The War on Words (Big Brother 2003)
by Marcus Bachler
George Orwell was born exactly 100 years ago today and his masterpiece novel "1984" continues to be an influential best-seller. The nightmare vision of the novel is a description of the ultimate in repressive state control. This story is as relevant to the state politics of today as it has ever been. There are important lessons to be taken from this book as to the establishment and survival of totalitarian regimes, and how the same roots spread in state-run societies. So, what are the essentials for the establishment and continuation of a successful authoritarian regime? Firstly, a state of emergency is an essential starting point. What better way to do this than make your country believe that there is a constant state of war against a perceived enemy? In the best case scenario the enemy can be anywhere. In "1984", the people of Oceania are told that their country is in a constant state of war with the foreign superpower of Eurasia and the underground organisation known as the brotherhood. The brotherhood's leader, Goldstein, is supposedly an anti-revolutionary sympathetic with Eurasia. The benevolent leader "Big Brother" is there to protect the people of Oceania and see the successful implementation of the party's goal "ingsoc" or "English socialism". Today, a constant state of emergency against terrorism is used as the justification for the expedient imposition of laws, such as the "Patriot Act" in the USA and similar anti-terrorism legislation passed in the UK. The benevolent leaders GWB and TB deal with any potential foreign and domestic enemies, always to the detriment of individual liberty and privacy of their own civilian populations. In the mindset of Big Brother the "Patriot Act" and related legislation would be translated into the slogan, "Slavery Is Freedom".
Nevertheless, any population soon tires of imminent threats and internal opposition to draconian invasions of privacy and freedom will inevitably develop. For it's survival, any potential totalitarian regime also requires the ability to control the minds of the masses, in other words, to reduce or control any freedom of expression that may still exist. How else to justify and enforce the essential belief in the war and loyalty to the Government? For the regime controlling Oceania, thought crime and thought police were all strong tools of manipulation and control of human expression. However, this did not allow the full control of people's minds or their ability to think rationally about the issues at stake. In order to achieve this Big Brother needed to go one step further, it needed to control its citizens means of articulating and communicating ideas. It needed to invent a new language that was more primitive and less articulate than current "oldspeak" English, it needed "newspeak". Newspeak had a potent ability to subvert reason through either primitive or nonsensical concepts such as "doublespeak", "thoughtcrime" and "goodthink". Language is one of mankind's most basic tools of survival and its freedom is one of the most essential elements of liberty. Indeed, as human beings are social animals, their intellect and sanity demands it.
Therefore, it is with some dismay that more than 50 years after the publication of "1984" I have noted the same sort of tactics, in the development and manipulation of language, emanating from western politicians of today. Exhibit one: take the much-vaulted expression of "weapons of mass destruction". This is what would be referred to in newspeak as "doubleplusungood". In Oceania it would become an integral part of the daily "two minutes hate" in which TV of images of WMD would be greeted with shouting, jeers, and projectiles thrown at "telescreens". Some members of the audience may even produce a small trickle of urine down their inside trouser leg. Big Brother would delight at the expression WMD because it is difficult to define in objective terms and is specifically used for it's emotive value of fear. How do you quantify mass destruction? For example, bombs and guns caused millions of deaths and untold physical damage during the Second World War and yet they do not qualify as weapons of MASS destruction. Why? WMD have been defined by politicians as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, yet nearly all western countries possess these weapons for defence. Why are these not WMD too? Exhibit two: "regime change". This phrase is frighteningly close to the expression in "1984" of "reality change", a sub-category of "doublespeak", i.e. two opposite contradictory meanings being accepted simultaneously. "Regime change" originally meant the dethroning of Sadam Hussein, either by an internal coup or external force. This was the initial stated goal of any use of force against Iraq. Afterwards, it was said that "regime change" can have a second meaning, it can also mean that the Iraqi government under SH yields its stockpiles of WMD to the UN. So, it seemed that the security threat posed by Iraq would be ended if SH relinquished his WMD. The first definition of regime change, the removal of SH from power was simultaneously stressed. So, to change regime actually meant the changing of the leader, although if this happened his old regime could still be in place and still have WMD! Indeed, it a curious fact that GWB offered SH the possibility to leave the country in order for Iraq to avoid invasion. This would make a "pre-emptive" strike no longer necessary. A "pre-emptive" strike can be used against an enemy when you suspect in advance that they are planning to strike against you. Therefore a "pre-emptive strike" is a defensive measure. In the world of "Big Brother" translate "pre-emptive strike" as "war is peace", more doublespeak. After the "pre-emptive strike" was pre-empted the reason for the invasion was further refined. Now the "allied forces" were no longer invading Iraq merely to oust SH form Iraq and to seize his WMD, but also to free the people of Iraq. They were no longer soldiers, they were "liberators" on a noble cause to bring the people of Iraq democracy. It turns out that this change in justification for the war was itself a political "pre-emptive strike", as the WMD have not yet been found, nor has SH been removed from Iraq. It turns out in the latest "reality change" from the White House that the WMD must have been hidden, stolen and/or quickly destroyed prior to the invasion of Iraq and that SH is in hiding while organising indiscriminate attacks on western forces by loyal supporters and Islamic fundamentalists. "Doublethink" dictates that even though WMD and SH were a security risk for the world that it is possible that they may never be found and/or may still be hidden.
However, USA, Britain and most other western democracies are thankfully nowhere near reaching the level of evil against humanity described in 1984. The public and the media may have short memories, but they are not that short. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are still accountable for their words and actions. Currently political investigations are underway in order to investigate whether they or their Governments knowingly lied or gave misleading evidence to support their cases for the need to have a war with Iraq. It can be argued that the inability to find the WMD or SH is not of importance in itself because the liberation of the Iraqi people was a noble cause. Nevertheless, this still does not justify the "newspeak" type slogans and seemingly false excuses used to justify this war. The liberation of Iraq was never given as the main reason for the war against Iraq, but instead an emotive appeal to public insecurities about terrorism with no credible transparent evidence. If it is possible for the Governments of the allies to so easily convince the public to fight a just war for the wrong reasons, then what happens if they ever decide to implement "ingsoc"? Actually, there is no need to answer that question because they already have.
P.S. While you are reading this on the Internet, just remember that under the Patriot Act "Big Brother Is Watching You"!
Discuss this Article (7 messages)
|
