Orwellian Destruction of Language: The Tyranny of Fake Pronouns

Truthstream Vids

It seems unbelievable outside of an Orwellian novel about the destruction of language, but it is happening.
Not in a dystopic future world, but now.

The progression of politically-correct has reached the point where some people and some groups are trying to legislate respect and alter the language – introducing a confusing haze of trendy new neologisms that are meant to reflect the new era of fluidity and identity politics.

From “The Principles of Newspeak,” Appendix  to George Orwell’s now non-fiction novel 1984:

NEWSPEAK was the official language of  Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or  English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who  used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or  writing. The leading articles in the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de force  which could only be carried out by a specialist. It was expected that  Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or Standard English, as  we should call it) by about the year 2050. Meanwhile it gained ground  steadily, all Party members tending to use Newspeak words and  grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. The  version in use in 1984, and embodied in the Ninth and Tenth Editions of  the Newspeak Dictionary, was a provisional one, and contained many  superfluous words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed  later. It is with the final, perfected version, as embodied in the  Eleventh Edition of the Dictionary, that we are concerned here.

 The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression  for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc,  but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that  when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a  heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging from the principles of  Ingsoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is  dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact  and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member  could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and  also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was  done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating  undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox  meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To  give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak,  but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from  lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its  old sense of ‘ politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since  political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts,  and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the  suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was  regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with  was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

[…]

The A vocabulary consisted of the words needed for the business of  everyday life—for such things as eating, drinking, working, putting on  one’s clothes, going up and down stairs, riding in vehicles, gardening,  cooking, and the like. It was composed almost entirely of words that we  already possess words like hit, run, dog, tree, sugar, house, field—but  in comparison with the present-day English vocabulary their number was  extremely small, while their meanings were far more rigidly defined. All  ambiguities and shades of meaning had been purged out of them. So far  as it could be achieved, a Newspeak word of this class was simply a  staccato sound expressing one clearly understood concept. It  would have been quite impossible to use the A vocabulary for literary  purposes or for political or philosophical discussion.]

[…]

The B vocabulary consisted of words which had been deliberately  constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not  only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to  impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them. Without a  full understanding of the principles of Ingsoc it was difficult to use  these words correctly.

[….]

As we have already seen in the case of the word free, words which  had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake  of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of  them. Countless other words such as honour, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion  had simply ceased to exist. A few blanket words covered them, and, in  covering them, abolished them. All words grouping themselves round the  concepts of liberty and equality, for instance, were contained in the  single word crimethink, while all words grouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained in the single word oldthink.  Greater precision would have been dangerous. What was required in a  Party member was an outlook similar to that of the ancient Hebrew who  knew, without knowing much else, that all nations other than his own  worshipped ‘false gods’. He did not need to know that these gods were  called Baal, Osiris, Moloch, Ashtaroth, and the like: probably the less  he knew about them the better for his orthodoxy. He knew Jehovah and the  commandments of Jehovah: he knew, therefore, that all gods with other  names or other attributes were false gods. In somewhat the same way, the  party member knew what constituted right conduct, and in exceedingly  vague, generalized terms he knew what kinds of departure from it were  possible.

[…]

 No word in the B vocabulary was ideologically neutral. A great many were euphemisms. Such words, for instance, as joycamp (forced-labour camp) or Minipax  (Ministry of Peace, i.e. Ministry of War) meant almost the exact  opposite of what they appeared to mean. Some words, on the other hand,  displayed a frank and contemptuous understanding of the real nature of  Oceanic society. An example was prolefeed, meaning the rubbishy  entertainment and spurious news which the Party handed out to the  masses. Other words, again, were ambivalent, having the connotation  ‘good’ when applied to the Party and ‘bad’ when applied to its enemies.  But in addition there were great numbers of words which at first sight  appeared to be mere abbreviations and which derived their ideological  colour not from their meaning, but from their structure.

So far as it could be contrived, everything that had or might have  political significance of any kind was fitted into the B vocabulary. The  name of every organization, or body of people, or doctrine, or country,  or institution, or public building, was invariably cut down into the  familiar shape; that is, a single easily pronounced word with the  smallest number of syllables that would preserve the original  derivation. In the Ministry of Truth, for example, the Records  Department, in which Winston Smith worked, was called Recdep, the Fiction Department was called Ficdep, the Teleprogrammes Department was called Teledep,  and so on. This was not done solely with the object of saving time.  Even in the early decades of the twentieth century, telescoped words and  phrases had been one of the characteristic features of political  language; and it had been noticed that the tendency to use abbreviations  of this kind was most marked in totalitarian countries and totalitarian  organizations. Examples were such words as Nazi, Gestapo, Comintern, Inprecorr, Agitprop.  In the beginning the practice had been adopted as it were  instinctively, but in Newspeak it was used with a conscious purpose. It  was perceived that in thus abbreviating a name one narrowed and subtly  altered its meaning, by cutting out most of the associations that would  otherwise cling to it.

[…]

When Oldspeak had been once and for all superseded, the last link with  the past would have been severed. History had already been rewritten,  but fragments of the literature of the past survived here and there,  imperfectly censored, and so long as one retained one’s knowledge of  Oldspeak it was possible to read them. In the future such fragments,  even if they chanced to survive, would be unintelligible and  untranslatable. It was impossible to translate any passage of Oldspeak  into Newspeak unless it either referred to some technical process or  some very simple everyday action, or was already orthodox (goodthinkful  would be the NewsPeak expression) in tendency. In practice this meant  that no book written before approximately 1960 could be translated as a  whole. Pre-revolutionary literature could only be subjected to  ideological translation—that is, alteration in sense as well as  language. Take for example the well-known passage from the Declaration  of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created  equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable  rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of  happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among  men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That  whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is  the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new  Government. . .

It would have been quite impossible to render this into Newspeak while  keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to  doing so would be to swallow the whole passage up in the single word crimethink.  A full translation could only be an ideological translation, whereby  Jefferson’s words would be changed into a panegyric on absolute  government.

A good deal of the literature of the past was, indeed, already being  transformed in this way. Considerations of prestige made it desirable to  preserve the memory of certain historical figures, while at the same  time bringing their achievements into line with the philosophy of  Ingsoc. Various writers, such as Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Byron,  Dickens, and some others were therefore in process of translation: when  the task had been completed, their original writings, with all else that  survived of the literature of the past, would be destroyed. These  translations were a slow and difficult business, and it was not expected  that they would be finished before the first or second decade of the  twenty-first century. There were also large quantities of merely  utilitarian literature—indispensable technical manuals, and the  like—that had to be treated in the same way. It was chiefly in order to  allow time for the preliminary work of translation that the final  adoption of Newspeak had been fixed for so late a date as 2050.

People have almost entirely underestimated the totality of what George Orwell saw coming.

Certain forms of thought, and certain types of thinking will actually be abolished. This is already happening.