Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style…but if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought….[the]invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases…can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anesthetizes a portion of one’s brain.” – George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” 1946

•••

Language is powerful. We use it to communicate, enlighten, and connect with one another. But despots, hucksters, cultists, and abusers of all stripes use it as propaganda to sell, command, control, and subjugate. How are we to detect the difference between communication and propaganda? How are we to retain mastery over our own understanding of events around us?

It’s first important to know the techniques of propaganda. In his novel Brave New World, published in 1932, as fascism was gaining strength in Europe, Aldous Huxley wrote of a dystopian world where tyrants have come to need very little force to subjugate the people. It is among America’s most often banned books, because it reveals secrets for creating a passive, submissive populace. In Huxley’s commentary on his novel, he wrote, “In regard to propaganda the early advocates of universal literacy and a free press envisaged only two possibilities: the propaganda might be true, or it might be false. They did not foresee what in fact has happened, above all in our Western capitalist democracies – the development of a vast mass communications industry, concerned in the main neither with the true nor the false, but with the unreal, the more or less totally irrelevant.”

Advertisers, political strategists, would-be tyrants, and intrepid First Amendment advocates have studied the elements of modern propaganda and confirm that it isn’t about truth. “…truth, rationality, consistency, and likability aren’t necessary for getting people to absorb your viewpoint. Things that do work: incessant repetition, distractions from the main issue, sidestepping counterarguments rather than refuting them…and antagonizing people who dislike you in order to get the attention of people who might like you. Another favorite technique, this one perfected by the tobacco industry: strategically sowing doubt in something for which there’s overwhelming evidence.” A guide to 21st-century propaganda: echo chambers, fake news, bots, big data, and the science of persuasion – Quartz (qz.com). Decades after the tobacco industry was called out, fossil fuel is still at it. Whether commercial or political, the goal, unquestioning loyalty, is achieved when people surrender their minds to the propaganda so wholeheartedly that they abandon all other standards and considerations in service to the “product.”

As a journalist, George Orwell witnessed the debasement of language in service to war machines and totalitarianism during both World Wars. He saw the wide-spread use of “ready-made language” as the clearest signal that rhetoric is being used to capture the public mind. In our non-stop political climate, we are bombarded with it, so it’s easy to find examples of anesthetizing language that turns catch-phrases into mindless rallying cries. One current example is “woke”: “woke mob woke virus, liberal wokeness,” etc. Last month, someone commented on a post by Nashua’s mayor recognizing Earth Day. They suggested Mr. Donchess should take his “wokeness” somewhere else. What does that even mean? In this context, it

seems to be a vague insult meant only to dismiss someone he disliked. But the historical meaning and uses of a word are important if we want to protect our minds from invasion by propagandists.

“Woke” has roots in 1930’s Harlem. It became widely used by Black Americans as a plea for vigilance in light of ongoing racism, as well as for appreciation for their own rich history and accomplishments. By the 1960s, to “stay woke” had taken on the cross-cultural sense of being awakened, aware, and well-informed. Now, however, radical populism has misappropriated “woke” as an insult. I asked the commenter what he meant by the term and what would be its alternative, but got no reply. This wasn’t surprising. Not many people would admit to thinking it’s better to be ill-informed, incurious, and unappreciative of America’s struggles, challenges, and failures, as well as successes, than to be awakened to them.

“Political correctness” is another example of a phrase hollowed of meaning by propagandists. It first appeared in Marxist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917, when it was used unironically to describe strict adherence to the policies and principles of Soviet Communism. In the 1930s and 1940s, American Socialists accused American Communists of political correctness in their rigid devotion to Marxism. In 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits “only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct.” Leninist/Communist dictators used the term as a stamp of approval; Nazi/Fascists used it exactly the same way. Factions used it as an insult against one another. Any claim to an ideological meaning has been lost to political weaponry, as the nutritional value of a piece of fruit becomes irrelevant when it’s hurled at a politician.

Those who helped popularize the current use of “politically correct” in the 1990s were familiar with its origins in Marxism and used that history to correlate opposition to racism, sexism, and homophobia, and support for what the founders of the Constitution called the Common, with despotism and Communism. Now, even those who simply point out dehumanizing language or actions used against people and marginalized communities are decried as woke PC tyrants, trying to cancel people’s rights. This has proved to be a very effective strategy to recruit people to join the “anti-woke” rage machine.

Rage is, in fact, another essential element of mind control. In 1984 (published in 1949), Orwell envisions a world where manufactured rage has been nearly perfected. There is a daily Two Minutes Hate ritual when members of the Outer Party of Oceana must watch a film showing the enemies of the state and publicly express hatred for them. This gigantic virtual rally distracts citizens from their personal suffering and diverts their rage and anguish towards whatever person or political entity Big Brother finds expedient that day. It is no accident that present-day demagogues amass great crowds, hold up the enemies du jour – political opponents, immigrants, journalists, “nasty women,” anyone who’s disloyal, and the “woke mob” trying to “cancel” them – and the crowds rock stadiums with their communal rage.

We can’t keep our democratic republic without freedom of thought. We must neither be anesthetized nor enraged by lies and diversions wrapped in compelling language. We must ask questions of people who use language this way. What do you mean by “traditional family values”? What tradition? Whose family? What do you mean by “heritage”? Whose heritage? “Take our country back” from whom? They may be understandably reluctant to say publicly what they mean, but it’s the questioning that’s important. In questioning, we awake the forces of our intellectual curiosity, empathy, knowledge, and reason, which are the best defense against “the invasion of one’s mind” by the forces of authoritarianism, which much prefer we sleep.

Jean Lewandowski is a longtime resident of Nashua.