2/3/2017 Orwell’s 1984: Are We There Yet? - Crisis Magazine

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/orwells-1984-are-we-there-yet 1/6

AUGUST 15, 2013

Orwell’s 1984: Are We There Yet?

SEAN FITZPATRICK

The second most terrifying thing about George Orwell’s 1984 is the supposition that itis possible to destroy humanity without destroying humankind. The first is how many aspectsof our democratic nation resemble his dystopian nightmare.

George Orwell wrote 1984 in 1948 as a political satire of a totalitarian state and a denunciationof Stalinism. Orwell himself was a socialist, who fought for the republicans in the Spanish CivilWar and was wounded by a sniper bullet to the throat. As the West became aware of the horrorsof Stalin, Orwell became disillusioned.

1984 was Orwell’s resulting futuristic-cautionary tale of Winston Smith in a world ofgovernment domination defined by anxiety, hatred, and cruelty. The Party, whose head isreverently called Big Brother, presides over existence through omnipresent surveillance andmind control. Their subjugated citizens are programmed not only to accept if Big Brother saysthat 2 + 2 = 5, but also to believe it. Winston’s adventures begin as he slowly and fearfully stepsout of the established traces, sensing the hypocrisy that surrounds and penetrates him, tosearch for truth. What he finds is pain.

(http://www.crisismagazine.com/?attachment_id=67750)Commenting on 1984, Orwell wrote,“I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive, but I believe thatsomething resembling it could arrive.”

2/3/2017 Orwell’s 1984: Are We There Yet? - Crisis Magazine

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/orwells-1984-are-we-there-yet 2/6

Has it?

Of course, the United States is not autocratic;but many of the disturbing elements of 1984actually exist in American society. In somecases, what is happening in the U.S. is moredraconian and invasive than anything Orwellconceived.

War is Peace 

One of the Party pillars in 1984 is endless waron a global scale. The war, however, is afabrication accepted and treated as fact. For,unreal as it is, it is not meaningless. Worldpowers become enemies and alliesinterchangeably simply to keep the masses inperpetual fear, perpetual industry, andperpetual order. War provides outlet forunwanted emotions such as hate, patriotism,and discontent, keeping the structure ofsociety intact and productive without raisingthe standard of living.

Where is the enemy—or the end—in our “war on terror?” The faceless foe and limitlessobjectives are productive of a widespread atmosphere of paranoia and restricted civilianliberties. In the wake of the sequestration military-spending cuts, it is also manifest that, tomany, war means little more than a job.

Freedom is Slavery 

The perpetual warfare in 1984 sacrifices individual freedom for collective freedom. Bysubmitting entirely to the Party, people surrender their identity and the impulses that arisefrom having one, passively receiving everything. The principles of unfreedom and inequality areconsciously perpetuated to stifle revolution and uprising, uniting all in a trance under thewatchful eye of Big Brother.

True freedom is the unimpeded capacity to realize the human good. Freedom in America isgenerally defined as mere license, which enslaves when human inclinations stray from the

2/3/2017 Orwell’s 1984: Are We There Yet? - Crisis Magazine

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/orwells-1984-are-we-there-yet 3/6

good. This American fallacy defines liberty as getting what is wanted, and moreover, that thegovernment is there to give it. Subservience through mindless entitlement for governmenthandouts and bailouts is not freedom, but slavery.

Ignorance is Strength 

Any transgression against the Party is a capital crime. The common habit, therefore, isinvincible ignorance: the appearance of orthodoxy without knowing what orthodoxy entails.The Party’s world-view is impressed most successfully on people incapable of understanding it.

Has anyone read the Affordable Care Act? The plan appears to be to swallow it in blind lip-service to the ideologies of big government. This mentality is rendered common by a declining—if not fallen—education system. (Who can afford college anyway these days?) Rather thanaddress the plague of ignorance, America seems more concerned with protecting the ignorantfrom profiling and unequal opportunity.

Telescreens 

Practically every public and private place in Orwell’s fictional world is under surveillancethrough “telescreens,” that also broadcast announcements, news, and propaganda. They are thesleepless eyes monitoring every move, every word, every facial expression, and everyinvoluntary reaction of every person in the effort to detect thoughtcrime. “Big Brother iswatching you.”

Social media keeps close record of our “likes” and activities. Our telephone calls and browsinghistories are accessible to apparently any NSA analyst, according to Mr. Snowden. Our socialsecurity numbers and zip codes are increasingly part of everyday transactions. Private lives arespied upon. Drones fly overhead. Cameras record invisibly. Data is collected. We, too, are beingwatched.

Doublethink 

Party members in 1984 practice a mental contortion that assumes two contradictory premisessimultaneously for the sake of exercising control over reality. This practice is called“doublethink,” and leaves no impression that reality has been violated. This mind control, ormemory control, allows the Party to shape their world: “Who controls the past controls thefuture; who controls the present controls the past.”

Politicians often use forms of doublethink when they carefully and consciously lie. NationalIntelligence Director James Clapper, for instance, was asked at a Senate hearing last March

2/3/2017 Orwell’s 1984: Are We There Yet? - Crisis Magazine

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/orwells-1984-are-we-there-yet 4/6

whether the NSA collected information on millions of Americans. “No,” Clapper answered. “Notwittingly.” Following the NSA leak, Clapper insisted he did not lie, but responded in the “leastuntruthful manner.” We are too accustomed to mutable “truth”—the gospel according toWikipedia. From conflicting Benghazi reports to misleading Trayvon photographs, the mediaregularly and unabashedly fabricates, falsifies, and manipulates according to the agenda dujour.

Newspeak 

A prominent feature of progress in 1984 is the language “newspeak,” a stripped-down, impotentdistortion of English. Orwell draws a connection between the success of the tyrannicalgovernment and the deterioration of language, as newspeak renders certain ideas literallyunthinkable through reduction of vocabulary and grammar. Language control results inthought control.

We have our own variations of “newspeak” that limits what we think by limiting what we say.“Politically correct” language is speech that hedges thought. Technological autocorrect andautocomplete functions often dictate our phraseology. Emails and tweets promote stiltedcommunication. And let us not forget text talk, which AFAICT, is not helping anything.WYSIWYG. As a language deteriorates, the grand and noble ideas it is capable of expressing arein danger of deteriorating also.

Although we are not citizens of Orwell’s world, there is a complacency in our civilization that isakin to Orwellian capitulation. The fears and confusions of a rapidly changing culture and itspermeating devices are disorienting and discouraging. Affairs may not be as grisly as they werefor Winston Smith, but we may not be far off. After all, can facecrime really be much differentthan hate-crime? Is it better for sex to be reduced to its practical purpose or its pleasure?Whether memory holes or paper shredders, a society resembling Orwell’s description may havearrived.

There is only so much we can do. When all are monitored, all are suspect.

“We are the dead. Our only true life is in the future. We shall take part in it as handfuls of dustand splinters of bone. But how far away that future may be, there is no knowing. It might be athousand years. At present nothing is possible except to extend the area of sanity little by little.”