1984 by George Orwell, is the granddaddy of Dystopian storytelling, which people are so fond of nowadays, as we hurtle towards what might appear to be a real dystopia. Which I really hope isn't the Mad Max kind; as I don't have a driving license.

In some ways, Orwell anticipates the types of fears a modern audience has about the potential direction of our world. I remember when Edward Snowden revealed that smart TVs might be spying on us; it made me think of how Winston Smith the book's protagonist, keeps his back to the screen in his home, as it is spouting Big Brother's propaganda, just in case it might be spying on him as he writes in his journal. In the world of 1984, any expression of thought must have the permission of the state, and so by merely keeping a diary, he is breaking the law.

1984 and his essay "Politics and the English Language" introduced the term "Orwellian Language" into the modern vernacular. It is the most used adjective derived from the author's name. This is a language that intentionally confuses or obfuscates the meaning of language to control the majority of people. In the novel, this language is called Doublespeak.

In the modern era we talk about fake news an awful lot, but fail to see how often language is used against us. Whatsmore; this weaponizing of language is far more insidious than fake news, in part because we are often unaware of it and in part because this language often invades our everyday discourse as we talk to our friends and family. If you control the vocabulary you can control the discourse.

I first noticed Orwellian language when the word "Insurgent" became prominent in the media during the first gulf war. The word insurgent means rebel, and in western culture, the rebel is a romantic figure. It's the little guy fighting the good fight against the all-powerful bully. It's Robin Hood, Ché Guevara, Mahatma Gandhi, Michael Collins, Omar from The Wire. The US and its collation allies couldn't have the conflict framed in those terms, could they?

From this time we also have nonsensical terms such as WMDs (weapons of mass destruction), all weapons cause mass destruction over time, all weapons are WMDs. In fact, the fear involved in using truly end-of-time weapons means conventional weapons are the real killers. We also saw the continued declarations of war on inanimate things and ideas with the "War on Terror" since the "War on Drugs" has been so successful. I would like to declare a "War on Banks" and a "War on Wallstreet" but I can't get the funding.

In fact when it comes to war, the powers that be love the sterilization of any concept related to it, being probably one of our greatest sins as a species. Collateral damage (killing of innocents), Friendly fire (killing our side by accident), acquiring the target (bombing, shooting, killing someone). The Mutually Assured Destruction nuclear doctrine of the cold war (which was basically the "sure; your nukes will kill us but our nukes will kill you" plan) had the abbreviation M.A.D showing that at least the military has some level of self-awareness and a sense of humor even if their political masters don't.

Lately, I've become alarmed by the use of Military rhetoric used to describe our reaction to the pandemic. Comparing this problem to a war infers that the citizens will be expected to sacrifice themselves for their leaders but with a fraction of the budget, less protective gear, and no weapons.

Unlike 1984, the use of Doublespeak doesn't just involve the state, in fact, with their constant use of PR and marketing, it's the private sector that out spins the public every time.

"Downsizing" really means working-class people who depend on their jobs to feed themselves and their families are losing those jobs. Notice how the perspective of the action is from the top down and without empathy (If we don't mention the plebs nobody will feel sorry for them.)

This self-importance is expressed everywhere through the "corporate culture." Management titles which vainly try to allude to some monarchical hierarchy, from CEOs at the top as kings (less commonly queens) to the replacement of secretaries with "personal assistant."See how again, we are looking down from their high tower in the castle.

The private sector has a language-making Factory called the branding industry. Day after day, night after night, they think up new nouns for objects which sometimes already had nouns before and shove them into our minds. Sometimes this is so successful that these brand names actually replace the original. In England, vacuum cleaners are often called Hoovers after the first successful brand named machine. In my adopted Spain sliced bread is called Pan Bimbo after the ubiquitous Bimbo bread brand. We use Netflicks as a verb.

As we speak; we advertise on their behalf, whilst speaking less and less for ourselves. In fact, we've begun to talk about "self-branding" as we present ourselves as advertisers of ourselves as products and so the fetishization of the product turns inwards.

Thought becomes language and that language makes our prison.

The private sector has been instrumental in making the word "art" dirty. Instead, they want us to use the terms "entertainment" and "culture". Creator has replaced the artist. I believe this intentional. I believe that one of the functions of art and the artist is to remind us of hard truths, and they know that the voices are easier to censure if they are fewer in number. So be conscious of the language surrounding the truth, because as Orwell put it himself 

''To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle''