THE LANGUAGE OF CONTROL
George Orwell in the Age of Cultural Production
To read about your own culture is a revolutionary act. There is power in words, and today we shall examine why - as we consider how George Orwell’s warning about language and power rings so true today.
Though the liberal idea is dead and its influence network dissolving, its vocabulary is not.
The liberal lexicon lives on in our heads, shading our perceptions to impressions, and replacing black and white, good and evil and true and false - with the fuzzy logic of mass produced emotion.
How did our desires come to be dictated from this Devil’s dictionary?
Our freedom of choice of words has been replaced with product lines. This is so prevalent we don’t even notice it. People who would shrink at being called liberals talk of healing journeys, resonating feelings, vibe shifts and energy.
We are fed comfort food-for-thought in place of descriptions.
This diet determines how we imagine the world. We are what we eat in this sense - and what we are eating are mind snacks packaged for convenience, which slip down without effort, replacing nourishment with a sense of fullness.
The search for new meaning is no mystery, and neither is its solution.
Meaning is underneath the astroturf you stand on. The map in your mind has been made by your enemies to render you incapable of knowing where or who you are - or what is going on.
This mind-map describes nothing, directs you into fuzzy feelings, and replaces a decisive fact with the pseudo-intellectual detachment of the baffled.
This is the power of political language, which is used by the powerful to shape your sense of self - and of reality.
Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
When George Orwell wasn’t idly imagining bayoneting Buddhists, or being despised by his bolshie comrades for being “a supercilious bastard” who “really didn’t like the workers”, he wrote essays like Politics and the English Language.
His important essay explains how politicians use language to tell you things they do not want you to hear correctly.
It shows how nice words and vague terms are used to replace the statement of fact with voter-friendly slogans.
It also shows how this shapes your thoughts, and therefore your sense of reality.
Orwell’s essay explains the role of language in political power. We are ruled by media in the West, and this means messaging through mass communication.
Words and pictures are put in our heads to replace reality with a pseudo-reality that can be shaped and controlled by anyone who controls the memes of production.
These sounds and visions evoke feelings, and it is the motion of emotion which moves men behind movements - wherever they may lead.
Orwell said this power shaped your mind from the inside, with the loose terms and fuzzy buzzwords fostering a laziness of thought in the consumer.
He talked about the lexis of power - the choice of words employed to describe things like killing and repression.
“Pacification” and “liquidate” were two terms he said were used in place of “killing”.
The pacification has continued, and of course it is now internalised. The mission of pacifying public opinion was a thought-killing exercise undertaken to sell permanent war on civilisation as progress.
The liquidating still takes place in reality of course, but its process is pacified by the fact that people now think in terms of the terms and conditions of the liberal social media empire.
Consider how relevant this passage remains today:
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…
Orwell could have been writing a report from Gaza this week. This livestreamed genocide is of course presented as “self defence”, or “Israel’s right to defend itself”.
Much wrong has been done in the name of rights, of course - because we are trained to accept and submit to the term without questioning whether it is right at all - or what right and wrong might mean.
Similarly, we have become used to hearing about “the defence of democracy”.
This means war - killing people overseas - as well as the criminalisation of political opposition to the formerly dominant ruling elite.
Accurately describing the causes of the crisis created by liberal policies is called “hate speech”. No one voted for millions of people to arrive in their homelands.
No one voted for transgenderism, for the aggressive promotion of hypersexual lifestyles to children, nor for the ever higher taxes demanded to pay for the general platform of national suicide the liberal consensus calls democracy.
No one voted for human life to be reduced to a matter of convenience - a consumer product valued by price and purchase power. This “rules based order” is not the reality we ordered, and it rules us by disordering our sense of reality.
Its terms and conditions rule out any objections as a danger to democracy.
We also hear about “misinformation”, “disinformation” and even “malinformation”, which are all terms to negatively code the injection of basic facts about reality into public opinion.
This is done to try to reassert control - control over what you think about the world, how you feel about it, and therefore over what you think should be done - and who is responsible for all this.
Which brings us to “extremism”.
People who tell you that things have gone terribly wrong and should be righted are called “extremists”.
This is because it is extremely dangerous to the former ruling elite for people to notice that these governments are responsible for the crisis we all now inhabit.
Examples of “extremism” range from objections to permanent war, criticism of the authoritarian covid-19 regimen, and scepticism over the wisdom of deindustrialisation to change the weather - or paying more taxes to do the same.
It is “extremist” to notice that we are told we live in a rich country, and yet most of our people struggle to afford to have a family.
It is similarly extremist to notice that we have a people and are one, and that there are others, and that these things are not the same in significant ways.
The same goes for culture, religion and so on. In fact, it is extremist to notice we inhabit a set of parallel cultures, with the liberal-consumer one being presented as the global solution to the human condition.
Everything is to be replaced with cheaper substitutes. Our food, our people, our way of life. This is promoted as progress with feelgood phrases.
People who notice where this progress is going, however, have different feelings attached to their views.
In reality - that is - that situation which endures whether on screen or not - real extremism is found in the very people who warn about its dangers.
These people seek to preserve their permanent war economy, block out the sun, dissolve all the nations and transition their machine politics to a permanent governance system driven by artificial intelligence.
I should say that sounds rather extreme.
We are governed by extremists and their politics is defended by distortions in language which corrupt the basis of meaning itself, so that wickedness can be presented as salvation, vice as virtue, and terrible things done in the name of the highest good.
Many people who do not consider themselves liberals nevertheless are deeply entrained by its resonant drumbeat.
Like metronomes which synchronise1 when placed alongside one another, the rhythms within us have come to rhyme with the memes of cultural production.
Orwell’s point is sound and deserves repeating. In the digital age the power of transmission has multiplied.
With much of our personalities taking place outside our bodies and displayed in Satan’s Window online, the process of processing mass perception has been exponentially refined since his time.
We have internalised the dreams of this machine, and it is time to wake up.
WHY THE OBVIOUS IS CONTROVERSIAL
Today most people are shocked by the obvious, and noticing it produces a visceral reaction. The collective gut feeling is to spit out the sugared pills we have been told to pop.
This medicine is itself a sickness, and here are some examples.
Diversity is our strength, we are told. And yet what it describes is neither diverse nor strong - but a systematic disprivileging accompanied by transvaluation.
The result is chaos.
This is driven by talk of “rights”. The rights-based argument is universal because it is derived from an idea of humanity without qualities - and it delivers a product in kind.
Rights have replaced the essential value of human life with price, and have empowered men dressed as women to replace them. It has celebrated infanticide and presented the suicide of the elderly, the sick and depressed as a social duty.
The concept of rights reduces humanity to number - a digital signal- and this is seen in the rights-based arguments in favour of population replacement in the West.
This is not done for altruistic reasons, but simply to supply more consumers to drive consumer demand. It is an economic necessity for the liberal system, which aims to replace all the nations and everything of value in them with the transactions of a borderless global supermarket.
This is one dimension of the war on our civilisation which is concealed by liberal-globalist messaging.
Another is the wars themselves.
Men do not volunteer to fight because they are moved by principle to do so. Most of the men I have met who do this do so because they like fighting2.
That men find killing thrilling is a surprise these days, because our long, bloody history on this earth has been erased by a century of liberal fairytales.
Likewise, the common perception of war is shaped by fantasies. War and war crimes are the same thing. They always have been.
This is the reason it is so insidious to sell war as an instrument of civilisation.
Methods of warfare have refined to the point we do not notice what they are. In liberal democracy, the battle is foremost for your brain - and the way to that is through the heart.
This is why every diabolical scheme the ruling design for the ruled is sold with appealing slogans.
It is a duty to exercise mental hygiene, and it is very important right now to look into yourself and ask why you feel as you do, why you say the things you think, and ask whether you really think these thoughts at all.
That is the meaning of Politics and the English Language, and that is why - for all his faults - you should consider reading Eric Blair and his warning about the power of lazy thoughts.
This is no time to be sleepwalking.
If you like this sort of thing, consider doing this.
If you would like to sponsor the production of my product, you can do that here:
In 1665 Christian Huygens discovered that two pendulum clocks, hung from the same wooden structure, will synchronise their swings. He called this “entrainment”.
I should imagine Insane Clown Posse would write a song mentioning this if anyone were to tell them about it - given what they said about magnets.
I like fighting. I know what it is like. It is for this reason I do not advocate political or vigilante violence, because it is exciting to people who like it and tends to get out of hand.
This means innocent people will be killed as well as those people you think deserve it.
People who do exhort you to go off killing people - or who go on about killing online - have often never been in a fight themselves.
These people are silly and should be ignored.
"I have seen the world transported towards increased depravity and tyranny with unfaltering consistency over the course of my life. I have seen evil objectives achieved under the cloak of the purest of motives with such tedious repetition that I now accept fabricated concern for the oppressed as the only possible delivery system for genuine wrongdoing."
So wrote Sam Gerrans when he was briefly a columnist for RT, in expectation that one day Frank Wright would make the same observation.
i no longer participate in receiving so called journalism that is still based on 'drama' minus facts just to get readers, simply distractions.....you are the last man standing Frank,as i appreciate someone who is solid and knows....and i thank you. focusing on my garden this year....blessings