Title

1. Not so long ago, in 1946, when thought was not demeaned as being
synonymous with a tweet on Twitter and individuals actually took the time
to think and speak with one another, in Politics and the English Language
Eric Blair wrote:
... (The English 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 ... Modern English, especially written English,
is full of bad habits which spread by inmitation and which can be avoided if
one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits,
one can think more clearly; and to think clearly is a necessary first step
toward political regeneration: ... if thought corrupts language, language can
also corrupt thought.
Only God knows what George Orwell would have made of developments
since then: the development of postmodernism in speech and writing, where
nothing means much, and anything means nothing (or anything), and truth
does not matter (and probably does not exist); the "24-hour news cycle ";
iking" on Facebook; or the debased crowd culture of the twittersphere.
But it does not take God to know that he would be appalled at the
mediocrity in the use of language, at the lack of any considered thought that
modern casual and mindless misuse of language reveals.
The crude ostensible making of what passes for political points (on
Twitter especially) reveals ultimately a complete misunderstanding of, and
disregard for, logical considered thought and language itself, not to mention

2. any effective intellectual engagement with the complex and multifaceted
nature of the political process.
For those who may have forgotten, George Orwell was Blair's nom de
plume.
Blair moved from being an anarchist to being a socialist, and (one would
have to say) ultimately to being a realistic analyst and critic of English social
and political mores.
He was nobody's fool. He could not abide humbug. He was clear in his
views opposing the deliberate misuse of language to debase not only the
language itself but also the political process. If communication is designed
to be miscommunication, then, as he outlined in Animal Farm, oppression
of the many by the vehement few who control the language perceptions will
follow.ed
Four years after Animal Farm, in 1949, he published Nineteen Eighty-
Four, the logical development from these ideas, detailing the devastating
cffects of the debasement of language in the pursuit of partisan political
ends.
He wrote of Newspeak, a species of communication whereby deeliberate
conflation of words and misattributions of meaning become accepted, a
phenomenon now apparently accepted by ali in 2015.
Take, for example, "climate change" climates are different
and climates do change. Indeed, during the past 50 years we became
accustomed initially to the need for "ecological balance"; then to combat
*holes in the ozone layer"; then to ameliorate the "greenhouse effect";

3. then to decrease "global warming"; and now the whole caboodle is
called climate change" (which we are also to combat).
Science changes (otherwise it could not be called science). Climates
not set in stone and one would expect that climates do change according
ons, but climate change" apparently now has a particular meaning.
with which to disagree is anathema.
Or, more controversially, Newspeak-wise, consider the use of the words
"homophobic",
", or racist", or "sexist" appellations that seem to be
applied generally, with little regard for the meaning of the words, and that
are designed immediately to demean their target, but with no reflection
on the merits of what was said in its context, and with a presumption
that, anyway, no right-thinking person could ever give whatever was said
credence anyway.e
This demeans language, demeans the right of people to speak their mind
and demeans the right of free speech.
Or are all people going to be offended by others speaking their minds
or having a joke, and go on to mount a case at law? Well, I tell you now,
this was never the Australian way: you gave as good as you got, you had
a stoush (intellectual or physical) and then it was done. But that's the way
it used to be, when people were sensible and actually met and spoke with
one another, rather than tweeting in cyberspace. Face-to-face is always a
different perspective, one perhaps many have forgotten.
Worse, however, than Newspeak is doublethink. This is the ability to
hold two contradictory opinions at the same time about the same question,

4. remaining untroubled by the contradiction. For example, to believe that
more workers need more pay, while believing that circumscribing the
opportunities for more workers to work is interdependent with productivity,
or to commit to increased productivity, but at the same time deliberately to
support measures that are sectional and will not aid productivity.
And then, worse than Newspeak ordoublethink, is the recent development
of groupthink.
Groupthink is an amalgam of Newspeak and doublethink. For this
reason it is more difficult to define. But it is obvious to all. It lives today
in cyberspace where people want to be unknown, where they want to vent,
where they do so without thought and anonymously, where immediate
emotional reaction (for whatever reason) is the key and not considered
judgment.
*Trending" is a thing on Twitter and other sites. What does this mean?
Well, just that a lot of people are saying the same sorts of things, mostly
unconsidered ... and trending is just what groupthink means.
Australian policy was supposed to be employed as a result of decisions
by the electors as to what they wanted to be done. This is being undermined,
trashed, and generally spat on by virtue of cyber-anonymous and usually
sectional interests and persons in deliberately provocative and often
frightening language, with expletives much of the time.
And not only that, we the people are out there being decried and spat on,
too. Why? Because the more noise these twits and other anonymous people
make, the greater the likelihood is that someone will actually take them

5. seriously. And you and I are just here, just being ourselves.
Frankly, in my view, only twits tweet. The twittersphere is just that:
an unreal thing that perpetuates its own vices; it has nothing at all to do
with good governance. I stand with Orwell. I'm all for straightforward,
understandable stuff coming from our government (and the opposition).
But do you know what? It, our government, is flummoxed; so, too, is the
opposition.
They are flummoxed because the whole cyber-world, Newspeak,
doublethink and groupthink carryings-on have taken them by surprise. They
were not prepared for the prevalence of double-groupthink. They thought
people were still fundamentally sincere, rational and logical; they read
papers, understood issues and thought.
What would Orwell say? Well, it would probably be too crude for a
newspaper. But the message would be
O.K. Take no notice of crap.
What do vou believe in?
Get out there.
Say it loud and clear in simple words.
Say it again.
Keep it simple.
And say it again.
Engage.