State Control: Limiting The Range Of Thought in Amerika

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . 

― George Orwell - Nineteen Eight-Four

Orwell wrote his seminal novel as a warning,  presenting a world of rigid control over thought, word and deed. With a little updating, it would seem to fit precisely the world of  fascist orthodoxy Donald Trump (or those behind him) is trying to impose on his Amerika - a domain without critical thought.

One needn't recount all the ways in which the suppression of thought, views and voices is being effected. There are, of course, his constant attacks on the universities, initially over so-called DEI initiatives and anti-semitism. Then came the demands for further, massive government control over them. Then there is the increasing militarization of America's cities, with the National Guard and ICE instilling fear in the populace; it is becoming common for masked officials to grab people off the street, out of their cars, ripped from their homes. Impeding any of this becomes a crime. Indeed, another literary icon anticipated such in one of his best-known works:

Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning. 

Franz Kafka - The Trial

Beyond the obvious strongarm tactics, most recently we have witnessed very overt attempts to censor contrary opinions, especially ones that expose Trump for the duplicitous, hypocritical dictator he is. See, for example the lawsuits against the Wall Street Journal over its coverage of his sordid relationship with the late pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. The New York Times has been targeted for its endorsement of Kamala Harris and its critical coverage of his mad machinations.

Unfortunately, corporate compliance has been extensive, with CBS, ABC, And Disney falling into line either through payoffs on meritless lawsuits or the termination of employees, as per Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmell. NPR and PBS are being defunded, and broadcast licences are being threatened. Even the 'progressive' MSNBC has bent the knee. But that is only the beginning. 

The murder of Charlie Kirk is offering up new opportunities for repression, all for the 'crime' of people practising their free speech rights.

Over thirty people across the country have been fired, put on leave, investigated or faced calls to resign because of social media posts criticizing Charlie Kirk or expressing schadenfreude about the conservative influencer's assassination earlier this week, according to an analysis by NPR.

 ...some GOP lawmakers and officials are signaling their readiness to punish people for their speech. Conservative activists are collecting and publicizing social media posts and profiles that they say "celebrated" his death and are calling for them to lose their jobs.

"If they have their picture on their profile, even without a name, download the picture and reverse image search it," posted right-wing influencer Joey Mannarino. "Cross-reference it with their LinkedIn profile and find their place of employment. Call the place of employment, leave Google reviews." 

So what is the endgame here? There are some obvious but superficial explanations for the current reign of repression and terror in Amerika. One is that Herr Trump is so malignantly narcissistic that he cannot brook any criticism. Such is always a hallmark of the cult of personality. However, to me it goes far beyond that and far beyond attempts of a malevolent Republican Party to stifle all opposition for mere political gain. The fascist state that America has become is bent on controlling not only what people say but also what they think.

My assertion, at first blush, may seem preposterous, and to be honest,  I initially considered that I might be overthinking things. Censorship and propaganda were easy in earlier times, when media were limited. But how, especially with the internet and social media, is it even possible to limit people's exposure to a diversity of voices and hence to the information needed to critically assess things?  The internet may be a toxic stew, but progressive voices still abound, especially on Bluesky (which I now use).

While I am not necessarily predicting success, the dark forces at work are doing their damndest. Justin Ling writes that back in 2022, Charlie Kirk was warning his followers to be wary of social media, and he and his fellow travellers concocted a plan.

They moved to alternative, conservative-friendly social media to start getting their message out. They prioritized real-world organizing. And they began plotting how they could bend the internet to their will.

Not even nine months into Trump’s return, this plan has worked even better than they could have imagined. Alternative social media is a hotbed of pro-Trump fervour, a right-wing youth movement is ascendent in America, and the big tech firms have volunteered to comply.

Given that people like Mark Zuckerberg (who, as Ling notes, "has publicly bent the knee to the Trump administration") and Elon Musk employ algorithms that favour rage (the more rage, the more clicks), it is easy to see how this might get even worse under a regime bent on suppression. As Ling notes, 

Trump exploited online grievances about censorship and deplatforming. He weaponized a steady stream of viral videos to claim that America’s cities had fallen to lawlessness. He elevated racist chatter about migrants to set the stage for mass deportations.

It doesn't end there.

On Monday, Vice President J.D. Vance occupied Kirk’s broadcast chair to memorialize his fallen friend and promise retribution. With his White House colleague Stephen Miller, he warned of a secret “pyramid” of media outlets, activists, and NGOs who had formed a dangerous underground terror network. Miller vowed “channel all of the anger that we have … to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks.”

This has already begun online. Pro-Trump online activists have already compiled databases of those allegedly responsible for provoking or celebrating Kirk’s death, including journalists and academics in Canada. One Trump-friendly Congressman is floating an “immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.” 

So a potent formula has been put in place: suppression of voices, both academic and lay, the imposition of terror in the streets, the opening of snitch lines,  the policing of dissident voices on the internet, the threats of dismissal and incarceration. Will the voices of dissent diminish or dry up? I hope not. With less access to unbiased or progressive sources, will people feel increasingly wary and isolated and less inclined to assess things critically? Will they decide that speaking out and thought crime are not worth the risk? 

There are many ways this could turn out. As always, it will be the people of the United States who decide their own fate.