In “The Principles of Newspeak,” an appendix to his novel, 1984, George Orwell wrote:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the [Party's] world-view and mental habits ... , but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the principles of [the Party] - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding ...

In “The Principles of Newspeak,” an appendix to his novel, 1984, George Orwell wrote:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the [Party's] world-view and mental habits ... , but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the principles of [the Party] - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words, and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings... Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought...

I think, though, we should also look closer at what repetition entails, using both the examples given above, and Bobby Rutan's insightful connection with Newspeak.

What both Newspeak and Bush's rhetoric both have in common is simplification. Simplification is a necessary part of repetition, since a concept must compromise its complexity (and hence its integrity) in order to be disseminated most efficiently.

Bush's rhetorical coup was to master the sound bite. Very few people actually listen to an entire Bush speech, rather they get sound bites followed by analysis on news networks. The sound bites only last a couple of seconds. Taken in its entirety a Bush speech (consider his second Inaug...

I think, though, we should also look closer at what repetition entails, using both the examples given above, and Bobby Rutan's insightful connection with Newspeak.

What both Newspeak and Bush's rhetoric both have in common is simplification. Simplification is a necessary part of repetition, since a concept must compromise its complexity (and hence its integrity) in order to be disseminated most efficiently.

Bush's rhetorical coup was to master the sound bite. Very few people actually listen to an entire Bush speech, rather they get sound bites followed by analysis on news networks. The sound bites only last a couple of seconds. Taken in its entirety a Bush speech (consider his second Inaugural Address) appears disjointed and chaotic, but when broken down into its individual slogans, it produce stunningly effective sound bites, which are far easier to repeat than the long-winded arguments against them.

Newspeak is a similar simplification of language. It is not simply an expurgation of heretical vocabulary, it has a much deeper and more subtle function. By stripping down the language to its barest components, it is optimized for sloganeering and repetition, while complex analysis which might lead to dissent is discouraged and in fact, grammatically impossible.

Thus with repetition necessarily comes simplification, and simplification is the key element in the greater problem of dehumanization. It is easy to repeat Bush slogans, because they are easy to think. We are good. Terrorists are evil. No need to ask further questions, no need for compromise or introspection.

The challenge to understand how are enemies may be human, just like us, is harder, and less appealing than a simple, although fatally flawed one-dimensionally world view. It is this acquiescence to the preponderance of simplicity that enables otherwise normal people to carry out crimes against humanity, whether it be bombing the twin towers or slaughtering women and children in Haditha.

Media oversimplification certainly works against the speaker, too. I'm told that Hugo Chavez' UN speech (in which he called Bush names that were reported everywhere) actually had some thought-provoking content about the nature of US-S. America relations. And over-simplification of Ahmedinejad's comments on the holocaust played into Bush's hands; A. wasn't denying it at all, simply saying he thought the legacy was over-used. Then there's the famous "wiped-off-the-map" speech, actually a mistranslation in which he hoped US-Israeli control of the region would evaporate in the same way Soviet control did. Many scholars pointed out the error, but I don't think the MSM ever owned up to it, lea...

Media oversimplification certainly works against the speaker, too. I'm told that Hugo Chavez' UN speech (in which he called Bush names that were reported everywhere) actually had some thought-provoking content about the nature of US-S. America relations. And over-simplification of Ahmedinejad's comments on the holocaust played into Bush's hands; A. wasn't denying it at all, simply saying he thought the legacy was over-used. Then there's the famous "wiped-off-the-map" speech, actually a mistranslation in which he hoped US-Israeli control of the region would evaporate in the same way Soviet control did. Many scholars pointed out the error, but I don't think the MSM ever owned up to it, leaving A. looking evil rather than just ignorant. Again Bush wins, and one wonders if AIPAC exerted pressure on the MSM not to correct.

Interestingly enough, if you check out some of my other conversations on Clipmarks, you will find a few right wing clippers here telling me that I write too much and it doesn't mean anything, and that there are simple, single-sentence answers to all sorts of complex and long standing problems.

This illustrates my point. Slogans are excellent for dismissive and reflexive moral certainty, but fairly poor for finding true answers and solving problems. It seems to me that when it comes to problems that have faced man kind for decades, or even centuries, if there were a simple answer, the problem would have already been solved.

Thus, sl...

Interestingly enough, if you check out some of my other conversations on Clipmarks, you will find a few right wing clippers here telling me that I write too much and it doesn't mean anything, and that there are simple, single-sentence answers to all sorts of complex and long standing problems.

This illustrates my point. Slogans are excellent for dismissive and reflexive moral certainty, but fairly poor for finding true answers and solving problems. It seems to me that when it comes to problems that have faced man kind for decades, or even centuries, if there were a simple answer, the problem would have already been solved.

Thus, slogans, and their attendant repetition, simplification, and anti-intellectualism are fundamentally dismissive in nature, suggesting that there are easy answers to problems without rising to the challenge of finding a solution. Perhaps there in lies their appeal. It allows us to escape from these troubling issues by accepting the most superficial answer.

I've heard this principle phrased as "If you tell a lie often enough, it might as well be true."

Ouyangwoolong said "This illustrates my point. Slogans are excellent for dismissive and reflexive moral certainty, but fairly poor for finding true answers and solving problems."

i find that funny, as I see FAR more left-wing "slogan" bumper stickers than right. (By "slogan" I mean messages other than simply naming a cause -- "I am pro-choice/pro-life" or "Bush/Gore in 2012")

I see this methodology used regularly on the left. Global warming is a _golden_ example. It must be true, because we keep hearing about it! (Since when is scientific accuracy determined by _political_ agreement???) ...

I've heard this principle phrased as "If you tell a lie often enough, it might as well be true."

Ouyangwoolong said "This illustrates my point. Slogans are excellent for dismissive and reflexive moral certainty, but fairly poor for finding true answers and solving problems."

i find that funny, as I see FAR more left-wing "slogan" bumper stickers than right. (By "slogan" I mean messages other than simply naming a cause -- "I am pro-choice/pro-life" or "Bush/Gore in 2012")

I see this methodology used regularly on the left. Global warming is a _golden_ example. It must be true, because we keep hearing about it! (Since when is scientific accuracy determined by _political_ agreement???) 400,000 smoking deaths a year -- it must be true, because I keep seeing those Truth.com ads all the time. (That number was actually severely distorted, and closer to 40,000 -- a tenfold exaggeration).

First, thank you Kore7, believe me, I appreciate your clips just as much. They often provide a unique break in the monotony of the standard issues. I do my best to explore the new perspectives being created.

And for strider72, trust me, I am all too familiar with left wing sloganeering. I live in a communist country. Honestly, left wing slogans annoy me even more because they can be so saccharine and parental. Sloganeering is used by anyone with a vested interest in controlling minds to further their agenda.

Tobacco companies do this; smug anti-Tobacco groups do this even more. Television and advertising probably dos it the most, but with less dangerous results than when a government does...

First, thank you Kore7, believe me, I appreciate your clips just as much. They often provide a unique break in the monotony of the standard issues. I do my best to explore the new perspectives being created.

And for strider72, trust me, I am all too familiar with left wing sloganeering. I live in a communist country. Honestly, left wing slogans annoy me even more because they can be so saccharine and parental. Sloganeering is used by anyone with a vested interest in controlling minds to further their agenda.

Tobacco companies do this; smug anti-Tobacco groups do this even more. Television and advertising probably dos it the most, but with less dangerous results than when a government does it. People I agree with do it just as much as people I disagree with.

But after all this, after thousands of years of slogans and repetition, the thing that amazes me most is the stubborn independence of the human spirit. Our recalcitrant instinct for freedom has, over time, ultimately thwarted every attempt at mind control.

Although demagogues may gain power with sly tricks like this, we should remember that power is fleeting, while humanity lasts on. Despite how people may try to control society today, it is normally historians who have the last laugh.