Blackwhite The word is an example of Newspeak and doublethink. It represents the active process of rewriting the past — a vital aspect of the Party's control over the present. The ability to blindly believe anything, regardless of its absurdity, can have different causes: respect for authority, fear, indoctrination, even critical laziness or gullibility. Orwell's blackwhite refers only to that caused by fear, indoctrination or repression of one's individual critical thinking ("to know black is white"), rather than caused by laziness or gullibility. A true Party member could automatically, and without thought, expunge any "incorrect" information and totally replace it with "true" information from the Party. If properly done, there is no memory or recovery of the "incorrect" information that could cause unhappiness to the Party member by committing thoughtcrime.
To help put Hillary Clinton in the White House, the once-great New York Times has published a dubious report swallowing the Obama administration’s lies about the Sept. 11, 2012 Islamist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
In an act of journalistic malfeasance, the agenda-setting newspaper of record concluded over the weekend that the once-obscure “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video sparked the armed assault that left four Americans dead at the height of last year’s presidential election cycle. The newspaper also concluded that al-Qaeda wasn’t involved, ignoring the mountain of evidence suggesting al-Qaeda was involved.
Like radical leftist fabulist Oliver Stone laboring to create his crazy-quilt alternative myth explaining the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the New York Times is attempting to rewrite the narrative about what really happened in Benghazi and afterwards. It is trying to resurrect the Obama administration’s original line of argument in order to create wiggle room for Hillary Clinton who has been scathingly criticized by Republican lawmakers and the occasional Democrat for bungling the Benghazi saga.
Stockman’s discharge petition, House Resolution 306, would establish “a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya.” Boehner has been blocking Stockman’s request for months.
It is no understatement to suggest that there is a vast left-wing media conspiracy aimed at maintaining the political viability of the woman who coined the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” as a red herring to explain away the problems of her corrupt, lawbreaking husband, then-President Bill Clinton.
The Left will do whatever it takes to decouple Hillary Clinton in the public mind from the fiasco in Benghazi. Expect many more blatant media attempts to rehabilitate her stained legacy as Secretary of State to come.
This is not the only New York Times piece contradicting Kirkpatrick. The Weekly Standard's Tom Jocelyn writes: Left out of the Times’s account are the many leads tying the attackers to al Qaeda’s international network. For instance, there is no mention of Muhammad Jamal al Kashef, an Egyptian, in Kirkpatrick’s retelling. This is odd, for many reasons. On October 29, 2012 three other New York Times journalists reported that Jamal’s network, in addition to a known al Qaeda branch (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), was directly involved in the assault. The Times reported (emphasis added): “Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.” Jocelyn also points to key suspect Faraj al-Shibli, a Libyan who according to U.S. intelligence officials contacted by The Weekly Standard served as Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard during the 1990s. Kirkpatrick stands by his story; he claimed on NBC's Meet The Press that the Benghazi attackers were only local attackers, but in order to truly believe that one would have to think other players and events reported on by the New York Times itself never existed or happened.
Times reporter David Kirkpatrick, who authored the story, defended the monthlong investigation and blamed lawmakers for obscuring the facts. Kirkpatrick said there’s a semantic difference in identifying the forces behind the deadly attack.
“There’s just no chance that this was an al-Qaeda attack if, by al-Qaeda, you mean the organization founded by Osama bin Laden,” he said. “If you’re using the term al-Qaeda to describe even a local group of Islamist militants who may dislike democracy or have a grudge against the United States, if you’re going to call anybody like that al-Qaeda, then O.K.”
“For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?” ― George Orwell, 1984
“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?” ― George Orwell, 1984
Blackwhite
ReplyDeleteThe word is an example of Newspeak and doublethink. It represents the active process of rewriting the past — a vital aspect of the Party's control over the present. The ability to blindly believe anything, regardless of its absurdity, can have different causes: respect for authority, fear, indoctrination, even critical laziness or gullibility.
Orwell's blackwhite refers only to that caused by fear, indoctrination or repression of one's individual critical thinking ("to know black is white"), rather than caused by laziness or gullibility. A true Party member could automatically, and without thought, expunge any "incorrect" information and totally replace it with "true" information from the Party. If properly done, there is no memory or recovery of the "incorrect" information that could cause unhappiness to the Party member by committing thoughtcrime.
ReplyDeleteTo help put Hillary Clinton in the White House, the once-great New York Times has published a dubious report swallowing the Obama administration’s lies about the Sept. 11, 2012 Islamist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
In an act of journalistic malfeasance, the agenda-setting newspaper of record concluded over the weekend that the once-obscure “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video sparked the armed assault that left four Americans dead at the height of last year’s presidential election cycle. The newspaper also concluded that al-Qaeda wasn’t involved, ignoring the mountain of evidence suggesting al-Qaeda was involved.
Like radical leftist fabulist Oliver Stone laboring to create his crazy-quilt alternative myth explaining the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the New York Times is attempting to rewrite the narrative about what really happened in Benghazi and afterwards. It is trying to resurrect the Obama administration’s original line of argument in order to create wiggle room for Hillary Clinton who has been scathingly criticized by Republican lawmakers and the occasional Democrat for bungling the Benghazi saga.
Stockman’s discharge petition, House Resolution 306, would establish “a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya.” Boehner has been blocking Stockman’s request for months.
It is no understatement to suggest that there is a vast left-wing media conspiracy aimed at maintaining the political viability of the woman who coined the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” as a red herring to explain away the problems of her corrupt, lawbreaking husband, then-President Bill Clinton.
The Left will do whatever it takes to decouple Hillary Clinton in the public mind from the fiasco in Benghazi. Expect many more blatant media attempts to rehabilitate her stained legacy as Secretary of State to come.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/the-new-york-times-benghazi-revisionism/
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
ReplyDelete― George Orwell, 1984
This is not the only New York Times piece contradicting Kirkpatrick. The Weekly Standard's Tom Jocelyn writes:
ReplyDeleteLeft out of the Times’s account are the many leads tying the attackers to al Qaeda’s international network. For instance, there is no mention of Muhammad Jamal al Kashef, an Egyptian, in Kirkpatrick’s retelling. This is odd, for many reasons. On October 29, 2012 three other New York Times journalists reported that Jamal’s network, in addition to a known al Qaeda branch (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), was directly involved in the assault. The Times reported (emphasis added): “Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.”
Jocelyn also points to key suspect Faraj al-Shibli, a Libyan who according to U.S. intelligence officials contacted by The Weekly Standard served as Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard during the 1990s. Kirkpatrick stands by his story; he claimed on NBC's Meet The Press that the Benghazi attackers were only local attackers, but in order to truly believe that one would have to think other players and events reported on by the New York Times itself never existed or happened.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/12/29/New-York-Times-Contradicts-Own-Reporting-on-Benghazi
Breitbart, now there's an unbiased source
DeleteDon't comment on the content Max, just spew your normal pap.
DeleteNew year, same shit from you.
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
ReplyDelete― George Orwell, 1984
Times reporter David Kirkpatrick, who authored the story, defended the monthlong investigation and blamed lawmakers for obscuring the facts. Kirkpatrick said there’s a semantic difference in identifying the forces behind the deadly attack.
ReplyDelete“There’s just no chance that this was an al-Qaeda attack if, by al-Qaeda, you mean the organization founded by Osama bin Laden,” he said. “If you’re using the term al-Qaeda to describe even a local group of Islamist militants who may dislike democracy or have a grudge against the United States, if you’re going to call anybody like that al-Qaeda, then O.K.”
http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/29/gop-leaders-dismiss-new-york-times-benghazi-report/
“For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”
ReplyDelete― George Orwell, 1984
“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?”
ReplyDelete― George Orwell, 1984