1984 Censorship Collateral crimethink Damage deliberate freedom is slavery Government Headline News ignorance is strength Intelwars Milton Friedman net-zero newspeak Orwellian Prediction Socialism war is peace Warning

“Newspeak” Is the Future

This article was originally published by Peter Foster at The Mises Institute. 

George Orwell pointed out that one of the first casualties of socialism is language. The damage is not collateral, it is deliberate—designed to numb minds and render critical thought difficult or impossible.

The instrument of this dumbing down in Nineteen Eighty-Four was Newspeak, the official language of the English Socialist Party (Ingsoc). Newspeak was a sort of totalitarian Esperanto that sought gradually to diminish the range of what was thinkable by eliminating, contracting, and manufacturing words. New words had a “political implication” and “were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.” The meaning of words was often reversed, as was most starkly emphasized in the key slogans of Ingsoc:




Nineteen Eighty-Four was written in 1949. Its nightmarish fictional world is now thirty-six years in the past, so one might reasonably conclude that Orwell was far too pessimistic, but his great book was less a prediction than a warning and above all an analysis of the totalitarian mentality. Meanwhile, there is another significant date in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The book’s appendix on the principles of Newspeak stressed that the corruption of language was a multigenerational project whose fruition would not come until well into the present century. Ingsoc’s objective was to render independent thought impossible by “about 2050.”

Intriguingly, that is the same year that the world allegedly has to become “carbon neutral,” or “net-zero,” to avoid climate Armaggedon.

Twenty fifty has become a key date for the UN’s “global governance” agenda, which seeks nothing less than to oversee and regulate every aspect of life on the basis of a suite of alarmist projections. The main existential threat is claimed to be catastrophic manmade climate change. “Climate governance” has thus emerged as the “fourth pillar,” of the UN’s mandate, joining peace and security, development, and human rights. So far—as with the other three pillars—the UN’s climate efforts have been spectacularly unsuccessful. It has held enormous “Conferences of the Parties,” or COPs, which have promoted a morass of uncoordinated national policies that have had zero impact on the climate. COP 21 in Paris in 2015, for instance, was meant to hatch a successor to the failed Kyoto Agreement. But all it produced was a raft of hypocritical, voluntary, fingers-crossed “Nationally Determined Contributions.” The failure of Paris, and of temperatures to rise in line with flawed models, led to a doubling down of “ambitions.” One new commitment that seeped out of Paris was for the countries of the world to hold temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above levels before the Industrial Revolution (the Original Climate Sin). Staying below that level, UN policy wonks rapidly calculated, would require the world to become carbon neutral, or net zero, by 2050.

In fact, there is no climate “crisis” or “emergency.” However, as Orwell noted, the language of fear and panic is one of the main instruments of political control.

Today, just as in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the classical liberal concepts of liberty and equality (of opportunity) are under relentless attack, as are the values of reason and objectivity. Liberty and equality were classified in Newspeak as “Crimethink.” Objectivity and rationalism were “Oldthink.” A doomed Newspeak lexicographer named Syme tells the book’s equally doomed hero, Winston Smith, that even the party slogans will eventually become incomprehensible: “How could you have a slogan like ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished?”

Orwell was hardly the first observer to point to the political dangers of linguistic manipulation, which go back to discussions of sophistry in Plato. The great economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek pointed in particular to the Left’s use of “social.” He dubbed it a “weasel word” that not merely sucked meaning from words to which it was attached but often reversed meaning. Thus, by classical liberal standards, social democracy is undemocratic, social justice is unjust, and a social market economy is antimarket. We have a prime current example in the phrase “social license to operate,” which in fact means a potential veto on corporate activities by radical non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the stormtroopers of the global governance agenda. Private corporations were once socialism’s enemies; now they have been co-opted as its partners, agents of “global salvationism.” Nobel economist Milton Freidman pointed to the subversive, open-ended nature of “corporate social responsibility,” where “responsibility” represents another weasel word. CSR’s purpose is to force corporate executives to abandon their responsibility to their shareholders in favor of an endless list of “stakeholder” demands.

Perhaps the most significant new weasel word to have emerged from the UN’s equivalent of the Ministry of Truth is “sustainable.” Commitment to sustainability is now mouthed by every politician, bureaucrat, marketing executive, and media hack on earth. It sounds so benign, so reasonable, but what it actually means is “bureaucratically controlled and NGO-enforced within a UN-based socialist agenda.”

Like “social,” “sustainable” tends to vitiate or reverse the meaning of words to which it is attached. Thus sustainable development is development retarded by top-down control and whose effectiveness is further compromised by the insertion of a long list of cart-before-the-horse social policy objectives, from gender equity to “responsible consumption.”

Recently, “sustainable finance” has also bubbled up from the UN verbal swamp. What it means, not surprisingly, is stopping the financing of fossil fuels by browbeating banks and investors and rigging the regulatory process.

There are no dictionaries of sustainable Newspeak. Its mavens rely less on new words than on perverting or reversing the meaning of old ones. One recent clarion call heard echoing around the corridors of power is that recovery from the covid crisis must be “resilient.” Insofar as that means forcing the use of more expensive, less reliable, and less flexible energy sources such as wind and solar, it will inevitably make economies less resilient. Thus it promotes the first energy “transition” in history that involves moving backward. Typically, such backward movement is a key part of a “progressive” agenda.

The indoctrination of young people was a key strategy of Ingsoc. Likewise, Agenda 21, the doorstop socialist wish list that emerged from the UN’s Earth Summit at Rio in 1992, declared: “Students should be taught about the environment and sustainable development throughout their schooling.” They should learn that “The world is confronted with worsening poverty, hunger, ill-health, illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of ecosystems on which we depend for our wellbeing.” In other words, a catalog of alarmism that has—or should have been—utterly discredited by the evidence of the intervening decades. However, we tend to see what we have been taught to believe. Walls may have ears but more important is that ears have walls. Building such walls was the specific purpose of Ingsoc’s Crimestop, or “protective stupidity.” The capture of academic institutions has virtually installed Crimestop as a compulsory course.

Meanwhile, not only did Agenda 21 demand that children be indoctrinated, it demanded that the most indoctrinated among them be allowed into political fora to lecture their elders. This program came to stunning fruition last fall at the UN, when Greta Thunberg, a bright, anxious, and thoroughly indoctrinated Swedish teenager, was elevated to the podium to paraphrase Agenda 21: “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are at the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

One is reminded of the Newspeak appendix: “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.”

Meanwhile, the political establishment’s current watchwords of inclusivity, diversity, and equity are all aimed at perverting truth and concealing real meanings. Inclusivity and diversity involve excluding white men and conservatives of either sex (although it is a “thoughtcrime” to suggest that there are fundamentally two sexes, as J.K. Rowling discovered). Equity falsely equates the inevitable inequality of outcomes in a free society with moral inequity.

Through all of this, the concept of doublethink, that is, effortlessly holding incompatible beliefs, spreads apace. Orwell wrote that “Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.”

Keep that in mind the next time a public figure cites the climate emergency, intones the existential necessity of sustainable development and sustainable finance, and trumpets the job-creating benefits of a resilient recovery and a transformative green transition to a net-zero future.


The post “Newspeak” Is the Future first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Ben Bernanke Black Swan Coronavirus Donald Trump economy economic Federal Reserve financial relief freedom Headline News Helicopter money inflation Intelwars Market Crash Middle Class Milton Friedman Money Printing Recession reelection stimulus tax burden tax cuts taxation is theft The Fed

Trump Can’t Save The Crashing Economy & His Reelection Chances Get Slimmer

President Donald Trump’s one shining moment during his time in office was the economy.  With that crashing and burning, his reelection chances are also going up in flames.

Trump has a last-ditch effort, however.  He and the Federal Reserve chairman may even agree on something: tax cuts.  But to make any effect on his reelection, he’d have to do this swiftly and noticeably: not like last time.  And the tax cuts would be paid for with “helicopter money.”

Veteran Wall Street strategist Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research has also proposed this a very controversial option.  “Former Fed chair Ben Bernanke many years ago suggested that if things really get bad, there’s always helicopter money,” Yardeni said on Thursday on Yahoo Finance’s The Final Round on Thursday. “Helicopter money would be actually something that both [president] Trump and [Fed chairman] Powell… could agree on. Because the president wants tax cuts. And if the tax cuts are paid for with ultra-easy monetary policy, guess what? That’s helicopter money.”

Trump needs major tax cuts, however.  These should be so deep that almost everyone immediately feels relief from their tax burden.  Anything less will be as well-received as his last round of tax cuts that were said to only help the rich by his opponents.  Deep middle-class tax cuts could have a bigger effect on the economy than any amount of promises and money-printing schemes could ever hope.  People will notice there’s more money in their wallets.

If Impeachment Fails, Will The Elite Crash The Economy In Order To Prevent Four More Years Of Trump?

“Helicopter money” was first coined by economist Milton Friedman in 1969 as a thought experiment where a helicopter drops cash over a community. In theory, people may assume it’s just a one-off event, and they may find themselves just spending it. Economic activity would spike suddenly.Yahoo

Former Fed chair Bernanke later referenced this concept in a 2002 speech. Then a Fed governor, Bernanke (a Keynesian economist) discussed using an ultra-loose monetary policy (via money printing) to finance stimulative fiscal policy, which could come in the forms of tax cuts or government spending. From his speech:

A broad-based tax cut, for example, accommodated by a program of open-market purchases to alleviate any tendency for interest rates to increase, would almost certainly be an effective stimulant to consumption and hence to prices. Even if households decided not to increase consumption but instead re-balanced their portfolios by using their extra cash to acquire real and financial assets, the resulting increase in asset values would lower the cost of capital and improve the balance sheet positions of potential borrowers. A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman’s famous “helicopter drop” of money.Ben Bernanke, 2002

But too little of a tax cut could be a huge problem. If Trump doesn’t make this tax cut one for history, people won’t notice and all they will focus on is the falling stock market.  Yardeni says this is such a crisis because the central banks cannot do anything about a global health crisis, such as an outbreak or pandemic.

“I’ve been keeping a diary of the selloffs in this bull market, and there’ve been seven corrections, including this one,” Yardeni said to Yahoo Finance. “Altogether, I’ve counted what I called 66 panic attacks. This one really is the worst of them, because in the past, we can always count on monetary policy to save the day.”

“This one, it’s very obvious that there’s nothing central bankers can do about the global health care crisis,” he added.

Trump has often taken credit for the economy, tying it to himself. Because of this, he’ll also take the blame when/if it crashes (which it’s been doing.) A suggestion for Trump: stop pushing for lower interest rates. They are low enough. Cut taxes. Cut them deeply and cut them swiftly. Make sure as many people as possible feel that financial relief and then there’s a chance a reelection still and the economy may recover.

Milton Freidman’s book Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition, explains how economic freedom (lower taxation, fewer regulations, etc.) translates into general freedom. How can we benefit from the promise of government while avoiding the threat it poses to individual freedom? In this classic book, Milton Friedman provides the definitive statement of his immensely influential economic philosophy—one in which competitive capitalism serves as both a device for achieving economic freedom and a necessary condition for political freedom. The result is an accessible text that has sold well over half a million copies in English, has been translated into eighteen languages, and shows every sign of becoming more and more influential as time goes on.