00h UTC; SATURDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2012: No wonder conservative prolefeeders (and the politicos using them) must have this thing about wanting to maximise the power of their messages so as to best appeal to an audience of poor, ignorant and easily-influenced "poor whites" whose fanatically primitive brand of True Patriot Love Thou Dost in Us Command can be appealed to, exploited even, as required. Hence, the need for an especially scrupulous simplicity of language as seeks to maximise the potential of words as (ideological) weapons among the Lower Classes.

Witness what George Orwell, in his Appendix to Nineteen Eighty Four (1948) as explained the mechanics of the highly-mechanical Newspeak which served as the preferred idiom of the dystopic superstate of Oceania in service to its core ideology of Ingsoc (i.e., English/Fabian Socialism), observed about Newspeak's being designed to maximise the "words-as-weapons" ideal, reinforced by a carefully-scripted and -nuanced stylee of delivery:
In Newspeak, euphony outweighed every consideration other than exactitude of meaning. Regularity of grammar was always sacrificed to it when it seemed necessary. And rightly so, since what was required, above all for political purposes, was short clipped words of unmistakable meaning which could be uttered rapidly and which roused the minimum of echoes in the speaker's mind. The words of the B vocabulary even gained in force from the fact that nearly all of them were very much alike. Almost invariably these words -- goodthink, Minipax, prolefeed, sexcrime, joycamp, Ingsoc, bellyfeel, thinkpol, and countless others -- were words of two or three syllables, with the stress distributed equally between the first syllable and the last. The use of them encouraged a gabbling style of speech, at once staccato and monotonous. And this was exactly what was aimed at. The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral, as nearly as possible independent of consciousness.

For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgment should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets. His training fitted him to do this, the language gave him an almost foolproof instrument, and the texture of the words, with their harsh sound and a certain willful ugliness which was in accord with the spirit of Ingsoc, assisted the process still further.

So did the fact of having very few words to choose from. Relative to our own, the Newspeak vocabulary was tiny, and new ways of reducing it were constantly being devised. Newspeak, indeed, differed from most all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centers at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word
duckspeak, meaning "to quack like a duck". Like various other words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when The Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.
Which is something to ponder when listening to conservative prolefeed channels and conduits throughout the runup to Indecision 2012. That, and the potential of certain conservative prolefeeders taking a leaf from one David Wynn Miller holding that "syntax-word-key meaning" be applied all the more in the interest of deeper contextual understanding and comprehension vis-a-vis campaign prolefeed.

=============

Meanwhile, with the RepubliKKKans calling out President Obama for not being all the timelier vis-a-vis jobs creation towards Greater Socioeconomic Recovery consistent with the disciplines of ekonomesie vryheid met Amerikaanse eienskappe supposedly seen as one with AmeriKKKan National Character and Identity so as to imply that the two were mutually beneficial and interconnected, as if implying that the defence of one under attack was automatically that of the other, you have to wonder if the entire GOP platform and related articles of faith were founded on the notion that everything needs to come forth spontaneously, "like magic" as it were.

Especially their insistence on a socioeconomic paradigm "born out of the Volk to serve the Volk," all the while compatible with the disciplines of ekonomesie vryheid, &c., as one with said National Character and Identity. (In other words, per their notion that the Natural Law takes precedence over statute law, the concentration of wealth by an "entitled elect" as reinforced by rigidly-defined, howbeit unwritten, class distinctions is morally justified and at once acceptable. Which, in its turn, can be used to justify a "See Something, Say Nothing" mentality "to protect the Natural Order of the Community" as can be reinforced with appeals to "class consciousness" reeking of exercises in Scientologic brainwashing.)

=============

As if that other popular conservative prolefeed trope seeking to conflate Socialism, Communism and Fascism (including its ideological cousins of Nazism, Falangism, Estado Novo and Christian Nationalism) as being one and the same ideologically wasn't getting hackneyed enough (especially when applied against President Obama, with the proper degree of race-baiting as required), one needs to stop and consider where Socialism/Communism and Fascism are ideologically incompatible (in fact, during World War II, propaganda from both the Allies and the Axis Powers reinforced this incompatibility, as in the Nazis insisting that "Bolshievism" [i.e., Communism] was a sworn enemy of Nazism and the Soviets [who, know, were on the Allied side as much as America and Great Britain in particular] insisting the exact opposite). Consider:
  • Socialism calls for use of the electoral process exclusively towards public control of the means of production and distribution for the greater commonweal.
  • Communism, like Socialism, calls for public control of the means of production; however, in Marxist/Leninist thought, such can only be achieved through worker uprising and revolution as seeks the overthrow of the established capitalist regime.
  • Fascism and kin staunchly opposes Communism as a threat to Traditional Values, instead insisting on the defence of traditional capitalist models subject to State interference and manipulation. Not to mention using the Church as an agency of asserting power and dominion, ruthless and sadistic anti-Semitism and jingoistic nativism, even appeals to "race honour and identity" seeking to conflate race identity with national such.
For those whose minds and thought-processes, worldview even, are still too hard-wired thanks to the nefarious influence of conservative prolefeed to still accept such false equivalencies of ideology as suggest the three are one, I offrer this advice from Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In: "Go look them up in your Funk and Wagnalls!"



FYI: Your comments on, and responsible sharing of, these posts are always welcome and apprecitated. And if you like these posts, please join my (howbeit sporadic) e-mail list (after replying to the confirmation e-mail beforehand) for insight and observations as may come across Your Correspondent's mind (which you can always leave at any time); to contact me, please do so through the feedback form at the bottom of this page.

Be sure to also check out The Online Mall That Am!, your "one-stop" source that's Open All Hours (Teh Innerwebz, you know) for your beautiful and practical life ... as well as our Online Boutique (as it were), featuring T-shirts, swag, &c., with this blog's logotype or QR codes for your beautiful time and living; both pledging 9.11% of Your Correspondent's commission from your purchases towards reducing America's National Debt.

Please be aware that Your Correspondent has no control over the content of outside links in these posts, which are provided solely for your information and enlightenment; additionally, reference to brand names, products or services in blog posts does not necessarily imply endorsement or approval by Your Correspondent as opposed to enhancing editorial clarity or meaning.

To share this post (responsibly, know) in e-mail or social networks, click the following button and follow the prompts:

Share

If you're a blogger yourself, click here to discover fresh and at once fascinating ways to help stimulate blog traffic.

And you can also receive these posts optimised for the Amazon Kindle Reader by subscription, for only US$0.99/month (with 30-day "test drive" available to see if it agrees with you beforehand).

  

free web site traffic and promotion