1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Paul Mackin]

As an accommodation to Paul N.I have taken to heart the criticism
against me for cavalier treatment of Pynchon's language, adding back in
the "fascistic disposition" business:



Even though it may be called fascistic to say so (by the more boisterous
among us), is it not entirely true that the extreme government actions
and restrictions on
freedom imposed by Big Brother--entirely unnecessary to the public good
and therefore completely wrong under normal circumstances--may
nevertheless become necessary in wartime. The moment enemy bombs begin
to fall on one's homeland, altering the landscape and producing
casualties among friends and neighbors, criticism of very harsh
government controls become irrelevant, if not indeed subversive. With
the homeland in danger, strong leadership and effective measures become
of the essence, and if you want to call that fascism, very well, call it
whatever you please, no one is likely to be listening, unless it's for
the air raids to be over and the all clear to sound.  But the
unseemliness of opposing harsh restrictions on freedom or talking about
the long term dangers of granting emergency powers in the heat of some
emergency does not necessarily make the fears of tyranny wrong.  One
could certainly argue that Churchill's war cabinet had behaved no differently
than a fascist regime, censoring news, controlling wages and prices,
restricting travel, subordinating civil liberties to self-defined wartime necessity. 


Is it not true that the extreme government actions and restrictions on
> freedom imposed by Big Brother--entirely unnecessary to the public good
> and therefore completely wrong under normal circumstances--may
> nevertheless become necessary in wartime. The moment enemy bombs begin
> to fall on one's homeland, altering the landscape and producing
> casualties among friends and neighbors, criticism of very harsh
> government controls become irrelevant, if not indeed subversive. With
> the homeland in danger, strong leadership and effective measures become
> of the essence, and if you want to call that fascism, very well, call it
> whatever you please, no one is likely to be listening, unless it's for
> the air raids to be over and the all clear to sound.  But the
> unseemliness of opposing harsh restrictions on freedom or talking about
> the long term dangers of granting emergency powers in the heat of some
> emergency does not necessarily make the fears of tyranny wrong.  One
> could certainly argue that Churchill's war cabinet had behaved no differently
> than a fascist regime, censoring news, controlling wages and prices,
> restricting travel, subordinating civil liberties to self-defined wartime necessity. 
> 
>