In a conversation I had recently with a friend of mine and founder of this site, Nicholas J. Fuentes, we discussed the essay “Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell. A cursory search will likely land one on its Wikipedia page, where it is described as a criticism of the “ugly and inaccurate” written English of the time, and a dissection of a political ideology’s capacity to manipulate and debase language for its benefit.
It has become, unfortunately, so easy to see parallels of Orwell in the modern day that referencing him seems almost trite; however this essay is possibly the most criminally under-appreciated out of all of his work. “Politics and the English Language” remains so applicable, in part, because over the past few years it seems to have been used as an instruction manual by the political left and their neoconservative ilk.
Obfuscation and confusion are powerful tools for the subjectivist – the easiest way to fool a man is to speak so much while saying so little that otherwise egregious propositions pass by unnoticed. And what has been the practical consequence of this information war?
Reasonable caution and weariness about mass Muslim immigration became Islamophobia. Skepticism of our unconditional monetary, military, and diplomatic support for the State of Israel became Anti-Semitism. Traditional values and our historical commitment to Christian morality became Homophobia. Valuing the American worker over a three-cent price reduction for cotton goods became economic illiteracy.
And Trump became president.
Clinton spoke in riddles, dancing around the problem which Trump confidently named “radical Islamic terror.” Her words came prepackaged from focus groups, while Trump’s came unfiltered, uncensored from the heart. Of course it’s derivative to repeat these tired observations; but they’re necessary to understand what exactly happened this week.
On Inauguration Day, Trump swore the oath of office and delivered one of the shortest Inaugural Addresses of the modern era — Steve Bannon reportedly described it as “Jacksonian”, an apt description. We did not hear poetry from Trump, nor, as some lamented, did we hear the sort of sycophantic pleas we became so accustomed to under Obama. Rather, we heard something that has been lacking from Washington for far too long- We, the American people, heard truth.
Trump was not afraid to point out precisely what sort of America we’ve been given, nor was he afraid to place blame where it lies, even when those “few Washington elites” sat directly to his left. That short, honest speech contained more actual content than Barack Obama could muster through his eight year reign. In this sense, Trump’s inaugural was the perfect conservative counter to years of subjectivist ideology pressed into us for the past few regrettable years — He said what he meant, and meant what he said.
Liberals cannot win this information war for the zeitgeist if conservatives force them to say what they mean, and tell the whole story; Trump is doing just that. Simple, understandable language allows people to realize that ‘Free Trade’ is a racket designed to screw them for the enrichment policymakers. Blunt language on immigration and drug trafficking forces people to consider that we can no longer permit a de facto open borders policy.
Refusal to participate in the ever-shifting game of definitions the Left loves to use to frame debate (and if you’re reading this, you’ve probably heard a leftist use garbled pseudoscience to differentiate between ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ at least once before) forces all sides to counter fact and reason in kind, an impossible task for intellectually bankrupt liberalism.
Trump is preaching this through practice, and this is why people like Scott Adams predicted his win- one may be fascinated, intrigued, and even intimidated by a charismatic politician who speaks in a manner which you can’t understand; but one can never truly be persuaded by them. Trump won by dragging liberals (and of course, those “conservatives” like McMullin and Jeb!) back to Earth, down from their purely conceptual level of dialogue and forcing them to discuss the real impact of their policies and actions.
How their plans would affect people- not the GDP, which is about as good a measure of the average person’s prosperity as per-capita pneumonia cases, or America’s position in the world, so easily conflated to mean whatever the speaker desires it to; but rather the actual daily lives of Americans.
Trump dared to ask where the jobs are going and what we’re getting in return. He dared to ask why we put up with the national drug crisis, an embarrassment and a scandal. He dared to ask why we don’t even attempt to confront what actually caused the Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris, and Istanbul tragedies in any meaningful way. And this week, he dared to once again incur the wrath of the national media before the historians of tomorrow.
Talking heads from the mainstream media complain that his speech was exclusive. They throw out buzzwords like “dark,” “negative,” and “charged.” They seem to be pushing the narrative that it represents some vague, extra-judicial call to action.
They dislike it because it made politics and Trump’s plans accessible, understandable, and clear. They dislike it because it destroys their monopoly on power, and prevents them from defining our world for us. They dislike it because Trump speaks, as did Jackson, to the people.
They dislike it because it was Patriotic. They dislike it because it was conservative in the most traditional sense. They dislike it because it was masculine, and damn it, they dislike it because it was American.
They dislike it because they fear that we will not be slaves again.