Conflation – Path to “Newspeak”

Civilized humans are susceptible to manipulation through language.

Benjamin Lee Whorf championed the idea that people think in words and cannot think of things for which they have no words.  “Whorfism” has proven less than absolute by scientists in various experiments tied to specific words.  These experiments show that concepts are more important than words.  (Interesting that some scientists take Whorfism literally.)

George Orwell’s 1949 novel 1984 holds prescient, dark images of a dystopian world.  Orwell illustrates the impact of interpretation on thinking with three ideas: “Newspeak,” “doublethink,” and “thoughtcrime.”

Newspeak refers to redefinition of words and verbal construction to promote a single view and eliminate conflicting views; e.g. substitute a favored word for an out-of-favor word; insist on “illegal immigrant,” or “undocumented worker,” in place of “unregistered alien,” or “unauthorized foreign national,” or even “migrant.”  The connotations of “immigrant,” vs. “alien,” “migrant,” or “refugee,” are emotionally powerful, as millions of immigrants are here legally, either registered aliens, (Green Card), or naturalized citizens.  Conflating “immigrants” with “unregistered aliens” stirs up resentment among immigrants, and sympathy for unregistered aliens.

The “code words” and euphemisms used by politicians and activists often fall into this “Newspeak” category.  Recently, “Fascist,” “Collateral Damage,” “Justice Involved Individuals,” “Climate Change,” “Affordable Care.”

Extracts from:  http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/09/george-orwell-newspeak/  George Orwell’s appendix to 1984

“The primary aim of Newspeak is to reduce the meaning of language as well as the number of words possible.  The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”

(Doublethink – resembles Japanese Zen koans in that illogical ideas are juxtaposed, combined and represented as truth.)

“war is peace 
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength” 

(Today, “illegal is legal.”)

thoughtcrime, a word used in the novel to describe the act of thinking socially unacceptable thoughts or holding opinions that are ideologically distinct from The Party’s. This word has its origins in a Japanese term; however, Orwell’s novel popularized the term.”

(Today, we call this “politically correct,” and “hate speech;” this makes dissent heretical, even criminal.)

Thought police, the term for the group in Nineteen Eighty-Four that monitored the populace for any signs of unorthodox thought or action, has also become popular to signify any organization that attempts to suppress freedom of thought.”

(Mobs, media and social media serve this function today.  Think “Black Lives Matter,” “hate crimes,” and “Illegal immigrants”)

Look for examples of these ideas in the news.  I think you might be surprised how much others are guiding your thoughts and words.

Advertisements

Animal Farm – Social Algebra

The Power of Words

Ayn Rand authored several books that captured the attentions of whole generations of rational American readers during a cataclysmic battle between individualism and collectivism.  She was born Jewish in Russia in St. Petersburg, in 1905; prophetically, this was a year of Revolution that began with the tsar’s Imperial Guard firing on a peaceful workers’ demonstration, killing 200, wounding 800, and ended with the formation of the first Duma (lower house of parliament).

The turmoil continued with the people and the aristocracy battling over the supremacy of the tsar.  Ayn grew up during the First World War, the rise of the Bolsheviks, the fall of the Tsar, the death of Lenin, and the union of the communist soviets.

She graduated from Petrograd State University in 1924, 2 years into the formation of the Soviet Union.  She came to the United States in 1926, and became a US citizen in 1931. She witnessed the collectivism of the USSR, and the rise of Stalin, from America, as the global depression suffocated economies and hope; as the world precipitated into war.

Her plays and books advocated reason over emotion, and individualism over collectivism.  Among my favorites are “Anthem,” and “Atlas Shrugged.”  “Anthem” describes a world in which there is no word for “I” or “me;” “mine” or “yours.”  All personal pronouns are collective.  She demonstrated the power of language in controlling the minds of people.

The Myth of Equality = Good

“Atlas Shrugged” tells the story of talented, creative, productive people whose individual efforts and contributions benefit average citizens; they profit personally from their efforts.  When these people are hounded and what they produce is confounded, and impounded, they escape to a hidden, peaceful, prosperous place populated by others like themselves.  They were “inequal” in the parlance of today.  Their society lost the benefits of their gifts.

George Orwell wrote a book, “Animal Farm,” which was required reading in my high school English class.  It tells the story of farm animals taking over the farm because of inequality.  They establish 7 commandments of “Animalism,” the seventh of which was “All Animals are Equal.”  The operation of “Animalism” proved very unequal.

A Call to Collectivism

Now we have lots of vague talk about “inequality.”

Question:  Where and when have equalities ever existed among humans?

Certainly, humans have been born all over the globe and across a wide spectrum of attributes, but nothing has ever been equal on any measurable attribute.  The only “equality” experiments I know of are utopian communes, and communist governments, none of which have had durable successes, except perhaps, to spread poverty and suffering equally among members and comrades.

The most glaring example of equality today, is North Korea.  I am sure the average American pines and prays to have that thrill of starvation and repression in the name of equality.  Oh, and some comrades are more equal than others.

The Absence of Definition & Context

The term “income inequality” is not a recent invention.  Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, in 1754.  He describes two types of inequality:

Natural, Physical– differences one human’s body and another

Ethical, Moral – wealth, nobility, power, personal merit.

He proposes that natural, solitary man is a savage who lacks language, reason, and society. He is not motivated by fear of death, because he cannot conceive of it. He is only corrupted by social association with other men, causing:

  • Competition – best dancer, singer, strongest, fastest, handsomest, smartest
  • Self-Comparison with Others – ranking, e.g. second-best, IQ, “the Joneses”
  • Hatred – envy, jealousy, covetous, fear, anger
  • Urge for Power – dominance, entitlement, control

This led to the source and basis of inequality:  private property.

Angus Maddison, a respected economic historian tracked global income inequality of 25 nations since 1820.  His findings show increases in globalization were the major factor in disparity of incomes.  Retreats from globalization resulted in lower inequality.

The recent rants about “inequality” sound like envy to me.  Envy is not constructive.  The authors neither define equality nor any acceptable level of inequality; they also omit the context, methods and means of achieving less inequality; the ranters do not appear to have a clue about the sources of wealth, business success, or any idea what they are proposing.  This is evident from the example they have chosen to shock the reading public.

The Eight Richest People on Earth have wealth equal to half the people on Earth.  Sounds amazing, until one does the math or looks at who these men are.  Wealth is defined as: $Assets – $Debts.  It does not mean income.  These eight men have $485 billion dollars’ worth of valuable assets more than what they owe*.

Who What Arena Billions**
Bill Gates * Microsoft Computer Software           91.0
Amancio Ortega* Zara and Inditex Fashion Retail           71.2
Warren Buffett* Berkshire Hathaway Investments           73.6
Carlos Slim Helu* America Movil Telecom           49.4
Jeff Bezos* Amazon Computer Retail           67.2
Mark Zuckerberg* Facebook Computer Social Media           50.8
Larry Ellison* Oracle Computer Software           41.8
Michael Bloomberg* Bloomberg Investments           40.0

*Created their own companies

**Bloomberg reports as of 12/31/2016

I am not astonished at these numbers, nor that six of the eight are Americans, nor that five of the eight are in technology.  Look at what they have built.  Think of the services and products they have created and distributed to willing buyers.  Their wealth is the result of creating value for others.  All of them created the companies that represent most of their wealth.

What astonishes me is the fact that 3.6 billion people, (including children) own an average of $135 each.  Who do you know who has $135 total wealth?  Think; who owes more than they own?  Anyone who has a job, rents an apartment, has no savings, uses credit cards, and borrows money to buy a car, or go to college.  During the recent recession, plenty of people were “under water” on their mortgaged homes.  That is here in America; I am sure Asia, the Middle East, India, Central America, South America, and Africa have plenty of poor people with no prospects for improvement.  Whose responsibility are they?

It is unclear what the article is suggesting, but the point is lost on me.  It sounds like envy.

The only thing this article suggests to me is, that if you took every penny from the world’s 8 richest people, and distributed it among the 3.6 billion poorest people, they each would have $135 more than they have now, and we would not have the services and goods these eight produce.

Our Glass House

One thing that stands out about the debate over equality is the way Americans limit their geographic boundaries.  We seem to talk about inequality only within national borders.  Income and wealth disparity is greatest among nations.

If you want to silence a discussion of inequality, mention this: The USA has 4.5% of the world’s population and owns 33.2% of the world’s wealth. We Americans would have to give up 86.4% of what we have, to equalize wealth with the other 7.2 billion people in the world.  Is that what the authors propose?  I doubt it.

One estimate of the total wealth on our planet is $255 quadrillion dollars.  That would mean about $36,000 per person when divided by 7.5 billion people.  However, infrastructure, education, access, communications, logistics, culture, climate, security, resources, health, age, and many other elements are not evenly distributed or available.  Some societies do not allow women to own property or have money unless it is controlled by a man.  Other societies are so corrupt that what they have is stolen from them at every turn.

History suggests that even if all assets were evenly distributed, the money would soon be redistributed to the few who provide the goods and services for the many.

Bloomberg’s listing of billionaires includes 197 whose total wealth is $3 trillion.  I do not know what percentage of the world’s population that matches, but it is about 15% of the $20 trillion national debt of the USA.  That would be $2.86 for every person in the world; $62,700 for each man, woman, and child in America.  What would be the average wealth of an American if we subtracted $62,700 from their net worth to pay the debt?

A Bigger Pie

Consider this:  those who decry inequality pose it as a problem, but offer no solutions.  What would the authors of the inequality protest recommend to raise the wealth of the earth’s inhabitants without confiscating the value created by others?

Media Bear Trap – Guns

The Clinton campaign and the allied media have set bear traps with hair triggers; mention guns and they snap.

Hillary Clinton and her party have a reputation for favoring gun control.  Check out the gun laws in California and New York, if you doubt the bias.  (Note:  So far, no criminals obey gun laws, including the ban on gun ownership by convicted felons.)

Despite the palliative assurances of Democrats that gun ownership is not in jeopardy, the evidence screams the opposite.  It seems that leading Democrats are very afraid of guns.  Otherwise, why would they construe every challenge to the hypocrisy of spouting gun control from within a heavily-armed cocoon?

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

The most generous interpretation of Trump’s comment that the second-amendment supporters could prevent the appointment by voting against Clinton, or prevent confirmation by lobbying their Senators not to consent to such appointments.

But no; inferring that Trump was inciting assassination was the immediate response.

More recently Trump said,

“Now, you know she’s very much against the Second Amendment, she wants to destroy your Second Amendment — guns, guns, guns, right? I think what we should do is, she goes around with armed bodyguards like you have never seen before. I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons, they should disarm, right? I think they should disarm. Immediately, what do you think? Yeah, take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns. Take their – let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, OK? It’ll be very dangerous.”

Once again, the immediate inference that Trump was inciting Clinton’s assassination, not highlighting the irony of her politics compared to her actions.

Ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that the Clinton campaign and the press were misconstruing Trump’s words.

“What he intended is very, very simple — that (gun owners) should vote against her,” Giuliani said on ABC’s Good Morning America. “He had no idea that anybody would interpret his words that way. It was so obvious to all of us what he meant.”

Do you believe that Trump wants Hillary dead by violence?  The pro-Clinton forces want you to think so.

Sticks & Stones & Slurs & Jabs

Vile epithets, invectives, slurs, and castigations tossed into a basket.  Deplorable.  All those glass houses, shattered.  The best part of a nation thrown back to sticks-and-stones, schoolyard name-calling.  Those words may come to haunt us when those who feel reviled show up to vote down the bullies.  Voters are citizens and people.  Politicians can have at each other, for all I care, but lay off the attacks and the excuses and justifications for the attacks on the people who will choose who wins.

Throwing word-bombs into crowds is a kind of terrorism.  Painting with such broad brushes used to be called prejudice and racism.  Think how people on the two sides of this salvo might interpret what these terms mean.

 

Adjective/ Noun Dictionary Definition “Coded” or “Charged” Definition
Racist/ Racist Having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another/ a person who believes and behaves in ways that indicate that they believe a particular race is superior or inferior to another Any white person’s thoughts, words or deeds that a non-white person interprets as prejudicial against non-white people/ a white  person who thinks, says, or does something that a non-white person perceives as prejudicial against a non-white person.
Sexist/ Sexist Having and showing the belief that one gender is superior or inferior to another/ a person who believes and behaves in ways that they believe indicate that one gender is superior or inferior to another Any man’s thoughts, words or deeds that a woman interprets as prejudicial against women/ a man who thinks, says, or does something that a woman perceives as prejudicial against women/a man  who treats and talks to women like they are different from men.
Homophobic/ Homophobe Having or showing the belief that heterosexuality is natural and normal, and fearing that homosexuality and bisexuality are (sinful) perversions/ a person who believes  that heterosexuality is natural and normal, and fears that homosexuality and bisexuality are (sinful) perversions. Any heterosexual person’s thoughts, words or deeds that a non-heterosexual person interprets as prejudicial against non-heterosexual people/ a heterosexual  person who thinks, says, or does something that a non-heterosexual person perceives as prejudicial against a non-heterosexual person./ a person who opposes non-heterosexual marriage and raising children in non-heterosexual homes/ anyone who would practice any form of vigilante activity against non-heterosexuals.
Xenophobic/ Xenophobe Having or showing the belief that members of some cultures and nationalities are superior, inferior, or a threat to other cultures and nationalities/ a person who believes and behaves in ways that indicate that members of some cultures and nationalities are superior, inferior, or a threat to other cultures and nationalities Thoughts, beliefs or actions by Americans opposed to illegal immigration, support of enforcing immigration laws, desire to reinforce national borders, indifference to emotional appeals for disregarding or ameliorating immigration laws./ a person with thoughts, beliefs or actions opposing illegal immigration, supporting enforcing immigration laws, desiring to reinforce national borders, indifferent to emotional appeals for disregarding or ameliorating immigration laws
Islamophobia/ Islamophobia Having or showing beliefs or fears that strict, literal interpretations of the Koran can make Muslims a terrorist threat to non-Muslims’ safety or sympathetic to such attacks/ a person who believes or fears that strict, literal interpretations of the Koran make Muslims terrorist threats to non-Muslims’ safety or sympathetic to such attacks. Irrational fear, hatred and prejudice against Muslims because of a few extremist terror attacks around the world and in the USA./ a person who fears and hates all Muslims because of a few extremist terror attacks around the world and in the USA

Take heed, these polarized views of people are not the reality.  Please do not let heated characterizations confuse us into thinking that people are as extreme and cartoonish as the harsh words launched in the thick of political warfare.  Let us not foment a kind of “road rage” escalation that can really hurt people and relationships.

The Fight for Eyes

Political parties beware: the 2016 presidential election could stimulate American fact-checking and critical thinking – or not.  Why?  Could It be, we are awake and paying attention?  Could it be, we just want to be “right?”  Could it be, “We’re as mad as hell, and we’re not going to take this anymore.”?

In 2016, American information media reflect our mindsets.

  • We have boundless channels of 24/7 content battling for “eyes,” and “market share.”
  • We are so numb, it takes lurid, “mind bites” of “shocking facts” to get our attention.
  • Our jaded, fickle brains are addicted to “breaking news and “editorial reporting.”

Then comes the election.  How do we decide?  The battle lines are drawn.  The news media have abandoned objective balance in the fray.

It is natural for people with strong political bias to seek news sources that support their current views, and to ignore, avoid, or distain sources that reflect contrary, or impartial thinking.

Lord knows, we have enough choices (e.g. newspapers, magazines, radio, television, internet, social media).  Which do we choose: “bread and circuses,” or brains?  Do we swallow our favorite- flavored propaganda, or chew on the tough, tasteless truth?

Seven questions we can ask about what we call “news:”

  • Which sources provide complete, unbiased information and analysis?
  • Which sources provide incomplete, biased information and editorials?
  • Can we discern where information stops and persuasion starts?
  • Did we get all the information we need to understand?
  • Do we know enough to understand the context and importance of the information?
  • Do we have enough sources to verify or complete the information?
  • Do we care?

Few of the major news organizations remain credibly neutral or balanced.  Here are 10 news sources accepted as trustworthy by people across the political spectrum.

  1. The Wall Street Journal
  2. The Economist
  3. BBC
  4. Google News
  5. The Guardian
  6. Associated Press
  7. Reuters
  8. C-SPAN
  9. ABC
  10. USA Today

Here is an informative graphic from    showing the political positions of the various major news outlets.

news politics

Good thinking everyone.

$20 million to Destroy $11 million of ISIS Trucks and Oil?

This weekend, U.S.-led coalition aircraft destroyed an estimated $11 million worth of oil and trucks over the weekend in the largest single airstrike this year against the Islamic State’s black market oil trade in Syria.

“You’re going to have multiple effects from this one strike,” Air Force Lt. Gen, Jeffrey Harrigian, commander in the Middle East, said Tuesday. “We’ll have to see what this does to their ability to generate fighters.”

Waves of aircraft destroyed 83 oil tankers sitting in the open in Sunday’s attack.

The attacks were ordered after a pilot spotted some vehicles gathering in Deir ez-Zor province, a key oil-producing region in Syria controlled by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

The coalition command sent a surveillance aircraft over the area. The command then quickly directed A-10 attack planes, F-16s and two coalition aircraft, which together launched more than 80 weapons, including bombing and strafing runs, at the vehicles.”

Air-to-ground missiles, A-10’s, F-16’s, drones, satellites, technicians, pilots, all cost money – a lot of money.  One first generation Hellfire missile costs about $100,000; an F-16 costs $165 million each, plus $30,000 per hour to fly; drones cost $100,000+ to build and take a large infrastructure to operate.

I am not saying that we should not use our resources to take out the enemy, just quit warning them ahead of time and hold off on the bragging.  If all we are doing is destroying trucks, it may cost us as much as it costs them.  And are these people our enemies? Do we always fire a few warning shots so the experienced operators and soldiers can escape? Is this some weird video game war? Yes, I am serious:

“In the initial Tidal Wave II strikes last year, the coalition dropped leaflets on oil tankers before launching attacks, encouraging the drivers to flee their vehicles.

New military rules don’t require leaflets to be dropped, but pilots fire warning shots, typically consisting of bombs or rockets that are not aimed directly at the convoy.

“We’ll do that … to give them a chance to run,” Harrigian said.”  Jim Michaels – USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/08/09/islamic-state-oil-trucks-destroyed-massive-strike/88459864/

Sure, we can outspend ISIS; their $2 billion annual budget is peanuts compared the money we are prepared to spend to put them out of business.  But are we really serious about defeating the enemy?

The DNC Chose Krizr Khan Very Carefully – A Sad Abuse of a Gold Star

As a Vietnam veteran, I honor Captain Khan’s valiant service.  I too was a Captain serving in a foreign war.  My brother spent two tours in Vietnam.  My wife’s 19-year-old brother died in Tet 1968.  I guess we were a Gold Star family too.

I am not in favor of the family or the opposing political candidates using his death as a political platform.  This is a dark use of an honorable man’s tragedy.  Using a Gold Star as a shield for partisan purposes is sad, and verges on disgrace.

I have visited the resting place of my fallen comrades in Arlington Cemetery, I have read and touched the names of people from my life engraved on the vast, black, Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall; I have read and support the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights; I support the First Amendment which defends free speech, even when used for such ignoble purposes.

Background:

Both Krizr and Ghazala Khan were born and brought up in Pakistan, he received his bachelor of law degree from Punjab University Law College in Lahore, Pakistan in 1974.  Ghazala taught Persian at a Pakistani college.

Soon after getting his law degree, they moved to Dubai, United Arab Emirates; their two elder sons, Shaharyar and Humayun, were born there.

There is an unexplained gap in Mr. Khan’s work history; there was no indication on his law firm website of what Mr. Khan did, or where he worked the six years from 1974 to 1980.  Then the family moved to Boston, straight into Harvard Law School.

In 1982, Mr. Khan received his masters of law degree from Harvard.  The family then moved to Maryland; it is not clear where he worked the sixteen years from 1982 to 1998.

1998 to 2007, Krizr managed the Litigation Technology Services group at the international law firm of Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC, including European and Asian offices.

From 2007 to 2010 he was Director of Law Technology & Electronic Discovery at a major global law firm based in New York.

(Note:  This history seems to conflict with the statement from his speech, “Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed.”  Q:  Why would he put that glib cliche in his speech, when it seems so unlikely to be true?)

The oldest son, Shaharyar, was a top student at the University of Virginia, where he got his PhD in Neuroscience.  He co-founded a biotechnology company, Gencia Corporation, in Charlottesville, Virginia, where he serves as Chief Science Officer.  His youngest brother, Omer, currently works at Gencia as a research specialist.  Mr. Khan now works as a legal consultant in Charlottesville, Va.

The second son, Humayun Khan, took ROTC while attending the University of Virginia, and received his commission in the US Army upon graduation in 2000.  In 2004, Humayun died from a suicide car bomb explosion at the gates to the base in Baqubah, Iraq.

Q:  Who killed him?

A:  His enemiesour enemies; the enemies we do not want here in the US.

Perspectives:

  • 3.3 million Muslim immigrants equal .9% of the US population. (365 million)
  • About 6,000 Muslims have served in our military since 9/11, (.27% of the 2.2 million US Military)
  • A total of 14 Muslim US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, (.31% of the 4,424 total deaths)

The Speech:

With this background, here is Mr. Krizr Khan’s DNC speech:

“Tonight we are honoured to stand here as parents of Captain Humayun Khan and as patriotic American Muslims – with undivided loyalty to our country.

Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy; that with hard work and goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings.

We are blessed to raise our three sons in a nation where they were free to be themselves and follow their dreams.

Our son, Humayun, had dreams too, of being a military lawyer, but he put those dreams aside the day he sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son ‘the best of America’.

If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America. Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities; women; judges; even his own party leadership. 

He vows to build walls, and ban us from this country. Donald Trump, you’re asking Americans to trust you with their future.

Let me ask you: have you even read the United States constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. [he pulls it out] In this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law’.

Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America.

You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.

We cannot solve our problems by building walls, sowing division. We are stronger together. And we will keep getting stronger when Hillary Clinton becomes our President.

In conclusion, I ask every patriot American, all Muslim immigrants, and all immigrants to not take this election lightly.

This is a historic election, and I request to honour the sacrifice of my son – and on election day, take the time to get out and vote.

And vote for the healer. vote for the strongest, most qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton, not the divider. God bless you, thank you.”

Summary:

Statistics certainly do not diminish or relieve the terrible pain of losing a son, or a brother, or any loved one.  Clearly, Humayun was a hero.  But he was a rare example of Muslim participation in our military

The DNC was brilliant in choosing one of the 14 Muslim Gold Star families to represent loyal, patriotic Muslims.  Unfortunately, the presentation implies a larger number of such families, and a larger Muslim participation in our nation’s defense.

It is clear, though, that Mr. Khan, and Mr. Trump have never met; both are assailing each other from the parapets of fixed partisan positions, based in rhetoric and hearsay.

It is sad that a Gold Star is being abused for political leverage.