We Should Bury History, And Cover It With Propaganda (No, Not Really. But...)

In George Orwell's 1984, Big Brother's version of history was not even close to their real history. We should do this too. Hear me out.

Herodotus. Who doesn't know that guy. He is also known as the Father Of Lies. Even in his own time. Supposedly, he left his native Greece because he was ridiculed for his works on history. If this story isn't at least close to the truth, it's even better. Either way, at least one of the parties had engaged in spreading propaganda. If it is true, Herodotus spread it. If it isn't true, his opponents did. More likely, all accounts of the same events were biased in a variety of ways, sub-consciously, but consciously as well.

What does this have to do with Big Brother? They are a fictionalized extreme of extremely common human tendencies. They knowingly attempt to alter or destroy all of history, all 13.8 billion years of it, in order to achieve some goal. For most people, them achieving this goal would suck, and suck hard. It's the dystopian world of 1894, of V for Vendetta, of Equilibrium, the Hunger Games trilogy, In Time, and a hundred other films and series. In most, if not all, cases, this goal is to achieve some form of “order.” This goal seems to be so incredibly important that they claim that the ends justify the means.

In 1984, Big Brother alters history so everybody knows there has been nothing but the party, and that they were always at war with whatever enemy they had at that moment. Their reward for subverting history is the imposition of “order,” which is often synonymous with power. Not surprising, as power is a tool and allows you to impose your will on others, thus allowing you to achieve your perfect order of the world. Also not surprising, this order likely also justifies that you and whatever group or groups you think you belong to, are at the top of the hierarchy in every field under the sun, except the ones that are too icky, dangerous, or menial.

This is a pathological tendency to feel superior. People who experience this tendency and act on it, have created a hierarchy of us. They or their in-group at the top, or close to it, and whatever flavor of scapegoats at the bottom. They cleverly – and transparently – exploit and fan every fear people may have, from fears about economic hardship to vaccine hesitancy, to impose and maintain the continuation of their supremacy. Eternal order. At least until we can't outrun entropy any longer.

Imagine a world where a lack of prejudice was as ideal as realistically possible. As long as people are taught the real history, at least a history as accurate and unbiased as possible, there will still always be somebody who thinks, “Hey, those Nazis had a great idea, let's do genocide on these groups.” This is unavoidable. Except it isn't. If we simply bury history below propaganda, nobody will know any better, and the chances that somebody will be able to allow themselves to feel, act, and believe themselves to be superior will drop significantly. If all references to an idea have been erased, does that idea still exist?

Of course, this system is also unstable. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. They build on each other and are woven together, like a tapestry. This is a finite landscape, so ideas are discovered rather than invented. Like pieces of a puzzle, they logically fit together, and the existence of one or more implies the existence of others. In quantum mechanics, the space between atoms is filled with virtual particles, particles and their anti-particles that come into existence and immediately annihilate each other. Their existence is the smallest slice of time, so small that we can never measure it. Yet, we see evidence of these particles in the electron orbit of atoms, for example. Their real existence is inferred from its effects. In this case, it is the best possible explanation. The rules of reason are followed, and lead to this idea.

Whoa, when did this become about physics? Ideas about social organization are comparable to physics in this case. Since there is an uncountably large but finite number of possible variations of ideas that can exist, in a Platonic sense, these ideas already exist. If it is possible to have a certain idea, than the probability of someone in the history and future of existence having that idea is non-zero. Systems of order are not stable. They are not eternal. So, an ideal state of perpetual order is impossible. Are you dizzy yet?

Of course, in 1984, not all traces of the inconvenient history had been erased. There were still people who had ideas that were more in line with reality than the reality they had been fed, so even if close to perfect is all we can achieve, this wasn't it. In Equilibrium, spoiler alert, the system crumbled because elite armed martial arts experts still had to run around killing anyone who did not take their drug, or who felt any kind of emotion. In many parts of the world, people make a living being trained to use violence in defense of the law. In some cases, these laws treat some group or groups extremely unjustly. Oftentimes they are also conditioned into believing and acting on ideas that justify excessive violence against these groups. So, to keep your order, you have to run around fixing disorder?

Instead of doing that, why not fix your order so it becomes harmonious? Where cause and effect play an intricate dance on the tapestry of existence. Everything flows from everything else, in exactly the way you want it to. Without lifting a single finger.

This actually means you have at least achieved the perfect post-discontent society, where everybody is at least comfortable enough to not take extreme measures to rectify their situation, even though the relative quality of life may vary significantly. This state of affairs is of course ideal for those with ambition to become the supreme ruler, or something close to it.

In Ancient Sparta, king Theopompus was scolded by his wife for leaving his son with less royal power than he had inherited. Theopompus said, “No, it is greater, because it will last longer.” He had recognized correctly that for order to be maintained and chaos to be averted, he had to cede some of his power to keep the rest of it. He had to give up just enough power to make his opponents content enough to not take extreme action to change the new status quo. In this case, everybody got something.

Short-sighted people who lust for power and have achieved it in some way often employ questionable tactics to maintain that power. Making up stuff about how “we” were always on top of the world in order to justify oppression. Other people are more clever, like Theopompus. They give their opponents what they need to prevent disorder. Tiny variations now can snowball into a revolution, or avert it. This doesn't mean that his opponents are happy. Just that they are just comfortable enough to not make a fuss about it.

Quantum mechanics works with probabilities. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the effect is not solely determined by is cause or causes. In our macro-world we experience events as being determined. You can use Isaac Newton's laws of motion to predict where a ball will land. This is our common sense understanding of cause and effect. We exist today because our ancestors procreated. This shows that events that have already happened do determine what can happen in the now and the future.

Probably the most famous idea of chaos theory is the butterfly effect, also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Tiny variations in initial conditions can fan out into extreme effects on the later state of the system. The weather is the obvious example of a chaotic system. So how can you remedy this situation? That's really simple. All you have to do is go back in time and change the motion of the right particles in the right ways to change the future in whatever shape you desire. Although Heisenberg. Not that one. Yes, that one. He may have something to say about that.

The level of knowledge you need to accurately predict such tiny variations is not practically or even physically attainable. While you can throw a banana peel in the trash instead of throwing it on the floor to prevent anyone from falling on it, you can't find out for certain what things you will need to change. Oh, and as far as I know, time travel is still probably impossible. At least we don't know how yet.

However, people are not physics. At least, there are more high-level, more useful concepts to talk about people. There is no reason why one's beliefs need to be consistent with reality. You simply feed them an alternative version of events, and erase all existence of the more justified but less flattering version. In the quasi-Platonic landscape of ideas, we simply work around the idea's general area. The the farther an idea is from mainstream travel, the less likely it is that anyone will stumble upon it.

But you might say, that sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? Yes. Yes, it does. If your sense of order includes ranking people by whatever criteria, you're just wrong. Oh, and then there is the whole “ends justify the means” thing. No. If achieving your order involves systematically murdering people for whatever reason, you're also just wrong.

But are there other reasons? Even if no-one judged by skin color, the very knowledge of the history of oppression of our fellow species carves ways through the landscape of ideas right to where you don't want them. While without knowledge of the Nazis, colonialism, or history in general, you'd need to think of the idea of racial superiority first. Now it just gets delivered on a platter.

So, imagine you managed to create meta-stable order by changing the social space in such a dramatic way that skin color is almost never on the inhabitant's minds. Now the leap to, “Hey, I am superior because I have milk-colored skin, now bow down to me, you peasant,” is much larger. So the probability of it happening has decreased.

So, if we alter history to avoid undesirable ideas, we can achieve a meta-stable state for as long as possible.

Wait, no. I forgot about human nature. Depending on who you ask, we are either inherently good, or inherently evil. As usual, a binary choice is presented when in truth our “goodness” is a spectrum, bounded by both extremes. A lot of people will find ways to disadvantage others if it somehow benefits them enough.

Abandon train of thought!

So, back to a post-discontent society then? Where everyone is just comfortable enough not to do anything about their situation? Even in a world where extreme social and wealth inequality remains the norm?

Great idea. Let's not do that.

Thanks for watching. If you enjoyed the video, hit the like button and subscribe if you haven't already. See you next time!