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.
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?
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!
"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.
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.