Image

Inner Party Newspeak Policy Memo #8734661/R-465T

Raum Emmanual Goldstein
Komrades:

It has come to the attention of the Inner Party Language Specialists that there exists a most troubling trend within the Peoples' Blogs. There have been a number of unsightly superfluous redundancies, which quite frankly are obviously and needlessly repetitive. They have, therefore issued the following memo.

Image
The Agency Kommission to Stamp Out and Eradicate Superfluously Repetitive Redundancies Organisation (aka. AKSOESRRO for short) has determined that using the terms “Teabagger Terrorists” and its favored alternative “Teabagging Terrorists” is repetitive and superfluously redundant.
~
After all, since all teabaggers are indeed terrorists, there is not much reason to add the term terrorists to adjectively modify teabaggers. This is especially true since the White House recently forbade the use of the term “terrorist” to describe the alleged perpetrators persons of interest involved in the man-made disasters which precipitated from AmeriKKKan imperialist incursions abroad. Ergo, the only right-wing teabagger thugs can be deemed terrorists in the progressive sense of the term. That said, the AKSOESRRO realizes that the overly used noun of terrorist has become a bit of a thought-terminating cliché.

Image
As such, AKSOESRRO has finely crafted an improved newspeak term. From here out, apparatchiks are directed to use “Tea-rrorist” or its plural modification, “Tea-rrorists” when referring to Terrorist Teabaggers. Likewise, the Teabagger movement and its activities (be they real or imagined, past, present or future) should also be referred to as “Tea-rrorism.”

It is hoped that the negative connotation of adding the “a” and a hyphen to the word terrorist will sufficiently load the language in much the same way as the melding of Newt Gingrich's surname to a modified version of that Dr. Seuss classic about a festive winter solstice event that should remain unnamed on this website.

Your kind cooperation with this directive is strictly voluntary; however, lack of support may reflect your apparent lack of loyalty and dedication.

Image
Thank you.

User avatar
I already received this memo from Komrade Kerry.

big-brother.jpg

User avatar
Comrade Rahm,

I seem to be somewhat confused by all these terms. Maybe you can clear them up for me, da?

Cindy SHE-hand and Mickey "limousine liberal" Moore have called terrorists "Freedom Fighters". They believe the ends justify the means in cases where these "Freedom Fighters" fight against their infidel oppressors in order to attain a more perfect, mo' betta sharia-compliant oppression.

If what the Tea-orrists are doing is along the same lines, i.e. trying to dismantle an oppressive, burdensome system of insurmountable debt, to replace it with mo' betta oppressive lesser debt and fiscally-compliant budgetary spending within its means—that's equally as oppressive, then why the discrepancy?

Now, if the "Tea-orrists", are to be addressed as such, and if The One declares that the term "terrorist; terrorism, or just plain terror" is off the kitchen table lexicon then how is it we can refer to the Tea Party as "terrorists" instead of "Freedom Fighters"? And how is it that in this context it's OK to use the verboten term (declared by Dear Leader) "terrorism"?

User avatar
It's Pravda! Komrades, let all praise Image tank fromk superior Soviet Union..


Image

User avatar
Commie-rad, Raum.

If Dear Leader's strategy to deal with "freedom fighters" is known as an "Overseas Contingency Operation" then what is the title to deal with the “Tea-rrorists” called?

Raum Emmanual Goldstein
Corporeal Whinny wrote:Comrade Rahm,

I seem to be somewhat confused by all these terms. Maybe you can clear them up for me, da?

Cindy SHE-hand and Mickey "limousine liberal" Moore have called terrorists "Freedom Fighters". They believe the ends justify the means in cases where these "Freedom Fighters" fight against their infidel oppressors in order to attain a more perfect, mo' betta sharia-compliant oppression.

If what the Tea-orrists are doing is along the same lines, i.e. trying to dismantle an oppressive, burdensome system of insurmountable debt, to replace it with mo' betta oppressive lesser debt and fiscally-compliant budgetary spending within its means—that's equally as oppressive, then why the discrepancy?

Now, if the "Tea-orrists", are to be addressed as such, and if The One declares that the term "terrorist; terrorism, or just plain terror" is off the kitchen table lexicon then how is it we can refer to the Tea Party as "terrorists" instead of "Freedom Fighters"? And how is it that in this context it's OK to use the verboten term (declared by Dear Leader) "terrorism"?

You seem to have a grasp of the dilemma the Organisation had with the idea of simply referring to the teabaggers as terrorists -- a perhaps overused term -- especially since one man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fighter" (as you so adroitly pointed out). A "tea-rrorist" is not a "terrorist -- per se -- but a Violent, right-wing, extremist, Re-THUG-li-KKK-an, Teabagging Terrorist.

But you may still find yourself asking the perfectly logical question: "Well, that says maybe....even a Violent, right-wing, extremist, Re-THUG-li-KKK-an, Teabagging Terrorist may still be considered a "freedom fighter" by those sympathetic to the cause of these greedys.

However, anyone of any progressive sophistication -- that is, anyone in their right mind -- would certainly agree that these, money-grubbing, back-woods, redneck, Neanderthal, nut-job, Violent, right-wing, extremist, Re-THUG-li-KKK-an, Teabagging Terrorist (hereafter to be referred to as Tea-rrorists for short) could ever be considered in the same league with those poor, devout, down-trodden victims in third-world countries who have languished under the jackbooted heels of AmeriKKKans long enough to raise up arms to throw off the chains of AmeriKKKan “Liberty.”

Furhermore -- if there ever were to be a handful of meaningless fools who would dare refer to Tea-rrorists as “Freedom Fighters,” one must simply remember the Party Principle that FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. Ergo, these “Freedom Fighters” are really only concerned with balancing the Federal budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly -- those who can least afford to bear their oppressive yoke of Kapitalism.

Remember, too, that these tea-rrorists want us to return to the “founding principles” as ensconced in their beloved Constitution...you know... the document that enshrined the SLAVERY of thousands of African-Americans nad left them in chains!

So, you see that the term “tea-rrorist” helps us to forever broaden the fine line between “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” to a point where no money-grubbing, back-woods, redneck, Neanderthal, nut-job, Violent, right-wing, extremist, Re-THUG-li-KKK-an, Teabagging Terrorist (hereafter to be referred to as Tea-rrorists for short) could EVER seek sanctuary under that less-inflammatory euphemism.

Is this clarification enough for you, Herr Komrade?

Raum Emmanual Goldstein
El Presidente wrote:Commie-rad, Raum.

If Dear Leader's strategy to deal with "freedom fighters" is known as an "Overseas Contingency Operation" then what is the title to deal with the “Tea-rrorists” called?

"Restoring the Rule of Law" comes to mind.

How about "Maintaining Law and Order"

or "Enforcing hate-crimes legislation"

maybe "bringing about bipartisan kompromise"

We have a Kornicopia of select euphemisms to chose from.

How do these work for you?

Raum Emmanual Goldstein
El Presidente wrote:Commie-rad, Raum.

If Dear Leader's strategy to deal with "freedom fighters" is known as an "Overseas Contingency Operation" then what is the title to deal with the “Tea-rrorists” called?

Oh! and then there is my Personal Favourite: "The Final Solution!"

User avatar
Hold on there, comrades,

The term "infidel", is an infidel for or opposed to Fidel Castro? This ambiguity has perplexed
me> Is there an answer? anyone?

Major Mistake can't solve this enigma!

Raum Emmanual Goldstein
General Confusion wrote:Hold on there, comrades,

The term "infidel", is an infidel for or opposed to Fidel Castro? This ambiguity has perplexed
me> Is there an answer? anyone?

Major Mistake can't solve this enigma!

Herr General...

While one can certainly possess a degree empathy for your dilemma -- however difficult it may be to measure -- it is not particularly germane to the present topic, now is it?

If I may suggest you contact Infidel Castrate directly. It appears he may perhaps be the best resource to sort you out.

User avatar
Raum Emmanual Goldstein wrote:You seem to have a grasp of the dilemma the Organisation had with the idea of simply referring to the teabaggers as terrorists -- a perhaps overused term -- especially since one man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fighter" (as you so adroitly pointed out). A "tea-rrorist" is not a "terrorist -- per se -- but a Violent, right-wing, extremist, Re-THUG-li-KKK-an, Teabagging Terrorist.

But you may still find yourself asking the perfectly logical question: "Well, that says maybe....even a Violent, right-wing, extremist, Re-THUG-li-KKK-an, Teabagging Terrorist may still be considered a "freedom fighter" by those sympathetic to the cause of these greedys.

However, anyone of any progressive sophistication -- that is, anyone in their right mind -- would certainly agree that these, money-grubbing, back-woods, redneck, Neanderthal, nut-job, Violent, right-wing, extremist, Re-THUG-li-KKK-an, Teabagging Terrorist (hereafter to be referred to as Tea-rrorists for short) could ever be considered in the same league with those poor, devout, down-trodden victims in third-world countries who have languished under the jackbooted heels of AmeriKKKans long enough to raise up arms to throw off the chains of AmeriKKKan “Liberty.”

Furhermore -- if there ever were to be a handful of meaningless fools who would dare refer to Tea-rrorists as “Freedom Fighters,” one must simply remember the Party Principle that FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. Ergo, these “Freedom Fighters” are really only concerned with balancing the Federal budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly -- those who can least afford to bear their oppressive yoke of Kapitalism.

Remember, too, that these tea-rrorists want us to return to the “founding principles” as ensconced in their beloved Constitution...you know... the document that enshrined the SLAVERY of thousands of African-Americans nad left them in chains!

So, you see that the term “tea-rrorist” helps us to forever broaden the fine line between “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” to a point where no money-grubbing, back-woods, redneck, Neanderthal, nut-job, Violent, right-wing, extremist, Re-THUG-li-KKK-an, Teabagging Terrorist (hereafter to be referred to as Tea-rrorists for short) could EVER seek sanctuary under that less-inflammatory euphemism.

Is this clarification enough for you, Herr Komrade?

That's quite a lucid explanation, dear Comrade.

But the quandary still remains: We know the Freedom Fighter "terrorists"—those darlings of the media, the Dem0crats/communist leftists—are really fighting against oppressive Amerikkkan colonialism, western democracy, Amerikkkan occupation and theft of their "resources", and an unrealistic move out of their 7th Century bliss into the foreign environment of modern times.

They desire to establish their Caliphate in all equalness of mo' betta oppressive Sharia law which will guarantee joy, liberty and freedom from anything Amerikkkan, or related with Western democracy or common sense, or morality, or kindness and compassion, or women's "rights", or...

In the same sense, these Tea-orrists are trying to eject a broken system of economic oppression—a pipe dream of one John Maynard Keynes, strenuously and orgasmically being implemented by one unqualified teleprompter expert—and replacing it with another mo' betta oppressive regime guided by the scribblings on some old parchment paper by a bunch of old white guys (automatic oppressors because they're white) that believe "living the dream" can ONLY be made to happen at the expense of the poor, the elderly; the disabled; and the unedumacated.

It still balances the same. Both the "Freedom Fighters" and the Tea-orrists are religiously motivated.

Both believe in fighting against oppression to enable a mo' betta oppression—equally spread about.

Both use similar tactics to defeat their opponents: The Tea-orrists only use imaginary suicide vests (Joe "nescient" Nocera said so) while the Freedom Fighters are well-advanced using The Children™ to make their explosive statement against oppression.

Both cause great harm, suffering and pain. The Freedom Fighters do so in a physical sort of way with beheadings, stonings and blowing people up. The Tea-orrists do so only by delaying much-anticipated social security checks, and welfare benefits to the truly oppressed and needy.

So you see, dear Comrade Rahm, we come full circle with this dilemma.

I suppose the only way this can be resolved is to understand that the "Freedom Fighters" aren't white racists while the Tea-orrists are. That should settle it.

User avatar
Corporeal Whinny wrote: I suppose the only way this can be resolved is to understand that the "Freedom Fighters" aren't white racists while the Tea-orrists are. That should settle it.
It helps me, when faced with this moral and intellectual dilemma, to remember that - while the Freedom Fighters are filled with the Religion of Peace - the Tea-orrists are filled with HATE and racism.


User avatar
General Confusion wrote:Hold on there, comrades,

The term "infidel", is an infidel for or opposed to Fidel Castro? This ambiguity has perplexed
me> Is there an answer? anyone?

Major Mistake can't solve this enigma!
General (and major), the problem is in the lexicography. "fidel" is the root word for Latin related languages for what in English is called "Faithful". Our shining comrade south of Florida is called Fidel for this reason....his parents knew he'd be a faithful soldier in the war against evil. Sort of like the name, Fido.Likewise, infidel signifies the opposite of faithful, so there is no relation to something opposing Fidel. In this context InFidel would mean UnFidel, which makes no sense.Terrorists plotting against the hero of Habana might instead be referred to as Contrafidels.


 
POST REPLY