Thought Police

[bazarov]

Thought Police is some kind internal Party Secret Service. Their job is to control and assure that Party Members are loyal not only with their acts; they should be loyal with their thoughts also. After all, act is a result of a thought.

Thought Police is everywhere and controls everything and everyone. They are also hidden in Proles, although they are not interested in catching Proles because Proles are too stupid even to think.

They use all kind of traps: verbal; like O'Brien's try of conversation with Winston; or physically like old shop etc. They are tracking members everywhere, waiting for some their wrong move so they can caught them and put them in Room 101.

Winston believed that there was something before Party but he was not sure what. Members of Thought Police, who are so loyal and smart to know that there is no such a thing like pre-Party; knew what those rebellions like Winston thinks so they made a perfect trap, just the one like it is in Winston's head. After that, it was easy to catch him. If someone had some other doubt, they would act same like they did in Winston's case.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes or Who watch the watchers? Nobody. Members of Thought Police and highest members of Party will never have doubts in Party and Big Brother and that's the reason Party will stand forever.

[Princess Belle]

How long ago did the Thought police begin watching Winston and brginning to plan to trap him?? Was it seven years before 1984, when Winston had the dream of O'Brian saying they will meet in a place where there is no darkness? Or was it when Winston bought the journal and pen? Just wondering..

[The Atheist]

How long ago did the Thought police begin watching Winston and brginning to plan to trap him?? Was it seven years before 1984, when Winston had the dream of O'Brian saying they will meet in a place where there is no darkness? Or was it when Winston bought the journal and pen? Just wondering..

We never know, but we've been discussing it a lot lately.

I'd go for several years at least, maybe even many years. You also need to remember they watched everyone, all of the time.

[bazarov]

So it would mean that number of Thought Police members at least equals number of party members. And I think more then one ''agent'' deals with potential rebellion. Weird!

[The Atheist]

So it would mean that number of Thought Police members at least equals number of party members. And I think more then one ''agent'' deals with potential rebellion. Weird!

Yeah, it seems that way, but maybe the Party had automated programs to watch the Outer Party members?

[Enjoi.]

I don't think the Party would go through so much trouble to watch every Outer Party member at all times. It's too much manpower. I think they set little traps for them (the journal and pen). Once a member springs that trap, welcome to constant observation and intricate setups for the next seven years.

[The Atheist]

I don't think the Party would go through so much trouble to watch every Outer Party member at all times.

But Orwell tells us that that's the way it is when Winston is chastised for not being energetic enough in the physical exercise program.

He doesn't say how they were able to do it, but it's clear that everyone was watched all the time. I guess one sharp operator could watch half a dozen or so people at one time, so it isn't necessary to have one watcher per person.

Nowadays, with digital technology, computers could do most of the work - there's no saying that that's not what Orwell was implying.

[lukgem]

just to add to all the valid points already made i think what i gained from 1984was that the inner party members were in control of the thought police(people like o'brien),was there a need for that many of them?i do not know. surely the implied threat was that you were being watched and the consequences of unorthodoxy was enough for the majority of the party to stay subservient.
not the best analogy,but adhering to speed resrictions on the road you probobly will not get caught doing 120mph on an abandoned road but there is always that threat that a speed trap has been set up just around the next curvature(there may only be one mobile trap in the whole country) and this threat alone and its consequences is enough to keep you within the law.
charringtons shop was filled with neutral items,where proles were concerned,but with party members the merchandise became charged and maybe charrington helped catch many polits over a period of many years with his bait,not only winston and julia.

[bazarov]

likgem, this makes sense. But, who does watch the watchers? Who decides who is the watcher and who is watched? Scio nihil scio

[Jason Lycurgus]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes or Who watch the watchers? Nobody. Members of Thought Police and highest members of Party will never have doubts in Party and Big Brother and that's the reason Party will stand forever.

We might be on the same page here, I'm not sure -

It goes beyond even the members of the inner party having "doubts" in Big Brother and the party. The members of the inner party are fully cognizant of the artifice that the party represents. The only reality members of the inner party face is the reality that by mentally enslaving the population at large it is possible for a small group to live in affluence and comfort. The world of 'facts' is presented to Winston in Goldstein's book.

The inner party members are fully conscious of their crimes against the outer party. There would therefore be no need (at least in theory) to monitor members of the inner party. Even if we assume the story of Goldstein is true (inner party member revolts and creates revolutionary group) it seems to make little difference based on the events of the story.

[lukgem]

i think jason is right but bazarov is to,doublethink!
it seems to me the key is in the words oligarch and collectivism,it is worth looking up these words for a definition and to take them literally it becomes more clear.the oligarchs ruled,(maybe with the freedom of the proles and the wealth of their predecessors the capitalists)while the rest lived under a form of collectivism and a completely different set of rules from the inner party.
the totalitarian state protected their own affluence and power whilst at the same time ensuring a continuation of government and a jackboot stamping on the the face of the proletariat,forever.

my own caveat is o'brien,pshchotic,fanatical and steadfast in his beliefs that he and party orthodoxy were the sane route.not a semblence of humanity remained within him it seemed.

who is right,jason or bazarov.its a tough call and one that deserves serious thought to come to a reasonable conclusion.

[Jason Lycurgus]

I know what you are saying about O'Brien lukgem; I think he is probably completely insane (or at least incredibly sadistic). For O'brien (or any member of the inner-party), it's not as if they need to 'agree' with the values of the party, they simply need to make outsiders believe that there is no alternative. There is a wall from the inner/outer party that we are never really privileged to cross as a reader in the novel. Everything O'Brien says is filtered through Winston and I think we have to view it as a member of the inner party addressing a member of the outer party.

This is how I read the book at least. I feel like the inner-party would necessarily have to have lost nearly all sense of moral or ethical values (especially the ability to feel empathy).

I don't think this means that the inner-party doesn't have a mature understanding of ideas like liberty, equality, and democracy; and their merits as political or human ideas - only that they pursue other methods because for their limited group it provides them with the 'best' (roughly stated) way of life. In many ways this is really a lot worse than if they DID blindly believe in the ideas espoused by the party.

In light of this, are they still 'human'?

I don't know - maybe that's a different question.

[The Atheist]

There would therefore be no need (at least in theory) to monitor members of the inner party.

I have to side with Bazarov here - there is no need at all to monitor Inner Party members. If ever a dissident thought turned up in their minds, they'd overcome it with Doublethink immediately.

...a jackboot stamping on the the face of the proletariat,forever...

I love that phrase, Orwell at his very best.

my own caveat is o'brien,pshchotic,fanatical and steadfast in his beliefs that he and party orthodoxy were the sane route.not a semblence of humanity remained within him it seemed.

Perfectly put. Completely sane and logical, just completely amoral.

who is right,jason or bazarov.its a tough call and one that deserves serious thought to come to a reasonable conclusion.

I'm confident it's Baz.

I know what you are saying about O'Brien lukgem; I think he is probably completely insane (or at least incredibly sadistic).

I'll explain why I think that's wrong in a sec...

For O'brien (or any member of the inner-party), it's not as if they need to 'agree' with the values of the party, they simply need to make outsiders believe that there is no alternative.

Nope. They don't just agree with the values of the Party, they are the values of the Party.

There isn't an alternative, either. It doesn't exist. Orwell makes this clear in Goldstein's book. The change and takeover is different from all previous attempts and the pendulum stops forever. If you take Goldstein's book and marry it to O'Brien's philosophy, you find that immortality is possible.

There is a wall from the inner/outer party that we are never really privileged to cross as a reader in the novel. Everything O'Brien says is filtered through Winston and I think we have to view it as a member of the inner party addressing a member of the outer party.

Yeah, but Orwell wrote it and he wasn't big on hiding his messages too well - he wants us to understand the complete and irrevocable rule of the Party.

This is how I read the book at least. I feel like the inner-party would necessarily have to have lost nearly all sense of moral or ethical values (especially the ability to feel empathy).

Bingo!

If you look at today's world, we have sets of morals drawn from religion. In 1984, the only moral position for Inner Party members is immortality of the Party. The Inner Party has thrown science, evolution and theology out the window and replaced it with a specific set of rules designed to keep Party rule forever. As a result, there is no moral question for members. You can arrive at the same result by reductionism, reducing all moral questions to "me or him?" Piece of cake.

Because no human morals exist, O'Brien doesn't need to be sadistic, or even enjoy his work - he's just performing a natural and quite sane ritual: the re-programming of a defective unit. The electric shocks he administers to Winston mean no more to him than you do when subjecting a radio to electric shock by turning it on.

In terms of existence, only the Inner Party even exists.

I don't think this means that the inner-party doesn't have a mature understanding of ideas like liberty, equality, and democracy; and their merits as political or human ideas - only that they pursue other methods because for their limited group it provides them with the 'best' (roughly stated) way of life. In many ways this is really a lot worse than if they DID blindly believe in the ideas espoused by the party.

Even standard of living doesn't matter to Inner Party members. They do what they do and nothing else matters.

In light of this, are they still 'human'?

I don't know - maybe that's a different question.

Yeah. Perfectly normal, rational human beings.

[Jason Lycurgus]

Nope. They don't just agree with the values of the Party, they are the values of the Party.

There isn't an alternative, either. It doesn't exist. Orwell makes this clear in Goldstein's book. The change and takeover is different from all previous attempts and the pendulum stops forever. If you take Goldstein's book and marry it to O'Brien's philosophy, you find that immortality is possible.

I'm not trying to infuse the situation with hope or optimism for the proles or outer-party. I just think the inner-party's rule is like an equation for power or dominance. I don't think it's necessary for them to believe in any of the party propaganda, rather I think it's all just a technique for control and maintenance of the existing (and permanent) hierarchy. It's power for power's sake. It's the subjugation of millions for wine and cigarettes.

The severe cruelty and intelligence of inner-party members makes it difficult for me to imagine that they really believe they have restructured society in a way that is beneficial to humans (and I could certainly be accused of drastically missing the point of the novel here) and not out of pure self interest (although you could say maybe it's out of both).

I realize this is not the way Orwell intended the book to be read, but I don't think there is much in the text that makes this reading unfounded.

I'm not married to this idea either; in many ways I see why it makes just as much (if not more) sense to view it the way you do Atheist. It's just a thought.

Semi Off Topic -

Have you guys read Zamyatin's We, Dostoyevsky's Notes From Underground or The Grand Inquisitor?

Happy Thanksgiving!

B

[bazarov]

I'm not trying to infuse the situation with hope or optimism for the proles or outer-party. I just think the inner-party's rule is like an equation for power or dominance. I don't think it's necessary for them to believe in any of the party propaganda, rather I think it's all just a technique for control and maintenance of the existing (and permanent) hierarchy. It's power for power's sake. It's the subjugation of millions for wine and cigarettes.

It is necessary for them to believe in it, otherwise Party wouldn't function that well, it would start to fall apart from inside. They believe in it like it's the only possible and right way, propaganda is just a way to demonstrate that to Proles, not to strength their leadership, it too strong already.

Sorry Atheist, but I still remember ( 2 younger brothers ) that in stupid movie Matrix, those agents were called O'Brien, just like our dear O'Brien. And I don't believe in coincidences!

The severe cruelty and intelligence of inner-party members makes it difficult for me to imagine that they really believe they have restructured society in a way that is beneficial to humans (and I could certainly be accused of drastically missing the point of the novel here) and not out of pure self interest (although you could say maybe it's out of both).

In my country, there is idiom: No brain, no worry!
Believe me, you will never see unhappy fool in your life. So yes, they made great thing for Proles.

Have you guys read Zamyatin's We, Dostoyevsky's Notes From Underground or The Grand Inquisitor?

Yes - nothing comparable to Orwell
Yes
Yes - but you should read whole book, not just that passage

Welcome!