misogynistic shit

My preparedness for the regime change taking place in the United States--with elements of the Electoral College, the Kremlin and the FBI helping to install a failed business promoter who the majority of American voters did not support in the election--begins with 1984 by George Orwell. Like many, this 1949 novel was assigned reading for me in high school. What stood out to me then was that I needed to finish it because there would be a test. Studying how civics is supposed to work in 3rd period government did not prepare me in 7th period English for this harrowing and precise depiction of fear and hatred run amok.

1990 Joe

We're in the future! At least, what George Orwell thought postwar England might be like in in the future. Great Britain is now governed by Oceania and resembles a Warsaw Pact nation--the Party controls every action and thought of its miserable population through propaganda, surveillance and torture--but what's happened is that an atomic war in the 1950s left survivors in the United States and Western Europe desperate for law and order. Party members who pledge absolute loyalty to a figure known as Big Brother have their essential needs provided for, while the lower caste are known as Proles and regarded as rubbish. It sucks here!

2016 Joe

Winston Smith is a contemplative thirty-nine year old Outer Party member who works at the Ministry of Truth in London. Like many great literary characters, he does not feel well. Winston is employed in the Records Department, altering (or as it's officially known, rectifying) articles for The Times which no longer adhere to the reality of The Party. Winston suffers from an ulcer on his leg and like many, subsists on Victory Gin. He leaves work on his lunch break to return his flat in Victory Gardens, hiding in a nook where he believes the telescreen installed in his home cannot see him. He begins a handwritten diary in an old book, with paper, that he found in a junk shop.

For a moment he was seized by a kind of hysteria. He began writing in a hurried untidy scrawl:

theyll shoot me i don’t care theyll shoot me in the back of the neck i dont care down with big brother they always shoot you in the back of the neck i dont care down with big brother--

He sat back in his chair, slightly ashamed of himself, and laid down the pen. The next moment he started violently. There was a knocking at the door.

1990 Joe

Whoa so there's some heavy stuff in this book, like, telescreens that scream at you to do calisthenics in the morning, shout propaganda at you in the afternoon and listen to you talking in your sleep at night. There are periodic shortages of essential goods like razor blades and a perpetual war with Oceania's foe, Eurasia. At least the Party says so. No one trusts anyone else. In addition to hidden microphones, there are informers and spies everywhere prepared to turn you in to the Thought Police for thought crimes. Children most of all revel in ratting out their Outer Party moms and dads.

It was always at night — the arrests invariably happened at night. The sudden jerk out of sleep, the rough hand shaking your shoulder, the lights glaring in your eyes, the ring of hard faces round the bed. In the vast majority of cases there was no trial, no report of the arrest. People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annihilated: VAPORIZED was the usual word.

2016 Joe

The Party has so eradicated records of the past and traumatized its Outer Party members into obedience that its slogans are: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. But Winston's mind is his own. He's old enough to keep a mental inventory of the inconsistencies of the Party--like the one that says they invented aeroplanes--and contemplate that the glance of a co-worker named O'Brien reveals a fellow rebel. Believing that the only hope to overthrow Big Brother lies with the proles, Winston ventures into the slums. He buys an old man a pint and grills him for information on the past. Everyone seems blind, except, to Winston's terror, a dark-haired woman he works with at the Ministry of Truth. She sees Winston in the slums.

1990 Joe

This book is hard to enjoy. Just when things start to slow, there is a love story introduced between Winston and his co-worker, Julia. She works at the Fiction Department, operating the press (that's kinda hot) that cranks out the only books that are allowed in Oceania. Winston initially suspects her of being a typical frigid Party femmebot, but Julia slips him a love note and arranges a series meetings with the aplomb of a spy. Separated in age by about fifteen years, I never understood what Julia's attraction to Winston was or why the couple didn't band together to escape or to take down Big Brother. If I was Winston, I'd stab Inner Party members all day without a lunch break.

2016 Joe

George Orwell's writing is so precise, so penetrative, that I felt like he was broadcasting truths into my mind with a laser. I could appreciate that Winston and Julia were doing what they had to survive, that staying alive another day, even under tyranny, had become paramount to all other concerns. As an adult, I can now appreciate how fear and hatred warp democracy and how people who feel they have nothing left to lose surrender their once cherished freedoms and throw their lot in with a Big Brother who promises to take care of them. And did I mention the writing?

‘You are very young,’ he said. ‘You are ten or fifteen years younger than I am. What could you see to attract you in a man like me?’

‘It was something in your face. I thought I’d take a chance. I’m good at spotting people who don’t belong. As soon as I saw you I knew you were against THEM.’

THEM, it appeared, meant the Party, and above all the Inner Party, about whom she talked with an open jeering hatred which made Winston feel uneasy, although he knew that they were safe here if they could be safe anywhere. A thing that astonished him about her was the coarseness of her language. Party members were supposed not to swear, and Winston himself very seldom did swear, aloud, at any rate. Julia, however, seemed unable to mention the Party, and especially the Inner Party, without using the kind of words that you saw chalked up in dripping alley-ways. He did not dislike it. It was merely one symptom of her revolt against the Party and all its ways, and somehow it seemed natural and healthy, like the sneeze of a horse that smells bad hay.

The devil is in the details. What stands out to me in 1984 is precision with which Orwell depicts the joys of humanity thriving under inhumane rule as well as the terror of being exposed. Thinking men like Winston know that they'll be arrested, tortured and possibly vaporized for allowing themselves the indulgences that they do, but no amount of reason can prepare them for that moment of betrayal, arrest and interrogation. The third act of 1984 is terrifying. The Party's true methodology--to convert political prisoners to embrace Big Brother before disposing of them--is chilling, something whose force I wasn't prepared to appreciate in high school.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

One of the party's slogans.

I don't really need to say more. The man was a visionary. He saw it coming.



Join my Patreon
Join my 3-emails-a-year newsletter #prizes

..

Doubleplusgood Maxitruth in Oldspeak on Doublethink and Crimestop!

(Translation from Newspeak: Excellent, accurate analysis of oppressive, selective society in well-written Standard English reflecting on the the capacity to hold two contradictory opinions for truth at the same time and on the effectiveness of protective stupidity as a means to keep a power structure stable.)

There is not much left to say about this prophetic novel by Orwell which has not been said over and over again since its publication at the beginning of the Cold War in 1949. There are obviously elements which refer directly to Stalinist socialism, and the life conditions of people in the 1940s, but what strikes as sadly true, not for Communist propaganda behind the historical Iron Curtain, but for the celebrated democracies in the Western tradition, is the idea of rewriting history and altering facts a posteriori into their opposite to suit political agendas, and the usurpation of scientific and political language to follow a path of absolute brainwashing. Western reality has caught up with 1984 in the era of “alternative facts” instead of falsehoods, and the denunciation of non-existent massacres to create fear, and an increasingly “blackwhite” take on society in general.

Reading this novel for the third time with the speeches of the current President of the United States and his followers ringing in my ears, it is hard not to cringe at the reduction of language that Orwell predicted in "1984" (1949):

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

Just listening to the current reductionist rhetoric, expressing a less than shallow understanding of basic political thought and knowledge, shows the increasing spread of Newspeak at the highest level of command in democratic societies, claiming to be celebrating education, equality, freedom and human rights.

“So sad! Very dishonest! Total loser! You are fake news! Russia is fake news! The failing NYTimes! It’s great! It’s SO great! You wouldn’t believe how great that is (doubleplusgreat, I assume...). The largest! The best! Running like a fine-tuned machine! The least racist! The most humble! The one with the best polls, for the negative ones are fake!”

- Doublethink and crimestop nonstop!

The problem with dictatorships, and dogmas of a specific faith, is that they will never shy away from usurping and then destroying the generally accepted conventions of communication if it serves their purposes. Thus a creationist believer in the literal truth of the Bible will use the argument of “enquiry”, “controversy” or “evidence” in order to attack real scientists with their own vocabulary, while refusing to question the default setting of their own dogmas, which cannot deliver any evidence at all, being as real as the Bowling Green massacre. The argument of “controversy” is a one-way road to kill opposition with their own weapons while staying safely within the “protective stupidity” (crimestop) of absolute, monofocal faith. The “tolerance” of the open-minded scientist becomes a weapon for the fundamentalist.

(One example of typical crimestop (=protective stupidity) is the Creation Museum in Kentucky, US, advertising their love for science, while starting with the slogan "Be prepared to believe":
"Creationists love science! In fact, the word science means “knowledge.” We invite you to dive into the Bible and the scientific evidence with us to gather as much knowledge about God’s creation as you can. You’ll learn about the different types of science and discover facts and logical arguments you might have never considered. When you start with the Bible as your ultimate authority, you’re ready to discover creation science."
They also have "REAL CREATION SCIENTISTS" (no kidding, they are real, not fake, according to website):
"Did you know the Creation Museum employs PhD creation scientists who teach about anatomy, astronomy, biology, geology, and more from a biblical worldview? ")

The same selective use of language, a consistent tool to exert power in “1984”, can be seen in the Pro Life movement, a violent anti-abortion, anti-contraception fundamentalist Christian group, whose derogatory, misogynistic vocabulary strongly calls Atwood’s The Handmaid's Tale to mind. Their aim, they claim, is to protect unborn life, which sounds honourable until you start to think about their opinions about and treatment of human beings that already dwell on earth: they are conservatives, mostly pro weapons, pro (ideological) wars, pro death penalty, anti welfare, anti climate change and anti health care. That does not rhyme well with the militant need to control female sexuality, labelled protection of the foetus’ right. Controlling sexuality is a major topic in Orwell’s dystopia as well - goodsex being newspeak for chastity.

What struck me as overwhelmingly sad in the main character of "1984", which did not catch my attention the first two times I read the novel, was the breaking down of the man’s sanity and mental capacities, rather than his body. The scary development for Winston Smith is not the prospect of torture, once he starts rebelling against the oppressive (“free”) society, it is the fear to lose his humanity in the process:

“To die hating them, that was freedom.”

This idea, expressed by Ionesco in his fabulous play Rhinocéros as well, is denied Orwell’s main character, however. He is broken, not only physically, but mentally, and after torture of unimaginable dimensions, his closing lines show complete surrender, body and soul, to the evil brainwashing machinery of Big Brother:

“He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother!”

Put this man into the context of an interview on television, where the President of the United States is questioned on his position regarding torture as a means to receive “information”. Dodging the question, he speaks about an undefined opposition “chopping off Christians’ heads”, thus creating the necessary atmosphere of fear to evade direct challenge, and then, in his reduced, stupid language, he says:

“Torture? Do I feel it works? Absolutely, I feel it works.”

And depending on what is your desired outcome (“confession” of facts, alternative or otherwise), it does. Unfortunately. You can force a human being to speak against his or her will, using torture. And as long as you are not finicky regarding the accuracy of the received confession, you will be able to report results. An easy task for any doublethinker.

As for CRIMESTOP - the protective stupidity practised by most dogmatic, orthodox people in all parts of the world - that is the root of the evil. And it can only be challenged with a proper, objective, fact-based, politically and religiously untainted EDUCATION! And please do not confuse that with information! Information, as we know, can be “bad”. Really bad. Rotten. So unfair. So dishonest. The most dishonest information in the world. Total loser information.

Education Against Crimestop Now!

(Book 547 From 1001 Books) - Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell

Nineteen Eighty-Four, often published as 1984, is a dystopian novel published in 1949 by English author George Orwell.

The novel is set in Airstrip One, formerly Great Britain, a province of the superstate Oceania, whose residents are victims of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation.

Oceania's political ideology, euphemistically named English Socialism is enforced by the privileged, elite Inner Party.

Via the "Thought Police", the Inner Party persecutes individualism and independent thinking, which are regarded as "thoughtcrimes".

عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «1984»؛ «۱۹۸۴»؛ «هزار و نهصد وهشتاد و چهار 1984»؛ نویسنده جورج اورول؛ انتشاراتیها (نیلوفر، آزرمیدخت، یاران، اردیبهشت؛ حکایتی دگر، فراموشی؛ ماهانه؛ هنر پارینه؛ انتشارات ولی؛ اختر، سومر، کارگاه، گهبد؛ مجید، و ...)؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش سال 1982میلادی

عنوان: 1984 (۱۹۸۴)؛ نویسنده: جورج اورول؛ مترجم: صالح حسینی؛ تهران، نیلوفر، 1361؛ در 272ص؛ چاپ دوم 1364؛ سوم 1367؛ چهارم سال1369؛ شابک: 9644480449؛ پنجم 1374؛ ششم 1376؛ هفتم 1380؛ هشتم 1382؛ یازدهم و دوازدهم 1388؛ شابک789644480447؛ سیزدهم 1389؛ در 312ص؛ چاپ چهاردهم 1395؛ عنوان گسترده: هزار و نهصد وهشتاد و چهار؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده 20م

مترجمین دیگر خانمها و آقایان: «رضا زارع، در 384ص، قزوین آزرمیدخت، 1392»؛ «خدیجه خدایی، در 318ص، تبریز، یاران، 1391»؛ «نرگس حیدری منجیلی، در 352ص، تهران، اردیبهشت، 1389»،؛ «مریم فیروزبخت، در 392ص، تهران، حکایتی دگر، 1389»؛ «زهره زندیه، در 400ص، قزوین، آزرمیدخت»؛ «کتایون شاهوردی، در 465ص، تهران، فراموشی، 1396»؛ «فهیمه رحمتی، در 400ص، تهران، ماهانه، 1394»؛ «امیر سالارکیا، در 384ص؛ تهران، هنر پارینه، 1394»؛ «مرتضی، سعیدی تبار، در 384ص، کرمان، انتشارات ولی، 1393»؛ «محمدعلی جدیری، تهران، اختر، چاپ یازدهم 1392، در 399ص؛ چاپ سیزدهم، تبریز، سومر، 1393، در 283ص»؛ «وحید کیان، تهران، کارگاه فیلم و گرافیک سپاس، 1394، در 375ص»؛ «حمیدرضا بلوچ، در 288ص، تهران، گهبد، 1384، چاپ دوم 1385، سوم 1386، پنجم 1388؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، مجید، 1386؛ در 288ص؛ چاپ هشتم 1392»؛

کتاب «1984» را نویسنده و شاعر «بریتانیا»، «اریک آرتور بلر» با نام مستعار «جرج (جورج) اورول»؛ بنگاشته اند، و تا‌ به‌ امروز به بیش از شصت و پنج زبان گوناگون برگردان، و میلیون‌ها نسخه از آن فروخته شده است؛ با توجه به تصویر روشنی که «اورول» در داستان از نظامهای تمامیت‌خواه ارائه می‌دهند، انگار کنید بیانیه‌ ای سیاسی، برای رد همه ی نظام‌های توتالیتر، و «کمونیستی» است؛ «جهان اورولی، 1984؛» داستان «وینستون اسمیت» را روایت می‌کند؛ فردیکه نماد یک شهروند عادی دگراندیش، در دنیای «اورولی» است؛ رمان در سال 1949میلادی نوشته شده، زمانی‌که جنگ دوم جهانگیر به‌ تازگی پایان یافته بود؛ و جهانیان، خطر تسلیم‌ شدن در پیشگاه دیکتاتورها را، نیک فهمیده بودند؛ در آن زمان، جنگ سرد هنوز آغاز نشده بود، و در دنیای غرب نیز، هنوز روشنفکران بسیاری بودند، که از «کمونیسم» هواداری، و دفاع میکردند؛ در واقع «اورول» کتاب را، برای اخطار به غربیان، برای گوشزد کردن خطر گسترش «کمونیسم»، نوشته اند؛ اما داستان این اثر را، می‌توان به شرایط حاکم بر تمام جوامع تحت سلطه‌ ی حکومت‌ها‌ی استبدادی نیز، گسترش داد؛ داستان در سال 1984میلادی (سی و پنجسال پس از تاریخ نگارش کتاب) در شهر «لندن»، رخ می‌دهد؛ پس از جنگ جهانگیر، حاکمان کشورهای توانمند، به این نتیجه رسیده‌ اند، که اگر جهان، به روند افزایش ثروت ادامه دهد، ارکان جامعه‌ ی طبقاتی، به خطر می‌افتد؛ و حکومتها سرنگون میشوند؛ آن‌ها تنها راه جلوگیری از این امر را، نابود کردن ثروت تولید شده، در جنگی بی‌ پایان می‌بینند؛

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 21/05/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 04/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

I wanted to understand the origin of the expression "Big Brother" associated with our modern world, and I immersed myself in 1984 by George Orwell. This novel of anticipation, published in 1949, is striking! We follow the destinies of Winston and Julia in this universe, which is reminiscent of ours or what it could become. Of course, it is a fable, but the images strike and remain used for a long time. After reading this cult novel, we look at certain realities differently. It is a detour that is worth it, a must. Why did I wait so long to read it?

This was an up and down kind of read for me. There were parts that I really enjoyed and parts that I found extremely difficult to maneuver through. I'm glad that I decided to pick it up and give it a go, because it's one that I've been curious about for a long time. I can definitely see why so many people love this book. It explores a lot of things that we see happening in the world today. I can't say I'm leaving it as a massive fan, but I'm sure it's one that I'll continue to think about.

n  “The best books... are those that tell you what you know already.” n

Just about everything Orwell says in 1984 is a maniacal truism. In some twisted form, everything reflects the truth of reality.

Of course there are exaggerations, though nothing is far from plausibility. We are controlled by our governments, and often in ways we are not consciously aware of. Advertisements, marketing campaigns and political events are all designed for us to elicit a certain response and think in a desired way.

1984 takes this to the extreme. Cultural brainwashing becomes the chief goal. Assimilation into a passionless (and completely ignorant) mind-set becomes the most effective means of keeping the population down. If you can make a man forget (or deny) his past then he knows of no situation better than his current state: it’s all he knows, so why would he act to change it? Subjugation becomes normality.

n  “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”n

Big brother does this by harsh policing, excessive surveillance and language manipulation. The streets are claustrophobic and the people (the workers) can escape nothing. Every action, every word spoken, is recorded. The police are ready to grab anyone who steps remotely out of line. Controlling language is perhaps the most effective thought control method I’ve ever heard of. If language can be broken down into the absolute basics, the simplest and ordinary units, then people can only express themselves on a very minor level. They cannot think beyond their daily tasks because there are no words that connote dreams and fantasy.

Step out of line and you are killed, though not before being dragged to room 101 for torture and even stronger methods of thought control. As such through the plot the book depicts a stark transformation, a transformation of man who was once willing to fight and to think but falls into one of the ingenious traps big brother sets for him to expose his criminality. Orwell’s words are frightening because of their eerie parallels with reality. He shows us that we are not so far from big brother as we may think.

n  

“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.”

n
Unlike Animal Farm this also leaves much to the imagination. It’s a much more successful book and one that once it has been read, it certainly cannot be unread.

___________________________________

You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree.
__________________________________

I once had a really inane and unintelligent review here that drew some trolls and unwanted attention, so I took down that review because I generally hate any kind of negativity and it makes me extraordinarily anxious to have any kind of criticism (constructive or destructive) pop up on my ticker feed on a semi-regular basis (I don't really need that); and it's especially disheartening when that criticism deals with a book that so many intelligent people love. I hope that one day I will return to this book and really grasp what it is that so many people love about it, but until that day, I suppose I can continue bashing it to the discomfort of all of us. My main issue at the time was that the book wanted to argue about these political ideas through a story, and it left me wondering why a story was even necessary in the first place. I think I was pretty reductive in my approach to works that combine artistic expression and politics. However I thought that if the author really wanted to convey a point about a political or social issue, why not resort to the good old, syllogism and debate format? I think the answer to this should be obvious; it should make me look blatantly particularly provocative for having made that point. The reason why it’s a book is because it has reached such a wider audience as a work of fiction, than if it were to be a political essay (which probably would reach only a handful of those in academia and those working in that field of study). It’s hard to deny the impact that this book has had, and how many people it's reached. Who doesn’t use the terms “double-think” or “big brother” when discussing any issues involving oppressive bureaucratic systems, or other similarly related issues? (This doesn’t change that the fact that the book has really boring characters and the writing is bland as hell (and it especially doesn’t change the fact that I love literature that is focused on character and language which is well out of Orwell’s wheelhouse, but I can’t hate on Mr. Orwell too much because the late, great Bonnie, had such affection for him and let’s face it: she was a far more intelligent and thoughtful reader than I was or will be!))

It was aspects of its simplicity that I resisted. And not just the simplicity of prose and character, but the simplicity of us versus them, the people vs. Big Brother.

I’d like to hear 1984 written from the perspective of Big Brother. The dynamics of government, government control, and the temptation of power is what most interests me the most. I think it’s easy for us, mere individuals and lowly citizens on the bottom of the food chain, to abstract a single oppressive entity, the single “big brother” which has its own motivations and intentions acting as its own agent which oppresses us. But this misses out on a large portion of the truth. Any oppressive system (barring outright Monarchs) came about from a large complicated set of cause and effect which makes it difficult to point to any one person or party who is culpable. I’m sure all the reasons behind any given dictum or law, are extremely complex and this complexity has to render incomprehensible any abstracted notion of a singular entity with nefarious intentions behind it. (Hey Otis, am I still on topic, by the way?!?!)

I’d like to hear that story because I think that no matter which perspective you take on any difficult, community-wide (society-wide) issue, it will be seen as “us versus them”; you’ll never get to the real source of what causes all these problems and issues no matter the perspective because you'll see it through the eyes of one person caught up in a society-wide issue (I think this was what Kafka was expressing through a lot of his work).

I’d like to put this idea out there because certain fanaticism, while understandable, can get a little out of hand. This says nothing about the rights and wants of any one person or individual within the system, by the way. It says nothing about submitting to authority merely because the dynamics operating within that authority is complicated. I just feel that this is a piece of the puzzle that’s often left out of the conversation (and left out of this book!) What are big brother’s intentions? And how did these rules come about? What conditions brought about these decisions and dictums? What is it about a society that resulted in such oppressive and strict rules?

I’d like to read that part of 1984. Maybe Orwell will write a sequel.

أضفت مراجعة الرواية في مدونتي ضمن 50 كتاب غيرني
http://www.nawalsaad.com/?p=4108
وأضفت رابط لتقرير رحالة قام بزيارة كوريا الشمالية، وكان صادمًا تطابق استراتيجات الرواية مع ما يفعل في كوريا الشمالية.

المجد للكتب التي تحدث ضجة داخل عقلك.. المجد للكتب التي تحفز اليقطة الذهنية فيك .. المجد للكتاب الذي يصفعك ويجعلك تعيد النظر في أشياء كثيرة .. هذا الكتاب من الكتب النادرة التي توازي شهرتها وضجتها قيمتها الفكرية والروائية ..

قرأت الكتاب في الطائرة رحلة عودة من امستردام إلى الرياض .. استغرق معي الكتاب 6 ساعات ونصف لم أشعر بالاقلاع ولم أشعر بأي مطبات هوائية حينها وأنا التي تربكني تحركات الطائرة واهتزازاتها ..
تعرف تماما الكتاب النخبوي حين يحرض حاسة البحث لديك ويجعلك تبحث عن كتب أخرى تتحدث عن ذات الموضوع .. تعرف جودة الكتاب حين تظل تبحث عن كاتبه وخلفيته ونشأته ساعات طويلة ..
هذا ما كنت أفعله عندما أنهيته وحتى يومي هذا .. ابتعت كتب تتحدث عن صناعة العدو ، والقدرة على الثورات وعلم النفس السياسي .. ولربما لو لم أقرأ هذا الكتاب ( وقبله كتب أخرى ) لن يحرضني غيرها للاهتمام بهذه الكتب ..

على الرغم من قراءاتي السابقة في فلسفة الاستبداد ، و حكومات القمع والاستبداد وما يمكن أن تفعله حتى تضمن بقاؤها واستمراها ، إلا أن هذا الكتاب صدمة لي .. لكنها صدمة تحثك على زيادة الوعي لديك وتقسم خمسين ألف مرة أنك لن تدع وعيك يموت ولن يدمره شيء !

يقدم جورج سياسات القمع والديكتاتورية بقالب درامي رمزي رفيع جدا ، حتى وإن قلت لوهلة هذا مبالغ به جدا ! دقيقتين من التفكير وستجد أن الاستراتيجية حدثت من قبل أو تحدث الآن لكن يختلف تلقينا لها واهتمامنا لها ..
إنه لعمل عظيم أن تدرس الحاضر والماضي وتعير أدنى التفاصيل انتباهك، ثم بعد ذلك تستشرف المستقبل .. مرعب والله مرعب كمية الوقائع حاليا التي تشبه تنبؤات جورج ، تغير القوى ، تغيير العدو في يوم وليلة الخ ..

لدى حكومات القمع طرق سحرية حتى تقنعك بما يرفضه عقلك ابتداء، عليك أن تقتنع ب:

الحرب هي السلام
الحرية هي العبودية
الجهل هو القوة
2+2=5

وفي بعض المرات ممكن يساوي ثلاثة أو أربعة .. 2+2 يساوي العدد الذي تخبرك به حكومة القمع ..
التاريخ يتغير حسب ما تريده الحكومات ، حسب ما تريدك أن تصدقه .. إنها حكومات تعمل على تسطيح عقولنا والهاءنا في ما لاينفع حتى تستمر هذه الحكومات بالتلاعب بالعالم ..
وبنظرة سريعة للعالم وما يجري الآن تدرك أن معظم الحكومات هي حكومات قمع داخليا وخارجيا ، هناك فقط مستويات مختلفة ، وطرق مختلفة لتحقيق هذا القمع ..

فقدت الثقة بمعظم ما كُتب في التاريخ، فكلّا يكتب مايريده .. كلّا يكذب بما يتلائم مع مصلحته .. من الممكن جدا أن تقنع شعبك أن أسلافهم كانوا يعبدون القدور والأصنام، لكن تم انقاذك من هذا الوحل .. بينما الواقع يكون شيئا آخر !!
اقرأ التاريخ من ألف مصدر ان استطعت .. وفوق كل هذا فالتحريف والسهو وارد جدا ..

الاستبداد يفقدك متع الحياة كلها ، لن تعيش كما ينبغي أن تعيش .. ستكون كما الآلة تتزوج وتنجب من أجل الواجب والحزب .. تأكل من أجل الحزب .. شاشة الرصد تحيطك يمنة ويسرة .. لا تكتب ولا تقرأ كما تريد ..
لوحات بصورة الأخ الكبير تواجهك في كل مكان حتى تنغرس في عقلك بأنه لامحالة من أن تعيش .. الأسهل أن تخضع ، أن تتأقلم وتعيش بالكفاف ..
الأخ الكبير يراقبك .. التبجيل في أعظم صوره .. نشر صور القادة بطريقة مبالغ بها وكبيرة ، وعبارات مدح وتبجيل لا يمكنها إلا أن تفسد كل ما في عقلك للأسف إن لم ننتبه لهذا .. كل هذه الاستراتيجيات لعبة سياسية قذرة .. لعبة نفسية مدروسة ..

ثلاث قوى ا��تبدادية تتصارع حول بقية العالم ، من يظفر بمن ؟ وكيف بإمكانك إخضاع شعب لأي فكرة تأتي بها ؟ كيف يمكنك تطوير أسلحة ذهنية لدمار شامل للعقل .. كيف يمكنك تدليس الحقيقة، وجعل كل شيء صحيحا أو خاطئا كيفما تريد ومتى تريد .. كيف يمكنك زرع الكره تجاه ماضي أو حاضر أو مستقبل .. كيف يكون بإمكان القوى القوية أن تتنازع حول أراضي وقوة ليست من حقها ، إنه استبداد الانسان على الإنسان ، استبداد الإنسان على نفسه ..



- أوبراين : "كيف يؤكد الانسان سلطته على انسان آخر يا ونستون؟"

- ونستون: - "بجعله يقاسي الألم".

اوبراين: - " "أصبت فيما تقول. بتعريضه للألم، فالطاعة وحدها ليست كافية، وما لم يعاني الانسان من الألم كيف يمكنك أن تتحقق من أنه ينصاع لإرادتك لا لإرادته هو؟ إن السلطة هي إذلاله وإنزال الألم به، وهي أيضاً تمزيق العقول البشرية إلى أشلاء ثم جمعها وصياغتها في قوالب جديدة من اختيارنا.
هل تفهم أي نوع من العالم نقوم بخلقه الآن؟ إنه النقيض التام ليوتوبيا المدينة الفاضلة التي تصورها المصلحون الأقدمون، إنه عالم الخوف والغدر والتعذيب، عالم يدوس الناس فيه بعضهم بعضاً، عالم يزداد قسوة كلما ازداد نقاء، إذ التقدم في عالمنا هو التقدم باتجاه مزيد من الألم. لقد زعمت الحضارات الغابرة بأنها قامت على الحب والعدالة أما حضارتنا فهي قائمة على الكراهية، ففي عالمنا لا مكان لعواطف غير الخوف والغضب والانتشاء بالنصر وإذلال الذات، وأي شيء خلاف ذلك سندمره تدميراً. إننا بالفعل نعمل على تفكيك العادات الفكرية التي ورثناها من العهد السابق للثورة، لقد فصمنا عرى العلاقة بين الطفل ووالديه، وبين الصديق وصديقه، وبين الزوج وزوجته، ولم يعد أحد قادراً على الثقة بزوجته أو بطفله أو بصديقه، وفي المستقبل لن يكون هناك زوجات أو أصدقاء. كما سينعدم كل ولاء ليس للحزب ، وسيباد كل حب ليس للأخ الكبير. ولن يكون هناك ضحك غير الضحك الذي يصاحب نشوة الانتصار على العدو المقهور، ولن يكون هنالك أدب أو فن أو علم، فحينما تجتمع في أيدينا كل أسباب القوة لن تكون بنا حاجة إلى العلم. كما ستزول الفروق بين الجمال والقبح، ولن يكون هناك حب للاستطلاع أو التمتع بالحياة ولن يكون هناك ميل نحو مباهج الحياة التي ستدمر تدميراً......"

كيف يمكنك أن تشغل العامة بالرذيلة باختلاف أشكالها ، بالفوضى الصغيرة حتى لا يعودو قادرين على معرفة الفوضى الكبيرة .. كيف تأكل أنت جيدا وشعبك لا يعرف طعم الأشياء الحقيقي .. عليه فقط أن يصدق كل ماتقول ..
حياتك كنفس غير مهمة لسلطات القمع، حياتك فكريا وانسانيا هي ما يقلقهم ، هي ما يجعلهم يصلون إليك ويخفونك من الوجود الواعي ، يتنزعون منك إنسانيتك .. يسخرون كل القوى والتقنيات والاستراتيجيات من أجل ذلك الهدف ، من أجل أن ينجحو في الأخير لتقول :
لا بأس فقد انتهى النضال، وها قد انتصرت على نفسي وصرت أحب الأخ الكبير.


لا يكفي حكومات القمع والاستبداد أن تكفر بما يكفرون به، بل يجب أن تؤمن بالأخ الكبير ، طاعة عمياء وتصديق لكل مايقوله عن ظهر قلب .. بدو شك .. بدون تفكير .. آمن من قلبك به وبكل مايقوله ..


مؤلمة الرواية لأن نهايتها مؤلمة ومؤسف أنها تحدث حاليا، ونرى ما يشبه أحداثها ، مؤلمة لكن الحرب ماتزال قائة الى يوم الدين مع كل مايعطل العقل البشري ويقيد حريته ، قائمة حتى يأتي جيل يرفض هذا العنت السياسي وتزدهر الانسانية .. فتلك الأيام نداولها بين الناس ..


شخصيا أرى أن الرواية لا تقتصر فقط على السياسة ، فهي بلا شك يمكن إسقاطها على أبسط الأمور مع تجاوز العديد من الدراما فيها ..

الناحية الأدبية كانت جميلة ومقبولة في الرواية على الرغم من قلة معرفتي بالنقد الأدبي ، لكن أرى أن الرواية مباشرة أكثر من اللازم .. ربما كان لجورج مغزى من ذلك فهو كان ينشر لبشر وعيهم يختلف عن وعينا، ومستوى تلقيهم يختلف ؟


أرجو أن لاتفهم من تقييمي بخمسة نجوم بأن الراوية لا يوجد بها ضعف أو ملاحظات ، ولكني في مثل هذه الكتب أقيم بشكل عام مع ذكر الملاحظات ، وعلى الرغم من أن الرواية كمفهوم ليست جديدة كليا إلا أنها كتب في وقت قديم جدا وهذا ما يضفي عليها الكثير من الجمال الفكري ، كمقدمة ابن خلدون .. فمن العدل في نظري أن تقيم حسب وقت نشرها ، فهي كانت من القواعد لكثير من أعمال نشرت وصورت بعدها ..

هل تستحق القراءة ؟ نعم تستحق من وجهة نظري .. حتى ولو سبقت لك القراءة في حكومات القمع وغيرها فمن الجيد معرفة أحد الأساسات لمثل هذه الكتابات .. أيضا أجد أنها تساعد كثيرا لفهم وتحليل الواقع والمستقبل ..
فمنذ أن قرأتها لم أتوقف عن الحديث عنها لزوجي ، وفي كل موقف أضرب له مثلا بما جاء في الرواية حتى رغب بشدة في قراءتها ..
رواية بامتياز تستحق أن تقتنيها و تكون في رفوف مكتبتك بشكل دائم ..

I prefer 1989

What can I possibly say about this amazing novel, 1984 by George Orwell, that hasn't been already said by many who have read the book for over half a century. When it is said that the book is 'haunting', 'nightmarish', and 'startling' any reader would have to agree! This well known novel grips the reader from the beginning and does not even let go of the grip at the finished reading. A classic you won't want to miss if you haven't taken the time to read it yet.
I actually listened to this novel on audio and Simon Prebble was the 'perfect' narrator.