Dissident Veteran For Peace

It will be seen that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... 

All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Source: George Orwell, "What is Fascism?", Tribune, 1944.

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

~*~*~

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, 'I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so'. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics'. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.

~*~*~

But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:

    i. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

    ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

    iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

    iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

    v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

    vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable.

~*~*~

Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase – some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno or other lump of verbal refuse – into the dustbin where it belongs.

Source: George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", Horizon, April 1946.

Labels: Orwell, politics, quotations

Just over a week ago I decided to see if anyone else had written about a possible Israeli role in the SolarWinds/SUNBURST hack. Unsurprisingly, I could find no evidence of any interest in this subject by the mainstream corporate media since my post last December.

However, about a month after my post Whitney Webb did a much more thorough treatment of the subject on the The Last American Vagabond site. Her article is titled "Another Mega Group Spy Scandal? Samanage, Sabotage, and the SolarWinds Hack".

Readers may recall that I highlighted Samanage in the first numbered paragraph of my post. Webb also discusses Christopher Krebs (my paragraph #2) but does not mention the 2017 putative Israeli cell phone surveillance episode in DC that unfolded on Krebs' watch. Webb links to the same Israeli news source I linked regarding the boost in the stock prices of Israeli cybersecurity firms in the wake of the SolarWinds/SUNBURST hack.

In any case, I think Webb did very good work on this story and I recommend that you read it. Here are a couple of paragraphs from her piece:

... As Russiagate played out, it became apparent that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and a foreign power, but the nation was Israel, not Russia. Indeed, many of the reports that came out of Russiagate revealed collusion with Israel, yet those instances received little coverage and generated little media outrage. This has led some to suggest that Russiagate may have been a cover for what was in fact Israelgate.

Similarly, in the case of the SolarWinds hack, there is the odd case and timing of SolarWinds’ acquisition of a company called Samanage in 2019. As this report will explore, Samanage’s deep ties to Israeli intelligence, venture-capital firms connected to both intelligence and Isabel Maxwell, as well as Samange’s integration with the Orion software at the time of the back door’s insertion warrant investigation every bit as much as SolarWinds’ Czech-based contractor.

Labels: government, Israel, Russia, surveillance, technology, Trump

In 1995, the Sackler family started producing and pushing oxycontin, a semi-synthetic opioid, via the Sackler-controlled company Purdue Pharma. Along the way they made billions of dollars in profits.

According to the CDC:

Nearly 500,000 people died from overdoses involving any opioid, including prescription and illicit opioids, from 1999-2019 ... The first wave began with increased prescribing of opioids in the 1990s, with overdose deaths involving prescription opioids (natural and semi-synthetic opioids and methadone) increasing since at least 1999.

Most states of the United States have some form of the "felony murder rule". This means a perpetrator can be held be criminally liable for murder if s/he caused the death of another person in the course of committing a felony. The perpetrator need not have intended the death of the victim and, in some states, need not have been the proximate cause of the death.

For example, if you merely drove the get away car for an armed robbery where one of your accomplices murdered a bank teller then you may held responsible for the murder. (If narrowly written and applied I think the felony murder rule is perfectly fair and just.)

I bring this up to point out that in America if you kill one person—even if you didn't pull the trigger—you can be punished for the murder. On the other hand, if you are a member of the Sackler family who had a key role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans by opioid abuse then (so far) you won't be personally charged with any crime.

The Sackler family members who ran Purdue Pharma belong in prison. However, there are plenty of other culprits not directly connected to the Sacklers or Purdue Pharma who also belong in prison for their part in the opioid crisis and, as far as I know, none of them has been criminally charged, either.

To be clear, while the Sacklers et al. helped create the opioid crisis, the crisis itself is a form of collective suicide founded on America's nihilistic consumerism and culture of death. It's worth noting, too, that the death toll is mainly comprised of White Americans who are supposedly so privileged. This is undoubtedly fueled by unconcealed hostility to White people, generally, and White working-class people, in particular.

If you doubt this then try carrying a sign saying "It's Okay to be White" in public in any town or city in America and see what happens. Also, consider the remarks of Duquesne University Psychology professor Derek Hook who opined that “White people should commit suicide as an ethical act.” Hook says that he was speaking about suicide as the destruction of "Whiteness" but try publicly advocating that for any other racial, ethnic, or religious group.

Labels: crime, culture, government, health, medicine, race, White folks

What follows are a few thoughts on God, faith, and Christianity from mathematician, physicist, and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). The text is taken from A. J. Krailsheimer's translation of Pascal's Pensées (Penguin, 1995). Specifically, they are derived from sections 418 - 424, according to Louis Lafuma's numbering scheme.

The first two excerpts are from a larger text commonly known as "Pascal's wager". I am not so interested here in Pascal's actual argument, almost all of which I have omitted, as I am in what Pascal concedes and what he believes about faith, unbelief, and Christianity.

If there is a God, he is infinitely beyond our comprehension, since, being indivisible and without limits, he bears no relation to us. We are therefore incapable of knowing either what he is or whether he is ...

Who then will blame Christians for being unable to give rational grounds for their belief, professing as they do a religion for which they cannot give rational grounds? They declare that it is a folly, stultitiam, in expounding it to the world, and then you complain that they do not prove it! ... Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. [418]

Pascal's position is that reason cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. However, Pascal argues, reason can and does prove that one should choose to believe and/or act as if God does exist.

The idea is that the cost of the erroneous belief in a non-existent deity is low compared to the high cost of erroneous disbelief in a God who does exist. Conversely, as Pascal would have it, becoming a Christian is a win whether God exists or not.

Having assumed that his imagined interlocutor accepts his reasoning, Pascal concedes that faith in God cannot necessarily be turned on or off like a switch.

... at least get it into your head that, if you are unable to believe [in God], it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you ... They behaved just as if they did believe, taking the holy water, having masses said, and so on. That will make you believe quite naturally ... — 'But this is what I am afraid of.' — 'But why? What have you to lose? But to show you that this is the way, the fact is that this diminishes the passions which are your great obstacles ...' [418]

Pascal's point, then, is that disbelief in God is not grounded in reason but in an emotionally or psychologically-based resistance he calls "passions". Here are few more excerpts that are not generally considered part of Pascal's wager.

No sect and no religion has always existed on earth except Christianity. [421]

***

The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing: we know this in countless ways.

I say that it is natural for the heart to love the universal being or itself, according to its allegiance, and it hardens itself against either as it chooses. You have rejected one and kept the other. Is it reason that makes you love yourself? [423]

***

It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason. [424]

Labels: Christianity, philosophy, quotations, religion and science