Thought crimes today

I'm sure that hundreds of parallels have been drawn between 1984 and today's world... Beyond the obvious communism totalitarian regime parallel there have been many others to media, surveillance, corporate control etc...

What I'm proposing is a much more disturbing parallel (at least to me), one that is quite clearly outlined in my mind but harder to convey in words, I'll give it a shot nonetheless and hope to get as much feed-back from you as possible :)

There are no "thought-crimes" in any part of the world today, no laws to define them (but then again there were no laws in the world of 1984 either). But similar to 1984, similar to all totalitarian regimes, there is no need for laws... there is no need even for telescreens or surveillance, we have each other to serve as watchdogs. And to get willing watchdogs for a "system" all you need is their "orthodoxy" towards any particular system of belief, of thought, a paradigm watchdog if you will.

A paradigm is in place today, as it was in any day. Any paradigm is in it's self a doctrine, a way of thinking and everything that goes against the current paradigm is in all effect "thought crime". To think different from what is generally accepted, to step outside of the invisible lines of doctrine and orthodoxy, and while 1984 describes an obvious world of terror, ours is a world of much subtler terror.

Let me give a few examples of what thought crimes in our world would be:

- there is no system that can possibly work, to create a system of society is to tacitly admit that there is something wrong with it and that it needs a system in place to make it work
- sexuality is controlled, directed and made to have a similar effect as described in 1984, to create frustration that is then converted into productivity (by different methods though)
- most (if not all) values that are held and respected in society are are control methods to produce desired behavior (he who promotes values aims to control behavior). Each and every relational reinforcement of values is in no way different than cheering over the "increase" in chocolate rations
- violent crimes are in no way offensive but just a reflection of the system in which they happen, the system promotes and reinforces the need for violence and crime to justify it's own existence as peacekeeper, lawmaker, big brother in the shape of institutions (constant bombardment with crime through media plays the role of inducing fear and making people cling to the illusion of safety from institutions and also to promote crime as an existing and available tool for problem solving - opposite to Newspeak, instead of reducing the number of concepts it is adding concepts, adding solutions, even if they are dressed in a negative aura, there are no "negative concepts" once you become aware of one it enters your inner thought vocabulary)
- War is never started by people but only by institutions, war is never fought by institutions but always by people
- Overtly fighting the system puts you in jail (at best, if you're dealt with by the system) or can get you killed if you get dealt with by the watchdogs
- Society is a construct it's self meant to facilitate production and abolish the individual (as much as possible).


Well, I hope at least some of the above made you feel that I'm talking complete rubbish :)) That I'm not only wrong, but beyond wrong, saying something despicable, something that makes you cringe, makes you want to denounce me, lol. Or at least make you think that I'm insane...

What I'm trying to achieve is to get you to feel your own "orthodoxy" being threatened. If it is, then you know it's there...

There is no need for such an extreme dystopian representation as in 1984 to achieve the same effects. As long as people believe they have real choices, that they live in a world according to their expectations, then that world is perfectly acceptable, and "doublethink" takes care of any contradictions that may arise.

One may ask very naively why in the world we are collectively fueling drug cartels, organized crime and international mafia through such simple methods as a law (or a small set of laws). How exactly are those laws serving their purpose ? Are they keeping drugs away from kids ? Are they in any way stopping drug use ? And the more money we throw at it, the more police, the more DEA's the more control the more it seems to grow and thrive... And still that law is orthodoxy to the minds of most people alive today. Questioning the law it's self that makes all the other things possible never occurs to anyone, and doublethink works perfectly. If the institution says so, then it is so, to think otherwise would be folly.

And as only a few, selected brave get to die heroically on the Malabar front, we ourselves rejoice at all the wonders that we never get to use, touch or experience. We watch documentaries each day on Discovery about fighter jets and wonder at their agility and technology although we never get to fly one, and although their purpose is simply killing, they are weapons, just like a spiked club, and yet doublethink helps us marvel. If we ever where to "experience" an F16 it would be at the receiving end, and our marvel would suddenly turn to terror, but again doublethink helps us think they're cool.

Whatever version of an acceptable "system" you may think of, it's not much different from 1984's version. 1984 is just a more obvious and less acceptable paradigm, the more the paradigm seems acceptable the more hold it has on us, the more orthodox we become about it. That's why communism or the Nazi regime where doomed from day one, most people would not accept the paradigm, it had to be enforced too openly. But the more the paradigm seems acceptable, the more we become little willing cogs in it's machine, abolishing our will in the name of righteousness, abolishing our thoughts in favor of teachings, punishing ourselves for thinking "bad thoughts".

1984 is in my view just an extreme version of an answer to a deeper underlying question, which is: how do we make "this" work ? "This" being society, "this" being human civilization, "this" being our way of life, our system, our (or their, or the party's) vision... 1984 is much more brilliant than it seems as it poses much deeper questions, it does not only constitute an "not like that" type of answer, but also goes to the more essential "but how?" question.

What if there is no how ? Never was, never will be, never can be and the simple act of believing to be some way is the fundamental orthodoxy ? The fundamental lie that "the party" wants us to believe ? As long as we search for "the way" the party exists, it thrives, it can try new tactics... but what if demolishing the party means giving up the chase ?

I'd love to hear your thoughts :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stg213

...how do we make "this" work ? "This" being society, "this" being human civilization, "this" being our way of life, our system ... What if there is no how ? Never was, never will be, never can be and the simple act of believing to be some way is the fundamental orthodoxy ?

---

A fascinating essay. Are you suggesting, Stg, that 1984 is critiquing all forms of governments, concluding that human government inherently tends toward Oceania, in principle? That all society, mine included, are essentially little better than Oceania?

If so, I can see for the first time, how 1984 is a logical extension of Animal Farm from Communism to all government: local, national and global.

Oh, woe is me!

I wrote a long reply to the OP and it coincided with the forum going down and it's lost....

*sigh*

I may try to ressurrect it tomorrow.

"Thought crime" has been around for cenuries; look at religious history. The Church(es) and other religious groups were doing it long before the Nazis and Stalinists.

Just throught I'd throw that in there, anyway. I see what you mean with the drug issue. The propaganda against their (often beneficial) use has worked very well. Just mention "YOUR CHILDREN" and everyone goes nuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

A fascinating essay. Are you suggesting, Stg, that 1984 is critiquing all forms of governments, concluding that human government inherently tends toward Oceania, in principle? That all society, mine included, are essentially little better than Oceania?

If so, I can see for the first time, how 1984 is a logical extension of Animal Farm from Communism to all government: local, national and global.

---

That's basically the idea :)

Let me make it a bit clearer, if you think of the world of Oceania seen through our eyes it is scary, oppressive horrifying... If you look at it through the eyes of Winston (the point of view through which you experience the story) that is the message that comes across. But how would Oceania look through the eyes of Parsons ? Would it be the same world ? Re-imagine the whole world of 1984 seen through the eyes of Parsons, someone who does not succumb to thoughtcrime except unconsciously but who still strongly believes in the party. Who practices CRIMESTOP successfully and who honestly loves BB, believes rations are going up and all the rest of the "reality control".

From this point of view, our "free" society resembles much more Oceania than any communist or nazi totalitarian regime. Why ? Because most people in a brutal totalitarian regime reject the system but are too afraid to take it down, too divided by fear to unite... While in our society the "belief" in it is much stronger, a wide majority supports the system and sees it in a positive way. Now returning to 1984... who do you suppose is representative for the majority of outer party/inner party members ? Winston or Parsons ? ;)

@ Trystan

"I see what you mean with the drug issue. The propaganda against their (often beneficial) use has worked very well. Just mention "YOUR CHILDREN" and everyone goes nuts."

That's a fear response... basic triggered fear response, but it goes much deeper than that. It goes as far as blind belief in a law (and in most laws) and in the legal system as a whole, not because anyone understands it and finds it reasonable, but solely because "authority says so". If the state says so, it must BE so!

Also notice that while there is so called "free speech" in most media, and it contains a lot of criticism against the official policy it is ALWAYS refrained to the same frame of reference... Let me elaborate on that a bit:

Let's say "health care reform"... some argue it should be more privately run others more state run but both are talking within the same paradigm. Neither side goes out of the paradigm to propose something as preposterous as... let's say... making any necessary resources available to health care as it is clearly vital for the survival of any individual... disregarding any sort of attached cost... simply make available absolutely everything that is necessary (equipment, medicine, research, etc...)... the talk is mainly about who manages the cash... not about how health care is run as a matter of principle.

Another example... 1bn to the IMF to stimulate world economy... hmm... how about replacing the whole goddamn faulty economy in the first place ? It didn't get there by accident... and it won't be miraculously saved by an adrenaline shot either... but that's a "radical" point of view isn't it ?! :)

Radical is just outside the paradigm, anything that contradicts the paradigm fundamentally is: radical, insane, stupid, folly, a fallacy, impossible, preposterous... in a word "Thoughtcrime"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stg213

I'm sure that hundreds of parallels have been drawn between 1984 and today's world... Beyond the obvious communism totalitarian regime parallel there have been many others to media, surveillance, corporate control etc...

What I'm proposing is a much more disturbing parallel (at least to me), one that is quite clearly outlined in my mind but harder to convey in words, I'll give it a shot nonetheless and hope to get as much feed-back from you as possible :)

There are no "thought-crimes" in any part of the world today, no laws to define them (but then again there were no laws in the world of 1984 either). But similar to 1984, similar to all totalitarian regimes, there is no need for laws... there is no need even for telescreens or surveillance, we have each other to serve as watchdogs. And to get willing watchdogs for a "system" all you need is their "orthodoxy" towards any particular system of belief, of thought, a paradigm watchdog if you will.

A paradigm is in place today, as it was in any day. Any paradigm is in it's self a doctrine, a way of thinking and everything that goes against the current paradigm is in all effect "thought crime". To think different from what is generally accepted, to step outside of the invisible lines of doctrine and orthodoxy, and while 1984 describes an obvious world of terror, ours is a world of much subtler terror.

Let me give a few examples of what thought crimes in our world would be:

- there is no system that can possibly work, to create a system of society is to tacitly admit that there is something wrong with it and that it needs a system in place to make it work
- sexuality is controlled, directed and made to have a similar effect as described in 1984, to create frustration that is then converted into productivity (by different methods though)
- most (if not all) values that are held and respected in society are are control methods to produce desired behavior (he who promotes values aims to control behavior). Each and every relational reinforcement of values is in no way different than cheering over the "increase" in chocolate rations
- violent crimes are in no way offensive but just a reflection of the system in which they happen, the system promotes and reinforces the need for violence and crime to justify it's own existence as peacekeeper, lawmaker, big brother in the shape of institutions (constant bombardment with crime through media plays the role of inducing fear and making people cling to the illusion of safety from institutions and also to promote crime as an existing and available tool for problem solving - opposite to Newspeak, instead of reducing the number of concepts it is adding concepts, adding solutions, even if they are dressed in a negative aura, there are no "negative concepts" once you become aware of one it enters your inner thought vocabulary)
- War is never started by people but only by institutions, war is never fought by institutions but always by people
- Overtly fighting the system puts you in jail (at best, if you're dealt with by the system) or can get you killed if you get dealt with by the watchdogs
- Society is a construct it's self meant to facilitate production and abolish the individual (as much as possible).


Well, I hope at least some of the above made you feel that I'm talking complete rubbish :)) That I'm not only wrong, but beyond wrong, saying something despicable, something that makes you cringe, makes you want to denounce me, lol. Or at least make you think that I'm insane...

What I'm trying to achieve is to get you to feel your own "orthodoxy" being threatened. If it is, then you know it's there...

There is no need for such an extreme dystopian representation as in 1984 to achieve the same effects. As long as people believe they have real choices, that they live in a world according to their expectations, then that world is perfectly acceptable, and "doublethink" takes care of any contradictions that may arise.

One may ask very naively why in the world we are collectively fueling drug cartels, organized crime and international mafia through such simple methods as a law (or a small set of laws). How exactly are those laws serving their purpose ? Are they keeping drugs away from kids ? Are they in any way stopping drug use ? And the more money we throw at it, the more police, the more DEA's the more control the more it seems to grow and thrive... And still that law is orthodoxy to the minds of most people alive today. Questioning the law it's self that makes all the other things possible never occurs to anyone, and doublethink works perfectly. If the institution says so, then it is so, to think otherwise would be folly.

And as only a few, selected brave get to die heroically on the Malabar front, we ourselves rejoice at all the wonders that we never get to use, touch or experience. We watch documentaries each day on Discovery about fighter jets and wonder at their agility and technology although we never get to fly one, and although their purpose is simply killing, they are weapons, just like a spiked club, and yet doublethink helps us marvel. If we ever where to "experience" an F16 it would be at the receiving end, and our marvel would suddenly turn to terror, but again doublethink helps us think they're cool.

Whatever version of an acceptable "system" you may think of, it's not much different from 1984's version. 1984 is just a more obvious and less acceptable paradigm, the more the paradigm seems acceptable the more hold it has on us, the more orthodox we become about it. That's why communism or the Nazi regime where doomed from day one, most people would not accept the paradigm, it had to be enforced too openly. But the more the paradigm seems acceptable, the more we become little willing cogs in it's machine, abolishing our will in the name of righteousness, abolishing our thoughts in favor of teachings, punishing ourselves for thinking "bad thoughts".

1984 is in my view just an extreme version of an answer to a deeper underlying question, which is: how do we make "this" work ? "This" being society, "this" being human civilization, "this" being our way of life, our system, our (or their, or the party's) vision... 1984 is much more brilliant than it seems as it poses much deeper questions, it does not only constitute an "not like that" type of answer, but also goes to the more essential "but how?" question.

What if there is no how ? Never was, never will be, never can be and the simple act of believing to be some way is the fundamental orthodoxy ? The fundamental lie that "the party" wants us to believe ? As long as we search for "the way" the party exists, it thrives, it can try new tactics... but what if demolishing the party means giving up the chase ?

I'd love to hear your thoughts :)

---

I completely agree. We today are living in the same society of control as Winston. The most important doublethink today I think is observed every time we are told we are free and we believe it. To me the ease with which we accept that we are free when we're told so perfectly outlines how free we aren't. I.e. The most severe repression society/the party can impose is only possible as long as we believe ourselves free-and convincing us of our freedom is the ultimate power of the party. So the more free we believe we are, the less free we actually are. Evidence for our lack of freedom is the subdued actions or thoughts we consider radical-I don't even know if I can think of something outside the realms of society. For example- I propose a movement away from an oil based society, a halt in reproduction etc. Now is this a thoughtcrime? Or is it exactly what 'they' want me to consider thoughtcrime even though it is quite tame compared to a true free thought. Is my rebellion just another level of control? Another buffer keeping us from true free thought. If I cannot think of a true thoughtcrime then the party has won and the system will perpetuate itself "...-Forever"
Parsons is another example of this- A more loyal party member you couldn't find but he was convinced he committed thoughtcrime by his simple, lame thoughts(if he really said anything at all). He was convinced he committed the crime because The Party told him he did-That is perfect loyalty-the loyalty of a man who could never commit thoughtcrime. What I'm trying to say is-If they make everyone think their thoughts are the most radical thoughts of anyone in the world, no matter how tame, then the party will always be protected from real radical thoughts. If a man like Parsons can be arrested, what chance does a true thoughtcriminal have?
Just like The Party defeated Winston to the point that he could no longer love Julia, society has stolen our ability to think freely without the mind constraints of the system we are a part of.
I believe the 'goldstein factor' represents the illusion of freedom in every society. He is a radical trying to undermine their way of life and take control over them-Does it not matter to them that they've already been taken over by the last era's goldstein?-Now named 'Big Brother'
I hope that makes sense to someone else as it does to me.

Even if The Party is such a very poverful clever institution, a sophisticated metaphisical entity,.. it is nevertheless ultimately subject to matter and natural laws,.... hence it will eventually die and get recycled, like everything else. Eg: the law of probability states that an asteroid would eventually hit the Earth and Oceania, and send the Party back to the creator! ....so lets cherish the though that.... The Party is For Ever... is simply another impossible lie.. Nothing is for Ever...

Well that implies though that the humans will have to be destroyed to kill off the Party, but then again ... the humans created the Party, in the first place... so their are ultimately resposible...

... It is evident that all human institutions as soon as they are created get a life of their own, belive that they are detached from the material world, since they have no phisical body and can live on, simply by reforming and shaping the new generation of humans....

Why does this happen?

... years ago.. I created a Limited company, called PAHI, after a while I decide to close it down and kill it off, but the accountant told me that PAHI would though live on as a instituition, as it could be re-opened by someone else.
To keep it dead, I would have had to pay to keep it as a dormant co and copyrighted!
It felt like a conspiracy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stg213

That's basically the idea :)

Let me make it a bit clearer, if you think of the world of Oceania seen through our eyes it is scary, oppressive horrifying... If you look at it through the eyes of Winston (the point of view through which you experience the story) that is the message that comes across. But how would Oceania look through the eyes of Parsons ? Would it be the same world ? Re-imagine the whole world of 1984 seen through the eyes of Parsons, someone who does not succumb to thoughtcrime except unconsciously but who still strongly believes in the party. Who practices CRIMESTOP successfully and who honestly loves BB, believes rations are going up and all the rest of the "reality control".

From this point of view, our "free" society resembles much more Oceania than any communist or nazi totalitarian regime. Why ? Because most people in a brutal totalitarian regime reject the system but are too afraid to take it down, too divided by fear to unite... While in our society the "belief" in it is much stronger, a wide majority supports the system and sees it in a positive way. Now returning to 1984... who do you suppose is representative for the majority of outer party/inner party members ? Winston or Parsons ? ;)

@ Trystan

"I see what you mean with the drug issue. The propaganda against their (often beneficial) use has worked very well. Just mention "YOUR CHILDREN" and everyone goes nuts."

That's a fear response... basic triggered fear response, but it goes much deeper than that. It goes as far as blind belief in a law (and in most laws) and in the legal system as a whole, not because anyone understands it and finds it reasonable, but solely because "authority says so". If the state says so, it must BE so!

Also notice that while there is so called "free speech" in most media, and it contains a lot of criticism against the official policy it is ALWAYS refrained to the same frame of reference... Let me elaborate on that a bit:

Let's say "health care reform"... some argue it should be more privately run others more state run but both are talking within the same paradigm. Neither side goes out of the paradigm to propose something as preposterous as... let's say... making any necessary resources available to health care as it is clearly vital for the survival of any individual... disregarding any sort of attached cost... simply make available absolutely everything that is necessary (equipment, medicine, research, etc...)... the talk is mainly about who manages the cash... not about how health care is run as a matter of principle.

Another example... 1bn to the IMF to stimulate world economy... hmm... how about replacing the whole goddamn faulty economy in the first place ? It didn't get there by accident... and it won't be miraculously saved by an adrenaline shot either... but that's a "radical" point of view isn't it ?! :)

Radical is just outside the paradigm, anything that contradicts the paradigm fundamentally is: radical, insane, stupid, folly, a fallacy, impossible, preposterous... in a word "Thoughtcrime"...

---

(My first post here :alien:)

I think of Parsons as non existent. I think of Winston as our internal guide and the whole story exists only to awaken awareness of our situation. In that sense, Parsons only exists as an externality like a condition or force. So, from that standpoint we can't imagine ourselves seeing the world from Parsons' point of view.