Newtspeak

~
In George Orwell’s 1949 satire Nineteen Eighty-Four, he describes an imposed language reform (Newspeak) meant to control both thought and expression in the citizenry. The big question in 2012 is: How long is it going to take Newt Gingrich supporters to reject the authoritarian, right-wing, hubristic “Ministry of Truth” version they so thoughtlessly leap to their feet to applaud?¹

If Newt wins, here is a prediction: Within four years or less, America will know she was suckered by Newtspeak — a depressing, 21st Century, déjà vu remake of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The purpose of [Newtspeak] was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of [Newt], but to make all other modes of thought [and inquiry scorned or] impossible. It was intended that when [Newtspeak] had been adopted once and for all and [Moralspeak] forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles [and ideas] of [Newt] — should be literally unthinkable [and unspeakable]. …

[Newtspeak] was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words [and questions] down to a minimum [that he was willing to answer]. …

Countless … words such as honor, justice, morality, … democracy, science, [accountability, integrity] … meant almost the exact opposite of what they appeared to mean. Some words, on the other hand, displayed a frank and contemptuous understanding of the real nature of [American] society. … Other words, again, were ambivalent, having the connotation ‘good’ when applied to [Newt & company] and ‘bad’ when applied to [his] enemies.

(From pp. 241-247, Appendix “The Principles of Newspeak” Nineteen Eight-Four by George Orwell, Penguin Modern Classics.)

-----------------------/
1. Newt’s competitors seem to have their own Orwellian “Ministries of Truth” but there is something about Newt and hubris (e.g. “despicable” media questions vis-à-vis despicable candidate behavior) that are predictive of unpleasant times ahead if America doesn’t get a better moral compass. What makes us think that Newt will honor a (renewed/revised?) "Contract with America" when he has been unable in several instances to honor far more personal contracts?

So, it has come to this! Again!

~
▪ That the sun never sets on American bases and SOFA’s¹ in near déjà vu of a recent fallen/defeated Empire;
▪ That so many pretend that money ≠ power ≠ undue influence ≠ inevitable corruption ≠ inevitable death of freedom;
▪ That we manufacture/manipulate citizen consent thru deception and propaganda and call it freedom of speech;
▪ That so many malign “enemies” for sins copied in secret (though sometimes openly, without apparent shame or remorse);
▪ That so many still praise, pursue, envy, and worship excess (while calling it, “deserved prosperity”);
▪ That we openly admit, justify, and sometimes celebrate assassination and torture;
▪ That pundits spin 1984 newspeak without apparent consciousness (aka: SCOTUSese; Newtspeak; Mittification; Santorumph; aPauling attachment to romanticized, libertarian dogma and fallacies²; and donkey parallels);
▪ That we stage democracy like a propped up storefront.

Is this the preferred point of destination for the American Constitution? Apparently not, for we have also come to a turning point, again! as more and more are turning up to protest. Thank goodness (and for believers in something higher than man and mammon, Thank God!)

---------------/
1. Status of Forces Agreements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement
2. see http://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2011/05/back-to-square-1601.html . Observation: One thing that can be said for Mr. Paul to date (vis-à-vis his competitors), is that he has been consistent in his disconnect with the real world. The current field of 2012 GOP candidates being Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

MORE THAN once upon a time!

In the High Middle Ages (1000-1300 AD/CE), in order to combat religious instability (including but not limited to alleged heretics,^[1]) the powers-that-were resorted to:

1) denunciations (openly and secretly);
2) concealing the nature of charges and evidence against the accused;
3) “invitations” to confess (something? anything?);
4) torture to extract confessions;
5) torture to extract the names of “guilty” others;
6) indefinite detentions;
7) secret trials;
8) occasional “accidental executions” during torture;
9) propaganda to justify all the above.

In the beginning of the 21st Century,^[2] in order to combat national and global instabilities (including, but not limited to genuine terrorists), the powers-that-were-once-democratic have resorted to:

1) denunciations (openly and secretly);
2) concealing the nature of charges and evidence against the accused;
3) “invitations” to confess (something? anything?);
4) torture to extract confessions;
5) torture to extract the names of “guilty” others;
6) indefinite detentions;
7) secret trials;
8) occasional “accidental executions” during torture;
9) propaganda to justify all the above.

Have we passed a thousand years merely to look into the mirror of déjà vu?

------------------/
[1] Which some saw as being equivalent to spiritual murder—and thus worse than physical death.
[2] Though actually beginning in the USA several years before via the CIA and its predecessors—in déjà vu of many other nation states throughout history.

For more on the Inquisitions of the High Middle Ages, one can access the Great Courses series, entitled “The High Middle Ages” Lecture 12 with Professor Philip Daileader of The College of William and Mary.