Of course he is! That's the entire point, dear spirited. In Voegelinian terms, Big Brother is in "egophanic revolt" against divine Being, because he would, by his own will, his libido dominandi, become "the god" himself. Thus TO RULE.
Of course, there's nothing "divine" about a "consciousness" like that.
The thought has occurred to me that George Orwell's model for Big Brother was no less an eminence than Hegel himself — who was at once a magisterial philosopher and self-admitted adept of Magic [e.g., a gnostic thinker]. I imagine 1984 may have been Orwell's speculation regarding the social and cultural fallout to be expected from any popular success of Hegel's ideas, which were subsequently taken up by Marx....
Orwell was a great secular prophet. Where he stood on Darwin's theory, I don't know much about in the details. But I think I can "stand in Orwell's shoes" and see/say something like the following:
A Little List of Things I Love to Hate about Darwin's Theory: A Litany of Complaints FWIW
Where to begin.
I propose that the "internalization" of Darwin's Theory into the Zeitgeist a/k/a the public mind — whether consciously or unconsciously — has had profoundly negative effects on the liberty and well-being of individuals and the societies they compose. As far back as the 1930s, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the great pioneer of complex systems theory, was worrying out loud about the potentially corrosive effects of Darwinism on all the then-prevailing concepts of the social order of human beings.
IMHO, Darwin's Theory is objectively "wrong" on two fronts: (1) the ontological; and (2) the scientific.
RE: (1) — I'll be as brief as possible. Ontology is a philosophical discipline/inquiry into Being, or Life itself, with particular attention to the problem of how Being (the universal) translates into the existence of (particular) living forms. Although this is not directly a problem for the natural sciences, I daresay there is not a single living natural scientist who does not hold — consciously or unconsciously — to some idea, some opinion, of "ontology," summed up as a particular worldview.
The currently prevailing scientific worldview holds that "everything supervenes on the physical"; that everything that exists in Nature and the Universe is made up of "particulate" matter in its motions, according to the physico/mechanical laws so brilliantly described by Sir Isaac Newton.
While Newton's laws may hold to an extraordinarily high degree of predictive accuracy within the proper domain of their application [in general, that of normal 4D human observational experience], other domains of scientific inquiry opened up for the first time in the early 20th century, and both were revolutionary and radical, and resist integration: Relativity and Quantum Theory.
Which brings us to point (2): The scientific grounds of Darwin's theory.
It is clear he is a Newtonian. He views biology under the lens of matter in motion, the "motion" being produced under the aspect of direct, local causes, on a linear timeline.
To put it another way, Darwin rejects two of Aristotle's four causes. "First" and "Final" are expunged from the get-go; only the "Material" and "Efficient" survive.
Aslo, Newton could not have known anything about the matter of nonlocal causality, which has been so successfully validated by quantum experiments. [Thus quite possibly dragging Aristotle's First and Final causes back into the picture....]
In the end, what Darwin's theory does for us is to say that Nature has nothing to do with God; that human history is meaningless; that man himself is essentially meaningless — because he does not have a "Nature" as a man, as such.
Whatever "nature" Man has cannot be ascertained in advance, because it is always a product "in progress."
But without God, without human history to refresh our memory as human beings living today, we can't even be "works in progress."
Guess I'll just leave it there for now. Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for writing!
What are the consequences if you're wrong?
Spirited: Orwell's speculation may very well have been aimed at fall-out expected from popular success of Hegel. However, the fall-out from widespread acceptance of William James William (1842-1910) reductionist theory of “religious experience” has been every bit as bad if not worse.
Referred to as the father of American psychology, James reduced religious experience--which includes visions, unseen voices, demonic encounters, possession, etc.-- to manifestations of the “subconscious,” the means by which man communicates with God “within.”
The theories of James are examples of unconscious Satanism as Rene Guenon (1886-1951), the great French traditionalist metaphysician explains in, “The Spiritist Fallacy,” a detailed expose of the Theosophy, Buddhism and Spiritism overtaking the minds of modernist priests and intellectuals during Guenon’s lifetime.
Guenon describes sophisticated enlightened theologians and like-minded individuals such as James as those who cannot speak of the devil,
“….without a smile of disdain, or an even more contemptuous shrug of the shoulders.” (p. 252)
Their contempt is due to the fact that enlightened priests and intellectuals bought into the lie that Lucifer is not the devil but rather the “light-bearer.” They even go so far as to call him ‘the Great Creative Intelligence.’ Thus they invoke Lucifer and perform his cult, but in fact these people,
“…though in fact Satanists, are only unconsciously so, for they are mistaken as to the nature of the entity to whom they address their worship….It goes without saying that these ‘enlightened’ priests are all plainly modernists and that the spirit animating them is strangely similar to that affirmed in these lines.” (p. 254)
Guenon defines ‘unconscious Satanism’ as every “modern” conception that notably disfigures the living God, and in this sense, all theories of a limited God and of a God who evolves must be placed in the front rank.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen provides us with an example of one of the devil’s “modern” conceptions:
“Modern philosophy has seen the birth of a new nation of God…It is God in evolution. God ‘is’ not. He ‘becomes.’ In the beginning was not the Lord, but in the beginning was ‘Movement.’ From this movement God is born by successive creations. As the world progresses, He progresses; as the world acquires perfection, He acquires perfection. (Moreover) man is a necessary step in the evolution of God. Just as man came from the beast, God will come from man…” (Great Catholic Books Newsletter; Volume II, Number 2, Fulton J. Sheen Issue)
Guenon notes that Satanism, even when unconscious, is always characterized by a reversal of the normal order,
“….it is the exact opposite of orthodox doctrine, and intentionally inverts certain symbols or formulas.” (p. 259)
In this sense, evolutionary conceptions are Satanic because they persuade people to believe that everything in nature is the fruit of a gradual upward progression from either pre-existing or self-generated matter rather than the fallen but nevertheless good creation of the living God Who spoke.
Because infernal evolutionary conceptions reverse the normal order, their sweeping acceptance means that it is now difficult if not impossible for Americans and Westerners to conceive of the Genesis account creation ex nihilo as traditional Christianity taught, because if “God” has evolved from man who has evolved from beasts then perfection obviously lies somewhere in the future rather than in the past from which mankind fell. In this infernally inverted 'theology' the “way” to perfection proposed by the devil obviously lies with the occult science of Hermetic magic and psycho-technologies whereby man’s salvation is achieved by becoming “one” with the Divine Substance, Omega Point, Brahman, Void, Quantum Void, or Singularity.
It is here that Guenon turns his attention to the theories of William James, which he classifies as unconscious Satanism for two reasons. First, James theory of “religious experience” as a manifestation of the “subconscious” by which man communicates with the Divine “within” is only one step away from “condoning the practices of spiritism” (contact with spirits) with the further consequence of conferring on evil spirits an “eminently religious character.”
This has come to pass. As just one example out of literally hundreds, there is apostate evangelical, now New Age theologian David Spangler speaking of Lucifer as an ‘eminently religious character,’ a savior-spirit he correlates with Christ:
“The true light of this great being can only be recognized when one's own eyes can see with the light of the Christ, the light of the inner sun. Lucifer works within each of us to bring us to wholeness, and as we move into the New Age, which is the age of man's wholeness, each of us is brought to that point which I term the Luciferic Initiation, the particular doorway through which the individual must pass if he is to come fully into the presence of his light and his wholeness.”
“Lucifer comes to give us the final gift of wholeness. If we accept it, then he is free and we are free, that is the Luciferic Initiation. It is one that many people now, and in the days ahead, will be facing, for it is an initiation into the New Age.” (David Spangler, Reflections on the Christ, Findhorn Lecture Series, 3rd ed., 1981; p. 45)
With respect to all of this, Big Brother was an unconscious Satanist. He performed the cult of Satan. And this is why he had power over matter, could levitate, etc. But these powers were not his but the fallen angels or demons under whose control he had fallen. More than likely BB was transitioning toward total possession.