that might be how orwell chose to portray his principle, but that doesn’t change the underlying principle. Which is that to control how a person thinks through Double Plus goodthink, one must control the vocabulary that they use, read, and write in. We think in a language, control the language, and you control people’s thoughts. That’s the basic principle here, and it applies just as much to PCness as to anything else derived from it.

So, they took those words – did it help them in the least? I would say it hurt them more than anything.

These the same as the words keeping African Americans in unknowing servitude to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party. You ask me if this has helped them? Perhaps not, but certainly it has also not helped the disenfranchised and the poor minorities, that are used as cannon fodder by the manipulative and pandering Left.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Where is it written that once one has decided upon a particular worldview it cannot be modified or cast aside entirely?

Mere change is not what is being discussed here. Change is inevitable. The issue is, What must one do when faced with good reasons to change? Your answer is, My first choice cannot be changed!

Have you considered perhaps a junior college course in analytical reading to help you with your problems of comprehension?

So, they took those words – did it help them in the least? I would say it hurt them more than anything.

The vision that Orwell had is one in that certain words, and thier meaning, doesn’t exist. Places like old Russia, parts of China, the extreme Muslim world do this. If you have no word for “freedom”, no concept for it, then it’s hard to fight for it. The far left co-opting “liberal” didn’t do any of that and is in no danger of doing any of that. They gave it a bad association (that’s what happens when you welcome the radicals in the party to win elections – you can’t control everything but the one little variable you want, it all has consequences even if you do not like them).

Heck, if it bothers you that much to be a member of a group you used to despise pick a new word – call yourself a “Freedomite”, “neocon”, or something else.

This is naive. The left will always seek to appropriate whatever terms at any given moment are seen to have weight or consequence. Hence the various Eastern European ‘People’s Deocratic Republics’, etc.

The left will always appear wrapped in popular (stolen) labels. They are obliged to do this because the reality of their ideals, seen close up and in daylight, is so hideous.

The truth is nothing. Adherence to the progressive line, and preserving one’s self-esteem, is all.

The classic conservative is a dinosaur – only very few follow it anymore (Pat Buchannen for example – pretty much ostracised from the party). The biggest rift is where/how to spend money. The republican party is pretty solid on the social end of things – yes there are some differences but not something to fracture most people on. The big rift seems to be in spending – the classic liberals have no real issue with it and people like me still hold the classic conservative minimal spending (not necessarily low spending – sometimes you gotta blow a ton of money such as in Iraq). To note, what are considered “conservative” blogs almost never complain about much of Bush’s social agenda – yes a little here and there (just as there are things I don’t like), but over all at worst ambivilent. The big arguments come in the form of govt spending.

The problem is that “liberal” used to mean someone who pushed for personal liberties – it hasn’t meant that for decades and may never again. Instead of rescuing the word and seperating yourself from the people who you mostly agree with better to just join ’em and forget about the old connotations with that label. Not only will you tend to win but you also can act within the party the affect the changes you want. You will get some, others you will not, but in the end you will not have huge ideal gaps in your beliefs and mostly win. In politics that’s best you can get.