The Daily Aztec

‘1984’ is quickly becoming our reality

If students had paid more attention to the novel and its parallels with our reality instead of being focused on their petty little social drama and minute problems, I wouldn’t have to write this article and deliver the rather frightening news that our society is rapidly distorting into a mirror image of an Orwellian dystopia.

by Jermelle Macleod, Staff Writer

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

“1984” is a dystopian novel forced down the throats of many students during their scholastic career.

Due to the book being assigned instead of voluntarily read, the message of the novel goes over the heads of a majority of the readers.   

The message is quite simple; don’t let the government get too much power and allow people the right to be individuals.

We see the main character, named Winston Smith, harbor revolutionary dreams due to “Big Brother” suppressing his individuality through the threat of vaporization and societal shaming. Winston is all of us.

We all want to be individuals, but the government is getting more and more control and shaming is stunting individuality.

What a shame.

If students had paid more attention to the novel and its parallels with our reality instead of being focused on their petty little social drama and minute problems, I wouldn’t have to write this article and deliver the rather frightening news that our society is rapidly distorting into a mirror image of an Orwellian dystopia.

“Big Brother” is nothing more than a symbolic metaphor for a state that has too much power and control over its citizens.

While our government isn’t as overt about their power over us, I assure you they’ve taken over the minds of the majority of people willing to pay attention to politics, and it’s dragging along those that are too focused on celebrity and manufactured fabricated personal drama into the void of the trans-humanistic authoritarian society encroaching on the horizon.  

Think about the shaming tactics and the sensitivities of the majority today.

If you dare step out of line and go against the state’s altruistic and maliciously controlling equality agenda, you’re shamed through a plethora of tactics such as social isolation, cyber-harassment and mocking.

If you dare question what you’re told, you’re instantly compared to Nazis, racists and horrendous immoral individuals that have left a disgusting mark on history.

This type of shaming makes people afraid to think for themselves or makes them so angry that they turn to extremist ideologies; which is exactly what happens to people who question the state in “1984.”

The “social justice warriors” of today are nothing more than Orwellian spies for Big Brother.

You dare question the intentions of feminists? Get ready to be shamed into oblivion and forced back into the ideological line the state has planned and the majority have bought into.

You dare question forced governmental altruism and equality?

Get ready to be shamed and slandered on practically every social media platform and possibly lose everything you’ve built due to rumors and a misunderstanding of your argument.

The “social justice warriors” usually start this shaming and decide when the shaming punishment is over.

The warriors aren’t doing it out of spite, not at all; they’ve fallen prey to the idea that what they’re doing is good, which is exactly what the government wants.

These rationalizations of justice and shaming tactics remind me of the fury Orwell described when writing about the  “two-minutes of hate.”

A full two minutes of people forced into the state’s rhetoric screaming and shouting at the top of their lungs at enemies of the state and their ideology.

Sound familiar?

All you need to do is look up left-leaning protest where somebody questions the majority and you’ll see just that.




Not a single person thinking rationally due to societal and governmental pressure.   

The worst part is, it’s starting to appear as if there’s nothing we can do about it because a majority of people are either too blinded by the piercing light of their smartphones to see the parallels between an Orwellian dystopia and our society, or have no idea that they’re merely a pawn in the state’s game.

The social media companies and applications teenagers are so addicted to collecting and storing every bit of information, who knows where all of those duck-face selfies and mind-numbingly ignorant pictures and personal information truly go.

Of course, the companies claim advertisers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were selling our information to the government so they can predict what will bait the masses into buying into their rhetoric and thus expand their power.

The internet is a very powerful entity, and smartphones are an extremely powerful device, it’s such a shame that people are using them to tighten their chains by consuming propaganda and focusing on extraordinarily small activities instead of freeing their minds by drinking from the waterfall of information their smartphones can give them.

But is the water pure?

We’ve seen the government slowly begin to limit what we can and can’t consume. Julian Assange’s recent arrest is a prime example of this. Julian and Wikileaks do their absolute best to expose the government and the hypocrisy they’re infamous for.

Wikileaks’ acts are in and of themselves very anti-statist.

It’s no wonder why Julian was arrested; he’s a very dangerous man with the power to expose and whistle-blow the numerous flaws of the state.

Assange’s arrest beg the questions that follow; what else is being hidden from us?

Is his arrest a fear tactic to make all of the anti-statist journalists afraid?

Is all the information we’re taking in truly correct?

Why are statistics about governmental failures so hard to find?

Why do collectives of hackers such as “Wikileaks” have to hack into government documents in the first place?

Why are we as a society okay with having information limited and hidden unless it fits a larger socialist narrative?

Why are we comfortable with being watched by the government, an institution with a horrendous track-record whenever it gets too much power.

The more you rely on the government instead of your own power and rationality to generate change, the more you take your power out of your own hands.

Instead of forcing taxes upon the masses in order to provide for people or causes taxpayers don’t care about, open up a charity and allow the people willing to give to do so.

The government likes to play the role of a hero willing to make everything right through laws and taxes and the social justice warriors are trying to advertise the genius of the government and misunderstood socialism in an effort to make everything right, but history has shown time and time again that a large government makes for pure hell on earth.

Think for yourself. Be an individual.

Think deeply.

Question what you’ve been told.

Or, “Big Brother” will be more than just a fictional concept.

Jermelle Macleod is a freshman studying journalism.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 Responses to “‘1984’ is quickly becoming our reality”

  1. Frank Davis on April 21st, 2019 1:59 pm

    Assange was arrested for trying to hack secret documents. There is a reason some govt documents can’t just be opened, Jermelle. But overall your article is spot on. Don’t think like we do, Chile Gil a? We’ll punish you. Have an opinion other than lgbtq? Well dox you and threaten you. These naive sjw’s are doing the deep state’s bidding.

  2. Skyler on April 21st, 2019 3:36 pm

    An interesting proposition. It appears to me that your article has two purposes: i) a stance against large government influences, and ii) a stance against social justice. And I don’t believe that your reasoning for each purpose complements the other.

    Let’s start with social justice. Social justice implies two concepts: i) all humans are created equal, with no race/gender/sexuality being explicitly favored more than the other, and ii) a significant majority of people receive some form of discrimination due to their not being born white, male, cisgender, Christian, or into wealth. A reminder of some of these reasons:
    1) Women: sexism and sexual violence in still extremely prevalent, even in an American society that paints itself as liberal and accepting. According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 1 in 5 women will be raped in their lifetime, while in contrast, only 1 in 71 men will be. And that’s just discussing sexual assault! Women face plenty of difficulties in contrast to men, such as inadequate healthcare provisions, gender roles that are solely rooted in religious scripture, and extreme government regulation of their bodies (which you had the chance to touch upon, but chose not to?). If these difficulties did not exist, feminists would not exist. Simple.
    2) Wealth. I browsed through a few of your other articles, and I found one, “Greatness is Fading from Society,” in which you laud Friedrich Nietzsche’s daily devotion to philosophy. A lifestyle in which one can only work five hours a day and still live with good physical and mental health (of course, even though Nietzsche was plagued by health issues, suffered a complete mental breakdown and lived with his mother and sister until his death at age 55) is quite literally impossible in modern times, regardless of where you live. I currently teach at a title-1 high school in San Diego. There are some students who can afford to play sports, who can afford to go to the doctor when needed, who can afford to devote time and energy to their schoolwork instead of working or taking care of family; but there are far too many who live in shoebox apartments with strangers, who can’t afford medical care, who have to work and don’t get enough study time, and suffer from a variety of psychological issues (such as depression) that worsen their quality of life. Contrary to your arguments, the United States government does very little to alleviate this issue, and current leadership (especially those in other states) actively try to remove the very systems that are currently in place, such as medicare. And of course, wealth inequality is tied heavily to my next topic:
    3) Racial inequality. Disparities between racial demographics do not exist because of some sort of intellectual or cultural superiority that favors white people. Immigrants remain in poverty because they came to the US with very little money (potentially because US governmental pressure to help CORPORATIONS resulted in the deterioration of their country’s economic and governmental stability, such as the case in Guatemala); they stay poor because second languages are not easily developed in one’s older age (reducing the amount of jobs that they can work), AND they’d rather devote their limited finances to their children’s success in American schools. Poverty is carried through generations, which explains the socioeconomic status of African-Americans and Native Americans in this country. And as such, this depiction of lower status manifests in racism, in police stereotyping and brutality, in hate crimes, to name a few. Arguably, plenty of social justice movements concern racial inequality. I was born an affluent white person who did not understand these societal barriers until I worked/lived with people of other backgrounds, and taught at a poor school. Perhaps your opinions on social justice will change upon your own participation in these experiences.

    You might view social media as a vehicle for the government to push an unforgiving agenda of equality (although, under the current leadership, I might question that…). However, you might instead be overlooking the simple reality of exposure.
    Think about war and the media. Any large conflict before Vietnam was (for the most part) actively supported by the United States general population. Why? There were limited graphics to show what was really happening over in Europe and Asia; the ordinary person had no way of “experiencing” the raw, uncut bloodshed that happened in WWII and Korea. Vietnam was the first conflict in which the average American could see the realities of the battlefield; that’s why it faced so much opposition. Here’s the reality of our changing times:

    We are exposing the realities of systems and institutions that have gone tens, hundreds of years without ever being questioned.

    Sexual abuses were happening long before the #MeToo movement. Racial violence happened way before the advent of dashboard cameras and police accountability. The inadequate treatment of non-white races happened long before the desegregation of schools and cities. Before mass media, the general population had no way of realizing how awful the quality of life is for many people in this country. And as your studies will show you, revolutions don’t happen overnight. It takes years, even decades of feeling out-of-place, feeling uncomfortable, and adjusting to new concepts and ideas. If you’re a sports fan, go watch “Remember the Titans” and remind yourself of how uncomfortable the students were with the concept of desegregation.

    One of your lines is interesting: “not a single person thinking rationally due to societal and governmental pressure.” What is this rational thinking? What original statement was said that is so dated and out-of-favor that the appearance of irrationality comes on behalf of the left? Remind yourself that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the hanging of black people was still very real. In the South, you might be able to walk around, saying that out loud, and people would giggle along with you. Is that acceptable nowadays? Of course not! You’d likely get that same reaction.
    Of course, you may argue that people nowadays are too quick to view abrasive comments as a slippery slope to worse actions. However, you must remind yourself that abrasive comments are not once-off statements. They are typically a mere manifestation of a person’s long-time viewpoint. And frankly, oftentimes these viewpoints are harmful, and if unchecked (as a mention in proceeding paragraphs), they can result in atrocities and hate crimes. In terms of a mere scale, I would prefer that my privileged friends feel slightly uncomfortable than have my non-privileged friends mentally and psychologically feel like grade-A crap all the time; for example, I’d prefer that 1000 people weren’t permitted to say casual racist statements if it meant that 50 non-white people didn’t feel downtrodden and fear for their lives constantly. If the prevalence of equality viewpoints makes you feel VERY uncomfortable, you frankly have greater issues at hand and perhaps came to the wrong state and school for college.

    Your article consistently mentions the “pettiness” of people’s problems, and I can’t help but assume that you’ve never had to deal with any issues based on gender, sexuality, wealth, or race (forgive me if I’m wrong). Short of explaining the concept of empathy, if you’ve never had these issues, you won’t understand how these conflicts affect people’s lives, mentally and psychologically. I implore you to interview people of mixed races, genders, political standings, and socioeconomic backgrounds, and see if they view the government as fronting a harmful agenda of equality.

    It’s not. Parts/individuals of the government certainly are doing some things wrong (as a teacher, I speak of a certain Sec of Ed), but they’re far from fronting an agenda of equality. Small government, time in time again, results in limited oversight of entities (notably corporations and political extremists) that are likely to commit actions of malpractice if left untouched. Without the watchful eye of “Big Brother,” corporations reduce their environmental tidiness, dismantle union presences, and remove workplace/worker protections (go read the recent article about Boeing’s Charleston plant for the 787 Dreamliner). Political extremists work to further the presence of one religion (you know which one!) in government, through ideas such as Texas state rep Tony Hinderholt’s bill that recommends the death penalty for mothers who go through abortions. The implementation of an agenda of equality requires excessive, unconventional restraint on the behalf of corporations and politicians. All of these things that we take for granted, such as free speech, workplace rights, would not happen under small government…of course, unless you’re a wealthy white Christian male. Then you have no need for protections! Referencing your article, think of how much misuse of personal data would occur without large government to attempt to provide oversight. Without privacy laws, every single entity would sell your data without question.
    Is this the fault of people being too trusting of corporations? Perhaps. But the reality is that the very proponents of “small government” also support and contribute to an unrestrained, capitalist corporate climate in which businesses toss all morality aside for a couple of extra bucks. Although we might like to think otherwise, the internet has created an improved world for many people (particularly those who seek improvements via the social justice movements), and tossing that aside because we can’t set up governmental rules for corporations? That would be a waste. Contrary to the ruling of Citizens United, I don’t believe that corporations should be prized over people in that regard. We have the responsibility to enact rules, and if that fits into the large government mould, then so be it.

    In the end, the concept of “large government” is not to blame for your perception of leftist ideological spread. The exposure of reality is to blame for that. If you don’t like reality…well, I have no suggestions for you.

    As a journalism major, hopefully you’ll come to see in your future endeavors just how messed-up this world is. Ideas, sayings, actions that you might’ve been raised on? There’s likely some that will no longer be acceptable in the future. I experienced the same discomfort when I started at SDSU a few years ago. I’ve opened myself to the realities of life, and it’s changed the lenses through which I view the world.

  3. John Doe on April 21st, 2019 4:24 pm

    Well, one thing is clear. Jermelle is definitely a freshman in college. Poorly thought out premise, terrible rhetoric usage, and full of hate.

  4. Proud SDSU Alum on April 21st, 2019 6:42 pm

    Jermelle Macleod, you’ve presented an argument that I can truly stand behind! You’ve (100%) hit the nail on the head! Bravo! Bravo!

  5. Jacob Veritas on April 24th, 2019 12:26 am

    As a person of color (FilAm) whose parents escaped from the Marcos regime, I applaud your excellent article.

    Leftists crave more and more power. They gain this by exploiting ignorant voters who worship the government. It’s unfortunate that most of my people have become a voting block that keeps the tax who**s in power.

    You are brave to speak your mind. If we can’t trust people with freedom, why should we trust them with power?

    I have hope that the next generations will see through the political class farce and vote for people who will defend both social and economic freedom.

    -SDSU Honors Alumnus

Commenting on our site is a privilege. We want our readers to add their point of view to every story but ask that they keep their comments relevant to the topic at hand. We will remove comments and possibly ban users who do the following: (1) Use vulgar or racist language, (2) Threaten harm of any sort to staff, commenters or the subject of an article, and (3) Leave spam in their comment. If you have questions about these rules, please contact our Editor in Chief at:

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.