“Political language is
designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an
appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell, “Politics
and the English Language”
I
From time immemorial
predatory organizations calling themselves various names and waving various
flags have lorded over societies, exploiting them and raping their cultures
without remorse. What’s worse, these groups—called states today—never left
their “hosts” of their own accord. They were always replaced or swallowed up by
bigger, badder foes who continued to subjugate the same unlucky societies in
their own turn.
The states of yesteryear
did not have the means—nor the ambitions—that are practically standard
qualifications for statehood today. In the present, for example, the group
calling itself “the United States government” not only extorts its subjects the
old fashioned way through taxation and inflation, but regulates poor and new
businesses across the economy into virtual oblivion, heavily subsidizes those
firms whose company it can’t stand to live without, fattening its bureaucracies
under the guise of “helping the poor”, purposefully engineering turmoil and
ungodly destruction the world over, and—worst of all—this group convinces its
subjects that all of this is legitimate, justified and even to
their own benefit. Moreover, it teaches its citizens, who are presumed to
be at once perfectly free, yet attached to their state like a conjoined twin,
ought to take pride in being a part of all of this. In the ancien
régime, no ruler anywhere would have had the audacity to foist these
efforts upon the public—let alone to the same degree—without the very real fear
of waking up in chains within a week. In contrast, these actions are prominent
endeavors, to say the least, of modern states. Only differences in name,
location, and degree of their actions separate them from one another today.
Seemingly without their
weak points, modern states appear nearly untouchable. Its police are becoming
more militarized by the hour and its militaries ever ready to fend off
dissidents who become too raucous, while the press manufactures favorable
public opinion to contribute public consent to the State’s causes and
discourages heretical thought. However, when one considers what particular
means the rulers of a state hold dear—as well as why these things are
valued—and the logical implications of removing them from the State’s
possession, the more plausible and desirable the true restoration of freedom
and natural, uninhibited, unmolested peace seems to be. We thus must examine
what those actors in charge of States value most and do all we can to
take away those things as a matter of strategy.
Evidently and in theory,
rulers value those means which expedite the process of
making them richer. Now, instead of speculating and imputing to individual rulers an
arbitrary scale of values and proceeding from there, I suggest we turn toward a
more inherent desire—one which is an absolute requirement for the State to
attain any of its ends whatever. One of the most basic insights into human
interaction is the use of language—a praxeological necessity for
interpersonal communication in general, let alone for the State’s interaction
with its subjects. As I will show, besides other things, the State distorts the
language of the society over which it rules in order to cultivate favorable
public opinion and demonize detractors. Thus, by “reclaiming” our own language
in a broadly cultural sense, which is to say disallowing the State to pulverize
words in our common tongue into oblivion, deconstruction of the compulsory
State becomes a fundamentally easier goal. Putting an end to the State’s
control of language renders the bulk of State propaganda hopelessly
ineffective. In doing so, we will hopefully encourage those in comatose to
smarten up and cast off the State’s imposition of ideas—showing people how
to think rather than the all too ingrained habit of what to think. For
if language manipulation is used to benefit rulers at their subjects’ expense,
surely retaking our language will reverse this state of affairs.
II
“In the new jargon, certain
intelligible ideas would become inexpressible. In a rather poor trade-off for
this veto on complexity, many views that are expressible will, in turn,
be entirely and indeed almost beautifully unintelligible.” – Christopher
Hitchens, “Words
Matter”
To begin by way of analogy:
Very similar to the State’s desire for one common currency—especially one it
controls—rulers also desire for their subjects to speak one common language,
and prefer it to be under their control. Expropriation becomes far easier and
more fruitful by controlling language, for the State can communicate with its
subjects more effectively.
The first task of the State
regarding money is to outlaw any alternative form of currency. It will usually
pick the currency that is already most widely used in order to relieve itself of the
time, means, and effort it would take to start from scratch. Once this task is
accomplished, rulers must embark on the task of controlling and monopolizing
the production of money. By controlling this, rulers enrich
themselves at their subject’s expense much more efficiently than
straightforward taxation by simply printing up their own money units (inflation) and using them at will, just as any counterfeiter does. Assuming they inflate—for they have little incentive
to deflate—it leads, in the short term, to the rich getting richer at the
expense of the poor who become poorer, and in the long run to a boom, which
quietly wreaks havoc on the economy, then a bust as this havoc becomes
manifest. In both the short and long run the level of wealth-loss and perceived
diminished level of future gain create decivilizing effects such as short-term
orientations, increased crime rates, and a general sense of hedonism. The
degree to which the State expropriates in the traditional sense by taxation
contributes to these decivilizing effects accordingly, but accomplished through
inflation it accelerates such effects exponentially.
Regarding language, the
first task of the State is to acquire court intellectuals. Not a single
task regarding the propagation of its ideas, manipulation of language and so
forth, can be accomplished without them. They advance ideas for the State, spin
“philosophical” defenses of its actions, and overall serve to convince a
society to obey those ruling over it. Indeed, so needed is this role of
artificial intelligentsia that wherever I speak of "the State" or
"rulers" I am also speaking of their court intellectuals.
Unlike gaining ultimate
control of money, the State does not necessarily need to outlaw alternative
languages (a task that would be hard to accomplish since language is merely a
basic means to communicate and cannot be removed or dissolved by simple
decree). It need only make one language standard
within its borders, which very nearly amounts
to the same thing. This choice will tend to be the one already spoken by its
subjects, for it relieves the State of having to do work that would be terribly
hard at best and impossible at worst. If this task is deemed too difficult it
may diversify the languages its officials speak. But this case notwithstanding,
the State can act in only three ways. It may have speakers of other languages
merely learn the official one; otherwise, it must dispose of competition by
either destroying every speaker of other languages or ostracize such
speakers through propaganda—which may indeed lead individuals to learn the
State’s chosen language. It may act in one or another of these ways, or all of
them, either in conjunction or in succession.
My reader may raise a few
questions about why and how the State chooses one language over another. To answer
these questions, in part, I must reemphasize the point made above regarding the
preference to begin at a point in time closest to an actor’s end. It makes the
goal of the State that much easier to choose and standardize that language
which is most spoken in the society over which it rules. The fewer individuals
it must force into speaking the language, the better. However, there is the
rather obvious case of forcing a language onto a completely separate culture
where this is not a possibility. The State may recruit speakers of the foreign
language into its own ranks if this task is deemed too difficult. Yet if it
does take the former route, it must persuade those foreign individuals in one
way or another that it possesses enough force to influence their state
of affairs. In short, those individuals must learn the standard language lest
they be considered different in the pejorative sense of the term.
Following the compulsory
standardization of language, the state must monopolize the production
of language, or what might be called the language market. The court
intellectuals must have utter reign over what goes in and what comes out of the
minds of the State’s subjects. This way, the State—and not those
“decentralized” intellectuals who would otherwise spontaneously change and
maintain ideas and language within a society—has control of what happens with
them. Accordingly, rulers manipulate language in their own favor. This
is necessarily to society’s detriment, for it uses society’s own language in a
manner that would not have been used otherwise.
Now to the ways in which
language manipulation by government takes place. As words convey and
communicate concepts, the State produces words anew to stand for
concepts it has dreamt up and whose purposes are to make achievement of the
State’s goals easier. The State also takes away or prevents those
words which communicate ideas contrary to its goals from coming into being.
There is a third and far
more effective way to accomplish this task. That is adopting and adapting already
existing words to fit the State’s aims. Thus, if rulers wish to make an
idea palatable to the masses in a positive way they adapt one or more
terms already in use and change their meaning. Essential to this undertaking is
either choosing already vague words or choosing less ambiguous words and
rendering them even more ambiguous than they were before. The State therefore
has an incentive to pick more ambiguous terms rather than less ambiguous. It
puts its own meaning behind these terms, and in due time, as more actors adopt
this new definition, these terms come to mean what the State wants them to
mean.
If rulers wish to
ostracize, belittle, or altogether remove an idea which threatens their aims,
they may perform the same task in the opposite direction. They take
words which mean very specific things to people in opposition to its goals and
render them more ambiguous. Into this vacuum they place their own meaning,
substituting the newer meaning for the former one. Again, as time proceeds,
more and more actors will associate the word with the concept of the State’s
choice; they end up thinking of that word and the concept it was originally
meant to convey in a negative fashion.
Changing the definitions of
words inherently changes the concepts being communicated, for words are
representations of concepts which actors desire to communicate to one another
and are means as such. But by artificially changing a language, the State does
not change these internal concepts. Every thought of ours is unique and
unchangeable as such. (When an idea “changes” for an actor, it only means that
more concepts were introduced or that the concepts building it up or
complimenting it were forgotten, leading an actor to have a different opinion
or viewpoint regarding the concept concerned. The term he attaches to that
concept therefore represents the changed idea he puts behind it.)
By modifying existing
words, the State’s intervention into a language prevents the concepts from
being communicated in an intended way by causing a term to convey
concepts different from those intended by the users of the word. So
properly speaking, the State severs the means from the end. The term itself
takes on two different meanings, communicating different things to different
people. They actually become two separate words, so to speak, though they have
the same appearance, and the State then encourages one meaning to the detriment
of the other.
A phenomenal example of
such language abuse is provided by Professor Noam
Chomsky:
“In political discourse, every term has two meanings. [This is
true] of the term ‘peace process’ . . . Its dictionary meaning is ‘some sort of
process that’s trying to lead toward peace’. But it also has a technical
meaning, one that’s actually used. In its technical meaning it means
whatever diplomatic initiatives the United States happens to be advocating at a
particular moment . . . that’s ‘the peace process’. Notice it follows
that it’s a logical impossibility for the United States to be opposed to
‘the peace process’, that’s a nice consequence. To prove that the United States
is for peace, you don’t have to do any laborious inquiry into the annoying
facts because it’s true by definition. Since the peace process is whatever the
United States is up to, the United States is always supporting peace.
[Moreover,] the U.S. enemies are always opposed to peace, because
they’re not supporting whatever the U.S. is up to, and so by definition they
are opposed to peace.”
My reader may easily figure
out other terms to apply this process to, such as “we”, “terrorism”,
“progressive”, and so forth, virtually ad infinitum. To wit, this theft
of language from the subjects of a state is virtually a process of purposefully rendering them
speechless.
To come back to and
complete the original analogy to money: By having such control over language in
society, rulers enrich themselves, at their subject’s expense, much more
effectively than merely using basic propaganda to push an idea onto the
populace. They “inflate” a language with meaningless words—for rulers have
almost no reason to promote words with concrete definitions—which ultimately
leads to the State gaining support for its actions at the expense of its
victims, whose ideas become more opaque. In the short term, a “boom” of
language is created with artificially injected concepts, which subtly transform
society. In the long run, a “bust” occurs when society accepts the new
definitions over their former ones. The level of language-loss devolves
civilization as such; it leads, in part, to increased state power (which is to
increase crime itself) and vague notions which lead virtually nowhere except to
society’s own detriment. The degree to which the State manipulates ideas
through mere propaganda contributes to such decivilizing effects accordingly,
but done through language manipulation, it accelerates such effects
exponentially.
Accomplishing all of this
on any kind of large scale has a few prerequisites. The State must control the education
industry within its borders. (To some extent this means the press
industry as well, for this is another form of education. By and large, this
is how adults educate themselves about current affairs. One might say this is
where they go to learn what to think based on the opinions of public
intellectuals in society.) It is the most efficient way to accomplish every
task above.
Moreover, and this is
really a prerequisite for any state action whatever regarding its subjects,
rulers must have majority acceptance of their actions—whether active or
passive—to do any of this. Too, the level of general acceptance affects the
degree to which the State can change definitions of words. For instance, if a
term is steadfastly defined by those in a society, rulers cannot change it; if
it is somewhat less so, they can change its meaning slightly; if it is totally
ambiguous they can use it as they please, either as is or they may easily place
their own meaning behind it, of course making this their first choice for
manipulation.
A few words ought to be
said here. Firstly, the term “prerequisite” might give the wrong connotation—it
may not be that rulers manipulate language only after monopolization of
education and possession of adequate public opinion, but that they do it all
along as any propaganda program requires. Secondly, it is true that
any of the State’s actions toward its subjects require propaganda to achieve,
yet it is interesting to note that manipulating language itself has the
intention of propaganda behind it. So propaganda begets propaganda. Thirdly,
changing language and manipulating it out of self-interest in order to persuade
others is not an action unique to the State, but because this power becomes
centralized under the State, it can be far more disastrous than left to the
free market where there is competition, freedom of education, and an overall
incentive for words to genuinely mean something rather than stand for purposefully
ambiguous concepts.
III
The effects of the State’s
language manipulation on society are simple, yet important. It involves looking
at how compulsory conditions retard and detract from natural language
development under conditions of freedom.
The natural use of language
to convey ideas is sharply diminished once the state monopolizes a
language. More importantly, ideas are virtually prevented from being thought at
all by outlawing the words to attach to them in the first place. This is not to
say that individuals cannot form ideas on their own and create new words to
identify them, but it prevents sharing ideas between one person and
another because the words mean something different from one person to another.
Creativity cannot be stamped out, ever, but it can be discouraged.
Furthermore, once the State
begins to manipulate a language, the language is distorted with otherwise
unnecessary words and ideas that would not have existed otherwise. If
they were necessary for individuals to communicate in society, the
concepts and the words would already be in use. The State always acts in
its own favor, so the subjects are made to think in an unnaturally, i.e., in a
way they would not have thought if not for State interference. After all, the
purpose of thought control is to make actions impossible which were
possible before (and vice-versa). Thus, the State’s addition, subtraction, and manipulation of
words can never be in a society’s favor, but always to society’s
detriment.
In addition, manipulation
of words that already exist implicitly promotes feuding which would not have
occurred otherwise. Those with more intelligent and creative minds, who possess
a broader and better defined vocabulary find it hard to communicate with those
using words with transformed meanings, which generates more antagonistic
attitudes toward one another, making it that much harder for the former to
break the mold.
Lastly, and this might be
the most important insight, whether transforming a term to promote an idea or
to belittle it, the State attacks the most ambiguous terms first, and
when it cannot do that, it turns words with specific meaning into vague words
with hardly a trace of significant thought behind them. In either case, words
become unclear so that the vague connotations take hold in a speaker’s mind,
which implies the ghastly truth that the State uses human imagination—man’s
most creative instinct—against itself and toward its own harm. Moreover,
by routing out the concepts words convey, the actors who use them are not
required to have much intelligence to “understand” them. The ultimate result of
this entire process is a shrunken vocabulary within a language, and those words
that do exist are vaguely defined, meaning a relatively dumber populace.
All of these effects are
decivilizing, because they cripple, retard, and destroy cultures which would
otherwise grow and flower in their own way had the State not intervened in
their language.
IV
“It is clear that the
decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes . . .
If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think
clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.” – George
Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”
In order to combat
compulsory government those who desire to be free must at once encourage the
rest of society to do most of what the government actively discourages as well
as discourage whatever actions government promotes. Libertarians then position
themselves to be squarely in conflict with the state which attempts to rule
over them, and so begins the path to proper freedom.
Anything one does in this
vein is dangerous to different degrees, for those who run states are relentless
in preserving their means. But this does not necessarily mean we ought to take
the State to physical task. One needn’t be so utterly foolish as to take up
arms against the state at the outset. History runs rife with rebellions that
didn’t quite make it, and it makes little sense for live rebels in spirit to
become dead rebels in the flesh. Instead, the oft recommended spread of ideas
can make our job far easier. In order for this to be more effective we must
insist on a more “conservative” use of language, which is to insist on using
terms the way they were originally meant to be used. We must wrestle language
back from the State's grasp and triumphantly reclaim it, as if to say, “You
took this from us. You used our own creations against us and spoiled them in
the process. We are taking back control of our minds and our tongues in order
to restore our language to its proper place—in our hands.”
If libertarians insist on
educating others on what words actually mean in their strict sense and
therefore how to properly use them, it encourages critical thinking in
general—and, one hopes, thinking in a truly critical fashion concerning what
the State is actually doing rather than what people are made to think
it’s doing within and without its borders. As language is one of the most basic
needs of a state to carry out its primal functions, reclaiming the real stuff
of our language in order to subtly direct public sentiment back toward freedom
and teeming culture ought to prove a great deal about peacefully tearing apart
a monolithic government, piece by monolithic piece.