↓
 
Home » Language and politics: getting used to the newest Newspeak

Language and politics: getting used to the newest Newspeak

The New Neo Posted on by

I want to highlight the ideas stated by “Paolo Pagliaro” in this comment:

One fundamental principle – identified and exploited by both Goebbels’ Propagandaministerium and the KGB in Soviet Russia – is that endless repetition of a slogan INFALLIBLY modifies most people’s perception and reaction.

Pavlov – think about that – has been one of the few (the only one?) scientists whose research was constantly supported and financed in the USSR, even if he openly refused to accept the Marxist ideology!

Then there’s the educated leftist, the one who reads at least the NYT…: everybody who comes from the left…knows that dissent means expulsion; so, any leftist develops a special ear capable of recognizing a new dogma: in articles and speeches given by the cool people in the cool places, a term begins to be used as if it were an indisputable evidence and those who “incredibly” refuse to accept it are gradually described as controversial, then conservative and eventually Fascist.

We constantly see this in action. “Moving the Overton Window” is another name for the goal of the same process, which is to change public perceptions of what is acceptable and what is radical. There are many ways the left does this, but a highly important one is through language. The left recognized early on that changes in language are not superficial, and it became a big tool of theirs.

In the French Revolution language was used for this purpose when people were encouraged to call each other “citizen”, and in the USSR it was similar:

Upon abolishing the titles of nobility in France, and the terms monsieur and madame (literally, “my lord” and “my lady”), the revolutionaries employed the term citoyen for men and citoyenne for women (both meaning “citizen”) to refer to each other. The deposed King Louis XVI, for instance, was referred to as Citoyen Louis Capet to emphasize his loss of privilege.

When the socialist movement gained momentum in the mid-18th century, socialists elsewhere began to look for a similar egalitarian alternative to terms like “Mister”, “Miss”, or “Missus”. In German, the word Kamerad had long been used as an affectionate form of address among people linked by some strong common interest…The term was often used with political overtones in the revolutions of 1848, and was subsequently borrowed by French and English. In English, the first known use of the word “comrade” with this meaning was in 1884 in the socialist magazine Justice.

In the late 19th century Russian Marxists and other leftist revolutionaries adopted as a translation of the word “Kamerad” the Russian word tovarishch, whose original meaning was “business companion”…as a form of address in international (especially German) Social Democracy and in the associated parts of the workers’ movement…

By the mid-1920s, the form of address “Comrade” became so commonplace in the Soviet Union that it was used indiscriminately in essentially the same way as terms like “Mister” and “Sir” are employed in English. That use persisted until the fall of the Soviet Union.

That’s just about forms of address, but the thing about these words is that they are used constantly in everyday life and are habitual. To change them is to change a great deal.

Some language changes are natural and emerge spontaneously from the people themselves, but some are imposed from above either through suggestion, coercion, or threat of punishment. Think, for example, about Canadian professor Jordan Peterson’s battle over the use of pronouns for transgendered people—he has said he would use a person’s preferred pronouns voluntarily out of respect for various individuals’ wishes but not under coercion or threat of punishment, either by government or by the SJWs.

The left is constantly attempting to alter speech in ways both little and big. Little ways are sometimes even better, because they can elude whatever radar the right may possess. Commenter Pagliaro added, in that same comment I quoted at the beginning of this post:

The sad and irritating fact is how easily the other side – classical liberals but also conservatives and, increasingly, mainstream religious churches and confessions – accepts not just the term, but its USAGE as intended by the left: in other words they, being decent people willing to honestly discuss even the most absurd issue…

Orwell devoted a great deal of his masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four to this very issue of politically purposeful language change, which he viewed as central to leftist thought. In fact, I believe that his coinage and discussion of Newspeak was the beating heart of his book and a huge, memorable, and especially meaningful part of why it became so widely read and influential.

As Humpty Dumpty said [emphasis mine]:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’?” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’?”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Comments

Language and politics: getting used to the newest Newspeak — 54 Comments

  3. A prime ecamp le is how they changed from “global warming” to “climate change” as the data began to challenge the global warming scenario. By making the terminology change they effectively kept their agenda in tact. And, to further Neo’s point, now even climate sceptics use the term “climate change”. The left has changed the language and thus controlled the narrative.

  4. Another one they try but are having a harder time with I think is ‘illegal alien’. It’s gone from ‘illegal alien’ to ‘illegal immigrant’ to ‘undocumented worker’ to now the obviously misleading ‘immigrant’ with a few other stops along the way I’m sure I missed.

    But in my experience this is having a harder time taking than some other examples as I still here plenty of leftward leaning Trump haters referring to them as ‘illegals’.

  5. I have long thought that Americans complaining about alleged “fascists” in US politics today have no idea what actual fascists believed and did. As used by leftists today, the term has no actual meaning any more, other than “people I disagree with.”

  6. “When I make a word do a lot of extra work like that,” said Humpty Dumpty, “I always pay it extra.”
    “Oh!” said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
    “Ah, you should see ’em come round me of a Saturday night,” Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side: “for to get their wages,
    you know.”
    (Alice didn’t venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can’t tell you.

    Not slaves to Humpty — words — but employees. And yet, he is their master evenso.

  7. Yet when those of us who are paying attention call out the hijacking of words, their “new improved” meanings, we tend to be ignored or else criticized. “Well, that’s not what the word means now.”

    For instance, a huge instance, insisting on the correct term, “homosexual,” in place of the oh-so-jolly-sounding word “gay,” which in its traditional and formerly conventional, lovely meaning of “happy and carefree.” I don’t think homosexuals on average are any happier or more carefree than anyone else, although “carefree” can become “careless” and “careless” can become “reckless,” which is not actually within the scope of the adjective “gay.” (A surfeit of gaiety might, I suppose, lead to reckless abandon.)

    I hear quite a few complaints about this usage, but I meet few who walk the walk.

    Then there’s the proliferation of “-phobe” words. Islamophobe. Homophobe. So forth. All of which depend on the word “phobia” to intimate that you’re mentally ill if you meet Muslims or homosexuals with anything less than full-on love and joy simply because they are Muslims or homosexual.

    Confucius and Orwell say, Calling things by their right names very important.

  8. Of babies and fetuses. I wonder if a doctor would dare refer to a baby as a “fetus” in the presence of the mother and father.

    Also, transgender spectrum, rainbows, congruence (“=”), and political myths.

    “Well, that’s not what the word means now.”

    Case in point: urbane dictionary.

    Confucius and Orwell say, Calling things by their right names very important.

    Semantic games are fun. Let’s play.

  9. depend on the word “phobia” to intimate that you’re mentally ill if you meet Muslims or homosexuals with anything less than full-on love and joy

    Either that, or they are a projected condition. For example, transphobia is the hate and fear that a transversal gender (e.g. homosexual) will not be accepted as normal and normalized.

  10. depend on the word “phobia” to intimate that you’re mentally ill if you meet Muslims or homosexuals with anything less than full-on love and joy

    Oh, for an edit function. Your characterization captures the projected nature of contemporary phobias.

  11. An urbane dictionary harks to one such as Bertie Wooster might use, seeking to polish up a smidge.

    Internettedly — to force a coinage — one goes to the urban dictionary to clarify some such as “bae”, or to quote the thing about itself: “A site where it’s a challenge to find one subject where no one talks about sex.”

  12. re: ‘illegal alien’ to ‘illegal immigrant’ to ‘undocumented worker’ to now the obviously misleading ‘immigrant’

    I once watched an interview conducted by a Latino reporter with Obama. She used the word “citizen” to describe them and appended the comment that they all pay taxes so should be called that. Obama never corrected her and just answered her question which was related to the policy affecting them.

  14. I have homosexual neighbors in small town Iowa. They are good and welcome neighbors. I don’t think of them as ‘gay’. In fact they are somewhat conservative and vote republican at the caucus. As far as Humpty is concerned, as I recall all the king’s horses and all the king’s men could not put Humpty back together again. Deja vu all over again.

    We are at the beginning, since Trump, of the violence that raged in the late 60s into the 70s. We ain’t seen nothing yet. As November, 2020 nears I believe we will see bombings and more assassinations of LEOs. And, political assassinations. Hang onto your hats.

  16. My progressive friends insist on BCE and CE in discussing antiquity. What on earth is the “common era”? I stick to BC and AD. Glad to see in a recent visit to le grand musee du Louvre the persistence of Avant J-C and Apres J-C.

  18. “everybody who comes from the left…knows that dissent means expulsion; so, any leftist develops a special ear capable of recognizing a new dogma: ” — Paolo

    The Left accuses the Right of using “dog whistles” to signal ideology — generally falsely — because they hear their own so well.

  19. Orwell is less well known for this article he wrote.

    SOMEWHERE or other—I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan—Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality.

    Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me.

    Atlas by Milton Montenegro

    As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it?

    Against the Oval Earth man, the ?rst card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be ?at discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either.

    My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets.

    Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justi?ed in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth.

    If the Oval Earth man answers—what I believe is true—that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that ?nishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter.

    It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ‘everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.

    http://alexpeak.com/twr/hdykteir/

    Or are you gonna delete Orwell because he is talking about a subject you don’t approve of Neo.

  20. https://www.newsweek.com/flat-earth-science-denial-america-1421936

    When you try to get people here to self censor themselves relating to “X subject and anything related to it”, you have already fallen to newspeak worse than Facebook, Alphabet, and Ravelry combined. Because the “related to it” is almost anything and everything, thus only self censorship can work because the totalitarian system cannot enforce it given how things are connected at the sixth order or higher.

  21. Also, those who complain to Neo about a subject they want to get rid of because it bothers them, even though they refuse to engage it on a factual or rational logical basis, fall pray to the same impulse as Leftists do when they try to get rid of other minority views they find offensive or disagreeable, such as conservative voices at Ravelry.

    This is just human nature and antics. It is not special to Leftists or their corporations.

    There is a significant corrosive effect to conservatives trying to understand Engsoc and Leftist antics, because sooner or later they will replicate and mimic that thought and behavior. All for the best of causes of course.

  22. Related (this has been making the rounds, with a not unfamiliar byline?):
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/opinion/pronoun-they-gender.html
    ( H/T Instapundit:
    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/335913/ )

    And last but not least, the humorous tidbit of the day:
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/chuck-schumer-took-tens-thousands-dollars-donations-jeffrey-epstein-0

    Language and logic, language and control, language and violence…. Time to read “1984” once again. (Should be reread every two or three years in any event….lest one forget….)

  23. not exactly off topic; I studied Russian in college and found it a rather amusing irony that tovarishch (translated as “comrade”) has, as your quote points out, roots in “tovar” which means something like wealth or goods (i.e., commodities). And my professor explained that the word was first used by merchants who travelled up and down the Volga River to address each other – a rather capitalistic origin!

  25. This phenomena is described in George Orwell’s essay, “Literature and Totalitarianism”. Look it up… then pay close attention to paragraph 6.

  26. Kate on July 13, 2019 at 5:06 pm said:

    ‘I have long thought that Americans complaining about alleged “fascists” in US politics today have no idea what actual fascists believed and did.’

    It’s worse than that. I heard a protester say “fascism in all its forms”. Lotsa wiggle room there.

    ‘As used by leftists today, the term has no actual meaning any more, other than “people I disagree with.” ‘

    Orwell, ‘Politics and the English Language’: ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”. … Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. … Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.’

  28. Today’s related question: What is the difference (if any) between blasphemy and hate speech?

    To illustrate the nuances, an Islamist insists that Muhammed not be insulted nor drawn. To do so is blasphemy, he says.

    A trans activist says that claiming someone can’t think themselves from man to woman is the worse of insults. To say that is hate speech, he/she/it/zem/zer/helicopter says.

    Neither of these claims have a scintilla of evidence behind it. Both assertions are based in faith. The first one is obvious. For the second, note that no test exists that can establish the claim that the former man is now a woman. It’s just a deeply held opinion without evidence or proof, just as a belief in God is a deeply held opinion without proof.

  29. I don’t know if this has been referenced before in any other post and, to be honest, it is a bit of a different perspective from the post and comments above. On the other hand, I think it is relevant in that it also addresses why leftists change the language to control non-leftists. It was formulated by Theodore Dalrymple with regards to political correctness.

    Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

  30. The very worst example of the right accepting the lefts frame, even in opposition to them is the cuckish “I only have a problem with illegal immigration because its illegal.”
    Stupid, it gives up all ground to the left.
    The real issue is a threat to our way of life by largely uneducated hordes from less compatible cultures who disproportionately consume welfare and other resources, coming in such numbers that would swamp any efforts to make them assimilate, even if it were allowed any more, much less required, and used by our enemies to dilute our votes.
    Legal vs illegal is really about controlling the flow of who comes and how many… Even if illegals were almost perfectly kept out, there should still be a fight over what the ‘legal’ policy is. And the cucks shy away from that because they now have reflexive avoidance of the racism charge.

  31. “frame” . . . “cuckish” . . . “the cucks” . . .

    Do kindly bugger off ya loathsome piece of alt-right jabbering statist shite.

  34. Newscaper:

    Although I wouldn’t put it like sdferr did, I agree that the word “cuck” is a way to put down (and use a sexually-charged word of contempt for) people with whom a certain segment of the right disagrees.

    I never use the word, even for NeverTrumpers. I prefer to use logic and argument rather than insult.

    I have also never heard anyone use the argument: “I only have a problem with illegal immigration because its illegal.” What I have heard is something like this assertion: “I have a problem with illegal immigrants because they break the law and therefore are more likely to be lawbreakers in general, plus our immigration system gives us the right to regulate which people come in and in what numbers they come.” A corollary to this is: “If you want fewer legal immigrants, change the law so that fewer are allowed. If you want more, change it in that direction. But for illegal immigrants we should deport them.”

    That’s completely different from the strawman argument you have stated as being the argument of “cucks.”

    You wrote, “Even if illegals were almost perfectly kept out, there should still be a fight over what the ‘legal’ policy is. And the cucks shy away from that because they now have reflexive avoidance of the racism charge.”

    Now, it is certainly true that many people—and there’s no need to call them “cucks” in order to show how bold you are and how loathsome you find them—are indeed afraid of being called racists. It’s a powerful insult that can harm people greatly, and that’s why it’s used by the left so freely. You are also correct that anyone not for open borders is called a racist. In fact, everyone on the right is called a racist. People on the right should get used to it, because perfectly reasonable arguments are going to be called racist by the left.

    But as I said before, the people on the right I’ve heard are not shying away from talking about how much legal immigration to have. It’s just not as pressing an issue at the moment, because illegal immigration is in the forefront.

  35. Ymarsakar:

    On future threads I am going to delete most references to flat earth theory, and I have told you why.

    You are free to discuss it as much as you want on plenty of other forums. Neither I, nor anyone here as far as I know, am supporting a ban on the subject in general. But I would delete comments on any subject that (and this is not meant to be an exhaustive list by any means, nor do I always delete every single comment that falls into these categories):

    (1) Are obscene.
    (2) Contain what I consider over-the-top insults.
    (3) Are troll-like in nature (and I’ve written posts on my definition of that, which you are free to read).

    The rest of the reasons on this list are more relevant to your case (the first three above were not).
    (4) Are off-topic.
    (5) Are repetitive.
    (6) Are too long.
    (7) Contain theories I consider discredited, such as (again, not even close to being an exhaustive list) flat earth, vaccines cause autism, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, alien autopsy, 9/11 truthers, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and Holocaust denial. But even if someone went on and on about some other favorite theory—even one I’m in agreement with— hijacking threads in order to post several comments on it (long ones at that), I might very well delete them or at least ask the person not to do it again.

    I have asked you kindly. You have already posted many many comments here on this topic. Please go elsewhere to continue posting comments about flat earth. No one here is abridging your right to talk about it, think about it, have a blog about it. What I am saying (and I believe what many others agree with) is I’m not interested. I’ve listened to you about flat earth, I’ve done my own research, I’ve read about it, I’ve known people in the non-cyber world who believe in it, I’ve watched videos on it, and I reject it. So I don’t choose to pay for bandwidth to create a forum for that particular discussion, although I defend your right to have it in other places.

    I am not Twitter or Facebook or even a site like Ravelry that purports to be a knitting community and yet bans half the country, those who support the current US president. That’s a lot different than a blogger with a small but loyal audience saying that the blogger chooses not to allow comment after comment about a topic that interests only the commenter and is considered incorrect by the vast majority of people, including people who have studied flat earth theory and found it seriously wanting.

    This blog is an opinion blog. I offer my opinions on topics that interest me. Commenters can come as long as they abide by the rules. If someone—anyone—posts a lot of comments promoting ideas that don’t interest me and that I consider discredited, I can revoke their privilege (not a right, a privilege) to comment here. Just as I would not invite back a visitor to my home who talked incessantly about (just to take an example) the alien autopsy or how LBJ killed Kennedy. They have a right to talk about it, but I have a right to ask them to go elsewhere to do it.

    That said, as you know, I have been very patient with you over the years. Please don’t take advantage of my patience. I am requesting that you not post comments here on the topic of flat earth, unless it’s on a post I write about flat earth (although I’m not planning one). I reserve the right to remove such comments. I of course also reserve the right to ban any commenter, although I have been quite explicit in saying I would be very reluctant to ban you and hope and trust it will not come to that.

  36. sdferr
    Ok, if it makes you happy:
    frame = “terms of the debate”
    cucks = “squishes”
    cuckish = “squishy”

    Feel better?
    No comment on the substance of what I had to say on the shallowness and impotence of the argument that mass immigration from Third World is only an issue when its illegal (so presumably wonderful if a Democrat Congress and President radically loosen “legal” immigration to let the same largely unassimilable people in?)

  37. Sorry neo, re name calling, its your house.
    But I read and hear all the time, the ‘because its illegal’ with none of the followup you give.

  38. newscaper:

    I’d be curious to see a link. It’s not something I’ve seen, but perhaps there are people mounting the argument you cite, and if so I’d be curious to read what they say.

  39. Seen it plenty of times w talking heads, politicians on tv, man in the street interviews,etc. Even to a certain extent Trumps rhetoric against illegal immigration where he feels like he has to also protest how much just he loves legal immigration and wishes we had more of it.

    A corollary, probably more common in less shallow contexts for debate, is the substantive arguments against illegal immigration do get made, re impacts, … but entirely without mentioning that they also apply equally to too much of the legal immigration preferred under current policy.

    Its funny/tragic that so many arguments about some socio-political issue tend toward binary thinking, that something must be all or none. Or if one or a few is fine, an unlimited number is good too.

    I think with a lot of things “the poison is the dose” is a decent model. I’d even allow for hormesis, where a modest amount of something that is otherwise increasingly harmful, can actually act as a good stimulus to the system at a lower dose.

    Re immigration —
    Some = get their best and brightest, a few so more readily assimilated, get some cultural cross-pollination but not radically changing the host culture.
    A lot = the flood.

    I think of this when I see that University of Phoenix tv ad where they show a successful [presumably] Mexican immigrant who has come up from poverty, now working as an ER doctor (or maybe nurse)… then cuts to the illegal immigrant family trudging though the desert with a mix of determination and hope.
    “One did great so let them all in!”
    Not logical at all.

  40. newscaper:

    I have not seen what you say you have seen.

    That does not mean it doesn’t exist. But I would like some quotes and links to see what people are actually saying. It is not something I’ve seen, and certainly not seen a significant amount of it because I believe I would have noticed.

    Now and then people offer single-sentence sound bites like: “It’s illegal immigration that bothers me; most legal immigrants are fine.” That’s a simplified version of a much much longer set of thoughts and does not mean the person believes that opening the floodgates on legal immigration would be a good thing.

    Trump’s policies have been to very clearly limit, and propose more limits, on legal immigration as well. See this on the RAISE act. In this he has been supported by many—but certainly not all—Republicans. That doesn’t mean they are for loosening the rules for legal immigration, either (although some may be). It merely means that they don’t with that specific bill.

    You can see plenty of discussion of the issues involved with limiting legal immigration here.

  41. jdm,

    I hadn’t come across Mr. Dalrymple’s statement about using PC to make everyone a liar, hoping thereby to destroy everyone’s sense of self (destroy the sense of self, making everyone self-less, as Miss Rand put it) and thus, everyone’s ability to think and to act off his own hook. Of course Miss R. and Mr. Orwell make the same point.

    Thank you for the excellent quote.

  43. Newspeak, Antifa from Vashon Island, WA commits suicide by cop trying to liberate a ICE concentration camp in Tacoma WA.

    https://theothermccain.com/

    “Antifa Terrorist Shot Dead After Firebomb Attack on ICE Facility in Tacoma”
    Posted on | July 14, 2019 | 32 Comments

    Also:

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/07/attacker-on-tacoma-ice-detention-center-identified-as-anarchist-and-antifascist/

    Vashon Island isn’t a low rent, low income part of the Puget Sound area. Woke yes, be he isn’t any longer.

  45. om,

    I saw that. It isn’t suicide by cop so much as terrorism. Regardless of his ineptness, he was attempting to carry out an act of mass violence.

    We need to call this what it is, “Leftist Terrorism”.

  46. some tiresome God-denier: “… just as a belief in God is a deeply held opinion without proof.”

    If God (*) is not, then there is no way things ought to be;

    If there is no way things ought to be, then no action is either right or wrong (**);

    If no action is either right or wrong, then your criticism of “claims [made without] a scintilla of evidence behind” them is incoherent;

    THERE: there is a proof-of-God … one of *many* that one may adduce.

    So, when are you going to admit that your God-denial is false, contrary to reason, contrary to all evidence?

    (*) The Creator, the “Ground of all being” — the deliberate cause-and-sustainer of All-That-Is

    (**) That is, according to the baseless-and-absurd metaphysic you are asserting, the terms ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are meaningless

  47. sdferr: “… ya loathsome piece of alt-right jabbering statist shite”

    neo: “Although I wouldn’t put it like sdferr did, I agree that the word “cuck” is a way to put down (and use a sexually-charged word of contempt for) people with whom a certain segment of the right disagrees.”

    But that’s the thing — the people who call themselves “alt-right”, are who toss around accusations of being a “cuck” as freely as Democrats toss around accusations of being a “racist”, are *not” a “a certain segment of the right“; they are, as sdferr put it, statists, they are collectivists … they are leftists. And like all leftists, they seek to destroy the individual for the particular collective they think the championing of which will gain them the power of life-and-death over other people.

  48. The left has been policing language for a long time. More recently they’ve become excited by the techniques of messaging, framing and deplatforming.

    It’s like they’ve given up on rational debate. Sadly, they tend to lose open debates, but they couldn’t be wrong, so the problem is bothering to debate the deplorable. Instead, they must manipulate us for our own good.

  49. Roy Nathanson:

    According to the articles, he wrote “good bye, farewell” letters to friends/comrades just before his attack, implying that he did not expect to survive. I agree he was a terrorist. Portland probably has more than a few of his ilk, possibly Eugene too.

  50. Roy Nathanson:

    Here is another link and quote from an acquaintance of 20 years”

    “Van Spronsen was described as “an anarchist and anti-fascist,” according to Deb Bartley, a friend of his for about 20 years.

    “He was ready to end it,” Bartley stated. “I think this was a suicide. But then he was able to kind of do it in a way that spoke to his political beliefs. I know he went down there knowing he was going to die.”

    Van Spronsen has had a history of violence against the police. ……”

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/antifa-activist-identified-as-man-armed-with-rifle-who-tried-to-set-fire-to-ice-center/

    With friends/comrades like Deb Bartley who needs enemies?

  52. Twas feminism that normalized the process and made us ignore it mostly… oh, dont like manhole covers? then personal access ways.. no actresses now they are all actors…

    one more thing you can thank women for fixing it…
    heck, if you think wearing underwear outside your clothes is a show of control what aobut new sexes and many genders and men are women if they say so and if they say so, its ok to compete as a woman….

    and ya cant say anything to the dears..
    they would never listen and are too busy saving the planet
    remember women are the future, even if they dont have children…
    at least they say so….

  53. om,

    No kidding about Deb Bartley. It seems as though she didn’t care enough about him to even attempt to stop him. Some friend…

    More importantly (to me), she apparently made no attempt to warn the people he was going to attack. Had he been successful at killing someone in his attack, their blood would have been on her hands too. A good prosecutor could make a case for a “depraved indifference” homicide.

  54. “If God (*) is not, then there is no way things ought to be;

    “If there is no way things ought to be, then no action is either right or wrong (**);”

    I understand that you think that makes logical sense. It does not. It contains hidden, unproven assumptions. The main one being that there is no foundation of morality except God. By that logic, no atheist could ever behave morally. But many do. QED

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑