Memo To Literate People: Do You Really Want To Shrink Language

breakaway3
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 20, 2017

Under the onslaught of political correctness, numbing education, fake mainstream news, and other covert techniques, an attack on language is taking place.

Anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave can see this.

The solution is: go the other way.

Refuse to back down. Refuse the pressure to shrink language.

Reject the attempt to shrink formal argument and logic to slogans and mottos and vague generalities. If necessary, educate your own children. Teach them English and literature and logic. Thus, make them smarter, not dumber.

Expand their capacity to use language.

Large numbers of people are heading deeper into idiocracy, but this is no reason to abandon the quest for greater intelligence. This is no reason to despair. Life is not a search for the lowest common denominator. Others may think so, but you don’t have to.

In my 12 years of formal education, the smartest thing I did was enroll in two college courses in logic. The professor was a brilliant hair-splitter. He could discern the differences between any two hairs you might offer up. As a result, his students sharpened their minds into well-made swords. The practical real-world effects weren’t immediately obvious, but as time passed, I could certainly see the benefits. For starters, I could distinguish between fake and real analysis of information. The fake brand was replete with generalities and obfuscations.

Great numbers of people buy the fake brand. So be it.

Why join the crowd?

Deciding that a whole host of words and phrases are “hate speech” makes people dumber. Makes them less, not more, tolerant. Makes them resemble machines. If they can’t understand that, so be it.

An invisible trend is developing in society. A significant number of people who have minds and know how to use them are removing themselves from the common swamp. By their capacity and merit, they are constituting a natural elite.

And by rejecting sophistry, they are rising to new heights.

They are literate, in the best sense of the word.

In my collection, The Matrix Revealed, I offer a basic 18-lesson course in logic. In another collection, Power Outside The Matrix, I present a long audio section titled, Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation. These are contributions to an emerging future in which the individual controls the destiny of his own mind.

He doesn’t aim to fit in. He goes the other way. He bucks the trend.

All propaganda targets the group, the mass, the collective. An individual who doesn’t join up needs every possible tool, in order to stay independent.

If you don’t think so, consider current trends in illiteracy, non-logic, propaganda, political correctness—and project what the cultural landscape will look like in 20 years. It’s not a pretty picture.

Institutions of higher learning?

You are the institution.

You’re the president, the dean, the basic faculty, and the student of higher learning. You’re carrying on the tradition of Socrates and Aristotle. You’re putting up “mind vs. mob.” You’re the herald of a victory most people can’t fathom.

From the intellectual rubble of a declining civilization, you’re carrying the basics on which civilization is built. You’re not waiting for others to catch up. You’re showing the way.

The word “education” comes from Latin roots. “Ducere,” to lead, and “e” or “ex,” meaning “from” or “out of.” Education is a process of leading an inherent capacity out of the student into the light. That capacity is based on rational thought, logic, and expanded (not shrunken) language.

Education is real. It means what it has always meant.

It can be defamed, twisted, distorted, perverted, reduced, stepped on—but it endures. The desire for it never disappears.

It needs independent individuals who are teachers. Such teachers don’t shirk their mission. They find glory in it. They don’t make excuses. If one venue doesn’t work, they find another. Their passion shines.

And students will appear.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Speech, Action, and the Human Condition: Hannah Arendt on How We Invent Ourselves and Reinvent the World

“The smallest act in the most limited circumstances bears the seed of the same boundlessness, because one deed, and sometimes one word, suffices to change every constellation.”

BrainPickings
Source: Brainpickings.org
Maria Popova
May 17, 2017

“An honorable human relationship — that is, one in which two people have the right to use the word ‘love’ — is a process, delicate, violent, often terrifying to both persons involved, a process of refining the truths they can tell each other,” Adrienne Rich wrote in her piercing 1975 meditation on how relationships refine our truths. But although our words may be the vehicle of our truths, their seedbed is action — we enact the truth of who and what we are as we move through the world. That’s what Anna Deavere Smith spoke to in her advice to young artists: “Start now, every day, becoming, in your actions, your regular actions, what you would like to become in the bigger scheme of things.”

That indelible relationship between speech and action in an honorable existence is what Hannah Arendt (October 14, 1906–December 4, 1975) examines throughout The Human Condition (public library) — the immensely influential 1958 book that gave us Arendt on the crucial difference between how art and science illuminate life.

Hannah Arendt by Fred Stein, 1944 (Photograph courtesy of the Fred Stein Archive)

Arendt examines the dual root of speech and action:

Human plurality, the basic condition of both action and speech, has the twofold character of equality and distinction. If men were not equal, they could neither understand each other and those who came before them nor plan for the future and foresee the needs of those who will come after them. If men were not distinct, each human being distinguished from any other who is, was, or will ever be, they would need neither speech nor action to make themselves understood.

It is useful here to remember that Arendt is living, and therefore writing, nearly half a century before Ursula K. Le Guin unsexed “he” as the universal pronoun — Arendt’s “man,” of course, speaks to and for humanity it is entirety. In fact, she examines the vital complementarity of the universal and the unique. With an eye to the difference between human distinctness and otherness, she writes:

Otherness, it is true, is an important aspect of plurality, the reason why all our definitions are distinctions, why we are unable to say what anything is without distinguishing it from something else. Otherness in its most abstract form is found only in the sheer multiplication of inorganic objects, whereas all organic life already shows variations and distinctions, even between specimens of the same species. But only man can express this distinction and distinguish himself, and only he can communicate himself and not merely something—thirst or hunger, affection or hostility or fear. In man, otherness, which he shares with everything that is, and distinctness, which he shares with everything alive, become uniqueness, and human plurality is the paradoxical plurality of unique beings.

Speech and action reveal this unique distinctness. Through them, men distinguish themselves instead of being merely distinct; they are the modes in which human beings appear to each other, not indeed as physical objects, but qua men. This appearance, as distinguished from mere bodily existence, rests on initiative, but it is an initiative from which no human being can refrain and still be human.

Art by E.B. Lewis from Preaching to the Chickens by Jabari Asim — the illustrated story of how civil rights leader John Lewis’s humble childhood shaped his heroic life at the intersection of speech and action

Not only is the interplay of speech and action our supreme mechanism of self-invention and self-reinvention, but, Arendt suggests, in inventing a self we are effectively inventing the world in which we want to live:

With word and deed we insert ourselves into the human world, and this insertion is like a second birth, in which we confirm and take upon ourselves the naked fact of our original physical appearance. This insertion is not forced upon us by necessity, like labor, and it is not prompted by utility, like work. It may be stimulated by the presence of others whose company we may wish to join, but it is never conditioned by them; its impulse springs from the beginning which came into the world when we were born and to which we respond by beginning something new on our own initiative. To act, in its most general sense, means to take an initiative, to begin (as the Greek word archein, “to begin,” “to lead,” and eventually “to rule,” indicates), to set something into motion (which is the original meaning of the Latin agere).

Action is therefore the most optimistic and miraculous of our faculties, for it alone gives rise to what hadn’t existed before — it is the supreme force of creation. Arendt writes:

It is in the nature of beginning that something new is started which cannot be expected from whatever may have happened before. This character of startling unexpectedness is inherent in all beginnings and in all origins… The new always happens against the overwhelming odds of statistical laws and their probability, which for all practical, everyday purposes amounts to certainty; the new therefore always appears in the guise of a miracle. The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable.

And yet, contrary to the popular indictment that speech is the cowardly absence of action, action cannot take place without speech. Above all, Arendt argues, it is through the integration of the two that we reveal ourselves to one another, as well as to ourselves:

No other human performance requires speech to the same extent as action. In all other performances speech plays a subordinate role, as a means of communication or a mere accompaniment to something that could also be achieved in silence.

[…]

In acting and speaking, men show who they are, reveal actively their unique personal identities and thus make their appearance in the human world… This disclosure of “who” in contradistinction to “what” somebody is — his qualities, gifts, talents, and shortcomings, which he may display or hide — is implicit in everything somebody says and does. It can be hidden only in complete silence and perfect passivity, but its disclosure can almost never be achieved as a willful purpose, as though one possessed and could dispose of this “who” in the same manner he has and can dispose of his qualities. On the contrary, it is more than likely that the “who,” which appears so clearly and unmistakably to others, remains hidden from the person himself, like the daimōn in Greek religion which accompanies each man throughout his life, always looking over his shoulder from behind and thus visible only to those he encounters.

Down the Rabbit Hole: One of Salvador Dalí’s rare 1969 illustrations for Alice in Wonderland

Echoing the Nobel-winning Indian poet and philosopher Tagore’s assertion that “relationship is the fundamental truth of this world of appearance,” Arendt adds:

This revelatory quality of speech and action comes to the fore where people are with others and neither for nor against them — that is, in sheer human togetherness. Although nobody knows whom he reveals when he discloses himself in deed or word, he must be willing to risk the disclosure.

[…]

Without the disclosure of the agent in the act, action loses its specific character and becomes one form of achievement among others. It is then indeed no less a means to an end than making is a means to produce an object. This happens whenever human togetherness is lost, that is, when people are only for or against other people, as for instance in modern warfare, where men go into action and use means of violence in order to achieve certain objectives for their own side and against the enemy. In these instances, which of course have always existed, speech becomes indeed “mere talk,” simply one more means toward the end, whether it serves to deceive the enemy or to dazzle everybody with propaganda; here words reveal nothing, disclosure comes only from the deed itself, and this achievement, like all other achievements, cannot disclose the “who,” the unique and distinct identity of the agent.

In a passage that calls to mind philosopher Amelie Rorty’s taxonomy of the seven levels of personhood, Arendt suggests that action is what propels us from static selves to dynamic agents of change, and considers the immense potential of that agency:

The smallest act in the most limited circumstances bears the seed of the same boundlessness, because one deed, and sometimes one word, suffices to change every constellation.

In a sentiment which Rebecca Solnit would come to echo half a century later in her immensely vitalizing Hope in the Dark, where she asserted that “the grounds for hope are in the shadows, in the people who are inventing the world while no one looks, who themselves don’t know yet whether they will have any effect,” Arendt looks back on the history of humanity’s great intellectual and political revolutions, and adds:

It certainly is not without irony that those whom public opinion has persistently held to be the least practical and the least political members of society should have turned out to be the only ones left who still know how to act and how to act in concert. For their early organizations, which they founded in the seventeenth century for the conquest of nature and in which they developed their own moral standards and their own code of honor, have not only survived all vicissitudes of the modern age, but they have become one of the most potent power-generating groups in all history.

The Human Condition remains an indispensable read. Complement this particular portion with Vincent van Gogh on principles and talking vs. doing, then revisit Arendt on the crucial difference between truth and meaning, the power of being an outsider, how tyrants use isolation as a weapon of oppression, and our only effective antidote to the normalization of evil.

Read more At: Brainpickings.org

99 Quotes By George Orwell

Orwell99
TheBreakaway | BreakawayConciousness
Zy Marquiez
May 16, 2017

Orwell’s landmark piece, 1984, has resonated with millions of readers, and with good reason: it speaks to the pervasive encroaching totalitarianism that seeks to strangle the individual that has historically taken place throughout history.

In the same light, what follows are some of Orwell’s wise words collated to incite some rumination between incisive and inquiring individuals.

“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.  When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, to instinctively using to long words and exhausted idioms, like cuttlefish squirting out link.”

“…to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy…” [This statement influenced readers to see that lying government leaders were pretending to a moral sense they did not possess.][Subsequent commentary Jon Rappoport of NoMoreFakeNews.com]

“But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty’s figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.” [Generations of readers realized that the government was simply inventing itself as it wanted the public to see it. Government was a hoax. And if government was a hoax, and you wanted to reveal that, you would have to find a way into secret communications. Thus, Orwell spawned untold numbers of independent spies who began looking into the private communications of political power players.] [Subsequent commentary Jon Rappoport]

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” Jon Rappoport
[This statement alerted readers that news networks were omitting a whole range of ideas about the true actions of government—and therefore, again, independent citizens would have to dig into the personal communications of leaders, in order to discover what they were actually thinking and talking about.] [Subsequent commentary Jon Rappoport]

“…perhaps the Party was rotten under the surface…” [Readers, generations of readers took to that phrase. If the Party was rotten, then you had to go under the surface to find that out. You had to scrape into the private corruption behind the public face.] [Subsequent commentary Jon Rappoport]

“The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought… All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers.” [The effect of this inflammatory statement is obvious. Rebels, generations of rebels have probed the inner workings of the government, in order to expose what the government is actually doing, in order to prevent a complete takeover.] [Subsequent commentary Jon Rappoport]

“Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult…. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And when they become discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontentment led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances.”
– George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

“Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood.”

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

“Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.”

“The best books… are those that tell you what you know already.”

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.”

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”

“We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.”

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

“Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout with some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand.”

“The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection.”

“Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one.”

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”

“If you loved someone, you loved him, and when you had nothing else to give, you still gave him love.”

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

“In the face of pain there are no heroes.”

“Big Brother is Watching You.”

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

“On the whole human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.”

“I enjoy talking to you. Your mind appeals to me. It resembles my own mind except that you happen to be insane.”

“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

“Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself.”

“Four legs good, two legs bad.”

“It could not have been ten seconds, and yet it seemed a long time that their hands were clasped together.  He had time to learn every detail on her hand.”

“For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.”

“A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?”

“Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.”

“You are a slow learner, Winston.”
“How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

“Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.”

“Confession is not betrayal. What you say or do doesn’t matter; only feelings matter. If they could make me stop loving you-that would be the real betrayal.”

“Sanity is not statistical.”

“Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull. ”

“The only good human being is a dead one.”

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”

“The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”

“Of pain you could wish only one thing: that it should stop. Nothing in the world was so bad as physical pain. In the face of pain there are no heroes.”

“At 50, everyone has the face he deserves.”

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

“To die hating them, that was freedom.”

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

“He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it.”

“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

“There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

“Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptom.”

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

“Winston Smith: Does Big Brother exist?
O’Brien: Of course he exists.
Winston Smith: Does he exist like you or me?
O’Brien: You do not exist.”

“Several of them would have protested if they could have found the right arguments.”

“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”

“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.”

“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”

“This work was strictly voluntary, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his rations reduced by half.”

“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?”

“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.”

“If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them.”

“If you kept the small rules, you could break the big ones.”

“So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern…Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.”

“Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me:
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree.”

“If you can feel that staying human is worth while, even when it can’t have any result whatever, you’ve beaten them.”

“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’.”

“Let’s face it: our lives are miserable, laborious, and short.”

“In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.”

“We are the dead. Our only true life is in the future.”

“All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand.”

“It is a feeling of relief, almost of pleasure, at knowing yourself at last genuinely down and out. You have talked so often of going to the dogs – and well, here are the dogs, and you have reached them, and you can stand it. It takes off a lot of anxiety.”

“If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”

“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.”

“You’re only a rebel from the waist downwards,’ he told her.”

“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental , nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink”

“The consequences of every act are included in the act itself.”

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

“Man is the only creature that consumes without producing”

“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

April the 4th, 1984.  To the past, or to the future. To an age when thought is free. From the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man – greetings!”

“Man serves the interests of no creature except himself.”

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. All individuals are encouraged to share this content and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________
About The Author:

Zy Marquiez is an avid book reviewer, researcher, an open-minded skeptic, yogi, humanitarian, and freelance writer who studies and mirrors regularly subjects like Consciousness, Education, Creativity, The Individual, Ancient History & Ancient Civilizations, Forbidden Archaeology, Big Pharma, Alternative Health, Space, Geoengineering, Social Engineering, Propaganda, and much more.

His other blog, BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com features mainly his personal work, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information nigh always ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Social Engineering & Conformity Crisis: Liberal College Releases List Of ‘Offensive’ Words We Shouldn’t Use Anymore


Source: YourNewsWire.com
Baxter Dmitry
March 21, 2017

Boston’s elite Emerson College has taken it upon itself to release a list of offensive words Americans should stop using at once.

Emerson College’s “Guidelines for Inclusive Language” has banned the use of the word homosexual when referring to a homosexual. And don’t you dare use the word “disabled.” That’s offensive. Much better to use “person with a disability.

Use gay or lesbian when describing people who are attracted to members of the same sex,” the guide instructs Americans. “Avoid the use of homosexual and homosexual relationship.

The guide does not appear to provide reasons for any of the new rules in its 1,440-word “Inclusive Language” guide, besides the fact that they are “offensive“.

They have also banned use of the word “businessman.”

The handy guide to politically-correct words and phrases also informs writers to use several clunky terms including “business executive” instead of “businessman“, “camera operator” instead of “cameraman” and the potentially confusing “chair” instead of “chairman.”

Other words that have been consigned to the dustbin of social justice history, according to Emerson College, are policeman, manmade, mankind, layman, spokesman and manpower.

Additionally, the Daily Caller reports, Emerson demands that you should use the phrase “person with a disability” instead of the totally different “disabled person.”

Community members should avoid using language that is insensitive to cultural differences or that excludes or offends any group of people (based on their ability/disability, age, ethnicity and race, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation, etc.),” a general statement at the beginning of the language guide says.

Student, faculty members and officials on Emerson’s campus in Boston should ask themselves “whether it is appropriate” in any piece of writing “to share a particular fact about a person (pertaining to social identity, e.g., age, ethnicity).

Campus Reform, which first spotted the Emerson guide, reached out to Emerson officials for additional background.

No Emerson spokesman replied.

The cost for a single year of tuition, fees and room and board at Emerson is $59,728.

Notable Emerson alumni include Jay Leno, a bunch of random actors and, of course, Henry Winkler.

Read More At: YourNewsWire.com

Manufacturing Normality

QuestionEverything2
Source: Counterpunch.org
CJ Hopkins
December 6, 2016

Sometime circa mid-November, in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat (i.e., the beginning of the end of democracy), the self-appointed Guardians of Reality, better known as the corporate media, launched a worldwide marketing campaign against the evil and perfidious scourge of “fake news.” This campaign is now at a fever pitch. Media outlets throughout the empire are pumping out daily dire warnings of the imminent, existential threat to our freedom posed by the “fake news” menace. This isn’t the just the dissemination of disinformation, propaganda, and so on, that’s been going on for thousands of years … Truth itself is under attack. The very foundations of Reality are shaking.

Who’s behind this “fake news” menace? Well, Putin, naturally, but not just Putin. It appears to be the work of a vast conspiracy of virulent anti-establishment types, ultra-alt-rightists, ultra-leftists, libertarian retirees, armchair socialists, Sandernistas, Corbynistas, ontological terrorists, fascism normalizers, poorly educated anti-Globalism freaks, and just garden variety Clinton-haters.

Fortunately, for us, the corporate media is hot on the trail of this motley of scoundrels. As you’re probably aware, The Washington Post recently published a breathtaking piece of Pulitzer-quality investigative journalism shamelessly smearing hundreds of alternative publications (like the one you’re reading) as “peddlers of Russian propaganda.” The piece, a classic McCarthyite smear job perpetrated by the Post‘s Craig Timberg, was based on the groundless, paranoid claims of what Timberg unironically describes as “two teams of independent researchers,” The Foreign Policy Research Institute, a third-rate, former anti-Communist think tank, and an anonymous website, propornot.com, that no one had ever heard of prior to its sudden appearance on the Internet last August, and which, based on the tenor of its tweets and emails, appears to be run by Beavis and Butthead.

The Washington Post has been catching some flak for taking this courageous “pro-Truth” stand against the forces of Putinist falsehood and fakery. A host of dangerously extremist publications, like CounterPunch, The Intercept, Rolling Stone, The Nation, The New Yorker, Fortune Magazine, Bloomberg, and US News & World Report, have lambasted The Post for its “shoddy,” “lazy,” or otherwise sub-par journalism practices. The Post, of course, is “backing its boy,” and refusing to apologize for defending democracy, as it has throughout its storied history, like when it smeared Gary Webb as retribution for reporting the CIA-Contra connection, more or less destroying his career as a journalist, or when it blatantly shilled for Hillary Clinton throughout her ugly, fear-mongering campaign, notably publishing sixteen negative pieces on Sanders in sixteen hours, or when it ran this piece on how Clinton might have been poisoned by secret Putinist agents … and these are just a few of the highlights.

But I don’t want to single out The Washington Post, or its Executive Editor, Marty Baron, who is clearly a paragon of journalistic ethics. The rest of the corporate media have also been mercilessly flogging the “fake news” hysteria, and the “Putinist propaganda” hysteria, and the “normalizing of fascism” hysteria, and beating the “post-Truth” drum to death. The Guardian, The New York Times, et al., NPR, the TV news networks, the entire mainstream media chorus is barking out the message in perfect synch. So what is really going on here?

As I suggested in these pages previously, what we are experiencing is the pathologization (or the “abnormalization”) of political dissent, i.e., the systematic stigmatization of any and all forms of non-compliance with neoliberal consensus reality. Political distinctions like “left” and “right” are disappearing, and are being replaced by imponderable distinctions like “normal” and “abnormal,” “true” and “false,” and “real” and “fake.” Such distinctions do not lend themselves to argument. They are proffered to us as axiomatic truths, empirical facts which no normal person would ever dream of contradicting.

In place of competing political philosophies, the neoliberal intelligentsia is substituting a simpler choice, “normality” or “abnormality.” The nature of the “abnormality” varies according to what is being stigmatized. Today it’s “Corbyn the anti-Semite,” tomorrow it’s “Sanders the racist crackpot,” or “Trump the Manchurian candidate,” or whatever. That the smears themselves are indiscriminate (and, in many instances, totally ridiculous) belies the effectiveness of the broader strategy, which is simply to abnormalize the target and whatever he or she represents. It makes no difference whether one is smeared as a racist, as Sanders was during the primaries, or as an anti-Semite, as Corbyn has been, or a fascist, as Trump has relentlessly been, or peddlers of Russian propaganda, as Truthout, CounterPunch, Naked Capitalism, and a number of other publications have been … the message is, they are somehow “not normal.”

Why is this any different from the shameless smear jobs the press has been doing on people since the invention of the press and shameless smear jobs? Well, hold on, because I’m about to tell you. Mostly it has to do with words, especially binary oppositions like “real” and “fake,” and “normal” and “abnormal,” which are, of course, essentially meaningless … their value being purely tactical. Which is to say they denote nothing. They are weapons deployed by a dominant group to enforce conformity to its consensus reality. This is how they’re being used at the moment.

The meaningless binary oppositions that the neoliberal intelligentsia and the corporate media are supplanting traditional opposing political philosophies with (i.e., normal/abnormal, real/fake), in addition to stigmatizing a diversity of sources of non-conforming information and ideas, are also restructuring our consensus reality as a conceptual territory in which anyone thinking, writing, or speaking outside the mainstream is deemed some kind of “deviant,” or “extremist,” or some other form of social pariah. Again, it doesn’t matter what kind, as “deviance” in itself is the point.

Actually, the opposite of deviance is the point. Because this is how “normality” is manufactured. And how consensus reality as a whole is manufactured … and how the manufacturing process is concealed. Apologies for getting all Baudrillardian, but this is actually how this stuff works.

The media’s current obsession with “fake news” conceals the fact that there is no “real news,” and simultaneously produces “real news,” or, rather, the simulation thereof. It does so by means of the binary opposition (i.e., if such a thing as “fake news” exists … then, ipso facto, “real news” exists). Likewise, the focus on “not normalizing Trump” conceals the fact that there is no “normality,” and simultaneously manufactures “normality” … which is always only a simulation.

Similarly, the stigmatization of Trump as a modern-day Hitler, or Mussolini, or some other type of fascist dictator, conceals the fact that the United States is already virtually a one-party system, with concentrated ownership and control of the media, an omnipresent militarized police force, arbitrary enforcement of the rule of law, the maintenance of a more or less permanent state of war, and many other standard features of authoritarian systems of government. At the same time, this projection of “fascism” conjures, or manufactures, its opposite, “democracy” … or the simulation of democracy.

This neoliberal simulation of democracy, and normality, and reality, is what the corporate media, and the entire neoliberal intelligentsia, is desperately working to shore up at the moment, as they took quite a hit with this election mess. Trump was not supposed to win. He was supposed to be another Hitlerian bogeyman that the neoliberals could save us all from, but then, well, look what happened. The problem for the neoliberal ruling classes, and the mainstream media, and liberals generally, having gone balls out on the Hitler schtick, is that they pretty much have to keep it up now, which is going to get increasingly weird as Trump turns out to not be Hitler, but, rather, just another Republican plutocrat, albeit one with zero government experience and some certified bull goose loonies on his staff. I’m sure Trump will want to help them out, though (i.e., his neoliberal “enemies”), with the occasional racist or misogynist tweet, as he will need to maintain his “white working class” creds, at least until the “War on Islam” gets going.

In any event, we can all look forward to some serious pathologization of dissent throughout the coming four (and perhaps eight) years. And I’m not referring to Trump and his boys, though I’m certain they’ll be in there slinging it too. I’m referring to our friends in the corporate media, like Marty Baron and his smear machine, and the Guardians of Reality at The New York Times, The Guardian, and other “papers of record.” WNYC is already airing a daily “descent into fascism” segment. And of course the neoliberal left, Mother Jones, The Nation, et al., and The New York Review of Books, apparently (they just can’t get enough of this Hitler stuff), will be monitoring liberals’ every thought to ensure that fascism does not get normalized … which God have mercy should that ever happen. Who knows how America might end up? Torturing people? Attacking other countries that pose no threat to it whatsoever? Indefinitely imprisoning people in camps? Assassinating anyone the president deems a “terrorist” or an “enemy combatant” with the tacit approval of the majority of Americans? Surveilling everyone’s phone calls, emails, tweets, and reading and web-browsing habits?

Imagine the dystopia we would all be living in … if things like that were considered “normal.”

Read More At: Counterpunch.org
__________________________________________________________
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). He can reached at his website, cjhopkins.com, or at consentfactory.org.