It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by wcitizen
Message to the MSM:
I understand you are intimidated into being the mouthpiece of your handlers, but when, oh when are you going to wake up and start doing your proper job of reporting the truth? Even now you are fuelling the rage between Left and Right when you know very well the whole concept of two parties is an utter fiction, and the present debate has as its purpoe to stir up division and hatred. To lie, and even to stay silent about the truth, makes you too complicit in the bloodshed. The country is in dire need of brave, honest reporters who act in the interest of the citizens instead of the mafia in charge. Together we are strong.
edit on 10-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
None of you seem to get it.. If you want to think this is a big set up to take down ATS i really feel sorry for you and you yourself are the danger to ATS. Because you are one of those people so far from reality that we all look bad.
Originally posted by empireoflizards
reply to post by rexusdiablos
At the end of the day, I think the only significance of having Loughner as a member here is a passing interest for media and law enforcement investigators trying to find what makes this guy tick, based on his ramblings. In no way does it really involve or reflect on ATS as a site. If I interpret the OP correctly, the only potential problem is the members making this into a story that simply isn't there.edit on 11-1-2011 by empireoflizards because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by binomialtheorem
I'd rather take all this media attention and use it to give a positive message to those outside the ATS. I mean we have already seen, with the recent surge in new members, the mindset of some people.TO me however it is disturbing.(And if you are wondering, I was lurking on ATS long before I joined as a member.)
Oh and by the way you say that we are being drawn into a media trap, but that could also be taken as you drawing us into a trap into seeing your message. Good job!
Language as the “Ultimate Weapon” in Nineteen Eighty-Four
George Orwell, like many other literary scholars, is interested in the modern use of the English language and, in particular, the abuse and misuse of English. He realises that language has the power in politics to mask the truth and mislead the public, and he wishes to increase public awareness of this power. He accomplishes this by placing a great focus on Newspeak and the media in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Demonstrating the repeated abuse of language by the government and by the media in his novel, Orwell shows how language can be used politically to deceive and manipulate people, leading to a society in which the people unquestioningly obey their government and mindlessly accept all propaganda as reality. Language becomes a mind-control tool, with the ultimate goal being the destruction of will and imagination. As John Wain says in his essay, “[Orwell’s] vision of 1984 does not include extinction weapons . . . He is not interested in extinction weapons because, fundamentally, they do not frighten him as much as spiritual ones” (343).
Paul Chilton suggests that the language theme in Orwell’s novel has its roots in the story of the Tower of Babel (2). When God destroys the Towel of Babel, the civilizations which have contributed to the construction of the Tower suffer ever-after from the Curse of Confusion. The Curse both makes languages “mutually unintelligible”, and alters their nature so that “they no longer lucidly [express] the nature of things, but rather [obscure] and [distort] them” (Chilton, 2). Orwell’s Newspeak, the ultra-political new language introduced in Nineteen Eighty-Four, does precisely that: it facilitates deception and manipulation, and its purpose is to restrict understanding of the real world. Chilton also suggests that a corollary to this is that “each post-Babel language [becomes] a closed system containing its own untranslatable view of the world” (2). Certainly, the ultimate aim of Newspeak is to enclose people in an orthodox pseudo-reality and isolate them from the real world.
Whereas people generally strive to expand their lexicon, the government in Nineteen Eighty-Four actually aims to cut back the Newspeak vocabulary. One of the Newspeak engineers says, “[we’re] cutting the language down to the bone . . . Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year” (55). By manipulating the language, the government wishes to alter the public’s way of thinking. This can be done, psychologists theorise, because the words that are available for the purpose of communicating thought tend to influence the way people think. The linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf was a firm believer in this link between thought and language, and he theorised that “different languages impose different conceptions of reality” (Myers 352). So when words that describe a particular thought are completely absent from a language, that thought becomes more difficult to think of and communicate. For the Inner Party, the goal is to impose an orthodox reality and make heretical thought (‘thoughtcrime’) impossible. “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible,” explains the Newspeak engineer, “because there will be no words in which to express it” (55).
By design, Newspeak narrows the range of thought and shortens people’s memories. It is therefore ideal for a totalitarian system, in which the government has to rely on a passive public which lacks independent thought and which has a great tolerance for mistakes, both past and present. “To expand language is to expand the ability to think,” says Myers (353). Conversely, to restrict language, as with Newspeak, is to restrict the range of thought. Chilton identifies the specific features of Newspeak that help restrict thought: “reduced complexity, few abstractions, and no selfreference” (37). Such narrowed public thought is what the Inner Party prefers, because a public that lacks the ability to think vividly poses less of a threat than one that can readily criticise the government and defend itself from harm.
Originally posted by rexusdiablos
"From my cold, dead hand"
Quote | Source
edit on 10/1/2011 by rexusdiablos because: (no reason given)