2017

When one thinks about it, the science fiction writers are really the only people -- despite all the mystic mumbo-jumbo of the millennia -- who have effectively predicted the future. Bradbury, alone, predicted the big screen TV and ear buds in his Fahrenheit 451.

I have seen the storm clouds for years now and I have referenced them in many posts. One of the things I have seen is that Orwell's predictions have begun to come true. Maybe he should have called the novel 2017 instead of 1984, though it would not have been as neatly poetic for a book written in 1948.

But we should not make the mistake of thinking that Donald Trump is the problem, here. Once again, he is the symptom; the symptom of a world that has allowed itself to use misinformation as a tool and to become its own Big Brother. We, the people, are the entity that shuts down dissent. We are the ones who are now condemning, say, peaceful protest. We are the ones who swarm, like ants over melting chocolate, over those who don't agree. All a power-hungry administration needs to do now is to jump on the wave.

So, Orwell was right, he just did not see all of the picture. The populace are the grass-roots of the Big Brother government. We have become an entity that is willing to smother the  individual; to accept and even to encourage misinformation when that misinformation serves our purposes. In other words, it isn't that Big Brother forced us to our knees; it is that we have become mentally lazy and even willingly deceived/deceptive when it comes to facts. Perfect timing for a less-than-honest administration to show up; like a bird of prey exploiting the weakness of a dying desert animal.

"For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?” -- Orwell, 1984

It seems to me that the  mind is most controllable when it allows itself to be. Yes, it can be broken when it is strong, but why not just do it when the time is right; when our innate sense of truthfulness is in flux; when the paradigms we have depended on forever are crumbling around us?

Is 2+2, 5? Well, it sure as heck has been for a long time. But, what if we call the numbers something different? What if the first number two identifies more as a seven? What if we decide that the equation only works if the numbers represent similar things?  What if we don't really think 2+2 equals five, but we are wide open to discussion about the idea because the person who thinks it is is scary? -- or can hook us up with things we want? -- or shames us into saying we believe it? -- or threatens what we love if we don't agree?

Welcome to 2017. We need to not be Winston; we need to be Captain Picard. If there are four lights, there are four  lights, come hell or tsunami.

Help the world. Share this. Use this hash tag: #read1984now.

"Be thine own palace, or the world's thy jail"

The slide into mass-thought is inevitable. There is no hope of avoiding it. This is not a strong statement that I am making in order to set up some optimistic reversal at the end of this post. There is no hope of avoiding it.

When I write against the twisted, zombified version of "community" that people talk about today, it is not in the wish that "things will change." They won't. The general person has resigned him or herself to the idea that "community" is everything; that he has no need of privacy or anonymity; that she needs to actually own nothing -- just pay for it and keep it "on the cloud." People are cool with YouTubing things from their bedrooms, dirty socks on the floor and pictures of the grandparents on the nightstand notwithstanding. Why should the world not see my bedroom? Why should I clean my bedroom for the stupid world? 

The other day, in an in-class debate, a student used this argument: "If you have nothing to hide, why do you care what the government sees of your phone records?" Clank. [That was the sound of my jaw hitting the floor.]

Deprogramming the Boy

I'm not one to admit defeat easily, especially when it comes to being a father. But something happened yesterday that might just be a sign of the futility of fighting the shift in paradigms.

I was playing a video game, as I am sometimes wont to do, and my twelve-year-old son was watching. I was complaining that Xbox wanted me to "log in" to "Xbox Live" in order to play. We installed this because my son wants to play games online with his friends.

It's what they do, you know? I want to straddle the line between making my kids independent thinkers and making them complete outcasts, socially. So, he has some decent friends and they want to play Minecraft together, online. No biggie.

But, "Why," I asked out loud, "do I need to log on to play a game if I am not playing it online!"

"So, just log in," my son said, munching on a Nutella-dipped pretzel stick. "What's the big deal?"

"The 'big deal' is," I said, "that I don't want people to know that I am playing a video game right now. I don't want people in my business. And I don't want to get 'party' requests from your sixth grade friends while I play because they think I am you."

(Turns out, I think, that I could play offline. I guess. I don't know. But I was already 33% into the game before I...kind of...realized this. But that's not the point.)

Orwell Was Wrong: It's Worse

Orwell was off with one major thing.

His Big Brother wielded an openly phony type of warmth to rule the people; it was warm, placid water with the shadows of sharks visible below; it was a slogan with intentional ambiguity that chilled the blood: "Big Brother is watching." Let's not forget, as well, that "Big Brother" is also a carefully chosen "family member" -- the one who can be your biggest protector or your greatest tormentor.

It's not like that, though -- now that we are all "on the grid" and under the microscope. The ones who want us to think in flocks of thought that dart left and right in neat phalanxes use more insidious techniques. They are chumming up to us. Worse, they are making the things they wish to be so so, simply by acting like they are; eventually, if they keep doing us, those who disagree are bound to shake their heads and realize it was all just a dream.

Owell didn't have a dark enough view of human nature, believe it or not. We don't let our evil intent seep through in shadowy speech and pointed innuendo. We don't put a crooked finger up to our lips and rumble a low laugh. In fact, we don't even think it evil to try to control the thoughts of others. It's "just business"; or government. No need to take it personally, my friends. It's finance; it's security; it's the status quo.

Why We're Doomed (and Other Thoughts for a Happy Weekend)

Yesterday, in class, a student was doing a presentation on the novel 1984. (It was his choice, so don't roll your eyes at me, young man/woman. I'm not pushing my anti-groupthink agenda in class. Much.) The project, based on an assignment my kids do in grade school called "The Mystery Bag," was for my students to read a sci-fi novel, picked off of a list I provided, and then to summarize the book for the class and to present four objects that had significance in the plot and themes -- to explain why the objects are important to the story.

(1984 just yielded the cutest little stuffed rats...)

Anyway, at one point, my student pulled out a thesaurus. He went on to explain that he went to numerous bookstores looking for a dictionary because he wanted to explain the concept of the government changing words in books -- changing meanings of words -- in order to control the population. He then made what I think was a brilliant observation.