Introduction / Thesis
Ever since George Orwell’s famous novel “1984” has been published in 1949, its semiotic significance was being discussed from a variety of political and sociological perspectives, with most literary critics concluding that “1984” was meant to increase people’s awareness as to the sheer wickedness of Communism, as a political doctrine. In his article “Utopia, Dystopia, and the Middle Class in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four”, Robert Paul Resch states: “Both admirers and detractors alike have tended to assume Orwell’s notion of totalitarianism to be straightforward and thus unworthy of any particular theoretical reflection” (1997, 138). However, this Orwell’s novel is not being concerned with the discussion of totalitarianism’s evils as much as it is being concerned with exposing what happens when society’s functioning gets to be adjusted to correspond to purely utopian theories that actively deny people their right to be endowed with natural instincts.
Therefore, we can say that “1984” does not only contain many ideological but also philosophical implications, which explains the fact that Orwell’s insight onto the very essence of totalitarianism remains fully valid even today, especially given the fact that the oppressive ideology of political correctness is now being forcibly imposed upon citizens of Western countries despite their will, as we speak. In this paper we will aim at exploring this thesis even further, while bringing readers’ attention to the fact that if self-appointed “experts on tolerance” are going to be allowed to proceed with their agenda of suppressing the truth, the horrors of “1984” will come to reality in very near future.
Analytical part
One of the most memorable aspects of Orwell’s anti-utopia is the fact that in it, author was able to predict the emergence of truly effective totalitarianism as such that would be closely associated with the invention of a new language “newspeak”, designed to serve the needs of a ruling party, while depriving ordinary citizens of even a hypothetical possibility to express their contempt with surrounding reality: “Whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought. In the end we shall make thought crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it” (Orwell, 22). And, as we are all well aware of – nowadays, the hawks of political correctness apply a great amount of effort in trying to convince people that under no circumstances should they be resorting to utilization of emotionally charged words, due to these words’ often offensive connotation.
In his article “The Age of Newspeak”, Lee Congdon points out to the fact that Orwell’s “newspeak” is actually the part of today’s politically correct realities: “Although some Americans dismiss “political correctness” as an aberration, its purveyors have succeeded in replacing standard English with a form of “newspeak”… Universities have attempted to impose speech codes in order to outlaw language that makes some students “uncomfortable” or that contradicts doctrines that, because they are difficult to defend in argument, must be insulated from criticism” (2002). Nowadays, the promoters’ of “tolerance” willingness to alter English language often assumes truly comical subtleties. For example, according to neo-Liberal whackos in governmental offices, the children’s fairy tale about Snow White and Seven Dwarfs should be referred to as “The Story and Seven Vertically Challenged Males and one Caucasian Female”.
Yet, there is nothing funny about these people’s intention to act as thought police’s officials. Whatever the improbable it might sound, but they seriously believe that there is no existential difference between the representatives of opposite genders, which in its turn, causes them to actively strive to undermine the very concept of gender differentiation. As of today, men try not to even look at women while in the same elevator, for example, simply because they are being utterly terrified of a prospect of losing their jobs on the account of “sexual harassment”. It might very well be the case that in very near future, men will be required to refer to women as “representatives of vaginal group” or something like that.
One cannot help but to draw a parallel between anti-sexist hysteria, which continue to gain a momentum in today’s Western countries, and governmentally sponsored anti-sexist hysteria, described in “1984”: “Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema. This again was never put into plain words, but in an indirect way it was rubbed into every Party member from childhood onwards. There were even organizations such as the Junior Anti-Sex League, which advocated complete celibacy for both sexes” (Orwell, 27).
One might wonder as to how come the contemporary enforcers of “newspeak” were able to convince many citizens that it is namely the neo-Liberal political agenda that should be considered as the only legitimate one? The answer to this question is simple – the hawks of political correctness have succeeded in taking over Western Medias in the same manner that members of Inner Party in Orwell’s “1984” have taken over the Medias in Airstrip One, while turning them into the ultimate tool of ideological brainwashing. In Orwell’s novel, Medias served only one purpose – perpetrating the most blatant lies 24/7: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength” (Orwell, 3). If we take a closer look at how Medias operate into contemporary equivalent of Airstrip One – a politically correct Britain, it will appear that the foremost principle of their functioning is also being solely concerned with perpetrating lies and with promoting intellectual decadence.
For example, it now being estimated that, during the course of so-called London’s “race riots” of 2001 and 2003, close to 500.000 Londoners and the residents of London’s suburbia had openly expressed their growing concerns about the process of Britain’s Islamization. And yet, British mainstream Medias still refer to these events as “racist provocation”, “crime against the spirit of tolerance” and “neo-nazi conspiracy”, even though that people who participated in mass rallies against the process of their country being gradually turned into Northern Pakistan, were ordinary citizens, who simply got fed up with newly arrived Muslim immigrants’ tendency to “celebrate diversity” by gang-raping White women and bringing explosives to London’s subway.
Another example – in 1999, when NATO planes were bombing innocent civilians in Yugoslavia, so that world’s attention would be diverted from Clinton-Lewinsky affair, British Medias used to provide people with a live “entertainment” of buildings being destroyed and people being blown to pieces, much like Airstrip One’s Medias used to expose citizens to the graphic sights of destruction and death: “Then you saw a lifeboat full of children with a helicopter hovering over it… Then the helicopter planted a 20 kilo bomb in among them terrific flash and the boat went all to matchwood. Then there was a wonderful shot of a child’s arm going up up up right up into the air a helicopter with a camera in its nose must have followed it up and there was a lot of applause from the party seats” (Orwell, 5). The reason for this is simple – throughout the course of history, it was in enforcers’ of ideological dictatorship best interests to keep ordinary citizens intellectually marginalized. And, the best way to achieve it is make sure that crowds never lack “bread and entertainment” – the more graphic and violent such entertainment is, the better.
However, despite having been subjected to politically correct brainwashing for a long time, many citizens in Western countries were still able to retain their ability to think in terms of logic. And, such their ability poses clear and immediate danger to those who work on behalf of New World Order’s secret bosses. This is exactly the reason why neo-Liberal governments in Western countries are being in such a rush to introduce more and more of so-called “hate speech” laws.
Nowadays, in such countries as Britain, France, Germany and Canada, one can easily be sentenced to 3-5 years in jail for simply stating that Jews were not only the people who had suffered during the course of WW2 (the “crime of historical revisionism”). The editorial “Holocaust Denier Irving is Jailed”, available on the web site of BBC News, leave no doubt as to validity of earlier suggestion: “British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison” (2006). Why would the representatives of world’s Plutocracy be so terrified with people’s absolutely legitimate strive to reexamine the history? Orwell’s novel provides us with the ultimate answer to this question: “Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past” (Orwell, 15). As we all know, the representatives of “chosen people” have now attained a status of “holy cows”, simply because they were able to turn the issue of Holocaust into a profitable industry.
Nowadays, even a slightest criticism of Israeli genocidal policies in Palestine is being considered the “act of anti-Semitism” – a punishable criminal offence. If Holocaust did not occur, Jews would have invented it, because the “historical guilt” on the part of “goyms” benefits them in so many ways – Germany alone pays Israel $700 millions annually in reparations. In order for the “chosen people” to be able to proceed with their traditional activities of money laundering, promoting sexual perversion and destroying the economies of whole countries, the issue of Holocaust simply cannot be reexamined – those who control past, control future.
Thus, it will not be an exaggeration, on our part, to suggest that Orwell’s “1984” should not be considered as much as the literary insight onto the probable future – this novel is actually about the present. People, who read the novel in fifties, would naturally come to conclusion that “1984” was the ultimate criticism of USSR, which explains why in Soviet Union Orwell’s novel was officially banned. However, despite the fact that in 1991 Soviet Union had collapsed just like a stack of cards, we now have its ideological descendant – European Union.
In his article “Former Soviet Dissident Warns for EU Dictatorship”, Paul Belien quotes a former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who had suggested that slowly but surely, EU transforms itself into the miniature replica of Soviet Union: “The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness… When you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all” (2006). EU’s unelected bureaucrats really do believe that it is up to them to tell the citizens of European countries not only how should they live their lives but even what kind of thoughts they are allowed to keep in their minds – the similarity between Orwell’s vision of a grim future and today’s realities of living in politically correct Europe are being just too obvious not to be noticed.
Whereas; in “1984”, people were expected to openly express their love to Big Brother, in EU, people are being expected to openly express their love to countless “Holocaust survivors”, who were born in fifties and sixties. Whereas, in “1984”, Medias used to mislead citizens about the history of wars with Eastasia and Euroasia, in EU, Medias mislead citizens as to the history of WW1 and WW2. Whereas; in Orwell’s novel, it were namely the members of Inner Party, entitled with undisputed power of exercising control over ordinary people’s lives, in EU, this function is being performed by unelected and often anonymous bureaucrats.
Just like what it used to be the case with Oceania’s citizens, people in countries of EU simply cannot afford the luxury of being honest with their friends and neighbours – all it takes for an individual in today’s “tolerant” Europe to be instantly fired from work and to face the prospect of criminal prosecution is to suggest that Europe might not be benefiting a whole lot from the hordes of immigrants from Third World being allowed to settle here.
Apparently, the fact that Orwell novel’s many implications seem to be clearly concerned with the present, is being slowly realised by promoters of political correctness, which is exactly the reason why it might only be the matter of time, before “1984” will be banned from public libraries in Western countries, just as it used to be the case in Soviet Union. In her article “Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming”, Edna Andrews says: “There are instances of censorship not only in contemporary American media, but also in educational systems, where not only are teachers restricted in their speech, but literary works, such as Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye” and Orwell’s “1984”. The reasoning behind the exclusion of such works from the classroom generally entails a belief that the “word” is so powerful that an inappropriate one can harm innocent children and destroy public morals” (1996, 396).
Andrews’ suggestion does not appear being altogether deprived of rationale – in today’s Western countries, which suffer under the yoke of neo-Liberal dictatorship, the criticism of Communism is not being tolerated, simply because the closer look at hook-nosed proponents of neo-Liberal agenda reveals them as being nothing but spiritual and often biological descendants of Communist commissars. This is exactly the reason why children in American schools are now being taught to think of Hitler as the “embodiment of evil”, while being simultaneously indoctrinated to refer to Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin as simply the “misunderstood geniuses of workers’ liberation”, even though that the magnitude of Communist atrocities cannot even be compared to that of Nazis.
Conclusion
The conclusion of this paper can be formulated as follows: George Orwell’s novel “1984” is an absolute must for reading, because this literary masterpiece does not simply provide us with the better understanding as to what world would have been like, had Commies succeeded with their original intention of conquering the whole planet, but it also specifies techniques, used for ideological brainwashing. However, the greatest benefit of reading “1984” is the fact that this novel contains a clue as to the fact that the proper functioning of just about any utopian society cannot be achieved, without such society’s members being turned into brainless robots. This is why “1984” is not being particularly liked by today’s Marxists, who now operate under disguise of neo-Liberal sophisticates – apparently, they are being well aware of the full spectrum of novel’s ideological, political and philosophical implications. Therefore, “1984” must be referred to as to what it really is – one of 20th century’s most important literary masterpieces, the publishing of which had revealed the true essence of Communism; thus, contributing a lot to the process of this bloodthirsty ideology being deprived of its popular appeal.
Bibliography
Andrews, Edna “Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming”. American Speech 71.4 (1996): 389-404. Print.
Belien, Paul “Former Soviet Dissident Warns for EU Dictatorship”. 2006. The Brussels Journal. Web.
Congdon, Lee “The Age of Newspeak”. 2002. Virginia Institute for Public Policy. Web.
Goldstein, Philip “Orwell as a (Neo) Conservative: The Reception of 1984”. The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association 33.1 (2000): 44-57. Print.
“Holocaust Denier Irving is jailed”. 2006. BBC News. Web.
Lutman, Stephen “Orwell’s Patriotism”. Journal of Contemporary History 2.2 (1967): 149-158. Print.
Nagel, Joane “Ethnicity and Sexuality”. Annual Review of Sociology 26.5 (2000):107-133. Print.
Newfield, Christopher “What Was Political Correctness? Race, the Right, and Managerial Democracy in the Humanities”. Critical Inquiry 19.2 (1993): 308-336. Print.
Nincic, Miroslav & Nincic, Donna “Race, Gender, and War”. Journal of Peace Research 39.5 (2002): 547-568. Print.
Orwell, George “1984”. Wall Street Cockpit. Web.
Resch, Robert “Utopia, Dystopia, and the Middle Class in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four”. Boundary 2 24.1 (1997): 137-176. Print.
Simms, Valerie “A Reconsideration of Orwell’s 1984: The Moral Implications of Despair”. Ethics 84.4 (1974): 292-306. Print.