Make Orwell Fiction Again! Again!

 

By invoking George Orwell’s name, cultural and political figures often attempt to align themselves with the fight against totalitarianism. Recently, Elon Musk—while criticizing the UK’s arrest of individuals for using social media to incite hatred and violence—adopted the slogan “Make Orwell Fiction Again.” The phrase underscores the ongoing battle over the meaning of Orwell’s work and how it is wielded in modern political discourse. However, this appropriation often reflects a shallow understanding of Orwell’s warnings, ironically perpetuating the very manipulative tactics he condemned.

Orwell’s seminal works like 1984 and Animal Farm focus on the dangers of disinformation and the manipulation of truth. Events such as the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot—portrayed by some as a “patriotic act”—serve as modern examples of how disinformation distorts reality. Orwell’s famous warning to reject the "evidence of your own eyes and ears" echoes in the justification of such acts. The irony deepened when, after regaining the presidency, Donald Trump pardoned over 1,500 rioters involved in January 6, implicitly endorsing their actions and undermining principles of accountability and justice.

Despite proclaiming themselves as champions of free speech, many right-wing populist figures exhibit authoritarian tendencies. Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, which garnered support from figures like Musk, leaned heavily into revisionist narratives and exclusionary policies. Attacks against dissenting voices, marginalization of minorities, and the propagation of falsehoods reflect the systems of control Orwell warned against. Rather than defending individual freedom, these actions often enforce loyalty to a singular vision of America.

Right-wing populists frequently denounce content moderation on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), framing it as Orwellian censorship. Yet, they simultaneously push for restrictions on progressive viewpoints, particularly in education, targeting topics such as race and gender studies. This selective approach to censorship reveals an ideological agenda that contradicts their purported commitment to free speech.

Musk’s political interventions extend beyond the United States. In December 2024, he publicly endorsed Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, declaring, "Only the AfD can save Germany." He further elaborated on his support in an opinion piece published in Welt am Sonntag, describing the AfD as the nation's "last spark of hope." This endorsement sparked significant backlash from German political figures, with Chancellor Olaf Scholz condemning Musk’s stance, emphasizing that freedom of speech should not support extremist positions. Robert Habeck, Germany’s Deputy Chancellor, labeled Musk’s actions a "frontal attack on our democracy," while the editor of Welt am Sonntag resigned in protest over the publication of Musk’s piece. These actions highlight how Musk’s support for controversial figures and parties fuels debates over the role of influential tech figures in politics.

Adding to the controversy, Musk’s support for Tommy Robinson, the far-right British activist and co-founder of the English Defence League, has drawn widespread criticism. Robinson, known for his anti-Islam rhetoric, is currently serving an 18-month prison sentence for contempt of court. Musk used his platform, X, to call for Robinson’s release, describing him as a victim of political persecution and endorsing a documentary by Robinson as "worth watching." Reports also suggest Musk has agreed to cover Robinson’s legal fees in two ongoing cases. This intervention has been condemned by UK political figures, with Health Secretary Wes Streeting calling Musk’s views "misjudged and certainly misinformed."

By appropriating Orwellian language, right-wing populists and their supporters, including Musk, create a rhetorical inversion. Claiming to fight against “Orwellian oppression,” they frame opposition as tyranny while their own actions often align with the authoritarian systems Orwell critiqued. This strategic co-opting of symbols allows them to claim victimhood while exercising significant influence over public discourse.

The misuse of Orwellian language dilutes the potency of his warnings. Terms like “Big Brother” and “Orwellian” risk becoming buzzwords, detached from their original meaning. This erosion—a reduction of language to empty slogans—is itself an Orwellian phenomenon. The cultural struggle over Orwell’s legacy extends to the very definition of freedom. True freedom, as Orwell envisioned, is rooted in responsibility, truth, and empathy—qualities often absent in the rhetoric of those who appropriate his work.

To “Make Orwell Fiction Again” in the truest sense means ensuring his dystopian visions remain in the realm of fiction. Achieving this requires vigilance against authoritarianism, whether it emerges from governments, corporations, or grassroots movements. It also demands critical engagement with Orwell’s ideas, resisting the manipulative tactics of those who invoke his name while undermining his principles. The next time someone claims to be fighting “Orwellian oppression,” it’s worth asking: Are they defending truth and liberty, or merely constructing a new Ministry of Truth under a different guise?