WARNING: Orwell's '1984' Is the Future Your Liberal Friends Want


In the late 1940s, George Orwell peered into his socialist worldview’s future and then prophetically wrote 1984. While his timing was off by several decades, Orwell’s dystopian nightmare is beginning to move from fiction to reality. Walking amongst us are those who believe that the transition is happening too slowly. Be warned, 1984 is the future that your liberal friends want.


It’s been over twenty years since I first read the book. At the time, as an avowed socialist moving toward full-on atheism and Marxism, I found 1984 discomforting. While that sentiment probably expresses almost everyone’s emotional response to the book, I was discomfited because I was a liberal. Something about 1984 hit a little too close to home; I was miffed by that.

Having just read the book for the second time in my life, I now understand even more why John Ellis of the past wasn’t a fan of 1984. It revealed more about my worldview than I wanted to see.

In 2017, it’s fairly easy to see the parallels between the book and the desired endgame of progressives. One scary parallel that stands out is the almost synonymous qualities between being “woke” in today’s world and “sane” in the fictional world of 1984.

In the book, after repeatedly torturing Winston, O’Brien asks, “Do you remember writing in your diary, ‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four’”?

At Winston’s “yes,” O’Brien holds up his hand and asks Winston how many fingers he’s holding up. Winston gives the correct answer of four. His torturer then asks, “And if the Party says that it is not four but five – then how many?”

Winston again gives the correct answer of four, and the torturing begins anew with added intensity.

O’Brien continues to alternate between asking how many fingers and torturing Winston, who insists that the correct answer is four. As the pain becomes unbearable, Winston blubbers out, “How can I help it? How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”


O’Brien responds, “Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy becoming sane.” [emphasis added]

Eventually, the torture works and in response to the repeated question, Winston cries out, “I don’t know. I don’t know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six – in all honesty I don’t know.”

“‘Better,’ said O’Brien.”

O’Brien then goes on to tell Winston that they do not want to punish him but “To cure you! To make you sane! … We are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.”

That exchange, found in chapter II of Part Three, is chilling in its similarities to what’s currently taking place in our society. Whenever you hear someone use the word “woke,” sub in “sane” and imagine 1984‘s O’Brien doing the speaking. It will be a smooth substitution.

Another parallel is in liberals’ embrace of doublespeak.

Expressing their version of “two plus two equals five”, liberals would not only have us believe but accept as an unassailable doctrine that a boy can be a girl, and vice-versa. Liberals who once touted Venezuela as a shining and successful example of socialism now claim that economically devastated Venezuela was never actually a socialist country. The progressive European Union ignores the violence in Spain, saying instead, in the tweeted words of the vice president of the European Parliament Ramon Luis Valcarcel, “Today we have witnessed a nationalistic propaganda act, undemocratic; a coup attempt against Spanish democracy, and so a coup against Europe.”


The police batons coming down on the heads of unarmed women waiting in line to vote is “democracy”; the women voting are not, according to the EU. Classic liberal doublespeak.

Liberals tell us that American cops are killers who cannot be trusted. In almost their next breath, they demand that guns be taken away from the people and left in the hands of the police. Speaking of guns and liberal doublespeak, actor and SJW activist Boris Kodjoe tweeted out to his over half-million followers, “My 10 year old asked me how the shooter was able to get his machine gun. I told him that pretty much anyone in the US can.” Which is a flat-out lie. Except, in the land of progressivism, it’s not a lie; it’s called being “woke.”

Perhaps in the worst doublespeak of all, those who would stop the murder of babies still living in their mother’s womb are labeled immoral by liberals.

An almost endless supply of examples abounds of contemporary liberals engaging in what 1984 calls doublespeak. Furthermore, at times you can hear liberals essentially saying, “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”

The thought police are becoming bolder in their demands that we embrace current liberal doublespeak. And while liberals have yet to resort to physical torture in this county, unless something changes, one day they will. To believe that leftists are peaceful when, in fact, they are not, and never have been, is to accept the claim that two plus two equals five.

Progressive, pluralist Romans during the first century used Christians as human torches to light their orgies. French liberals became quite efficient at separating heads from the bodies of those who did not get with their program of progressivism. Stalin and Mao probably don’t need mentioning. Although, the New York Times has already begun the program of whitewashing the history of the Soviet Union and Communist China. Eventually, if liberals have their way, school children in American will be visiting statues of Stalin and Mao, while any positive mention of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson will bring swift reprisal from the State.


The history of progressivism is violent, and while they have yet to roll out their modern-day guillotines, liberals have already begun dispatching the thought police. Ask Charles Murray and Ben Shapiro. Ask the scores of Christian bakers being forced to participate in an event that violates their religious beliefs. Ask the Tennes family, who were banned from their local farmer’s market by the thought police for failing to adhere to the new dogma.

Desperate to conceal their movement’s true colors for as long as possible, the following tweet will undoubtedly be dismissed as a fringe opinion. It’s not.

Even if you haven’t read the book, you can probably guess what happens in 1984 to parents who don’t get with the program. Yep, in Orwell’s description of a liberal heaven, political purges separate children from their parents. We’re already seeing instances of families in Europe having their children taken by the State over homeschooling. Jailing the parents is next.

If you’ve never read 1984, you may want to read it in order to better prepare for what may be coming. If you’re a liberal, you may want to read it to help you get excited about your desired heaven. For the rest of us, George Orwell’s 1984 serves as a warning about the possibility of hell on earth.



Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member