Newspeak

Category:TauTology
=random notes 1=
matthew's and hutton's natural means of competitive selection(survival,preservation etc) can be formulated in either the pattern or design sense as in natural selection and artificial selection. Comment on the Richard Dawkins entry and specifically on his new speak with non-random, where he doesn't mean non-random as an antonym to random.
NOte especially the Wikipedia epicureans continual refusal to allow a non-random wikipedia page. If you look at the other pages such as clustering illusion, it is clear the epicureans use non-random in the directed,volition, pattern with a purpose(design) sense.
They are engaging in language terrorism, New speak, mangling ideas.
==Orwell==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
The genesis of Newspeak can be found in the constructed language Basic English, which Orwell promoted from 1942 to 1944 before emphatically rejecting it in his essay "Politics and the English Language".[2] In this paper he laments the quality of the English of his day, citing examples of dying metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and 
meaningless words(Meaningless sentence) – all of which contribute to fuzzy ideas and a lack of logical thinking. Towards the end of this essay, having argued his case, Orwell muses:
“	I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions.
=== Orwell ===
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house. I list below, with notes and examples, various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose-construction is habitually dodged.