On Orwell and Oligarchical Commies

The Essay, Politics and The English Language is here
 
The essay is profound and chastises ignorance and laziness in the use of The English language.

On the topic of Meaningless Words Orwell writes:
 
“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.” ~George Orwell
 
    And one could add most all isms to Orwell’s list here.
    In Orwell’s timeless novel, 1984, he coins the term oligarchical collectivism. The novel allegorically exposes communist totalitarianism of the time specifically and metaphorically any steep pyramidal system that might be. Oligarchical Collectivism is clear and fresh presentation of the formation of constricting institutions. The steeper the oligarchical slant, the more repressed are the people. The more repressed a people might be the more repressive they might act. We can see this unfolding before our eyes with Russia today. Where there is little free speech there is little free thought. Where there is little free thought there is increased likelihood that oligarchical collectivism will hammer you down, or use you as a hammer.

    One of the most barbarous forms of communication I have noticed is the dilution of meaning certainly but also the complication of meaning as well. In other words when a person is attacking another person it does not matter what ism the attack is promoting or this ism’s relation to other isms. The ism does not matter and is usually a contrived shield anyway. What one does matters, not the claimed ism. One does not need to know the entire history of the ism in question to hold steadfast principles especially when the act is over aggression, murder, repression and theft – as in Ukraine perpetuated by Russia.    
 
“As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.” ~George Orwell
 
    What happened to The USA of principles? Now we are awash with people who have adopted sloganized opinions which read like recordings of decades old tripes and quips. The right and the left in The USA both represent hollow hyperbole lacking principles or understanding to stand on. Both sides are hyped up on stale preponderances to the point that speaking in the present about present reality, say of overt Russian invasion of Ukraine devolves into a discussion of The War of 1812, The French Revolution, and The Queen of England.
 
The whole foundational theory of Communism is that the inevitable revolution under Capitalism is bound to occur and this is when the Commies can eliminate the opposition. And since it never happened the devoted, wealthy inheritors of The Commie empire have done all they can to cause the downfall of their neighbors and cause revolution so as to steal, or redistribute wealth formerly invented, created, owned by someone else.

This Beautiful Orwell quote from The Essay could have been written yesterday, by someone who near equated Orwell’s wisdom and power of observation.
 
“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
 
‘While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’

    The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.” ~George Orwell
 
    Certainly, the most barbarous language in the world is made to slight murder and invasion. Certainly, every being on earth and every nation as well all have the right to impose their will in the world, in liberty, and can defend themselves with what world history might say is an inevitable invasion. To excuse murder and theft is the height of barbarous writing and thinking.
 
Orwell’s Six Rules for Writing
“i. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.” ~George Orwell
 
 
I would add two rules to provide insight for critical thinkers and communicators so as to confront the said barbarous language and thinking when needed. These are essentially addendums to Orwell’s sixth rule.
 
vii. Always point out doublethink, hyperbole, and hollow communication.
 
viii. Counter all politics that belittles people and excuses overt individual repression by institutions in any manner perpetuated by any ism.
 
What happened to The USA where liberals and progressives are cheering for Russia as they invade Ukraine and denouncing their self-defense? What happened to The USA in which conservatives call LGBT community members commies and liberals of that community might adopt the title of Commie when zero Commie nations support even an inkling of civil rights? In fact, Commie nations are the most repressive of LGBT community and arguably all minority groups therein. What happened to The USA in which the most progressive people here support the most repressive oligarchical collectivism of the world? It is lazy tape recordings that people call political opinion they have been repeating, without thinking, for decades, even generations.
 
A final tip for thinking critically is the pursuit of impartiality. It is all oligarchical collectivism, one must simply check the slant.
 
“I shall consider human actions and desires in exactly the same manner, as though I were concerned with lines, planes, and solids.” ~Baruch Spinoza