These are the same radicals who have been tearing down every icon in the West for all my seventy-plus years. It is enough to make me vomit.
How about you?
Despite the alleged separation of church and state, BELIEF in Sustainability is widely held in American secular government. Judeo-Christian moral guidelines have been incrementally supplanted by what can best be described as neo-pagan ones. Consequently, notice where rulers never utter a harsh word against Malthusian, Utilitarian, Green and Islamistophilic nutcases. There the ruled are at grave risk.
Reporter to McCain: "Has your relationship with the president frayed to the point that you are not going to support anything that he comes to you and asks for?”While McCain's answering a question with a questions could be labeled a non-denial denial, it was actually a reasonable question to ask the reporter. To ask McCain such a question and expect an honest answer would mean the reporter expected better behavior from McCain. Such an expectation is indeed stupid.
McCain to reporter: "Why would you ask anything so stupid?"
For when McCain self destructs, I am virtually certain he is not going to blame himself. He is going to blame conservatives. Thus picturing the following assuredly is not too hard.
From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.Yes, I know: That scene from Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan, is about as melodramatic as anything ever produced by Gene Roddenberry. [But it fits the sort of resentment he holds for those who would not honor him.]
And if the Republican Party had any real meaning they should have stopped him after the last time or the time before that or the time before that.
![]() |
| Photo provided by the following link |
"the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.” -- B. Mussolini [emphasis mine.]
Yes. Definitely yes, you dolts.For sure, there are undoubtedly useful idiots within Antifa who don't know it. They provide cover for the violence the thugs have inflicted and will continue to inflict -- just as you libs with all your alleged good intentions provided reasons and cover for the
"'What justice means to us [the power elite, anticipating the popular rejection of them] is precisely that the world will be filled with the storms of our revenge.' Thus they speak to each other, 'We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not.'... You preachers of equality ... your most secret ambition is to be tyrants [who] shroud yourselves in words of virtue."-- The Tarantulas
"Thou shalt not covet [for it may lead to the ultimate unhappiness for both he who covets and for those he resents and provoke casual violations of all Commandments.]"
PULL THE OTHER ONE YOU CREEPS!
Our secular world has been indoctrinating the whole globe with the notion that the world is endangered by it being burdened by too many people. It does not see that human intelligence is our greatest resource. It sees greater and lesser lights. It decides who is better and who is worse. Its influence has redirected society's concerns: from discouraging people from harming themselves and others into encouraging the human to explore wherever he feels inclined; it tries to belittle or obscure histories that warn of consequences from poor or risky choices. It shrugs at NAMBLA and is angered by the Boy Scouts. It decides who should be saved and who should not be. It decides whom to come to the aid of and whom should be abandoned. [The question of] who is innocent and who is not becomes one of being deemed so by those who play god, not by anything nonthreatening the subjugated creature chooses to do or not do. Those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [and thus Jesus Christ] clearly pose an obstacle to those who don't believe that such a God exists. “Since no such God exists, who will do the providing? No. NO. Stand aside. Let us brilliant ones, unencumbered by an outdated morality, take on the role of God. Someone must!”
These two messages are incompatible.
There will be conflict over this. It has already begun. [emphasis altered Aug 2017]
Thomas Malthus' theories arose about 50 years after Pascal's death. The Age of Reason was beginning to undermine the Ancien Régimes. Many rulers saw and welcomed the benefits of liberty. But two kinds [of rulers], both powerful, hated it. Those who hate the common man, and those who love concentrated power. Sometimes they're the same, and sometimes not. Malthus provided a "moral" cloak to hide both the explicit and implicit hatred of humanity -- even from themselves. By being able to convince even themselves that their vision is righteous, they can remain calm and seemingly benign as they convince large numbersWhat this exposes is that only some of the rulers are themselves religious zealots. This provides the patriot with the possibility that the ones who want only power could be persuaded to turn against their current allies.
"Leave it to us boys. We know what needs be done. Really."
(The ancient Sophists understood power and how to get and keep it. One of their chief ways of keeping it was through fostering ideas that attract casuists -- men who sought the moral path based on studying cases of conduct -- and let them do the heavy lifting, often with little expense or risk to the Sophists' masters, spurred by a few demagogues, and fueled considerably by the zeal of the useful idiots. Eric Hoffer, by popularizing the more easily understood term of "true believer," did us a disservice by disconnecting the Greek designation for them, and thus their historically implied connection to the power seeking schemers. The humanity haters may believe they now have sufficient armies of those who are enthralled by the indirect means to achieving a new (old) religion (see below). It is one that will provide them moral authority to achieve their goals. The real powers only have to support the activists when things get tough. Mostly they have historically chosen to be silent partners. Today -- not so silent.)
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
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:
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
LeftistSinister 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.