Politics and the English Language

Politics and the English Language is an essay written by George Orwell in 1946.

Here are some excerpts.

In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a “party line.” Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases—bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder—one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying … And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.

The present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and … one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:

  1. What am I trying to say?
  2. What words will express it?
  3. What image or idiom will make it clearer?
  4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?

And he will probably ask himself two more:

  1. Could I put it more shortly?
  2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you—even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent—and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense 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 the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless 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 regime 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 rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline 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. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find—this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify—that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.

The pen is mightier than the sword

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. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier—even quicker, once you have the habit—to say

In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that

than to say

I think.

If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don’t have to hunt about for the words; you also don’t have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry—when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech—it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style.

This invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one’s brain.

I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. … There is a long list of flyblown metaphors which could … be got rid of if enough people would interest themselves in the job; and it should also be possible … to reduce the amount of Latin and Greek in the average sentence, to drive out foreign phrases and strayed scientific words, and, in general, to make pretentiousness unfashionable.

If you’ve read this far, then you’re probably chomping at the bit to start applying Orwell’s rules for writing—and thinking!—in clear, fresh, plain language.

Here are a couple of sentences from a well-known political writer.

Language is a code of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psycho-epistemological function of converting abstractions into concretes, or, more precisely, into the psycho-epistemological equivalent of concretes, into a manageable number of specific units.

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to reverse engineer them into plain English.

[Model answers are here.]

The serpent-windings of utilitarianism

Judicial or juridical punishment (poena forensis) is to be distinguished from natural punishment (poena naturalis), in which crime as vice punishes itself, and does not as such come within the cognizance of the legislator. Juridical punishment can never be administered merely as a means for promoting another good either with regard to the criminal himself or to civil society, but must in all cases be imposed only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime. For one man ought never to be dealt with merely as a means subservient to the purpose of another…

[W]oe to him who creeps through the serpent-windings of utilitarianism to discover some advantage that may discharge him from the justice of punishment, or even from the due measure of it, according to the Pharisaic maxim: “It is better that one man should die than that the whole people should perish.” For if justice and righteousness perish, human life would no longer have any value in the world.

What, then, is to be said of such a proposal as to keep a criminal alive who has been condemned to death, on his being given to understand that, if he agreed to certain dangerous experiments being performed upon him, he would be allowed to survive if he came happily through them? It is argued that physicians might thus obtain new information that would be of value to the commonweal. But a court of justice would repudiate with scorn any proposal of this kind if made to it by the medical faculty; for justice would cease to be justice, if it were bartered away for any consideration whatever.

– Immanuel Kant, The Science of Right

[Reprised from SOLO.]

One Rule Constitution


If I could write one rule, and only one rule, for New Zealand’s Constitution the one rule that I would write would be…

Any legal punishment must be proportionate to the offense.

If you could write one rule, and only one rule, for New Zealand’s Constitution what would that one rule be?

Haile Selassie I

The preservation of peace and the guaranteeing of humanity’s basic freedoms and rights requires courage and eternal vigilance: courage to speak and act – and if necessary, to suffer and die – for truth and justice; eternal vigilance, that the least transgression of international morality shall not go undetected and unremedied. These lessons must be learned anew by each succeeding generation, and that generation is fortunate indeed which learns from other than its own bitter experience.

– Haile Selassie I, address to the United Nations, 1963

Today is the 120th anniversary of the birth of Haile Selassie I (23 July 1892 – 27 August 1975), whom Wikipedia tells us “is revered as the returned messiah of the Bible, God incarnate, among the Rastafari movement.”

I don’t know much about the Rastafari movement. Rastafarians are sort-of Christian, in the same way that Mormons are sort-of Christian. Unlike Mormons, however, Rastafarians smoke lots of marijuana. In fact, many Rastafarians are too stoned to comb their hair. Bob Marley was a Rastafarian most of his life. One of the best MPs New Zealand ever had was openly Rastafarian. Also, the Rastafari movement is not an organised religion as such. The movement tolerates a diversity of theological views within it. So I figure that Rastafarianism can’t be all that bad!

[Hat-tip: Nandor Tanczos]

This is now.

(Suppose, for the sake of argument.) God created the heavens and the earth … the sun, the moon, the stars, the skies, the land, the seas … the plants, the animals … and mankind. All in the space of six days! (By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.)

How did he do it?

To some it may seem presumptuous even to ask how God went about the business of creation. But mankind is a curious creature. His inquiring mind wants to know. Humans (some of them) thirst for knowledge for knowledge’s sake. That’s why we have philosophy and science and why, today (thank God), we live in a technologically advanced age. The gains in scientific knowledge made since the Enlightenment are nothing short of stupendous.

And now we know.

We now know, for example, that the several references in the Old Testament to God “stretching out the heavens” refer to the metric expansion of space which is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology. We now know that the Universe had its origin in a moment of creation some 13.75 billion years ago.

Let it be said, however, that cosmology is a better example of human ignorance than human knowledge. We’re still in the dark about so many of the fundamentals. Dark matter and dark energy are aptly named. But in other branches of science we know a great deal more. We know so much, in fact, that we can, and do, “play God”. To illustrate this point, here is a recent news headline.

In First, Software Emulates Lifespan of Entire Organism

We’ve mapped the human genome. We’ve mapped the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium and run software simulations of the entire organism. We’ve even constructed artificial life (assuming, of course, that a virus can truly be called a living thing), building it from scratch in a laboratory, one RNA molecule at a time. And this is only the prelude to what is to come.

We know how animals (albeit, very small ones) are made. We know how they work. We can simulate them. We can even build them ourselves.

Where am I heading with this? Actually, this post is for my co-blogger, Tim. God made animals, but he also made the human mind. I anticipate that one day we will find out how the human mind is made. We’ll run a simulation of a human mind on the powerful computers of the not-too-distant future.

The time is short.

Darwin’s Nazi Racist Textbook. The Origin of the Species.

READ THE SUBTITLE!
Darwin’s Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for Life.

And People try and say Hitler was a Christian!
He Got his Ideas about ‘the Master Race’, Eugenics, and ‘Sub Humans’ directly from Darwins ‘Scientific’ textbook.
The Final solution was the Philosophy of Darwinian Evolution *in Practice*… for the preservation of the ‘favoured’ race… in the struggle for Life!
Bertrand Russell wrote on the Subject of Darwin and Eugenics before Hitler rose to Power.


“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”
—Stephen Jay Gould, a leading evolutionist (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977)

Now Racism has indeed been a perpetual plaugue upon mankind, yet Biblical Christianity has never supported the idea Of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ races. It clearly taught that All Mankind are one Family decended from Adam and Eve.
St Paul declared God… ” hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth…” (Acts 17:26.)
And also that ” As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:… For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans chapter 3)… thus both physically and Spiritually there is no distinction between the races.
What more The Christian Gospel declares Gods love and concern for All individual human beings and that He Sent St Paul to preach the gospel of grace and to declare… “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10vs 13)
Salvation being the gift of God (Eph2vs7,8) All believers were to be united in love for one another and in fellowship. They were instructed to forsake any notions of Racism they may have held as heathens because … “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
*These teachings are the very opposite of Nazi doctrine*

One of the Great Blessings of Humanitarianism, Liberty, and enlightenment that arose out of the Reformation and the Publication of the King James Bible was a great religious awakening in the doctrines of St Paul… and it was in this great movement of the spirit of charity and humanity which brought about the Anti slavery movements in Brittan and America. The Christian Protestant realising that Negroe Slavery was against the Spirit of Christ, and that Negroes had Full Rights and dignity as Human beings in God’s eyes, and that they were in fact ‘Family’.
The Negroes in Western civilization ought to be grateful for that period of Christian awakening… it came in the nick of time because had Darwin’s ideas of race had been developed one hundred years earlier they would never have been liberated!
The truth is that Darwinism was responsible for ending this period of enlightenment and humanity!
It is also easy to perceive the roll it has played ever since… in Racial conflict and inhumanity.
The records of 20th century Atheist Socialism are the Bloodiest in the whole of human history!
Not only was the Holocaust against the Jew the implementation of Social Darwinism, likewise was Himmler’s ambitions to create ‘a master race’…. Read…. Historic Photos Show The Third Reich’s Evil Attempt To Create A “Master Race”

How is it that today millions of people foolishly believe that Darwinism saved mankind from evil religious values? How can the be so ignorant as to not understand that Darwinism was responsible for all of the Nazi doctrines and ambitions for world domination?
How is it that the dark secrets of Darwinian Philosophy in action have been hidden from the masses?
How many people who worship Darwin today even know what the Racist subtitle to his book is?


How is it that in the light of what Darwinism has achieved that Pretentious Bastards like Richard Dawkins Dare to hold up Darwin like a Saint, and condemn Christianity and their God for their barbarity?
And why … for goodness sakes would so many Christian concur with the vile rantings of such False teachers… and forsake the teachings of the Bible… which are both scientifically accurate and morally pure , and embrace this de humanizing philosophy which renders mankind down to an Ape… nay down to a colony of germs?
Evolution is one Great Big Fat Dirty Lie!
Satan Laughing spreads his wings
Tim Wikiriwhi.


Darwin, like many evolutionists, believed that some hominids developed larger brains faster, leaving others behind. The most advanced species (in the evolutionist’s evolved brain at least) was a 19th-century European gentleman who was supposedly far more evolved than an Australian Aborigine. This revolutionary, evolutionary idea added fuel to racist thinking and vice versa.

Quotes from Darwins Body Snatchers
“Pickled Aboriginal brains were also in demand, to try to prove that they were inferior to those of whites. It was Darwin, after all, who wrote that the civilized races would inevitably wipe out such lesser-evolved ‘savage’ ones.”

13501598_1144714878921068_8301965816246072455_n

“Good prices were being offered for such specimens. There is no doubt from written evidence that many of the ‘fresh’ specimens were obtained by simply going out and killing the Aboriginal people. The way in which the requests for specimens were announced was often a poorly disguised invitation to do just that. A death-bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland in 1866,4 graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen.”

Update. 23-7-12.
A friend posted me an interesting link on facebook.
It says Darwin’s first hand experience of South American slavery appalled him, yet as the following Quotes show Darwin’s cold ‘scientific’ rationale… and that he formulated his Evolutionary theory purposefully to accommodate and even vindicate Slavery… as Natural to the survival of ‘the strong’… and trump any contrary Conscience…
Darwin made comments upon Observation of the behavior of Ants…

“I loiter for hours in the Park & amuse myself by watching the Ants: I have great hopes I have found the rare Slave-making species & have sent a specimen to Brit. Mus. to know whether it is so.”9,10
“I had such a piece of luck at Moor Park: I found the rare Slave-making Ant, & saw the little black niggers in their master’s nests.”11
“I have had some fun here in watching a slave-making ant; for I could not help rather doubting the wonderful stories, but I have now seen a marauding party, & I have seen a migration from one nest to another of the slave-makers, carrying their slaves (who are house & not field niggers) in their mouths”12

In his Origin of Species, Darwin devotes several pages to what he called the “slave-making instinct”.13 He refers to the ant species Formica (Polyerges) rufescens (of Switzerland that he had read about)14 and Formica sanguinea (the one he observed in southern England), both of which make slaves of the ant species F. fusca. Darwin begins by “doubting the truth of so extraordinary and odious an instinct as that of making slaves” (p. 220). Then after giving his own observations he says: “Such are the facts … in regard to the wonderful instinct of making slaves” (p. 223).
Darwin then suggests that
“the habit of collecting pupae15 for food might by natural selection be strengthened and rendered permanent for the very different purpose of raising slaves. When the instinct was once acquired … I can see no difficulty in natural selection increasing and modifying the instinct—always supposing each modification to be of use to the species—until an ant was formed as abjectly dependent on its slaves as is the Formica rufescens.” (p. 224). “ … it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as … ants making slaves … not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die” (pp. 243–244).

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!