Share this comment
As Orwell writes in “Politics of the English Language”:
“[I]f thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
The progressive invention of micro-aggressions is all part of the culture-eroding, gaslighting, social fabric–disintegrating humiliation Theodore Dalrymple describes:
“Political correctness is communist propaganda wri…
As Orwell writes in “Politics of the English Language”:
“[I]f thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
The progressive invention of micro-aggressions is all part of the culture-eroding, gaslighting, social fabric–disintegrating humiliation Theodore Dalrymple describes:
“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, not 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 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.”
Children reared under helicopter/bulldozer parenting who learn to fear the minutest offenses grow up with mental health challenges (more profitable for BigPharma) and dependence on authorities to solve their manufactured problems instead of developing self-reliance, resilience, and responsibility—these are precisely the sort of citizens who can be corralled into enslavement and a totalitarian biosurveillance state for their own “safety.”
—
Robert, I owe you a belated THANK YOU for sharing Tess Lawrie’s heart-splitting reading of my poem and helping us *destroy* the Overton window as we shift the narrative from amnesty to accountability, as I described in this piece yesterday:
• “Mistakes Were NOT Made: One Poem to Wake the World” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/mistakes-were-not-made-one-poem-to)
Well said! And I wholeheartedly agree! There is hope, though, as evidenced by the backlash. It’s just time for the silent majority to wake up and speak up! Enough is enough.
Absolutely right, Bob. We learn from the Asch Conformity experiment that people will subjugate their judgment to the will of the majority, but it only takes one other person corroborating your viewpoint to embolden you to resist the gaslighting:
• “Are You a Good German or a Badass German?” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/are-you-a-good-german-or-a-badass)
I hate the phrase ‘speaking their truth’. There is only one ‘truth’… all else are opinions and perspectives. That does not necessarily make them wrong. I also think that those of us who were taught to question authority and to think for ourselves can also be deceived by those who pander to this tendency of distrust. Psychological warfare plays both ends of the field, creating a situation whereby you trust no one and are confused.
Discerning what we believe to be Truth when we have no direct physical evidence is a difficult task, but possible based on the logical consistency of other witnesses and whatever incentives they have to lie or tell the truth. The inability to actually see Truth is not evidence it does not exist, and the fact that something may be difficult does not relieve us of the responsibility to make the effort and even acknowledge error when presented with additional evidence.
I wasn’t referring to not having any object or direct physical evidence. In those situations we can say, 'I believe (or think) this is what may be going on.’ It has more to do with those trying to force you to believe or speak lies. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
There can be more than one truth. Toxic DDT is a good example. DDT was banned in the US before Africa had a chance to use it on scale. As a result Famine and insect borne disease in Africa continued to be rampant and many deaths were attributed to famine and disease that DDT would have alleviated. Which was the right course, death by starvation/disease or death by chemical poisoning? I am not pro DDT,
I am using this is an example of a conundrum of what is the truth.
I was not disagreeing with you. I was expanding on what you wrote.
In "A Civil Action" by Jonathan Hard, the lawyer for the complainants, the members of the local community poisoned by the W.D. Grace Company, Jan Schlichtman tells Grace's lawyer Jerome Facher he's trying to get to the truth. Facher replies, "The truth is at the bottom of a bottomless pit". His meaning here is obvious, and Schlichtmann has no come-back for it, but even, so truth can be difficult to ascertain with great certainty as our perceptive skills are always a bit defective in ways we can't be aware of. It is far easier to spot untruth than to identify truth, and we certainly have had more of our shares of manifest untruths in the past several years.
While I agree in the sense of an absolute, many points of contention arise when the matter at hand is not an absolute.
For example during the pandemic
From where I sat, the severity of the disease and its dangers had not yet been settled.
The merits and dangers of the 'vaccine' were not yet clear
The need to resolve at that moment was not justified.
The Truth was yet in question. Investigating and evaluating - thinking for ourselves - was well justified.
When I was fired, fled from and screamed at I simply carried on (on the theory we each had a right to our view of matters). In the end, though not acknowledged I'm confident we all transitioned to more tolerant conclusions.
🎯
Hard times create strong men
Strong men create good times
Good times create weak men
Weak men create hard times.
Where are all the hard men---time to do some ass kicking.
Haha, indeed. Reminds me of this great comment one man left on the YouTube version of Tess's and my video collaboration:
"A wonderful woman of integrity. As a man, I believe all men should automatically stand up against tyranny to protect those close to us. Tess puts every man to shame here, she has shown more courage than any bloke I know ❤️" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueUXNL-A3Zg)
I share this with dozens of family/pals/work acquaintances/ very moving and accurate. R
🙏🙌
What a smart dude! (And so handsome!)
😆
The Dalrymple quote is EXACTLY what we need to hear. And to use. Do not let them make you cower and pretend things are true when they are not. Speak up. I.e, The only “them” when referring to a single person is when that person has multiple personalities. Period. Like that.
I"m glad you are addressing language, Margaret. The language of these people is innately 'colonizing,'--too use their terminology. They have a premise and a conclusion and you have to agree or you are the enemy. This kind of language is based on the syllogism (if. . . then . . . ) which forces the listener to agree or disagree. Aristotle says that Plato was the first to consciously use this method. It was about that time, c. 450 BCE, that colonizing religions first appeared.
The original speech pattern was called "phasis" ("description of the appearance of the phenomena") or "letting the thing speak for itself." This is called "explanatory" speech by Jerry Stannard (1967) in "Presocratic Speech," virtually the only treatment of the subject I have ever seen. (For those not put off by astrology, the only other treatment of this I know of is on robertschmidtastrology.com).
Explanatory speech is the way indigenous societies originally spoke--the very people these colonizing Western cultural fanatics are supposedly trying to save. As they said on the remote reservation where I learned my language skills, "too much Jesus." (Ironically, Jesus himself used explanatory speech--"the kingdom of heaven is like. . . "). The stereotypical expression, "white man speaks with forked tongue" expresses the problem with the syllogism.
Another technique the colonizers use is the repetition of nouns (and now, pronouns). Again, Aristotle says (On Grammar), nouns make the mind stop while verbs make it run on, like: bird singing, horse running, colonist speaking. . . . This is how I was taught that incantation works by an indigenous speaker. The repetition of the same nouns reinforces the brainwashing/enchantment/fantasy these people suffer under.
Thank you for your insights, Matthew. One of the reasons I focus so much on (re)framing and the coining of terms such as “philanthropath” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-philanthropath-dreams) is because I know how effectively the propagandists use it to control our perceptions, thoughts, and behavior.
George Lakoff has aided and abetted the enemy by developing framing to define politically expedient narratives, and we must employ the same cognitive tools to shift those narratives back toward truth.
Yes, the problems are big and they are deep. . . to the roots of thought and speech.
To call any political movement anything certain is like calling someone who believes in the Bible an Amish? Every political group has members and philosophies going from extreme liberal to Fascist, Including the Hari Krishna group. We need to be identified by whatare our core values and basic core values that support the common man can be found in every political spectrum and we who have these values have to be open to accept people from every political group who hold these values, The name they put on their header is just a name. What is in a person's heart is what we are looking for? is this not true. Any political group has anti fascists and anti war and anti tyrannical government people.
I’m not clear on what you’re referring to—I’m guessing you’re objecting to Dalrymple’s characterization of communism? If so, there is a distinction between an ideology and its followers; yes, its adherents may possess a range of beliefs within certain parameters, but the ideology of communism is very clearly articulated by Marx, Engels, and its practitioners (Lenin, Trotsky, et al), so it is perfectly reasonable to judge that ideology by its articulated principles and practices.
That said, I agree with your statement that core values are what truly matter, whereas political tribes are used to divide us, so I’m all for jettisoning those superficial distinctions and uniting over core values like pro-freedom/anti-tyranny.
Well said, seems to dovetail with Vance Packard's observation in The Hidden Persuaders that everyone lies all the time in their perceived self interest.
That book has been on my to-read list for probably 20 years!
This may help boot it to the front of the line it is one of the funniest books I ever read enjoy
That definitely boosts my motivation! Problem is it’s not on audiobook, and I have long since given up hope of being able to enjoy the luxury of reading a book without multitasking (please don’t tell my younger bibliophile self 😆).