When 1984 meets 1979?

I wish I were more educated than I am. For then, I might be better able to make sense of the cascade of events threatening to break hard against the eroding foundation of our national and international identity. Of late, I have refrained (painfully) from commenting on the rapid deterioration of our national discourse, our political/social angst, and the ramifications of the outbreak of violence throughout North Africa and the ongoing tensions of the Israeli-Iran situation.

What keeps coming to my mind can be embodied in the following question: What happens when George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four meets 1979? In 1979, the U.S. economy was in poor shape, the Middle East and North Africa were as tumultuous as ever, and Iran was holding Americans hostage after the overrun of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. While 2012 is not 1979, there are more than a few parallels at play, for those who wish to see it. In 1979, much like now, there were those among the intelligentsia who believed that America had entered a period of decline. For now, let's leave that where it is. The parallels of 2012 and 1979 are not the point of this post.

It has been many, many years since I've read Orwell. However, he is going back into my reading queue, I think. There are some notable concepts from Nineteen Eighty-Four that *seem* to be playing out before our eyes - again, if we choose to see it that way. Consider:

Doublethink: From Orwell:

The keyword here is blackwhite. … Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known ... as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

That which is demonstrably false is proclaimed as undeniable fact and beyond debate. That which is demonstrably true is proclaimed false and fictitious at best, evil at worst. Its aim is to demand loyalty and conformance not to reality, but to what some external voice claims is reality, whether it is or not. To be sure, if ever you hear someone claim that another is channeling Josef Goebbels, you can be certain that the one making the claim is likely more guilty of the projection. (Goebbels is the one who is often credited with the idea that if you tell a big lie and repeat it often enough, people will believe it).

Thoughtcrime: From Orwell via Wikipedia:

Thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. Unacceptable thought is known as crimethink …

We are often told what to think, and how to think about things we see, hear, or otherwise experience. Our thoughts can be shaped and corrupted not only but what others tell us to think, but by what information we are allowed to see and hear. We rely on and trust our information sources to be impartial, but that is more and more the exception than the rule. So many facts and factors never enter into the equation of our assessments, often by virtue of their deliberate omission. You think that this effort to shape thought is too far-fetched? Consider political correctness. Do you think that it is that much of a stretch to think that political correctness can lead to the definition what is acceptable and unacceptable, to include the classification of "hate speech" and even the notion of hate crimes? Because it can and it does.

The response of the administration and the media to an obviously premeditated attack on U.S. Embassies and interests around the world focused not on the perpetrators of violence but rather on the demonization of an American citizen for the promotion of "wrong" thoughts and beliefs. Rather than asking why our interests abroad were insufficiently protected, much less prepared for the obvious heightened security awareness required of an 9/11 anniversary, we now are openly engaged in a dialog about what can only become the serious consideration of anti-blasphemy regulations. Basically, such regulations could make it criminal to criticize Islam, out of fear of what it may incite. Like yelling "fire" in a theater, there are those who would suggest that anything remotely questioning the nature and motive of Islam and its followers be censored or extremely controlled, again out of fear of the reaction.

But then, regulations of such sort may not be necessary, not when people in power, rather than protecting its citizens, instead publishes names and thereby unleashes a flash mob of media hordes and others upon the neighborhoods and associations to scapegoat and otherwise drive said citizens and their families into hiding or recantation.

As you can see by the disjointed nature of this post, my thoughts on this are clearly not yet fully developed. Indeed, this whole line of thinking may be off base. But I cannot help but to be unnerved by the all too real tears in our national fabric, and in the fissures in our social contract that appear now to be very serious indeed. Because my thoughts are not fully formed, I'll leave you with a few links that have given me pause as I contemplate these matters. Down the road, as my thoughts become more clear, I may yet revisit this idea of what happens when 1984 meets 1979.

In the meantime, in the words of Samuel L. Jackson's character in Jurassic Park, "hold on to your butts."

The Video Didn't Do It

The Unofficial Campaign's Latest Disinformation Offensive

The Reign of Imagination