Contact Form * Contact Form Container */ .contact-form-widget { width: 500px; max-width: 100%; marg

Name

Email *

Message *

PC has made political speech in America autistic

·         Image result for monk PROSTRATING

Recant! Recant! for you have SAID the wrong thing


 UNIVERSITY DIRECTIVE
 ‘Indulge in free speech if you must; but please avoid issues that are controversial; and if you do address such issues, don’t sound as if you care about them intensely.’ 

This is what  the philosopher John Stuart Mill meant by ‘quiet suppression
in public debate. Image result for monk PROSTRATING

PC's defendant may refer to PC as the Religion of Humanity in time it may become as dangerous as all the other religions.



So if you are a 'speaker' these PC days, feelings must be restrained – a neutral style of rational euphemism is recommended.
   

Reproach from a traumatised listener admits of no answer, only apology.

The apology that is demanded and forked out has the moral stature of hush money: it makes a fetish of insincerity. With some help from the jargon of political and religious heresy, one would say these are not so much apologies as formal acts of self-criticism and recantation

Thus far, they have mostly been extorted in communities the size of a guild or a college. At the same time the rigour of exclusion within these mini-communities is itself a cause of the near autistic breakdown of political speech in America

What will decide the US election and Merkel's fate - Immigration

Ten of London’s 33 boroughs change half their population every five years, and figures are similar in other big conurbations. There are many reasons for that: more divorce and fewer extended/multigenerational families living in close proximity, changes in communication technology, the expansion of higher education, and in recent years a big increase in immigration.
Immigration, at least on a significant scale, can be hard for both incomer and receiver especially when the cultures of traditional societies are being imported. Opposition to it can be xenophobic but is not necessarily so. When social scientists like Michael Young in the 1950s and 1960s discovered the significance people in settled working class communities attached to stability and continuity, and how it was often lost in new housing developments, it was considered something to celebrate and defend by people on the left. But when, a few years later, those same communities objected to that continuity being disrupted by the churn of mass immigration they were often ruled beyond the pale.
Liberalism is often uneasy about group attachment: ‘What’s the fuss, we are all just individuals aren’t we?’ And when thinking about immigration conventional liberals too readily assume a society without any pre-existing attachments. But group attachments of many kinds remain strong, indeed are hard-wired into us. Societies are composed of people who come from somewhere, speak a certain language, have certain traditions and ways of doing things. (The idea of multiculturalism is partly premised on the overwhelming importance of these traditions to people.)
he idea of ‘people like us’ whether in class, regional or ethnic terms is a simple reality of life. Outsiders can, and often are, absorbed into these groups and communities but it is usually easier if it happens gradually and in small numbers—one reason for postliberalism’s support for a return to more moderate levels of immigration. Modern colour-blind liberalism demands, rightly, that everyone be treated the same; but that does not mean that everyone is the same. And that raises issues about how we live together: about communities, about integration/segregation, about contact, trust and familiarity across ethnic and other boundaries, about areas people feel comfortable living in and areas they don’t.
he idea of ‘people like us’ whether in class, regional or ethnic terms is a simple reality of life. Outsiders can, and often are, absorbed into these groups and communities but it is usually easier if it happens gradually and in small numbers—one reason for postliberalism’s support for a return to more moderate levels of immigration. Modern colour-blind liberalism demands, rightly, that everyone be treated the same; but that does not mean that everyone is the same. And that raises issues about how we live together: about communities, about integration/segregation, about contact, trust and familiarity across ethnic and other boundaries, about areas people feel comfortable living in and areas they don’t.

The actual integration story in Britain is mixed. On the one hand there is a story of declining racism, an increase in mixed race couples and children, upwardly mobile minorities and unselfconsciously mixed communities. But elsewhere there is also a story of white exit and parallel lives—and what Robert Putnam has called ‘hunkering down’—especially in parts of the north of England. Most people from the white British majority are resistant to becoming the minority in any given area and this has led to almost half of the ethnic minority population of Britain living in wards that are less than 50 per cent white British. According to Eric Kaufmann of Birkbeck College that number was only 25 per cent in 2001.
Many liberals believe it is enlightened not to notice the extent to which group identities both exist and influence behaviour, but this does nothing to prevent what Trevor Phillips has called ‘comfort zone segregation’. We need to think harder about how to lean against the drift to separation, especially in schools. 

Borders have to be closed so they can open

Neighbourhoods can be open only if countries are at least potentially closed… the distinctiveness of cultures and groups depends upon closure and without it cannot be conceived as a stable feature of human life.

The Orwellian nightmare that is the EU

A global government would be an Orwellian nightmare if not given legitimacy by nation states. And this is what is happening to the EU, with its 28 nations and growing



Nation states, are the EUs achilles heel. A country with a strong, confident national identity does not thereby solve all its social and economic problems but it has a template, an idiom, in which the discussion can take place and which assumes certain shared norms and common interests. (A confident national story is also a useful tool for integrating newcomers, a symbolic pathway to belonging that is usually welcomed by new citizens.)

Most people even in a noisily varied place like Britain still attach great importance to national symbols and feelings: consider the growing significance of Remembrance Day.

Such a policy requires a clear distinction between full and temporary citizenship with correspondingly different rights and obligations, something that is anathema to human rights philosophy.

The idea of freedom of movement is found in the original Treaty of Rome of 1957 but it was never envisaged as the mass movement that it became after 2004, with the accession of the central and eastern European countries with average per capita income about one quarter the average of the rest of the EU (it has also been substantially widened and extended by the European Court of Justice in recent decades).

Freedom of movement at moderate levels, like immigration itself, is a benefit both to the movers and the country they move to. But the liberal economists and politicians who dominate the EU debate gave little thought to large-scale movement nor do they seem to have realised the extent to which they were eroding national social contracts. 

For thanks to the principle of non-discrimination between EU nationals the British government has to treat a Spaniard or Latvian, so long as they pass a simple test of ‘habitual residence’, in all respects like a British citizen (except for voting in national elections). That includes labour markets, the welfare state and social housing. It is not even possible for national governments to offer special employment incentives to its own nationals in areas of high unemployment without offering them to all EU citizens.

Emotional arguments are asymetrical


Advocates say for pro migration like sentiment because in that way the debate will always be asymmetrical, for opponents can never make the same arguments (reasoned) without appearing unpleasant or even inflammatory

How trying to love 'all' humanity can be selfish.


Trying to love all of humanity may be a worthy endeavour but, in a funny way, it keeps the focus on the self, on the self’s own moral or spiritual well-being. Whereas to love a specific person, and to identify with his or her struggles and joys as if they were your own, you have to surrender some of yourself.

In a broader sense, the more concrete notion of the common life of a neighbourhood or town is something that really exists and can grow or shrink. Similarly the idea of a common purpose for a group or a whole country, or the whole of humanity is a contestable idea.

'Rights' do not fall from the sky, the call for 'rights' preposterously ahistorical

Rights do not fall from the sky. People who are fortunate enough to be a British citizens through birth or choice are richly endowed with rights thanks to a long historical struggle to establish legal, then political and finally social rights. These rights are made real by institutions including parliament, courts, the police and the welfare state over hundreds of years.

Much of today’s human rights rhetoric is preposterously ahistorical. It also individualises rights, disguising the degree of interdependence that underpins them. 

Rights are connected to obligations and duties, some rights, such as the right to equal treatment if you are gay, are just the enforcement of widely accepted norms. But in many cases the right claimed by one person, especially rights that require funding such as the right to education or decent housing, creates a corresponding obligation on another person to supply the wherewithal to make the right possible.


The rhetoric of rights entitlement is usually directed at the state but the state, in this case, is just other citizens. A strong sense of one’s rights as a citizen can empower and protect but in recent years there has been a ‘rights disconnect’: a declining willingness of those called upon to fund, through their taxes, the rights of others. Behind rights often lies redistribution, and that requires the willingness of the strong and affluent to feel some connection to and sympathy for the weak and the struggling. And that in turn requires some sense of shared citizenship and space.

Source

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-1/a-postliberal-future/#THE CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM

Philosophical critiques of liberalism

Criticsms of liberalism are almost as old as liberalism itself. Hegel’s critique of Kant was one of the founding documents revived in recent decades by Charles Taylor and the communitarians. 

(Communitarian philosophy is based upon the belief that a person's social identity and personality are largely molded by community relationships, with a smaller degree of development being placed on individualism.)

Other modern critics of liberalism, such as Alasdair Macintyre and Michael Sandel, have stressed how liberals like John Rawls downplay relationships and loyalties

John Rawls’s individualistic egalitarian liberalism starts from the assumption that you must eliminate existing attachments:
Hobbes assumes you have none:
 Montesquieu believes them to be immoral: ‘A truly virtuous man would come to the aid of the most distant stranger as quickly as to his own friend… if men were perfectly virtuous, they wouldn’t have friends.’ 
Does this mean if you were truly virtuous you would have no 
'special' affection for anybody (does that mean your children?)
as Jesus like you would love everybody the same.


while the romantic liberalism of Rousseau takes the opposite view, seeing people as free and innocent but society as corrupting. British (and American) liberalism premised on Lockean pessimism is concerned with the balancing and checking of power, the Rousseau-an approach abolishes the problem of power by assuming, in the general will, that everyone has the same interests.


John Stuart Mill’s libertarian ‘harm’ principle, in which people can do what they like so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, was an understandable reaction against the Victorian era’s crushing moralism, but it has diminished relevance today given the level of mutual entanglement in the great conurbations where most of us live. 


Why are there no libertarian countries?


Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies which advocate minimizing coercion and emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with significantly less government compared to most present day societies.

From these definitions it seems that liberalism has a stronger focus on equality, while libertarianism is strongly associated with small government.

Why, as Michael Lind has famously asked, are there no libertarian countries? Social democrats can point to the Nordic countries, Norway, Sweden, Denmark as some sort of embodiment of their ideal. 


But it is only in failed states that the market operates without regulation, where the state scarcely exists and where people (at least strong ones) behave like autonomous, self-interested beings.  So there are libertarian countries but they are not countries they are failed states.

Self realisation is to realise there is no self.

Self-realisation can come to a dead end type cul de sac

If it fails to capture  the reality of human interdependence. 

People are not discrete stand along packages of potential ready to be unwrapped, the self is constituted by others
and by socio, economic and politico influences;  we exist in connection to others and our flourishing usually depends on the flourishing of others. 

For Foucault

, the subject is autonomous in the sense that it is capable of critique, but this critique has no 

contextual. Therefore, as Foucault states, "The historical ontology of ourselves must turn away 

from all projects that claim to be global or radical," for we know from experience that "the 

claim to escape from the system of contemporary reality so as to produce the overall programs 

of another society, of another way of thinking, another culture, another vision of the world, 


has led only to the return of the most dangerous traditions".[


'Freedon for all', indeed, but not at the cost of those who fought and died for freedom


One of  liberalism’s dominant mantras is 'freedom, yes freedom from...well oppression...from all kinds of ...well, oppression and...freedom for all. 'What do we want?'  Freedom, freedom for all.'
etc

Liberalism assumes freedom as the natural state of being; this is insultingly ahistorical.

The counter argument is that 'freedom' has to be nurtured by the right relationships and institutions and a recognition of the founding fathers/sisters of this so easily arrived at word, Freedom

So if you blithely demand as you march under banners, shout, proclaim 'freedom for all' if in doing so you the  ignore  founding constituents of the very freedom you are calling for,  you are abusing freedom in your rush to 'freedom for all.'   

One can't cream off the top of the 'freedom cake' without knowing and acknowledging who made, fought and died for this cake of 'freedom'.
To make that freedom cake you need the proper ingredients.

How not to teach tolerance

If you want to improve integration you do not just preach the importance of tolerance, as many liberals tend to, you promote contact and interaction and a common in-group identity. 

As the American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt puts it you can make people care less about race and group identities ‘by drowning them in a sea of similarities, shared goals and mutual interdependencies.’

This then becomes the norm.

Now it seems everybody goes to University

For much of the postwar period it was possible to move from (in the UK exam system for 16 year olds) GCSE-level education into professional jobs—engineer, banker and so on—through further study but without having to go to university for three years. 

The narrowing of that route and the creation of a kind of graduate/non-graduate apartheid has surely helped to diminish occupational mobility. And who do you think create that 
UK politicians, one of Tony Blair' mantras was Education Education.  

What is terrifying for us all about politicians is how very ordinary they are.

Educsationis a complex mine field and one should not be dogmatic. But the knowledge economy still needs well-motivated technicians and cleaners. 

Too much of the decision-making here has been taken by people looking down from the academic pinnacle (God save us from those all knowing academics) rather than looking up with some understanding of how non-academic post-school training, and personal motivation, works.


As Maurice Glasman has pointed out there is a historic gulf between professions and trades—becoming an accountant is dependent on acquiring a set of skills and standards of behaviour, becoming a builder is not. 

We require a trickle down of professional-type standards to more ordinary jobs rather than regarding university degrees as the only path to well paid and respected employment.


Too many of the young people who should have been starting their working lives developing ‘intermediate’ and technical skills have been encouraged to take up sometimes low-grade university courses (reinforcing the historic bias against the vocational). The result is a huge hole in the British skill base which has been partly filled by skilled workers from abroad, who appear to have no qualms of getting their hands dirty -  most notably in the construction industry. 

Repairing this is a national priority.

I am not doing that - let 'them' do it.

There is now often a mismatch between the high expectations that many young people acquire before they leave school and the grim reality of the bottom part of the labour market hourglass: about 80 per cent of the new jobs created over the past three years are paying below £8 an hour in the UK. 

This helps to explain both the fact that about 20 per cent of 16 to 24 year olds are unemployed and that about 20 per cent of low skilled jobs are taken by people born outside the country

With the stress in mainstream culture on aspiration and success, the basic jobs that we still desperately need to fill—cleaning, working in supermarkets, caring for the elderly—are seen by too many people as only for ‘failures and foreigners.’

Being special is not the same as being best.

. As Eamonn Callan has writtenBeing special is not the same as being best.


We unashamedly love unremarkable cats and dogs, mediocre books, trivial jobs, ugly houses with unmemorable yards, in addition to our perfectly ordinary friends, kin and lovers… 

The lover may be perfectly aware of the modest value that the beloved has in the larger scheme of things without that thought diminishing love

ergo being special 'I love you and you are the greatest to me'

even though  in the wider world you don't add up to  can of beans.

The problems with meritocracy and social mobility

Postliberalism is ambivalent about the language of meritocracy and social mobility. 

The first, meritocracy, is unassailable in principle but in practice can serve to legitimise big increases in inequality, especially in an era when the affluent and well-educated marry each other. 

The second, social mobility, rarely pauses to consider the feelings of those who do not climb the ladder. 

In a more individualistic and competitive society we are valued by what we have achieved rather than who we are, creating a constant threat of low esteem for the less successful

If you think low self esteem does not matter think of the keg of powder fizzing away in the Banlieue's of  Paris and other major French cities.

How Liberals undermine human rghts

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the idea of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property.

while



Human rights, as the name suggests, is a transnational ideology that asserts that people have rights as a result of their humanity and not, as is usually the case, as a result of their membership of a national community. 

And as the human rights lobby works to reduce the distinction between national citizens and others, in the case of illegal immigrants for example, it unwittingly undermines the national solidarity on which rights continue to be based.

The emotional fragility of generation PC - we are under trial for voicing what is contrary

·         It has been pointed out by sociologists that students at the elite Universities in the UK and US have been overseen by those who are the most vigilant of speech monitors. This has meant that the student herd at these elite establishments, including have followed all their lives ‘a straight and narrow liberal path’. 

For instance their monitors have not allowed any veering off from the herd, they have never deviated into a passion unrelated to school work, and have not been allowed, therefore, to live what many would consider a normal adolesence teenage years: childhood – to play, to learn by doing, to challenge their teachers, to make mistakes’. 

They have always been on good behaviour; and it would seem they don’t regret it. They are therefore ill-equipped to defend anything (better to keep quiet) the authorities or their activist classmates tell them should count as bad behaviour. 
These young people have grown up, in the years since 2001 when the schools and the popular culture, in America above all, kept up an incessant drone about personal safety, the danger of terrorist attacks, and the opacity of every culture to every other culture. It is a generation in which the word ‘fragile’ might be applied.
·        
·         Few of them have had the experience of being a minority of justified railing against your politically environment. one, or a little more than one.  A new keenness of censorious distrust has come from a built-in suspicion of transgression in public discussion.  Recall the look of horror on the face of your teacher when you ventured once to  be un PC.

The PC generation is also the social media generation; where it has been safe huddle in one' s pod of seclusion but knowing you have an audience of friends or followers, tap away then, knowing you are enscosed in  a self-sufficient collectivity and happy to stay that way – walled-up and wadded-in by chosen and familiar connections.

As Sherry Turkle avers, its is a full-time regime for the the PC generation ‘Most are already sleeping with their phones,’ Turkle says of the children and teenagers she interviewed. ‘So, if they wake up in the middle of the night, they check their messages.’ But these are messages sent and received within the group; outside, all is uncertain, obscure, and apt to bring on sensations of fragility. 

Adversarial stimuli are to be ignored where possible and prohibited where necessary, (University monitors)
·         Within such a group, spontaneous speech – unconditioned by the context of sharing and the previous expectations of the group – seems unnecessay and frankly dangerous. The overhanging damoclean sword makes the pull of affinity and loyalty to PC irrestisible. So don't take the risk of an infraction it could reduce your future (career)  chances. A provocative and half-disagreeable remark amounts to a declaration of the intention to defect. To someone who has grown up in such a setting, the older protections of individual speech are an irrelevance.
·          
·         

Evidence 
·         At Yale University last Halloween, a diversity administrator sent around a notice to students to mind that their costumes didn’t cause offence or encroach on sensibilities of gender, race or culture. The associate master of a residential college responded with an email addressed to the students in her college, saying that Halloween was a time for a lark and everyone should lighten up. Even a decade ago, both the cautionary letter and the reply would have seemed hilarious for their condescension and paternalism. In the present climate, it was the reply that led to an immediate demand by some residents of the college that the associate master be sacked (and with her the master, her husband, who had failed to keep her in line) 

More evidence
·          
·      On the same Halloween of 2015, at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, photos of two female students dressed in sombreros, ponchos and moustaches set off a protest march of thousands, including activists from neighbouring campuses, and the scandal prompted the Dean of the college to resign.
·    If the expectations and exclusions of every milieu  are added up, in the hope that this will lead to a practical grasp of relevant truths about social structure, honest debate in public will become a thing of the past. It requires considerable patience and learning to criticise an unjust social structure.  Read Oscar Wilde on the Critic as Artist, got it , not the artist as artist, but the critic as artist.
·         
So one might argue that to purify ourselves, by renouncing all exposure to dangerous words, is to legislate for the preservation of our innocence, but Milton (the great English poet) doubts that this can be done. 

Trial by what is contrary - oh dear guardians protect us from impurity
The censor holds a very different view from Milton: impurity invades or insinuates from outside, it is a kind of pollution, and the duty of moral guardians (we who know)  is to secure and deliver us. In the PC world we are under the watchful eye and transgress and we face ‘trial for what is contrary’
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Quote such a Mill ism to a roomful of academics, withhold the name of Mill
 and not one in three will credit that any intelligent person could ever think like that
so improbable too, don't you know. Mill also means the affixing of any penalty at all to dissent from what the majority supposes are the components of a better world 
·        

·          
·         Reduced to a practical directive: ‘Indulge in free speech if you must; but please avoid issues that are controversial; and if you do address such issues, don’t sound as if you care about them intensely.’ This is what Mill meant by ‘quiet suppression
·         For the speaker, feelings must be restrained – a neutral style of rational euphemism is recommended. On the other hand, the emotion felt by the listener in response to a speech must be treated as authoritative, unarguable, closed to correction or modification by other witnesses. ‘The group which feels hurt is the ultimate arbiter of whether a hurt has taken place’; so, too, the person who listens and testifies on behalf of his or her group. Reproach from a traumatised listener admits of no answer, only apology, even though apologies are only interesting in proportion as they are spontaneous and warranted. The apology that is demanded and forked out has the moral stature of hush money: it makes a fetish of insincerity. With some help from the jargon of political and religious heresy, one would say these are not so much apologies as formal acts of self-criticism and recantation. Thus far, they have mostly been extorted in communities the size of a guild or a college. At the same time the rigour of exclusion within these mini-communities is itself a cause of the near autistic breakdown of political speech in America.

 A microaggression if the person addressed thinks that it is. This makes for a double bind: a white student passing a black and not looking at him could plausibly be charged with microaggression. Replay the same encounter, but with an unusually long look – say, five or six seconds – and the charge of microaggression is just as plausible. 

Today there is no right to be not offended.’ The truth is that in some areas we are close to excogitating a right not to feel offended. In America, the definitions governing what counts as sexual harassment are wide enough to have let in a troop of other causes. The ban on ‘unwanted approach’ and irritants productive of a ‘hostile work environment’ are easily extended from action to speech: the unwanted approach becomes unwelcome words, the hostile work environment a hostile speech environment. The words ‘right,’ ‘feel’ and ‘offended’ sharp formulation, all are coming to have legal definitions that carry immediate force. 

It is a right because its violation exposes the offender to penalties of fine, imprisonment or mandatory re-education. Feeling counts because feeling in the offended person is a dispositive fact: proof (which needs no further support) that a crime was committed. We are not far in America – is it just America? – from evolving a right to feel good about ourselves. Possibly the best counteraction is to repudiate membership in a species that could want to do this. Misanthropy and the rejection of censorship here join forces unambiguously.
·       
What a distinguished (Mill) and very dead philosopher referred to as the religion of humanity may turn out to be as dangerous as all the other religions


·         Mandy Perryment is currently accepting new clients.

If you feel hurt then you have a right to be offended even if hurt was not intended

If you feel hurt then you have a right to be offended even if hurt was not intended, in our PC climate
·         The group which feels hurt is the ultimate arbiter of whether a hurt has taken place.

Help!

The quite frightening arm of PC in the Universities

At Yale University last Halloween, a diversity administrator sent around a notice to students to mind that their costumes didn’t cause offence or encroach on sensibilities of gender, race or culture. The associate master of a residential college responded with an email addressed to the students in her college, saying that Halloween was a time for a lark and everyone should lighten up. Even a decade ago, both the cautionary letter and the reply would have seemed hilarious for their condescension and paternalism. In the present climate, it was the reply that led to an immediate demand by some residents of the college that the associate master be sacked (and with her the master, her husband, who had failed to keep her in line)
Who would want to smash a formed consensus for inoffensive costumes? On the same Halloween of 2015, at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, photos of two female students dressed in sombreros, ponchos and moustaches set off a protest march of thousands, including activists from neighbouring campuses, and the scandal prompted the dean of the college to resign.

‘the public issues of social structure’ that seems pertinent here. If the expectations and exclusions of every milieu are added up, in the hope that this will lead to a practical grasp of relevant truths about social structure, honest debate in public will become a thing of the past. It requires considerable patience and learning to criticise an unjust social structure.

The Internet and the terror of being 'unfriended'

To be ‘friended’ in the Facebook world is to be safe – walled-up and wadded-in by chosen and familiar connections. An unsafe space is a space where, if they knew you were there, they might unfriend you.

The internet isolates users in sectarian hives that become repositories of half-truth and propaganda: a home away from home for questionable opinions that never get debated, including posts on this blog.

Also what is deeply suspicious is the infantile wording of  the Internet
Twitter etc...

Also the suspicious wording of 'followers' 'I have hundreds of followers'
I mean one is not Jesus, or the leader with followers of some sect.

It is impossible to overrate the part played by the soft despotism of social media. Our verbal surroundings online are created by affinity; and each day a hundred small choices close the circle more tightly - let's call this soft despotism.


In these internet pods argument is isolated users in sectarian hives that become repositories of half-truth and propaganda: a home away from home for questionable opinions that never get debated.

Is your identity strong enough to withstand insult.


·        In general people have a cultural indentity that is strong.
 So given the the investment each person must have in a cultural identity, how can disapproval ever be enough to meet the offence of seeing one’s identity harmed by insult?

We must spread freedom of speech and in order to do that we must watch what we say


·         What are the implications for free speech? 'Doublethink',  Orwell wrote apropos of life in Oceania, which could be applied to modern day Western thinking

So what is 'doublethink'? It is the mental technique that allows one to ‘hold simultaneously two opinions knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them’. 

One sees this in religion in the form of cognitive dissonance, you know you have factually not seen God but you still hold a belief of his existence

Even to understand the word “doublethink” involves the use of doublethink.’ It is like that with freedom of speech and self-censorship in the West. 

We must spread freedom of speech in order to make the world free. And to do the job well, we must watch what we say.

Freedom of speech is as natural as breathing but hey,
watch what you say.  Because PC big brother is sure to be listening.


·         The difficulties of legislation on speech have grown more complex with the elaboration of other rights,  The freedom to speak one’s mind is a physical necessity, not a political and intellectual piece of good luck; to a thinking person, the need seems to be almost as natural as breathing. 

‘How do I know what I think till I see what I say?’ The question applies not just to writing but to friendly or unfriendly conversation, or a muttered soliloquy. 

Free speech has caused major changes in our political landscape, think of 
. the dissident minorities who took the clearest advantage of this liberty in the high age of Protestant dissent, think Luther pinning his free speech by way of pamphlet nailed to a tree.


Free speech in our time has taken a very different turn. People know that their words are monitored, beyond their power to calibrate, and the respectable are more cautious than ever before. They take great care not to speak bluntly, not to speak freely.