September 1978). "Labels, Bandwagons, & Linguistic Pollution in the Field of Education". The English Journal 67 (6): 51–53.
17.^ Jump up to: a b c Tibbetts, A.M. (December 1978). "A Case of Confusion: The NCTE Committee on Public Doublespeak". College English 40 (4): 407–412.
18.Jump up ^ "Doublespeak".
19.Jump up ^ Gibson, Walker (February 1975). "Public Doublespeak: Doublespeak in Advertising". The English Journal 64 (2).
20.Jump up ^ Hormell, Sidney J. (May 1975). "Public Doublespeak: Cable TV, Media Systems, and Doublespeak (Or) Something Funny Happened to the Message on the Way to the Audience.". The English Journal 64 (5).
21.Jump up ^ Dieterich, Daniel J. (December 1974). "Public Doublespeak: Teaching about Language in the Marketplace". College English 36 (4): 477–481.
22.^ Jump up to: a b Hasselriis, Peter (February 1991). "All Toothpastes Are Equal (=Best):William Lutz's "Doublespeak" Doublespeak: From "Revenue Enhancement" to "Terminal Living" --How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You by William Lutz". The English Journal 80 (2): 91–92.
23.Jump up ^ Kehl, D.G; Howard Livingston (July 1999). "Doublespeak Detection for the English Classroom". The English Journal 88 (6).
24.Jump up ^ Lutz, William. "Fourteen Years of Doublespeak". The English Journal 77 (3).
25.Jump up ^ "NCTE: The Doublespeak Award".
26.Jump up ^ Kelly, Tom (December 21, 1991). "Rape trial deserved award for doublespeak". The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec).
Baar, James (2004). Spinspeak II: The Dictionary Of Language Pollution. ISBN 978-1-4184-2742-9.
Edward S. Herman (1992). Beyond Hypocrisy: Decoding the News in an Age of Propaganda : Including A Doublespeak Dictionary for the 1990s. Black Rose Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-895431-48-3.
Lutz, William. (1987). Doublespeak: From "Revenue Enhancement" to "Terminal Living": How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You. New York: Harper & Row
Lutz, William (1989). Beyond 1984: Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age. National Council of Teachers of English. ISBN 978-0-8141-0285-5.
Look up doublespeak in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Business Doublespeak A short essay by William Lutz
Booknotes interview with William Lutz on Doublespeak: The Use of Language to Deceive You, December 31, 1989.
DoubleSpeak Homepage by Michele Damron (1998)
National Council of Teachers of English Doublespeak Award established in 1974
Mar 20, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
If you spend any time on Twitter, you'll probably be familiar with the latest pathetic attempt to defend and insulate the U.S. status quo from criticism. It centers around the usage of an infantile and meaningless term, "whataboutism."
Let's begin with one particularly absurd accusation of "whataboutism" promoted by NPR last year:
When O'Reilly countered that "Putin is a killer," Trump responded, "There are a lot of killers. You got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?"
This particular brand of changing the subject is called "whataboutism" -- a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet Union and, later, Russia. And its use in Russia helps illustrate how it could be such a useful tool now, in America. As Russian political experts told NPR, it's an attractive tactic for populists in particular, allowing them to be vague but appear straight-talking at the same time.
The idea behind whataboutism is simple: Party A accuses Party B of doing something bad. Party B responds by changing the subject and pointing out one of Party A's faults -- "Yeah? Well what about that bad thing you did?" (Hence the name.)
It's not exactly a complicated tactic -- any grade-schooler can master the "yeah-well-you-suck-too-so-there" defense. But it came to be associated with the USSR because of the Soviet Union's heavy reliance upon whataboutism throughout the Cold War and afterward, as Russia.
This is a really embarrassing take by NPR .
First, the author tries to associate a tactic that's been around since humans first wandered into caves -- deflecting attention away from yourself by pointing out the flaws in others -- into some uniquely nefarious Russian propaganda tool. Second, that's not even what Trump did in this example.
In his response to O'Reilly, Trump wasn't using "whataboutism" to deflect away from his own sins. Rather, he offered a rare moment of self-reflection about the true role played by the U.S. government around the world. This isn't "whataboutism," it's questioning the hypocrisy and abuse of power of one's own government. It's an attempt to take responsibility for stuff he might actually be able to change as President. It's the most ethical and honest response to that question in light of the amount of violence the U.S. government engages in abroad. If our leaders did this more often, we might stop repeatedly jumping from one insane and destructive war to the next.
Had O'Reilly's question been about the U.S. government's ongoing support of Saudi Arabia's war crimes in Yemen and Trump shifted the conversation to Russian atrocities, he could then be fairly accused of changing the subject to avoid accountability. In that case, you could condemn Trump for "whataboutism" because he intentionally deflected attention away from his own government's sins to the sins of another. This sort of thing is indeed very dangerous, especially when done by someone in a position of power.
But here's the thing. You don't need some catchy, infantile term like "whataboutism" to point out that someone in power's deflecting attention from their own transgressions. I agree wholeheartedly with Adam Johnson when he states:
He's absolutely right. One should never rely on the lazy use of a cutesy, catchy term like "whataboutism" as a retort to someone who points out a glaring contradiction. If you do, you're either a propagandist with no counterargument or a fool who mindlessly adopts the jingoistic cues of others. Responding to someone by saying "that's just whataboutism" isn't an argument, it's an assault on one's logical faculties. It's attempt to provide people with a way to shut down debate and conversation by simply blurting out a clever sounding fake-word. Here's an example of how I've seen it used on Twitter.
One U.S. citizen (likely a card carrying member of "the resistance") will regurgitate some standard intel agency line on Syria or Russia. Another U.S. citizen will then draw attention to the fact that their own government plays an active role in egregious war crimes in Yemen on behalf of the Saudis. This person will proceed to advocate for skepticism with regard to U.S. government and intelligence agency war promotion considering how badly the public was deceived in the run up to the Iraq war. For this offense, they'll be accused of "whataboutism."
The problem with this accusation is that this person isn't switching the subject to bring up another's transgression to deflect from scrutiny of his or her behavior. In contrast, the person is putting the conversation in its rightful place, which is to question the behavior of one's own country. When it comes to issues such as nation-state violence, the primary duty of a citizen is not to obsess all day about the violence perpetrated by foreign governments, but to hold one's own government accountable. This is as true for an American citizen in American as it is for a Russian citizen in Russia.
NPR explained how the Russian government used "whataboutism" to deflect away from it's own crimes, but Trump actually did the opposite in his interview with O'Reilly. He wasn't deflecting away from his own country's crimes, he was pointing out that they exist. That's precisely what you're supposed to do as a citizen.
The problem arises when governments deflect attention away from their own crimes for which they are actually responsible, by pointing out the crimes of a foreign government. This is indeed propaganda and an evasion of responsibility. Calling out your own government's hypocrisy in matters of state sanctioned murder abroad is the exact opposite sort of thing.
Noam Chomsky put it better than I ever could. Here's what he said in a 2003 interview :
QUESTION: When you talk about the role of intellectuals, you say that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country. Could you explain this assertion?
CHOMSKY: One of the most elementary moral truisms is that you are responsible for the anticipated consequences of your own actions. It is fine to talk about the crimes of Genghis Khan, but there isn't much that you can do about them. If Soviet intellectuals chose to devote their energies to crimes of the U.S., which they could do nothing about, that is their business. We honor those who recognized that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country. And it is interesting that no one ever asks for an explanation, because in the case of official enemies, truisms are indeed truisms. It is when truisms are applied to ourselves that they become contentious, or even outrageous. But they remain truisms. In fact, the truisms hold far more for us than they did for Soviet dissidents, for the simple reason that we are in free societies, do not face repression, and can have a substantial influence on government policy. So if we adopt truisms, that is where we will focus most of our energy and commitment. The explanation is even more obvious than in the case of official enemies.
Naturally, truisms are hated when applied to oneself. You can see it dramatically in the case of terrorism. In fact one of the reasons why I am considered "public enemy number one" among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many intellectuals, including left-liberal intellectuals, because if we faced such truths we could do something about the terrorist acts for which we are responsible, accepting elementary moral responsibilities instead of lauding ourselves for denouncing the crimes official enemies, about which we can often do very little.
Elementary honesty is often uncomfortable, in personal life as well, and there are people who make great efforts to evade it. For intellectuals, throughout history, it has often come close to being their vocation. Intellectuals are commonly integrated into dominant institutions. Their privilege and prestige derives from adapting to the interests of power concentrations, often taking a critical look but in very limited ways. For example, one may criticize the war in Vietnam as a "mistake" that began with "benign intentions". But it goes too far to say that the war is not "a mistake" but was "fundamentally wrong and immoral". the position of about 70 percent of the public by the late 1960s, persisting until today, but of only a margin of intellectuals. The same is true of terrorism. In acceptable discourse, as can easily be demonstrated, the term is used to refer to terrorist acts that THEY carry out against US, not those that WE carry out against THEM. That is probably close to a historical universal. And there are innumerable other examples.
For saying the above, Noam Chomsky would surely be labeled the godfather of "whataboutism" by Twitter's resistance army, but he's actually advocating the most ethical, logical and courageous path of citizenship. U.S. taxpayers aren't paying for Russia's military operations, but they are paying for the U.S. government's. The idea that U.S. citizens emphasizing U.S. violence are committing the thought-crime of "whataboutism" when it comes to foreign policy is absurd. Our primary responsibility as citizens is our own aggressive and violent foreign policy, not that of other countries.
Naturally, this isn't how neocon/neoliberal and intelligence agency imperialists want you to think. Proponents of the American empire need the public to ignore the atrocities of the U.S. government and its allies for obvious reasons, while constantly obsessing over the atrocities of the empire's official enemies. This is the only way to continue to exert force abroad without domestic pushback, and it's critical in order to keep the imperial gravy train going for those it benefits so significantly. How do you shut down vibrant foreign policy debate on social media that exposes imperial hypocrisy? Accuse people of "whataboutism."
That's what I see going on. I see the weaponization of a cutesy, catchy term on social media in order to prevent people from questioning their own government. It's completely logical and ethical for U.S. citizens to push back against those arguing for more regime change wars by pointing out the evils of our own foreign policy.
In fact, the unethical position is the one espoused by those who claim the U.S. can do no wrong, but when an adversary country does what we permit ourselves to do, they must be bombed into oblivion. These people know they have no argument, so they run around condemning those trying to hold their own government accountable of "whataboutism." It's a nonsensical term with no real meaning or purpose other than to defend imperial talking points.
Accusations of "whataboutism" amount to a cynical, sleazy attempt to stifle debate without actually engaging in argument. It's also the sort of desperate and childish propaganda tactic you'd expect during late-stage imperial decline.
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron , or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.
Mar 07, 2018 | off-guardian.org
Originally from OffGuardian : "Mark Galeotti's response to Putin's plea for reason: lies & penis jokes"
Seamus Padraig says March 4, 2018
He clearly lives in that well-populated Washington/Langley logic-free dream zone where Russia is both a dangerous rogue state with enough reach to "hack" the US election and "attack" America, and a silly little rusty nowhere country to be mocked and patronised into oblivion.
A perfect example of Orwell's doublethink: "The act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct."
Arrby says March 6, 2018"The tame audience dutifully applauded" – Mark Galeotti
That small phrase told me a lot. He's complaining about an audience! They sat and listened politely like any other audience and applauded repeatedly. When Putin got into the section of his address dealing with advanced military weapons, You could see the change in audience members' demeanor. They couldn't contain themselves, relatively speaking. They were ecstatic. I personally found that alarming, but understandable.
People all over the the world saw it that address. So for Galeotti to try to make something out of nothing here, makes him look pathetic to a lot of rational, informed people. Additionally, It appears that Mark was personally greatly annoyed by the particularly warm reception Putin's remarks about the weaponry got from his audience. One wouldn't call the audience, during that part of the address, one that "dutifully" applauded.
The world, especially outside the US, knows why the Russian audience appreciated the fact that Russia under Putin did not do 'nothing' about Mr Galeotti's hero, uncle Sam, the bully. They were relieved to learn that after the provocations they had all endured, some of which they just heard Putin list, his public answer wasn't just "ouch." Russia – whose soldiers won WWII for everyone, despite the fact that the Nazi bug that was squashed and splattered ended up coming to life wherever its goo landed – has been so disrespected and threatened by almost the entire developed world, that it was only natural that that audience for a brief moment felt some pride in Putin's bold talk. But racist, irrational haters of Russia don't want to see any of that. As well, that audience no doubt rationally felt that here was some hope, in the reality that Putin here publically revealed, that the racist warmongers in centers of power throughout the West might just back off. Would Galeotti have the light to see that?
But Galeotti has a job to do, which, it appears, he is perfectly suited to doing, and that job is channel state propaganda in accordance with the old American NSC 68 and the doctrinal system that that document represents.
The entire American-led Corporatocracy is held captive to the outlook and doctrinal system stemming from that irrational anti-communist, Cold War document. As Chomsky said, the mafia don decides what the policies will be.
Feb 14, 2018 | www.unz.com
Do you remember the terrible onslaught of the mainstream media on presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2016? Dozens of revelations about his fake hair, pussy grabbing, tax avoidance and what not; dozens of public polls proving that the nation wanted Hillary and hated Trump, opinion pieces convincing you that only racist white trash could think of voting for him. They even printed that Time weekly (or was it Newsweek ?) cover with a Madam President ! greeting. And then came the day of counting.
This development comes to my mind as I follow the incessant attacks in the Russian media and social networks on presidential candidate Paul N. Grudinin (usually nicknamed Gru). Russian state-owned TV is supposed, by its charter, to play a neutral role in the election campaign. They did it for a week after his name was entered into the race. In that week's time, Gru's rating skyrocketed and almost reached that of President Putin. This was an unexpected turn of events for the Kremlin, whose political witch-doctors expected Gru to make a modest showing and to improve the doubtful legitimacy of the forthcoming elections.
When they recognised the magnitude of their mistake, they gave a command to their obedient TV channels, and Gru became the target of their daily attacks. Out of eight candidates, Gru is the only one who gets negative coverage. About him, they speak bad or nothing, just like about Trump in the US in his time.
A veteran candidate, the old Nationalist Zhirinovsky gets plenty of time on the TV, for he has only one message, Down with Gru . His wild attacks on Gru are broadcasted in every election campaign program every evening on the TV.
There is a spoiler, a tiny 'Russian Communists' Trotskyite party, whose only purpose in life is to steal votes from the mainstream Communist Party (KPRF). It is a virtual party that disappears after elections to come back to life before new elections. Some innocent souls in the Russian hinterland vote for them being convinced that this is the Communist Party. They are violently anti-Gru, and post like mad in Facebook their denunciations of the not-quite-communist Gru.
However, Gru is not a run-of-the-mill communist candidate. A successful manager of an agricultural holding called Lenin Sovkhoz , he is a good example of Russian industrialists otherwise called 'Red directors', that is managers of Soviet factories and enterprises who adjusted to the new system. They are producers of goods for local consumption, and their interests do not coincide with those of the Putin (or Yeltsin) oligarchs. Those oligarchs made their fortunes by importing consumer goods and exporting raw materials; they are the base of Putin's power.
The producers, both industrialists and agriculturalists, want more protectionist measures and cheaper credits, they want to boost the buying power of ordinary Russians, that is increase salaries and pensions. Their fortunes lie with the fortunes of the ordinary Russian workers. They are dissatisfied with President Putin, and even more with his government led by Mr Medvedev.
Gru became the candidate for a plethora of political organisations from the Left and from the Right; he is supported by Russian Nationalists , though his main alliance is with the KPRF (the mainstream Russian Communist Party). He is a combination of Sanders and Trump, for workers, against immigration, for protective trade barriers and low-cost credits for small producers. A self-made-man of the upper-middle class, not a billionaire, but definitely a wealthy man, he does not scare middle-class Russians who would be afraid to support a real red-in-tooth-and-claw Communist.
Though the official prediction grouop, the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, VTSIOM (ВЦИОМ) claims 70% of electorate will vote for Putin and only 7% for Grudinin, the feeling on the ground is very different. There are a few sites allowing people to express their preference by "voting"; a biggish site of this sort is http://president-rf.ru/ where out of 180,000 voters 60% preferred Gru, and only 30% voted for President Putin. On other sites, Gru gets anything from 30 to 80 per cent of the vote.
It is difficult to predict the result, and it is still over a month until election day, but VTSIOM's assessment appears too low to justify the ferocious campaign against Gru. If he were about to get 6-7%, the top wheeler-dealer, the presidential administration, would not bother and would not activate its troll factories and fake social network accounts to stop Grudinin. It seems that man has a chance to win the battle, that is if the elections are reasonably fair.
Putin has been a good president, and a popular one, but he has his limitations. He still feels obliged to keep the Deal he made with the late President Yeltsin; he still keeps fighting the Soviet memory, he is surrounded by his buddies who roll in cash; he does not support local production except for the weapons industry. While he was good for a long while, there is a feeling that the country is ripe for a changing of the guard.
A teacher in the preparatory school may be wonderful, but sooner or later, the child should move on, to new teachers. Gru is the first man who has excited the Russians since 1996, and he is likely to make a strong bid.
The Russian Left is Different.
Grudinin has the support of the left and of the right; of workers and of managers; of communists and of nationalists. How could this happen? The main reason is that the Russian Left is quite different from the European Left. The Russians are Bolsheviks. The Western Left is predominantly Menshevik.
Historically, the Russian Social Democrats were divided into Bolsheviks, the Majorites, and Mensheviks, the Minorites. The actual argument that divided the Social Democrats into these majority and minority groups is of little importance now and of even less relevance. Nowadays, the Majorites are the Left for the Majority, while Minorites are the Left for Minorities.
The Russian Left is the force for the majority, for the workers, for the natives. The Western Left is for gender, ethnic, religious minorities. If you'd ask a Western worker about the Left, he will probably tell you: the Left is not for us, they care only for gays and migrants who take our jobs.
Mensheviks are (and were) better for Jews, as Jews are the ultimate minority. Bolsheviks accepted Jews as individuals and equals, not as a separate and preferred minority group. Bolsheviks fought against the Bund, the Jewish Social Democrats, while the Mensheviks joined with the Bund.
Stalin observed (and Trotsky quoted that in his book on Stalin):
"the majority of the Menshevik group were Jews. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik group were ethnic Russians. In this connection a Bolshevik observed in jest that the Mensheviks constituted a Jewish group while the Bolsheviks constituted a true-Russian group and, therefore, it wouldn't be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to organise a pogrom in the Party".
While being comradely to Jewish comrades, Stalin effectively de-Jewified the Russian Communist Party by bringing in many ethnic Russian workers and peasants. He treated the Jews as just one of the tribes populating Eurasia, not as the Chosen Ones. This is the sin of Stalin in Jewish eyes, and that is why they condemn him now.
The Jewish influence in the Western Left has survived all these years and even outlived the massive Jewish involvement with the Left. After 1968, the Jews en masse departed to new pastures, but their influence lingered, entrenching the Jewish-friendly Menshevik tendency. They adapted the Western Left to fit their preferences and made it suitable for cohabitation with the elites. Along the way, they had lost their working class support, but they were more interested in keeping with the rulers.
The Jewish-run Mensheviks fit perfectly into the oligarchy. They believe that Anna and Susan Wojicki, the former wife of Sergei ("Google") Brin and her sister, are unhappy discriminated women, unlike welders and auto mechanics, who are white men, the patriarchal lords of the world.
The Bolsheviks struggle for women's equality is exemplified in free kindergartens, and the Mensheviks, in reserved places for women in the directorships of large companies.
Mensheviks are concerned about the rights of transgender people to a urinal of their preference. The Bolsheviks are concerned about the right of workers to work, to a decent wage, to their share of natural resources. You can easily understand what sort of Left is preferred in the eyes of mainstream media and their billionaire owners.
Migrants provide another cause of distinction. The Western working class achieved much during the years of the Cold War, when the Western ruling class had to compete with the Communists for workers' loyalty. Now the rulers are eager to void these achievements – and the easiest way is through population replacement by the massive importation of migrants and refugees. For this purpose, Capital is waging wars in the Middle East and fanning strife in Africa, and they facilitate the refugees' flight to Europe and America.
The Mensheviks, that is the Western Left, support migrants against the indigenous population, in the name of their anti-racism and internationalism. However, for all practical reasons they do the work for their masters, because migrants are easier to manipulate, they help to lower salaries, to undermine the workers' organisations, and to destroy natural solidarity.
The Bolsheviks are against the causes of mass migration, against the use of migrants and refugees to the detriment of the indigenous population. This is the position of the Russian Communists, whose anti-migration rhetoric is so outspoken that even Trumpists would find it too brusque.
Mr Grudinin has a history of anti-immigration demands behind him. He calls for enforcing a visa regime with the Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kirgizstan, as now their working migrants do not need a Russian visa. He insists that every working migrant should be given the same salary as a native Russian worker, the idea being that in such conditions there will be less demand for migrants' labour. Perhaps it makes sense to hire inexperienced dirt-cheap Tajik migrants, but if for the same price you can hire a qualified Russian worker, you will probably employ the latter.
Grudinin's suggestions are anathema to the neo-liberal Kremlin. Putin keeps the doors of Russia wide open for immigration, to the detriment of native workers. If the immigration flow has decreased it is mostly the result of Rouble's depreciation.
In the West, these ideas of limiting migration belong fully to the realm of the Right, or even the Alt-Right. They are described as "populist", meaning they are popular but disapproved by the ruling elites. The Western Left has been manipulated into an unpopular position, while the popular ('populist') ideas have been transferred to the Right.
In Russia, the Russian Communists did not follow the path of the Mensheviks. They made all sorts of compromises, but they always stayed for the workers. They do not fight for gays, migrants and upper-class feminists. They make allies with the producers and against the rentiers and bankers.
Perhaps the Russian Communists will show the way to their Western comrades as they did a hundred years ago. These two branches of the world Left movement have had a checkered history. In the 19 th century, the new-born Russian revolutionary movement was keen to learn from the West; the Russian Narodniks went on a pilgrimage to visit Marx in London seeking his advice. The Western revolutionaries of that time (including Marx) were as distrustful of Russians as Robert Mueller or John McCain. They thought Russia was so backward and so reactionary that a Russian progressive Left was an impossibility.
And then something unexpected had happened. When the guns of the First World War struck, only the Russian Left, led by Vladimir Lenin, did not lose their heads, but led their country to the victory of socialist revolution. After 1917, for many years the Russian Left was the guiding star for the world Left.
The Russians paid heavily for their cutting edge achievement, while the European peoples became the main beneficiaries of the October Revolution. They've got all the Russians fought for, for free. Their leaders were afraid their workers would go over to the Communists; and thus the welfare state came into being.
Eventually, both branches of the Left forgot their history. The Western Left forgot their victories were due to the Red Army's might, and they proudly preached the new-fangled theories of Euro-Communism. The Russians, always eager to learn a new trick, fell for it, and dismantled the socialist state, sincerely expecting they would live as good as Swedes. The end was gruesome: the Russians were plunged into long years of depopulation and de-industrialisation, while the flagship of the Western left, the huge Euro-Communist parties of France and Italy disappeared. Swedish socialism has almost perished.
Over the years, the Western Left virtually disappeared, and its place was taken by the pseudo-left, who appropriated the name of the historical Left parties. Capital raised in its secret labs this poisonous pseudo-Left, with one supreme goal in mind – to make the very name of communism obnoxious and repelling.
For the Bolsheviks, the Good Ones were workers, they were the salt of the earth. Everyone could join this class by identifying with workers. The Menshevik pseudo-left has offered a shortcut to join the Good Ones: Identity Politics. You are Good if you are discriminated against. If you are black, you suffer discrimination, even if you are an Obama. If you are a woman, you suffer discrimination. If you like BDSM, you are discriminated against. If you are a migrant, you are discriminated against. If you are a Jew, a Soros or a Rothschild, you are still suffer discrimination, for just half a century ago your grandfather was not allowed to join a country club.
For Bolsheviks, discrimination is not the most urgent problem. They are surely against discrimination; but it takes a backseat after the really important question: labour/capital relationship. When the working people win, discrimination will vanish, they say. By keeping the eye on this most important bottom line, the Bolsheviks are the greatest natural enemies of the 1%.
The cause of socialism was defeated in 1991, no doubt, but it is not the first defeat. In November 1941, when the German troops reached the outskirts of Moscow, it also appeared socialism had been defeated. However, in 1945 socialism rebounded. Since 1991, the winner, Capital, claims its victory is irrevocable and irreversible. It is, they say, the end of history.
But victories and defeats can be reversed. The Soviets did not know that. They believed that "the victory of socialism is inevitable because it is progressive." Perhaps in the long run it is inevitable, but it can happen in a thousand years, and meanwhile a nuclear war or biological experiments can exterminate the human race.
The most basic ideals of French Republic – democracy, liberty, equality – were defeated by Napoleon, by the Bourbons, by Orleans, but they rebounded.
Nothing is inevitable. The Soviet Bolsheviks believed in inevitability – and lost; while their adversaries just fought hard, not giving an inch – and won. Their attitude should be emulated. The people of the West are ready for the real-Left turn. Recent successes of Jeremy Corbyn in England, of Bernie Sanders in the US, of Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France prove it. They are soft, but hard ones will come, too.
This is not the beginning of the end of the cruel man-eating neo-liberalism and its Menshevik allies, but this is the end of the beginning in the universal battle for socialism, as Churchill said of the British victory over the Germans at El Alamein. The light at the end of the tunnel is already visible. And then the Russian Communists will again become the beacon for the workers of the world.
Gru's success can change a lot of things. His worldview has many points in common with Donald Trump. In a month' time, we shall know how far this Russian Trump has succeeded in advancing.
Israel Shamir can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org This article was first published at The Unz Review .
Feb 10, 2018 | consortiumnews.com
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 11:58 amCitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 11:59 am
The reason we are in the pickle barrel is exactly the reasons stated in the article and by Annie. We are exposed to exactly what they want to show us and are blinded by other narratives which do not support the group think. It is as if the politicians, the intelligence community and the media are all involved in a conspiracy. Remember that word means a plan by two or more people. No tin foil hat required. But anyone suggesting conspiracy is instantly branded a nut hence the universal use of the term conspiracy nut as a derogatory term to label anyone with a different message that somehow captures the attention of a wider audience. It is not so much that all Holly Wood stars are liberal socialists. They are a diverse group. However they all have one thing in common which is they have the public's ear. They are also not on point with the approved messaging and so must be continuously branded as conspiracy nuts and socialist subversives. We all have seen the 24/7 bashing of these folks. Control is the reason.
The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".
It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual.
I am appalled by how the media at first put Trump in the game in the first place for economic gain (see Les Moonvies article) and then created another fictional fantasy which serves the goal of permawar and control of the citizenry through fear, confusion and ignorance. We are all exposed to the Daily Two Minutes of Hate another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: The Two Minutes Hate, from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must watch a film depicting the Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them for exactly two minutes. The difference is we can find it 24/7 on our technological wonder machines.
Another Orwellian concept is The Ministry of Truth: The Ministry of Truth (in Newspeak, Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. From Wikipedia: As well as administering truth, the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of events.
We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure.
Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
If these things seem eerily similar to what is going on today then we probably have a power structure which is a grave threat for peace. Okay, we do have a power structure that is a grave threat to peace but oddly not democracy. Noam Chomsky wrote about propaganda stating, "it's the essence of democracy" This notion is contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy. The point is that in a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because you can control what they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be heard, you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.
The folks who contribute here on this website are few indeed and what lies beyond the haven of the oasis is a vast barren dessert filled with scorpions, snakes and a whole bunch of lies.
Well said for Annie and the authors.
Democracy may be the ultimate tool of control of the masses.
More wisdom from Goebbels:
- Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will
- A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
- We are striving not for truth, but effect.
- The worst enemy of any propaganda, it is intellectualism.
- For the lie to be believable, it should be terrifying.
- A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth.
- Some day the lie will fall under its own weight and the truth will rise.
I like that last one a lot but unfortunately it will not come to pass until things get bad.Elaine Sandchaz , February 10, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Link to article: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-moonves-snap-htmlstory.htmlCitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 7:57 pm
Citizen One – You have beautifully & precicely nailed the means ( "how" ) the USA has gotten in such a mess : Newspeak, Daily Two Minutes of Hate, The Ministry of Truth, DoubleSpeak and the way and why of how Propaganda actually works. George Orwell was a seer.
AND now it would be helpful to understand "why" the USA has gotten in such a mess. The polarity of American politics tells a very long story but in short, polarity means there are only two ways and when the going gets tough, each way is in the extreme – the right way or the wrong way, it flips depending on each individual's political persuasion. When the going gets tough the extremes become the tail that wags the dog.
So my question is : WHY after the seemingly happy years under Obama did the going get so tough so fast?
My pet theory is that Trump threatened to "drain the swamp" which was understood – seemingly now quite rightly – that he was going to expose some very significant wrong doing in very high places. I believe that he was on "NYC/DC" friendly terms with the Clintons and both parties knew each other for the true devil they were. Thus the big red flag he waved in her face brought about what is turning in to a multi billion dollar ongoing attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the people, in the eyes of the World and in the eyes of the highest courts " America be damned".
And politically this is quite necessary because she is not only an icon of all that is American,"apple pie and motherhood"; she is to the under 45 age group the great white mother of democracy via Democrat rule. And the bad part of that iconography is that if she goes down so does the party. It was also critical for her to win because of all the swamp people who had chosen to compromise their life's work, thus had to continue in that compromise in the hope that they would come out clean since they believed that both Trump and the ordinary American were so naive, thus would be easily played for fools.
So all this crap to destroy Trump is about saving her hide to save the party. Things are so desperate now because there is nothing yet in place to replace her in the mind's eye of the Democratic half the voting public. All who might have been in 2nd place were kept diminished to raise her higher. It now is quite obvious that she has been told to shut up and lie low, to come out only when she is in safe company – as at the Golden Globes. So the big picture today as is being painted and hyped to intensify mass hysteria is that Mueller needs to be protected from Trump where really what is needed are the names and numbers to be called on for more $$$, more social media propaganda pages and to vote in November 2018.
Why only that? Because Trump is not going to fire Mueller; remember Mueller was a Bush man and so was Comey. They have a long history of going both ways. Survival is tricky business – especially in DC. The scapegoats are already cornered; possibly the new "lie" is already in draft form. Remember – "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
It is going to be an interesting next few months!! But we can hope that, from this one of many previous American political exercises in democracy, the ordinary defenders of those democratic values (the voters) will learn some significant truths about governance, transparency and the rule of law. The guys at the top are not gods and are not above the law; they must not only do right but be seen to do right.Mariam , February 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm
The only thing I can tell you is that the conspirators who concocted Russia Gate have figured out all the pieces to the puzzle of how to control events via the means I mentioned and many other means. We are as manipulated as a light switch. One way we are all fired up about some BS and flip the switch and we are all calm and mellow. Hopefully if you follow the threads here you will find out a lot of alternative information much of it thoroughly researched by highly respected and qualified individuals who are in a position to know the truth.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. They call themselves "liberals" in fact they are "new liberals."
Alas, these false ("new) liberals" are very well represented by the Obamas, the Clintons, the Trudeaus, the Macrons and so on.
If you truly believe in the "left" and call yourself "progressive" you couldn't stand for useless and pointless wars, period.
Oct 20, 2017 | www.unz.com
Back in October of 2016, I wrote a somewhat divisive essay in which I suggested that political dissent is being systematically pathologized. In fact, this process has been ongoing for decades, but it has been significantly accelerated since the Brexit referendum and the Rise of Trump (or, rather, the Fall of Hillary Clinton, as it was Americans' lack of enthusiasm for eight more years of corporatocracy with a sugar coating of identity politics, and not their enthusiasm for Trump, that mostly put the clown in office.)
In the twelve months since I wrote that piece, we have been subjected to a concerted campaign of corporate media propaganda for which there is no historical precedent. Virtually every major organ of the Western media apparatus (the most powerful propaganda machine in the annals of powerful propaganda machines) has been relentlessly churning out variations on a new official ideological narrative designed to generate and enforce conformity. The gist of this propaganda campaign is that "Western democracy" is under attack by a confederacy of Russians and white supremacists, as well as "the terrorists" and other "extremists" it's been under attack by for the last sixteen years.
I've been writing about this campaign for a year now, so I'm not going to rehash all the details. Suffice to say we've gone from Russian operatives hacking the American elections to "Russia-linked" persons "apparently" setting up "illegitimate" Facebook accounts, "likely operated out of Russia," and publishing ads that are "indistinguishable from legitimate political speech" on the Internet. This is what the corporate media is presenting as evidence of "an unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy," a handful of political ads on Facebook. In addition to the Russian hacker propaganda, since August, we have also been treated to relentless white supremacist hysteria and daily reminders from the corporate media that "white nationalism is destroying the West." The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.
At the same time, government and corporate entities have been aggressively restricting (and in many cases eliminating) fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to due process under the law. The justification for this curtailment of rights (which started in earnest in 2001, following the September 11 attacks) is protecting the public from the threat of "terrorism," which apparently shows no signs of abating. As of now, the United States has been in a State of Emergency for over sixteen years. The UK is in a virtual State of Emergency . France is now in the process of enshrining its permanent State of Emergency into law. Draconian counter-terrorism measures have been implemented throughout the EU . Not just the notorious American police but police throughout the West have been militarized . Every other day we learn of some new emergency security measure designed to keep us safe from "the terrorists," the "lone wolf shooters," and other "extremists."
Conveniently, since the Brexit referendum and unexpected election of Trump (which is when the capitalist ruling classes first recognized that they had a widespread nationalist backlash on their hands), the definition of "terrorism" (or, more broadly, "extremism") has been expanded to include not just Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or whoever we're calling "the terrorists" these days, but anyone else the ruling classes decide they need to label "extremists." The FBI has designated Black Lives Matter "Black Identity Extremists." The FBI and the DHS have designated Antifa "domestic terrorists."
Hosting corporations have shut down several white supremacist and neo-Nazi websites , along with their access to online fundraising. Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. Twitter, Facebook, and Google have teamed up to cleanse the Internet of "extremist content," "hate speech," and whatever else they arbitrarily decide is inappropriate. YouTube, with assistance from the ADL (which deems pro-Palestinian activists and other critics of Israel "extremists") is censoring "extremist" and "controversial" videos , in an effort to "fight terrorist content online." Facebook is also collaborating with Israel to thwart "extremism," "incitement of violence," and whatever else Israel decides is "inflammatory."
In the UK, simply reading "terrorist content" is punishable by fifteen years in prison. Over three thousand people were arrested last year for publishing "offensive" and "menacing" material.
Whatever your opinion of these organizations and "extremist" persons is beside the point. I'm not a big fan of neo-Nazis, personally, but neither am I a fan of Antifa. I don't have much use for conspiracy theories, or a lot of the nonsense one finds on the Internet, but I consume a fair amount of alternative media, and I publish in CounterPunch, The Unz Review, ColdType, and other non-corporate journals.
I consider myself a leftist, basically, but my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick.
What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment).
As I wrote in that essay a year ago, "a line is being drawn in the ideological sand." This line cuts across both Left and Right, dividing what the capitalist ruling classes designate "normal" from what they label "extremist." The traditional ideological paradigm, Left versus Right, is disappearing (except as a kind of minstrel show), and is being replaced, or overwritten, by a pathological paradigm based upon the concept of "extremism."
* * *
Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary.
In the early 1990s, as the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, and globalized Western capitalism became the unrivaled global-hegemonic ideological system that it is today, a new concept was needed to represent the official enemy and its ideology. The concept of "extremism" does that perfectly, as it connotes, not an external enemy with a definable ideological goal, but rather, a deviation from the norm. The nature of the deviation (e.g., right-wing, left-wing, faith-based, and so on) is secondary, almost incidental. The deviation itself is the point. The "terrorist," the "extremist," the "white supremacist," the "religious fanatic," the "violent anarchist" these figures are not rational actors whose ideas we need to intellectually engage with in order to debate or debunk. They are pathological deviations, mutant cells within the body of "normality," which we need to identify and eliminate, not for ideological reasons, but purely in order to maintain "security."
A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in human history), technically, has no ideology. "Normality" is its ideology an ideology which erases itself and substitutes the concept of what's "normal," or, in other words, "just the way it is." The specific characteristics of "normality," although not quite arbitrary, are ever-changing. In the West, for example, thirty years ago, smoking was normal. Now, it's abnormal. Being gay was abnormal. Now, it's normal. Being transgender is becoming normal, although we're still in the early stages of the process. Racism has become abnormal. Body hair is currently abnormal. Walking down the street in a semi-fugue state robotically thumbing the screen of a smartphone that you just finished thumbing a minute ago is "normal." Capitalism has no qualms with these constant revisions to what is considered normal, because none of them are threats to capitalism. On the contrary, as far as values are concerned, the more flexible and commodifiable the better.
See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
Yes, we all want there to be other values, and we pretend there are, but there aren't, not really. Although we're free to enjoy parochial subcultures based on alternative values (i.e., religious bodies, the arts, and so on), these subcultures operate within capitalist society, and ultimately conform to its rules. In the arts, for example, works are either commercial products, like any other commodity, or they are subsidized by what could be called "the simulated aristocracy," the ivy league-educated leisure classes (and lower class artists aspiring thereto) who need to pretend that they still have "culture" in order to feel superior to the masses. In the latter case, this feeling of superiority is the upscale product being sold. In the former, it is entertainment, distraction from the depressing realities of living, not in a society at all, but in a marketplace with no real human values. (In the absence of any real cultural values, there is no qualitative difference between Gerhard Richter and Adam Sandler, for example. They're both successful capitalist artists. They're just selling their products in different markets.)
The fact that it has no human values is the evil genius of global capitalist society. Unlike the despotic societies it replaced, it has no allegiance to any cultural identities, or traditions, or anything other than money. It can accommodate any form of government, as long as it plays ball with global capitalism. Thus, the window dressing of "normality" is markedly different from country to country, but the essence of "normality" remains the same. Even in countries with state religions (like Iran) or state ideologies (like China), the governments play by the rules of global capitalism like everyone else. If they don't, they can expect to receive a visit from global capitalism's Regime Change Department (i.e., the US military and its assorted partners).
Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural).
We haven't really got our minds around it yet, because we're still in the early stages of it, but we have entered an epoch in which historical events are primarily being driven, and societies reshaped, not by sovereign nation states acting in their national interests but by supranational corporations acting in their corporate interests. Paramount among these corporate interests is the maintenance and expansion of global capitalism, and the elimination of any impediments thereto. Forget about the United States (i.e., the actual nation state) for a moment, and look at what's been happening since the early 1990s. The US military's "disastrous misadventures" in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and the former Yugoslavia, among other exotic places (which have obviously had nothing to do with the welfare or security of any actual Americans), begin to make a lot more sense.
Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media.
I'm not suggesting there's a bunch of capitalists sitting around in a room somewhere in their shiny black top hats planning all of this. I'm talking about systemic development, which is a little more complex than that, and much more difficult to intelligently discuss because we're used to perceiving historico-political events in the context of competing nation states, rather than competing ideological systems or non-competing ideological systems, for capitalism has no competition . What it has, instead, is a variety of insurgencies, the faith-based Islamic fundamentalist insurgency and the neo-nationalist insurgency chief among them. There will certainly be others throughout the near future as global capitalism consolidates control and restructures societies according to its values. None of these insurgencies will be successful.
Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized.
This won't happen right away, of course. Things are liable to get ugly first (as if they weren't ugly enough already), but probably not in the way we're expecting, or being trained to expect by the corporate media. Look, I'll give you a dollar if it turns out I'm wrong, and the Russians, terrorists, white supremacists, and other "extremists" do bring down "democracy" and launch their Islamic, white supremacist, Russo-Nazi Reich, or whatever, but from where I sit it looks pretty clear tomorrow belongs to the Corporatocracy.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Malla , October 20, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMTBrilliant Article. But this has been going on for nearly a century or more. New York Jewish bankers fund the Bolshevik revolution which gets rid of the Romanov dynasty and many of the revolutionaries are not even Russian. What many people do not know is that many Western companies invested money in Bolshevik Russia as the Bolsheviks were speeding up the modernising of the country. What many do not know is that Feminism, destruction of families and traditional societies, homoerotic art etc . was forced on the new Soviet population in a shock therapy sort of way. The same process has been implemented in the West by the elites using a much slower 'boiling the frog' method using Cultural Marxism. The aim of the Soviet Union was to spread Communism around the World and hence bring about the One World Government as wished by the globalists. Their national anthem was the 'Internationale'. The globalists were funding revolutionary movements throughout Europe and other parts of the world. One such attempt went extremely wrong and that was in Germany where instead of the Communists coming in power, the National Socialists come in power which was the most dangerous challenge faced by the Zio/globalists/elite gang. The Globalists force a war using false flag events like Pearl Harbour etc and crushed the powers which challenged their rule i.e. Germany, Japan and Italy. That is why Capitalist USA funded Communist Soviet Union using the land lease program, which on the surface never makes any sense.Seamus Padraig , October 20, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT
However in Soviet Russia, a power struggle leads to Stalin destroying the old Communist order of Lenin Trotsky. Trotsky and his supporters leave the Soviet Union. Many of the present Neo Cons are ex Trotskyites and hence the crazy hatred for Russia even today in American politics. These Neocons do not have any principles, they will use any ideology such as Communism, Islam, twisted Western Conservatism anything to attain their global goals.
Now with Stalin coming to power, things actually improved and the war with Hitler's Third Reich gave Stalin the chance to purge many old school globalist commies and then the Soviet Union went towards a more nationalist road. Jews slowly started losing their hold on power with Russians and eventually other Soviets gaining more powerful positions. These folks found the ugly modern art culture of the early Soviet period revolting and started a new movement where the messages of Socialism can be delivered with more healthy beautiful art and culture. This process was called 'Social Realism'. So strangely what happened was that the Capitalist Christian West was becoming more and more less traditional with time (Cultural Marxism/Fabien Socialism via media, education, Hollywood) while the Eastern block was slowly moving in an opposite direction. The CIA (which is basically the intelligence agency arm of Wall Street Bankers) was working to stop this 'Social Realism' movement.
These same globalists also funded Mao and pulled the rug under Chiang Kai Shek who they were supporting earlier. Yes, Mao was funded by the Rockerfeller/ Rothschild Cabal. Now, even if the Globalists were not happy with Stalin gaining power in the Soviet Union (they preferred the internationalist Trotskyites), they still found that they could work out with the Soviet Union. That is why during the 2nd World war, the USA supports the USSR with money and material, Stalin gets a facelift as 'friendly Uncle Joe' for the Western audience. Many Cossack families who had escaped the Soviet Union to the West were sent to their deaths after the War to the Soviet Union. Why? Mr. Eden of Britain who could not stand Hitler wanted a New World Order where they could work with the more murderous Soviet Union.
Now we have the cold war. What is not known is that behind the scenes at a higher level, the Americans and the Soviets cooperated with each other exchanging technology, basically the cold war was quite fake. But the Cold war gave the American government (basically the Globalists) to take American Tax payers hard earned money to fund many projects such as Star Wars programme etc All this was not needed, as a gentleman named Keenan had shown in his book that all the Americans needed to do was to make sure Japan, Germany and Britain did not fall to the Soviets, that's it. Thus trillions of American tax payer money would be saved. But obviously the Military Industrial Complex did not like that idea. Both the Soviet and the American governments got the excuse spend their people's hard money on weapons research as well as exchanging some of that technology in the back ground. It is during this period that the precursor to the Internet was already developed. Many of the technology we use today was already invented much earlier by government agencies but released to the people later.
Then we have the Vietnam war. Now you must realise that the Globalist government of America uses wars not only to change enemy societies but also the domestic society in the West. So during the Vietnam War, the US government using the alphabet agencies such as the CIA kick start the fake opposition hippie movements. The CIA not only drugged the Vietnamese population using drugs from the Golden Triangle but later released them on the home population in the USA and the West. This was all part of the Cultural Marxist plan to change or social engineer American/ Western society. Many institutes like the Travestock Institute were part of this process. For example one of the main hochos of the Cultural Marxism, a Mr. Aderno was closely related to the Beatles movement.
Several experiments was done on mind control such as MK Ultra, monarch programming, Edward Bernay's works etc Their aim was to destroy traditional Western society and the long term goal is a New World Order. Blacks for example were used as weapons against Whites at the same time the black social order was destroyed further via the media etc
Now, Nixon going to China was to start a long term (long planned) process to bring about Corporate Communism. Yes that is going to be economic system in the coming New World Order. China is the test tube, where the Worst of Communism and the Worst of Crony Capitalism be brought together as an experiment. As the Soviet Union was going in a direction, the globalist was not happy about (it was becoming more nationalist), they worked to bring the Soviet Union down and thus the Soviet experiment ended only to be continued in China.
NATO today is the core military arm of the globalists, a precursor to a One World Military Force. That explains why after the Warsaw pact was dismantled, NATO was not or why NATO would interfere in the Middle East which is far away from the Atlantic Ocean.
The coming Cashless society will finally lead to a moneyless or distribution society, in other words Communism, that is the long term plan.
My point is, many of the geo political events as well as social movements of the last century (feminism for example) were all planned for a long time and are not accidents. The coming technologies like the internet of things, 5G technology, Cashless society, biometric identification everywhere etc are all designed to help bring about the final aim of the globalists. The final aim is a one world government with Corporate ruled Communism where we, the worker bees will be living in our shitty inner city like ghetto homes eating GM plastic foods and listening to crappy music. That is the future they have planned for us. A inner city ghetto like place under Communism ruled by greedy evil corporates.Once again, C.J. nails it!Issac , October 21, 2017 at 1:52 am GMT"Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests."peterAUS , October 21, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening.@IssacWizard of Oz , October 25, 2017 at 4:32 am GMT
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles.
Agree.@MallaedNels , October 25, 2017 at 4:46 am GMT
There must be some evidence for your assertions about the long term plans and aims of globalists and others if there is truth in them. The sort of people you are referring to would often have kept private diaries and certainly written many hundreds or thousands of letters. Can you give any references to such evidence of say 80 to 130 years ago?Finally an article that tells as it is! and the first comment is a great one too. It is right there to see for anybody with eyes screwed in right.wayfarer , October 25, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT"Three Things Cannot Be Long Hidden: the Sun, the Moon, and the Truth." – BuddhaThereisaGod , October 25, 2017 at 5:54 am GMTRegarding Trump being "a clown" the jury is out:jilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 7:35 am GMT
.. puzzling that the writer feels the need to virtue-signal by saying he "doesn't have much time for conspiracy theories" while condemning an absolutely massive conspiracy to present establishment lies as truth.
That is one of the most depressing demonstrations of the success of the ruling creeps that I have yet come across.Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried.animalogic , October 25, 2017 at 7:36 am GMT"See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value."jilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 7:36 am GMT
This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power.
Mr Hopkins is also correct when he points out that Capitalism has essentially NO values (exchange value is a value, but also a mechanism). Again, Capitalism stands for nothing: any form of government is acceptable as long as it bows to neoliberal markets.
However, the author probably goes to far:
"Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony".
Capitalism has no values: however the Masters of the capitalist system most certainly do: Capitalism is a means, the most thorough, profound means yet invented, for the attainment of that value which has NO exchange value: POWER.
Capitalism is a supranational hegemony – yet the Elites which control it, who will act as one when presented with any external threats to Capitalism itself, are not unified internally. Indeed, they will engage in cut throat competition, whether considered as individuals or nations or as particular industries.
US Imperialism is not imaginary, it is not a mere appearance or mirage of Capitalism, supranational or not. US Imperialism in essence empowers certain sets of Capitalists over other sets. No, they may not purposely endanger the System as a whole, however, that still leaves plenty of space for aggressive competition, up to & including war.
Imperialism is the political corollary to the ultimate economic goal of the individual Capitalist: Monopoly.@Mallam___ , October 25, 2017 at 9:00 am GMT
Read Howard Zinn, and discover that the USA always was the same since Columbus began.Psychologically daring (being no minstrel to corporatocracy nor irrelevant activism and other "religions" that endorse the current world global system as the overhead), rationally correct, relevant, core definition of the larger geo-world and deeper "ideological" grounding( in the case of capitalism the quite shallow brute forcing of greed as an incentive, as sterile a society as possible), and adhering to longer timelines of reality of planet earth. Perfectly captures the "essence" of the dynamics of our times.Hans Vogel , October 25, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT
The few come to the authors' through-sites by many venue-ways, that's where some of the corporocratic world, by sheer statistics wind up also. Why do they not get the overhand into molding the shallow into anything better in the long haul. No world leader, no intellectual within power circles, even within confined quarters, speaks to the absurdity of the ongoing slugging and maltering of global human?
The elites of now are too dumb to consider the planet exo-human as a limited resource. Immigration, migration, is the de facto path to "normalization" in the terms of the author. Reducing the world population is not "in" the capitalist ideology. A major weakness, or if one prefers the stake that pinches the concept of capitalism: more instead of quality principles.
The game changers, the possible game changers: eugenics and how they play out as to the elites ( understanding the genome and manipulating it), artificial intelligence ( defining it first, not the "Elon Musk" definition), and as a far outlier exo-planetary arguments.
Confront the above with the "unexpected", the not-human engineered possible events (astroids and the like, secondary effects of human induced toxicity, others), and the chances to get to the author's "dollar" and what it by then might mean is indeed tiny.
As to the content, one of the utmost relevant articles, it is "art" to condense such broad a world view into a few words, it requires a deep understanding foremost, left to wonder what can be grasped by most reading above. Some-one try the numbers?, "big data" anyone, they might turn out in favor of what the author undoubtedly absorbed as the nucleus of twenty-first thinking, strategy and engineering.
This kind of thinking and "Harvard" conventionality, what a distance.Great article, spot on. Indeed we are all at the mercy now of a relatively small clique of ruthless criminals who are served by armies of desensitized, stupid mercenaries: MBAs, politicians, thugs, college professors, "whorenalists", etc. I am afraid that the best answer to the current and future dystopia is what the Germans call "innere Emigration," to psychologically detach oneself from the contemporary world.m___ , October 25, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT
Thus, the only way out of this hellhole is through reading and thinking, which every self-respecting individual should engage in. Shun most contemporary "literature" and instead turn to the classics of European culture: there you will find all you need.
For an earlier and ever so pertinent analysis of the contemporary desert, I can heartily recommend Umberto Galimberti's I vizi capitali e i nuovi vizi (Milan, 2003).@Mallajacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 11:12 am GMT
And yes, another verbally strong expression of the in your face truth, though for so few to grasp. The author again has a deep understanding, if one prefers, it points to the venueway of coming to terms, the empirical pathway as to the understanding.
"Plasticky" society is my preferred term for designating the aberrance that most (within the elites), the rest who cares (as an historical truth), do not seem to identify as proper cluelessness in the light of longer timelines. The current global ideology, religion of capitalism-democracy is the equivalent of opportunistic naval staring of the elites. They are not aware that suffocation will irreversibly affect oneself. Not enough air is the equivalent of no air in the end.Jake , October 25, 2017 at 11:28 am GMT
The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.
While the above is true, I hope most folks understand that the basic concept of controlling people through fear is nothing new. The much vaunted constitution was crammed down our collective throats by the rich scoundrels of the time in the words of more than one anti-federalist through the conjuring of quite a set of threats, all bogus.
I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.
- Patrick Henry, Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars -- Three Bugbears, June 5, 7, and 9, 1788
Bottom line: Concentrated wealth and power suck.The USA was ruled by a plutoligarchy from its inception, and the material benefits we still enjoy have occurred not because of it but despite it.It is the nightmare world of Network come to life.jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMTFor today's goofy "right wing" big business "conservatives" who think the US won WW2, I got news for you. Monopoly capitalism, complete with increasing centralization of the economy and political forces were given boosts by both world wars.jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT
It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms of the market tha t business turned, increasingly after the 1900′s, to the federal government for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed, not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies that big business (as well as trade associations smaller business) had not been able to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both Left and Right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and anti-business. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the Right. Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko almost uniquely in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the State and not as a result of free market operations.
-Murray N. Rothbard, Rothbard Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, [Originally appeared in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]
https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-prospects-libertyMalla , October 25, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT
A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in human history), technically, has no ideology.
Please change that to" contemporary state-sponsored global capitalism@Wizard of OzMiro23 , October 25, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT
It was all about connecting the dots really. Connecting the dots of too many books I have gobe through and videos I have seen. Too many to list here.
You can get a lot of info from the book 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley though he avoids mantioning Jews and calls it the Anglo American establishment, Anthony Sutton however I completely disagree about funding of the Third Reich but he does talk a lot about the secret relationship between the USA and the USSR, Revilo Oliver etc.. etc Well you could read the Protocols. Now if you think that the protocols was a forgery, you gotta see this, especially the last part.
Also check this out
Also check out what this Wall Street guy realised in his career.
Also this 911 firefighter, what he found out after some researchjacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT
Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
This looks like the "financialization" of society with Citizens morphing into Consumers.
And it's worth saying that Citizenship and Consumership are completely different concepts:
Citizenship – Dictionary.com
1. – the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.
2. – the character of an individual viewed as a member of society;behavior in terms of the duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen:
an award for good citizenship.
The Consumer – Dictionary.com
1. a person or thing that consumes.
2. Economics. a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.
A good citizen can then define themselves in a rather non-selfish, non-financial way as for example, someone who respects others, contributes to local decisions (politically active), gains respect through work and ethical standards etc.
A good consumer on the other hand, seems to be more a self-idea, essentially someone who buys and consumes a lot (financial idea), has little political interest – and probably defines themselves (and others) by how they spend money and what they own.
It's clear that US, and global capitalism, prefers active consumers over active citizens, and maybe it explains why the US has such a worthless and dysfunctional political process.daniel le mouche , October 25, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT
It was all about connecting the dots really.
Some folks are completely unable to connect the dots even when spoon fed the evidence. You'll note that some, in risible displays of quasi-intellectual arrogance, make virtually impossible demands for proof, none of which they'll ever accept. Rather, they flock to self aggrandizing mythology like flies to fresh sewage which the plutoligarchy produces nearly infinitely.
Your observations appear pretty accurate and self justifying I'd say.@Wizard of Ozdaniel le mouche , October 25, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT
I can, Wiz.
Look up the film director Aaron Russo (recently deceased), discussing how David Rockefeller tried to bring him over to the dark side. Rockefeller discussed for example the women's movement, its engineering. Also, there's Aldous Huxley's speech The Ultimate Revolution, on how drugs are the final solution to rabble troubles–we will think we're happy even in the most appalling societal conditions.@jilles dykstrajoe webb , October 25, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT
I can only say Beware of Zinn, best friend of Chomsky, endlessly tauted by shysters like Amy Goodman and Counterpunch. Like all liberal gatekeepers, he wouldn't touch 911. I saw him speak not long before he died, and when questioned on this he said, 'That was a long time ago, let's talk about now.'
This from a professed historian, and it was only 7 years after 911. He seemed to have the same old Jewish agenda, make Europeans look really bad at all times. He was always on message, like the shyster Chomsky. Sincerely probing for the truth was not part of his agenda; his truths were highly selective, and such a colossal event as 911 concerned him not at all, with the ensuing wars, Patriot Acts, bullshit war on Terror, etc etcSay what???Wally , Website October 25, 2017 at 4:24 pm GMT
" capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system."
This is a typical Left Lie. Capitalism in its present internationalist phase absolutely requires Anti-Racism to lubricate sales uh, internationally and domestically. We are all Equal.
Then, the ticking-off of the rest of the bad isms, and labeling them 'despotic' is another Leftwing and poetic attack on more or less all of us white folks, who have largely invented Capitalism, from a racialist point of view.
"Poetic" because it is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument. The other 'despotisms' are not despotic, unless you claim, like I do that racial personalities are more, or less despotic, with Whites being the least despotic. The Left totalitarian thinks emotional despotism's source is political or statist. It are not. However, Capitalism has been far less despotic than communism, etc.
Emotional Despotism is part of who Homo Sapiens is, and this emotional despotism is not racially equal. Whites are the least despotic, and have organized law and rules to contain such despotism.
Systems arise naturally from the Human Condition, like it or not. The attempt here is to sully the Capitalist system, and that is all it is. This article itself is despotic propaganda.
Arguably, human nature is despotic, and White civilization has attempted to limit our despotic nature.
This is another story.
As for elevating capitalism into a 'social system' .this is somewhat true. However, that is not totally bad, as capitalism delivers the goods, which is the first thing, after getting out of bed.
The second thing, is having a conformable social environment, and that is where racial accord enters.
People want familiar and trustworthy people around them and that is just the way human nature is genetic similarity, etc.
Beyond that, the various Leftie complaints-without-end, are also just the way it is. And yes they can be addressed and ameliorated to some degree, but human nature is not a System to be manipulated, even thought the current crop of scientistic lefties talk a good storyline about epigenetics and other Hopes, false of course, like communist planning which makes its first priority, Social Change which is always despotic. Society takes care of itself, especially racial society.
As Senator Vail said about the 1924 Immigration Act which held the line against Immigration, "if there is going to be any changing being done, we will do it and nobody else." That 'we' was a White we.
Capitalism must be national. International capital is tyranny.
Joe Webb@jacques sheeteWally , Website October 25, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT
Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.@Mallajacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT
"How Big Oil Conquered the World"?
That's called 'taking the bait.'
US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US Big Government taxes on a single gallon are around seventy-one cents for US states & rising, the tax is now $1.00 per gallon for CA.
IOW, greedy US governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make, and it is the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
And that is just in the US. Have a look at Europe's taxes. My, my.
It's Big Government, not Big Oil.@Wallyjilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT
Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.
That is part of the reason why the constitutional convention was held in secret as well.
The cunning connivers who ram government down our throats don't like their designs exposed, and it's an old trick which nearly always works.
Here's Aristophanes on the subject. His play is worth a read. Short and great satire on the politicians of the day.
No, Cleon, little you care for his reigning in Arcadia, it's to pillage and impose on the allies at will that you reckon; y ou wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist, that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage, he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.
- Aristophanes, The Knights, 424 BC
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/knights.html@daniel le mouchejilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT
The first loyalty of jews is supposed to be to jews.
Norman Finkelstein is called a traitor by jews, the Dutch jew Hamburger is called a traitor by Dutch jews, he's the chairman of 'Een ander joodse geluid', best translated by 'another jewish opinion', the organisation criticises Israel.
Jewish involvement in Sept 11 seems probable, the 'dancing Israelis', the assertion that most jews working in the Twin Towers at the time were either sick or took a day off, the fact that the Towers were jewish property, ready for a costly demolition, much abestos in the buildings, thus the 'terrorist' act brought a great profit.
Can one expect a jew to expose things like this ?
On his book, I did not find inconsistencies with literature I already knew.
The merit of the book is listing many events that affected common people in the USA, and destroying the myth that 'in the USA who is poor has only himself to blame'.
This nonsense becomes clear even from the diaries of Harold L Ickes, or from Jonathan Raban Bad Land, 1997.
As for Zinn's criticism of the adored USA constitution, I read that Charles A Beard already in 1919 resigned because he also criticised this constitution.@Wally
Indeed, in our countries about half the national income goes to the governments by taxes, this is the reason a country like Denmark is the best country to live in.
Aug 21, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.comAugust 20, 2017 by Yves Smith Thanks to a huge and well-organized police presence, as well as strict limits imposed on the participants, follow-up to the "Unite the Right" white supremacist event in Charlottesville, the "Boston Free Speech" rally on Saturday demonstrated that the community wasn't about to cut extreme right wing agitators much slack :
"We probably had 40,000 people out here standing tall against hatred and bigotry in our city, and that's a good feeling," [Boston Police] Commissioner [William] Evans said.
The permit covered only 100 people. The city prohibited anyone carrying weapons, bats or other potential bludgeons, such as sticks to carry posters, glass containers and cans, sharp objects, and shields from coming to Boston Common. There were some small scale skirmishes and the police arrested 33, mainly for disorderly conduct.
The far right participants did not get to finish their agenda. The event broke up early as, per the Wall Street Journal , "a huge throng of counterprotesters approached Boston Common."
Some will contend, as the organizers of the event have, that their "free speech right" was violated. Does this claim stand up to scrutiny?
Contrary to popular mythology, the right to speak has always had limits in the US. In fact, we live in what amounts to a free speech Wild West compared to what existed in my childhood, and this isn't due just to the Citizens United decision.
Consider broadcast television, which was a vastly more important political force in the 1960s and 1970s than now. The three major networks, along with the two national news magazines, Time and Newsweek, shaped mass culture. And they all stayed tightly within a relatively narrow spectrum of civic views and social norms.
Broadcast spectrum has always been explicitly recognized to be a commons, yet it has never been a "free speech" zone. From Michael O'Malley, Associate Professor of History and Art History, George Mason University:
Like radio broadcasters, television broadcasters operated under the authority of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC was established by Franklin Roosevelt with the assumption that the airwaves, the broadcast "bandwidth," belonged to the people, much in the same way as, for example, federal forest land belongs to the people. Broadcasters applied for a license to use a section of that public property, a specific frequency.
Formal and informal censorship of television was extensive. By happenstance, I once met Dan Rowan of Rowan's and Martin's Laugh-In, which ran from 1968 to 1973. He described some of their regular fights with censors. I wish I recalled the details (this was over 30 years ago) but the impression I had was that Laugh-In was seen as being close enough to being transgressive that every show was reviewed before airing. Histories of censorship of television make clear that most of it was done by the broadcasters themselves, some of it presumably based on an understanding of what the FCC would tolerate, but also based on the advertisers' view of what the mass audience and mass values were.
But what about "free speech" in the context of the Boston right-wing rally? Let us turn over the mike to Neil W, who weighed in via e-mail:
Charlottesville was not an exercise in free speech. There's no such thing as free speech. Seriously. It's a myth. An absolute tolerance for speech is neither defined in our Constitution nor our jurisprudence. There's protected speech. And there's speech that is not protected. Look at the list of types of speech defined in law as not being protected.
- Fighting words
- Defamation (including libel and slander)
- Child pornography
- Incitement to imminent lawless action
- True threats
- Solicitations to commit crimes
Do you see the commonality in there? It's harm . Speech that is not protected by law ultimately creates or perpetuates harm . Hate speech creates harm . Stanley Fish, discussing a Jeremy Waldron thesis:
"The very point of hate speech, [Waldron] says, "is to negate the implicit assurance that a society offers to the members of vulnerable groups -- that they are accepted as a matter of course, along with everyone else." Purveyors of hate "aim to undermine this assurance, call it in question, and taint it with visible expressions of hatred, exclusion and contempt." What the Vice video, and most of the other Charlottesville coverage, shows is an exercise in hate speech.
Hate speech creates harm that is arguably more egregious than any related to the types of speech in the above list. And yet, our political mythology demands that hate speech be tolerated regardless of the obvious and well documented harm it causes because there is some mysterious greater harm awaiting us should we act to extend to all of our citizens the implicit assurance incorporated into our Constitution and protections from harm found in our jurisprudence. Other countries have hate speech laws. The United States is long past due.
We don't know what might have been said at the Boston event, particularly since the roster of speakers was changing up to right before the event. But we have clues.
Even though one of the six organizers, John Medlar, said he was a libertarian and denounced hate groups, at a minimum, scheduling this event as a follow-up to Charlottesville wasn't consistent with that branding. Even the people planning protests on a clearly unrelated issue, the firing of Google's James Damore, postponed demonstrations that were also originally set for this weekend to distance them from Charlottesville.
And it looks like the "Boston Free Speech" leaders, whether intentionally or not, were trying to have it both ways. From Boston.com last week :
John Medlar, who says he is an organizer for Boston Free Speech, the group behind the rally, told Boston.com that his group is not associated with the white supremacists who marched with tiki torches in Charlottesville last weekend. But the group has said in comments on a Facebook post that there would be "overlap" in attendance between the two rallies .
Boston Free Speech posted an updated list Friday of the rally's speakers, which includes Joe Biggs, who worked until recently for Infowars, the website founded by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones; and Kyle Chapman, known on the internet as "Based Stickman" and founder of the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights, which is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "new Alt-Right group of street fighters."
Some speakers initially billed for the rally, such as Gavin McInnes, a former Vice Media co-founder and founder of the Proud Boys, a far-right group, dropped out following a Monday press conference by Boston officials condemning the event.
As Micheal Olenick pointed out, both France and Germany have laws against hate speech, yet they are not stymied robust political debate, nor the rise of far-right candidates like Marine Le Pen.
Although US exceptionalism means we are loath to look overseas and crib from successful policies implemented elsewhere, the time is overdue for us to catch up here. City officials implemented an anti-hate-speech standard in Boston in a clumsy manner. We might as well do it right.
Aug 20, 2017 | theguardian.com
sdylan , 28 Jan 2013 13:01Your problem with Orwell is your complete failure to grasp his point.meridianman , 27 Jan 2013 11:43
"Politics and the English Language" was not intended as a Bible for writers, but a warning against the abuses of language for political purposes, at a time when the stakes were very high.
He did not mean to suggest that certain techniques (foreign phrases, passive tense) should never be used; only that writers be judicious and think before using them. "Is this really the best way to get your point across, or are you just obfuscating?" That's why he included his caveat at the end, which even you could not fail to notice.
Anyone who's gotten a university degree recently will see that his advice is still routinely ignored by academics, who write badly as a matter of pride.
And I wish most green text e-mails (such as yours) were as insightful as Orwell's essay.Steven: You pose the question "Should we just assume that everything politicians say is hot air?"geoffreyalexander , 26 Jan 2013 18:40
Answer: We do not have to assume that everything politicians say is hot air. We know that it is.
We, citizens not subjects, individuals not members of groups, know what politicians are going to say before they say it. Indeed, a rule of thumb, if you're in any way interested in the truth, is to believe the opposite of the claim made by the politician, especially by those in the highest positions of power. This is especially true when an assertion is prefaced with "Let me be perfectly clear . . . " We citizens know that we are about to be lied to. It's a dead giveaway, so obvious only a college professor or a journalist could miss it.
You're a bit rough on Orwell and his famous essay. You chastise him for his pedantic rules, and then you fault him for his seeing the limitations of slavish adherence to rules. Which is it? At least Orwell possessed the virtue of self-criticism. I doubt that epistemological humility or Socratic doubt is something you think about much.
You're flat wrong about the passive voice. Orwell and many other usage mavens recognize what you do not: the passive voice is the most widespread linguistic means of evading responsibility or accountability. The classic contemporary case is this Clintonism: "Mistakes were made."
This catchphrase has now been incorporated into the DNA of politicians and overweening government bureaucrats. Losing the subject, the listener is lulled into accepting the indefinite diffusion of responsibility, as though no one commited a mistake, no human and moral agency were necessary, and that somehow the mistake emerged spontaneously.
Orwell does go hard on the word "gleichschaltung," a German word tailor-made for the government-sponsored media age in which we made. The term means the comprehensive bringing into line with the exclusive narrative disseminated by the administration in power. You do not mention "gleichschaltung" specifically, and it's little wonder. Orwell had you and yours pegged.
I will continue to admire Orwell and his work, apply "Orwellian" to every mind-numbing banality out of the mouths of Obama and his cronies and supporters, and to resist journalists and all other thought police.A literary mentor of mine once advised, "Write as clearly and directly as you can, and try to avoid clichés." I've found that it's remarkably difficult to do even that much well.James McCaffery , 25 Jan 2013 15:41I'm surprised that Poole never refers to Hugh Kenner's classic essay, "The Politics of the Plain." One of Kenner's most interesting arguments is that plain prose can be used deceitfully by politicians just as effectively as purple prose; we are less likely to question a proposition if it is confidently stated as fact.. In the United States today we are inundated with "plain speaking" from tabloid newspapers, talk radio, and populist pundits on radio and television. It is almost impossible to carry on an intelligent conversation with somebody who has been indoctrinated by these bald-faced liars.alanwskinner -> FredDee , 21 Jan 2013 06:49I beg to differ. The essay can be fully appreciated without reference to, or knowledge of, Nineteen Eight-Four. The reverse might be true; if one feels a compelling need to validate or further explore concepts - which are, in any case, fully-formed in the book - then this essay might help.JoyceDavenport , 21 Jan 2013 01:42
It is easier to trace the birth of this essay by reading Orwell's earlier work, especially his work after 1937. His dismay at the manipulation of truth, which led him to make his remark to Koestler that 'History stopped in 1936' becomes a marked feature of his work.
It would also be a short history tracing the journey from 'Politics and the English Language to Nineteen Eight-Four, given that there is a scant two years from the publication of the essay to the publication of the novel.
It is hardly surprising that the word, cliché doesn't appear, given Orwell's opposition to the use of foreign words; and that the purpose of the essay is to act as a style guide not for writing but for thinking. Actually, in that context, I have no doubt Orwell would prefer an honest, instantly recognisable and unequivocal cliché to the obfuscating terminology he lambasts in the article.Dwarf stands on the shoulders of a giant in order to proclaim how much farther he can see.JoyceDavenport -> Longhaultrucker , 21 Jan 2013 01:26This disturbed me too, when I managed to work out that he was criticizing Orwell and that 'nod' was being used in the sense of 'nodding off', I.e. lack of attention in using the expression 'purge' rather than a 'nod' i.e. a knowing acknowledgement of the fact the the expression was a euphemism for the horrors that took place.FredDee , 20 Jan 2013 16:12
The whole article is littered with forced attempts at erudition and 'cleverness' at the expense of clarity of meaning. I think Orwell would have, rightly, been indignant that a writer with such a poor grasp of clear language should lay such criticisms at his door.Longhaultrucker -> alanwskinner , 18 Jan 2013 09:36
"a standalone edition of "Politics and the English Language".
There's a problem right there : this essay CANNOT be looked at on its own, historically, but rather as a kind of intellectual foreword to 1984.
Take your own quote :
"Political language [ ] is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
How near is that idea to the concept of 'doublethink' ? Historically, how exactly did Orwell progress from one to the other ?
As for myself, when I first read the essay there was one word conspicuous by its absence : cliché.
Pause to allow readers to say how they avoid clichés like the plague.
One, probably oversimple, way of looking at the essay is to discuss how it is really about 'thinking in cliché' or, rather, how if what you say or write is in any way clichéd then, to be brutally honest, you are not thinking at all.@alanwskinner - Orwell's principles are explicitly about writing about politics. I don't think he claims they cover fiction - or poetry. He doesn't say they're hard and fast rules - he explicitly says the opposite. It remains the fact that people would be writing and speaking about politics in the English-speaking world far more clearly now if more people were adhering to Orwell's principles.MarlowePI , 18 Jan 2013 08:40Gosh this piece meanders. Why don't we all read some Orwell instead... much more fun.Mestfa English , 18 Jan 2013 07:47Well, i don't see Orwell's works as an assault to politics ; it is rather a criticism that anyone can have about anything, let alone politics where lies and fraud are prevalent features. I guess, euphemism is an inescapable part of politics as it mitigates some brutal expressions and meanings that often underly some unwanted action. What i see mavrick is as was was against language exchange. I have never heard of a language that is 100 per cent pure which does not go through the process of borrowing?alanwskinner -> Longhaultrucker , 18 Jan 2013 03:27I'm afraid I don't share your enthusiasm for the essay, nor its usefulness to a writer. Orwell's six rules constitute a guide on how to avoid bad writing, not a guide on how to write well.alanwskinner , 18 Jan 2013 02:03
Writers who write by rules set by others shackle whatever degree of talent they have, though it could be argued that the smaller the talent, the greater the need for rules.
To paraphrase Shaw, there is only one golden rule of writing: There are no golden rules. Take the passive voice, for instance; it is not innately deficient nor always inappropriate. To pick a current example, read the opening few paragraphs of Mantel's Bring Up the Bodies . Dotted with the passive voice, it is beautiful, evocative and flowing. Her prose is so much better than anything Orwell managed.You are a very brave man, Mr Poole, to even suggest any criticism of St George in the Guardian. To many, he is the first and last word on all things political and literary - even by those who have read none of his first or last words, or any in between, for that matter.WSobchak , 17 Jan 2013 20:32
I do happen to agree with you that the essay in question, while quite apt in many aspects, is neither groundbreaking nor without some strange idiosyncrasies. Many before him have noted how language is demeaned and rendered senseless by abuse. Despite that, Orwell's is a welcome contribution to the campaign to stop trivialisation and perversion of language by interest groups, be they politicians, oligarchs, managers and even one of Orwell's favourite targets, 'the intelligentsia'.
Orwell's point is that the aim of political language is falsehood and deception, and that reducing it to the bare bones will give the lies nowhere to hide. It's hard to disagree but it's hardly an original thought (Cicero, Aristophanes, Shakespeare, Sheridan, Shaw, Chesterton are just a few others who have made the same point.)
And those who hold up Orwell's six rules of writing as their six guiding style lights, would do well to remember the first sentence of the second paragraph after the rules:
"I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought."
Rules not aimed at writers but political posturers. (And some readers may note the regrettable crudeness of construction of Orwell's sentence. St George, for all his virtues, was quite capable of falling off his high horse once in a while.)
And anyone interested in the way language is still hijacked and abused could do worse than to read Don Watson's Wesel Words as a starting point.Longhaultrucker , 17 Jan 2013 20:24No-one else did, whereas Orwell's words and phrases are still widely used.
in our time, weaponised soundbites are deliberately engineered to smuggle the greatest amount of persuasion into the smallest space, to be virally replicated on rolling news. In my book on modern political rhetoric, I called this Unspeak.Incidentally, the idea that Orwell uses the term "purges" as a euphemism is frankly offensive. Orwell spent much of his short life fighting ideologues of the left as well as the right to argue that both what was happening in the Soviet Union was appalling, wrong and a terrible distortion of socialism. He wrote two of the 20th century's greatest polemics against totalitarianism, specifically left-wing totalitarianism in the case of Animal Farm. He was fiercely critical of people who had literally been his comrades in arms in A Homage to Catalonia. He's using "purges" for the sake of brevity, knowing that his audience knows full well the horror of the dreadful range of behaviours involved. To say anything else is to try to be clever clever at the expense of a man who expended considerable professional and emotional effort arguing against Stalinism.Longhaultrucker , 17 Jan 2013 20:19I sometimes have to write about "defence companies". In tribute to Orwell, I try, as much as I can, to refer to them as military contractors.fucia , 17 Jan 2013 19:55
All I can say, again, is read the essay. It says as much by how it says things - by being a perfect example of an argumentative essay - as it does by telling one how to write an argumentative essay.Fiona Bruce [who else] carefully articulating from the auto cue ...a doctor has been struck for not recording the abuse of prisoners by British soldiers....abuse ..would Orwell have used the word 'torture'HegemonyOrBust , 17 Jan 2013 18:38
The fire discipline of the Parachute Regimate was 'bordering on the reckless'
description of the shooting to death demonstrators.
Orwell good in pointing out the semantic somersalts of euphamisms of the Governing classes when cornered.I dunno Steven, perhaps the thing is, unlike a book that tries to cover the same ground - "Unspeak" by errrr Steven Poole, would be a good example - perhaps the point is, "Politics and the English Language" both makes sense and is readable. Timelessly so.Witters , 17 Jan 2013 18:14
Unlike, say, "Unspeak" by errr Steven Poole, which according to Wikipedia: received a hostile review in the Guardian from former British government communications chief Alastair Campbell, who wrote: "I am not quite sure what Poole is trying to say."
By the way, you use "Shibboleth" completely wrongly in this context. Anyone could campaign for Plain English, it's not word, sound, or custom that a person unfamiliar with its significance may not pronounce or perform correctly relative to those who are familiar with it, or used to identify foreigners or those who do not belong to a particular class or group of people, nor does it refer to features of language, and particularly to a word or phrase whose pronunciation identifies a speaker as belonging to a particular group. In fact, one could argue that "Plain English" (and I find it tedious, too) is the very opposite of a shibboleth - an immigrant with very basic English skills is unlikely to use jargon or high-falutin' words, they would more likely speak in a Plain English manner.Dear Steven,Fromibizatothebroads , 17 Jan 2013 18:06
You article didn't impress me, but I'm certain it impressed you.I think Orwell wanted to get his message out, and therefore was quite stark with his premise about the way politicians use words to hoodwink their people. This was all the more important in the chaotic aftermath of WW2 when there was no TV or other easy visual means whereby people might gauge the body language of the demagogues or opportunists in their midst.saintpellegrino , 17 Jan 2013 17:55
If Orwell did not put out The Politics of the English Language, would there have been anybody else with his imaginative good sense to warn the liberal intellectuals of the day?
Orwell's favourite book was Gulliver's Travels: so he enjoyed the inventive use of language. Presumably Gulliver's Travels was before "cup de sac" and similar imports were incorporated into English.Let's have one quote:fuzon -> EricaNernie , 17 Jan 2013 17:49
As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.
I mean, jesus, if that isn't still an absolutely fucking resounding shot through the heart of shit writing, everywhere.The use of Orwell by the likes of Hitchens has only brought the earlier writer into disrepute.MistressG -> ThomasOMalley , 17 Jan 2013 17:07@ThomasOMalley - Sadly, no, it wasn't obvious.Edgewick , 17 Jan 2013 15:19
The problem I have with Orwell in D&O is, of course, the way he mentions Jewish people. And I don't think it's good enough to pass off what he wrote as early-20th Century stereotypes; this is Orwell and, like it or not, we hold him up much higher than the common man from that period. I don't get the impression that Orwell sees jewish people as human beings, they're all just 'jews' to him. And if he was unhappy with how his friend Boris goes on about Jews, I didn't get any hint that Orwell cared - or else he would have said so; he has no problem in other parts of the book making his opinion clear. Orwell even says himself on one occasion: "It would have been a pleasure to flatten the Jew's nose." He clearly couldn't see beyond their being jewish.
It's a horrible, offensive piece of writing by Orwell. And it's a real shame.We shouldn't sanctify Orwell, but his essay is more right than wrong. The stuff put out by managers, business, public relations and even some branches of academia is often simply verbiage. But you have to go along with this sort of stuff if you want to get anywhere. That is corruption - exactly as Orwell said.wenders14 , 17 Jan 2013 14:31Leave off Mr Blair..he was big news in his day and not many writers can withstand the assault of revisionism.FrogStar -> smudger1 , 17 Jan 2013 14:17Sometimes it isn't 'xenophobia' (fear of foreigners) so much as 'heterophobia' (fear of those different from yourself).calumcm , 17 Jan 2013 13:24In 'Shame', Salman Rushdie - who wasn't all that keen on Orwell either - refers to an 'opaque, world-wide set of concepts which refuse to travel across linguistic frontiers'; 'to unlock a society' he writes, 'look at its untranslatable words'.HudsonP , 17 Jan 2013 12:47
That's the idea Orwell's getting at (albeit less floridly) when he dismisses 'foreign words'. He sees them as impermeable to English experience. Is that a xenophobic point of view? I'm not sure.
He makes the point explicitly in reference to Marxist jargon in 'The English People' (1947, written in 1944): 'It is significant that English revolutionary writers are obliged to use a bastard vocabulary whose key phrases are mostly translations. There are no native words for most of the concepts they are dealing with. Even the word "proletarian", for instance is not English and the great majority of English people do not know what it means". Is this trivial? Again, I'm not sure.
(I am sure: it's not).I work in an industry loaded with jargon and murky prose, often at the behest of legal and compliance who think they're protecting consumers through piling on the verbiage. Politics and the English Language remains one of the keenest tools in my box for explaining why this is a mistake.thepigeonwhisperer , 17 Jan 2013 12:36
Much of it is the kind of nonsense screed against linguistic pet hates that anyone today might compose in a green-text email to the newspapers.
Really, the mind boggles. That's just trolling.yeah i have a problem as well. The ending of animal farm is one of the biggest ambigous ending in literature historyLonghaultrucker , 17 Jan 2013 12:24I return again and again to the principles of Politics and the English Language in my work (I write for a living). You're having to fish around its margins to find things wrong with it and it remains heroically relevant to modern-day English. One of his core points is that one shouldn't be using metaphors that don't bring to mind a vivid image (because those that don't have become cliches). How much better and clearer would nearly all contemporary writing be if everyone stuck to that principle? The active is better than the passive because using the active one has to make clear who is doing what to whom. People often use the passive voice to inject vagueness, which is almost never a good thing (a tiny example: this sentence would be woolier if I'd written, "The passive voice is often used to inject vagueness"). Short words are better because they're generally clearer and more direct. People also often use words of foreign derivation in preference to Anglo-Saxon ones because the Anglo-Saxon words' meaning is clearer and more direct.Ayearofreadingwomen , 17 Jan 2013 12:15
Orwell's message remains fabulously relevant amid our current discontents. While I don't agree with this article, I can only hope that it has the virtue of pushing a few more people to read Orwell's stirring essay - which is both a hugely useful manual for aspiring writers and a fabulous worked example of how to write.R042 -> R042 , 17 Jan 2013 11:54
Orwell's eccentric final tip-list includes "Never use a long word where a short one will do" (why ever not?), and "Never use the passive where you can use the active."
Not sure I'd call these eccentric. Both contribute to clarity and cutting the crap in writing. If you make sure there isn't a shorter word that would do in place of the one you're using it means you are thinking carefully about the precise meaning of what you're saying. And if you only allow yourself the passive on high days and holy days, you force yourself to say who did what to whom, rather than hiding behind the idea of a vague, nameless someone.
Most writers who've been at this game a decent length of time will have their own personal stylistic rules. One of mine concerns the word 'somehow'. Whenever I use it in a sentence it generally means I am fudging and haven't found the write verb. I always have to go back and double-check the joists when 'somehow' rears its ugly head.I'd like to think "Politics and the English Language", if it were written today, would address that kind of non-statement that afflicts modern discourse.R042 , 17 Jan 2013 11:53I think we're all, as a people, shocked, appalled and horrified at the regrettable events that have transpired. It is clear that mistakes were made at the highest level to allow such a tragedy to happen and we promise firm and rapid action will be taken to deal with the causes of the problem.normalvision , 17 Jan 2013 11:18
As a result an independent enquiry will be established in order to determine the correct way to move forward from these tragic events, and we hope this will allow those affected by it to move on.One should not overlook the best advice for writers in "Politics and the English Languge":
In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning.
Jul 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
blues | Jul 27, 2017 9:45:27 AM | 103=>> Cortes | 11:06:19 PM | 87 -- You say:
"The pejorative use of conspiracy theory needs to be tackled head on."
That may not be so difficult if we first discern the term "conspiracy theory" to be tacit embedded coded language, but language that "explicitly" denotes "a surreptitious shared agenda". But this is definitely not the true currently prevalent official meaning at all. The currently prevalent meaning is actually "non-official theory" -- that is, a theory that is contrary to the theory that is officially endorsed by the dominant imperial media. In other words, an "anti-imperial theory". In the most common context the de facto meaning is completely detached from the de jure meaning.
Jul 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on July 9, 2017 By Lambert Strether of Corrente .
Yesterday, Saturday, I had to go the mall to make a purchase, and since the four-hour round trip gives me plenty of time to read, I bought a copy of The New York Times and read it carefully. I came away discouraged. There is a lot of ruin in a great newspaper.
I used to work "the newspaper business," several careers ago, albeit on weeklies and in production. And I came away with the sense of what a wonderful production -- all senses -- a newspaper is; how intricately and carefully the pieces fit together, and the craft that goes into assembling the news into a pattern that's easily grasped by the reader. Day after day! Indeed, hundreds of years have gone into perfecting the craft of composing pages, and I still feel reading a printed , broadsheet newspaper is a more productive use of my time -- if comprehension and stories I would otherwise miss or skip be the goal -- than reading on a laptop, let trying to get a sense of the news flow through the teensy keyhole of a cellphone's screen.
Media criticism has the term "blooper ," an embarrassing error . Seeking bloopers is usually a mild form of voyeurism, where on-screen indiscretions by announcers and performers are detected and ridiculed. But bloopers can also be "technical," as when the shadow of a boom appears in the shot, or the blood-spewing machine malfunctions . Naturally, the cheaper the show, the greater the chance of bloopers. I think the ongoing ruination of the Times is shown in the bloopers I am about to present. I'm going to start with some technical bloopers in the Arts Section, and then move on to what I might term Cognitive Bloopers in the Business Section. (I'm using images that I took when I got back to the house, partly because the images make the sheer scale of the times enterprise so clear, and partly to honor the craft of print production.)
... ... ..
And if we scan elsewhere in the paper, we find more cognitive bloopers:
Clip "DNC" : " did deny investigators access to their servers. But it gave the bureau information that later pointed "
Clip "Intelligence Agencies" : " something American intelligence agencies have testified they know took place."
In what world do we have "prominent communicators" (clip (B) above) evading regulatory scrutiny by using encrypted, self-destructing communications channels while simultaneously mere oaths from intelligence officials, and unverifiable information from the DNC are both regarded as dispositive? Apparently the world that Times editors and publishers live in, since they are responsible for the entire newspaper, read all of this, and their heads haven't exploded!
An institution that displays adaptability by systematically crapifying its product and encouraging executive doublethink may indeed be long for this world. But if it is, I'm not sure I want to live in that world. And that's a loss; I love newspapers. Anyhow, I hope if you read the Sunday Times this afternoon, you'll have fun finding more bloopers!ambrit July 9, 2017 at 2:20 pmtimotheus July 9, 2017 at 3:02 pm
Hmmm So, the Intelligence Agencies, departments of the Government can testify under oath? Ur, was there a Supreme court decision extending "personhood" to Federal agencies? Otherwise, 'agency' is granted to Agencies. Shouldn't that have been "officials from the Intelligence Agencies testified under oath to" the following?
Goodness knows that I have numerous and risible problems with grammar and usage, but then, I do not make my living, meagre though it is, at copy editing. (Hmmm Didn't e. e. cummings have some considerable fun with just that?)
Intelligence agencies cannot testify (or attest) under oath (or in secret deposition) because they don't have speech organs. Maybe NSA has robots trained in ASL. Or perhaps Trump's people have ingeniously replaced them all with AIs with Siri- or Alexa-like speech functions. Not a bad idea!
Lambert Strether July 9, 2017 at 2:47 pmMike July 10, 2017 at 4:55 pm
...It's always interesting to watch major institutions in a process of decay and disintegration.
Your mileage may vary, and apparently does. Do feel free to find the happiness you seek elsewhere!CD July 9, 2017 at 7:55 pm
The Times considers itself the best newspaper in America. Readers don't. Some small town papers do better but can't afford more investigation and they have to outsource news gathering.
When opinions and liberal interpretations replaced facts and letting the readers come to their own conclusions, journalism died. If the press is still an important check on the powerful in our democracy then perhaps we need more checks on the press. Vigilance can spot their agenda. Too bad the Internet and freedom of choice will kill all the major papers before everyone realizes the corruption in media.jo6pac July 9, 2017 at 8:13 pm
I fondly recall an article on the Times society page about the well-appointed retirement house of a former madam. The lady was clearly identified as such in the article.
The author wrote admiringly and at length about the house and its furnishings and so on.
This was about 2001 or 2002. After reading this article, I decided that the Times had entered the chute and was on the slippery slope down.Viva! July 9, 2017 at 2:55 pm
That might have been the last story the did with real reporting. Just saying everything since then has been co-written by govt. 3 letter names and just make it up. Editors are not needed saving $$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the owners.
It's a win-win for the great news noise machine. I use to read in northern Calli the SMJ and SFC every day they did a good job back in the day but now pull their stories from the same new service if they can be called that.
As Scoop Knisker called out (If you didn't like the news then go out and make up you're own) Something like that, KSAN in SF. Dirty hippies;-)Donald July 9, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Would not be surprised if Carlos Slim is involved in this crapification. He bought/stole the company for a song and jacked up the prices. The level of service of Telmex mobile is awful. Calls being cut all the time. Connection bad.Propertius July 9, 2017 at 4:20 pm
Well speaking of bloopers, here is another NYT mistake from the world of physics --
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/smaller-aircraft-correction/Dave in Austin July 9, 2017 at 4:52 pm
I wonder if they didn't misquote Brin in the original article. He actually is a physicist (PhD, Space Physics, UCSD, 1981). It's unlikely that he would mistake a (back of the envelope scribbling) 13.5 MT equivalent for a planet-killing asteroid impact. The US and the USSR regularly detonated weapons as large or larger than that before the Test Ban Treaty.Bukko Boomeranger July 9, 2017 at 7:00 pm
For a real treat go back and read the NYT for the day of the Yeltsin coup and the storming of the Duma. Every rhetorical trick in the book was unleashed against the legislature being attacked actually, if I remember correctly, they were described as "holed up" in the building. I treasure my paper copy of that one.
The NYT was never perfect but go back to the microfilm of any day exactly 50 years ago and see the difference. They have ceased to provide news and have become Lippmanites. Remember Walter? He believed the purpose of the paper was in his words to "mould public opinion". And the free web version is even more slanted. Too bad. We could use a real newspaper of record.Kamote Cue July 10, 2017 at 12:52 pm
The web version is effectively free if you view the NYT on a browser where you delete the history frequently. That eliminates the cookies the NYT leaves to track when you've hit the 10-free-articles-per-month limit. I use Firefox for evading such restrictions at the Times, New York, WaPo etc., wiping out the trackingspies every time I close it, and employ another browser for sites where I don't mind them remembering me.ambrit July 9, 2017 at 7:02 pm
It's also free if you use your browser's Incognito or Privacy mode. Pretty handy on these sites that offer only a limited number of views.Pespi July 9, 2017 at 4:59 pm
FREEDOM (TM) is never free Citizen. That's why everyone else hates us.mrtmbrnmn July 9, 2017 at 5:19 pm
Lambert, that bothers me to no end, they have so much money, but they have to pinch pennies on one of the main elements that lends unconscious credibility to their paper.
A friend of mine works for the NY Times, and he's said on several occasions that the company can not wait for the physical paper to die. They will starve it until it no longer generates a profit, until various capital expenditures are paid off, and they will let it die without compunction.
The Times is excellent at cognitive dissonance. They report the facts in one piece but the narrative prevails in a final attached paragraph, or vice versa.
Copy editors are a dying breed. Computers are no good at spotting cognitive errors, omitted words, mangled phrases, anything that isn't a misspelling (although they're fantastic at thinking proper nouns are misspelled words). I see errors in almost everything, even the most prestigious old media. I wouldn't publish anything serious without a second pair of eyes to scan it for boneheaded mistakes, I'm terrible at copy editing myself.
After all, why pay a human being a living wage to do a job when you can make ex posto facto corrections in response to commenters doing the editing for you?
Naked Capitalism has excellent editing, I could never produce the well researched and thought through copy you guys do without making mountains of egregious errors. I've probably made several in this post alone.rps July 9, 2017 at 9:39 pm
Can't count how often while reading the accumulation of lies, deceptions and sheer bunk constantly encountered in the "political" news of the "new" NY Times, I get the feeling my brain is melting and on the verge of oozing out my ears. It is deeply depressing and dispiriting considering that in the amnesia of history I was pleased to draw a paycheck from time to time from that old NY Times (r.i.p.).
Judith Miller was the final nail in the NY times coffin.
ambrit July 9, 2017 at 9:11 pmHana M July 9, 2017 at 9:51 pm
We're way past Hecht and MacArthur territory and into Kurosawa-samas' fiefdom now. The "reporters" are now consulting spooks to hone their copy.
One of my favorite memories from growing up in the 50s and 60s in New York City was digging in on Sunday mornings to three great papers: the New York Herald-Tribune, the New York Times and the New York Journal-American (which we kids loved for the comics). My grandparents were New Deal Democrats, my parents new Republicans, and the debate was lively, civilized, and by today's standards, astonishingly well-informed.
There was always common ground to be found on the subject of style, layout, grammar, punctuation and spelling. Errors provoked ruthless bipartisan critiques turned into "teachable moments" for the kids. To this day I reflexively copy-edit the Times. Lambert is correct: standards have declined precipitously.
Perhaps more seriously, the lack of real intellectual diversity in news rooms means there are fewer and fewer opportunities for informed debate that bridges political divides.
Jun 12, 2017 | journal-neo.orgModern America: The Empire of Lies Column: Society Region: USA in the World
The notion that the United States is an empire of lies would be difficult to dispute by anyone who has followed the events of the last decade. It's a sad fact that today the absolute majority of Washington's policies along with the foundation of so-called "American democracy" are built upon blatant lies.
So is it any wonder that so-called American "heroes" of the Rio Olympics: swimmers James Feigen, Ryan Lochte, Gunnar Benz and Jack Conger, provided false testimonies about them being robbed in a taxi on the way to the Olympic Village? It turns out now that nobody came as close as even attempting to rob them. Now these athletes may face charges of making false accusations in Brazil, along with being accused of discrediting the sitting Brazilian President Dilma Vana Rousseff who has been the prime target of Washington's meddling recently.
In all honesty, there is no need for being surprised, since these "hero-swimmers" have been educated regarding Washington's lies, encountered in virtually all aspects of an American's life. The White House has been lying its way through various attempts to overthrow unwanted governments and politicians upon the international stage, spreading disinformation through such CIA "benefactors" like George Soros.
The entire world witnessed former US Secretary of State Colin Powell in all seriousness displaying tubes with unknown substances in them before the UN Security Council, claiming they represented "convincing and incriminating" evidence against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, enough to launch a military attack against the nation.
We remember how renowned American journalist, Pulitzer Prize Laureate Seymour Hersh, caught the US government officially disseminating lies about how "terrorist number one" Osama bin Laden was actually killed.
He has also published an investigation piece under the title " Whose Sarin ", demonstrating that the US government and President Barack Obama personally, deliberately lied when they claimed that the Syrian government had used sarin poison gas back in 2013. It's been announced that Hersh was using information he had received from sources within the US intelligence community and the Pentagon. This evidence confirmed that both the White House statements and fraudulent propaganda unwound by the media, pursued the sole goal – to create a pretext for armed intervention in Syria and replace the government in Damascus with Washington's subordinates, thus taking full control of the country.
Moreover, the American Thinker would note that:
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton committed her second gaffe in as many days on the campaign trail Monday night, claiming that the US "did not lose a single person" in Libya during her time as secretary of state. To Hillary Clinton, the four male officials and warriors do not matter at all. They are at best an inconvenience. If they were alive, they would have to be dealt with, but because they are dead, they can be forgotten.
But honestly, what does one expect from the likes of Hillary Clinton if even the Washington Post wouldn't hesitate to present a video filled with her lies and "shifting positions?" Her ideas on Bosnia, healthcare, Wall Street, NAFTA are ever-shifting, since she's convinced that Americans are unable to memorize basic facts or recall even recent American history.
Accusing Hillary Clinton of blatant hypocrisy, alternative media source Counter Punch would use a hash tag #NeverHillary, while giving the recent Democrats' champion the following evaluation : "She's sleazy – a cheater and a liar", noting that she wanted to set the minimum wage at the level of 12 dollars per hour, but since Bernie's 15 dollars per hour was more popular, she claimed she wanted to introduce precisely the same wage. When pressed, she conceded she'd "like" 15 dollars per hour, but would not lift a finger to make it happen federally. Incredibly, she still conducts herself in this same manner.
The Baltimore Sun did not hesitate to accuse Clinton of the deliberate concealment of facts from Congress and the American people either, noting that the State Department's inspector general released a report last week concluding that Hillary Clinton is a breathtakingly brazen and consistent liar. What's infuriating about all of this is that it is not, in fact, news. Over a year ago, Hillary Clinton held a press conference at the United Nations with the intent to put the whole controversy around her released emails to rest, yet, nearly every significant statement she made was a lie, The Baltimore Sun would note, adding that we have known it for a year now, that from the earliest days of this scandal, Clinton was lying.
So what behavior one can expect from most American citizens, including these "hero-swimmers", when even at the highest levels, officials are lying blatantly, while displaying no fear whatsoever of any potential consequences? What's even more striking is that those liars are being promoted and encouraged in the US political establishment, and they are being allowed to occupy the highest political positions in the state, as if we are being told: " In lies we trust here, it is our symbol and our flag, because we are the Empire of Lies. "
Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."
Mar 31, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.comPaine, March 29, 2017 at 02:43 PMHow useful is the word inequality ? typical sponge word like " poor " when u mean low wagedPaine -> Paine ... , March 29, 2017 at 02:49 PM
Or "middle class " when you mean high waged
The shares in GDP are zero sum at any one point in time
If the bottom wage rises fastest with some arrangement of wages
That ought to look preferred to anyone without any sense of where they'd landOf course this is if your frame is the individuallibezkova -> Paine ... , March 29, 2017 at 07:06 PM
and here's only a wage earning class
No exploiters allowed M
But if the exploiters arrive with their rag tag of proprietary types trailing them ?
Turn to a Class frame ?
Maximize the share of your class
Ie class dictatorship
Equality before the law
Equality in the voting booth
These are very different dimensions of social being
From equality of income
Income ...another sponge word M"like " poor "
when u mean low waged"
Distortion of the language is the main tool of neoliberalism.
the key to neoliberal propaganda.
Very similar to Bolshevism in this respect.
Jan 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.comilsm : , January 19, 2017 at 01:26 PMSummers is talking to the center right lefties:libezkova -> ilsm... , January 19, 2017 at 08:32 PM
- "U.S. global leadership" neocon, Clinton Kagan speak!
- "market-oriented democracy" neolib market idolatry!this is a case study in the corruption of English language by neoliberalism. Very similar to the same corruption by other ideologies such as Marxism. New "weasel" terms are constantly introduced to make it more difficult to understand the reality:
- "flexible workforce"=="perma-terms"
- "shareholder value"=="looting of corporation by executives for bonuses"
Old words are re-defined differently as the word "free" in "free market". Free for what and for whom?
You just provided two more equivalences:
- "U.S. global leadership" = "neocon, Clinton Kagan speak!" -- VERY TRUE (attempt to hide jingoism and imperial tendencies under "morally neutral" language.
- "market-oriented democracy" = "neolib market idolatry!" -- Less true, but still relevant. Market oriented democracy looks more like propaganda slogan for color revolutions in xUSSR space so it is far from idolatry, is is about subversion of legitimate governments; it is more like "conspiracy theory" term -- invented with specific purpose by three letter agencies.
Global Financial Crisis| Neoliberal Newspeak and Digital Capitalism in CrisisPaula Chakravartty, Dan Schiller
Changes in the practice of business journalism are a key element in the current financial crisis. The increasing emphasis on features and infotainment at the expense of hard news has distracted public attention from the reality of global economies.
In this article, we provide an overview of the dominant business and financial news media, primarily in the United States, but also in the urbanizing nations of China and India. We believe that it is too early to know what, if anything, has changed in terms of the dominance of neoliberal newspeak and we contend that rigorous scrutiny of business media is vital to global economic health.
Global Financial Crisistextbar Neoliberal Newspeak and Digital Capitalism in Crisis Paula Chakravartty - Academia.edu
This systematic distortion of information makes human societies characteristically self-deceptive, with people disposed to believe they are living up to their ideals, particularly when they are not. The existing schematic dissonance is usually subconscious, due to the misleading nature of words, so society stumbles smugly along while at odds with itself, its environment and its equally stupid neighbors. In fact, the only really effective control of development comes not from inside but from physical limitations (what cannot be done) and competition with other groups which are also out of touch with themselves.
In general, internal criticism is of limited value as a control mechanism for growth and development of a social system. There usually tend to be few, if any, effective critics within any organization. When not dismissed out of hand as a crank or an outsider, anyone with valid criticism is made an outsider, as ostracism is a common reward for honesty, accuracy and integrity. Thus, criticism without power is largely wasted, producing little but woe for the bewildered critic himself.
Perhaps there are so few effective critics because anyone with any brains at all quickly finds that most human organizations just are not set up for effective criticism. The basic working assumption is that everything is just fine. Outside criticism is deflected and internal feedback is supposed to be positive reinforcement from "Yes men" promoting their careers by corrupting the mighty. At best, criticism has a place on the fringe, where cranks and comics can be tolerated as amusing diversions.
Can Truth Be Told When Using Selective Information "The trap of the permanent campaign is that you diminish statesmanship," Professor Gergen said. "Statesmen rise above the daily concern and look to the long haul."
Business marketing and politics often overlap in election campaigns. Someone vying for office is essentially trying to sell himself to voters. "When you are campaigning, you're like the businessman who has a limited responsibility, a limited set of people to whom you owe something," said Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College and author of "Moral Freedom: The Search for Virtue in a World of Choice" (W. W. Norton).
But, increasingly, because of the fund-raising involved in running for national office, "you have to be in an almost permanent campaign mode," said David Gergen, now a professor of public service at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, who was an adviser to four presidents. "In politics, you fall into the trap of short-termism. You do whatever it takes to keep the headlines up today." This short-term thinking is not dissimilar to what causes some businesses to make poor decisions in trying to bolster stock prices or earnings reports.
"The trap of the permanent campaign is that you diminish statesmanship," Professor Gergen said. "Statesmen rise above the daily concern and look to the long haul."
BUT it's difficult to affect the long haul if you find yourself voted out of office. For that reason, Dick Morris, a former adviser to Mr. Clinton and the author of "Off with Their Heads: Traitors, Crooks and Obstructionists in American Politics, Media and Business" (Regan Books, 2003), said he thinks that "using polling and all of the tools of an election to help you govern is a good thing."
"It gets the president to be very aggressive in figuring out what he can do in an active way really to help the country," he added. "The motivation is to govern well so he can get elected."
Even if President Bush has to campaign constantly and, as a result, selectively uses information to sell his message, we still expect him to tell the truth. "If they decided to lie to make the case stronger that's simply unethical," said Mr. Gilman, who was a senior official at the United States Office of Government Ethics from 1988 to 2001. Mr. Gilman said he hopes that the president "got one bad piece of intelligence and the rest was correct."
Some political analysts say President Bush crossed a line in selectively using information by pointing to British intelligence to make an argument, when American intelligence doubted the claim. "As in all marketing, when you go too far, it creates a small cloud over you about credibility," Professor Gergen said.
There's more at stake when President Bush selectively uses information than when a business executive tries to move a product. The president's role clearly distinguishes his unique moral responsibility. As an executive, you don't order young men and women to give up their lives for a cause.
Google matched content
radicalphilosophy.comPDF Global Financial Crisistextbar Neoliberal Newspeak and Digital Capitalism in Crisis Paula Chakravartty - Academia.edu
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit exclusivly for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
ABUSE: IPs or network segments from which we detect a stream of probes might be blocked for no less then 90 days. Multiple types of probes increase this period.
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least
Copyright © 1996-2016 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org was created as a service to the UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) in the author free time. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info|
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
Last modified: February, 19, 2018