Gestapo

Gestapo (pronounced guh-stah-poh or guh-shtah-poh (German))

(1) A branch of German police under the Nazi regime (1933-1945) comprising various sections.

(2) A critical descriptor of any organ (usually) of a state which to some degree resembles Nazi Gestapo, especially in the brutal suppression of opposition (often initial lower-case).

(3) By extension, any oppressive force, group or tactic.

1933: An abbreviated form of the German Geheime Staatspolizei (the construct being Ge(heime) Sta(ats)po(lizei)); literally “secret state police”.  Gestapo is a proper noun.

A typically German abbreviation

It’s an urban myth that Hugo Boss designed the uniforms of the Gestapo.  The field officers of force didn't wear uniforms and in that sense operated in the manner of police detectives while some administrative (district) staff wore much the same garb as their SS equivalents.  When operating in occupied territories under wartime conditions, Gestapo wore the same field grey as the SS with a few detail differences in the insignia.  Hugo Boss was one of a number of companies contracted to produce the uniforms of the SS (Schutzstaffel (literally "protection squadron" but translated variously as "protection squad", "security section" etc)).  The SS began (under different names) in 1923 as a party organization with fewer than a dozen members and was the Führer's personal bodyguard.  The SS name was adopted in 1925 and during the Third Reich evolved into a vast economic, industrial and military apparatus more than two million strong to the point where some historians (and contemporaries) regarded it as a kind of "state within a state".  Of the SS, that's a more accurate description than of many of the apparatuses of the party and state but it was a feature of the Nazi period (not well-understood until after the war) that the internal dynamic was one of a permanent state of institutional struggle for dominance, reflecting Hitler's world view.  Post-war analysis by economists revealed the extent to which this system created structural inefficiencies.

The meme-makers found Hugo Boss's corporate history hard to resist.

The investigative & operational arms of Gestapo comprised the Sicherheitspolizei (SiPo; Security Police) and the Kriminalpolizei (Kripo; Criminal Police), the final structural shape achieved in 1936 when Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945) was granted control of all police forces in Germany, this having the general effect of formalizing the all forces branches of the Himmler’ apparatus.  It was a reward for Himmler’s role in the Nacht der langen Messer (Night of the Long Knives), also called Unternehmen Kolbri (Operation Hummingbird), the bloody purge between 30 June-2 July 1934, when the regime carried out a number of extrajudicial executions, ostensibly to crush what was referred to as "the Röhm Putsch".  The administrative change was notable for marking the point at which control and enforcement of internal security passed from the state to the party, something reinforced in 1943 when Himmler was appointed Interior Minister.

The Gestapo was in 1946 declared a “criminal organization” by the international Military Tribunal (IMT) conducting the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) and although the idea of an organization being criminal seemed novel to many, there were precedents.  Under the Raj, the British India Act (1836) provided that if a man was proved to be a member of the Thuggee (the Thugs, a group of professional robbers and murderers who strangled their victims), regardless of whether his conduct disclosed any actual offence, he might receive a life sentence with hard labor and in laws were passed in the US declaring the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) criminal, a model used in 1919 by the state of California to outlaw “criminal syndication”.  Under Soviet law, someone could even be deemed a member of some organization, even if they didn’t actually belong to it, something of a Stalinist companion the crime of “unspecified offences”.  Germany too had “a bit of previous” in the approach, the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) making it a crime to belong to any “anti-government secret organization”, in 1923 gazetting the Communist Party, the National Socialist Party (the Nazis) and the German People’s Freedom Party among the proscribed.

Remarkably (commented upon even at the time), the Orpo (Ordnungspolizei (Order Police, the “policemen” in the usual sense of the word)) and the Kripo weren’t included in the indictment on the basis they remain “civilian organizations”.  In the trial, the defense raised a number of technical points about the state of German law operative at the time the events being judged transpired and the court accepted some of these but anyway on 30 September 1946 ruled the Gestapo a criminal organization, thus implicating all members (excluding only some clerical & ancillary staff and those who had ceased to be employed prior to 1 December 1939.  In legal theory, this meant all operational SiPo staff active after 1 December 1939 could individually have been indicted in accordance with the available evidence and the expectation was that at least those most senior or accused of the more serious crimes would have faced trial.  However, there was no follow-up “Gestapo” trial, “punishment” limited to those Gestapo staff held in Allied internment camps, almost all of who were released after three years.  Although the Allied Control Commission (ACC) which administered occupied Germany allowed local courts to conduct trials, the number of Gestapo officers tried was comparatively low and even when convicted, the period spent in detention prior to trial was deducted from their sentence, a convention not extended to the seven sent to Spandau Prison after the main trial.  Only in first the Russian Zone (and later as the German Democratic Republic (GDR)) were many Gestapo officers charged and sentenced, almost all released after 1957.

For the majority, like many Germans they were subject to the “denazification” process, the prize of which was to gain a “Certificate of Exoneration”, a piece of paper which appealed to the famously sardonic Berlin sense of humor, soon dubbed the Persilschein (Percil Certificate), an allusion to the popular washing detergent which promised to make clothes “whiter than white”.  Most Gestapo staff received a Persilschein and many either resumed their employment in the new German state and ultimately were credited for pension purposes with their service during the Nazi years.

Politicians often reference the Nazis when attaching their opponents and "Gestapo" is a popular slur. 

Even before World War II (1939-1945) began, the word "Gestapo" had entered the English language as a synecdoche for “police state tactics” and it was in this sense Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) on 4 June 1945 used the word in a broadcast for the UK general election, warning a Labour government (“the socialists” as he called them) would inevitably create such an apparatus to enforce the myriad of regulations and controls they were proposing:

“….there can be no doubt that socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the state. …liberty, in all its forms is challenged by the fundamental conceptions of socialism. …there is to be one state to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. This state is to be the arch-employer, the arch-planner, the arch-administrator and ruler, and the arch-caucus boss.

A socialist state once thoroughly completed in all its details and aspects… could not afford opposition.  Socialism is, in its essence, an attack upon the right of the ordinary man or woman to breathe freely without having a harsh, clumsy tyrannical hand clapped across their mouths and nostrils.

But I will go farther.  I declare to you, from the bottom of my heart that no socialist system can be established without a political police.  Many of those who are advocating socialism or voting socialist today will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them.

No socialist government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent.  They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.  And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil.  And where would the ordinary simple folk — the common people, as they like to call them in America — where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?”

Essex man: Clement Attlee at home, mowing the lawn, Stanmore, Essex 19 April 1945.

It was a controversial statement and even many of Churchill’s Conservative Party colleagues distanced themselves from the sentiments.  The man being accused of planning this police state was Clement Attlee (1883–1967; UK prime-minister 1945-1951) who had served as Churchill’s deputy in the National Government (1940-1945) and was one of history’s more improbable figures to be painted an incipient totalitarian.  The electorate wasn’t persuaded and in the 1945 election Labour won a huge majority of seats in what is described as a “landslide” although the numbers are distorted by the UK’s “first-past-the-post” system; Labour gathered well under half the votes cast but that pattern has subsequently been typical of UK elections and in 1951 the Conservatives actually returned to office despite Labour out-polling them.  Attlee had responded to Churchill’s speech the next day:

“The Prime Minister made much play last night with the rights of the individual and the dangers of people being ordered about by officials.  I entirely agree that people should have the greatest freedom compatible with the freedom of others.  There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day.  I remember when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair.  There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases.  For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual.  It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor.  Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the state, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners. The Conservative Party remains as always a class party.  In twenty-three years in the House of Commons, I cannot recall more than half a dozen from the ranks of the wage earners.  It represents today, as in the past, the forces of property and privilege.  The Labour Party is, in fact, the one party which most nearly reflects in its representation and composition all the main streams which flow into the great river of our national life.”

Embellish

Embellish (pronounced m-bell-lysh)

(1) To decorate, garnish, bedeck or embroider an object.

(2) To beautify by ornamentation; to adorn.

(3) To enhance a statement or narrative with fictitious additions.

1300–1350: From the Middle English embelisshen from the Anglo-French, from the Middle French embeliss- (stem of embelir), the construct being em- (The form taken by en- before the labial consonants “b” & “p”, as it assimilates place of articulation).  The en- prefix was from the Middle English en- & in-.  In the Old French it existed as en- & an-, from the Latin in- (in, into); it was also from an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin and Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into) and the frequency of use in the Old French is because of the confluence with the Frankish an- intensive prefix, related to the Old English on-.) + bel-, from the Latin bellus (pretty) + -ish.  The –ish suffix was from the Middle English –ish & -isch, from the Old English –isċ, from the Proto-West Germanic -isk, from the Proto-Germanic –iskaz, from the primitive Indo-European -iskos.  It was cognate with the Dutch -s; the German -isch (from which Dutch gained -isch), the Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish -isk & -sk, the Lithuanian –iškas, the Russian -ский (-skij) and the Ancient Greek diminutive suffix -ίσκος (-ískos); a doublet of -esque and -ski.  There exists a welter of synonyms and companion phrases such as decorate, grace, prettify, bedeck, dress up, exaggerate, gild, overstate, festoon, embroider, adorn, spiff up, trim, magnify, deck, color, enrich, elaborate, ornament, beautify, enhance, array & garnish.  Embellish is a verb, embellishing is a noun & verb, embellished is a verb & adjective and embellisher & embellishment are nouns; the noun plural is embellishments.

The meaning "dress up (a narration) with fictitious matter" was first noted in the mid-fifteenth century and was an acknowledgement of a long (if sometimes hardly noble) literary tradition.  It was exemplified by the publication in 1785 by German author Rudolf Erich Raspe (1736-1794) of Baron Munchausen's Narrative of his Marvellous Travels and Campaigns in Russia, a collection of extraordinary stories, based (loosely) on the tales told by the real-life Baron Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen (1720-1797).  The real baron was prone to quite some exaggeration in the tales of his travels but never went as far as Herr Raspe had his fictional baron flying to the moon.  The technique of enhancing a statement or narrative with fictitious additions (ie lies) was later perfected by the author and one-time Tory politician Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare (b 1940) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947).

Lindsay Lohan in bikini embellished with faux (synthetic) fur, photo-shoot for the fifth anniversary of ODDA magazine, April 2017.

In the matter of Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump

Various matters relating to a payment allegedly made by (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) to adult film star (and director in the same genre) Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Gregory Clifford; b 1979) are currently before a New York criminal court.  When a member of Mr Trump’s legal team suggested she may have a  “propensity to embellish” when giving evidence, counsel was using the word “embellish” in the crooked Hillary sense of “lie”.  Lawyers have many ways to suggest those being cross-examined are lying and embellish is one of the more euphemistic though not as inventive as “economical with the truth”.  That one will forever be associated with former UK cabinet secretary Sir Robert Armstrong (1927-2020; later Baron Armstrong of Ilminster) who, under cross-examination in the “Spycatcher” trial (1986), when referring to a letter, answered: “It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.”  Whether the old Etonian was aware much post-Classical writing isn’t known (at Christ Church, Oxford he read the “Greats” (the history and philosophy of Ancient Greece & Rome)) but he may have been acquainted with Mark Twain’s (1835-1910) Following the Equator (1897) in which appeared: “Truth is the most valuable thing we have.  Let us economize it.” or the earlier thoughts of the Anglo-Irish Whig politician Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who in his Two Letters on the Proposals for Peace with the Regicide Directory (1796) noted: “Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.”  Just as likely however is that Sir Robert had been corrupted by his long service in government and was thinking of: “The truth is so precious, it deserves an escort of lies.”, a phrase often attributed (as are many) to Sir Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955), but there’s some evidence to suggest he may have picked it up from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) and even if it wasn’t something the old seminarian coined, it was the mantra by which he lived so he deserves some credit.

Courtroom sketch of defendant, judge, prosecutor & witness by Jane Rosenberg (b 1949), Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

The work of courtroom sketch artists became a feature of the trial process in many Western courts during the years when photography was banned and Ms Rosenberg has since 1980 become of of the most highly regarded practitioners.  Of her art, she was quoted, in a statement she stressed was non-political and not a comment on the legal merit of his case, that Mr Trump was “fun to draw”.  Something of the character of law will be lost if the courtroom sketch artist is replaced by an artificial intelligence (AI) bot.

The exchange on 7 May wasn’t the first time “propensity” and “embellish” had been entered into the trial transcript.   On 23 April, the court heard about former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker’s (b 1951) “secret arrangement” negotiated in 2015 with Mr Trump and his then attorney (and “fixer”) Michael Cohen (b 1966), the terms of which included the publication (1) promoting Mr Trump’s presidential ambition and (2) publicizing Mr Cohen’s “research” relating to Mr Trump’s opponents: “He would send me information [about the others seeking the Republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election] and that was the basis for our story, and we would embellish (in the National Enquirer tradition "embellish" is a spectrum word ranging in meaning from "exaggerate" to "untrue").” Mr Pecker testified, adding the arrangement was kept secret from all but a handful of his senior executives: “I told them [the National Enquirer’s East and West Coast bureau chiefs] we were going to try and help the campaign, and to do that we would keep it as quiet as possible.”  National Enquirer has bureaux; who knew?

Stormy Daniels.

The day before, Mr Trump’s team pursued a line of questioning designed to cast doubt on Mr Cohen’s credibility, suggesting that for him Mr Trump has become “an obsession” and that he wishes to see him incarcerated and has “a propensity to lie.”  “He has a goal, an obsession, with getting Trump.  I submit to you he cannot be trusted.  His entire financial livelihood depends on President Trump’s destruction… You cannot make a serious decision about President Trump by relying on the words of Michael Cohen.” Counsel argued.  Mr Cohen had certainly left no doubt the case was on his mind, the previous night posting on-line that he’d experienced some “…mental excitement about this trial...” and the testimony he would deliver.

The highlight thus far however came when the state called to the stand Ms Daniels where in greater detail than expected she described the encounter with Mr Trump which led to the hush-money scheme.  The word the press seemed to settle on for their reports was “salacious” but the two things which most struck legal analysts was (1) the unusually wide interpretative latitude the judge appeared to allow himself when deciding the nature of the many details Ms Daniels should be allowed to introduce and (2) the curious reticence of defence counsel in objecting to the course things were taking.  Both of these aspects may be considered if the case goes on appeal when often a ruling is made on what evidence is relevant and what is so prejudicial that under the evidentiary rule it shouldn’t have been admitted and heard by the jury.

Stormy expression: Donald Trump at the defense table, Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

Over lunch, Mr Trump’s team must have discussed these matters because they moved a motion requesting the judge declare a mistrial on the grounds Ms Daniels’ testimony contained prejudicial and irrelevant comments which: “…aside from pure embarrassment…,” these details did nothing but “…inflame the jury.”  The judge did acknowledge Ms Daniels was a difficult witness to control and agreed: “...it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid.” but denied the motion, saying defense counsel should have raised more objections during the testimony and that cross-examination would permit them to redress things, adding that at one point he had intervened to limit her statements simply because the defence had not.  The defense did actually raise a number of objections, a slew of which the judge upheld, after which he cautioned the witness: “Just listen to the question, and answer the question.”  Some may have recalled the infamous cross-examination of Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) by Justice Robert Jackson (1892–1954; US Supreme Court Justice 1941-1954; Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg (IMT) trials of Nazi war criminals 1945-1946) at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) when the judges of the IMT (International Military Tribunal) declined to “control the witness”, leaving Justice Jackson increasingly exasperated by Göring’s long answers which the prosecutor though mostly irrelevant but which were of great interest to at least some of the judges and permitted under the terms of the court’s charter.  Of course, the IMT wasn’t limited by New York’s rules on admissibility of evidence.

Stormy Daniels (2019) by Robert Crumb.  Robert Crumb (b 1943) is an US cartoonist, associated since the 1960s with the counter-culture and some strains of libertarianism; he was one of the most identifiable figures of the quasi-underground (in the Western rather than the Warsaw Pact sense) comix movement.

However, in one exchange during defense cross examination, there was no question of any propensity to embellish, counsel asking: “Am I correct in that you hate President Trump?” to which Ms Daniels replied: “Yes.”  No ambiguity there and although not discussed in court, her attitude may not wholly be unrelated to Mr Trump’s rather ungracious description of her as “horse face”.  Really, President Trump should be more respectful towards a three-time winner of F.A.M.E.'s (Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment) much coveted annual "Favorite Breasts" award.

Donald Trump leaving Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

Speaking briefly to reporters after leaving the court, Mr Trump said: “This was a very big day, a very revealing day, as you see, their case is totally falling apart, they have nothing on the books and records and even something that should bear very little relationship to the case, it's just a disaster for the DA.”

Teleology

Teleology (pronounced tel-ee-ol-uh-jee or tee-lee-ol-uh-jee)

(1) In philosophy, the study of final causes; the doctrine that final causes exist; the belief that certain phenomena are best explained in terms of purpose rather than cause (a moral theory that maintains that the rightness or wrongness of actions solely depends on their consequences is called a teleological theory).

(2) The study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature; such design or purpose; in the cult of intelligent design, the doctrine that there is evidence of purpose or design in the universe, and especially that this provides proof of the existence of a Designer

(3) The belief that purpose and design are a part of or are apparent in nature.

(4) In the cult of vitalism, the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization.

(5) In biology, the belief that natural phenomena have a predetermined purpose and are not determined by mechanical laws

1728: From the New Latin teleologia a construct of the Ancient Greek τέλος (télos) (purpose; end, goal, result) genitive τέλεος (téleos) (end; entire, perfect, complete) + λόγος (lógos) (word, speech, discourse).  Teleology is a noun, teleological & teleologic are adjectives, teleologism & teleologist are nouns and teleologically is an adverb.; the noun plural is teleologies.

Christian von Wolff (circa 1740), mezzotint by Johann Jacob Haid (1704-1767).

Although teleology concepts had been discussed in the West (and likely too elsewhere) since at least antiquity, the word teleology appears first in Philosophia rationalis, sive logica (Rational philosophy or logic), a work published in 1728 by German philosopher Baron Christian von Wolff (1679-1754), an author whose writings cover an extraordinary range in formal philosophy, metaphysics, ethics and mathematics.  He used the word to mean something like "the study of stuff in terms of purpose and final cause" and were it not for the way in which Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) work has tended to be the intellectual steamroller which has flattened the history of German Enlightenment rationality, he’d probably now be better remembered beyond the profession.

Teleological Ethical Theories

Ethical Egoism posits that an action is good if it produces or is likely to produce results that maximize the person’s self-interest as defined by him, even at the expense of others.  It is based on the notion that it is always moral to promote one’s own good, but at times avoiding the personal interest could be a moral action too. This makes the ethical egoism different from the psychological egoism which holds that people are self-centred and self-motivated and perform actions only with the intention to maximize their personal interest without helping others, thereby denying the reality of true altruism.  Utilitarianism theory holds that an action is good if it results in maximum satisfaction for a large number of people who are likely to get affected by the action.  Eudaimonism is a teleological theory which holds an action is good if it results in the fulfilment of goals along with the welfare of the human beings.  In other words, the actions are said to be fruitful if it promotes or tends to promote the fulfilment of goals constitutive of human nature and its happiness.

Lindsay Lohan and her layer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

At the first of the Nuremberg trials, convened to try two-dozen odd  of the senior surviving Nazis, one of the criticisms of the conceptual model adopted by the US prosecution team under Justice Robert Jackson (1892–1954; US Supreme Court Justice 1941-1954; Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg (IMT) trials of Nazi war criminals 1945-1946) was that it was teleological: "the final crimes being implicit in the very origins of the regime".  His approach was of benefit to historians and added to the drama (and sometimes the tedium) of the event but was viewed by the British team, all highly experienced trial lawyers, as a needless diversion from the core business of simply winning the cases.

As a concept in philosophy, teleology can be applied practically or in the abstract to the study of purpose or design in natural phenomena.  Because the idea of teleology is there is (or can be) some inherent purpose or goal in the development and existence of things and events, it implies they are (at least sometimes) directed toward realizing that purpose.  As a tool of philosophers it can be helpful because usually it's contrasted with a mechanistic world view in which everything in the universe exists (or is perceived) as a series of cause-and-effect interactions with no inherent purpose.  Teleology is thus ultimately one extreme of a spectrum onto which observations and theories can be mapped, shifting around as need be.  Well and good, but teleological arguments do seem to exert a powerful attraction on those with some point to make, notably among those who like to assert the existence of a purposeful creator or designer of the universe and these people are inclined to conflate elegance of argument with proof.  Ultimately, the application of teleology can provide a framework of arguments for conclusions which, however audacious and compelling, remain wholly speculative and there is the suspicion that the internal logic which a teleological map can lend does lead some to be convinced of what are, just arguments.  Advances in knowledge have in some fields have diminished the appeal.  There was a time when in the biological sciences, teleology was associated with the notion vitalism which held that living organisms possess a purpose or life force guiding their development and their role on the planet (and presumably the universe).  More recently however, the functionality and complexity of life has come to be understood through evolutionary processes, genetics, and natural selection, there being neither the need nor any apparent evidence for a predetermined purpose.

Euphemism

Euphemism (pronounced yoo-fuh-miz-uhm)

(1) An agreeable or inoffensive word or phrase substituted for one potentially offensive, harsh or blunt, used often when referring to taboo, controversial or distasteful matters.

(2) The expression so substituted.

1656: From the Greek εὐφημισμός (euphēmismós) (use of a favorable word in place of an inauspicious one, superstitious avoidance of words of ill-omen during religious ceremonies), from εὐφημίζω (euphēmízō), from εὔφημος (eúphēmos & euphemizein (speak with fair words, use words of good omen).  Despite the impression conveyed by disapproving historians like Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) the Romans, like all the cultures of antiquity, used euphemisms but it does seem true the Athenians were the most delicate of all, so careful to avoid ill-omened words they called their prison “the chamber” and the executioner “the public man” and the Furies (Erinyes) they called “Eumenides” (the kindly ones or the Venerable Goddesses).

The construct was εὖ (eû) (good; well) + φήμη (phḗmē) (a voice, a prophetic voice, rumor, talk) + -ismos (-ism).  The Greek phēmē was from φάναι (phánai) (to speak, say), from the primitive Indo-European root pha (to speak, tell, say).  The concept was well-known in Hellenic culture, the Ancient Greek aristeros (the better one) a euphemism for "the left (hand)".  In English, it was originally a rhetorical term, the broader sense of "choosing a less distasteful word or phrase than the one meant" is attested from 1793 and was in common use by the 1830s.  The most common derived form, the adverb euphemistically, dates from 1833.  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).  Euphemism & euphemist are nouns, euphemistic & euphemistical are adjectives and euphemistically is an adverb; the noun plural is euphemisms.

The surviving defendants in the dock, International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945-1946.

Euphemisms are used to substitute an inoffensive word or phrase for one thought too offensive or hurtful, especially when the topic being discussed is concerned with religion, sex, death, or excreta.  Euphemisms are also used to disguise intent; the Nazi’s “Final Solution” was actually a programme of mass-murder or genocide as it would come to be called.  Even after the enormity of that became apparent during the first of the Nuremberg trials, one of the indicted Nazis attempted to find a euphemism for the euphemism, arguing it was somehow a substantive point that the English translation of Endlösung der Judenfrage as ”Final Solution to the Jewish Question” was misleading and the German should be rendered as “Total Solution to the Jewish Question”.  Like just about everyone else, in the circumstances, the judges failed to see any distinction.  It wasn’t the only euphemism the Nazis adopted: The phrase Sonderbehandlung (special treatment) refers to the ways and means of mass-murder and the transportation of victims to their places where they would be murdered was officially "re-settlement in the east".

Noted Euphemisms

Tired and emotional: The Rt Hon Sir John Kerr AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC (1914–1991; Governor-General of Australia 1974-1977), Melbourne Cup, November 1977.

To "put to sleep" actually means to euthanize and death generally attracts many: "passed away", "bought the farm", "kicked the bucket", "departed", "lost", "gone", "pushing up daisies", "resting in peace", "met untimely demise", "meet their maker", "going to a better place", "six feet under", "sleeping with the fishes" & "eternal slumber".  Sex is also well covered including "friends with benefits", "roll in the hay" & "sleep with"; related forms being "bun in the oven" (pregnancy), "lady of the night" (prostitute), "affair" (adultery) & "long-time companion" (homosexual partner).  Rather than drunk, one might say "tired and emotional", "gave it a bit of a nudge" or "had one too many".  Politics provides a few, often words which describing lying without actually admitting it including "terminological inexactitudes", "economical with the truth" & that specialty of crooked Hillary Clinton: "misspeak".  Lindsay Lohan's lifestyle choices provided editors with some scope for the euphemistic, the terms applied to her including "controversial actress" or "troubled" (train-wreck), "tired & emotional" (affected by too much strong drink), "special friend" or "friendship" (a bit lesbionic) & "dehydrated" (affected by the use of unspecified substances).    Regarding urination, defecation and bodily functions in general, there are probably more euphemisms even than those covering death.

Students learning English are taught about euphemisms and the vital part they play in social interaction.  They are of course a feature of many languages but in English some of these sanitizations must seem mysterious and lacking any obvious connection with what is being referenced.  There are also exams and students may be asked both to provide a definition of “euphemism” and an example of use and a good instance of the latter is what to do when a situation really can be described only as “a clusterfuck” or even “a fucking clusterfuck” but circumstances demand a more “polite” word.  So, students might follow the lead of Australian Federal Court Judge Michael Lee (b 1965) in Lehrmann v Network TenPty Limited [2024] FCA 369 who in his 420 page judgment declared the matter declared “an omnishambles”. The construct of that was the Latin omni(s) (all) + shambles, from the Middle English schamels (plural of schamel), from the Old English sċeamol & sċamul (bench, stool), from the Proto-West Germanic skamul & skamil (stool, bench), from the Vulgar Latin scamellum, from the Classical Latin scamillum (little bench, ridge), from scamnum (bench, ridge, breadth of a field).  In English, shambles enjoyed a number of meanings including “a scene of great disorder or ruin”, “a cluttered or disorganized mess”, “a. scene of bloodshed, carnage or devastation” or (most evocatively), “a slaughterhouse”.  As one read the judgement one could see what the judge was drawn to the word although, in the quiet of his chambers, he may have been thinking “clusterfuck”.  Helpfully, one of the Murdoch press’s legal commentators, The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen (b 1966; by Barry Goldwater out of Ayn Rand) who had been one of the journalists most attentive to the case, told the word nerds (1) omnishambles dated from 2009 when it was coined for the BBC political satire The Thick Of It and (2) endured well enough to be named the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) 2021 Word of the Year.  The linguistic flourish was a hint of things to come in what was one of the more readable recent judgments.  If a student cites “omnishambles” as a euphemism for “clusterfuck”, a high mark is just about guaranteed.

Freemason

Freemason (pronounced free-mey-suh n)

(1) A member of a secret society (Free and Accepted Masons, constituted in London in 1717), present in many countries which operates in a cult-like manner (initial upper case and often used in the clipped form “Mason”).

(2) Historically, one of a class of skilled stoneworkers of the medieval period (lasting into the early modern era), possessing passwords and both public & secret signs, used as devices by which they could identify one another.

(3) A member of a society composed of such workers, which also included honorary members (accepted masons) not connected with stone work.

1350-1400: From the Middle English fremason.  Free was from the Middle English free, fre & freo, from the Old English frēo (free), from the Proto-West Germanic frī, from the Proto-Germanic frijaz (beloved, not in bondage), from the primitive Indo-European priHós (dear, beloved), from preyH- (to love, please); it was related to the English friend.  The verb was from the Middle English freen & freoȝen, from the Old English frēon & frēoġan (to free; make free), from the Proto-West Germanic frijōn, from the Proto-Germanic frijōną, from the primitive Indo-European preyH-.  Mason was from the Middle English masoun & machun, from the Anglo-Norman machun & masson or the Old French maçon, from the Late Latin maciō (carpenter, bricklayer), from the Frankish makjō (maker, builder), a derivative of the Frankish makōn (to work, build, make), from the primitive Indo-European mag- (to knead, mix, make), conflated with the Proto-West Germanic mattjō (cutter), from the primitive Indo-European metn- & met- (to cut).  The “mason” element of the word is uncontested.  A mason was a bricklayer (1) one whose trade was the handling, and formation of structures in stone or brick or (2) one who prepares stone for building purposes.  It later (3) became the standard short-form for a member of the fraternity of Freemasons.  However, the origin of the “free” part is contested.  Some etymologists suggest it was a corruption of the French frère (brother), from frèremaçon (brother mason) while others believe it was a reference to the masons working on “free-standing” (ie large rocks they would cut shape into smaller pieces) stones.  Most however maintain it meant “free” in the sense of them being independent of the control of local guilds or lords.  The noun freemasonry was in use by the mid-fifteenth century.  Freemason, Freemasonism & freemasonry are nouns and freemasonic is an adjective; the noun plural is Freemasons.  Unfortunately, the adjective freemasonistic and the adverb freemasonistically appear not to exist.

The origin of the freemasons was in a travelling guild of masons who wandered England offering their services to those needing stonework.  Operating in opposition to the established guilds, the freemasons (ie free from the dictates of the guilds) had a closed system of passwords, symbols and secret signs (the origin of the famously mysterious Masonic handshake) so safely they could identify each-other and ensure intruders (presumably agents of the guild) couldn’t infiltrate their midst.  In the early seventeenth century, they began accepting as honorary members even those who were not stonemasons and by the early eighteenth century the structure had had developed into the secret fraternity of affiliated lodges known as Free and Accepted Masons (often as F&AM) and as an institution the F&AM were first registered in London in 1717.

Freemason T-shirts should not be confused with other "Free" campaign clothing. 

The “accepted” refers to persons admitted to the society but not belonging to the craft and in time this became the nature of the Freemason, long removed from the actual trade of stone-working.  As an institution, the Freemasons (especially by their enemies and detractors) are often spoken of as if something monolithic but the only truly common thread is the name although most do (at least officially) subscribe to a creed of “brotherly love, faith, and charity”.  Structurally, they’re nothing like the Roman Catholic Church with its headquarters and single figure of ultimate authority and are a looser affiliation even than the “worldwide Anglican community” where the spiritual “authority” of the Archbishop of Canterbury is now wholly symbolic.  The Freemasons are more schismatic still and can’t even be compared to the loosest of confederations because their basic organizational units, the lodges, operate with such autonomy that one might not be on speaking terms with one in the next suburb and each may even deny that the other is legitimately Masonic.

Despite that, the conspiracy theorists have often been interested in the Masons because they can be treated as if they are monolithic and it is true that as recently as the second half of the twentieth century there were many entities (notably police forces) where there was an unusual preponderance of Masons in prominent positions and in one force, for decades, by mutual consent, the position of commissioner alternated between a Roman Catholic and a Freemason.  In Europe, it wasn’t uncommon for the Masons to be grouped with the Jews as the source of all that was corrupt in society and some satirists made a troupe of “the Freemasons and the Jews” being at the bottom of every evil scheme, cooked up either at lodge or synagogue.  One who needed no convincing was Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) who perceived a  Masonic plot be behind the overthrow of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) in 1943.

Reinhard Heydrich (second from left, back to camera) conducting a tour of the SS Freemasonry Museum, Berlin, 1935.

The Nazis enjoyed curiously diverse interactions with the Freemasons.  During his trial in Nuremberg in 1945-1946 Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) told the International Military Tribunal (IMT) that it was only an accident of history he was in the dock because in 1922 he was on his way “…to join the Freemasons when I was distracted by a toothy blonde.”  Had he joined the brotherhood he claimed, he’d never have been able to join the Nazi Party because it proscribed Freemasonry.  During the same proceedings, Hjalmar Schacht (1877–1970; President of the German Central Bank (Reichsbank) 1933–1939 and Nazi Minister of Economics 1934–1937) said that even while serving the Third Reich he never deviated from his belief in the principles of “international Freemasonry”.  Upon coming to power, the Nazis certainly took that proscription seriously but the suppression of Freemasonry was not unique, the party looking to stamp out all institutions which could be an alternative source of people’s allegiances or sources of ideas.  This included youth organizations, trade unions and other associations, their attitude something like that of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to the Falun Gong and the two authoritarian parties were similarly pragmatic in dealing with the mainstream churches which were regulated and controlled, it being realized their support was such that eradication would have to wait.  By 1935, the Nazis considered the “Freemason problem” solved and the SS even created a “Freemason Museum” on Berlin’s Prinz-Albrecht-Palais (conveniently close to Gestapo headquarters) to exhibit the relics of the “vanished cult”.  SS-Obergruppenführer (Lieutenant-General) Reinhard Heydrich (1904–1942; head of the Reich Security Main Office 1939-1942) originally included the Freemasons on his list of archenemies of National Socialism which, like Bolshevism, he considered an internationalist, anti-fascist Zweckorganisation (expedient organization) of Jewry.  According to Heydrich, Masonic lodges were under Jewish control and while appearing to organize social life “…in a seemingly harmless way, were actually instrumentalizing people for the purposes of Jewry”.

One institution which has for almost three centuries proscribed Freemasonry is the Roman Catholic Church although that official position has run in parallel with a notable Catholic membership in many lodges.  The ban was both explicit and often expressed up until the pontificate of Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) but after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965), the winds of change seemed to blow in other directions and in recent years from Rome, there’s been barely a mention of Freemasonry, the feeling probably that issues like secularism, abortion, homosexuality, radical Islam and such were thought more immediate threats.  It was thus a surprise to many when on 13 November 2023 the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (the DDF, the latest name for the Inquisition) reaffirmed the Church's teachings that laity or clerics participating in Freemasonry are in "a state of grave sin."  The DDF didn’t repeat the words of Clement XII (1652–1740; pope 1730-1740) who in 1738 called Masonry “depraved and perverted” but did say: “On the doctrinal level, it should be remembered that active membership in Freemasonry by a member of the faithful is forbidden because of the irreconcilability between Catholic doctrine and Freemasonry", citing Declaration on Masonic Associations (1983) by Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was head of the DDF (then called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)).  Continuing in a way which recalled the ways of the Inquisition, ominously the DDF added: “Therefore, those who are formally and knowingly enrolled in Masonic Lodges and have embraced Masonic principles fall under the provisions in the above-mentioned Declaration. These measures also apply to any clerics enrolled in Freemasonry.”

Apparently, the DDF issued the document in response to concerns raised by a bishop in the Philippines who reported a growing interest in the secret society in his country.  That was interesting in that cultural anthropologists have noted the form of Catholic worship in the Philippines was in some ways a hybrid which merged the Western tradition with the local rituals the Spanish priests who accompanied the colonists found were hard to suppress.  It proved a happy compromise and the faith flourished but one of the Vatican’s objections to Freemasonry has long been that the society swears oaths of secrecy, fellowship and fraternity among members and has accumulated a vast catalogue of rituals, ceremonial attire and secret signals.  It has always made the church uneasy that these aesthetic affectations often use Christian imagery despite being used for non-Christian rituals.  Indeed, it’s not a requirement of membership that one be a Christian or even to affirm a belief in the God of Christianity or Jesus Christ as the savior or mankind and the secret nature of so much Masonic ritualism has given rise to the suspicion of the worship of false idols.  Of relevance too is the existence of the complex hierarchy of titles within Masonism which could be interpreted as a kind or parallel priesthood.

Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) is fighting a war which he hopes will set the course of the church for the next generation.  Before it could commence in anger he had to wait for the death of Benedict but the battle is now on and it’s against a cabal of recalcitrant cardinals and theologians (“the finest minds of the thirteenth century” he’s rumored to call them) who are appalled at any deviation from established orthodoxy in doctrine, ritual or form, regarding such (at least between themselves), as heresy.  Quite where the DDF’s re-statement of the 300 year old policy of prohibition of Freemasonry fits into that internecine squabble isn’t clear and it may be the interest aroused surprised even the DDF which may simply have been issuing a routine authoritative clarification in response to a bishop’s request.  Certainly nothing appears to have changed in terms of the consequences and the interpretation by some that the revisions to canon law made some years were in some way substantive in this matter appear to have been wrong.

Escutcheons of the Holy See (left) and the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or (right).

Interestingly, the DDF (nor any other iteration of the Inquisition) has never moved to proscribe the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or (The Golden Keys; the international association of hotel concierges.  This is despite the organization being structurally remarkably similar to the Freemasons and the similarities between their escutcheon and that of the Holy See are quite striking.  According to the DDF, the crossed keys are a symbol of the Papacy's authority and power, the keys representing the "keys of heaven" that were in the New Testament passed from Jesus Christ to Saint Peter.  In Roman Catholic tradition, Peter was appointed by Jesus as the first Pope and given the keys to symbolize his authority to forgive sins and to make decisions binding on behalf of the Church (this the theological basis of what in canon law was codified in the nineteenth century as papal infallibility).  The two keys thus symbolize the pope's two powers: (1) spiritual power (represented by the silver key) and (2) temporal power (represented by the gold key).  The latter power manifested in a most temporal manner during the thousand-odd years (between the eighth & nineteenth centuries) when the authority of the papal absolute theocracy extended to rule and govern the Papal States (which were interpolated into the modern state of Italy upon Italian unification (1859-1870).  Claiming (officially) only temporal dominion, the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d'Or logo depicts both their keys in gold, one said to symbolize the concierge's role in unlocking the doors to the world for their guests, the other their ability to unlock the secrets of their destination and provide insider knowledge and recommendations (restaurant bookings, airport transfers, personal service workers of all types etc).  However, neither the Vatican nor the Les Clefs d’Or have ever denied intelligence-sharing, covert operations, common rituals or other links.

In an indication they'll stop at nothing, the Freemasons have even stalked Lindsay Lohan.  In 2011, Ms Lohan was granted a two-year restraining order against alleged stalker David Cocordan, the order issued some days after she filed complaint with police who, after investigation by their Threat Management Department, advised the court Mr Cocordan (who at the time had been using at least five aliases) “suffered from schizophrenia”, was “off his medication” and had a "significant psychiatric history of acting on his delusional beliefs.”  That was worrying enough but Ms Lohan may have revealed her real concerns in an earlier post on twitter in which she included a picture of David Cocordan, claiming he was "the freemason stalker that has been threatening to kill me- while he is TRESPASSING!"  Being stalked by a schizophrenic is bad enough but the thought of being hunted by a schizophrenic Freemason is truly frightening.  Apparently an unexplored matter in the annals of psychiatry, it seems the question of just how schizophrenia might particularly manifest in Freemasons awaits research so there may be a PhD there for someone.

The problem Ms Lohan identified has long been known.  In the US, between 1828-1838 there was an Anti-Mason political party which is remembered now as one of the first of the “third parties” which over the decades have often briefly flourished before either fading away or being absorbed into one side or the other of what has for centuries tended towards two-party stability.  Its initial strength was that it was obsessively a single-issue party which enabled it rapidly to gather support but that proved ultimately it’s weakness because it never adequately developed the broader policy platform which would have attracted a wider membership.  The party was formed in reaction to the disappearance (and presumed murder) of a former Mason who had turned dissident and become a most acerbic critic and the suspicion arose that the Masonic establishment had arranged his killing to silence his voice.  They attracted much support, including from many church leaders who had long been suspicious of Freemasonry and were not convinced the organization was anything but anti-Christian.  Because the Masons were secretive and conducted their meetings in private, their opponents tended to invent stories about the rituals and ceremonies (stuff with goats often mentioned) and the myths grew.  The myths were clearly enough to secure some electoral success and the Anti-Masons even ran William Wirt (1772-1834 and still the nation’s longest-serving attorney-general (1817-1829)) as their candidate in the 1832 presidential election where he won 7.8% of the popular vote and carried Vermont, a reasonable achievement for a third-party candidate.  Ultimately though, that proved the electoral high-water mark and most of its members thereafter were absorbed by the embryonic Whig Party.