That said, it's unlikely that many people alive at the time the book was published (circa 1949) actually believed there could ever be "thought police," a "Ministry of Truth," and so much media complicity in altering reality for the tiny minority deep state types who are in charge of it all.
And yet, that is precisely where we are today: Western-style democratic republics and democracies are collapsing under a crush of lies, deceit, misinformation, disinformation, and relentless psychological warfare that it is virtually impossible today to tell what is real and what is fake.
Case in point: The recent demise of Joe Biden's 'disinformation czarina,' Nina Jankowicz.
Earlier this month while providing congressional testimony, Alejandro Mayorkas, head of the Department of Homeland Security (a massive bureaucracy now serving as just the opposite of what it was allegedly designed to be), let it slip that the agency was standing up a "Disinformation Governance Board" to be led by Jankowicz -- a creation immediately panned by mostly GOP critics as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth empowering government to decide for the rest of us what is and is not 'true' -- despite what we may have seen and hear with our own eyes and ears.
It wasn't long before Jankowicz revealed herself to be a nut job -- too unstable, even, for the Marxists running Biden's regime to pass off as legitimate. So she has been dismissed from consideration for the job and replaced by two other 'inner circle' political elites, including Michael Chertoff, one of the first DHS secretaries who served under George W. Bush shortly after the agency was created following the 9/11 attacks.
Jankowicz came under scrutiny for denying that Hunter Biden's laptop was real; for working as a disinformation agent for the Ukrainian government (now you know why we are providing them with so much aid -- that and the Bidens are as corrupt as the Ukrainian regime it is propping up); and for pushing back on claims that Trump's reelection was stolen from him (it was, there is no question about it).
But once she did, the regime media immediately sprang into action to discredit those who were legitimately pointing out her flaws, claiming such criticism online is akin to "cyberbullying" -- which is tantamount to calling for critics to be silenced or censored (and punished).
The Associated Press, one of the world's biggest and most influential newswire services, led the way:
Nina Jankowicz, like so many millennials, was excited to share a social media post announcing her new job on Twitter late last month when she was named executive director for a new disinformation board established by the Department of Homeland Security.
But instead of well-wishes, Jankowicz’s tweet set off a torrent of sexist profanities across social media and menacing emails filled with rape or death threats that continue to follow her even after she resigned from that new job on Wednesday morning following the disastrous rollout of the program.
It’s a familiar scenario.
The article then cited some examples of other women who were actually harassed online as a means of tying in the responses to Jankowicz, some of which, no doubt, were inappropriate.
But the overarching goal of the piece by AP and other 'mainstream' outlets was to create the illusion that when it comes to regime figures, there is no legitimate criticism -- only 'cyberbullying' and 'harassment' -- and as such, that amounts to improper or even semi-criminal behavior and should be treated as such.
We are rapidly moving toward a time in Orwell's "1984" when the government literally becomes all-seeing, all-powerful, and completely authoritarian.