| | What an incredible load of crap! Adbusters magazine? Well, this story should have been in its latest issue, which was titled "Systematically Distorted Information." Gross distortions abound, as do seemingly powerful, but empty and meaningless catch-phrases.
This is the kind of writing that George Orwell wrote about in 1946:
"As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse."
"modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug."
"Political language . . .is designed to . . . give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1946.
resort.com;
Here are a few samples from your post of "pure wind":
"The blinkered assertion that we are immune to the fascist virus ignores degrees of convergence and distinction based on the individual patient’s history." [What the f-word does this mean? Orwell would chuckle and weep at the same time.]
"The pace of events in the last two years has been almost as blindingly fast as it was after Hitler’s consolidation of fascist power in 1933. Speed stuns and silences." [This appears to draw a parallel between Hitler's rise and some series of events today, but doesn't. It really says nothing but that "things happen stunningly fast sometimes."]
"America today wants to be communal and virile [It does? How so? And which meaning of these words does the author intend?]; it seeks to overcome what many have been convinced are the unreasonable demands of minorities and women (Which "demands"? Which "America"? The minority who are white males?]; it wants to reinvigorate ideals of nation [Patriotism is bad?], region and race [Who is trying to factionalize America? Maybe the author is attacking Dean and Sharpton, now?] in order to take control of the future [we should leave the future to chance?]; it seeks to overcome the social divisiveness of capitalism and democracy [It does? I thought Bush was engaged in class warfare on behalf of rich whites.], remolding the nation through propaganda and leadership ["Propaganda" is what Orwell would term a "meaningless word" (as he did "fascism", BTW). Oh, and now "leadership" is bad, too?]."
"In the near future, America can be expected to embark on a more radical search to define who is and who is not a part of the natural order: exclusion, deportation and eventually extermination might again become the order of things. [Hmm. Maybe some evidence to support this? And "America can be expected to embark..." is classic. It "can be expected" to do most anything, but who, if anyone, actually expects this specific thing? Besides the author, that is.] Fascism can occur precisely at that moment of truth when the course of political history can tend to one direction or another [LOL. When history can go in any direction, fascism can happen. Oh s#!t!!!]."
"Capitalism today is different [More regulated, perhaps - is the author suggesting that's bad?], so are the means of propaganda [There's that meaningless word again, but yes, the means and speed of communication are greater than in Hitler's time], and so are the technological tools of suppression [Oops, better shut down the internet - massive and instantaneous flows of information are incredibly "suppressive."]. But that is only a matter of variation, not opposition [I'm searching for a meaning here - help me out.]."
"But fascism is not conservatism, and it takes issue with conservatism’s anti-revolutionary stance. Conservatism’s libertarian strand – an American staple – would not agree with fascism’s “nationalist authoritarian state.” [So, we have nothing to worry about from Conservatives? OK, now we're coming back to the real world.] Reaganite anti-government rhetoric might have been a precursor to fascism, ["Might have been a precursor"? Except that it wasn't. but it might have been.] but free market and deregulationist ideology cannot be labeled fascist [No, they certainly cannot, so why is the author labeling them so?]."
That's enough. I could go on, but I think there's a limit to post lengths on SI. And I think I've made the point - Orwell would not want me to belabor it. |
|
