[MD] Newspeak, Plainspeak

[Platt Holden]

Hi All, 

As usual, the Marxist critical thinker filters out facts that don't 
square with his socialist agenda. 

[Arlo]:
> Recently, Platt's mention one of his heros, the left-supporting
> democratic socialist George Orwell.

My mention of George Orwell had nothing to do with Orwell's politics 
but with his anti-intellectualism, as I made clear to any unbiased 
reader by my quoting this recent excerpt from an article in Times 
Online:

"Perhaps that is what defines a British intellectual, for Orwell 
was the defining anti-intellectual thinker. A genuine polymath, whose 
plain- spoken passions ranged from art to politics, Orwell raged 
against intellectuals for their insincerity, for imprecise language and 
unrealistic posturing. He understood the complacency that came with the 
term intellectual and rejected it utterly. In response to Sartre’s 
obscure and self-righteous pronouncements, he could not resist the very 
British response, in his own words, to “give him a good boot”.
This is why there will never be a Dictionary of British Intellectuals. 
Orwell would never have agreed to join, on the pure Marxist rationale 
that such a club might want him as a member."

Does the Marxist critical thinker agree with Orwell about 
intellectuals? Does he even agree with what Pirsig said about 
intellectuals? "They had everything figured out. That was part of the 
problem." I  doubt if an answer will be forthcoming, any more than he 
can admit the fact that left-wingers dominate the faculty of colleges 
and universities.

(skip)

[Arlo]
> Are we still moving towards the values of the Indian? Plains spoken,
> simplicity and directness? Or are we moving backwards towards
> Victorianspeak, Newspeak, "full of involutions and curlicues and floral
> patterns that had no practical function whatsoever, and distracted you
> from whatever content was there"?

Besides filtering out the fact that many Indian values are totally 
unsuited to modern life, the Marxist critical thinker blindly condemns 
his own who are the most guilty of "involutions, curlicues and floral 
patterns," -- academic intellectuals. Their incomprehensible jargon, 
puffed up phraseology and impossibly tortured sentence construction has 
become so outrageous as to rate an entire book on the subject, "Just 
Being Difficult? Academic Writing in the Public Arena." Oh well, 
ignoring or hiding facts is par for Marxist critical thinkers, like the 
fact that to engineer their moralistic goal of economic equality, i.e. 
"social justice," requires them to invoke the force of law, i.e, police 
packing guns.   

> The Party Jesters will tell you their side neeeeeever engages in
> wihio-speak. Oh no... not them. Only the evil "other". But look around.
> We are awash in what Lakoff would call manipulative framing. Whether its
> "undocumented workers" or "The Patriot Act", "tax relief" or "sanitation
> engineers". 

Yet another fact filtered out by the Marxist critical thinker -- the 
left's dominance of the mainstream media. As such, they are in position 
to slant the dialogue towards their agenda, such as their  descriptions 
of the recent illegal immigrant protests as rallies in "favor of 
immigrant rights," and  "pro-immigration demonstrators," when the more 
accurate descriptions would have been "open border rallies" or "pro-
lawbreaking rallies." 

Fortunately, the leftist media in the U.S. is on the skids, losing 
audience by the carloads every day. People are growing increasingly 
tired of their hypocritical moralizing, endless fear-mongering 
(creeping fascism, global warming, U.S. imperialism, etc., etc.) and 
constant carping against religion and religious institutions.

Best,
Platt