theintercept 20160428: new-study-shows-mass-surveillance-breeds-meekness-fear-and-self-censorship Orwell’s clarifying “why” letter

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/new-study-shows-mass-surveillance-breeds-meekness-fear-and-self-censorship/
Glenn Greenwald

Orwell: By the way, what happened to that essay I wrote letting people very clearly know I wasn’t kidding at all, nor was I exclusively taking about Stalin era “freedom-hating” lowlifes?

Orwell: Sorry, I can’t quite make sense of the hell you are living through in your times guys. I still believe there is only one kind of people. The self-serving differences that some emphasize are illusive. So, even if that “1984” title was a bit off, I think, you may find my morally futuristic whistleblowing useful. Politicians have in their own ways, it seems.

I think that I understand better now that gringo media darling, Carl Sagan, who seemed to be a nice and true fellow, but he totally misconstrued my own critical views as if they narrowly referred to Stalinist historical falsification when I was talking about us, people in general. So, don’t forget to read what I myself had to say (barely reformatted, by that RCL guy).
~
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/12/george-orwell-s-letter-on-why-he-wrote-1984.html

George Orwell’s Letter on Why He Wrote ‘1984’

In 1944, three years before writing and five years before publishing 1984, George Orwell penned a letter detailing the thesis of his great novel. The letter, warning of the rise of totalitarian police states that will ‘say that two and two are five,’ is reprinted from George Orwell: “A Life in Letters”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell_bibliography

edited by Peter Davison and published today by Liveright. Plus, Orwell’s advice to Arthur Koestler on how to review books (thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/15/george-orwell-teaches-you-how-to-review-books.html)
~
To Noel Willmett
18 May 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6

Dear Mr Willmett,

Many thanks for your letter. You ask whether totalitarianism, leader-worship etc. are really on the up-grade and instance the fact that they are not apparently growing in this country and the USA.

I must say I believe, or fear, that taking the world as a whole these things are on the increase. Hitler, no doubt, will soon disappear, but only at the expense of strengthening:

(a) Stalin,

(b) the Anglo-American millionaires and

(c) all sorts of petty fuhrers° of the type of de Gaulle.

All the national movements everywhere, even those that originate in resistance to German domination, seem to take non-democratic forms, to group themselves round some superhuman fuhrer (Hitler, Stalin, Salazar, Franco, Gandhi, De Valera are all varying examples) and to adopt the theory that the end justifies the means. Everywhere the world movement seems to be in the direction of centralised economies which can be made to ‘work’ in an economic sense but which are not democratically organised and which tend to establish a caste system. With this go the horrors of emotional nationalism and a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer. Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it.[1] That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible.

As to the comparative immunity of Britain and the USA. Whatever the pacifists etc. may say, we have not gone totalitarian yet and this is a very hopeful symptom. I believe very deeply, as I explained in my book The Lion and the Unicorn, in the English people and in their capacity to centralise their economy without destroying freedom in doing so. But one must remember that Britain and the USA haven’t been really tried, they haven’t known defeat or severe suffering, and there are some bad symptoms to balance the good ones. To begin with there is the general indifference to the decay of democracy. Do you realise, for instance, that no one in England under 26 now has a vote and that so far as one can see the great mass of people of that age don’t give a damn for this? Secondly there is the fact that the intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people. On the whole the English intelligentsia have opposed Hitler, but only at the price of accepting Stalin. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history[2] etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side. Indeed the statement that we haven’t a Fascist movement in England largely means that the young, at this moment, look for their fuhrer elsewhere. One can’t be sure that that won’t change, nor can one be sure that the common people won’t think ten years hence as the intellectuals do now. I hope 3 they won’t, I even trust they won’t, but if so it will be at the cost of a struggle. If one simply proclaims that all is for the best and doesn’t point to the sinister symptoms, one is merely helping to bring totalitarianism nearer.

You also ask, if I think the world tendency is towards Fascism, why do I support the war. It is a choice of evils—I fancy nearly every war is that. I know enough of British imperialism not to like it, but I would support it against Nazism or Japanese imperialism, as the lesser evil. Similarly I would support the USSR against Germany because I think the USSR cannot altogether escape its past and retains enough of the original ideas of the Revolution to make it a more hopeful phenomenon than Nazi Germany. I think, and have thought ever since the war began, in 1936 or thereabouts, that our cause is the better, but we have to keep on making it the better, which involves constant criticism.

Yours sincerely,
Geo. Orwell
[XVI, 2471, pp. 190—2; typewritten]

[1]. and [2]. Foreshadowings of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
[3]. Compare Nineteen Eighty-Four, p. 72, “If there is hope, wrote Winston, it lies in the proles.”
~

Advertisements

About ipsoscustodes

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
This entry was posted in theintercept. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s