To Kill a Word: Orwellian Linguistics

Suite101.com Inc ^ | September 26, 2000 Timeless FR Post 09-06-01 | Robert Henderson

[vannrox]

I found this a very interesting read.

[gcruse]

                  Oldspeak: "It's too warm in here."
                  Newspeak: "It's too uncold in here."

Well, no.  If you're going to write about Newspeak,
 at least understand how it works.

          It's too warm in here.
          No good.  We are in here.  You don't
          need to tell us where we are.

          It's too warm.
          Better.  But don't say too.  The word is plus.
          Plus is superior because too can't be added
          onto, but plus can be double plus.

          It's plus warm.
          Better.  But to eliminate half the
          dichotomous words, use only
          one and un as necessary.

          It's plus uncold.
          Double plus good.
 

[T'wit]

I too. The intertwined language of socialism, Freudianism, egalitarianism, logical positivism and the rest have invaded the New World for more than a century, pushing aside the words and understandings of the American Revolution. This flood of phony European words and ideas confuses our own thinking. It must be undone, or America the free certainly shall be.

[gcruse]

" They are quite simply the nations who got
here first, before modern Old World peoples arrived. "

Not so simple.  There have been several waves
of people to the New World.  The present
Indians may not be anywhere near First Nations.
How about Relocatees?

[Maelstrom]

Yes...note the liberal tactic of denying truisms on the basis that the source holds other differing opinions from the quoter.

His proclamation that people with "right-wing" views must be confused to quote Orwell's criticisms of totalitarian practices on the basis that he, himself was a Communist is the most generous ad hominem attack I've seen in quite some time.

I say it is a liberal tactic because it is used by liberals generously. American Heroes such as Jefferson, Washington, and President Jefferson Davis are "refuted" when used to support an issue on the basis that they were "rich", or they owned slaves or they had extra-marital affairs and whatnot, an ironically Orwellian practice this author engaged in quite unconsciously.

[SolitaryMan]

Womyn? Because a Woman never has rely on a man. Any others?

[gcruse]

 This flood of phony
European words and ideas
confuses our own thinking

Maybe yours.  I personally
can't think of words to replace
rendezvous, zugzwang, gestalt,
without paragraphs of exposition.
And you do know the derivation
of Capitol, right?

Oh, don't get me started on
laissez-faire, ya'll.

[fod]

doublegood talk, but the contractions must go, perhaps "doublewarm here" would suffice, as well as "doubleuncold here"

[fod]

second thought:

"pluswarm" would be the description in newspeak

[gcruse]

"pluswarm" would be the description in newspeak

I don't know why that would be the case, but
intuitively I agree with you.  Thanks for the editting.  :)

[ctdonath2]

The how-to guide for implementing NewSpeak was added as an appendix to "1984". Go read it now.

[fod]

from ctdonath2's link above:

In addition, any word -- this again applied in principleto every word in the language -- could be negatived by addingthe affix un- or could be strengthened by the affixplus-, or, for still greater emphasis,doubleplus-. Thus, for example, uncold meant'warm', while pluscold and doublepluscold meant,respectively, 'very cold' and 'superlatively cold'.

[SES1066]

... though he actively opposed Communist dictatorship, in no sense was Orwell right wing. It's ironic to see his name invoked in foamy rants against "socialist One World Order." Given that the only global conspiracy left today is multinational corporate capitalism, it's likely that Orwell would be skewering that, were he alive today, rather than fantasy Communists.

I think that part of what can be conceptualized as 'Newspeak' is the idea that there are totalitarian Fascists on the opposite linear end of the spectrum from totalitarian Communists. An idea that I did not originate has the political spectrum in a circle with the totalitarians of all stripes at one end and the various stripes of socialism shading in from the left and various stripes of capitalism shading in from the right. The main problem ends up as to where to put anarchists who probably should be distributed according to their willingness to use force to enforce their beliefs.

In this concept, Mr.Orwell belongs in that honored area of 'Anti-totalitarians' who fight tyranny of all kinds, from slavery to mind-control. His individual beliefs, as I have read them, strike me as being totally acceptable, to me, individually, as he felt that nothing should be imposed on the individual without consent. No matter what, his '1984' and equally powerful 'Animal Farm' are beacons to steer us away from the shoals of tyranny.

As for the author, Mr.Henderson, I could probably have some cordial discussions with him and his view that only multinational corporate capitalism remains as a global conspiracy. His tone strikes me as coming from the academic left which has always been generally anti-capitalistic and anti-business, but that is pure speculation.

I do think that my most vigorous disagreement would be in the useage of language by the left and right political wings. It has always struck me that the right wing uses language to explain and comfort itself. On the other hand, I see the left trying to force its use of language on everyone, almost like a weapon to be used against its perceived enemies. An example is the fact that now that it is no longer PC to have 'Indian' sports names, there are new efforts to surpress the use of animal names because they show aggression. This is a desire to force language useage based on an idea that the name helps form behavior - Newspeak!

[x]

I find it neither interesting nor informative. There's the mandatory slam at Reagan, complete with a non-working link. And the mandatory jab at the US.

"Rightsizing" is a pretty stupid and nasty phrase, but it doesn't seem destined to last. Not even as long as "supersize" or calling a small coffee a "tall."

Surely Canada is no less Orwellian than the US. "First Nations" -- a typically coy PC formulation, which undercuts British and French claims as founding nations. Why not "aborigines" or "original inhabitants"? Why precisely "nations" rather than "peoples" or "Canadians?" As in "first Canadians" the last phrase sent down from on high. "Multiculturalism" -- another Canadian monstrosity of obfuscation.

I would argue that the nameless, faceless bureaucratic domination that is associated with "Orwellianism" has gone at least as far in Canada as it has in the US. Perhaps the striving for a language that is neither English nor French but some mixture of the two has something to do with it.

[gcruse]

So you're saying cold is the operative word, and warm is discarded? That does seem backward. Don't ask me why, tho. Big Brother must know best, I guess. I mean, of course Big Brother knows b......"Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you , and....."

[SES1066]

...or they had extra-marital affairs, ...

Except for current liberal icons like JFK and Wily Jeff Clinton. The fact that NOW and the media had a field day with Packwood and Thomas, yet were so 'soto voce' about Mr.Clinton, is, to me, 'prima facie' evidence of their individual hypocrisy and their true leftist intent.

[PuffDaddyDaschle]

"Maybe someday we can make language a total barrier to communication."

The first order for so doing is to marginalize all who stand opposed to the inevitibilities of progressive democracy. Adherents to the practice of tendering obiesance to abstract metaphysical constructs are the proper target of those among us whose aptitude for the delegitimization of mulish roadblocks provides a unique qualification for the enterprise they are dispensed, namely the deconstruction of all of the narrow-minded fundamentalist notions that prohibit the confiscation of wealth from the capitalistic captains of industry who have plundered the labor of the common people far too long.

[Peter Libra]

I hope I am not presuming too much,in that posters hav'nt read this series by George Orwell. It is titled: "The Collected Essays,Journalism and Letters of George Orwell". Of great insight into Orwell's beliefs, is VolIII "As I Please". Publisher Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd. London W1. (1968). I have read also, "Homage to Catalona". It seems Orwell, detested the Communists on his own side and did not spare any words,he said they betrayed his comrades. His contempt for British Communists who paid lip service to Stalin,early in Britains war effort,was at his most scathing ie: "Once a whore, always a Whore". They finally came round to supporting the war effort, when Russia was attacked. Orwell was distrustful of the doctrinaire socialist of the British Labour Party, he knew that they simply imitated and adopted the class system of the despised "Tories", when THEY got power. Re the post on Canada, this is to some extent, more so of an Orwellian regime than could exist in the USA. As for myself, I know the Achilles heel of the powerful and humourless Marxist Socialist,that has infiltrated governmental power in Canada. It is to make Canadians laugh at them, well, maybe chuckle. Once Canadians see them for what they are, it might be the end of the awesome political correctness there. An impossible task, I fear.

[T'wit]

What is tendentious about "rendezvous" [a borrowing from the fur trade, if I'm not mistaken] or "Capitol" [Latin]? English is full of foreign borrowings. That's no problem. I am objecting to ideological words based on unsound thought -- the lexicon of Marxism, for instance. "Bourgeoisie," "the masses," "proletariat," and many more such terms are groupthink words that do not fit an individualist reality or the philosophy of liberty.

[gcruse]

Well, okay. I didn't know what constituted 'phony' European words. You don't hear bourgeiosie much here (see, I can't even spell it. How dangerous could that be?) :)