George Orwell could see what was coming up the pike as early as 1949 when he published the novel 1984. Whether the dystopian society he foresaw then actually occurred in 1984 or earlier or later is immaterial-- he turns out to be a prophet anyway. The picture he paints captures quite well the society in which we live today. In fact, ironically, the novel actually contributed words to our language that persist to this day, the most common of which is probably "Big Brother."
One of the things he understood is the importance of controlling the language of a debate. The side that gets to define the terms gets home court advantage at the least. We saw that happen with abortion: that battle was lost as soon as the abortionists started using the term, "the right to choose," without any indication of exactly what was being chosen. If someone had simply asked, "Choose what?" or at least complete the sentence of death with "the right to choose to slaughter an innocent baby," maybe 60 million babies would not have been butchered at the hands of evil doctors and their collaborators. The defenders of life still haven't regained the advantage in that debate, and on account of that, today the abortionists don't even bother any more to hide exactly what they are pushing: they know that most people have become so numb that few even care about exactly what happens in an abortion, even if it is blatantly obvious.
This has become particularly easy as our media are largely controlled by groups of people who share common goals, most of which are offensive to human reason but nevertheless are widely supported because the voices of opposition have been suppressed. The biggest thing that "old media" and government fear is that someone like me can, with very little expense or effort, create a web site that anyone anywhere can read with similarly little effort. It used to be that one had to own at least a printing press or a TV network, but no more. Internet has made suppression of the opposition difficult, though by no means impossible, as we see by what behemoths such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter attempt on a daily basis (which is why you should avoid relying on them for information, if at all possible).
The latest phrase to enter our language would make Orwell proud if he had coined it himself. Much like the lunacy of phrases such as "war is peace," or "death is life," we now have a newly minted phrase that I will refuse to use in any of these essays beyond its brief introduction and condemnation because it is, in fact, idiotic: social distancing. That will be the last time you see it anywhere on this web site or in any of my other writings because it is not at all social but rather anti-social. On this web site, you will see many references to "anti-social distancing," because that is in fact what it is, and its proponents, quick to shame anyone who does not carry two meter sticks or stand exactly on one of the "X" markings on the floor, are in fact anti-social tyrants and not at all "social" in the slightest.
Resisting "newspeak" is essential to the survival of a democracy. If the elites in Hollywood, the news media, and government are allowed to control the parameters of the debate, there really can be no informed, sensible debate and everything gets reduced to a shouting match, which unfortunately is what our politics has become in this sordid age.