---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Norman Solomon <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Orwellian Logic


ORWELLIAN LOGIC 101 -- A FEW SIMPLE LESSONS

By Norman Solomon  /  Creators Syndicate


     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.