Do you Neo-Cons believe in a common humanity?

[SobaViolence]

i'm just curious to see if it's just me, but i must ask:

do conservative/neo-conservative/republican americans believe that we are all human or that there is a heirarchy and that anglo-saxon, white americans are at the top of the homosapien food chain.

my belief is, as my father(a wise man) said, "There are 6 billion gods, but there is only One Human Being."

respond rightists.

[infidel]

You're using too many big words, especially for the rightists who post here

[Army-P8ntballer]

i'm just curious to see if it's just me, but i must ask:

do conservative/neo-conservative/republican americans believe that we are all human or that there is a heirarchy and that anglo-saxon, white americans are at the top of the homosapien food chain.

my belief is, as my father(a wise man) said, "There are 6 billion gods, but there is only One Human Being."

respond rightists.

LoL, same liberal rhetoric i hear evryday, especialy through the media. Do you believe (Im asking you as a conservative ,19yr old,just inlisted to serve his country, registered republican) that liberals are not over the top, extremist who all they want to do is "help everyone"? well it's a nice thought to be able to help out everyone but we are not Gods. U also need to remember the terrorist attacked us and the men and women who are overseas trying to protec those who are back home from ppl who only seem to get their political views accross with violence and "ji-had" (holy war my ass) so why not asked them that? Because Kerry (a liberal/democrat) is a man who voted against or not voted at all on military spending, like better armor, for our troops. So i have a question for liberals? DO YOU GUYS F*CKING CARE ABOUT THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE GIVING UP THEIR TIME, AND FOR SOME THEIR LIVES, TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY AND PROTECT IT FROM HIT AND RUN TERRORIST WHO HIDE WITH IN THE CIVILIAN POPULATION? our military is a strictly volunteer force, and you guys feel like is okay to talk trash about the polotical views, in which the majority of those serving, support? learn to grow up guys, as a child everyone wanted to help everyone else, the innocent of a child is special and i truly belive that if we all had the innocens as adults this would be a much better world, but it's not, learn this quick, through history ppl often target others simply because they are jelous of their power...and right now we are target #1, so dont think thse ppl are innocent, i wouldnt even call them human, they are all potential hitlers who would kill you and everyone u love w/ out question.

[Johanna]

You're using too many big words, especially for the rightists who post here
word

[Ace42]

LoL, same liberal rhetoric i hear evryday

You listen, but you do not hear.

especialy through the media.

Watch Fox then.

Do you believe (Im asking you as a conservative ,19yr old,just inlisted to serve his country, registered republican) that liberals are not over the top, extremist who all they want to do is "help everyone"?

You have to be a pretty sick individual to think that invading another country is *less* "over the top" than 'wanting to help everyone.'

well it's a nice thought to be able to help out everyone but we are not Gods.

Speak for yourself. "It would be nice to circumnavigate the globe, BUT WE ARE NOT GODS." "It would be nice to send man to the moon, BUT WE ARE NOT GODS." "It would be nice to travel if flying machines faster than the speed of sound, BUT WE ARE NOT GODS."

Mankind achieves through striving for the unreachable, and thus we make dreams a reality. You might want to give up on humanity, and live in a stagnant world where you live at the peak of a pampered level of an unfair hierachy, but you can't expect the people your privildge is bourne by to.


U also need to remember the terrorist attacked us

The US waged war in the Gulf against Iraq before September the 11th. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civillians were killed. Then one HUNDREDTH of that number get killed by a couple of terrorists that may not be related to Al Qaeda, and CERTAINLY aren't related to Iraq, and you try to use that as a justification? Bullshit. The IRA have been bombing the UK for decades, and we have achieved (relative) peace through negotiation and compromise, not through blowing the fuck out of innocent men women and children, and then brutally torturing random civillians in the prisons we are in charge of. You need to remember that the US started all of this by backing Israeli imperialism, by attacking countries in violation of international law, by arming revolutionaries, etc, etc.

and the men and women who are overseas trying to protec those who are back home from ppl who only seem to get their political views accross with violence and "ji-had" (holy war my ass) so why not asked them that?

Were they overseas protecting people back home when they waged war in Iraq the first time around? No. That is bullshit, and you should no better. The fact that this most recent set of war-mongering just happens to have, for the first time in US imperialist history, followed an act of aggression does not in any way shape or form make up for the acts perpetrated by the US beforehand.

DO YOU GUYS F*CKING CARE ABOUT THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE GIVING UP THEIR TIME, AND FOR SOME THEIR LIVES, TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY AND PROTECT IT FROM HIT AND RUN TERRORIST WHO HIDE WITH IN THE CIVILIAN POPULATION?

These are exactly the same people that tortured innocent civilians in Abu Ghraib, who shot innocent refugees on the highway of death shouting "Say Hello to Allah for me!" down their Apache intercoms, etc, etc. Voting for military spending, whether intentional or not, is giving money to people who commit war-crimes. The weapons that shoot 4 year old Iraqi girls, bomb Red Cross field hospitals, 3rd party news reporters, ALLIED FUCKING SOLDIERS, etc, etc are paid for by that. So yeah, I care about the soldiers as much as I care about the unarmoured, unarmed, and non-aggressive civillians the soldiers brutally murder. And guess what, the former get NO money from US tax payers to kill innocent people. However, TERRORISTS do get money from US taxpayers, due to Halliburton subsiduries trading with rogue states such as Iran, etc. So yeah, vote for Bush, whose VP is trading with the enemy. Nothing new for the Bush family.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

learn to grow up guys, as a child everyone wanted to help everyone else, the innocent of a child is special and i truly belive that if we all had the innocens as adults this would be a much better world, but it's not, learn this quick

So you work against an ideal that you profess to believe in? That is hypocritical. The reason it is "the innocence of a child" is because feeble minded fools like yourself get indoctrinated by the system, and lose simple, inheranty common sense. People aren't born evil, people like you tell them to become so. You telling people to disregard their "childlike innocence" is the same as a terrorist telling his followers to stop believing the mighty US might see sense and act in a humane way to the rest of the world, and to start arming themselves and fighting oppression.

through history ppl often target others simply because they are jelous of their power...and right now we are target #1, so dont think thse ppl are innocent, i wouldnt even call them human, they are all potential hitlers who would kill you and everyone u love w/ out question.

Jealous of their power? That's as much crap as Bush saying "They are jealous of our freedom and our light" - absolute total bollocks. They target your nation because you killed their wives, children, parents, family, friends, neighbours in unprovoked attacks. By providing Israel with helicopter gunships which are used to massacre civillians, etc, etc.

They are all human, and more so than you, as they KNEW the people who died in attacks on their country by your government. You probably didn't know a single person who died in Sept 11th, and yet you feel these people deserved to die less than hundreds of thousands of civillians in Iraq.

Double standards, and hypocrisy, your daily dose of Republican self-promotion.

Do some research, learn some facts, try putting yourself in other people's shoes. Then use this knowledge to talk to other people not online, as you do not appear to have anything worth saying here.

[Marlene]

good to see you back, SobaViolence

[Army-P8ntballer]

Funny....they say the same about Americans because of stupid fucks like you.






I know it's been asked a thousand times....but why can't the Bushbots spell? Every post by a stinking pro-Bush idiot is filled with errors.

Oh wow, u have the balls to say that over a forum but i bet u wouldnt say it to the soldiers who are fighting over there. And by the way if you dont like the foreign policies, our constitution has in place, how about u pack up and leave and go live to Iraq? Oh, excuse me for having a life and do not wish to spend more than 2 minutes typing up a response. I know your type, liberal prick who thinks we are the bad guys. Well fuck You ass, all democrats wanna do is raise taxes to spend on social programs that we have no fucking money for. And if u say it's because we are spending it on the military, well then you are really stupid because 1. WE ARE AT WAR, 2. THE MILITARY SPENDING ISN'T AS SEVERE AS IN PREVIOUS WARS. So feel happy that you cant back anything u say w/ any facts other than "America is a facist empire" because if it was your ass wouldnt been shot and killed or gang bang by a bunch of guys in some ghetto in LA. SO FUCK YOU PUNK ASS!

[Army-P8ntballer]

You have to be a pretty sick individual to think that invading another country is *less* "over the top" than 'wanting to help everyone.'

invading iraq was going to happen sooner or later, think about it, a country with any dictator eventually falls apart, and so u know ass, the kids over there are actually happy to see american soldiers. The only ones causing truoble are the ones whos minds have been warped by other extremist.


Speak for yourself. "It would be nice to circumnavigate the globe, BUT WE ARE NOT GODS." "It would be nice to send man to the moon, BUT WE ARE NOT GODS." "It would be nice to travel if flying machines faster than the speed of sound, BUT WE ARE NOT GODS."

Mankind achieves through striving for the unreachable, and thus we make dreams a reality. You might want to give up on humanity, and live in a stagnant world where you live at the peak of a pampered level of an unfair hierachy, but you can't expect the people your privildge is bourne by to.

hey dumbass, I have grown up in the worst part of South Central LA dont tell me that i wish to live as an elitest. Any decent ppl who have experienced real hardships only want to survive, people who live here, including those who have it worst in 3rd world countries, want people like sadam removed from all corners of the world.

The US waged war in the Gulf against Iraq before September the 11th. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civillians were killed. Then one HUNDREDTH of that number get killed by a couple of terrorists that may not be related to Al Qaeda, and CERTAINLY aren't related to Iraq, and you try to use that as a justification? Bullshit. The IRA have been bombing the UK for decades, and we have achieved (relative) peace through negotiation and compromise, not through blowing the fuck out of innocent men women and children, and then brutally torturing random civillians in the prisons we are in charge of. You need to remember that the US started all of this by backing Israeli imperialism, by attacking countries in violation of international law, by arming revolutionaries, etc, etc.



Were they overseas protecting people back home when they waged war in Iraq the first time around? No. That is bullshit, and you should no better. The fact that this most recent set of war-mongering just happens to have, for the first time in US imperialist history, followed an act of aggression does not in any way shape or form make up for the acts perpetrated by the US beforehand.

We backed Israeli imperialism? hey dumb ass open ur history book, israel won their independence on their own, using inferior equipment than their agressors. So dont even try to bring that shit up, and excuse us for aiding a country who is sorrounded by hostiles. Would you like to live there? Name one war where innocent ppl havent died! shit innocent ppl die everyday, it happens and the only way to try to stop it is not by giving in to any of their demands, last I heard, IRA stop bombming you because of anti-terrorist special forces known as the SS, dont think u guys didnt kill any of the Irish to achieve peace, look at an Irish history book and see how they portray you guys. by the way youguys where also aided by US volunteers...dick.


B]These are exactly the same people[/B]that tortured innocent civilians in Abu Ghraib, who shot innocent refugees on the highway of death shouting "Say Hello to Allah for me!" down their Apache intercoms, etc, etc. Voting for military spending, whether intentional or not, is giving money to people who commit war-crimes. The weapons that shoot 4 year old Iraqi girls, bomb Red Cross field hospitals, 3rd party news reporters, ALLIED FUCKING SOLDIERS, etc, etc are paid for by that. So yeah, I care about the soldiers as much as I care about the unarmoured, unarmed, and non-aggressive civillians the soldiers brutally murder. And guess what, the former get NO money from US tax payers to kill innocent people. However, TERRORISTS do get money from US taxpayers, due to Halliburton subsiduries trading with rogue states such as Iran, etc. So yeah, vote for Bush, whose VP is trading with the enemy. Nothing new for the Bush family.[

Ur bitch ass has the balls to say that US troops are the same as those fucks! Fuck you dick, what we did to them is nothing compare to what they to us, our POWs are treated much better than regular prisoners in the US. SO if u feel the US govt. is an imperialistic nation, why not give just reason as to why. We give more international aid to any other country in the world, do u prefer we only worry about ourselves and take all of our money from the world bank? and let every other countries economy fall apart? and dont think it wont because the US market has buying power not other nation has ever had.


So you work against an ideal that you profess to believe in? That is hypocritical. The reason it is "the innocence of a child" is because feeble minded fools like yourself get indoctrinated by the system, and lose simple, inheranty common sense. People aren't born evil, people like you tell them to become so. You telling people to disregard their "childlike innocence" is the same as a terrorist telling his followers to stop believing the mighty US might see sense and act in a humane way to the rest of the world, and to start arming themselves and fighting oppression.

hey dick, growing up i was told by asshole gang bangers (that would turn ur bitch ass inside out) to be just like them, but i chose not to, and got my ass kicked for it, i grew defending those who needed help like the people who needed help in Iraq. The US military is a strictly volunteer force and most of them inlist to help others.


Jealous of their power? That's as much crap as Bush saying "They are jealous of our freedom and our light" - absolute total bollocks. They target your nation because you killed their wives, children, parents, family, friends, neighbours in unprovoked attacks. By providing Israel with helicopter gunships which are used to massacre civillians, etc, etc.

They are all human, and more so than you, as they KNEW the people who died in attacks on their country by your government. You probably didn't know a single person who died in Sept 11th, and yet you feel these people deserved to die less than hundreds of thousands of civillians in Iraq.
Double standards, and hypocrisy, your daily dose of Republican self-promotion.

You make alot of asumptions about things you have no clue about. I know over 10 ppl who died in 9/11 and I never once used their deaths as a justification to got to war with Iraq, I felt it was important to go to war to iraq because 1. the iraqi ppl need help 2. Sadam needs to be charged with war crimes. And dont criticise my govt. your govt. was one of the largest and most agressive empires, ever, most recently india, remember what you guys did to Ghandi? u fucking dick, u have no righ to talk shit. and republicans are not about self promotion, most military personnel are republicans, and do u think they joined the military for their personal promotion? no...dipshit

Do some research, learn some facts, try putting yourself in other people's shoes. Then use this knowledge to talk to other people not online, as you do not appear to have anything worth saying here.[/QUOTE]

this is a public forum, anyone can stae what they wish, and ur telling me to check my facts? check yours, if i had it my way, i would take every person that thinks like you, and put u in the shoes of those who are suffering around the world. u pampered bitch, u wouldnt survive a week.

[Blighty]

By assholes you mean Bush and Cheney, right?

[Ace42]

Hey I have a question for you? do u have several trillion dollars to cover the US debts?

Love of money is the... Something something.

also in the 1st gulf war we went into Iraq because Kuwait is part of the United Nations, so as a leader in the united nations we are to get involved

Now I know what you would like to have been the case, however, how it actually went was something like this:

One might contrive a tortured legal argument to support U.S./UK claims, though no one really tried. Step one would be that Iraq has violated UN Resolution 687 of 3 April 1991, which declares a cease-fire "upon official notification by Iraq" that it accepts the provisions that are spelled out (destruction of weapons, inspection, etc.). This is probably the longest and most detailed Security Council on record, but it mentions no enforcement mechanism. Step two of the argument, then, would be that Iraq’s non-compliance "reinvokes" Resolution 678 (29 Nov. 1990). That Resolution authorizes member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660" (2 August 1990), which calls on Iraq to withdraw at once from Kuwait and for Iraq and Kuwait "to begin immediately intensive negotations for the resolution of their differences," recommending the framework of the Arab League. Resolution 678 also invokes "all subsequent relevant resolutions" (listing them: 662, 664); these are "relevant" in that they refer to the occupation of Kuwait and Iraqi actions relating to it. Reinvoking 678 thus leaves matters as they were: with no authorization to use force to implement the later Resolution 687, which brings up completely different issues, authorizing nothing beyond sanctions.

There is no need to debate the matter. The U.S. and UK could readily have settled all doubts by calling on the Security Council to authorize their "threat and use of force," as required by the Charter. Britain did take some steps in that direction, but abandoned them when it became obvious, at once, that the Security Council would not go along. But these considerations have little relevance in a world dominated by rogue states that reject the rule of law.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html

The US are not "leaders" of the UN, foolio, and have betrayed its principals and broken its rules on so many occasions as to be a joke. Read my signature - when you lie here, you disrespect other, serious, posters.

When I told you to do some research, I wasn't jsut trying to sound cool. Really, go read some things, learn facts. Then you might not have a worthless opinion based on lies and fiction.


And by the way would you rather have us to isolate our selves from other countries like we did in ww1 and ww2.

Hmmm, let me think... The US isolate themselves, and stop murdering other people in their own country. Or, they have free reign to invade people in direct violation of their own and international law. Hmmm... I'll go for the former, please.


Remember what happend then?

The bit where the rest of the world got on with it, and the US sat around making a mint out of human suffering until the Japanese attacked, and then Germany declared war on the US? I think I have a better idea "what happened then" than you do, so please, keep going. Here is some more rope, here is a tall tree, proceed.


If we isolate ourselves now and take all of our money ou of the world bank, then yes we could provide better social programs for ourselves, but at the cost of everyone else economy breaking down.

Then the US would have to repay the loans that the Swiss have been floating the country with since the great depression, for starters. Then of course, they'd have to pay through the nose for oil, rather than stealing it from conquered victims. I guess maybe the chinese would have to get paid a proper wage for manufacturing junk too.

But hey who cares right? Then you could say all that bs u just stated. Why not reflect and learn of events we have been through in the past. In the past the world powers always have been at war with each other, if we dont keep these modern day assholes in check, who will?

Learn from the past? You don't even know what actually happened. What do you expect to learn from the lies and errors you stated above, apart from how to seem like an arrogant ignorant bore?

Your facts are flawed, your logic weak, your understanding unschooled. Thus, we can see, your conclusions are worthless.

[Army-P8ntballer]

I can't understand half of what you are trying to say. Can you speak English motherfucker? You live here don't you? I can't even waste my time with another Bushie who is borderline retarded.

Hopefully you'll get shipped off to Iraq soon to get a dose of reality. Please go "defend" my ass in Iraq.

Bitch im going to Iraq because i feel it is important to help others. Srry im not a selfish prick like. Grow some fucking balls first b4 u talk any shit, because if u wouldnt do half the shit the soldiers in iraq are doing, and if u think im such a fuck tart, how about learning some facts of what's really going on in the war in iraq. Dont talk like ur fucking hard either because i bet in real life u dont have the balls to talk like that to anyone, but u know that, dont u, little pussy. By the way i dont even like bush, but he's definetely the lesser of 2 evils between him and kerry.

[Ace42]

Bitch im going to Iraq because i feel it is important to help others. Srry im not a selfish prick like. Grow some fucking balls first b4 u talk any shit, because if u wouldnt do half the shit the soldiers in iraq are doing, and if u think im such a fuck tart, how about learning some facts of what's really going on in the war in iraq. Dont talk like ur fucking hard either because i bet in real life u dont have the balls to talk like that to anyone, but u know that, dont u, little pussy.

"Duh, I'm a redneck, and I am going to help people. What shall I pack... Food, medical supplies, blankets, toys for the kids... Oh yes, and an M16!"

And using the "you were probably bullied in real life" argument is pretty much capitulation by default. If you can't construct a proper argument, then don't think you have a right to go around making assumptions about others. In the words of Gervais "Assume makes an ass out of U and Me"

[infidel]

Look at whose talking shit.
Give it up it's very obvious you aren't old enough to join the miltary. You're what us vets call a Rambo wantabe.

[Jasonik]

Fine question. Though I wouldn't say I'm either a neocon or a rightist, I'll answer it the way it has been answered for 228 years. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It's self-evident really.

[Ace42]

Fine question. Though I wouldn't say I'm either a neocon or a rightist, I'll answer it the way it has been answered for 228 years. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It's self-evident really.

So self-evident that from 1776 (228 years ago) until 1863 (141 years ago) for 87 years, slavery was not only legal, but also government endorsed.

[Jasonik]

So self-evident that from 1776 (228 years ago) until 1863 (141 years ago) for 87 years, slavery was not only legal, but also government endorsed.
I think you see what I'm saying, but you don't get it. There are two subtly different meanings for the word: axiom. The more widely accepted definition is 'an unprovable truth', the second is 'a rhetorical postulate used in reasoning.'

Have you ever heard the term 'the American Experiment?'

[Alli]

I like how everyone thinks the US is so great and they are attacking us out of jealousy.

I remember reading a nice article about a reporter is afghanistan who's laptop was destroyed. After Kabul was contained he went to go buy a computer. Came upon 2 Al-Qaida computers. Before they were taken away from him by US intelligence he had copied the harddrives. There are many e-mails on them to and from top Al-Qaida members.

You know the US is only a target because of our involvement with Isreal. Not because we are so great. For them it's a war with the Arabs and the Jews. I will get the link from my boyfriend later to post up. But it's all really an interesting read.

[Jasonik]

^
How topical :rolleyes:

[Ace42]

I think you see what I'm saying, but you don't get it. There are two subtly different meanings for the word: axiom. The more widely accepted definition is 'an unprovable truth', the second is 'a rhetorical postulate used in reasoning.'

Have you ever heard the term 'the American Experiment?'

self-evident

adj : evident without proof or argument; "an axiomatic truth"; "we hold these truths to be self-evident"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=self-evident

My point is merely that while the US has a historically evident habit of saying the right things, it also has a historical habit of doing exactly the opposite.

IE - "We think it is self-evident that all men are created equal and have the right to liberty, but it is easier and more practical for us to enslave a race of people, so we will do the opposite"

I'd say this is as bold-faced as hypocrisy can get.

[ASsman]

Why for ignorance? It is not always ones fault....

[SobaViolence]

good to see you back, SobaViolence

thanks :)

i'm glad i could inspire a quasi-debate...

[DroppinScience]

Ace42,

Sadly when those words were written ("all men are created equal"), they didn't see the blacks as human, but property you could buy.

I see this the same way as Ancient Greek democracy. They touted direct democracy, however women and slaves were not allowed to vote. Just the men.

On paper they both sounded great and the idea was superb. However they didn't practice it to the full extent that they should have.

That, my friend, is what progress is for.

[Ace42]

Sadly when those words were written ("all men are created equal"), they didn't see the blacks as human, but property you could buy.


I understand this, however do you honestly think that not regarding blacks as human was "an honest mistake" or "wishful thinking" ?

By every traditional definition from the middleages onward, black people are regarded as men. Even during the renaissance, Moors (although often reviled and the victims of stereotyping and prejudice) where regarded as "men of painted skin" - for everyone to suddenly do a U-turn (and remember, various churches regarded men as being above animals because of their ability to talk, which black people can do, etc) strikes me as being unnacceptable.

I'd say the fact that for eight decades or so people chose to use an intentionally and consciously selective definition of "man" is hypocritical. It is what Orwell would call "double-speak."

[Jasonik]

I'd say this is as bold-faced as hypocrisy can get.
Do you know what the 'Liars Paradox' is, or the story 'The Emperors New Clothes?' How about 'the American Dream?'


BTW, Orwell never used the term doublespeak. (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Doublespeak) I think it's what is now referred to as cognitive dissonance (http://www.propaganda101.com/SocialPsychology/cognitiv.htm). He did use the term doublethink.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. -- George Orwell, 1984

[Ace42]

Do you know what the 'Liars Paradox' is, or the story 'The Emperors New Clothes?' How about 'the American Dream?'

Indeed, but I fail how to see saying "The next thing I say will be a lie: I am lying" is related to saying "All men are created equal" and then enslaving a race. Nor do I see what it has to do with the Emperor's clothes, which merely illustrates that people are often sheep and condition themselves to believe something is untrue. I can see you might be meaning that the Americans saying that blacks are not people is as stupid as the people saying how nice the emperor's new invisible clothes are, but that is not really a useful or meaningful comparison.


BTW, Orwell never used the term doublespeak. (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Doublespeak) I think it's what is now referred to as cognitive dissonance (http://www.propaganda101.com/SocialPsychology/cognitiv.htm). He did use the term doublethink.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. -- George Orwell, 1984

I think that makes my point rather well, and pedanticism aside (for, you are quite correct) I think it would be self-evident (pardon the pun) that I meant "Newspeak" which in 1984 is merely a tool for furthering doublethink. Furthermore, I might be mistaken (I would have to check the dates) but I thought that double-think was born out of a reference to cognitive dissonance.

But you get a star (merited using the Kearns star based-system <tm>) for the effort.

[Jasonik]

But you get a star (merited using the Kearns star based-system <tm>) for the effort.
*Grand Kai laughs*
There are no foolish elder warriors.