No, not that it is Orwellian. That's the Ministry of Truth. The Ministry of Truth was that institution of information in George Orwell's novel 1984. It was referred to by its Newspeak/doublethink nickname, MiniTrue, by most every character in the story. It was the institution through which the State determined what minimum of truth would be disseminated by the rulers.
No, and it's not because I am now resigned to avoid engaging in Newspeak -- that's too Politically Cowed for me. The press lies. Lies. LIES. So what use is sarcasm like "ministry of truth?" None. May as well call it as it is: the Ministry of Lies is fine from a truth stand-point.
The problem I have with Ministry of Lies is that it is too British. America does not have ministers and ministries. America has representatives and administrative departments that are separate from the legislative branch of government. Alas, we did at one time, at least to some extent. But now the Fourth Estate has wholly dissolved into an undeclared agent of the government itself. It is the number one institution that widely delivers the propaganda that the administration wants to be spread. So I've struck upon a new name for the institution that controls all professional denizens of the press.
The old fourth estate once loved to poke fun at elected officials. And it wasn't just Will Rogers and H.L.Mencken, it was just about everyone. Nobody could be sure who in the press would go after them, from members of the Senate onto every other representative from the Prez on down to the local dog catcher -- as in "you wouldn't even elect him for dog catcher."
But our damn
More on this (as prompted by Idiot Anonymous, upon whom I bestowed the pseudonym Cowardly Threatener since he lacked the courage to provide even a pseudonym of his own) beginning here, on another day.
**Update by Editor**
In later posts Pascal Fervor began using Agency of Lies instead of Administry of Truth, and much for the same reason stated above -- administry still sounded too British, plus it was clunky. The shortest explanation as to why.he sought to get a more direct label for the agitprop media was that he saw that we were not an Orwellian world quite yet, and felt it best that he speak the truth while he still could.
View My Stats
Clap. Clap. Clap. Bravo, Mr. Fervor.
ReplyDeleteBut please, stop with this 'threat' nonsense, and permit me to correct you.
You are mostly wrong, but you did manage to see the partial truth of things: the rebirth of the aristocracy - made possible by leftist politics.
One of your fellows also noticed the trend: the left has taken control of the media, the judiciary, and public education. As a result, today nobody trusts these institutions because they no longer work. Nobody trusts the media, socialist idiots are giving diplomas and degrees to kids that can't read or think, and you can murder a man in cold blood in some states and not spend a day in jail. But these are not the hallmarks of a resurgent aristocracy - they are symptomatic of an empire in decline.
The British aristocracy at their height controlled 3/5 of the globe. In their day, they were the most formidable nation on the planet, while Americans were backwoods hillbillies and bumpkins. They fell when they did what America is doing now: they gave power and rights to the lower class that didn't know what to do with them. It took about a hundred years, but today Britain is doing it's last swirl around the toilet bowl.
Consider: you too have given the power of rights and the vote to people that are unworthy of them and cannot handle them too. How can a drug addict or illiterate black slum dweller be expected to vote intelligently? Or the legions of lower and lower middle class drones that can't even be bothered informing themselves of the issues of the day? Or the welfare slobs?
The class society is the the natural state of human societies. Empires and civilizations rise and fall - and this one is in the preliminary stages of collapse. Legions of unprepared, stupid people will no doubt go down with it. The human animal is what it is, and the tides of history will not be denied.
I can offer myself as an example of the new aristocracy: educated in private schools, I can think clearly and critically and independently of popular ideologies. As a note to the braying drunkard on your thread below, I have also had extensive training in the manly and martial arts. The new age aristocrat will almost certainly need to be able to defend himself from the boors and oafs that infest the lower classes.
America actually needs a meaningful aristocracy and when it is properly established, things will be better for everyone.
Well, it would seem we have a student of history, one who has claimed to have been educated in private (ie; the best of or finest) schools.
ReplyDeleteAs you glibly deride your host here, you are also a fault for the very same "sins" you attempt to place on him. (Projection? ... Bueller? ... anyone? Bueller?) You are correct in that for the most part, the founding fathers of this nation were the cream of the crop. They were (or at least a large chunk of them) the elite of their day. However, they were not "Elitests" in the sense of that words usage today. They believed the best and the brightest should step forward and (if only for a term or two) accept the positions of trust, in the running and maintenance of our government, should they be elected to office. The difference between then and now ("Now" meaning anytime after the election of Woodrow Wilson.) is it was believed any man, through his own actions, could bring about a change to "his station in life". They understood a man is not at fault for, or held in contempt for, which level of society he may be brought into the world in. It was of far greater importance what each did with their respective lives, regardless of the blessings of birth and happenstance, which was of greater importance.
It has been oft-times noted that our founding fathers could have made themselves dukes, princes, and kings, after forging this new nation. And any number of newly minted Americans of that day would have either been quite comfortable with that, or over time, accepted it.
They sought to go another route, for this was one of the very things in which the revolution was fought. That no man be forced to bend their knee or bow their head to any in position of power (in this country).
Yet now you have one who finds himself in the Oval Office, and on every occasion, every chance he gets, he bows, he bends his knee. To this wisp of a man you would swear your allegiance? Give your oath of fealty? In order to assume your place in his court as part of the new aristocracy?
You sir, are a fool. What is saddest of all is you only fool yourself.
Leaders we are in very short supply. Real leaders, not managers. But those who would have the hubris to set themselves above all others, for no other reason then they feel the right, and so demand to be there, are not Aristocrats, for at least they could claim (for the most part) the right of blood or lineage. You sir are little more than a (supposed) well educated thug.