“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – Why I Write
Dare to be a Daniel.
Dare to Stand Alone.
Dare to have a Purpose Firm.
Dare to Make it Known.
These are the 1873 lyrics from Philip Paul Bliss as George Orwell noted in his 1946 essay “The Prevention of Literature”. Daniel, of course, is a Biblical figure who was famously thrown into the lion’s den for refusing to adhere to the King’s edict. Yet, because of Daniel’s conviction and abiding faith in God, he lived to see another day. Orwell used the hymn to suggest that the word “don’t” be added in front of each line, as freedom of thought and expression were under attack by the intellectuals of his time, and few had the courage of Daniel to withstand the pressure.
The increasing suppression of journalists’ integrity prevented writers from honestly reporting the facts about events; instead, forcing them into deliberate misinformation. No longer able to express their own reality, they often ceded to groupthink. Lies began to be paraded as the truth. History was revised before their very eyes. Telling their stories fairly and truthfully became too dangerous. This new creation of what Orwell called “organized lying” was necessary to suppress criticism and opposition in the age of communism. “Freedom of the intellect means the freedom to report what one has seen, heard, and felt, and not be obliged to fabricate imaginary facts and feelings”, said Orwell as he lamented the loss of individualism to ideological conformity.
“Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect. Yes, it is. But it is politically correct.” In Angelo Codevilla’s essay “The Rise of Political Correctness”, Codevilla reveals that what is actually correct and politically correct are two different things. While one is a reality, the other is not. When writing or speaking the truth becomes too risky, one must either echo the party line or prepare to be shunned, humiliated, or even called a criminal, in the case of climate denial. Of course, truths often change over time based on political priorities. Plato himself once described noble lies as moral goods. Implying that it was okay, and even necessary, for our minders to lie to us since they are intellectually superior, and often know what’s best.
In George Orwell’s 1946 book, “Why I Write”, Orwell offers four political essays focusing in part on the art of writing as well as political speech and language. These articles serve as a sort of prequel to his 1949 book, “1984” and the introduction of Newspeak, the Oceania language that restricts vocabulary by narrowing the choice of words. Which, in turn, limits the range of thought, making it easier to control what others think.
Orwell believed that political writers typically took a side in the day’s events and tended to try to sway readers towards a particular path. It was the freethinker who wasn’t afraid to say what he thought even if it did not fit with the majority opinion. They wrote to have their case heard, to expose lies, and to disrupt stale beliefs. Orwell also expressed the need to defend the English language from constant distortion and outright deception. Degrading the language, he thought, was driving the political chaos. Words were intentionally left vague so they meant nothing, and therefore, several meanings could be applied, as is true today with terms like social justice. Orwell particularly rued the practice of double-speak (nonsense), clichés (unoriginality), prolixity (long-windedness), and weasel words (intentionally ambiguous), arguing that these too, were ruining English prose.
Modern-day censorship of personal thoughts and words has bred a culture of control and conformity. Dissenters are threatened with the end of their careers, businesses, or participation in social media when unaccepted words, beliefs, and actions are in opposition to progressive politics. Yet, even this proved too much for a group of liberal writers and activists, including JK Rowling, who recently penned an open letter demanding an end to the cancel culture they once approved. It was only a matter of time before they too would get caught in their own web.
Orwell was honest enough to see where conformity would lead. He knew it was perilous to stand alone. But stand alone he did. He wrote extensively against Communism at a time when it was fashionable. In a class of his own, he dared to stand alone. He dared to be a Daniel.
Comments