Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Hate Crime = Crimethink

Here's a rule of thumb: If you're being accused of a violation that didn't even have a name fifty years ago, much less a coherent concept, you're not being accused of anything but having a normal, healthy attitude. That knocks out a lot of new stuff right away. You can ignore accusations of transphobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc., in fact, except for actual medical terms like agoraphobia, you can ignore accusations of all the -phobias, or any discussion of them, too.

And if you move the limit back to a hundred years, you get rid of almost all the vocabulary of the left. And 95% of Hillary's campaign material.

And one of the damnedest violations of them all, that would have puzzled the most flaked-out leftists back when Orwell was still alive and I'd been around just awhile, is "hate speech." Come to think of it, the term would not have puzzled Orwell. He would have known right away that it was just an instance of thoughtcrime, one that had made it all the way out of one's head into one's vocal cords.

The Newspeak Dictionary [link], which I recommend to you has:

crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."
And if you have crimethink, you have the opposition to it. From the same site:

crimestop - Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."

And our leaders, the MAG (Media, Academia, Government... And I like to think Orwell would have liked that acronym, too), are of course always ready to step up and help us out with our crimestop. Why, just the other day, Trump crimethinked, saying that a Judge of Mexican ancestry who belongs to "La Raza Lawyers of California," might, just might, be biased against Trump in a lawsuit. All the leftist shills, from Hillary herself to various Republican traitors, leaped in to proclaim such thinking absolutely unacceptable. Even Newt, who knows better.

But at this point, in this country, it's still for the most part impossible to criminalize such speech, what with our First Amendment and all. But it sure isn't anywhere else, including Europe and Canada, where crimethink is a crime.

But that's not to say that it can't be punished. It just can't be formally punished in the usual way. But, boy, can it ever be punished. This from The Alternative Right [link]:


There is no binary for intelligence, although there are different plateaus, which operate in a method similar to a binary when a specific task is considered. At 120 IQ points, there is a threshold which determines the ability of people to understand complex political issues, and another exists at 125 IQ points. 

But to see these issues clearly also depends on having a certain spirit that is capable of leadership. That is a warlike spirit, a gut instinct of what is right, and an awareness that, without being forced to do otherwise, people inevitably drift back into the usual narcissistic oblivion that turns great civilizations into degenerative stupidity. 

People with this spirit, when put in power, tend to beat back the foolishness and leave everyone else alone. This terrifies your average person, who wants to face no consequences for his own bad behavior, which is why he tends to select anti-leaders: people who herd the group together and make sure "we all get along" but at the horrific long-term cost of preventing the constant and united action necessary to improve society and stop it stagnating and crumbling. 

We are now seeing the full face of such dissolution in the West, with birth rates in free-fall, people miserable in jobs and broken marriages, the average person as neurotic as a cat on meth, enemies both inside and outside our borders, record-breaking national debt, and industries that are paper tigers. Our elites — politicians, media, academia and other enfranchised "successful" people — are fiddling while Rome burns (or the tinder is at least soaked in kerosene). 

Recently the big social media companies agreed to take on the public role of censors, and they were cheered for it by our elites because they need distractions. Look at this masterpiece of deflection:
"Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is 'expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,' the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday.

The code of conduct arrives as Europe comes to terms with the bloody attacks in Paris and Brussels by Islamic State, which has used the Web and social media to spread its message of hate against its enemies.

…Twitter’s head of public policy for Europe, Karen White, [said] in the statement. 'However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate."
"Hate speech" means, roughly, anti-egalitarian speech. It is a way of saying that none can claim the Emperor has no new clothes on at all, because then the herd would panic, and goal Number One is keeping the herd together at all costs. Even if that means we sacrifice our long-term future to the extent that we undergo downfall like Rome and Athens did.

The hype over ISIS possibly recruiting through social media is a red herring. These rules will actually be used to formalize the policy that Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have demonstrated of removing or suppressing non-Leftist speech. In other words, they are now controlled mouthpieces of the power structure just as much as Pravda or the Pyongyang Times. In fact, they are better mouthpieces. 

Read the rest here:

And when you're done, read Vox's response to it here:
Quibcag: Another anime version of Athena (you gotta love the owl!) by Fred-H



    There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East, where the press is rigorously unified. One gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment; there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspaper[s] mostly develop stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.

    Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to flock together and shut off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of a petrified armor around people's minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

    This was in the 1970's.