# The Rise of Orwellian Concepts: Understanding Modern Hysteria
Written on
Chapter 1: Memes and Modern Discourse
In the early hours of March 14, renowned technologist Elon Musk stirred controversy on Twitter with his Ukrainian-themed meme proclaiming “I support the current thing.” As is often the case with provocative memes, it swiftly entered the realm of virality. Memes serve not only as amusing expressions but also as vessels of deeper truths.
When faced with politically sensitive topics, many resort to memes, where humor can soften the harsh realities lurking beneath the surface. Musk’s bold creation highlighted an uncomfortable reality: the Ukraine conflict had, in part, morphed into a tool for virtue-signaling by the masses.
This commentary was inseparable from another critical observation: the orchestrators in government and media had effectively thrust “the current thing” into the spotlight, overshadowing alternative discussions.
For those who appreciated Musk's meme, it provided a necessary release by validating an unvoiced sentiment. It also served as a comedic purge of the sanctimonious attitudes that had come to dominate discussions surrounding Eastern Europe.
Conversely, those who criticized the meme perceived it as a troubling affront. Expressions of outrage and polite disapproval quickly followed. Many deemed it insensitive, reacting with furrowed brows and haughty indignation.
However, the crux of the debate wasn't about the meme's veracity but rather its discomforting nature. It disrupted the status quo, peeling back the layers of politeness to reveal the raw truth beneath.
This brings us to the heart of the matter: it’s troubling yet intriguing how seamlessly societal hysteria has transitioned from the Covid pandemic to the Ukraine situation. While some point fingers at the puppet-masters for aggressively marketing a new crisis, the broader societal context is equally significant.
How has the public managed to shift its collective discontent so quickly from one crisis to another, conveniently forgetting the urgency of previous issues? The outrage levels remained consistently high, merely swapping one crisis for another with alarming ease. This rapid transition reveals an almost childlike baseline of hysteria within society, continuously fueled by media narratives and government figures, making de-escalation seem unfathomable.
In recent months, we’ve witnessed the looming shadow of Covid give way to the harsh realities of the Ukrainian conflict. Individuals are often less invested in the actual substance of the cause and more attached to the energy surrounding it, explaining the ease with which they can switch allegiances.
Such patterns suggest that society has developed a troubling tolerance for hysteria. Much like an addict, the prospect of withdrawing from daily panic and virtue-signaling can feel daunting. Our identities have become entwined with these causes, leading to a loss of meaning when they are challenged.
Hysterics have not only embedded themselves within personal identities but have also permeated the political landscape, creating a demand for ever-increasing doses of outrage.
Section 1.1: The Concept of "Bellyfeel"
George Orwell’s seminal work, 1984, introduced the concept of “bellyfeel”—defined as a blind, enthusiastic acceptance of ideas without genuine understanding. This notion was a cornerstone of the fictional society in Oceania, initiated by those in power and embraced by the populace.
In today's world, this concept can be easily applied. The lack of independent thought results in an impulsive acceptance of marketed opinions. When a new crisis arises, the public becomes engulfed in the ensuing frenzy, often at the expense of critical analysis.
To question the prevailing narratives risks being labeled as misinformation or falling into disrepute. This blind acceptance manifests as unwavering allegiance to institutional assertions, with any challenge deemed a threat to authority and, by extension, democracy.
The “enthusiastic” aspect of bellyfeel explains the static levels of public delirium. This combination of blindness and zeal creates a sense of security for those deeply enmeshed in the state apparatus, providing a warped sense of fulfillment.
But what does Orwell's bellyfeel imply for our politics? It reduces complex issues to their most basic forms, stripping away nuance and creating a binary view of reality—one that is legitimized not by truth, but by power.
This regression into primitive thinking is evident in the rising discourse around “misinformation.” Rather than engaging with and dismantling flawed narratives through reasoned debate, contemporary regimes resort to witch hunts against dissenting viewpoints, viewing them as threats to institutional stability.
The term “misinformation” effectively stifles engagement and dialogue. It is a blunt instrument, reminiscent of medieval tactics rather than the nuanced processes of scientific inquiry.
As our political discourse simplifies, we face increasing societal alienation. Language becomes more radicalized, and our thought processes deteriorate into binary classifications of “good” versus “bad,” a troubling trend indeed.
Subsection 1.1.1: A Philosophical Reflection
The rise of Orwellian concepts such as bellyfeel can be traced back to a philosophical climate ripe for relativism. Over the past several decades, the disillusionment following the tumultuous 20th century led many to reject a rooted moral framework.
As we turned away from the harsh realities of our nature, truth-seeking began to lose its appeal. This cultural shift birthed a superficial understanding of morality, one that is sociological rather than grounded in the fundamental truths of human existence.
In this milieu, individuals are drawn to orthodox narratives not out of genuine belief in their truth, but because of the perceived social benefits they confer. They may recognize the fragility of these beliefs, yet remain indifferent, as the pursuit of truth has taken a backseat to the comforts of conformity.
Ultimately, this results in a paradox where, despite a tacit awareness of the ruling class's inability to convey the truth, many remain eager to accept their proclamations. The messages of urgency and rigidity from those in power create an illusion of order and purpose, all while perpetuating a morally ambiguous framework.
Chapter 2: The Cultural Implications of Hysteria
The first video, "What 'Orwellian' really means - Noah Tavlin," delves into the nuances of Orwell's concepts and their relevance in today's society.
The second video, "What does 'Orwellian' mean? A look at 1984, NewSpeak, and Current American Politics," explores the implications of Orwell's work in contemporary political discourse.
In our current historical context, Orwell’s notion of bellyfeel prevails, characterized by a blind and enthusiastic acceptance of rapidly shifting crises. This phenomenon has degraded our political discourse and alienated genuine truth-seeking, replacing it with a culture of conformity.
The situation serves as a reflection of a society increasingly engulfed in unthinking acceptance, where individuals are driven to engage fervently with the latest crisis, seeking the comfort of belonging while simultaneously ostracizing dissenters. Musk’s meme inadvertently held a mirror to our culture, prompting us to confront the uncomfortable reality of who we have become.