Communicating Arts - Main Web SiteIntuition suggests that language is a product of thought: if we think clearly, automatically we will speak clearly. Orwell demonstrates the opposite, that thought is a product of language. Because we formulate our thoughts in words and sentences, incompetent use of language guarantees muddled thinking. If there are no words for rebellion, uprising, or discontent people will find it difficult to formulate and articulate the concept of overthrowing even the most corrupt and oppressive government.
Goldson, Rabbi Yonason. "The Language of Confusion." Jewish World Review, June 17, 2009: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0609/goldson_language_of_confusion.php3
Every day, I am confronted with expressions phrased in passing: " . . . aggressive Zionist state", " . . . Israeli terrorists", " . . . racist Israel," and so on, but such seldom reverse engineer into substantiated argument. Orwellian in character and a part of "hate speech", they're intended to inspire doubt about Israel's moral courage and enmity toward Jews.
More than mere opinion, such phrases signal the edge of an intellectual architecture fostered to destroy others, not only Jews, but all who may fail to mouth the same hollow but sharp tipped slogans.
"The Jewish problem," Hitler's invention, has had a long nefarious and linguistically transitive life in elements within populations, and most, one may hope, recognize and dismiss such speakers out of hand. As with most attributes maliciously assigned to Jews, others may as easily find themselves cloaked in similar language. The Hutu genocide of Rwanda's Tutsi people promoted similar nonexistant menace.
The propagandist calls his second proposal “Accusation in a mirror,” meaning his colleagues should impute to enemies exactly what they and their own party are planning to do. He explains, “In this way, the party which is using terror will accuse the enemy of using terror.” With such a tactic, propagandists can persuade listeners and “honest people” that they are being attacked and are justified in taking whatever measures are necessary “for legitimate [self-] defense.”2 This tactic worked extremely well, both in specific cases such as the Bugesera massacre of March 1992 described below and in the broader campaign to convince Hutu that Tutsi planned to exterminate them. There is no proof that officials and propagandists who “created” events and made “accusations in a mirror” were familiar with this particular document, but they regularly used the techniques that it described.
Source: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-10.htm#P408_170340
The excerpt from the Human Rights Watch report on the Rwandan genocide may get at the chief divider between good and evil in the use of language: good people use language to explore and enlighten, and they do so as honestly and as truthfully as mere human intelligence may allow; evil people use language to get something for themselves: for such, it is a tool for leveraging power by enslaving others, often starting with their access to information and ending always with control of an overarching intellectual domain.
Whether through radio propaganda as promoted in Rwanda or, as happened in Iran in the shadow cast by a doubtful election, by demonstration of blocks on such popular media channels as Facebook and Twitter (and the rounding up of competing or dissenting intellectuals) one may recognize what they are through their communication methods and speech.
Reference
Human Rights Watch. Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/rwanda/
Stein, S.D. "Statements by Hitler and Senior Nazis Concerning Jews and Judaism." March 4, 2000: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm
For additional insight into Rwanda's "war of the worlds" propaganda, here's a small web promoting observation and analysis of Kangura Magazine, RTLM Radio, and media coverage in America: http://www.trumanwebdesign.com/~catalina/index.htm
# # #
