Duckspeak, 2004.

In Orwell's 2004, one of the ruling party's end goals is to reduce the language of the proles to the very minumum needed to carry out party business - "Duckspeak", a circumscribed gibberish sufficient to carry out instructions and parrot simple dogma.

Orwell understood the importance of seizing and holding control of the language.

So does the left today. They started big; the word "Liberal" got hijacked; it no longer means "supporting democracy" - it stands for big government, endless entitlement, institutionalizaton of special interests...

Now, they're trying to change the word "Conservative.

Which in a way is good news; they've realized that their word has no traction, so they want to steal our word.

It's manifested in big ways - Kerry's absurd run to the right on defense, 20 years too late - and small.

No, infinitesimal.

James Lileks writes

What you don’t know when you’re 22 could fill a book. If you write that book when you’re 44, you haven’t learned a thing.

Longtime Northern Alliance comic relief Mark Gisleson, in a semantic travesty, holds up the first part of the bargain. Gisleson, a writer of unknown pedigree but obviously just out of college, is on the initial curve of the Lileks BellCurve, as we see in an oddly-constructed piece from his oddly-constructed little blog, in which he tries to rhetorically piddle on Reagan's grave (hint: Your equipment won't get the goods to the ground in that situation) while still trying to re-define "conservative" to his own uses.

Where to start?:

It took a lot of lies to get us to where we are today, but the biggest liar of them all just died. Don't ask me to mourn Reagan, he did enough damage to our country without lionizing him in memorium [sic]. Name anything you like after this fraud, but don't go whining about graffitti when I spray paint a choice obscenity or two over your newly named bridge or airport terminal.

Ah. An advanced intellect. Hey, I got a little rash when I was a 25 year old punk, too. And I didn't expect anyone to whine about my antics - although I would have expected the offended to have jammed a spraycan up my ass for doing something that puerile...

No matter; the good stuff awaits:

There's nothing wrong with being conservative, but what's that got to do with Reagan, Bush, or Bush? How many nations invaded? How many Americans lost to terrorism? How much debt? How many jobs lost?

Gisleson's questions are cliches, and so are the answers: no nations wrongly; debt was justifiable under the circumstances; Terrorism isn't a Rpeobjbldkslzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh, sorry. I nodded off. Onward:

In my old age I have become a conservative. I believe in balanced budgets and eliminating trade deficits.

But conservatives don't believe in "balancing budgets" by increasing taxes to cover increased spending on bigger government. That's the type of "conservatism" known as "The Great Society" or "The Minnesota DFL". Call it anything - just not conservative!

I believe in conserving natural resources, and not fouling the planet with our waste and effluvia.

As do I, as luck'd have it.

And if you believe, as the evidence bids you to, that the government is a lousy steward of our planet, then you might be able to back up your claim to conservatism!

Military action should only be taken when we are threatened, or if we are part of a coalition engaged in international police work to prevent genocide or other crimes more horrible than war.

Mark.

Mark, bubbie...

I'm sure that in the special little logically-detached world of the recent college grad, September 11 was not a "threat". Apparently in that world, we should ignore attacks on our people until those Rwandan and Kosovar things - y'know, the ones those "coalitions" have been performing such capable "international police work" on - have been solved.

But under what definition is that "conservative?"

Ideas and intellectual content yearn to breathe free, and the rights of corporations must never exceed those of the individual.

And they don't.

I believe that no one should be wealthy if anyone is hungry, and that the elimination of poverty is the greatest challenge we face.

But if you're conservative, you know that generalized wealth is the only way to combat poverty.

Wealth in the presence of hunger is simply an extension of feudalism. A billionaire is no different than a King or Queen, and should be anathema to any lover of democracy. This is not socialist cant, and not an objection to wealth. Obscene wealth, however, is a goal only for the societally deranged and morally corrupt.

So let's get this straight; John Ashcroft is a rat bastard for trying to define obscenity in arts, but Mark Gisleson, recent college grad, shall define obscenity in commerce?

An employer who pays wages that do not cover the cost of living for his employees and their families is nothing more than a thief who enslaves others for his profit...

All of these are conservative values.

Right. You're one of those Welfare State Conservatives - better known as Massachusetts Democrats.

Look, Mark. You're a young guy. Why don't you try to make your own movement viable, instead of trying to swipe the furniture from mine?

UPDATE: Uh oh. I noticed this on a second reading: "At the ripe old age of 51...".

I'm sorry - writing style and hyperinflamed emotion aside, Mark Gisleson does not appear to be a recent college graduate.

My bad.

Posted by Mitch at June 7, 2004 04:05 AM