If you have embraced a creed which appears to be free from the
If you have embraced a creed which appears to be free from the ordinary dirtiness of politics - a creed from which you yourself cannot expect to draw any material advantage - surely that proves that you are in the right?
The words of George Orwell — “If you have embraced a creed which appears to be free from the ordinary dirtiness of politics… surely that proves that you are in the right?” — burn with both irony and wisdom. He exposes the temptation of the human heart to sanctify its own beliefs, imagining them pure simply because they seem untouched by self-interest. Orwell warns that this sense of righteousness is often a trap: the conviction that one’s creed is spotless may blind the soul to its hidden flaws.
The meaning here is sharp and humbling. In the realm of politics, all systems and ideologies bear the weight of human imperfection. To think one has found a doctrine “free from dirtiness” is to forget that power always corrupts, that ambition lurks in every cause, and that self-interest can disguise itself in the robes of virtue. Orwell reminds us that purity in politics is not to be assumed, but to be tested constantly against reality, honesty, and humility.
History offers a clear lesson in the French Revolution. Its leaders proclaimed the creed of liberty, equality, and fraternity — ideals that seemed free from the dirtiness of monarchy and privilege. Yet soon, in their certainty of being “right,” they unleashed the Reign of Terror, where blood ran in the streets, and the guillotine silenced dissent. Their creed, embraced as pure, became a tool of oppression. Orwell’s words echo here: beware the belief that one’s ideology is without stain, for that belief itself breeds fanaticism.
The origin of Orwell’s insight lies in his own life, having witnessed the corruption of movements that claimed to stand for justice. He saw with his own eyes how noble ideals could be twisted into tools of control — in fascism, in communism, and even in democratic societies. His warning is universal: the more certain you are of your righteousness, the greater the danger that you are blind to your own corruption.
Therefore, O children of the future, take heed: never trust too easily the creed that calls itself pure. Question it, test it, and measure it not by its promises but by its fruits. For true righteousness in politics lies not in declaring oneself unstained, but in struggling honestly with the flaws of power, and in resisting the arrogance of certainty. Orwell’s words remind us that humility, vigilance, and self-examination are the only guards against corruption — even in the most noble of causes.
TNVan Tai Nguyen
I get what Orwell is saying, but it almost feels like he’s implying that personal sacrifice is the ultimate test of whether a belief is ‘right.’ Can this really be true in every case? Is it possible that someone could follow a creed without gaining personally, but still have motives or consequences that make them wrong in the broader context? How often do we confuse the absence of material gain with moral correctness?
NTNguyen Thinh
Orwell’s statement seems to romanticize the idea of selflessness in politics, but can anyone truly be free from the 'dirtiness of politics'? Even when it appears someone has no personal stake, isn’t it possible that their actions still affect the political landscape, consciously or unconsciously? How much of our ideology is shaped by personal experience, even if we don’t see it? It makes me wonder about the line between purity and self-deception.
PLphuong le
I’m curious about Orwell’s view on embracing a creed without expecting personal gain. On one hand, it sounds noble, but does that really guarantee you’re in the right? Couldn’t someone use this kind of idealism to hide behind their own biases or even push a harmful agenda, claiming righteousness while staying above reproach? I wonder how often people mistake their lack of personal benefit for the truth of their cause.
THThuong Hoang
Orwell’s quote makes me think about the purity of ideals and how they are often used to justify actions. He seems to suggest that if you follow a belief system without any personal gain, it’s proof of your righteousness. But is it really that simple? Can someone’s actions still be considered pure, even if they don’t gain materially, or does that leave room for manipulation or unintended consequences? How do we define true integrity?