Hat tip to BIAD for posting the link to this article in the shoutbox: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jqjqxl3dyo
Reading through it, I did notice some not-so-subtle word-fuckery occurring within. For example, the protestors are now being described as "far-right". It appears that the criteria for "far-right" is a desire to keep the country one built for it's citizens, and opposition to human-wave invasions of foreigners hell bent on taking it away from the natives. So, what used to be the normal course of human events - retaining what one has built for themselves to themselves - is now "far-right".
I also noticed that "mostly peaceful protests" as practiced and labeled by the Left just a few short years ago, the EXACT same sort of "mostly peaceful protests" THEY were engaging in at that time, are now "violence in the streets" when it's the other side engaging in the self-same behavior.
One difference between the two that I've noticed is that the protests from the Left were OFFENSIVE in nature. "Offensive" not in the sense of exciting offended "feelz" in the opposition, but rather "offensive" in the military sense of presenting an attack against native customs and morals, while the protests emanating from the Right are primarily DEFENSIVE in nature - presenting a defense against invading waves of foreigners intent on taking over what is not theirs to take.
Defensive measures used to be the norm among civilized men when invading barbarians knocked at the gates... but now it seems that any such action must be labelled with the libel of "far-right". It's only the offensive, "mostly peaceful protests" that come from the Left that are acceptable violence. If the violence comes from their opponents in the exact same "mostly peaceful" manner, it must be condemned as "having no place on our streets".
SO - OFFENSIVE action = good, DEFENSIVE action = bad. Got it. That's probably why they are so hell-bent on disarming the average US citizen. They don't want us engaging in that nasty defensive action when someone, for example, engages in a home invasion robbery intent on taking what is not theirs to take, and never has been.
What an upside down world it has become when defending against attack is being criminalized! It used to be that attack was criminal, and defense was acceptable. No longer.
I also noticed that now, suddenly, there is "no place for violence in our society", whereas just a few short years ago there WAS room for violence, when that violence came from the Left. Now the Left is defending their actions back then (they should be careful of that if they intend to criminalize defense!) and condemning THE SAME ACTIONS now that they are coming from the opposition.
So, what it really appears to boil down to is not the action itself, but the INTENT of the action: "attack" is acceptable, "defense" against those attacks is not. that comes straight from the top - it's the plan this "Sir Keir" character seems to be pushing. Odd, I think, that governments would use their power and position to push their opponents into violence, then condemn the violence they themselves initiated and promoted, and THEN engage in violence of their own to quash it. How can they legitimately say "there is no place for violence in our society" and then proceed to engage in... VIOLENCE against the passions they have themselves inflamed? Either violence is acceptable, or it is not - the source of the violence has no bearing on whether it is "violence" or not.
At least the Home Secretary lady was a bit more measured in her words - she specifically offered an exemption for government violence against civilian violence, giving a cut-out for the government to exercise violence for whatever reason it likes, whereas the citizenry enjoys no such immunity... unless they are violencing from the Left.
Specifically, what Ms. Cooper said was "Criminal violence and disorder has no place on Britain's streets," Notice that she at least specified "criminal" violence, presumably to contrast it with official violence so as to give the government their monopoly on violence, and she at least said "Britain's streets", in contrast to the rest of the talking heads who as a unit seem to be using the phrase "OUR streets". Compare the British phrase "OUR streets" with the phrase as being used in America, "OUR democracy". Just who is "OUR" in these phrases? It certainly doesn't include everyone, as "our" might be expected to do. Otherwise, folks could do as they damned well pleased in their own streets, and they would not be run over roughshod if the "democracy" was actually theirs.
No, these phrases actually serve to differentiate just who can overrun whom. They are a means of laying claim to the whole by a single, likely minority, segment of society and excluding the rest from the process they are claiming for themselves.
That is the actual danger of word-fuckery as it is now being engaged in. It;s the hidden statements that folks just don't bother to dissect in the public statements being made. The hope is that no one will question the statements as being constructed, and that will give them a de facto standing as "factual" by virtue of going unchallenged.
This is exactly the same sort of word-fuckery that Orwell called "Newspeak" in his novel "1984"... and here we are, living it. It is engaged in almost - but not quite - exclusively by the political Left. They want a monopoly on constructing "Newspeak" in this Brave New World.
Something wicked this way comes, and therein lies to roots of madness.
.
Reading through it, I did notice some not-so-subtle word-fuckery occurring within. For example, the protestors are now being described as "far-right". It appears that the criteria for "far-right" is a desire to keep the country one built for it's citizens, and opposition to human-wave invasions of foreigners hell bent on taking it away from the natives. So, what used to be the normal course of human events - retaining what one has built for themselves to themselves - is now "far-right".
I also noticed that "mostly peaceful protests" as practiced and labeled by the Left just a few short years ago, the EXACT same sort of "mostly peaceful protests" THEY were engaging in at that time, are now "violence in the streets" when it's the other side engaging in the self-same behavior.
One difference between the two that I've noticed is that the protests from the Left were OFFENSIVE in nature. "Offensive" not in the sense of exciting offended "feelz" in the opposition, but rather "offensive" in the military sense of presenting an attack against native customs and morals, while the protests emanating from the Right are primarily DEFENSIVE in nature - presenting a defense against invading waves of foreigners intent on taking over what is not theirs to take.
Defensive measures used to be the norm among civilized men when invading barbarians knocked at the gates... but now it seems that any such action must be labelled with the libel of "far-right". It's only the offensive, "mostly peaceful protests" that come from the Left that are acceptable violence. If the violence comes from their opponents in the exact same "mostly peaceful" manner, it must be condemned as "having no place on our streets".
SO - OFFENSIVE action = good, DEFENSIVE action = bad. Got it. That's probably why they are so hell-bent on disarming the average US citizen. They don't want us engaging in that nasty defensive action when someone, for example, engages in a home invasion robbery intent on taking what is not theirs to take, and never has been.
What an upside down world it has become when defending against attack is being criminalized! It used to be that attack was criminal, and defense was acceptable. No longer.
I also noticed that now, suddenly, there is "no place for violence in our society", whereas just a few short years ago there WAS room for violence, when that violence came from the Left. Now the Left is defending their actions back then (they should be careful of that if they intend to criminalize defense!) and condemning THE SAME ACTIONS now that they are coming from the opposition.
So, what it really appears to boil down to is not the action itself, but the INTENT of the action: "attack" is acceptable, "defense" against those attacks is not. that comes straight from the top - it's the plan this "Sir Keir" character seems to be pushing. Odd, I think, that governments would use their power and position to push their opponents into violence, then condemn the violence they themselves initiated and promoted, and THEN engage in violence of their own to quash it. How can they legitimately say "there is no place for violence in our society" and then proceed to engage in... VIOLENCE against the passions they have themselves inflamed? Either violence is acceptable, or it is not - the source of the violence has no bearing on whether it is "violence" or not.
At least the Home Secretary lady was a bit more measured in her words - she specifically offered an exemption for government violence against civilian violence, giving a cut-out for the government to exercise violence for whatever reason it likes, whereas the citizenry enjoys no such immunity... unless they are violencing from the Left.
Specifically, what Ms. Cooper said was "Criminal violence and disorder has no place on Britain's streets," Notice that she at least specified "criminal" violence, presumably to contrast it with official violence so as to give the government their monopoly on violence, and she at least said "Britain's streets", in contrast to the rest of the talking heads who as a unit seem to be using the phrase "OUR streets". Compare the British phrase "OUR streets" with the phrase as being used in America, "OUR democracy". Just who is "OUR" in these phrases? It certainly doesn't include everyone, as "our" might be expected to do. Otherwise, folks could do as they damned well pleased in their own streets, and they would not be run over roughshod if the "democracy" was actually theirs.
No, these phrases actually serve to differentiate just who can overrun whom. They are a means of laying claim to the whole by a single, likely minority, segment of society and excluding the rest from the process they are claiming for themselves.
That is the actual danger of word-fuckery as it is now being engaged in. It;s the hidden statements that folks just don't bother to dissect in the public statements being made. The hope is that no one will question the statements as being constructed, and that will give them a de facto standing as "factual" by virtue of going unchallenged.
This is exactly the same sort of word-fuckery that Orwell called "Newspeak" in his novel "1984"... and here we are, living it. It is engaged in almost - but not quite - exclusively by the political Left. They want a monopoly on constructing "Newspeak" in this Brave New World.
Something wicked this way comes, and therein lies to roots of madness.
.