http://www.fair.org/media-beat/980827.html
Orwellian Logic 101 -- A Few Simple Lessons
By Norman Solomon
During the week after U.S. missiles hit sites in Sudan and
Afghanistan, some Americans seemed uncomfortable. A vocal minority
even voiced opposition. But approval was routine among those who had
learned a few easy Orwellian lessons.
When terrorists attack, they're terrorizing. When we attack, we're
retaliating. When they respond to our retaliation with further
attacks, they're terrorizing again. When we respond with further
attacks, we're retaliating again.
When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S. government,
they're aiding propaganda efforts. In sharp contrast, when civilian
deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators are
evil and those deaths are tragedies.
When they put bombs in cars and kill people, they're uncivilized
killers. When we put bombs on missiles and kill people, we're
upholding civilized values.
When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're striking
against terror.
At all times, Americans must be kept fully informed about who to hate
and fear. When the United States found Osama bin Laden useful during
the 1980s because of his tenacious violence against the Soviet
occupiers in Afghanistan, he was good, or at least not bad -- but now
he's really bad.
No matter how many times they've lied in the past, U.S. officials are
credible in the present. When they vaguely cite evidence that the
bombed pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was making ingredients for
nerve gas, that should be good enough for us.
Might doesn't make right -- except in the real world, when it's
American might. Only someone of dubious political orientation would
split hairs about international law.
When the mass media in some foreign countries serve as megaphones for
the rhetoric of their government, the result is ludicrous propaganda.
When the mass media in our country serve as megaphones for the
rhetoric of the U.S. government, the result is responsible
journalism.
Unlike the TV anchors spouting the government line in places like
Sudan and Afghanistan, ours don't have to be told what to say. They
have the freedom to report as they choose.
"Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip," George Orwell
observed, "but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his
somersault when there is no whip."
Orwell noted that language "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our
thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it
easier for us to have foolish thoughts." And his novel "1984"
explained that "the special function of certain Newspeak words ... was
not so much to express meanings as to destroy them."
National security. Western values. The world community. War against
terrorism. Collateral damage. American interests.
What's so wondrous about Orwellian processes is that they tend to be
very well camouflaged -- part of the normal scenery. Day in and day
out, we take them for granted. And we're apt to stay away from
uncharted mental paths.
In "1984," Orwell wrote about the conditioned reflex of "stopping
short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous
thought ... and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought
which is capable of leading in a heretical direction."
Orwell described "doublethink" as the willingness "to forget any fact
that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is
needed."
In his afterword to "1984," Erich Fromm emphasized "the point which is
essential for the understanding of Orwell's book, namely that
`doublethink' is already with us, and not merely something which will
happen in the future, and in dictatorships."
Fifty-two years ago, Orwell wrote an essay titled "Politics and the
English Language." Today, his words remain as relevant as ever: "In
our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the
indefensible."
Repression and atrocities "can indeed be defended," Orwell added, "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."
National security. Western values. The world community. War against
terrorism. Collateral damage. American interests.
