# In 1984, does Goldstein/The Botherhood exist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 24, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846 "2011-01-24T23:14:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Quintas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/48db29/32.png) [@Quintas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quintas)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/1 "2011-01-24T23:14:12Z")
In your opinion? Or was it all just a tool used by the party? If you buy Christopher Hitchens view, the character is based on Trotsky and therefore exists. But I find the idea that none of it exists to be more frightening. **Winston:** _Does the Brotherhood exist?_ **O’Brien:** _That, Winston, you will never know. If we choose to set you free when we have finished with you, and if you live to be ninety years old, still you will never learn whether the answer to that question is Yes or No. As long as you live it will be an unsolved riddle in your mind._ ---
**Author:** ![pope\_hentai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@pope\_hentai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pope_hentai)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/2 "2011-01-27T02:50:28Z")
at the end, i don’t think it did. The brotherhood was probably a creation of big brother, and if it was not it did not matter. It was too easy to find people. Then again i also came to the conclusion that eventually O’brien was going to eventually have to be sent to the thought police too, because even pretending there was resistance to big brother by their command, was thoughtcrime via doublethink. doubleplusungood situation. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/3 "2011-01-27T04:13:22Z")
I assumed that Goldstein and the Brotherhood were invented by the Party to flush out dissidents. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/4 "2011-01-27T04:27:23Z")
I think he did exist at one point. But by the time the events of the book take place it’s irrelevant whether he existed or not. It’d be like if I took over the world and warned people that I was the only thing protecting them from Hitler. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/5 "2011-01-27T04:47:02Z")
Moving thread from IMHO to Cafe Society. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/6 "2011-01-27T13:35:59Z")
The Botherhood exists as part of the nefarious Winnie-the-Pooh Underground ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/7 "2011-01-27T13:40:11Z")
Hell, I wonder if Big Brother exists or ever existed (I suspect he & Goldstein both did but are both long-dead & any present videos are done by actors), or if there is really any war going on at all other than Oceania shelling its own lands to keep the fear level up. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/8 "2011-01-27T14:20:51Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Hell, I wonder if Big Brother exists or ever existed (I suspect he & Goldstein both did but are both long-dead & any present videos are done by actors), or if there is really any war going on at all other than Oceania shelling its own lands to keep the fear level up. Right: you’re left to wonder what IS reality, since MiniTruth has obfuscated it so much. We are even allowed to wonder that it may or may not be 1984 after all. The “wartime” regime has turned into something that as far as almost everyone’s concerned, is timeless. Goldstein, ostensibly, was one of the Founding Fathers of IngSoc who now is reviled as a counterrevolutionary (very much a parallel to Trotsky in the Stalinist period), but even THAT could itself be a fabrication to plant doubt in those who may be unreliable. And I agree with **pope\_hentai** , O’Brien will probably end up being a guest of MiniLove (and he probably _knows_ it). ---
**Author:** ![otternell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecc23a/32.png) [@otternell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/otternell)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/9 "2011-01-27T14:31:03Z")
He existed initially I think. There’s a section where they talk about how the revolution was betrayed. I think that’s exactly it. At one point, Goldstein was part of the revolution party, but it got away from him and went awry, then he had to become an enemy of the revolution in order to properly subdue the Outer Party and the proles. And I definitely think Oceania was bombing itself, as were Eastasia and Eurasia. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/10 "2011-01-27T14:41:25Z")
By the time of the events in the book, I’m not sure that there is an Eastasia or a Eurasia. Not only is the war a fiction, the allies/enemies are too. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/11 "2011-01-27T14:51:17Z")
I think it makes the entire novel much more creepy if you truly cannot tell whether Goldstein exists or not. I’m much more interested in the level of universal distrust that exists if the Brotherhood and Goldstein may have once existed, but are now primarily a trap for dissidents. Orwell was not an insider but he nailed the feeling of day to day paranoia, according to people I’ve met who lived through Soviet Russia. The level of distrust of Government is inconceivable to us in the West. Without wanting to take us into Great Debates territory, consider it in light of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Every time a new video or audio recording is released, it is examined and declared authentic. But do you _know_ for certain Bin Laden is alive? I don’t; I only have the word of experts whom I do not completely trust. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/12 "2011-01-27T15:38:42Z")
> [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](#): > > Orwell was not an insider but he nailed the feeling of day to day paranoia, according to people I’ve met who lived through Soviet Russia. The level of distrust of Government is inconceivable to us in the West. He lived through the purges and witchhunts of the Spanish Civil War: not only were there witchhunts of each side against the other, but also of parts of the “Republican” side against each other (as far as I know, this last kind did not exist in the “National” side in a systematic, organized fashion). Some of the stories I’ve heard sound like a really, really bad trip; for example, searching for some information on old family stories about my great-grandfather’s relationship with an Anarchist who at one point became Councilor of Justice led me to Andreu Nin ([wiki in Spanish](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Nin)). While Orwel’s experiences during the war are said to be the basis of Animal Farm, I imagine they also influenced 1984. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/13 "2011-01-27T15:44:30Z")
> [@Quintas](#): > > In your opinion? Or was it all just a tool used by the party? If you buy Christopher Hitchens view, the character is based on Trotsky and therefore exists. Trotsky existed, but the Trotskyist threat of Stalin’s propaganda was largely imaginary. My guess would be, Goldstein was real, but he was shot years ago. The Party keeps him alive as a symbol. The Brotherhood has no existence apart from Ministry of Love fronts. Some dissidents might spontaneously organize themselves into cells and call themselves “The Brotherhood,” but in Oceania they won’t remain secret for long, and, in the interim, will find it impossible to hook up with any like-minded cells in other cities; any they appear to find will be Ministry of Love fronts, and not even **that** is likely to happen. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/14 "2011-01-27T15:50:43Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > He lived through the purges and witchhunts of the Spanish Civil War: not only were there witchhunts of each side against the other, but also of parts of the “Republican” side against each other (as far as I know, this last kind did not exist in the “National” side in a systematic, organized fashion). Some of the stories I’ve heard sound like a really, really bad trip; for example, searching for some information on old family stories about my great-grandfather’s relationship with an Anarchist who at one point became Councilor of Justice led me to Andreu Nin ([wiki in Spanish](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Nin)). While Orwel’s experiences during the war are said to be the basis of Animal Farm, I imagine they also influenced 1984. E.g., from [“Looking Back on the Spanish War”](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part16) (1942): > [@](#): > > I have little direct evidence about the atrocities in the Spanish civil war. I know that some were committed by the Republicans, and far more (they are still continuing) by the Fascists. But what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence. Recently I drew up a table of atrocities during the period between 1918 and the present; there was never a year when atrocities were not occurring somewhere or other, and there was hardly a single case when the Left and the Right believed in the same stories simultaneously. And stranger yet, at any moment the situation can suddenly reverse itself and yesterday’s proved-to-the-hilt atrocity story can become a ridiculous lie, merely because the political landscape has changed. > > In the present war we are in the curious situation that our ‘atrocity campaign’ was done largely before the war started, and done mostly by the Left, the people who normally pride themselves on their incredulity. In the same period the Right, the atrocity-mongers of 1914-18, were gazing at Nazi Germany and flatly refusing to see any evil in it. Then as soon as war broke out it was the pro-Nazis of yesterday who were repeating horror stories, while the anti-Nazis suddenly found themselves doubting whether the Gestapo really existed. Nor was this solely the result of the Russo-German Pact. It was partly because before the war the Left had wrongly believed that Britain and Germany would never fight and were therefore able to be anti-German and anti-British simultaneously; partly also because official war-propaganda, with its disgusting hypocrisy and self-righteousness, always tends to make thinking people sympathize with the enemy. Part of the price we paid for the systematic lying of 1914-17 was the exaggerated pro-German reaction which followed. During the years 1918-33 you were hooted at in left-wing circles if you suggested that Germany bore even a fraction of responsibility for the war. In all the denunciations of Versailles I listened to during those years I don’t think I ever once heard the question, ‘What would have happened if Germany had won?’ even mentioned, let alone discussed. So also with atrocities. The truth, it is felt, becomes untruth when your enemy utters it. Recently I noticed that the very people who swallowed any and every horror story about the Japanese in Nanking in 1937 refused to believe exactly the same stories about Hong Kong in 1942. There was even a tendency to feel that the Nanking atrocities had become, as it were, retrospectively untrue because the British Government now drew attention to them. And [“The Prevention of Literature”](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part46) (1946): > [@](#): > > Fifteen years ago, when one defended the freedom of the intellect, one had to defend it against Conservatives, against Catholics, and to some extent–for they were not of great importance in England–against Fascists. Today one has to defend it against Communists and “fellow-travelers”. One ought not to exaggerate the direct influence of the small English Communist Party, but there can be no question about the poisonous effect of the Russian MYTHOS on English intellectual life. Because of it known facts are suppressed and distorted to such an extent as to make it doubtful whether a true history of our times can ever be written. Let me give just one instance out of the hundreds that could be cited. When Germany collapsed, it was found that very large numbers of Soviet Russians–mostly, no doubt, from non-political motives–had changed sides and were fighting for the Germans. Also, a small but not negligible portion of the Russian prisoners and displaced persons refused to go back to the U.S.S.R., and some of them, at least, were repatriated against their will. These facts, known to many journalists on the spot, went almost unmentioned in the British press, while at the same time Russophile publicists in England continued to justify the purges and deportations of 1936-38 by claiming that the U.S.S.R. “had no quislings”. The fog of lies and misinformation that surrounds such subjects as the Ukraine famine, the Spanish civil war, Russian policy in Poland, and so forth, is not due entirely to conscious dishonesty, but any writer or journalist who is fully sympathetic for the U.S.S.R.–sympathetic, that is, in the way the Russians themselves would want him to be–does have to acquiesce in deliberate falsification on important issues. I have before me what must be a very rare pamphlet, written by Maxim Litvinoff in 1918 and outlining the recent events in the Russian Revolution. It makes no mention of Stalin, but gives high praise to Trotsky, and also to Zinoviev, Kamenev, and others. What could be the attitude of even the most intellectually scrupulous Communist towards such a pamphlet? At best, the obscurantist attitude of saying that it is an undesirable document and better suppressed. And if for some reason it were decided to issue a garbled version of the pamphlet, denigrating Trotsky and inserting references to Stalin, no Communist who remained faithful to his party could protest. Forgeries almost as gross as this have been committed in recent years. But the significant thing is not that they happen, but that, even when they are known about, they provoke no reaction from the left-wing intelligentsia as a whole. The argument that to tell the truth would be “inopportune” or would “play into the hands of” somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect of the lies which they condone getting out of the newspapers and into the history books. > > The organized lying practiced by totalitarian states is not, as is sometimes claimed, a temporary expedient of the same nature as military deception. It is something integral to totalitarianism, something that would still continue even if concentration camps and secret police forces had ceased to be necessary. Among intelligent Communists there is an underground legend to the effect that although the Russian government is obliged now to deal in lying propaganda, frame-up trials, and so forth, it is secretly recording the true facts and will publish them at some future time. We can, I believe, be quite certain that this is not the case, because the mentality implied by such an action is that of a liberal historian who believes that the past cannot be altered and that a correct knowledge of history is valuable as a matter of course. From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned. A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened. Then again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a revelation of prominent historical figures. This kind of thing happens everywhere, but is clearly likelier to lead to outright falsification in societies where only one opinion is permissible at any given moment. Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth. The friends of totalitarianism in this country usually tend to argue that since absolute truth is not attainable, a big lie is no worse than a little lie. It is pointed out that all historical records are biased and inaccurate, or on the other hand, that modern physics has proven that what seems to us the real world is an illusion, so that to believe in the evidence of one’s senses is simply vulgar philistinism. A totalitarian society which succeeded in perpetuating itself would probably set up a schizophrenic system of thought, in which the laws of common sense held good in everyday life and in certain exact sciences, but could be disregarded by the politician, the historian, and the sociologist. Already there are countless people who would think it scandalous to falsify a scientific textbook, but would see nothing wrong in falsifying an historical fact. It is at the point where literature and politics cross that totalitarianism exerts its greatest pressure on the intellectual. The exact sciences are not, at this date, menaced to anything like the same extent. This partly accounts for the fact that in all countries it is easier for the scientists than for the writers to line up behind their respective governments. Here we see the roots of the “Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia” theme developed in _Nineteen Eighty-Four._ As with everything else Orwell wrote, all this must be measured against the fact that he remained an avowed socialist to the end of his life; **totalitarianism** was his target, and he regarded it as inimical rather than indispensable to socialism. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/15 "2011-01-27T16:20:42Z")
> [@otternell](#): > > He existed initially I think. There’s a section where they talk about how the revolution was betrayed. I think that’s exactly it. At one point, Goldstein was part of the revolution party, but it got away from him and went awry, then he had to become an enemy of the revolution in order to properly subdue the Outer Party and the proles. > > And I definitely think Oceania was bombing itself, as were Eastasia and Eurasia. Now that’s an interesting idea. You mean there’s actually no war, just the big three pretending to be at war with each other? As for Goldstein, more interesting if you dont know. Wouldnt fit the tone of the book, nor be a very interesting point to actually know the truth. I think the same plot device was used in that Ira Levin book, “This Perfect Day”, but I read both that and “Nineteen Eighty-Four” years and years ago. Maybe I’m misremembering ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/16 "2011-01-27T16:52:35Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > The Botherhood exists as part of the nefarious Winnie-the-Pooh Underground We must be free from the tyranny of Big Rabbit! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/17 "2011-01-27T16:57:18Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > Now that’s an interesting idea. You mean there’s actually no war, just the big three pretending to be at war with each other? I don’t think there are even separate states in any meaningful sense. There may well be a region of Earth governed by an entity that calls itself Eurasia, one that calls itself Oceania, and one that calls itself Eastasia - but all three are effectively the same state, coordinating economic, social, and military policy (that is, the staging of phony battles and so forth). Earth is goverened by a single state that artificially segments and isolates the population in order to facilitate governance. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/18 "2011-01-27T18:05:14Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > I don’t think there are even separate states in any meaningful sense. There may well be a region of Earth governed by an entity that calls itself Eurasia, one that calls itself Oceania, and one that calls itself Eastasia - but all three are effectively the same state, coordinating economic, social, and military policy (that is, the staging of phony battles and so forth). Earth is goverened by a single state that artificially segments and isolates the population in order to facilitate governance. Actually, I see nothing in the book to suggest Inner Party members are even on speaking terms (beyond a basic diplomatic level) with their counterparts in Eurasia and Eastasia, or that the battles are not real. At any rate, real flying bombs periodically land in London. It’s not that the states’ leaders are actually in conspiracy, but that they all consciously have the same aims, to keep things from changing; therefore they must all fight the war in earnest, but pull back at any moment that might present the danger of winning it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/19 "2011-01-27T19:01:05Z")
Is the question about a specific, important individual who’s actually named Goldstein, or about the existence of a powerful entity actively working to overthrow Big Brother? If the former, it’s anyone’s guess, but if it’s the latter, the answer is emphatically yes: The entity actively working to overthrow Big Brother is Big Brother. The system is inherently self-destructive. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846/20 "2011-01-27T19:05:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Is the question about a specific, important individual who’s actually named Goldstein, or about the existence of a powerful entity actively working to overthrow Big Brother? If the former, it’s anyone’s guess, but if it’s the latter, the answer is emphatically yes: The entity actively working to overthrow Big Brother is Big Brother. The system is inherently self-destructive. How so? O’Brien seems to believe the system is remarkably stable, and we’re given no reason to question his judgment. Though the use of _agents provocateur_, The Party identifies and disposes of dissidents quietly and efficiently. The Inner Party is thoroughly committed to the pleasures of oppression, the Outer Party tightly controlled, and the proles safely isolated from any form of power. The chilling thing about O’Brien’s great monologue is that he’s right - if there was ever any hope, it’s long gone. The future of humanity is a boot smashing a face. Forever. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-1984-does-goldstein-the-botherhood-exist/568846.md?page=2)