Orwell Was Right -- Again

Many people have attested they have read Orwell's 1984. But how good is the average memory of it or anything else? And even should the memory be good, how many are willing to connect what they remember to what they witness in real time?

I ask about being willing to make connections because there are a number of risks involved in doing so. Chief among these is the fear of being dismissed for jumping to conclusions. As a result, there is a requirement to piece all the evidence together before announcing the conclusion so as to be prepared to answer all outright adversaries, cynics, skeptics or casual scoffers rapidly and as thoroughly as possible.

However -- and this is the game changer -- it now matters not how well prepared we are for debate. Those who resent our abilities to answer them with facts, reason and rationality want us just to shut up, and they will charge us with all the things our well-backed-up arguments -- if permitted a fair hearing -- would belie.

See the world for what it has become and adapt!

We now live in an age where those who control the major outlets of communication, what most people refer to as MSM, but we here at Pascal Fervor refer to as the Soviet-Style Media, SSM, have hired people to spout utter nonsense without a shred of evidence, and are quite willing to slander any whom they wish with baseless charges.

Charges of racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot more -- are brandished to the point of meaninglessness. But that does not mean tossing such charges are not still deemed as useful by those who pay for the service. They approve by renewing the contracts of all those who spew such unsupported "stupidity."

I put stupidity in quotes because such evil assertions are more easily deflected by calling them stupid than to take umbrage -- which would require a stronger response. So it's often called stupid by someone not willing to risk the implications on them of drawing the connection of evil intent to those who seek to gain by tarnishing the reputation of their opponents. And besides, such emissions are still food for mindless idiots to repeat to others of their ilk. Idiots will repeat any stupidity that suits them.

So this is written to remind my readers of one of the more unclear notions that Orwell wrote about. It's an attempt to make it easier to pass the understanding along to others how novelist George Orwell (journalist Eric Blair) predicted the sort of repeated gibberish of which we see all the time on SSM, most frequently on CNN and MSNBC, but on every TV news outlet, including Fox, and ever increasingly in the products of the entertainment arm of the SSM.  

Darin at Crusader Rabbit in FFS! #39,528  reacted in the usual way to what appears to be simply the title of the Daniel Greenfield report Dr Seuss is Racist, Thomas the Tank Engine is Sexist

  “Are there even words for this level of stupid?”

Of course he's right on one level, as I laid out above. And the direct answer to Darin's question was provided by Ed Bonderenka with the brilliant double entendre: "utter nonsense."

There's much more to comprehend, and that's why I am looking at it more thoroughly here.

Contend that Orwell predicted what may be called orchestrated stupidity. He gave it the name Duckspeak. He wrote several paragraphs in 1984 explaining the goal of the practice, but did not provide explicit examples.

The best summation of all that Orwell wrote on the topic may be this:

“make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all.”

I’m guessing he didn’t give us an example because he could see the value in its use but had not yet seen it put to use.

We, unfortunately, have been forced to live with it and have not yet figured out a successful counter-ploy since we individualists and targets of the oppressors don’t command the intrusive and omnipresent stage as the SSM does.

Such a widely staged practice, its contents prevented from being fairly contested on that stage and thus easily employed for inculcating weak and weakened minds, provides material for the jabbering parrots you may hear every hour of every day. Emitting words without involving the higher brain centers at all.

Wait. There's yet more. How did it evolve?

Duckspeak may have begun in this country with the relatively minor behavior of Eleanor Clift on the long running PBS show The McLaughlin Group. It bore the initial appearances of a slightly less formal debate: a panel discussion between various political commentators who worked for establishment outlets. But it was always rigged to Clift's advantage in that she was always granted a hecklers veto. Whenever an argument seemed to expose the failings of some Leftist Sinister policies, those in charge of her microphone permitted her high pitched whine to overwhelm whichever opponent was speaking. It didn't happen all the time, but it proved to be an acceptable and winning format. It went on for over 20 years and until the death of the host.  Suggestive that the resultant disorder that harmed fair discussions could well have been one objective goal of its host is that although the other panelists changed around over the years, only McLaughlin, the host, and Clift were regulars. Clift's behavior was essential in advancing the ability of nonsense to gain any ground on that program and in setting the pattern of what could follow on to undermine ordered discussions in our society.

Following that, CNN advanced the assault on reasoned debate with a show titled Cross-Fire. In that one, the shouting was more pronounced as the title of the show explicitly suggests. In other words, the appearance of decorum was far less often preserved. And given all that CNN has come to represent in its support of all that has become ever more openly sinister to what America once stood for, their advancement of Duckspeak appears to have taken the practice about as far as it can go.

The facts of the situations we have witnessed in only the last few years indicate that the effectiveness of Duckspeak has dwindled quite a bit. The most flagrant practitioners may be needing to look for new jobs assuming they survive the extremists who have begun to eat their own. 

The failure of nonsense to win over new parrots to utter the nonsense is why authorities in universoties and skools who are committed to the failing Prog agenda have increasingly resorted to shut-down real debates where students might actually hear clear, reasonable, rational arguments that expose the huge numbers of failures being forced down our throats. And expose Duckspeak for the utter nonsense it is.

That also explains why authorities all around the country, even more deeply committed to the failed Prog agenda, have allowed violent thugs to appear masked and with bludgeons and mostly tied the hands of law enforcement to prevent their unlawful acts.  It explains why the crony-corporate funded SSM invoke invalid apologetics for Antifa's antics and grants those thugs the uncritical use of the label Antifa without once acknowledging incident after incident where Antifa's actions match exactly those of past fascists and other violent organizations such as the Democrat Party's violent auxiliaries in the KKK.

This may be another reason why Orwell didn't explicitly provide examples of Duckspeak. It would have been too stupid to write about convincingly. This is because, once again, truth is stranger than fiction. Who could believe a fiction wherein someone would say that Doctor Seuss is racist and others would repeat it?  Only in the real world!

Face it. Even if it's in decline, as far as Orwell once again proving to be a predictor of the tactics to expect from those seeking absolute power and his understanding of how it would diminish of the ability of the intended subjects to resist, he was right.