Progressing to 1984

Written by Chevy Chinburn

Self-awareness is a rare quality. It’s impossible to decipher whether Orwell’s ‘1984’ was simply a concoction of the ideal dystopian state or whether he knowingly laid the blueprint for the perfect tyranny. Contemporary foresight either turns you into a prophet or highlights historical naivety.

Would Orwell be shocked to see red flags of authoritarianism revealing themselves in the form of tolerance? Or would Karl Marx be horrified at the tsunami of carnage his political philosophy instituted on the 20th century? Modern progressivism conforms to the same principles as 1984’s “Big Brother.”

The progressive movement is an interesting phenomenon, oscillating between good intentions and Machiavellian philosophy determined to dominate. Ostensibly, progressive values are positive, a bedrock of tolerance and the courage to stand up to the evil established powers.

Many values of the movement directly coincide with Orwell’s 1984. The similarities are too blatant to ignore, arousing suspicion and leaving me fearful. Progressives champion feminism, political correctness, constant external enemies, avoiding facts and revising history to fit their narrative.

Feminism is a triggering world, reviled by many, but mercilessly lobbied by an enthusiastic minority. Differing opinions of what true feminism is spark debate. The mainstream version can be loosely labelled postmodernism third wave feminism, drawing directly from 1984.

Modern feminism fetishes abortion, decries masculinity, claims indifference between sexes, dismantles traditional relationships/families and glorifies single motherhood, opting to marry welfare instead of productive males.

1984 claims the traditional family unit divides loyalty, creating a sovereign institution within a state. Children shouldn’t  be taught by their parents, the state knows best. Typically the most fervent resistance comes from capable males, self-sufficient men overwhelmingly reject governmental control. Preferring to self govern their lives. Demonising males separates the sexes, killing the nuclear family, leaving women to seek comfort elsewhere. Rather than seeking protection from a male, they seek it from the state. Owning the women leaves you in control of reproduction. Take away a man’s ability to raise children and the youth will seek guidance in other forms. Destroying individuality in children by monotonous indoctrination proliferated from the state.

Hitler infamously proclaimed “he who educates the youth, owns the future”. 1984 depicts a world where love between sexes isn’t allowed, men have been feminized and women masculinized. Nature is suppressed for the purpose of pacifying your main source of domestic resistance, masculine males.

Feminist rhetoric places men as the root of all evil, encouraging women to act independently, reject traditional maternal roles and rise above your biology. Radically pushing the idea of equality between sexes obscures the dynamics of attraction. I’m not saying women aren’t attracted to feminine men or vice versa. However majority of women desire an alpha male. Without women gaining resources from males, they become dependent on the government. Dependence on welfare prompts women to look favourably on big governance and vote for more governmental power, considering that’s how they survive. Ironically though, female dependence on welfare is another form of male dependence once you realise the largest portion of tax revenue is extracted from males.

In 1984 there is no difference between males and females, families are non-existent, and intimate relationships are forbidden. Eerily similar to feminism’s narrative. Oceania in 1984 also regulates the language of its citizens, crushing individualism.

Political correctness was engineered to shield people’s feelings. 1984 bans and uses language to dull down the individual expression and create a uniform way of thinking. Political correctness claims to fight racism and create a homogeneous way of tolerant thought. Authoritarianism dies with humour. Political correctness attacks jokes, thoughts, ideas anything that stands out from the pack.

Big Brother weaponises language urging its citizens to spy and isolate anyone that vocalises phrases or words that aren’t recognised officially by the state. This doctrine weeds out thought criminals. Political correctness equivalently leverages social ostracization to punish people who use illegal terms. Individuals that express an unpopular opinion are eviscerated, personally attacked, threatened and even fired from workplaces. Promoting a climate of fear around language leaving people afraid to speak what’s truly on their mind.

Politically correctness hinders expression, allowing only shallow relationships with each other for fear of being outcast due to different opinions. Attacking expression is a direct onslaught to individualism. A society with a conforming thought pattern neutralizes threats to the established power. Revolutions are enamoured by dangerous antithetical ideals, announced by individual reforming thinkers.

Orwell’s Oceania repudiates facts, constantly revises history and alters who the enemy is for the purpose of continuing a narrative. Similarly, progressives have an ever evolving enemy. White supremacists, Christians, homophobes, nationalists until even Asians aren’t spared. Progressives sabotage scientists who study concepts that conflict with their narrative. Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, who hypotheses of race and intelligence gets him shouted out of universities. Richard Dawkins who came to fame denouncing Christianity and lost fame when doing the same to the untouchable Islam. And even comedians like Daniel Tosh who dared to make a non approved joke.

The fact denying isn’t limited to proven science, progressive thinking has people battling the past. Undeterred by the permanence of history, social justice warriors now force “coloured actors” into movies set in ancient England, placing black females in Nazi uniforms and calling for boycotts of Dunkirk because there wasn’t enough colour in the Battle of Normandy. Historical confederate monuments being taken down in the Southern States of America, and holding the entire White Race responsible for slavery forgetting Muslim, Jewish, Brazilian and Spanish cultures that also indulged in the amoral practise.

History can be brutal, repugnant and terrifying. We can’t cherry pick from it, lessons are their to be learned not restructured to fit a false narrative.

Its peculiar how one of the most widely read books ominously predicts future tyranny by laying the foundation for what makes it successful. Even with its notoriety, mainstream society still fails to spot the warning signs. Are progressives just brainwashed pawns being manipulated in a larger chess game or are people really that stupid? Napoleon states that a “family of readers are the families that run the world.” Clearly someone’s still reading books and using knowledge to their advantage, but are their goals advantageous to my life? Who knows? Books have wisdom to behold, although if history has taught us anything, it’s that not too many people are interested in learning from them.

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of
avatar
wpDiscuz