Doublethink
The most important paragraph written in the 20th century.
Once you truly understand it, you understand how contemporary leaders do what they do.
Once you truly understand it, you understand how contemporary leaders do what they do.
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
5 Comments:
Maybe you can send this to the AGW fraudsters at CRU.
By
Locomotive Breath, at 7:09 AM
It's hard to believe this is not required reading; I thought it *was* but keep running into folks who have made it to their thirties and haven't come across it.
By
Unknown, at 7:45 AM
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a more perfect illustration of doublethink than that engaged in by that segment of our political leadership known colloquially as climate change deniers.
As a relatively minor functionary in the Outer Party, our guest above is not required to participate in the process any more than is necessary to avoid calling too much attention to himself. Although should he keep up the good work, he may find himself called up to the Inner Party in the near future.
As to its required reading, certainly was when i was in high school. I think it stopped sometime around 1984 or so, when it became the Republican Party playbook.
By
Barry, at 7:56 AM
Since you haven't been paying attention, apparently.
1) "Researchers" gathered data.
2) Adjusted the hell out of it (as we now learn) in ways they won't specify to reach the conclusions they wanted.
3) Reached the conclusion that the earth was warming rapidly and it's the fault of people burning carbon-based fuel.
4) On this basis, sold politicians that the world's entire economy should be re-ordered.
5) Meanwhile, obstructed all FOI requests for other researchers to look at the data on which the conclusions were based.
6) Waged (as we now learn) a behind-the-scenes smear campaign to prevent the publication of contradictory research so that they could claim that opposing viewpoints were not credible.
7) Now say that the original data has been discarded so that their results can never be checked and all we're left with is their now unsupported conclusions.
8) Still claim that AGW is "settled" science.
Lysenko is green (so to speak) with jealousy. Finding that you've been hornswoggled but continuing to believe what you were told is perfect doublethink.
But you keep on believing what you want. I won't try to further challenge your religious faith.
By
Locomotive Breath, at 8:18 AM
LB: Please provide the peer-reviewed journal articles that have been published in the last 20 years challenging the notion that the earth is warming. Given the intense rivalries and competitions between scientists, the one-upmanship factor should mean that any evidence should get at least a second-level journal article. I can't seem to lay hands on one, though. Could you help?
By
Unknown, at 11:20 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home