Fool's Philosophy - by Nate Bartling

Doublethink - 1984 Today

September 29th 2006 15:57

George Orwell (Wikipedia)

The term 'doublethink' originates in George Orwell's 1984 and along with 'newspeak' (a constant process of slimming down language in order to limit peoples ability to communicate and ultimately think) is an essential part of the 'Big Brother' society. In the novel, doublethink is defined as "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

One of the main reasons doublethink is so necessary is that it allows the masses to accept being slaves to the system and under total surveillance, while considering themselves free and independent. Party slogans from the book such as "Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace" are typical examples of this, convincing the characters that in order to have the freedom of a civilized society they are required to be slaves to their dictatorial regime. It enables Winston (the protagonist of the book) to work at the 'Ministry of Truth', the governments propaganda machine, doctoring old newspaper stories to support whatever the government is claiming while still believing the claims to be true.

Alex Jones (Wikipedia)

In Alex Jones' documentary 'Terrorstorm: A History of Government Sponsored Terrorism' the film-makers interview random people on the streets of London about their views on recent terror attacks and the war on terror in general. The amount of people that respond instinctively with classic doublethink-style logic is positively alarming. The most extreme example was a woman who believed "we should give up our liberty for freedom", seemingly unaware that they are both the same thing!

It appears that doublethink is no longer confined to the pages of Orwell's prophetic novel but is becoming a prevalent part of our language. Below are some common examples of the way doublethink is used in our society:

UN Peacekeeping Forces (Wikipedia)

Fighting for peace - This is a ridiculous concept. As comedian George Carlin once said “Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity” (source thinkexist.com). Fighting, or any form of conflict, is obviously the very thing that stands in the way of peace.

Peace-keeping Forces - Peace keeping forces are those troops left in a country to help enforce a particular regime. The very fact that a military presence is required would suggest that there is no peace there to 'keep'.

Ministry of Defence - The Ministry of Defence bears striking resemblance to Orwell's 'Ministry of Peace' not only in the classic use of doublethink in the name but also in its actions. Both are primarily concerned with warfare and seem to spend the majority of their time and efforts dealing in attack and invasion as opposed to the implied defence or peace.

Holy War - I am not a religious scholar of any kind but as far I am aware all major religions preach a message of peace and have some variation of the 'Love thy neighbour' commandment. No religion promotes violence or killing, so it seems to me that for a war to be considered 'holy' is a contradiction in terms.

Giving up our rights in the name of freedom - This is possibly the most relevant aspect of doublethink in our society today. With Orwellian surveillance on every corner and acts such as 'The Patriot Act', we are being asked to give up the very freedoms that 'The War on Terror' is alleged to protect, and all in the name of freedom. If that isn't doublethink, I dont know what is.

These are just a few examples off the top of my head. If anyone can think of anymore to add to the list, please let me know

Relevant Links:
1984 by George Orwell at Amazon
Infowars article on Doublethink in London
Watch Alex Jones' 'Terrorstorm'
Wikipedia article on Doublethink

107

Vote

Add To:

subscribe to this blog

follow this blog on Orble

start your own blog

[ Link ]

Posted By: Gareth - Category: No Category

Related Posts:

Relate This Post

[ Previous - The Philosophy of Star Wars ]

[ Next - Creating Your Own Reality - Part 2 ]

Comments

20 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Damo

September 29th 2006 21:14

This a really good post.
Not just because I like Orwells writings but because you have a grasp of he ideas.
The concepts raised in 1984 will just a important in 2084 or even 3084.
Double think is practiced in all areas of society these days. Not just government. Take a look at many of the corporate team building courses and there is fuel for a thousand comedies.
One concept that was mentioned in the book and often forgotten was Duckspeak. Breaking down language to repeatative mottos that require no room for independant thought or criticisim.
'Cut and Run',

Comment by Gareth

September 29th 2006 21:32

Definitely, duckspeak is used quite commonly in society.
The first example I can think of is the army (left, right, quick march and all that), where a person isnt required to think for themselves just follow orders.
Also, to a lesser degree, both Bush & Blair seem to have this way of talking in bursts of short sharp syllables and long pauses in between.

Its also interesting that, in classic doublethink style, duckspeak can be considered both positive and negative in the same context.

Thanks for the comment

Comment by Anonymous

September 29th 2006 23:08

awesome article!

Comment by Anonymous

September 30th 2006 08:52

I was just talking about this in a blog of my own and actually rereading Orwell at present! An excellent post!

Comment by Gareth

September 30th 2006 09:27

Thanks for the comments!

Comment by spain01

September 30th 2006 09:35

Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.

Ah well. As usual it is a case of reductio in absurdum. The term reductio in absurdum is also often used for arguments where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone will agree it to be false or absurd, or which at least certain persons being argued against will agree is false or absurd. However this is a weak form of reductio, since the final decision to reject the original premise is contingent upon whether the conclusion derived from it really is agreed to be absurd. While a formal contradiction is by definition absurd (unacceptable), someone could reject a weak reductio ad absurdum argument by simply replying that they accept the purportedly absurd conclusion.
The notion that language can be somehow turned in on itself is an interesting but probably worthless and somewhat futile paradox. Thus phrases like Military Intelligence, fair trial, modern music, excellent sportsman and so on can be said to have this paradoxical and therefore amusing quality when they are, in fact substantive. Orwell himself was a deeply troubled man. Involved in the Spanish Civil War he thought that it would be perfectly reasonable to blow up Antonio Gaudi's Sagradia Famillia because it was a worthless relic. As Robert Hughes has pointed out the suggestion has all the merit of blowing up Paris or storing nuclear waste in Kakadu National Park.
Does Orwell think that we should not have fought Hitler and not sent peace keepers to Rwanda and so on? Perhaps but a good author and weak philosopher (Orwell) resorts to reductio and achieves audience applause at the expense of the specious. In a word “Cheap Shot, George!”

Comment by Gareth

September 30th 2006 10:26

Thanks for the comment.

I disagree with you though. I dont believe Orwell's arguments are a matter of reductio ad absurdum. For example, take the concept of fighting for peace, you could forcefully prevent further physical conflict but the very act of enforcing it is a kind of conflict in itself and therefore contrary to the nature of peace. Also the idea of giving up your rights in the name of freedom could logically provide a much safer society but cant be seriously considered freedom. What about the freedom to be a terrorist? I dont see how these arguments can be refuted as absurd.

Im not saying I agree with terrorism (I certainly do not), or that I think we dont have a moral obligation to fight some wars (such as WWII) but I think its very deceptive the way they are sold to us under the name of freedom and peace, ideals that will never be achieved through such means. Therefore, I believe that it is 'the party' that is guilty of speciousness not Orwell. By the way "Cheap shot George" is three words not one! (Sorry, I know thats a cheap shot but I couldnt resist it!)
Thanks again for the comment though, I enjoy the comments that disagree much more as they make me question my opinions, which can only be a good thing.

Comment by spain01

September 30th 2006 10:43

Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.

Quite so. Of course the term 1984 was itself one of these reversals since the novel purports to be written in 1948. Orwell and Wittgenstein shared a healthy contempt for the establishment and for the language that characterised the establishment. At the time it became fashionable for the establishment to criticize the establishment and therein lay the problem for Orwell. The real establishment, and we see this in Australian society, possesses an infinite capacity to mutate and adapt. We are really living in the 1984 that Orwell predicted where books are banned and many ideas are held to be unacceptable just because they are ideas. These notions are carefully policed by the media who are an arm of the establishment. Orwell would have found the real 1984 as bleak as that portrayed in his novel. The real newspeak is known as politically correct speech.

Comment by Damo

September 30th 2006 12:57

If you look at thing too broadly it is easy to assume that we are living in Orwells nightmare. However there are some blaring gaps in that observation.
I may not like the government but I don't see it as totalitarian.
War may seem to be a method comtrolling people but we are hardly in a total conflict.
Politically Correct may be a mode of speaking but it is considered a joke by most people.
Weasil words are obvious and quickly criticised in the press
We still have a realatively free press.
Love is not outlawed.

Comment by spain01

September 30th 2006 23:28

Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.

I disagree. The right of reply in the press has been taken from us. Certain forms of “love” are outlawed and prosecuted. For those who think politically correct speech is a joke, try publishing a controversial novel, defending certain groups in the community or for that matter criticizing cultural icons. The Germaine Greer comments were a superb example of this. We had the absurd position taken on this very website that the fine tradition of eulogy and debate about a recently deceased person should somehow be expunged because one is not allowed to speak ill of the dead. What was that about, widows weeds and superstition?

Comment by Damo

October 1st 2006 04:49

Spain01 I am happy that you have disagreed with me as it proves that we still have some freedoms left.
I think your comment about Germain Greer artical was Double Plus Good.
The Ministry of Truth has reminded me that I am in agreement with you and I always have been.
The previous post I wrote does not exist and never has. In fact I haven't refered to it all. (I love Double think)
Right now I just recieved an invitation from Big Brother to come to Room 101.
I will write again after my mind is made pure.
Have a Double Double Plus Plus Good Day.

Comment by Gareth

October 1st 2006 17:56

Anyone interested in finding out whether or not 1984 is unfolding before us should read this article.

Its about the recent terror bill passed in the US.

Comment by Cassidy

February 10th 2007 14:21

Damo: Dont be so bound by the facts of that book, use your imagination..It was written before 60 years, and no one says that future will be right that described in 1984. It can be much worse-there is no Party, and evil is not so easy to be pointed out. We all are prolets, brainwashed by mass media and let to do ANYTHING-free love, drugs, partys, sports-its much efficient than suppressing opposition. State serve big corporations, whos owners are unknown, as well as their total possessions and means-and MIGHT over the establishment. You and me are only good enough to work hard for them and then spend earned money immediately (or worse take a loan) for consumable goods. The reminder of the world, 85% of population live in awful poverty, in different world good enough to make goods for ridiculous pay and cheap resources. Orwell wrote about Soviet union, but you can find our age in the book as well.

Comment by Damo

February 10th 2007 21:56

Cassidy
My thought are not so strict over the book. I understand the book very well and Orwell is one of my favorite novelists and essay writers. I have been to countries that did use every trick under the sun to oppress people.

Having said that I can only speak about the world as I see and that will vary from others with equaliy good reasons. It is just an opinion.

Comment by AbiJ

December 4th 2009 05:58

Remember, the most important aspect of 1984 is that it is not written to predict the future, but rather to warn people of the possibility of tyranny. Orwell brings to light many wonderful issues and interesting concepts, but I do not think 1984 is meant as a mirror to our society.

Comment by Anonymous

September 6th 2010 18:48

You are very mislead and you are clearly using confirmation bias. You didn't even elaborate on your claims. You're thin veil of explaining Orwell's novel is fooling no one. You're clearly just pushing your mislead liberal agenda.

Comment by Anonymous

December 16th 2010 16:10

"The Gov't should stay out of people's lives"
"The Gov't should set up a list of who isn't allowed to marry who (cough-gays)"
(doublethink)

"Democrats wants taxes to be higher [for the wealthy, who may have to live with one less house so that we can afford to lower taxes for working families to afford have food, clothing, medicine and shelter], Republicans want taxes to be lower [for the wealthy to buy the extra house, we'll let the working families to pick up the tab and go with food or clothing or medicine or shelter]"
(newspeak)

Comment by Anonymous

April 27th 2011 21:15

What if our government stuck to the job the Founding Fathers intended it to have: Acknowledging that 'absolute power corrupts men absolutely', therefore, restricting itself to only protecting mankind's God-given, inaliable rights and to enforcing the laws given from a higher authority? The government's intended job was NOT to make rules or regulations only to enforce the ones we have ALREADY been given. It worked tremedously well for the first couple hundred years, so why change?

Comment by Anonymous

July 10th 2011 20:24

No religion promotes violence and killing?
Have you ever read the bible? About a third of the pages are promotions of violence and killing. Most of the killing in the world are justified by the teachings of religion.

Comment by Anonymous

August 16th 2011 16:17

wow...if that is how you feel, fine. But there are religions that don't promote violence. Take Christianity for example, yes in the bible there is violence but no one promotes it as a good thing. and the teaching is actually that we are supposed to love. not fight. so i think if you are going to post on any website you should definitely get your facts straight first. like talk about things you actually know about rather than make up this garbage that isn't even true.

[ Previous - The Philosophy of Star Wars ]

[ Next - Creating Your Own Reality - Part 2 ]