[onetwofiveten]

Orwell was pointing to a very real phenomenon with "newspeak". For the best examples look to how political leaders talk about military conflicts. Language regarding conflict is very well chosen and quite misleading. Terms like "collateral damage", "area denial weaponry", "enhanced interrogation", "enemy combatants" are not exactly ironic, but they do have true meanings and implications very far from what they superficially sound like. Examples of true ironic "newspeak" can also be readily found. You may have heard leaders talk about various military, police, and spying agencies protecting your "freedom", despite the obvious roles they have in restricting your freedom. Talk about freedom often actually means "freedom to do what we want", which is, of course, the opposite of freedom.

To give a common example, an invasion will often be talked about by the invading power as a "liberation". Yet the act of liberation by a foreign power always ends with that foreign power having significant local political influence and access to natural resources (and may involve permanent occupation).

Or take the "war on terror" for example. Superficially, a "war on terror" should make people LESS afraid. Yet, in practise the politicians engaged in the "war on terror" have actively tried to encourage fear (in order to justify granting extraordinary powers). The irony is so blatant it's right there in the name. Being at war makes people more afraid, so declaring war on terror is automatically ironic. It's like having an orgy to promote abstinence.

[mkaziz]

It depends on how you define terror though

[onetwofiveten]

That's kind of the point.