“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” George Orwell, 1984 George Orwell’s writings have experienced a spike in popularity over the past several decades and for a good reason – modern societies are becoming ever more like the dystopia Orwell depicted in his novel 1984. Whether it be mass surveillance, the incessant use of propaganda, perpetual war, the manipulation of language, or the cult of personality surrounding political leaders, many consider Orwell’s novel to be prescient. While the West remains freer than the dystopian society of 1984, the trend of more and more power being concentrated in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats does not bode well for those who favour a free society. Orwell believed that the totalitarianism he portrayed in his novel was a distinct possibility for the West and at times he went as far as to suggest that it may in fact be inevitable. Or as he wrote:
“Then the entire assembly of the Israelites began to murmur against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. The Israelites kept saying to them:
‘If only we had died by Jehovah’s hand in the land of Egypt while we were sitting by the pots of meat, while we were eating bread to satisfaction. Now you have brought us out into this wilderness to put this whole congregation to death by famine.’”
Isrealites were abused slaves. Wanted to return for better food than freedom provided, so far.
I find Orwell's 'The Prevention of Literature full of insights that speak to our time as much or moreso than when he wrote them eighty years ago:
"Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth."
"A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud."
"The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves."
"His awakening will come later, when the totalitarian state is firmly established."
"From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned. A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened. Then again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a revelation of prominent historical figures. This kind of thing happens everywhere, but is clearly likelier to lead to outright falsification in societies where only one opinion is permissible at any given moment. Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth. The friends of totalitarianism in this country usually tend to argue that since absolute truth is not attainable, a big lie is no worse than a little lie. It is pointed out that all historical records are biased and inaccurate, or on the other hand, that modern physics has proven that what seems to us the real world is an illusion, so that to believe in the evidence of one’s senses is simply vulgar philistinism. A totalitarian society which succeeded in perpetuating itself would probably set up a schizophrenic system of thought, in which the laws of common sense held good in everyday life and in certain exact sciences, but could be disregarded by the politician, the historian, and the sociologist. Already there are countless people who would think it scandalous to falsify a scientific textbook, but would see nothing wrong in falsifying an historical fact. It is at the point where literature and politics cross that totalitarianism exerts its greatest pressure on the intellectual. The exact sciences are not, at this date [1946], menaced to anything like the same extent [are today]. This partly accounts for the fact that in all countries it is easier for the scientists than for the writers to line up behind their respective governments.
...
Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable. It can never permit either the truthful recording of facts or the emotional sincerity that literary creation demands. But to be corrupted by totalitarianism one does not have to live in a totalitarian country. The mere prevalence of certain ideas can spread a kind of poison that makes one subject after another impossible for literary purposes. Wherever there is an enforced orthodoxy — or even two orthodoxies, as often happens — good writing stops.
...
But what is sinister, as I said at the beginning of this essay, is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favour of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves.
...
When one sees highly educated men looking on indifferently at oppression and persecution, one wonders which to despise more, their cynicism or their shortsightedness. Many scientists, for example, are the uncritical admirers of the U.S.S.R. They appear to think that the destruction of liberty is of no importance so long as their own line of work is for the moment unaffected. The U.S.S.R. is a large, rapidly developing country which has an acute need of scientific workers and, consequently, treats them generously. Provided that they steer clear of dangerous subjects such as psychology, scientists are privileged persons.
...
For the moment the totalitarian state tolerates the scientist because it needs him. Even in Nazi Germany, scientists, other than Jews, were relatively well treated and the German scientific community, as a whole, offered no resistance to Hitler. At this stage of history, even the most autocratic ruler is forced to take account of physical reality, partly because of the lingering-on of liberal habits of thought, partly because of the need to prepare for war. So long as physical reality cannot altogether be ignored, so long as two and two have to make four when you are, for example, drawing the blueprint of an aeroplane, the scientist has his function, and can even be allowed a measure of liberty. His awakening will come later, when the totalitarian state is firmly established. Meanwhile, if he wants to safeguard the integrity of science, it is his job to develop some kind of solidarity with his literary colleagues and not disregard it as a matter of indifference when writers are silenced or driven to suicide, and newspapers systematically falsified.
...
But however it may be with the physical sciences, or with music, painting and architecture, it is — as I have tried to show — certain that literature is doomed if liberty of thought perishes. Not only is it doomed in any country which retains a totalitarian structure; but any writer who adopts the totalitarian outlook, who finds excuses for persecution and the falsification of reality, thereby destroys himself as a writer. There is no way out of this. No tirades against ‘individualism’ and the ‘ivory tower’, no pious platitudes to the effect that ‘true individuality is only attained through identification with the community’, can get over the fact that a bought mind is a spoiled mind. Unless spontaneity enters at some point or another, literary creation is impossible, and language itself becomes ossified. At some time in the future, if the human mind becomes something totally different from what it is now, we may learn to separate literary creation from intellectual honesty. At present we know only that the imagination, like certain wild animals, will not breed in captivity. Any writer or journalist who denies that fact — and nearly all the current praise of the Soviet Union contains or implies such a denial — is, in effect, demanding his own destruction."
...And so much more...read Orwell's piece in its entirety. It's not terribly long. And worth it. Could've been written today. Applies today as much as then.
I believe that in order to plant the seeds for resilient and adaptable parallel societies to set down roots we must first look within and nourish the inner garden so that we are able to draw from the wellspring of strength, courage, clarity and intuition that it's fruits can provide us.
I describe part of that process in my essay titled "Dispelling the Most Detrimental Myth in Modern Western Civilization"
Once we are able to recognize the eternal spark within, this means we are able to see the same eternal spark within all other lifeforms and that common ground can compel us to make choices that are in service of life and capable of dissolving corrupt institutions on Earth.
One could argue that we now carry big brother in our pockets and social media gives us the two minutes of hate. Certainly history is being rewritten on Wikipedia daily finally his perpetual wars with only three nations is not far from the truth either.
Spero mi perdoniate se forse in questo mio secondo commento vado fuori tema , ma ci tengo a farvi notare e constatare che "BRAVE NEW WORLD " , è ideato da " ALDOUS HUXLEY ( fratello di julian huxley delle nazioni unite ). ho trovato qualche nota non proprio edificante che lo caratteriscono,....... se siete interessati vi racconto qualcosa di lui e di brave new world, altrimenti mi fermo qui'....
Conosco perfettamente questi scritti di ORWELL CHE SI STANNO RIVELANDO PROFETICI PER I GIONI NOSTRI E CONOSCENDO LA SUA CULTURA POLITICA CONVINTO SOCIALISTA DEMOCRATICO COME PURE Huxley, CHE TROVO CON UNA FORMAZIONE DI MASSA IDENTICA ALLE MASSE ODIERNE , MI SOFFERMEREI PER UN ATTIMO SULLE DUE DEFINIZIONI CHE ELENCATE " COLLETTIVISMO " E " EDONISMO ", LE TROVO SUPERATE CULTURALMENTE E POCO ACCETTABILI PER UNA COMPRENSIONE UTILE VERSO LE MASSE, LE POSSO SEMPLIFICARE ,IL PRIMO COME L'ADORAZIONE PER IL POTERE E IL DOMINIO SUL DIO " LO STATO", IL SECONDO COME UN " EGOISMO " QUASI MANIACALE NEL MANTENERE LE PROPRIE MIGLIORIE E PREVILEGI ACQUISITI ,SOPRATUTTO GLI STATALI ACCETTANDO E SERVENDO IL SISTEMA , QUINDI ORA I TIMORI E LE PAURE DI ORWELL E HUXLEY SI SONO MATERIALIZZATE E AGGRAVATE, ARRIVIAMO E RIPRENDIAMO DALLA FINE DI QUESTO ARTICOLO DOVE CI VOLEVA UNA VERA CRISI PERCHE' IL TOTALITARISMO SI VERIFICASSE, QUELLO CHE STA AVVENENDO ORA SONO CRISI MANIPOLATORIE E PROVOCATE DI PROPOSITO DAL SOLITO POTERE DELL' ALTA FINANZA AZIONARIA E DA UNA RETE "INVISIBILE " DIETRO AL C.F.R. USA E ALLA BRI. ( banca dei regolamenti internazionali ) la banca della banche centrali , non si tratta solo di crisi passeggere ma di un "TOTALITARISMO TECNOCRATICO "mondiale , questa è la differenza che ORWELL ancora non conosceva , un'agenda datata 2030 che contiene transumanesimo e spopolamento,,, !!!!!!!!!!, con questa visione DI CRIMINALITA' UMANA i sospetti e timori e paure di ORWELL RIMANGONO SOLO UN TENERO ROMANZO, DETTO QUESTO ANCHE LE ACCADEMIE E LA NARRAZIONE ALTERNATIVA DEVONO ACCELERARE LE PROPRIE INFORMAZIONI UTILI A FAR CAPIRE E RISVEGLARE LE MASSE DALLA FORMAZIONE E LAVAGGIO DEL CERVELLO OTTENUTA.
CORDIALI SALUTI
Ermanno Ricci e non ... RICCI ERMANNO da MOLTO tempo risvegliato ma anche da TEMPO SEDUTO DAVANTI AL MURO .... ( inteso come le masse che non ascoltano .... !!! )
Keen insight as always.
Recalls this ancient experience . . .
“Then the entire assembly of the Israelites began to murmur against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. The Israelites kept saying to them:
‘If only we had died by Jehovah’s hand in the land of Egypt while we were sitting by the pots of meat, while we were eating bread to satisfaction. Now you have brought us out into this wilderness to put this whole congregation to death by famine.’”
Isrealites were abused slaves. Wanted to return for better food than freedom provided, so far.
Story there for a reason . . .
Thanks
Clay
I find Orwell's 'The Prevention of Literature full of insights that speak to our time as much or moreso than when he wrote them eighty years ago:
"Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth."
"A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud."
"The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves."
"His awakening will come later, when the totalitarian state is firmly established."
"a bought mind is a spoiled mind"
The Prevention of Literature
Polemic, January, 1946
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-prevention-of-literature/
(selected excerpts)
"From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned. A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened. Then again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a revelation of prominent historical figures. This kind of thing happens everywhere, but is clearly likelier to lead to outright falsification in societies where only one opinion is permissible at any given moment. Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth. The friends of totalitarianism in this country usually tend to argue that since absolute truth is not attainable, a big lie is no worse than a little lie. It is pointed out that all historical records are biased and inaccurate, or on the other hand, that modern physics has proven that what seems to us the real world is an illusion, so that to believe in the evidence of one’s senses is simply vulgar philistinism. A totalitarian society which succeeded in perpetuating itself would probably set up a schizophrenic system of thought, in which the laws of common sense held good in everyday life and in certain exact sciences, but could be disregarded by the politician, the historian, and the sociologist. Already there are countless people who would think it scandalous to falsify a scientific textbook, but would see nothing wrong in falsifying an historical fact. It is at the point where literature and politics cross that totalitarianism exerts its greatest pressure on the intellectual. The exact sciences are not, at this date [1946], menaced to anything like the same extent [are today]. This partly accounts for the fact that in all countries it is easier for the scientists than for the writers to line up behind their respective governments.
...
Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable. It can never permit either the truthful recording of facts or the emotional sincerity that literary creation demands. But to be corrupted by totalitarianism one does not have to live in a totalitarian country. The mere prevalence of certain ideas can spread a kind of poison that makes one subject after another impossible for literary purposes. Wherever there is an enforced orthodoxy — or even two orthodoxies, as often happens — good writing stops.
...
But what is sinister, as I said at the beginning of this essay, is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favour of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves.
...
When one sees highly educated men looking on indifferently at oppression and persecution, one wonders which to despise more, their cynicism or their shortsightedness. Many scientists, for example, are the uncritical admirers of the U.S.S.R. They appear to think that the destruction of liberty is of no importance so long as their own line of work is for the moment unaffected. The U.S.S.R. is a large, rapidly developing country which has an acute need of scientific workers and, consequently, treats them generously. Provided that they steer clear of dangerous subjects such as psychology, scientists are privileged persons.
...
For the moment the totalitarian state tolerates the scientist because it needs him. Even in Nazi Germany, scientists, other than Jews, were relatively well treated and the German scientific community, as a whole, offered no resistance to Hitler. At this stage of history, even the most autocratic ruler is forced to take account of physical reality, partly because of the lingering-on of liberal habits of thought, partly because of the need to prepare for war. So long as physical reality cannot altogether be ignored, so long as two and two have to make four when you are, for example, drawing the blueprint of an aeroplane, the scientist has his function, and can even be allowed a measure of liberty. His awakening will come later, when the totalitarian state is firmly established. Meanwhile, if he wants to safeguard the integrity of science, it is his job to develop some kind of solidarity with his literary colleagues and not disregard it as a matter of indifference when writers are silenced or driven to suicide, and newspapers systematically falsified.
...
But however it may be with the physical sciences, or with music, painting and architecture, it is — as I have tried to show — certain that literature is doomed if liberty of thought perishes. Not only is it doomed in any country which retains a totalitarian structure; but any writer who adopts the totalitarian outlook, who finds excuses for persecution and the falsification of reality, thereby destroys himself as a writer. There is no way out of this. No tirades against ‘individualism’ and the ‘ivory tower’, no pious platitudes to the effect that ‘true individuality is only attained through identification with the community’, can get over the fact that a bought mind is a spoiled mind. Unless spontaneity enters at some point or another, literary creation is impossible, and language itself becomes ossified. At some time in the future, if the human mind becomes something totally different from what it is now, we may learn to separate literary creation from intellectual honesty. At present we know only that the imagination, like certain wild animals, will not breed in captivity. Any writer or journalist who denies that fact — and nearly all the current praise of the Soviet Union contains or implies such a denial — is, in effect, demanding his own destruction."
...And so much more...read Orwell's piece in its entirety. It's not terribly long. And worth it. Could've been written today. Applies today as much as then.
Thank you for the illuminating presentation.
I believe that in order to plant the seeds for resilient and adaptable parallel societies to set down roots we must first look within and nourish the inner garden so that we are able to draw from the wellspring of strength, courage, clarity and intuition that it's fruits can provide us.
I describe part of that process in my essay titled "Dispelling the Most Detrimental Myth in Modern Western Civilization"
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/dispelling-the-most-detrimental-myth
Once we are able to recognize the eternal spark within, this means we are able to see the same eternal spark within all other lifeforms and that common ground can compel us to make choices that are in service of life and capable of dissolving corrupt institutions on Earth.
Our present situation reminds me of a combination of Brave New World, 1984, Atlas Shrugged, Fahrenheit 451, Lord of the Flies, and Camp of the Saints.
Very good! It has been so long since I read either Orwell or Huxley; I am inspired to pick them both up again.
One could argue that we now carry big brother in our pockets and social media gives us the two minutes of hate. Certainly history is being rewritten on Wikipedia daily finally his perpetual wars with only three nations is not far from the truth either.
Spero mi perdoniate se forse in questo mio secondo commento vado fuori tema , ma ci tengo a farvi notare e constatare che "BRAVE NEW WORLD " , è ideato da " ALDOUS HUXLEY ( fratello di julian huxley delle nazioni unite ). ho trovato qualche nota non proprio edificante che lo caratteriscono,....... se siete interessati vi racconto qualcosa di lui e di brave new world, altrimenti mi fermo qui'....
cordiali saluti
Ermanno
Ditch the cell phone, and break out of the collectivist cell overnight:
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/p/how-do-children-become-addicted-to
The bottom line here is do not worship government/politicians.
Conosco perfettamente questi scritti di ORWELL CHE SI STANNO RIVELANDO PROFETICI PER I GIONI NOSTRI E CONOSCENDO LA SUA CULTURA POLITICA CONVINTO SOCIALISTA DEMOCRATICO COME PURE Huxley, CHE TROVO CON UNA FORMAZIONE DI MASSA IDENTICA ALLE MASSE ODIERNE , MI SOFFERMEREI PER UN ATTIMO SULLE DUE DEFINIZIONI CHE ELENCATE " COLLETTIVISMO " E " EDONISMO ", LE TROVO SUPERATE CULTURALMENTE E POCO ACCETTABILI PER UNA COMPRENSIONE UTILE VERSO LE MASSE, LE POSSO SEMPLIFICARE ,IL PRIMO COME L'ADORAZIONE PER IL POTERE E IL DOMINIO SUL DIO " LO STATO", IL SECONDO COME UN " EGOISMO " QUASI MANIACALE NEL MANTENERE LE PROPRIE MIGLIORIE E PREVILEGI ACQUISITI ,SOPRATUTTO GLI STATALI ACCETTANDO E SERVENDO IL SISTEMA , QUINDI ORA I TIMORI E LE PAURE DI ORWELL E HUXLEY SI SONO MATERIALIZZATE E AGGRAVATE, ARRIVIAMO E RIPRENDIAMO DALLA FINE DI QUESTO ARTICOLO DOVE CI VOLEVA UNA VERA CRISI PERCHE' IL TOTALITARISMO SI VERIFICASSE, QUELLO CHE STA AVVENENDO ORA SONO CRISI MANIPOLATORIE E PROVOCATE DI PROPOSITO DAL SOLITO POTERE DELL' ALTA FINANZA AZIONARIA E DA UNA RETE "INVISIBILE " DIETRO AL C.F.R. USA E ALLA BRI. ( banca dei regolamenti internazionali ) la banca della banche centrali , non si tratta solo di crisi passeggere ma di un "TOTALITARISMO TECNOCRATICO "mondiale , questa è la differenza che ORWELL ancora non conosceva , un'agenda datata 2030 che contiene transumanesimo e spopolamento,,, !!!!!!!!!!, con questa visione DI CRIMINALITA' UMANA i sospetti e timori e paure di ORWELL RIMANGONO SOLO UN TENERO ROMANZO, DETTO QUESTO ANCHE LE ACCADEMIE E LA NARRAZIONE ALTERNATIVA DEVONO ACCELERARE LE PROPRIE INFORMAZIONI UTILI A FAR CAPIRE E RISVEGLARE LE MASSE DALLA FORMAZIONE E LAVAGGIO DEL CERVELLO OTTENUTA.
CORDIALI SALUTI
Ermanno Ricci e non ... RICCI ERMANNO da MOLTO tempo risvegliato ma anche da TEMPO SEDUTO DAVANTI AL MURO .... ( inteso come le masse che non ascoltano .... !!! )