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.

Between the Lines #2 [Cashing In On AGW]

From the news of "Monster" and "Worst Storm Evah" Hurricane Patricia.

The clock is ticking up to the moment that Mexico sues the United States for the damages caused by the hurricane.

The stage has already been set by the Progs and their climate fraudsters that American prosperity is the cause of greater and greater storms.

The thinking man will be wondering if this worst storm is really the worst on record because of all the lies about last summer being the hottest on record (when there's been no warming for nearly 2 decades). Alas, we know the SSM is not heeding the thinking man, and indeed is seeking to have him prosecuted.

That's what you can expect from reading today's headlines and reflecting back on all the CAGW staged preparations that preceded it.

Between the Lines #1 [Treason]

How often have you heard a conservative talk show host declare something is a conspiracy?

Well, I just heard it on one of their shows.

On Hugh Hewitt of all places. Early in the first hour of his Oct 22, 2015 show.

What I heard was a report of the Benghazi hearing by Hewitt’s guest whose name I didn’t catch.

What he said was approximately this:

‘there was clearly a conspiracy between DOS and the WH to deny that Benghazi was a terrorist attack so as not to undermine Obama’s reelection narrative that Al Qaeda was on the run.’

[Anyone can capture this comment from a podcast it will verify what I heard. I don’t know if there is a free one and I won’t pay that hack to hear his show. If a reader can capture it I will add it to this post. Thanks.]


Hewitt didn’t call him a conspiracy nut like his colleague Medved likes to do most every day. He accepted it and engaged him in further discussion.

Reading between the lines I get the following.

What I think this open talk of a conspiracy does, however, is deflect from the thought of the deeper conspiracy. The one that might come to wider attention but for the notable lack of more probing questions such as

“What happened to over 1000 of Gaddafi’s ManPADs?” and
“Where does intelligence say some turned up?” and
“Why exactly was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi in the first place?”

Conspiracy to gain election seems to be accepted as par for the course in America today, at least when the Dems are caught at it. What felonious conduct?

But conspiracy to commit treason rises to another level entirely. So don’t expect your favorite conservative talkshow host to call that one out.

It's the AGW Scammers Who Are the Deniers

To keep the scam running they deny all evidence that contradicts their "theory." How you can prove that it's a scam is laid out below.  

When the proponents of anthropocentric climate change resolutely refuse to look at evidence that undermines their "theory,"  what you are witnessing is the rankest violation of the scientific method (a theory, however respected, becomes a failed hypothesis when contradicted by new evidence.)

It reveals that the proponents of the AGW theory are engaging in a sham at the best, and at worst are running out a monumental scam that, if left unchecked, can't help but lead to misery for uncountable millions of people (a goal that is even embraced by its proponents, so much so that they are indoctrinating our young into believing that such a future is their duty).

By extension, the continuation of this project appears to be leading to the deaths of billions of people by any means necessary. (Here's the latest on that score. Hat tip to Doug Evans by way of Alec Satin It's another example that what we are fighting is nothing less than a neopagan belief system that's quickly become an undeclared Nationally funded religion that runs contrary to the Judeo-Christianity upon which the nation was founded, and is about as fundamentally unconstitutional as any Federal action can get.)

When one couples this with the coincident political behavior of the rest of the Progs — their fomenting, fostering and protecting of cruel Islamic death cults world wide — we see that the Establishment's pattern of behavior is very consistent.

The following is only one example of a denier. While I've seen it many more times than this. this is the first time I've seen it in Congressional hearings (exposing the shamelessness of most other congressmen). Just in case it disappears from Youtube, it's title is "Sen. Cruz Questions Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on Climate Change."

After you hear Mr. Mair repeatedly say “We concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming,” you must know that he is either a man fearful of running afoul of the scammers who fund his organization and pay his salary, or is a scammer himself.

Whichever he is, his position is the exact opposite of scientific. Relying upon a consensus of scientists that is 18 years old to justify new legislation while refusing to look at the new data — some provided even by scientists that comprised that consensus — is nonsense, is not science, and therefore must be driven by other forces not yet wishing to expose themselves.

Indeed, Mr. Mair's broken-record responses to all questions is reminiscent of the testimony by communist sympathizers in the HUAC hearings of the 1950s: "I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate me."

What do Mr. Mair and countless others have to hide? When one peels away at that onion, more and more hideous things are exposed. Over the years I've exposed many of them elsewhere on this blog. Use the labels below to find a few. (I'm not the only one to have done this; but I may be the one who does it most consistently. G-d: I hope I'm wrong.)

Updates with links providing additional cause for concern.

• “Judges Plan to Outlaw Climate Change ‘Denial’ Debunkers” : wherein the scammers feel the need to protect themselves by outlawing any and all who might undermine their schemes. Essentially outlawing the scientific method so it can't be used to expose them. 

• "I dream of a world where the truth is what shapes people's politics, rather than politics shaping what people think is true." — Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) January 24, 2015 : wherein a Sustainability priest preaches his "truth." The rotten irony is that this scientist has purloined the very words of those who actually use the scientific method (the same people the judges above wish to outlaw). This Sus priest-celebrity has the advantage because he has been provided the bigger bully-pulpit. He is paid by the SSM to endlessly repeat his dogma, and his words then are used to indoctrinate new true believers and to bestow a glow of saintliness on the priest. Some merely charge him with colossal failure of self-awareness. In my opinion they in turn fail to see the gain for the priest in preempting his opponents. Many more naive will fall to the confidence men — "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt 7:15) — wherever the defenders of truth are short-sighted or fail to fight back against the schemers with full force.

Journalists Openly Threatened By the Left

Newsmen and women, this headline speaks volumes.

The daily news was apparently chosen to send you all this not so veiled warning

‘you too, dear journolist, can be executed with our blessings should you stray from our demands.’  

Can they've been more Stalinist than that?

If you as a group have a lick of sense would see this and start thinking about when you will join the resistance movement against tyranical big government while you still have the chance to fight back.

As you should know but can easily find out now that you see this threat, the Soviet gulag was full of your predecessors after those in power felt they knew too much or otherwise outlived their usefulness.

Both of these journalist victims were in their 20s. They maybe are too young for us to know how much they, like many millennials, are starting to lean conservative. For certain their killer seemed to have made up his mind they were too much to his right. And whatever the facts are in the killer's mind is irrelevant here because the Daily News is using the event to threaten the rest of you.

One more thing. Those who have not begun using the acronym SSM yet ought to start after seeing that headline.

Exposing More Climatism Lies

Today Los Angeles experienced a weather anomaly worth mentioning here because it and the consequences of it will be downplayed and lied about by our Soviet-Style Media.

Due to a tropical storm down in Baja California (this is Mexico's rainy season) and helpful low pressure region north of us plus some favorable current, we Angelenos got quite a lot of rain today IN THE MIDDLE OF JULY.

In my over forty years in California, I can attest that such is a very rare event indeed.


Now get this. I recently purchasing two 60 gallon rain barrels. I've hooked them up to my gutters' downspouts. Additionally I have another 60 gallon water collection barrel and an old 35 gallon plastic garbage barrel. I use both of these as a spare to catch overflow from each of the rain barrels.
Furthermore, I have a green 105 gallon garbage barrel that is provided by the city for the collection of garden waste that I rarely have need for because I compost my grass and fallen leaves. I need to put out trimmed branches maybe once every two months.

In what has been scattered showers throughout the day, I have filled both rain barrels and the green garbage barrel to capacity. Furthermore, the 35 gallon and 60 gallon barrels are about 20% filled. We are supposed to get some more rain tonight, and again on Monday (I don't know why Sunday is a day off), so I imagine they will be filled too before this is over.

That's 225+ gallons of rain water in one day. Mind you, none of these showers we had today were the really terrible downpours that have been legendary out here. The 120 gallons barrels filled themselves. I manually collected water from a puddles and that was how I filled the 105 gallon green barrel. 

The point I wish to make is that California does not have a drought problem; it has a water storage problem. That lack of storage is due in part by law passed by a humanity-hating governor and state legislature. But even before that, the destruction of our water storage capacity was by court order due to humanity hating watermelon lawsuits funded by misanthropic non-profit foundations and your tax dollars. 

By non-democratic procedures we have had our water storage capacity diminished.

And as you are coming to recognize about nearly everything that is being declared "legal," perversion is now 9/10 of the Law.

SSM Now Also Putinesque

The AP in its Soviet-Style Media role is now also Putinesque.



source: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/06/21/really-ap-published-wire-photo-has-gun-graphic-pointing-ted-cruzs-head

H/T JWF

Because it IS a Soviet-Style Media After All

The question -- answered by the headline above -- was asked by the man who has been tracking Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber all these years. 

Weinstein, back at home, was stunned at the reaction. Why did he keep finding Gruber gaffes? Why didn't the press glom onto this stuff first?

Yes Mr. Weinstein. A Soviet-Style media reports on only that news which allows the soviet-style government to operate with impunity; to hell with the voters it allegedly represents.

Furthermore, I recommend all read the article posted by Ace who highlighted this quote,

Meet the Guy Who's Single-Handedly Doing All of the Media's Jobs for Them

and then listen to the first 50 minutes of  Mark Levin from his show last night (11/10/14).

What is to be done about the revelations is problematic.

Any erstwhile leader who has even a plausible and not yet viable idea will indeed find many willing followers in America.

God help us. I suspect He is not getting any legitimate calls for help from the GOPe.

More Evidence of SSM; And Even On the So-Called Right

The following headline demonstrates too well what I have been warning readers.

Dogs Feast On Ebola Victim Carcasses in Liberia

The writers and editors at Breitbart.com surely know that human remains are called corpses and not carcasses. It would appear that they are trying to convince the creeps in this world that they agree with them: that all humans are no different than animals.

That there was nobody at the website with the humanity of Andrew Breitbart is evident in that they do not employ a headline editor who would prevent such a disgusting headline.

I submit this as proof of the problem I keep warning about all our commercial media outlets.

Unless more people take notice and insist on decency, your silence will encourage more indecency! And when it's done by our media, the damaging effects are multiplied.

It's even more appalling that only one reader thumbed-up my comment about this headline.

SSM Episode #2

It is about time that openly noticing the Soviet style of Western media started to become mainstream.

Congressman on Obama’s Media Border Tours: “This is the kind of media that they had in the former Soviet Union”

What is startling it that it took a Congressman to say it. It confounds me that the most blogs continue to use MSM instead of SSM (Soviet-Style Media or some other fitting equivalent).

This headline was published by Jammie Wearing Fool. Now, Jammie is mostly a news and opinion aggregator, so many of his headlines are going to be repeats of what others publish. Nevertheless, why should such a statement seem controversial to him? Because he knows that an unwritten law has been breached? One about what is and is not acceptable in polite salons?  Maybe.

I get the feeling that many blogs are afraid of being labeled impolite or impolitic: too radical if they make such value assessments such as affixing labels to poorly functioning mainstream institutions.

How in the name of sanity can anything ever be reformed when glaring malfeasance of one of our important mainstream institutions are not openly criticized?

I know from experience that your humble author is hardly more insightful than other human beings. Privately I find ready agreement that, indeed, our news organizations are delivering propaganda that would have made Pravda blush. IOW, it's an observation that should long ago have become mainstream.

So why is it necessary for a news-maker -- in this instance a Congressman -- to break the ice before other blogs repeat the accurate labeling of our news media? Hell, will they even repeat that label now? I have my doubts.

And this highlights something you should find even more troubling.

When things get so out of hand that it takes a Congress critter to say something that should long ago have become mainstream, but is now published as a headline because it is seen as "controversial," then it may indicate that we as a "free" people are long ago permanently enslaved. If you are too afraid to say what is obvious to a fool such as your humble author, what chance is there that you will have the courage and insights needed to defend your liberty when all Hell breaks loose?

Left Influenced Converted to Liberty Influence By a Single Word

Exploitation.


A liberal friend on becoming cognizant of real news:

"...the conditions of these youngsters from Central America who have been shipped one way or another North (media still silent on such details and seems not likely to investigate further) to be shoved across our borders. An organized invasion. I don't think it would be going too far to call it a warped update of the Children's Crusade. What is going on here?"

I suggested, "I think the word you are looking for, to hang on all this, may be Exploitation."

And a fire lit in her eyes.

Please welcome the newest member of the growing resistance to DC.

You too may have one budding near you.

Just be open to him and primed to offer just the right word.

Soviet-Style Media Episode #1

Washington Post Lets Columnist Dana Milbank Lie About Heritage Foundation

One of the milder lies:

Milbank just made up his anecdote about Gabriel "demanding" to know if the young woman was American. What Gabriel really said was, "I assume you're an American." After the studens says that she is, Gabriel says, "I'm glad you're here." She then goes on to make a point about how she wishes people would worry more about the government's response to the Benghazi attacks than how many peaceful Muslims there are in the world. 

Please RTWT.

Back? See, that didn't take long.
 
Note John Nolte's bottom line.

"The real question is: Where are the Washington Post fact checkers? Where are Milbank's editors? A major newspaper publishing this kind of smear is beyond bias; it's indecent." 

Indecent? That is understating the behavior by a long shot in my opinion.

That's why I posted this as my first of many examples of Soviet style behavior in the Izvestia and Pravda's of our time and in this country.

Readers are requested to send in additional examples of outright lying, dissembling and disingenuous reporting by the SSM.* Feel free to use my comment stream or my email. I intend to keep a record of them here under my label Agency of Lies and my new SSM label.


----------
*SSM is the acronym for Soviet-Style Media.

Readers know that over the years my terms for what most still call MSM have evolved. IIRC it began with Lamestream Media, then the Orwellian Ministry of Truth and Minitrue, to Ministry of Lies, to Agency of Lies (AoL) to Soviet-Style Media.