Entry 2140, on 2021-07-21 at 21:15:16 (Rating 4, Politics)
One of the most memorable elements in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is the juxtaposition between words and their underlying meaning. For example, the novel's main character, Winston Smith, works for the Ministry of Truth, where he rewrites historical records to conform to the state's ever-changing version of history (does this sound like anything happening in New Zealand right now?). In other words, the ministry of truth is primarily there to produce lies.
The other ministries are also deliberately named after the opposite of their true functions: The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Love with torture, and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. This is known as "doublethink". This is also demonstrated in the Party's three slogans: war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
I have commented in the past on the worrying similarities between the novel and the current state of the world. I have a Babylon Bee satirical article which expresses this quite well. Its title states that the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four has been moved from fiction to the current affairs section!
I think there is little doubt that modern politics is all about perceptions rather than facts. This process is aided by the modern media, of course, as well as by the extensive staff most political leaders have to handle misinformation. Our own "great leader", Jacinda Ardern, is very well known for her dedication to propaganda, which is reputedly supported by a significant number of spin doctors.
We all know not to take anything we see on-line, especially in social media, at face value, but I think many people now realise that this extends to other sources which might have been trusted in the past, such as TV news and newspapers. I'm not saying they are always wrong, just like I am not saying that social media is always wrong, but they cannot be trusted, and everything must be checked.
But this is an argument I have covered in various posts in the past, so I should get on to the main subject of this post. That is that I would suggest that an additional ministry should be added to those that I listed above: the Ministry of Strength, which deals with weakness.
I say this because today weakness seems to be celebrated as much as strength, exceptionalism, and resilience was in the past. The failures, the losers, the poor are celebrated and demands are made to make their lives better. OK, that is not completely unreasonable, because we should try to make as many people's lives as good as possible - any good utilitarian would agree - but it has gone too far now, I think.
Maybe the biggest problem is that the lives and attitudes of the people who don't succeed are not examined or questioned. If a particular group seem to be doing less well than another then it is not acceptable to question whether they might be doing something wrong. The only attitude which is seen as politically correct now is that the group is the victim of some sort of systemic bias against them. Note also that I talking about groups here rather than individuals. This is an example of another worrying trend: identity politics.
I'm sure you are aware of the types of situations I am referring to here. The most obvious recent example is the plight of black people in the US who are apparently the victims of more police interference - including violence - than others. The modern narrative is that the police are racist, but is there a second possibility? Is it possible that black people are far more likely than others to be involved with crime, and that the amount of police intervention is statistically exactly what it should be?
A good case could be made to say that this is the reality, but we aren't even allowed to suggest that possibility without being labelled as racists. If someone states this idea, and is shown to be correct, are they still a racist? If so, maybe some people's definition of the word "racist" needs to change.
The other major outcome of this celebration of weakness is that groups who find themselves in a bad situation don't try to improve themselves in any way; instead they complain and expect others to fix the situation for them. They demand special privileges, or hand-outs. Obviously, this isn't the case for everyone, but the fact that some disadvantaged people improve their situation by themselves just shows that it is an option open to everyone, if they are prepared to accept their own deficiencies and make an effort to fix them.
Again, I have to say that this is meant as a general comment which applies to the majority of situations, and there are no doubt occasions where there really is bias against some groups. But let's look at some of those groups, specifically: Asians, Jews, and black people. All of these have had severe disadvantages imposed on them in the past, but two out of the three have been incredibly successful despite that. So what did they do that the third group didn't do? Apparently they decided that instead of celebrating their weakness they would do something about it. Clearly that attitude is superior to that of being a victim.
So people are victims when they allow themselves to be. If a group is weak now, the answer is to become stronger, not to celebrate that weakness. There are few systemic biases in society any more, and those that do exist are as likely to favour the weak rather than be opposed to them (affirmative action). It's time for people to stop whining and get on with doing something about their own situation. Despite the Orwellian attitudes of some, weakness isn't strength!
"The only attitude which is seen as politically correct now is that the group is the victim of some sort of systemic bias against them"
This is bound to happen when you think of a diverse range of people as all being the same because they "belong" to the same group. Identity politics is a problem for the left and right.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-07-22 at 16:48:37:
My problem with identity politics is it assumes that members of groups are equivalent. Combine that with the tendency to blame "societal bias" or "white supremacy" instead of looking at potential deficiencies in the individual, and you almost guarantee you will form irrational, ineffective conclusions.
Let's look at the George Floyd situation: the narrative is he was black (identity politics) and was the victim of systemic oppression (victim politics). In reality he was just a bad person, a criminal, and a violent thug. The real problem wasn't identity, it was individual deficiency.
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2021-07-23 at 15:21:11:
Agreed, identity politics are problematic - you can't just label people as beneficiaries, greenies, or leftists and accurately represent the spectrum of individuals these groups contain.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2021-07-23 at 15:31:07:
Yes, I think that is arguably the greatest problem with modern politics, social discourse, etc. If everything is decided based on cultural, gender, race groups, etc rather than individual actions and attitudes, then we really never get anywhere near establishing any sort of truth. It's very simplistic, ideological, and ultimately dangerous and counterproductive.
Comment 5 by Ken Spall on 2021-07-24 at 09:53:10:
Excellent summary, wish I had your brilliant facility with language.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2021-07-24 at 16:44:20:
Well (assuming you are genuine - you would be surprised how much sarcasm I get) thanks for that. I do try to present a structured argument, with a certain amount of quirkiness and controversy.
Comment 7 by Anonymous on 2021-07-25 at 09:30:57:
Yes, I am genuine. Sarcasm is often resorted to when a convincing counter argument is unable to be presented.
Comment 8 by OJB on 2021-07-25 at 12:22:42:
OK, well thanks for the positive feedback. I appreciate it!
Comment 9 by Anonymous on 2021-07-25 at 16:05:48:
Yes, good point. It is fashionable to be a victim of some sort. In most cases (at least in the democratic and liberal West) it would just require a Munchhausen act of hoisting oneself out by one’s petards: just change your perspective on life in terms of being, experiencing and feeling as an individual. That is probably the hard part: humans feel better if they are part of a larger group, in other words, share their identity with others. (Existential safety in numbers.) Ironically by now with all this anti-prejudice and anti-racism equity agitation (which as an ethical principle is not a bad thing) being a white middle class male comes close to being a victim, to be a member of a loser identity. You are right, this is a cognate of identity politics, measuring people in terms of groups whose taxonomic reality and social coherence by and large is almost entirely fictional.
Your reference to Afro-Americans, was it meant as a “safe” substitute for Maori? Lack of strength to call a spade a spade?
Comment 10 by OJB on 2021-07-25 at 18:41:54:
Looks like you agree with my points, so thanks for stating that in the comment. It's always good to know I'm not the only one who sees things this way!
I spend a lot of time looking at international news, so I am as much aware of these issues in the US as here. So, I was referring specifically to "Afro-American" issues (mainly BLM), but similar problems do occur here in New Zealand with Maori. Luckily, it hasn't reached quite the same level here yet. If I have criticisms of Maori I clearly state them, believe me!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE