The pigs, throughout the novella Animal Farm, based on the Russian Revolution, cleverly use language, which is closely related to education and knowledge, to create a false sense of unity among the animals when it fits their interest, to silence those who are against them, to rewrite reality and history, and to justify their own selfish behaviour. The allegory starts with Old Major’s ideas of Animalism, supported by the unity of the animals in overthrowing the human of the farm, Mr Jones. The pigs use simple language like “All animals are equal” to unite the animals under a common purpose so that they can help them achieve their main goal of revolution. The lexical choice, “all” creates a sense that every single animal in Manor Farm, no matter their differences are “equal”. This unites the animals through creating a stark contrast from what their then current reality is with being constantly exploited by humans. The pigs also use simple language through the spread of ideological beliefs by the sheep, “Four legs good, two legs bad.” The use of simple adjectives like “good” and “bad” allow for the less intelligent of the animals to understand the ideas. This also allows the animals to have a deterministic outlook towards the goodness of a creature, where they are judged purely based on the number of legs they have. Orwell criticises how having a lack of nuance in thought exposes the common people, the animals, to exploitation, suggesting that language is a powerful tool that can be used to unite people under a common belief “All animals are equal”, but can also be used to fuel hatred, enabled by a lack of critical thinking. This is similar to how the leaders in the USSR, Staling and Lenin used simplified language like the idea that everyone will be equal under communism to create an unrealistic world view, allowing the working-class common people to help them to achieve unquestionable power. Orwell also presents the clever use of language by the pigs as a tool for silencing opposers and ultimately maintaining the power of and benefiting the people in power, like the pigs. The limited access to education and the ironically unequal intelligence of the animals were used by the pigs to allow them to silence dissent. The phrase “could not” in “Boxer could not get beyond the letter D” suggests an inherent inability to do something, even with great effort, while the phrase “get beyond” suggests a sense of being stuck, almost as if there is a lack of freedom of thought and expression, limiting Boxer, representing the Proletariat in the Soviet Union, to question the language that is spoken by the pigs. This comes in stark contrast to the pigs which are said to be able to “read and write perfectly”. The emphasis being put on the verb “write” implies that the pigs are among the few in the farm who are capable of doing this, allowing the pigs to limit the other animals from expressing their thoughts in a tangible, permanent way. This makes the animals powerless in comparison due to their beliefs and ideas not being anything more than just words, which are temporary and powerless in comparison to writing. Orwell uses the contrast between the language abilities of the pigs and the rest of the animals, in particular Boxer, as a construct, advocating how, as a writer himself, the importance of linguistic capabilities like being able to use language effective like reading and writing is an essential tool which is often the only way the common people can have an impact on the world they live in. This links to how the Communist Party of the Soviet Union used language and the public’s knowledge in relation to being proficient in language to exclude, silence, and oppress minorities and the working class. Orwell presents the pigs’ clever use of language as a method of justifying their unethical and selfish behaviour. The noun “knowledge”, among many other words, is used as a euphemism for education and proficiency in language throughout the novella, hinting that those who are less able to understand the pigs’ clever use of language in manipulating the public are lesser and are almost unequal in the sense that they are less intelligent. This noun is used to justify the pigs’ place in power in the quote, “With their [the pigs] superior knowledge, it was natural they would assume leadership.” While the noun “knowledge” creates a divide between the pigs and the rest of the animals, the adjective “superior” implies a sense of being above others, implying inherent inequality and betrayal of the core value of Animalism, ironically set out in simple language to be understood by all, “All animals are equal.” The noun “natural” is ironic considering pigs being in power rather than humans is not “natural”. This is further supported by the statement “[pigs] are brain workers.” The noun “workers” suggests a false sense of equality between the pigs and the animals as if they are working equally hard for a common purpose. Orwell criticises how the pigs’ use of language justifies a belief of Social Darwinism, a belief that the more intelligent in a society assuming leadership is “natural.” Similarly, in the Soviet Union, it was commonly said, through a clever use of language in propaganda that the more educated like academics and government officials were to do much less physically taxing labour, implying that, while not explicitly stated like in Animal Farm, the more intelligent are more deserving of luxuries like less hard work, justifying a demonstration of integrated inequality in society. The pigs’ use of clever language also is used to rewrite history and alter reality in the perception of the rest of the animals. The contrasting ideas of “black” and “white”, having connotations of evil and goodness in the quote, “Squealer could turn black into white”, displays the power of language in altering ideas that are seemingly so distant. This presents the power of language used by the pigs in being able to alter the views of the rest of the animals to silence them, implying that with the clever use of language, violence is not needed to silence people, but rather distorting their reality through a gradual change in the way things are presented is enough. The slight alteration to the very idea of Animalism, “All animals are equal” being changed to “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” acts as a force to slowly stray away from Animalism back into living under oppression without equality. The simplicity of the ironic phrase “more equal” is in direct contrast with the use of complex language by the pigs, displaying how language, if used cleverly, can be used to alter the very idea of equality, changing it to an imbalance rather than true equality. The gradual change of language throughout the poem eases the animals into the inevitable end of power through the cyclical structure of the book, where Napoleon “is carrying a whip in his trotter” as a tool for oppression, directly betraying Animalism while not being faced with any significant dissent due to the clever use of language used in manipulation. Orwell advocates for the education of the working class, both in the USSR and in the rest of the world, as a tool for resisting this ease into inevitable betrayal. In conclusion, Orwell presents the pigs’ clever use of language as a powerful tool, much more powerful than any form of physical aggression, in oppression through eliminating dissent before it can even be created due to a systematic use of manipulation and exploitation.