Hilary's Communist grammar

Interplanner

Well-known member
“Progressing…Together”
Hilary’s Communism and the odd case of 2014 post-release script changes in FOYLE’S WAR

Marcus Sanford, October, 2016
ask@interplans.net,
“All Lives Matter – Marcus Sanford” at Youtube.com









I have often ‘called it a day’ and retired to a half-segment of FOYLE’S WAR to restore my sanity. Among the amazing feats of Horowitz’ writing are re-enactments of how deep Nazi sympathizers were in Britain (The German Woman), the depiction of communism in WW2 England, as well as profiteers, and the difficult question of how to use captured “assets”--Nazis after the war--to tackle the next menace of the Soviet nuclear program (Sunflower).

FOYLE’S WAR does not enjoy the status of DOWNTON ABBEY, but it has enough of a following to result in a ‘behind the scenes’ show on PBS, and sells well during its fund-raising.

It was quite intriguing then (worth another episode?) to learn that sometime in 2014, a rather stinging line was removed from an episode on communism. It not only stings as to message, but because it was one of those forceful chants that so efficiently spreads yet disinforms.

The chant which captured so many was “One mind! One state! All equal!”

Other than a technical glitch explanation at the viewer’s end, I cannot locate this line any more.

It is not as though the series ‘softened’ on communism—there is the episode of the pathetic cases of Russians who seek to stay in Britain after learning how others died upon returning to Russia being accused as deserters, etc. And there are plenty of criticisms of Winnie for using Stalin’s help.

All this Foyle trivia is not exactly why I am writing today, however. The problem today is how Hilary’s slogan uses ‘together’. A columnist with a graduate degree that was spent reading PRAVDA (the official communist Russian news) shows that the grammar is the same. The accusation of “divisiveness” of opposition is the same. “Together” does not mean collaboration; it means you have been forced to accept ‘one mind, one state, all equal.’ PRAVDA’S slogan was “Communism forward! Together!” Venezuela 'moves forward! Together!' and there are lines for TP and (thanks to the internet) people who find out that some 'mind' other than the Left actually exists.

This is no good for fund-raising from the aging viewership of PBS. The ‘efficiency’ of communication of the line is now a liability which the Leftist media cannot afford to have ‘out there.’

The stinging line is gone.

The liability is that Hilary compares all too easily and clearly to awful communists of the recent, but blurry, past. I have spent the past few years with some friends who escaped Ceaucescu’s communism: fraudulent, incompetent, filthy rich, criminal and immune. Possibly also funded by Soros. But that’s how the Clinton’s come across. Have for 30 years.

Who cares what happened to Vince Foster? Who cares what was said in speeches—billed at an hourly rate of a half-million dollars? Who cares if the FBI is manipulated?

So the pre-election “news” is a bluster of hysteria about a hurricane or about some inappropriate comment by an opponent 11 years ago in private.

The only things that may be missing from a parallel of the Mrs. C’s is the woman getting presidential power by marriage alone, and the bullying of women who dared testify against their husbands.





Marcus Sanford’s short novels and feature scripts are at Amazon.com. See “All Lives Matter – Marcus Sanford” at Youtube.com.

Mr. Sanford was invited by the American Association of Popular Culture to speak on how ‘nature’ changed during the 20th century. He was a respondent to the Canadian RCMP for information about the 1988 environmentalist terrorists who hijacked a cross-Canada jet to seize media attention to announce the destruction of the human race—to save the planet. In 2009, he was witness of the anti-communist riots against the Moldovan senatorial election which the capitol’s major declared to be fraudulent.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
A tool of totalitarian regimes is to change the meaning or words and pervert language. This is actually an element of propaganda. Government taxing and spending is now "Investments", aborting a baby is now "Choice" and "Healthcare" (as if there were anything healthy about it), legitimizing perverted behaviors is now "Tolerance", illegal aliens are now lumped in with "Immigrants", people-violence is now "Gun Violence", and on and on it goes.

And lets not forget their favorite "Hate". Any time you are against something that Liberals are for, you spread "Hate". If I take the Biblical view on homosexual sex, well I spread "Hate", and "Intolerance."
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
A tool of totalitarian regimes is to change the meaning or words and pervert language. This is actually an element of propaganda. Government taxing and spending is now "Investments", aborting a baby is now "Choice" and "Healthcare" (as if there were anything healthy about it), legitimizing perverted behaviors is now "Tolerance", illegal aliens are now lumped in with "Immigrants", people-violence is now "Gun Violence", and on and on it goes.

Good post. Sort of "Orwellian."
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
It couldn't be George Orwell, could it? Look up "1984."

Language as an Instrument of Totalitarianism
http://www.alexandrakp.com/text/2003/03/language-as-an-instrument-of-totalitarianism/

As an author, George Orwell is concerned with the modern use and misuse of the English language. He notes the recognized ability of language to distort truth and deceive masses in his essay “Politics and the English Language”, and attempts to alert the public of this power in his novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four . Depicting dystopia of a totalitarian system at a complete extreme, Orwelll’s novel is essentially about psychological control of the public. In the creation of “Newspeak”, Orwell portrays the effects of recurring abuse of language by government, and demonstrates how language can be used politically to manipulate minds on a monumental scale, eventually birthing a society in which people obey the government unquestionably. As argued in his essay and actualized in the novel, language acts as an instrument of mind-control, with the goal of perpetual elimination of individual consciousness and maintenance of a totalitarian regime.

Orwell’s essay begins with the understanding that “…the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language”. In evaluating trends in current language, such as the use of pretentious diction and meaningless words, he argues that an individual morphs into a type of human machine , simply regurgitating information without involving any of his or her own thoughts. As Orwell says in the essay, “Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind” . In Nineteen-Eighty-Four, this phenomenon is depicted in the development of Newspeak. Developed chiefly to restrict the range of one’s thought and shorten memory, Newspeak is an ideal language for a totalitarian system such as the Inner Party, in which government relies heavily on the passivity of a public lacking free thought. As Orwell expects, “to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration” ; thus the Party limits such public thought, eliminating the threat of a society that can denounce government and defend itself from wrong.

In order to maintain its power, Orwell claims that a political regime uses language to produce a reduced state of individual consciousness in its residents. As it structures and places limits on ideas that an individual is capable of forming, language is established as a type of mind-control for the masses. The primary purpose of political language, to Orwell, is to eliminate individual thought and expression. In using euphemisms and metaphors, for example, which one does not create by him or herself, an individual neither creates his/her thoughts nor chooses his/her words; thus the process of thinking is completely eliminated. This idea is developed more radically in his novel in the use of Newspeak, as the Party has completely erased any forum for personal thought or expression. As one member of the party describes, “‘In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it’.”

The concept of thought control is evident throughout the novel, but is also present in Orwell’s earlier ideas about the politics of language as described in his article. He identifies that political language largely serves to “make lies sound truthful” , and draws the conclusion that political orthodoxy is preserved by the use of vagueness and insincerity in language . Orwell gives examples of how politicians can twist words to deceive people in his essay: “Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside . . . this is called pacification… People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the next or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements” . Thus the use of Newspeak in Oceania similarly serves to uphold political obedience. As the Inner Party has the ability to alter the structure of language in Nineteen-Eighty-Four, it makes the conception of nonconformist and rebellious thought impossible, thus eliminating any questioning of the Party’s absolute power.

Both Orwell’s novel and essay carry a grave warning about the political powers of language. He uses his media to demonstrate not only how language can cloak truth, but also how language can be used as an ultimate tool for maintenance of totalitarian regimes. While language is usually thought to extend cultural considerations and improve one’s understanding of the world, Orwell’s works illustrate how it can, when used in a vicious political way, become an instrument against human consciousness

 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
If Hillary should take over this country, I fear for its future. We saw what Obama did and I think we're in store for some worse times to come. I'm not at all optimistic about the future of this country under a Clinton/Soros regime.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
I'll be bold and suggest a dire prediction. If Hillary gets in office for two consecutive terms, I believe in the interim, Chelsea Clinton will be in the process of being groomed as part of a "Clinton Dynasty?"
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
If Hillary should take over this country, I fear for its future. We saw what Obama did and I think we're in store for some worse times to come. I'm not at all optimistic about the future of this country under a Clinton/Soros regime.

Let's face it, this country is dead. Even if conservatives ran the government, too much of the population embraces perversion. Government can only do so much. The ship has sailed.
 

musterion

Well-known member
The destruction of language in 1984 was key to the Party's maintaining control. The idea was, as described by the possibly mythical Goldstein (one was never sure if O'Brien lied about co-authoring The Book) if you kept to a bare minimum the number of words the prole masses had to express ideas, eventually ideas would be unable to be expressed because there'd be no words to express them. That would lead to permanent absolute control by whoever controlled the language, as their control of language would automatically limit, thereby control, all thought.

The Left was already doing this when Orwell described the process in the late '40s. That's why Orwell had the character Syme vaporized by the Party. Even though he approved and participated in the destruction of words, Syme saw too clearly and spoke too plainly about what was happening and so was a threat to the Party.
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
“Progressing…Together”
Hilary’s Communism and the odd case of 2014 post-release script changes in FOYLE’S WAR

Marcus Sanford, October, 2016
ask@interplans.net,
“All Lives Matter – Marcus Sanford” at Youtube.com

Why waste valuable internet space by showing something that everyone should know: that Hillary Clinton and her predecessor are wannabe Marxists.

The question that should be asked is: Is Donald Trump any different, i.e. does he acknowledge the United States Constitution as the law of the land?

Let's say that Donald Trump was elected President and there was a large peaceful protest outside of the White House.

Do you think that President Donald Trump would value those protestors First Amendment rights or do you think that he'd think back to the days when he was impressed with the Chinese Communists at Tiananmen Square?

Trump Isn’t Upset by the Obama Era, He’s Always Been a Wannabe Mussolini


"When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is perceived as weak, being spit on by the rest of the world"...

Donald Trump-1990 interview in Playboy Magazine
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432043/donald-trump-praised-tiananmen-square-massacre

Yep, this is real "strength" comrade Trump.

pict520.jpg

http://home.zcu.cz/~valtri/tk/pict520.jpg
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
^^ The psychopath tries to change the subject again. The thread topic is about "Hillary's Communist grammar", it's not about Trump.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
^^ The psychopath tries to change the subject again. The thread topic is about "Hillary's Communist grammar", it's not about Trump.

Now now, let's at least get my title correct: According to you Trump lemmings, I'm a "lying dyke, a pederast, a pedophile, who sexually molests my own children before beating them as well as a sick psychopath" (as if there was a "well psychopath").

I confirmed that Hillary Clinton is a wannabe Marxist, can you refute the evidence that Donald Trump is a wannabe dictator?
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Why waste valuable internet space by showing something that everyone should know: that Hillary Clinton and her predecessor are wannabe Marxists.

The question that should be asked is: Is Donald Trump any different, i.e. does he acknowledge the United States Constitution as the law of the land?

Let's say that Donald Trump was elected President and there was a large peaceful protest outside of the White House.

Do you think that President Donald Trump would value those protestors First Amendment rights or do you think that he'd think back to the days when he was impressed with the Chinese Communists at Tiananmen Square?

Trump Isn’t Upset by the Obama Era, He’s Always Been a Wannabe Mussolini


"When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is perceived as weak, being spit on by the rest of the world"...

Donald Trump-1990 interview in Playboy Magazine
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432043/donald-trump-praised-tiananmen-square-massacre

Yep, this is real "strength" comrade Trump.

pict520.jpg

http://home.zcu.cz/~valtri/tk/pict520.jpg

I really think you're some kind of a "Nutcase." No offense intended, however, you should consider seeking psychiatric intervention?
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
"What" as in their ideology or "What" as in their legislation?


Care to back up those allegations with facts?

i.e. perhaps you could show us Senator Clinton's voting record to confirm such allegations and provide information showing that her votes do indeed promote a Marxist agenda.
 
Top