Skip to main content

Baa, baa blue sheep /Have you any will?

George Orwell's 1984 prominently featured the concepts of "doublethink" and "doublespeak," as used by the oligarchy headed by the (probably symbolic and fictitious) figure of Big Brother. In Oceania, the Ministry of War was called the Ministry of Peace (or MiniPax for short). The Ministry of Propaganda was called the Ministry of Truth. The Secret Police were the Ministry of Love.

And then, there was "thoughtcrime." Whereas it's a cherished principle of the Anglo-Saxon legal system (and most others that can be called remotely humane and/or liberal, in the proper sense of the world) that the law takes no notice of mere thoughts, that concept, sadly, is not confined tot he pages of Orwell's masterwork. It also exists among modern Anglo-Saxons, in the inherently totalitarian concept of "hate crime." Admittedly, the NSA has yet to perfect the technology needed to read our minds. But if it can be reasonably established that an illegal act was performed for reasons of malice toward minority groups, then the current legal system breaks with all Anglo-Saxon legal precedent and treats the criminal's thoughts as a aggravating factor!

But since most of us are appalled by such crimes and want those who commit them to get everything that's coming to them, we don't stop to think how scary it is that in its present state the laws of every Anglo-Saxon democracy on the planet provides, to one degree or another, criminal penalties for thoughts.

We should. We should fear deeply for the very survival of freedom.

Even scarier, though, is another Orwellian phenomenon in our modern, "progressive" world: going beyond the changing of the meaning of words to preclude the expression of dissent by manipulating the terms used by a national debate in such a way as to influence and even dictate the outcome of the debate; coining of words and memes and catch-phrases the use of which is deliberately intended to beg the question, to resolve the argument before it's even begun, to dictate the way people think by settling the question being discussed by means of the very terms they use.

In Canada and England, you can be jailed for hurting someone else's feelings by expressing thoughts which could be somehow thought to demean them. is called "a different concept of free speech than you people have in the States." In reality, of course, it is no such thing. It is  the abrogation of free speech, and the denial of a basic human right in favor of a newly-discovered "right" not to be offended.

Many of our courts have taught us of late that it is possible to discriminate against people when in fact their cases are not reasonably comparable to those who are supposedly not discriminated against. See any court decision overruling a legislature and legalizing same-sex "marriage."

Kevin Williamson of NRO points out that the term "progressive" (used by adherents of the Political Persuasion that Dare Not Speak Its Name- liberalism- as a much-needed euphemism) is in fact an odd term for a set of ideas which essentially boil down to a desire to revert to the style of government which tried- and failed- to pull us out of the Depression in the 1930's. They weren't even new or "progressive then; their originator, Williamson points out, was an arch-reactionary named Otto von Bismark!

And then, there's "voting against their own interests-" a term commonly used by unconsciously unethical journalists in the mainstream press to describe people who vote Republican, but who would (in the journalist's somewhat less-than-objective view, anyway) would be better served by voting Democratic. Remember when the media were content to let us make our own decisions about such things?

One of my favorites is "homophobia-" a term which literally means "fear of the same." Though a neologism, I think it's fair and appropriate to use the term to describe people (who are much rarer than its users seem to think) who secretly fear that they, themselves, are homosexual, or who fear homosexuals or homosexuality as such. But in common usage, it simply means people who, for whatever reason, are reluctant to regard homosexual behavior as healthy or normal, or the moral equivalent of the act by which our race is propagated.

A milder form of this word-twisting is to refer to those who oppose same-sex marriage as "anti-gay," as if they wanted to do away with gay people rather than wondering whether extending legal the legal definition of marriage- especially at this point in history in which society's most foundational institution is in such deep trouble already- to a new class of people never before regarded as eligible to marry each other, whose relationships tend to be notoriously and as demonstrably  unstable, and who- in the case of male homosexuals rarely practice monogamy even in "long-term, caring and committed relationships-" rarely, in the long-term, are sexually monogamous.

"Bigots," of course, are merely people who disagree with "progressives."

"Tax cuts for the rich," is a term usually applied to the Bush era tax cuts. Try again. It was not the rich, but the middle class, who predominantly benefited from Bush's tax cuts.

BTW, before you repeat the Obamathink term "the One Percent- " referring to the notion that the tax structure favors the rich- consider the numbers reported, of all places, in the Huffington Post!:

In fact, in 2010, the top ten percent earned, it's true, 45% of the income- but paid 71% of the total income taxes.

It should be no surprise that when one's thought-world is dominated by such nonsense, the need to think is precluded. The answers have been served up to us on a silver platter.

And among the intellectually lazy (and, of course, those who stand to benefit from the manipulation of language), the necessity of thought is precluded.

The Welfare State has even relieved us of the obligation to think for ourselves. And plenty of us, it seems, are more than willing to avail ourselves of this dubious benefit.


Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…