NationStates Jolt Archive

Just read 1984 for the first time in a few years, made some notes as I went along of some of the similarities we might find in the world today. Your thoughts, and suggestions are most welcome (provided they aren't rude :) )

Part 1 Chapter 3

In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines.

There have been at least three distinct groups at work in the ‘terror war’, the Coalition led by the USA, the militant Muslims and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Their relationships have changed over the years. In the 1980s the USA supported Saddam Hussein in a war against the Muslims of Iran, then he became the enemy after his invasion of Kuwait. A period of containment followed under the Presidency of Bill Clinton, where no major war was fought against either Saddam Hussein or the militant Muslims. After 9/11 the militant Muslims became the primary target, once the Taliban had been ousted from power in Afghanistan the focus switched again to Iraq before Osama Bin Laden had been caught. Once Saddam Hussein was caught the focus then switched back to, what we are told, are foreign militant Muslims who have gathered in Iraq. What is noticeable though is that the Coalition and mainstream media is largely silent on their former good relations with Saddam Hussein, and even cite his use of the chemical weapons which they helped him attain as a reason for war.

Doublethink is...to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled each other out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the party was the guardian of democracy.

Democracy by force.
If you invade a country they’ll love you for it.

Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what they have to put up with.

Similar calls of patriotism are frequently used to call people to conform with the requests of government. If you're not with us you're against us. If you don't support the war you aren't supporting the troops. Don't elect a different president in time of war. The idea is to create an atmosphere of guilt where anything less than capitulation to a request is seen as unpatriotic.

Chaper 5

Orthodoxy was unconsciousness

The best way to be a patriot is to simply accept what the government tells you without questioning it.

Part 2 Chapter 5

The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep the people frightened'.

The actual dropping of bombs on Coalition ground is unnecessary provided an atmosphere of fear is maintained. Provided there is an air of fear the government can use it to make people accept almost anything.

Chapter 9
The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in mid-sentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax.

In this section a speaker addressing a large crowd has announced that Oceania was not at war with Eurasia and never had been Oceania was at war with Eastasia and it had always been so. The fluidity and ease of the switch and the acceptance of it as fact is mirrored by the way the Coalition switched from attacking Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. In March 2002 GWB said “I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." The emphasis on the war had switched, OBL was obsolete, there was little value in pursuing him further, with Saddam Hussein now the target the ground was being set for the war a year later and many people accepted this new situation.

Boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one's own side and not the enemy, meritorious.

Fortunately we don’t know that things have gone quite this far in Guantanamo or Abu-Ghraib, however as the Washington Post put it “Did senior officials order torture? We know of two relevant cases so far. One was Mr. Rumsfeld's December 2002 authorization of the use of techniques including hooding, nudity, stress positions, "fear of dogs" and physical contact with prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay base. A second was the distribution in September 2003 by the office of the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, of an interrogation policy that included these techniques as well as others, among them sleep and dietary manipulation. In both cases lawyers inside the military objected that the policies would lead to violations of international law, including the convention banning torture. Both were eventually modified, but not before they were used for the handling of prisoners. In the case of the Abu Ghraib prison, the policy apparently remained in effect for months.” If similar tactics were used against US prisoners we can be sure of the backlash, but these methods were acceptable and even ‘meritorious’ to the US for use on its own prisoners as it was an aid in getting information out of prisoners. Many "patriots" would say that the suspected terrorists deserve no legal rights, that their possible torture, and mistreatment at least, was more than they deserved. Meritorious, indeed.

But it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.

Fear of an enemy who may strike anywhere at any time. Hatred of an enemy who does not accept that you way of life is right for him. Adulation of a leader who promises victory and to do ‘whatever it takes’, and well, the orgiastic triumph has yet to come unless you include the election victory. Indeed no decisive victory is possible, the war on terror is a perpetual war. The very logic behind it means that if the war ever seems to be over the leader only need say “It will be when we let our guard down they will strike”, and so the guard will never be let down and once started the war will have no distinct ending. The terrorist is the perfect enemy for the oppressive government, the terrorist can never sign a declaration of surrender, he holds immutable religious beliefs rather than specific strategic goals of land or money, he will always be a threat to ‘defend’ the people from.

It [war] helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs.

This quote sums up everything rather neatly, the powerful need to give the people an external enemy to focus on to draw their attention away from home and to grant them even more power.

Imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages and the deportation of whole populations-not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.

Not all are applicable, but we have seen examples of some, particularly imprisonment without trial which is defended from the pinnacle of government to the man on the street as a necessary violation of rights to protect us in time of war.

Part of the reason for this [failure of previous tyrannies] was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.

Evidence of the way the media has biased the view of the people in favour of the government can be found here http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
Evidence of the government’s ability to watch you can be found here http://www.cdt.org/security/011031summary.shtml


The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts.

Two words, “Freedom Cages”. The plain facts being that a freedom cage is a way to stop people exercising their freedom where they so choose.

To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed.

To say Saddam has WMD when he doesn’t. To forget that you gave them to him, and then call upon them as justification for war. To ignore treaties on torture when they don’t support your goals. To use a UN resolution as justification for war whilst simultaneously ignoring the will of the UN.

Part 3 Chapter 2

Men were dying because they would not abandon their true beliefs. Naturally all the glory belonged to the victim and all the shame to the Inquisitor who burned him.

Orwell cites the Inquisition as an example of how by setting out to eradicate heresy you will only perpetuate it. Similarly since the coalition set out to eradicate the militant Muslims they have only swelled the numbers of their ranks, the militants become martyrs, whilst the coalition is widely condemned.

Chapter 3

What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?

Indeed, what can you do?

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm signed by the Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and the President’s brother and Governor of Florida Jeb Bush.


EDITED: I received some feedback from several people on the Chestnut Tree Cafe question I posed. My problem was I didn't quite understand the symbolism of the Chestnut Tree Cafe. It was a place where the former enemies of the Party, brainwashed into loving it, frequented, where the populace could take notice that these former traitors are out in the open, harming no one, espousing no thoughtcrime at all. Then, they would be shot, and lifted clean from history. And there would be no martyrdom because the people SAW them as one of themselves again.

EDITED: Also, I thought about the paper-weight Winston has, the glass one with the rounded body, and flat bottom, with the little piece of coral inside. It's a major piece of symbolism that I failed to grasp until just a little while ago, that it represented security, and gave Winston a false sense of hope and security for himself as well, like when he rented the upstairs room from "Mr. Charrington", who seems to be in fact possibly the Minister of Love. He's too old to be an active agent, and no Inner Party member lives a life of perfect leisure. Anyways, that's just my own personal speculation.


And I leave you with….

The more the Party is powerful the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism.

how true

And thus why you see the reason that book scared the hell out of me.

Sadly, Orwell wrote it about things he was seeing in his day, as well.

Communism...Fascism.

The fact that it also applies to America, today...SHOULD scare more people.

But it doesnt....THATS what scares me goddamn silly.

It is funny because it doesn't apply. Vote for who you want in 2008.

It is funny because it doesn't apply. Vote for who you want in 2008.


Read it again.

You must be truly blind if you cant correlate anything from that.

Or did you just come here to troll again?

It is funny because it doesn't apply. Vote for who you want in 2008.
It would be funny that someone could actually not see how it applies, if it were not (as earlier posters point out) so darn scary... :eek:

It is funny because it doesn't apply. Vote for who you want in 2008.

Did that make any difference in 2000? ;)

Not to mention the fact that the poster SPELLS IT OUT FOR YOU PLAINLY.

All you had to do was actually read it.

It was about the USSR.

I knew... I knew that some one was going to not read any of what I posted, and just say something incredibly stupid.

It was about the USSR.
It was about totilitarism.

Wrong. Orwell was a socialist himself.

If you read the book carefully, especially the inserted excerpts from Goldstein's book, you'll find he's talking about the betrayal of socialism. This is not a warning about communism but a warning about totalitarianism, whether it uses the disguise of socialism, democracy OR Fabianism.

Read it again.

You must be truly blind if you cant correlate anything from that.

Or did you just come here to troll again?

I simply don't agree with the opinions expressed whether it be with the Iraq war, the patriot act, etc. Also lay off the ad hominems. That's not real mature.

1984 was not about the USSR. 1984 was about totalitarianism, in its most extreme. Animal Farm was satire played by events in the Soviet Union and abroad. To say that 1984 was strictly about the USSR would deviate from the author's intended point, and from the message Orwell tried to send.

I knew... I knew that some one was going to not read any of what I posted, and just say something incredibly stupid.

Well if you feel that way, I don't see how you are very democratic in your ways.

It was about totilitarism.

Tortillas? :confused: ;)

the only difference is that bush is not technically a dictator... i stress technically. it was pretty damn freaky, especially as 1984 scared the hell outa me.

A scary comparisson.

althougth we are not at the same stage of control as described in the book, the underlying foundations of government induced fear are here. the prime example of this is blairs '45 minutes away from a WMD attack' claim. completely untrue, but worded to be as scarey as possible. add to that today the fact that anyone can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial, and the foundations are there for our democracies to develop into this. also for the 'all that was needed was for a state of war to exist' part may explain the apparent lack of progress or exit strategy in iraq, as our leaders may not actually want to end the war. i personally believe the war on terrorism is simply a cover story for american economic gain. heres looking at you, halliburton.

so drzhen is completely right, and well done.

I simply don't agree with the opinions expressed whether it be with the Iraq war, the patriot act, etc. Also lay off the ad hominems. That's not real mature.


Really?

Then please...by all means.....tell us why you dont agree with the specific quotes of the book, and Drzhen's correlations?

This should be quick.

Orwell was a social democrat. Socialism and social democracy are two different things.

Tortillas? :confused: ;)
What do expect when a hungry dyslexic is allowed access to the internet? ;)

What do expect when a hungry dyslexic is allowed access to the internet? ;)


Tacsos?

BackwoodsSquatches:

Wow...are you ever being antagonistic tonight...you know, after our debate a of couple nights ago, I had a real respect for you and the way that you carried yourself...but that is all fading fast...it's too bad, because I really enjoyed debating with you. :(

Well if you feel that way, I don't see how you are very democratic in your ways.

... How do you possibly come to a conclusion I am not democratic? You're just trolling. I see no relevence, logic, or rationality in your comments.

... How do you possibly come to a conclusion I am not democratic? You're just trolling. I see no relevence, logic, or rationality in your comments.

I see no rationality in your comments. Just a bunch of biased arguments against the war, against Bush, and the typical.

But what can i say... tacos with extra cheese.

Tacsos?
Well really! Now you're just taking the 'mickey'....I'm going to go sulk while I ponder if there really is a Dog... :rolleyes:

And in case you were wondering I am not illiterate, my parents were married over a year before I was born... :p

BackwoodsSquatches:

Wow...are you ever being antagonistic tonight...you know, after our debate a of couple nights ago, I had a real respect for you and the way that you carried yourself...but that is all fading fast...it's too bad, because I really enjoyed debating with you. :(


I can imagine why you see that.

But this guy has done this in nearly every thread I see him in for the last week, and Ive lost all respect for him.

My annoyance does get the better of me at times.

My apologies to you.

I can imagine why you see that.

But this guy has done this in nearly every thread I see him in for the last week, and Ive lost all respect for him.

My annoyance does get the better of me at times.

My apologies to you.

Nobody likes one who lies about another. :)

Stop lying about me, please. I have no respect for you because I have seen improper debating methods employed by you.

I see no rationality in your comments. Just a bunch of biased arguments against the war, against Bush, and the typical.

But what can i say... tacos with extra cheese.

Feel free to actually read my post. But don't say things like "you're not democratic" when you have no right, or even reason, to say. If you think I'm biased, too fucking bad. Go troll and flamebait somewhere the fuck else.

Well really! Now you're just taking the 'mickey'....I'm going to go sulk while I ponder if there really is a Dog... :rolleyes:

And in case you were wondering I am not illiterate, my parents were married over a year before I was born... :p


*ow..my sides hurt.....much laffy...ow!...*

Feel free to actually read my post. But don't say things like "you're not democratic" when you have no right, or even reason, to say. If you think I'm biased, too fucking bad. Go troll and flamebait somewhere the fuck else.

I'm not trolling or flamebaiting. How funny. Your argument is comparing Bush to that of a totalitarian dictator. What can I say? It is overused, misapplied, and poor. I have a right, believe me I have plenty of rights. Yeah, you're very biased. Hey that's human nature. I'm biased too.

We still have a right to vote, and I still support the war in Iraq. Want to compare me to someone who supports a dictatorship? Well go ahead. I know, in my heart, that is improper.

I'm not trolling or flamebaiting. How funny. Your argument is comparing Bush to that of a totalitarian dictator. What can I say? It is overused, misapplied, and poor. I have a right, believe me I have plenty of rights. Yeah, you're very biased. Hey that's human nature. I'm biased too.


No hes not.

and you are indeed trolling.

Hes making comparisons between Orwell's novel, and current politics.

If your not going to debate this...and instead just make trouble.
GO AWAY.

Youve been asked once.

BackwoodsSquatches:

I can imagine how annoying that must be....but maybe it would be a better approach just to ignore him....you see, that would take all of the wind out of his sails so to speak....you can't argue a point if no one is arguing back....and if he can argue by himself, then I think that he has bigger issues to deal with...just a thought....

No hes not.

and you are indeed trolling.

Hes making comparisons between Orwell's novel, and current politics.

If your not going to debate this...and instead just make trouble.
GO AWAY.

Youve been asked once.

I don't think you can make comparsions of his novel because interpretation is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not trolling.

I'm not trolling or flamebaiting. How funny. Your argument is comparing Bush to that of a totalitarian dictator. What can I say? It is overused, misapplied, and poor. I have a right, believe me I have plenty of rights. Yeah, you're very biased. Hey that's human nature. I'm biased too.

Short little quips without any rationality at all, like accusing people of being of a particular political orientation, is blatant harassment. I'd call it flamebaiting, or at least trolling, at the very least.

I don't think Bush is a totalitarian dictator. America isn't totalitarian. Yet. If you don't agree with my post, quote specific examples, and share your own personal opinions.

Short little quips without any rationality at all, like accusing people of being of a particular political orientation, is blatant harassment. I'd call it flamebaiting, or at least trolling, at the very least.

I don't think Bush is a totalitarian dictator. America isn't totalitarian. Yet. If you don't agree with my post, quote specific examples, and share your own personal opinions.

A very bad attack.

Yet nothing. It won't be totalitarian.

I will withdraw from this thread. One last thing: i think you people should re-examine your own opinions.

I don't think you can make comparsions of his novel because interpretation is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not trolling.

Comparisons are made constantly. By human beings. Everything is interpreted. By human beings. Unless you haven't noticed how the world works.

If you aren't trolling, why aren't you giving anything constructive? You just use blackwhite constantly. Another example of my post... people using the very ideas defined by Orwell. Here, he talks about comparisons cannot be made because people interpret differently, which is true, but if that occurred, how would the world even function? You have no argument, or point of wisdom, Mesatecala. Just go somewhere else.

You still haven't apologized for harassing me. Yes, it was harassment, by definition. What if I accused you of being a ******-lover out of the blue? Would you particularly like that?

I don't think you can make comparsions of his novel because interpretation is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not trolling.


Ok....Im gonn atry one last time to reason with you, before I ask for moderator assistance.

This thread, by intention of the author, is to compare George Orwell's Novel, "1984" to today's politics.

If you would like to actually debate this idea, please do so....but as of yet..you havent.

All you have done is come here and be disruptive.

So..either debate the issues at hand...or please....just go away.

If you continue being disruptive..Im gonna ask for Mod intervention.

Thanks.

blimey everyone chill out. if you really think mesatecala is trolling (which i dont think he is), dont feed him! i dont like to see threats of running off to the moderators, it makes the forum seem a very nasty place.

blimey everyone chill out. if you really think mesatecala is trolling (which i dont think he is), dont feed him! i dont like to see threats of running off to the moderators, it makes the forum seem a very nasty place.


If this were the first time this week this has happened....I'd have let it go.
Nevertheless, Maybe I got all crazy...

Mea Culpa...Mea maxum culpa.

All he has done is accuse me of various political orientations, and been disruptive. I asked him to provide a point of debate, with no comment. How could you define something like that as not trolling?

I must apologize.

After that thread about homosexuality, my patience got several broken and i'm pretty frustrated with some people on here. I shouldn't of posted in this thread because I didn't have the patience to debate. Just take a look at that other thread... nearly 1,100 posts. Next time, I'll join when I do have the patience and am not frustrated, or angry. I did not mean to take it out on the thread starter or anyone else.

Sorry.

It's been a while since I read the book, but I have.

The main impression I had throughout my read was that people had allowed themselves to be placed in that government. They became sheep, they were not made sheep.

I am a conservative by choice, but I do not believe that anyone should allow their government to take away their rights. Unfortunately, there is a threat to civil liberties in the US. That threat is apathy.

Whatever your feelings and opinion, if you don't vote, don't let it be known and don't act when neccesary, then you are a sheep.

Sheep get patted on the head and sent home comforted by doublespeak to enjoy a nice episode of Alias or Star Trek-The 20th Itteration on FOX.

i define something like that as poor debating, i define trolling as being nasty basically. of course, you probably feel he was being nasty to you, thats fine, but if he was arguing with me, i would try to let it go as much as possible. anyway, dont pay much attention to that part of my post, the main point was we should chill out and start talking about 1984/2005.

It's been a while since I read the book, but I have.

The main impression I had throughout my read was that people had allowed themselves to be placed in that government. They became sheep, they were not made sheep.

I am a conservative by choice, but I do not believe that anyone should allow their government to take away their rights. Unfortunately, there is a threat to civil liberties in the US. That threat is apathy.

Whatever your feelings and opinion, if you don't vote, don't let it be known and don't act when neccesary, then you are a sheep.

Sheep get patted on the head and sent home comforted by doublespeak to enjoy a nice episode of Alias or Star Treck-The 20th Itteration on FOX.

So as a Conservative, I'd like to ask you a couple of things.

1. You say that apathy is responsible for taking away civil liberties, are you suggesting that the current administration is taking advantage of that apathy?

2. As for your comment about sheep recieving a pat, etc.
From whom is this doublespeak coming from, the government?
The media?

Where the hell did you get "1984 + 21 OMGZ!!"? Granted, I don't like Bush much either but the title of your thread is misleading.

The first time I read the book I had "EXAMS" creeping into my mind before anything else. :rolleyes:

I must apologize.

After that thread about homosexuality, my patience got several broken and i'm pretty frustrated with some people on here. I shouldn't of posted in this thread because I didn't have the patience to debate. Just take a look at that other thread... nearly 1,100 posts. Next time, I'll join when I do have the patience and am not frustrated, or angry. I did not mean to take it out on the thread starter or anyone else.

Sorry.

I accept your apology. You're still free to discuss what you don't agree with, though.

Where the hell did you get "1984 + 21 OMGZ!!"? Granted, I don't like Bush much either but the title of your thread is misleading.

1984 is the name of a book. +21 refers to the current year. Feel free to go and check out something called the Public Library.

EDITED: Misleading? Anyone who has ever bothered to read a book by Orwell would know what "1984+21" means.

Quote from Bush:

"It'd be so much easier if this was a dictatorship... as long as I was the dictator, of course"

That's and actuall quote. I'm not making this up.

And I really honestly can't see how people can't see the connection between today and 1984. You can't disarm an argument saying it's biased. It'd be hard to make an un-biased argument, cuz then you wouldn't be arguing for anything. And to say we're just ranting against Bush, when he clearly provided evidence as to WHY we're against Bush...

Ah, and the wonderful topic of civil liberties, or more the lack of them. Disenfranchisement in both elections, the infamous Patriot Act... lemme go into more detail on the patriot act.

There were two versions of the patriot act. The first was opened to congress, and was the one everyone read. This act was generally approved.

Then - and I'm not making this up - the night before congress was to vote on the patriot act, a new act was printed out. and by night I mean 3 in the morning. When they had the vote the next day, nobody had time to read it. It's, what, 700 pages or something.

And now we are seeking to make that permanent...

*sigh*

So as a Conservative, I'd like to ask you a couple of things.

1. You say that apathy is responsible for taking away civil liberties, are you suggesting that the current administration is taking advantage of that apathy?

2. As for your comment about sheep recieving a pat, etc.
From whom is this doublespeak coming from, the government?
The media?

In answer:

1. In a word, yes. I am unhappy with the current administration on many levels. I voted, so I can gripe. I don't like the fact that we are in Iraq. It was not a good choice. Too many details and reasons to go into right here.

1.a. I do believe that the government of the US, whether Dem or Rep in the last few years would much rather the common person know as little as possible about what is really going on so that the agendas of those in power can be pushed through without interference from a constituency. Thus the secrecy, lies and cloak and dagger crap we've seen ever since Reagan was in office.

2. See 1.a. Yes, in many ways the government is the source of much of the doublespeak. From both sides of the Rep/Dem fence.

2.a. I also believe that much of the doublespeak originates from the media. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the media is any one political party's pocket. The media is squarely in the pocket of it's advertisers. Right where it's always been. The goal of Corporate Power is to keep the sheep well fed and uninfomred so that they are happy and buy stuff. Doublespeak is a wonderful tool for that purpose.

As a conservative in the truest sense, I believe in less government, not more. I'm what I would call a true conservative Republican, not a Bush Republican who believes every word that comes out of the White House is Gospel. I can't wait to have the opportunity to vote for someone else in three years.

I'm not against Bush. I'm against the deception of our government to "protect" us by cracking down on our freedoms. Sure, we can go buy an XBOX, or order a webcam online, but you can't travel much without getting dry anal sex by security checkers, your reading material can now be monitored, surveillance is more pervasive than ever before, and people can still be detained without warrants. I think it would be lunacy to say that there's no threat to our society at this moment. I just despise the apathy and doublespeak plenty of people are using, both in real life and online, in saying that "there's nothing to worry about" or "it's good for us", because frankly, it's not good, and it's something to worry about. To eliminate freedom in order to provide security, that's not democracy at all.

I'm not against Bush. I'm against the deception of our government to "protect" us by cracking down on our freedoms. Sure, we can go buy an XBOX, or order a webcam online, but you can't travel much without getting dry anal sex by security checkers, your reading material can now be monitored, surveillance is more pervasive than ever before, and people can still be detained without warrants. I think it would be lunacy to say that there's no threat to our society at this moment. I just despise the apathy and doublespeak plenty of people are using, both in real life and online, in saying that "there's nothing to worry about" or "it's good for us", because frankly, it's not good, and it's something to worry about. To eliminate freedom in order to provide security, that's not democracy at all.

It's a very good way to get power, though... fear is always very convincing.

It's a very good way to get power, though... fear is always very convincing.

It is my guess that this is how he won his 2nd election... :eek:

In answer:

1. In a word, yes. I am unhappy with the current administration on many levels. I voted, so I can gripe. I don't like the fact that we are in Iraq. It was not a good choice. Too many details and reasons to go into right here.

1.a. I do believe that the government of the US, whether Dem or Rep in the last few years would much rather the common person know as little as possible about what is really going on so that the agendas of those in power can be pushed through without interference from a constituency. Thus the secrecy, lies and cloak and dagger crap we've seen ever since Reagan was in office.

2. See 1.a. Yes, in many ways the government is the source of much of the doublespeak. From both sides of the Rep/Dem fence.

2.a. I also believe that much of the doublespeak originates from the media. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the media is any one political party's pocket. The media is squarely in the pocket of it's advertisers. Right where it's always been. The goal of Corporate Power is to keep the sheep well fed and uninfomred so that they are happy and buy stuff. Doublespeak is a wonderful tool for that purpose.

As a conservative in the truest sense, I believe in less government, not more. I'm what I would call a true conservative Republican, not a Bush Republican who believes every word that comes out of the White House is Gospel. I can't wait to have the opportunity to vote for someone else in three years.

Interesting.
So, if a Conservative candidate gets the Republican nomination for 2008, and presumably, only such a candidate will...

Would you vote for that person if there was the likelyhood of a continuation of bush's policies?


So,

It's been a while since I read the book, but I have.

The main impression I had throughout my read was that people had allowed themselves to be placed in that government. They became sheep, they were not made sheep.

I am a conservative by choice, but I do not believe that anyone should allow their government to take away their rights. Unfortunately, there is a threat to civil liberties in the US. That threat is apathy.

Whatever your feelings and opinion, if you don't vote, don't let it be known and don't act when neccesary, then you are a sheep.

Sheep get patted on the head and sent home comforted by doublespeak to enjoy a nice episode of Alias or Star Trek-The 20th Itteration on FOX.

I happen to like "The Next Generation". Captain Picard is a sexy old dude.

It's a very good way to get power, though... fear is always very convincing.

While we're on the topic of power, torturing and brainwashing people happens to be the best form of direct power. But it's wrong. So what is your point? That you're playing devil's advocate for a candidate that utilizes fear to support an unjust system? It's what you're suggesting.

1984 is the name of a book. +21 refers to the current year. Feel free to go and check out something called the Public Library.

EDITED: Misleading? Anyone who has ever bothered to read a book by Orwell would know what "1984+21" means.

The title sounds like Orwell predicted a 1984-style society 21 years after the year his book supposedly takes place. "Did Orwell have it right" would of worked fine, no need to tack some hokey numerical reference on.

I have always voted for the individual rather than the party.

Unfortunately, in the 24 years I've been allowed to vote, it's mostly been the lesser of two evils rather than a man that I'd really like to see in office. Those are usually eliminated by the party caucus before I get to touch them because they aren't able to toe the party line well enough.

If there is a miracle in 2006 and the Reps put forth a candidate that I can agree with, I'll vote for him. As I said, I don't care for much of Bush's policies. I would rather see someone in office who can work with the people instead of over them or around them.

If by some strange happenstance, the Dems can get a person out there that has some common sense and lacks a need to delve into my wallet as soon as elected, that person just might get my vote too.

By the Bye, I'm enjoying our discussions.

The title sounds like Orwell predicted a 1984-style society 21 years after the year his book supposedly takes place. "Did Orwell have it right" would of worked fine, no need to tack some hokey numerical reference on.


Dang dude. Lighten up. I thought it was quite clear what he meant.

Trivia: Orwell used the year 1984 not as a prediction of when the events written about might take place, but because that was the date you get if you transpose the 4 and 8 from 1948, the year the book was written.

Hm. *muffles laughter* (Er, has banner waving "Not meant to be insulting!" or something similar - it's just so hard to express emotions properly on the internet)

Hm. Yes. Read 1985 eons ago, and was intrigued about its society. Personally I felt the greatest kinship with the plebe lady who was singing. Yes, I know that plebe lady is an oxymoron.

And now that I think of it, it is scary that there are so many... similarities(?) between 1985 and today's world. I guess the root of all this could be tracked back to, well, maybe even as far back as the beginning of civilisation. We haven't changed that much really - we've just become more cunning, more powerful and more brutal.

The thing about Orwell's novel is that it only presents one side, one facet of human nature, whereas in the real world, we have to deal with *all* the threads of human nature, and it is quite a difficult task to undertake.

Also, the parts of Orwell's book you quoted could have represented any war-torn era (except the bit about the constant surveillance thing, of course) we have had until now.

I suppose that, tracking back, what started this war was, simply the Americans. Who started it because of the 9/11 incident. And the 9/11 incident was started because of the Muslims. Who started it because... well, I don't know. I'm not some kind of history student. But my guess would be that the Muslims (at least some of them) percieved that the Americans were... how should I put this? doing things that they didn't like. And so on and so on.

And since a war has been started (regardless of whether it was right or wrong) it is necessary to blind certain... kinds of people to the truth so that they will be better able to do the jobs they have to do in order for us as a whole to maintain what power we have. Yes, I know I sound like a propagandaist, or some equally bad... thing. But that's the problem with being able to see too many sides to the equation. You tend to see too many shades if grey. I love being able to doublethink. (Besides, one must be cruel to be kind. And retain power.) The easiest way to blind people is to make them fear. With that, they will cooperate and accept whatever they are fed because they have to believe what the government does is best for them. Have you ever heard of the saying that "A mob is only as intelligent as its stupidest member divided by the number of people in the mob." (which is pretty darn stupid)? Well, I believe that in essence, a country at war is just a damn big mob. You can judge for yourself how stupid a country at war is.

The problem with America is it's lack of consideration for other countries. If you want to play at being God, do so by all means. Just shoulder your responsibilites as well, ok?

P.S: I object to placing Orwell's intentions at all times (i.e. meaning, I don't object to it all the time) into the text when discussing the book. It is not necessary, and also will save me a lot of time that I would have to use for research if we went through the reasons why Orwell wrote 1985.

I have always voted for the individual rather than the party.

Unfortunately, in the 24 years I've been allowed to vote, it's mostly been the lesser of two evils rather than a man that I'd really like to see in office. Those are usually eliminated by the party caucus before I get to touch them because they aren't able to toe the party line well enough.

If there is a miracle in 2006 and the Reps put forth a candidate that I can agree with, I'll vote for him. As I said, I don't care for much of Bush's policies. I would rather see someone in office who can work with the people instead of over them or around them.

If by some strange happenstance, the Dems can get a person out there that has some common sense and lacks a need to delve into my wallet as soon as elected, that person just might get my vote too.

By the Bye, I'm enjoying our discussions.

Too bad that the individual rarely decides all policy. They're all just figureheads.

Too bad that the individual rarely decides all policy. They're all just figureheads.


But they do manage to get ALL the blame, don't they?

I have always voted for the individual rather than the party.

I agree.
Although Liberal,, Im not a Democrat, although I did vote for Kerry last election.
He seemed unwilling to play as dirty as Bush was, but that also made him look like a pussy.
Its why he lost that election.


Unfortunately, in the 24 years I've been allowed to vote, it's mostly been the lesser of two evils rather than a man that I'd really like to see in office. Those are usually eliminated by the party caucus before I get to touch them because they aren't able to toe the party line well enough.

Agreed.
Kerry was not my first choice by any means.
Indeed it was the lesser of two evils in my mind.
While more qualified candidates like Clarke, or McCain didnt get the nod, even though they possessed something the others didnt.
Integrity.



If there is a miracle in 2006 and the Reps put forth a candidate that I can agree with, I'll vote for him. As I said, I don't care for much of Bush's policies. I would rather see someone in office who can work with the people instead of over them or around them.

Sadly, unless McCain gets the nod from the Reps, I dont see them producing that kind of candidate, or even him possibly.
As for the Dems, thier only hope is running someone with a set of balls, and if Hilary is the best they can do.....its business as usual in Washinton until 2012.

If by some strange happenstance, the Dems can get a person out there that has some common sense and lacks a need to delve into my wallet as soon as elected, that person just might get my vote too.

Well...this war is gonna be exspensive, thats for sure, so Im wondering if any candidate at all wont raise taxes.
But I dont think its common sense the Dems are lacking, I think its Testicular Fortitude.
They need to actually DO something instead of whining and allowing Bush to get away with murder.
Literally.



By the Bye, I'm enjoying our discussions.

Me too.

Hm. *muffles laughter* (Er, has banner waving "Not meant to be insulting!" or something similar - it's just so hard to express emotions properly on the internet)

Hm. Yes. Read 1985 eons ago, and was intrigued about its society. Personally I felt the greatest kinship with the plebe lady who was singing. Yes, I know that plebe lady is an oxymoron.

And now that I think of it, it is scary that there are so many... similarities(?) between 1985 and today's world. I guess the root of all this could be tracked back to, well, maybe even as far back as the beginning of civilisation. We haven't changed that much really - we've just become more cunning, more powerful and more brutal.

The thing about Orwell's novel is that it only presents one side, one facet of human nature, whereas in the real world, we have to deal with *all* the threads of human nature, and it is quite a difficult task to undertake.

Also, the parts of Orwell's book you quoted could have represented any war-torn era (except the bit about the constant surveillance thing, of course) we have had until now.

I suppose that, tracking back, what started this war was, simply the Americans. Who started it because of the 9/11 incident. And the 9/11 incident was started because of the Muslims. Who started it because... well, I don't know. I'm not some kind of history student. But my guess would be that the Muslims (at least some of them) percieved that the Americans were... how should I put this? doing things that they didn't like. And so on and so on.

And since a war has been started (regardless of whether it was right or wrong) it is necessary to blind certain... kinds of people to the truth so that they will be better able to do the jobs they have to do in order for us as a whole to maintain what power we have. Yes, I know I sound like a propagandaist, or some equally bad... thing. But that's the problem with being able to see too many sides to the equation. You tend to see too many shades if grey. I love being able to doublethink. (Besides, one must be cruel to be kind. And retain power.) The easiest way to blind people is to make them fear. With that, they will cooperate and accept whatever they are fed because they have to believe what the government does is best for them. Have you ever heard of the saying that "A mob is only as intelligent as its stupidest member divided by the number of people in the mob." (which is pretty darn stupid)? Well, I believe that in essence, a country at war is just a damn big mob. You can judge for yourself how stupid a country at war is.

The problem with America is it's lack of consideration for other countries. If you want to play at being God, do so by all means. Just shoulder your responsibilites as well, ok?

P.S: I object to placing Orwell's intentions at all times (i.e. meaning, I don't object to it all the time) into the text when discussing the book. It is not necessary, and also will save me a lot of time that I would have to use for research if we went through the reasons why Orwell wrote 1985.

First off, when criticizing someone, it's best not to misspell the name of the book in question. It makes me want to bash my head against a sidewalk curb when you can't even type 1984 with a 4. Anyways. I can invoke ambiguous hints about Orwell's intentions, because I know his intentions, because I have read essays written by him explaining why he wrote certain books, and his own political leanings. You haven't, you have no right to argue until you read Orwell's essays for yourself. Feel free to do so, I'm sure Amazon.com has a selection you could find.

But they do manage to get ALL the blame, don't they?

That's the purpose of a figurehead: to provide physical representation of an idea or an order. When the order falters, the figurehead falters.

In response to the original post:

I didn't take the time to read all the posts, but I partially agree. I think we are slipping into the dirrection of a 1984 society, but still have a way to go before we get there and don't think the crazy branch of the conservative party will be in power long enough to reach that point. I think we are pretty much all the way there when it comes to blind patriotism and doublespeak, but the rest of your arguemnt was kind of a stretch. A slight majority seems to be blindly patriotic in the US and almost everyone (liberal and conservative) is delusional. It might surprise you that I agree with you even though I'm a conservative and voted for Bush. Before he was elected we were moving towards a Brave New World type of society.

Does anyone else get the impression that extremist Republicans in the US tend to push us in a 1984 dirrection while extremist Democrates into a Brave New World dirrection?

First off, when criticizing someone, it's best not to misspell the name of the book in question. It makes me want to bash my head against a sidewalk curb when you can't even type 1984 with a 4. Anyways. I can invoke ambiguous hints about Orwell's intentions, because I know his intentions, because I have read essays written by him explaining why he wrote certain books, and his own political leanings. You haven't, you have no right to argue until you read Orwell's essays for yourself. Feel free to do so, I'm sure Amazon.com has a selection you could find.

Sorry, just that I was born in 1985. Slip of the pinky. Why do I have no right to discuss what he wrote without discussing his intentions? What if these essays were lost some time in the future? Does this mean that people who read the essays before they were lost have more right to argue than people who had no time to read the essays before they were lost?

This has been clear to me for some time. Orwell was right.

Sorry, just that I was born in 1985. Slip of the pinky. Why do I have no right to discuss what he wrote without discussing his intentions? What if these essays were lost some time in the future? Does this mean that people who read the essays before they were lost have more right to argue than people who had no time to read the essays before they were lost?

The essays aren't lost because they are still published. You don't have a right to argue with my interpretation of his *expressed* intentions because you have no point of debate, and because you cannot argue with whatever point I have, because I am more informed than you in that department.

Intentions are intentions. I could write a novel now, and have conservatives taking a different outlook, while the left and moderates take their own outlooks on my point. But if I wrote essays on what my point was, the people who read those essays would be most informed of my true point.

It was about the USSR.
No, that was Animal Farm
I just read it; good God, Orwell is amazing

It was about the USSR.
I'm surprised at you Sdaeriji.

"1984 + 21; did Orwell get it right?"

No. But it won't do a bit of good to engage in a point-by-point refutation of what you have so disengenously presented as a "logical" discussion. You, like most leftists, are a master at using half-truths, innuendo, modfied "slippery-slope" arguments, straw men, and outright lies to pillory those with whom you disagree, largely because of their insistence that you are an arrogant elitist enraged that the rest of us don't bow down to you. After all ... how DARE we disagree with our intellectual betters! The very IDEA! Tsk! :D

No. But it won't do a bit of good to engage in a point-by-point refutation of what you have so disengenously presented as a "logical" discussion. You, like most leftists, are a master at using half-truths, innuendo, modfied "slippery-slope" arguments, straw men, and outright lies to pillory those with whom you disagree, largely because of their insistence that you are an arrogant elitist enraged that the rest of us don't bow down to you. After all ... how DARE we disagree with our intellectual betters! The very IDEA! Tsk! :D
I'm...choking....on centrism.... :p

I'm...choking....on centrism.... :p
Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

There is this genius Mike Malloy radio show excerpt dissects Bush's speeches and he shows where Rove uses tactics straight out of 1984. It's rather frightening.

http://www.bushflash.com/media_audio.html

I can't link to the specific clip, so it's the third one from the bottom. I must warn you though, that if you go to the animation section, many are extremely graphic.

A few of Bush's Orwellian quotes:
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-- Dubya steals a line from George Orwell, Washington, D.C., Jun. 18, 2002

"They act out of hatred. We don't seek revenge. We seek justice out of love."
-- And via cruise missile, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Aug. 29, 2002

"We're a peaceful nation and moving along just right and just kind of having a time, and all of a sudden, we get attacked and now we're at war, but we're at war to keep the peace."
-- That sure doesn't make sense, White House, Mar. 13, 2002

I swear, people loose a little of their mind after reading Orwell, it's like their ideology is suddenly shadowed by overwhelming fear of another man's fiction... that fear universally leads to anger and hatred which universally spills out into their perspective of the world and most certainly into their rhetoric. It is unfortunate because fear and hatred always win over a clear mind and reason. You simply can’t beat a fearful and hateful person with reason, there isn't even a point in trying.

Sad really, an ideology of fear from a bloody book. :(

I swear, people loose a little of their mind after reading Orwell, it's like their ideology is suddenly shadowed by overwhelming fear of another man's fiction... that fear universally leads to anger and hatred which universally spills out into their perspective of the world and most certainly into their rhetoric. It is unfortunate because fear and hatred always win over a clear mind and reason. You simply can’t beat a fearful and hateful person with reason, there isn't even a point in trying.

Sad really, an ideology of fear from a bloody book. :(
So in other words, you have no problem living with the proletariats? You'd accept being brainwashed and perpetual war? Some people don't get the same reaction after reading 1984, you know. Karl Rove, for example probably read it and said "Hey! this is a really good idea!"

I don't post often on the forums so I don't know if this would be considered hijacking, forgive if its something like that. I'd just like to share an experience of mine that correlates somewhat to the idea of Orwellian societies in our world...

Recently I lived in Mexico for two weeks building houses in a slum named Anapra just outside of Juarez Mexico (just across the border from El Paso). The things I saw and was taught about Mexico while there reminded of the book 1984. The people I interacted with lived in houses made of cardboard, corrugated steel, and anything else that they could find on the street (which by the way was not paved, cars often get stuck in the sand) They drink water that smells of sewage and has a eerie yellowish tint to it (the group I was with bought bottled purified water). Hundreds of stray oam the streets, and often babies and young children are mauled. Anyways, I hope that gives everyone a clear picture of what its like where I stayed. What I learned from some of the Mexican construction workers, a priest, and some others who lectured to our group is this; the country of Mexico is supposedly controlled by the thirteen richest families living there. The Juarez area is essentially owned by a man named Zaragoza, who as of now is finishing construction of a 10 million dollar mansion on the US side of the border. Among the several milk companies he owns, he is also in control of all the natural gas reserves in Mexico. He is also known for starting Corona beer (I don't know if he still owns it). Zaragoza, along with the other families, controls the people of Juarez and Anapra through their poverty, and the people stayed simply accept this as their way of life.

In 1984 Ingsoc controls the people through the means stated in the first post, especially fear and not letting there be any alternative to the established society. The people of Juarez fear Zaragoza, he has been known to use force to get people out of their houses, and they cannot see past the extreme poverty they are living in...

I'll gladly delete this if Drzhen doesn't think it has much to do with what is being discussed...

Other than that I agree that perhaps our society is being controlled a bit too much by fear.

So in other words, you have no problem living with the proletariats? You'd accept being brainwashed and perpetual war? Some people don't get the same reaction after reading 1984, you know. Karl Rove, for example probably read it and said "Hey! this is a really good idea!"

Perpetual war? Brainwashing? Come on get a little fucking perspective! Back in the old days war lasted decades and took the lives of millions, wars were fought for the personal gain, power, glory, and plunder for one two-bit conqueror and everyone knew it! Wars were fought for prestige, for gold and for the love of bloodshed. Wars were fought so that poets would tell of the deeds of great warrior long after they had died. War was a fact of life; the greatest competition man could hope to engage in, the bloody road to wealth for those with enough backbone to walk it.

Today a four year long stint of skirmishes gets called "perpetual war," today conspiracy theorists are required to get imaginative just to state somebody, somewhere, benefited from it in some way, today a eight year term President (of which there were many, some of whom were worse) gets called a dictator because he is doing something perfectly within his authority to do, not unlike a particular event in the past (namely the Spanish America War and the offshoots), today someone who lives in a state of mind inflicted on him by a piece of fiction gets to call anyone to disagrees with him brainwashed.....

Seriously, pull your head out of your ass; wipe the shit off your face and LOOK AROUND!

Honestly...so many people proclaim Orwell to be a prophecy of doom and compare the present state of the world to be the harbringer of the controlled Big Brother society...like so many sheep really...

If you honestly want to compare the present day United States to Orwell's world and call it totalitarian, you have some serious gaps of credibility. I mean let us be honest here, perpetual war in the War on Terror? In Orwell's time perpetual war meant something along the lines of the First or Second World War where there were hundreds of thousands of casualties each year, total war...if you have any illusions that this present war is Total War, you need a good, swift, kick in the jaw.

The fact is that you are sitting at your computer criticizing the present government with some irrational claims, acting as if it is some totalitarian state that you and a few others alone realize...question of course, if freedom is so lacking, if society is so controlled....how do you explain your ability and right, and the rights of others to criticize the present situation?

Perpetual war? Brainwashing? Come on get a little fucking perspective! Back in the old days war lasted decades and took the lives of millions, wars were fought for the personal gain, power, glory, and plunder for one two-bit conqueror and everyone knew it! Ah, yes, the good old days! We'll soon be there, all you have to do is wait.

Seriously, pull your head out of your ass; wipe the shit off your face and LOOK AROUND!
Ditto to you too, buddy.

Ah, yes, the good old days! We'll soon be there, all you have to do is wait.


Do you realize that the last time we have had Total War was nearly 70 years ago? That was the closest thing to "the good old days" the modern man could ever hope to experience and that generation still has some piss and vinegar in its veins. 1800 casualties... that number wouldn't warrant the bat of an eyelash to an old world general yet it makes a suburban clown who has never experienced strife balk in terror.

The western world was once a bunch of naked fanatics waging war for the sport of it. Today Africa has a sharply striking resemblance to that time, complete with dime-a-dozen warlords and feuds so old no one can remember the reason for fighting. Today the naked Frenchmen and Germanics are the bastion of modern civilization, tomorrow Africa will follow suit.

The world isn't a peaches and cream utopia and it never was, it was always defined by the victors in bloodshed and it will continue to be for quite some time. Ironically this is one of the quietest times in human history but more people are whining about war today then when it was breakfast, lunch, and dinner. :rolleyes:

Think about it.

Do you realize that the last time we have had Total War was nearly 70 years ago? That was the closest thing to "the good old days" the modern man could ever hope to experience and that generation still has some piss and vinegar in its veins. 1800 casualties... that number wouldn't warrant the bat of an eyelash to an old world general yet it makes a suburban clown who has never experienced strife balk in terror.

The western world was once a bunch of naked fanatics waging war for the sport of it. Today Africa has a sharply striking resemblance to that time, complete with dime-a-dozen warlords and feuds so old no one can remember the reason for fighting. Today the naked Frenchmen and Germanics are the bastion of modern civilization, tomorrow Africa will follow suit.

The world isn't a peaches and cream utopia and it never was, it was always defined by the victors in bloodshed and it will continue to be for quite some time. Ironically this is one of the quietest times in human history but more people are whining about war today then when it was breakfast, lunch, and dinner. :rolleyes:

Think about it.

Here Here to that!

Back to the original purpose for this thread.

Doublethink is...to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled each other out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the party was the guardian of democracy.

Democracy by force.
If you invade a country they’ll love you for it.

Those aren't necessarily contradictory. Japan was forced into a democracy that has held strong for 60 years.
Texans loved that America invaded so they could secede from Mexico.
Sound like oxymorons, but in this crazy world they're certainly possible.
Chapter 9
The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in mid-sentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax.

In this section a speaker addressing a large crowd has announced that Oceania was not at war with Eurasia and never had been Oceania was at war with Eastasia and it had always been so. The fluidity and ease of the switch and the acceptance of it as fact is mirrored by the way the Coalition switched from attacking Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. In March 2002 GWB said “I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." The emphasis on the war had switched, OBL was obsolete, there was little value in pursuing him further, with Saddam Hussein now the target the ground was being set for the war a year later and many people accepted this new situation.
Fact of the matter is even if we catch Osama it wouldn't stop the terrorists. Capturing him won't end the conflict. And we still have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. It's hardly forgotton.

Boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one's own side and not the enemy, meritorious.

Fortunately we don’t know that things have gone quite this far in Guantanamo or Abu-Ghraib, however as the Washington Post put it “Did senior officials order torture? We know of two relevant cases so far. One was Mr. Rumsfeld's December 2002 authorization of the use of techniques including hooding, nudity, stress positions, "fear of dogs" and physical contact with prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay base. A second was the distribution in September 2003 by the office of the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, of an interrogation policy that included these techniques as well as others, among them sleep and dietary manipulation. In both cases lawyers inside the military objected that the policies would lead to violations of international law, including the convention banning torture. Both were eventually modified, but not before they were used for the handling of prisoners. In the case of the Abu Ghraib prison, the policy apparently remained in effect for months.” If similar tactics were used against US prisoners we can be sure of the backlash, but these methods were acceptable and even ‘meritorious’ to the US for use on its own prisoners as it was an aid in getting information out of prisoners. Many "patriots" would say that the suspected terrorists deserve no legal rights, that their possible torture, and mistreatment at least, was more than they deserved. Meritorious, indeed.
Hooding isn't torture. Nudity isn't torture. Uncomfortable positions aren't torture. Barking, snarling dogs aren't torture. Sleep deprivation isn't torture. Sensory deprivation isn't torture. There have been no condoned acts of torture against captured terrorists. When soldiers have crossed the line the military catches on and punishes them largely before the media even catches wind of it.

To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed.

To say Saddam has WMD when he doesn’t. To forget that you gave them to him, and then call upon them as justification for war. To ignore treaties on torture when they don’t support your goals. To use a UN resolution as justification for war whilst simultaneously ignoring the will of the UN.
You ignore that American, British, French, German, Russian, and UN intelligence all agreed Saddam had WMDs. The world thought he had them hidden, and, thus, the UN inspectors. This was Intelligence failure, not lies.

Most of the rest of your supposed 1984/present day correlations are based on the administration building unjustified fear in the population to retain power. You see unjustified fear; I see long overdue realization of a ruthless, immoral enemy.

Just read 1984 for the first time in a few years, made some notes as I went along of some of the similarities we might find in the world today. Your thoughts, and suggestions are most welcome (provided they aren't rude :) )


The more the Party is powerful the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism.

Well documented- well done.

I don't post often on the forums so I don't know if this would be considered hijacking, forgive if its something like that. I'd just like to share an experience of mine that correlates somewhat to the idea of Orwellian societies in our world...

Recently I lived in Mexico for two weeks building houses in a slum named Anapra just outside of Juarez Mexico (just across the border from El Paso). The things I saw and was taught about Mexico while there reminded of the book 1984. The people I interacted with lived in houses made of cardboard, corrugated steel, and anything else that they could find on the street (which by the way was not paved, cars often get stuck in the sand) They drink water that smells of sewage and has a eerie yellowish tint to it (the group I was with bought bottled purified water). Hundreds of stray oam the streets, and often babies and young children are mauled. Anyways, I hope that gives everyone a clear picture of what its like where I stayed. What I learned from some of the Mexican construction workers, a priest, and some others who lectured to our group is this; the country of Mexico is supposedly controlled by the thirteen richest families living there. The Juarez area is essentially owned by a man named Zaragoza, who as of now is finishing construction of a 10 million dollar mansion on the US side of the border. Among the several milk companies he owns, he is also in control of all the natural gas reserves in Mexico. He is also known for starting Corona beer (I don't know if he still owns it). Zaragoza, along with the other families, controls the people of Juarez and Anapra through their poverty, and the people stayed simply accept this as their way of life.

In 1984 Ingsoc controls the people through the means stated in the first post, especially fear and not letting there be any alternative to the established society. The people of Juarez fear Zaragoza, he has been known to use force to get people out of their houses, and they cannot see past the extreme poverty they are living in...

I'll gladly delete this if Drzhen doesn't think it has much to do with what is being discussed...

Other than that I agree that perhaps our society is being controlled a bit too much by fear.

You're discussing how your personal experiences of living in a povery-striken area correllate to 1984 society. At least you're providing something constructive.

Honestly...so many people proclaim Orwell to be a prophecy of doom and compare the present state of the world to be the harbringer of the controlled Big Brother society...like so many sheep really...

If you honestly want to compare the present day United States to Orwell's world and call it totalitarian, you have some serious gaps of credibility. I mean let us be honest here, perpetual war in the War on Terror? In Orwell's time perpetual war meant something along the lines of the First or Second World War where there were hundreds of thousands of casualties each year, total war...if you have any illusions that this present war is Total War, you need a good, swift, kick in the jaw.

The fact is that you are sitting at your computer criticizing the present government with some irrational claims, acting as if it is some totalitarian state that you and a few others alone realize...question of course, if freedom is so lacking, if society is so controlled....how do you explain your ability and right, and the rights of others to criticize the present situation?

No. Orwell did not. In fact, the perpetual war Orwell wrote about involved "very little fighting besides sporadic skirmishes" in very small, remote areas, involving only small groups of specialists. The war was a sham. The war was really just a war against the citizens, to keep them in line. The hundreds of thousands, or millions, that did die or disappear did so because the Thought Police or their foreign counterparts chose to take away certain citizens. I never said America was totalitarian yet. I have never said Bush was a dictator. Bush has a term limit, I hardly call that dictatorial.

No. Orwell did not. In fact, the perpetual war Orwell wrote about involved "very little fighting besides sporadic skirmishes" in very small, remote areas, involving only small groups of specialists. The war was a sham. The war was really just a war against the citizens, to keep them in line. The hundreds of thousands, or millions, that did die or disappear did so because the Thought Police or their foreign counterparts chose to take away certain citizens. I never said America was totalitarian yet. I have never said Bush was a dictator. Bush has a term limit, I hardly call that dictatorial.

Then stop complaining, the next time your side wins an election, I assume the Big Brother arguement ceases to be from you? 1984 is in essence science fiction. For a society such as that to develop would be a near-impossibility in a modern democratic nation with a tradition of freedom, value of human rights, virtues, etc. If there were some vast right-wing/left-wing attempt to seize control, could one not count on significant members of the right or left, whichever was attempting a takeover, to join the opposition and resist tooth and nail? Also being the civilian population in the US is an "armed society" one could imagine a ghastly bloodbath at any totalitarian takeover...

Fact of the matter is even if we catch Osama it wouldn't stop the terrorists. Capturing him won't end the conflict. And we still have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. It's hardly forgotton.Only 20,000? There should be 500,000.

You ignore that American, British, French, German, Russian, and UN intelligence all agreed Saddam had WMDs. The world thought he had them hidden, and, thus, the UN inspectors. This was Intelligence failure, not lies.Excuse me. France, Germany and I believe Russia too, all of them including most nations in the UN expressed their disbelief in the existance of WMD's in Iraq. The inspections supported this belief and they where extremely effective in dissarming Iraq despite Saddam's lack of cooperation at times.
That's why the PNAC and the Bush administration wanted war instead of inspections. They wanted to have an enemy to fight. They wanted a conflict. They needed reason to justify invasion. They did everything from associating 9/11 to Iraq (the 9-11 comission proved otherwise) and lying about WMD's.

Scott Ritter chief UN inspector and former US Marine resigned becuase he wasn't willing to swallow the lies and disshonesty, coming from the whitehouse.

Just like Robin Cooke has stated. Basing policy on evidence is one thing. Fixing and consciously manipulating evidence to support existing policy is another.

When will people get it? In a democracy you elect the dictator, and in a dictatorship the dictator elects himself.

When will people get it? In a democracy you elect the dictator, and in a dictatorship the dictator elects himself.In 2000 the US supreme court elected the dictator.

*is loser*
i haven't finished it yet...

Then stop complaining, the next time your side wins an election, I assume the Big Brother arguement ceases to be from you? 1984 is in essence science fiction. For a society such as that to develop would be a near-impossibility in a modern democratic nation with a tradition of freedom, value of human rights, virtues, etc. If there were some vast right-wing/left-wing attempt to seize control, could one not count on significant members of the right or left, whichever was attempting a takeover, to join the opposition and resist tooth and nail? Also being the civilian population in the US is an "armed society" one could imagine a ghastly bloodbath at any totalitarian takeover...

The "Big Brother" argument stops when politicians decide to stop using blackwhite and doublethink, which may never stop. I belong to no side. I'm relatively moderate. And I'm concerned about the future of my country, because I plan on living here for the next half a century or so.

A vast takeover would definitely not involve physical force in America. Such an attempt would be suicidal. I do support the right for non-criminals in America to bear arms... it provides a challenge to any armed takeover attempt, because most citizens would be able to use force back.

Back to the original purpose for this thread.

Those aren't necessarily contradictory. Japan was forced into a democracy that has held strong for 60 years.
Texans loved that America invaded so they could secede from Mexico.
Sound like oxymorons, but in this crazy world they're certainly possible.

What is the definition of 'Contradictory' in your dictionary? The fact of the matter is that Japan did not choose to be a Democracy, and choice is a fairly big part of democracy if you didn't know.

This really is all about choice. The Japanese government (or rather; those with the power) had used their (God given) choice to surpress other in their society in order to maintain control. Then a thrid party used their (God given) choice to create an imbalance of power so that those that were having their choice to revolt surpressed, could be given a different option. As the option they had preivously was 'rebel and risk being met by the state with an intention to kill you'. Not a nice choice but it still is one.

However, this third party by reissueing some of the power back in favour of the surpressed people of Japan, are in fact themselves surpressing the (God given) choice made by those with the power in Japan. The Japanese previously in power are now met with the choice 'rebel and risk being met by the states with an intention to kill you'.

Everyone seems to using their (God given) choice to the full extent other people choose to let them. But the right course of action is not to repress those that are repressing others, as two wrongs don't make a right............ they make 'the right'.

Fact of the matter is even if we catch Osama it wouldn't stop the terrorists. Capturing him won't end the conflict. And we still have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. It's hardly forgotton.

No, but it will put a stop to the millions of $/£/€ that he retains and that could potentially be used for "terror", as President Bush would say. But then the Bin Laden family's money has always been welcome in the U.S. markets and Osama's funds run through them much of the time anyway. We can't upset family friends of the Bushs'.

As for those 20k of troops, thats not really many at all and I've even heard it's just 10k. There is supposively 34k in Kuwait, or so Time Magazine says anyway.


Hooding isn't torture. Nudity isn't torture. Uncomfortable positions aren't torture. Barking, snarling dogs aren't torture. Sleep deprivation isn't torture. Sensory deprivation isn't torture. There have been no condoned acts of torture against captured terrorists. When soldiers have crossed the line the military catches on and punishes them largely before the media even catches wind of it.

Torture isn't soemthing that can only be defined in a book or through some legislation. If your claustrophobic then yes "hooding" would be torture. If a Muslim is focred to be naked infront of the opposite sex, as far as i understand that is of embarrasment and the cause of great shame. Psychological attacks are very real and the consequences can be just as dire as physical ones.

In the end what torture is 'Something causing severe pain or anguish'. If you had an immensely high pain threshhold then what is torture for you is again, relative to you own thoughts and feelings. Only argueing for the right I expect you find it hard to relate to somone else's perception of torture.


You ignore that American, British, French, German, Russian, and UN intelligence all agreed Saddam had WMDs. The world thought he had them hidden, and, thus, the UN inspectors. This was Intelligence failure, not lies.

UN intelligence? You mean Hans Blix? You mean that guy who was but a month away from confirming (if his countless expections previous weren't enough) Saddam's distinct lack of the (U.S/British) military equipment? ..........Ohhh ok, so you're are exaggerating to uphold your own truth.

Look, the actual answer is so clear and it's actually hidden in your text; "The world thought he had them hidden". Right, so there was no evidence to support just an opinion. The mere fact that they were hidden means that nobody had any idea (intelligence) to suggest where they might be. It was pure Neo-con logic of 'If there's no evidence to support it, there's probably no evidence to refute it'. Any time you ask for evidence of these weapons you get the same spiel about the fact that they are hidden and if they weren't hidden then there would be no need for the military force to find them.

Most of the rest of your supposed 1984/present day correlations are based on the administration building unjustified fear in the population to retain power. You see unjustified fear; I see long overdue realization of a ruthless, immoral enemy.

What you just said here sounds like a child saying to his parent "I'm so glad that you are starting to believe me about the monster in my closet".

Back to the original purpose for this thread.

Those aren't necessarily contradictory. Japan was forced into a democracy that has held strong for 60 years.
Texans loved that America invaded so they could secede from Mexico.
Sound like oxymorons, but in this crazy world they're certainly possible.

Japan was militarily defeated, and unconditionally surrendered. There were no acts of terrorism, not a single one, against American troops. They accepted us, they accepted their defeat, and they grew up, and learned a little more about life. Kudos to Hirohito.

Fact of the matter is even if we catch Osama it wouldn't stop the terrorists. Capturing him won't end the conflict. And we still have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. It's hardly forgotton.

Fact of the matter, there is no fact of the matter. Of course if we "captured" him, the conflict wouldn't end. From a standpoint of American imperialism, we need this pseudo-war in order to remain globally dominant. China is coming to power.

Hooding isn't torture. Nudity isn't torture. Uncomfortable positions aren't torture. Barking, snarling dogs aren't torture. Sleep deprivation isn't torture. Sensory deprivation isn't torture. There have been no condoned acts of torture against captured terrorists. When soldiers have crossed the line the military catches on and punishes them largely before the media even catches wind of it.

CIA operatives in Italy kidnapped a prominent anti-Semetic religious leader, shipped him to Egypt where he could be tortured, and are now on trial in Italy.

I think it's pretty hard to say that there hasn't been acts of torture committed. I don't watch the military and all its actions, I have no clue what other things occur. Sleep deprivation is a form of torture. Nudity, hooding, sensory deprivation is a form of humiliation and control, which is a form of torture. The use of dogs is a form of torture. And physically abusing prisoners, putting them on leashes, doing sexual acts to them, is torture. It sounds like whatever our military does, you'll agree with, despite whatever happens.

You ignore that American, British, French, German, Russian, and UN intelligence all agreed Saddam had WMDs. The world thought he had them hidden, and, thus, the UN inspectors. This was Intelligence failure, not lies.

They did not. They said, that they had serious doubts of any WMDs in Iraq. It was deliberate deception to justify war. Nothing more, nothing less.

Most of the rest of your supposed 1984/present day correlations are based on the administration building unjustified fear in the population to retain power. You see unjustified fear; I see long overdue realization of a ruthless, immoral enemy.

All the more power to you. Death to the enemy, death, death, death! We should stamp these immoral, ruthless people out, by carpet bombing those evil, immoral civilians, and mistreat prisoners of war! We should put the former dictator of Iraq on showtrial, and give them what they deserve! Only ruthlessness will make their ruthlessness wither away and die! Dumbass.

"Hans Bwix? Oh no!"

"Hello, Mr. Kim."

"Oh hi Hans, so good to see you again!"

I love that scene.

"Hans Bwix? Oh no!"

"Hello, Mr. Kim."

"Oh hi Hans, so good to see you again!"

I love that scene.


And theres me feeling 'So wonewy'.

I love all those scenes..... Fuck Yea!

And theres me feeling 'So wonewy'.

I love all those scenes..... Fuck Yea!

:) It's just so funny when Kim Jong Il talks, and gets upset with Hans Blix. Much of the movie disappointed me though, it wasn't THAT funny. But Jong Il was pretty fucking funny.

"You like that Hans Bwix?? There's your weapons of mass destruction you buttfucking piece of shit!"

:) It's just so funny when Kim Jong Il talks, and gets upset with Hans Blix. Much of the movie disappointed me though, it wasn't THAT funny. But Jong Il was pretty fucking funny.

"You like that Hans Bwix?? There's your weapons of mass destruction you buttfucking piece of shit!"

You know, after watching that propoganda video a while ago I seriously doubt that movie hit far from the mark with Kim.

:) It's just so funny when Kim Jong Il talks, and gets upset with Hans Blix. Much of the movie disappointed me though, it wasn't THAT funny. But Jong Il was pretty fucking funny.

"You like that Hans Bwix?? There's your weapons of mass destruction you buttfucking piece of shit!"

Durhka? Yea, suppose I was a little disappointed but the sentiment was certainly there. I thought the music was the best thing, cracked me up, especially that one about that horrible film 'Pearl Habour'.

I think it's pretty hard to say that there hasn't been acts of torture committed. I don't watch the military and all its actions, I have no clue what other things occur. Sleep deprivation is a form of torture. Nudity, hooding, sensory deprivation is a form of humiliation and control, which is a form of torture. The use of dogs is a form of torture. And physically abusing prisoners, putting them on leashes, doing sexual acts to them, is torture. It sounds like whatever our military does, you'll agree with, despite whatever happens.
Sergeant: "Sir, the guests in condo 7 have gone on a hunger strike!"

Captain: "Oh, shit! Have the press heard about this yet? What about Amnesty International? What about Ted Kennedy??"

Sergeant: "I don't know, Sir. But we really need to do something. The guests are setting fire to their Posturepedic mattresses and threatening to burn copies of the Q'uran and say we did it if we don't acceed to their demands!"

Captain: "OMG! If the media get ahold of this every one of us will be on trial for the next thousand years! What do they want?"

Sergeant:"Sir, there's quite a long list. Their head Mullah handed it to me just a few moments ago."

Captain: "Damn! Just look at this list! No more off-brand toilet paper in the johns, no more forgetting the Hollandaise Sauce for the baby asparagus, all prayer cloths must be made of either silk or satin, no more AOL broadband because Time/Warner is faster, no more vacuming or sweeping or dusting unless the minimum pay goes up to at least $15.00 per hour ...! Sergeant, this would cost the American taxpayers a fortune!"

Sergeant: "I'm sure it would, Sir, but you remember what the last Congressional inspection delegation said."

Captain: [ shudders ] "Yes, yes. Well, I'll have to pass this on to the General with a recommendtion for approval of the entire list after dinner. What's the chow hall serving us for dinner tonight, by the way?"

Sergeant: "Looks like pinnapple upside down beans again, Sir. The cooks tell me that support has had to cut back on the rations again."

Captain: [ sighs heavily ] "And then they wonder why more people don't want to join!"

Sergeant: "Sir, the guests in condo 7 have gone on a hunger strike!"

Captain: "Oh, shit! Have the press heard about this yet? What about Amnesty International? What about Ted Kennedy??"

Sergeant: "I don't know, Sir. But we really need to do something. The guests are setting fire to their Posturepedic mattresses and threatening to burn copies of the Q'uran and say we did it if we don't acceed to their demands!"

Captain: "OMG! If the media get ahold of this every one of us will be on trial for the next thousand years! What do they want?"

Sergeant:"Sir, there's quite a long list. Their head Mullah handed it to me just a few moments ago."

Captain: "Damn! Just look at this list! No more off-brand toilet paper in the johns, no more forgetting the Hollandaise Sauce for the baby asparagus, all prayer cloths must be made of either silk or satin, no more AOL broadband because Time/Warner is faster, no more vacuming or sweeping or dusting unless the minimum pay goes up to at least $15.00 per hour ...! Sergeant, this would cost the American taxpayers a fortune!"

Sergeant: "I'm sure it would, Sir, but you remember what the last Congressional inspection delegation said."

Captain: [ shudders ] "Yes, yes. Well, I'll have to pass this on to the General with a recommendtion for approval of the entire list after dinner. What's the chow hall serving us for dinner tonight, by the way?"

Sergeant: "Looks like pinnapple upside down beans again, Sir. The cooks tell me that support has had to cut back on the rations again."

Captain: [ sighs heavily ] "And then they wonder why more people don't want to join!"

I don't find this particularly amusing, I find it childish. I see your signature, you're a war veteran? I don't care. You go off to fight a war for your oligarchs, and if you die, that's your own problem.

So, your point is that I think prisoners should be treated like citizens? Or is it just rhetorical smart-assness from someone who thinks that just because they were allowed to shoot other human beings they're somehow morally superior?

[Drill Instructor]: What is 'stupid', maggot?

[Cadet]: Stupid is as stupid does, sir!

I don't find this particularly amusing, I find it childish. I see your signature, you're a war veteran? I don't care. You go off to fight a war for your oligarchs, and if you die, that's your own problem.

So, your point is that I think prisoners should be treated like citizens? Or is it just rhetorical smart-assness from someone who thinks that just because they were allowed to shoot other human beings they're somehow morally superior?

[Drill Instructor]: What is 'stupid', maggot?

[Cadet]: Stupid is as stupid does, sir!
Awwww! Poor BABY! Take a couple of chill pills and kick back, dude. :D

Awwww! Poor BABY! Take a couple of chill pills and kick back, dude. :D

So, how are you being remotely constructive? You had nothing to add, nothing to take away, and nothing to gain. Despite having 12,000 posts, I have to say you're trolling.

So, how are you being remotely constructive? You had nothing to add, nothing to take away, and nothing to gain. Despite having 12,000 posts, I have to say you're trolling.
Say whatever you like, dude. It's a free country. :)

I used to sortof respect you as a well-minded conservative, and I don't like much conservatives. Now you come across as just plain rude. I create a thread for intellectual debate, and you try and insult me with metaphorical lines. I'm asking you to stop.

I used to sortof respect you as a well-minded conservative, and I don't like much conservatives. Now you come across as just plain rude. I create a thread for intellectual debate, and you try and insult me with metaphorical lines. I'm asking you to stop.
Ok. I won't post in your thread anymore. Happy now? :)

Then stop complaining, the next time your side wins an election, I assume the Big Brother arguement ceases to be from you?
This to me is a big part of the problem. As it happens my 'side' is in government, none the less I do not see that having my 'side' in government is worth the price of my and my children's freedom. This is not the friggen Superbowl at stake, this is our lives and our future and our children's future at stake!

1984 is in essence science fiction.
That is correct, Orwell chose to deliver his message through the medium of science fiction. People often use entertainment genres to deliver their message because it's a good way to engage an audience and most of them are clever enough to read between the lines, of course this assumes they are not so wrapped up in whether or not their team wins the Superbowl...oops sorry, I mean their preferred party wins the election, that they deliberately ignore the message and take to throwing strawmen at those who point it out.

For a society such as that to develop would be a near-impossibility in a modern democratic nation with a tradition of freedom, value of human rights, virtues, etc.
Why?

If there were some vast right-wing/left-wing attempt to seize control, could one not count on significant members of the right or left, whichever was attempting a takeover, to join the opposition and resist tooth and nail? Also being the civilian population in the US is an "armed society" one could imagine a ghastly bloodbath at any totalitarian takeover...
Er no, it simply happens by increments, people become less and less able to think critically about the messages they recieve (ie it was pretty darn obvious to anyone who thought objectively about it that there were no significant WMD in Iraq, and that Iraq most certainly could not launch a nuke in 45 minutes, yet people actually swallowed this crap on two sides of the Atlantic, educated, clever people at that), people come to expect their politicians to lie and even congradulate them for it (evidence of this can be found in this forum), people accept greater and greater intrusions into their privacy (for instance the monitoring of what books they borrow from the library), people become more tolerent of civil liberties being removed and previously accepted minimum standards of justice being eroded (for instance law enforcement officials taking people into custody and holding them without charge for long periods of time, without notifying their families, or allowing them access to proper legal representation).

What surprises me is someone could do this to your democracy and not cease to be considered (by you) as on your 'side'. Is having your 'side' in government really worth sacrificing the freedom of future generations? What gives this generation the right to squander away the freedoms of future generations, earned for us by past generations?

This to me is a big part of the problem. As it happens my 'side' is in government, none the less I do not see that having my 'side' in government is worth the price of my and my children's freedom. This is not the friggen Superbowl at stake, this is our lives and our future and our children's future at stake!


That is correct, Orwell chose to deliver his message through the medium of science fiction. People often use entertainment genres to deliver their message because it's a good way to engage an audience and most of them are clever enough to read between the lines, of course this assumes they are not so wrapped up in whether or not their team wins the Superbowl...oops sorry, I mean their preferred party wins the election, that they deliberately ignore the message and take to throwing strawmen at those who point it out.


Why?


Er no, it simply happens by increments, people become less and less able to think critically about the messages they recieve (ie it was pretty darn obvious to anyone who thought objectively about it that there were no significant WMD in Iraq, and that Iraq most certainly could not launch a nuke in 45 minutes, yet people actually swallowed this crap on two sides of the Atlantic, educated, clever people at that), people come to expect their politicians to lie and even congradulate them for it (evidence of this can be found in this forum), people accept greater and greater intrusions into their privacy (for instance the monitoring of what books they borrow from the library), people become more tolerent of civil liberties being removed and previously accepted minimum standards of justice being eroded (for instance law enforcement officials taking people into custody and holding them without charge for long periods of time, without notifying their families, or allowing them access to proper legal representation).

What surprises me is someone could do this to your democracy and not cease to be considered (by you) as on your 'side'. Is having your 'side' in government really worth sacrificing the freedom of future generations? What gives this generation the right to squander away the freedoms of future generations, earned for us by past generations?

Well said. At least you didn't put forth some ridiculous slanted rant.

Yes, there are correlations between 1984 and today's real world. There are also correlations between 1984 and practically all other time periods in history, because the dangers Orwell was warning his readers about -- the tendency of citizens to accept what their government tells them at face value, and the tendency of governments to use fear to control citizens -- have existed throughout history. The fact that these dangers remain to this day does not mean that America is in danger of becoming a totalitarian police state.

So chill out.

In 2000 the US supreme court elected the dictator.

They say that if you repeat a falsehood enough times it becomes a truth, but somehow that still hasn't happened with this one. Thanks for playing, though.

Yes, there are correlations between 1984 and today's real world. There are also correlations between 1984 and practically all other time periods in history, because the dangers Orwell was warning his readers about -- the tendency of citizens to accept what their government tells them at face value, and the tendency of governments to use fear to control citizens -- have existed throughout history. The fact that these dangers remain to this day does not mean that America is in danger of becoming a totalitarian police state.

So chill out.

Of course there are. However, your attempt to trivialize government omnipotence doesn't exactly fit too well with how I'm viewing you right now. I'm assuming this message is directed at myself. America is certainly in the danger of transforming slowly into a totalitarian state if the people remain apathetic and don't wake up from their lethargy.

There's no magical force that will protect America, my friend. America has every potential of becoming more repressive and intolerant. Preserving traditions of the Enlightenment has to come from the willingness of the populace to fiercely defend their freedom. If they don't, then the oligarchs win.

They say that if you repeat a falsehood enough times it becomes a truth, but somehow that still hasn't happened with this one. Thanks for playing, though.

Perhaps dictator wasn't the best choice of a word he could have used. But the facts remain, the Supreme Court elected Bush. Not the populace. And that was his point.

You know it's 1984 when the school is using CENSORED copies of the book for lit and the locals still protest on the grounds that it is not only unpatriotic but immoral to read such a work...

Just so you know, I found myself an uncensored copy and read it in one sitting. It was fantastic. I've never read anything like it...

It's just so true.

It makes Fox News look like the enemy. And I wanna work for them someday.

Then stop complaining, the next time your side wins an election, I assume the Big Brother arguement ceases to be from you? 1984 is in essence science fiction. For a society such as that to develop would be a near-impossibility in a modern democratic nation with a tradition of freedom, value of human rights, virtues, etc. If there were some vast right-wing/left-wing attempt to seize control, could one not count on significant members of the right or left, whichever was attempting a takeover, to join the opposition and resist tooth and nail? Also being the civilian population in the US is an "armed society" one could imagine a ghastly bloodbath at any totalitarian takeover...


To reitterate what I stated last night in this thread:

The governmental style depicted in 1984 is entirely plausible and possible only if those governed allow themselves to be governed so.

At the risk of being oversimplistic and consequently criticized by subsequent readers, I'll say the following:

The government of the United States could become a totalitarian dictatorship tomorrow if enough people refused to believe it was happening right in front of their eyes. All it will take is for any one man or organization to have enough control of the media outlets. Enough citizens believe whatever they see on TV is the only truth that control of that truth is a valuable weapon to be used against us.

I'm scared.

Of course there are. However, your attempt to trivialize government omnipotence doesn't exactly fit too well with how I'm viewing you right now. I'm assuming this message is directed at myself. America is certainly in the danger of transforming slowly into a totalitarian state if the people remain apathetic and don't wake up from their lethargy.

There's no magical force that will protect America, my friend. America has every potential of becoming more repressive and intolerant. Preserving traditions of the Enlightenment has to come from the willingness of the populace to fiercely defend their freedom. If they don't, then the oligarchs win.

The message was directed more at those who would seek to apply Orwell's message specifically to one President or one party, and from your other posts in this thread, I'd assume you're not one of those. And you won't find many people less enamored of big, powerful government than me. I just think you're overstating your case when you talk about "government omnipotence." We're going through a relatively oppressive period in American history (though once again I don't believe it's as bad as the Democrats would like us to think it is), but I think history shows the American people can only be pushed so far before they realize how much ground they've given and start pushing back.

Perhaps dictator wasn't the best choice of a word he could have used. But the facts remain, the Supreme Court elected Bush. Not the populace. And that was his point.

Hey, if I learned anything the first hundred times I had this discussion, it's that if you honestly don't believe Bush won Florida, there's no point in me trying to convince you otherwise.

The government of the United States could become a totalitarian dictatorship tomorrow if enough people refused to believe it was happening right in front of their eyes. All it will take is for any one man or organization to have enough control of the media outlets. Enough citizens believe whatever they see on TV is the only truth that control of that truth is a valuable weapon to be used against us.

I'm scared.


Be scared. Propaganda is a powerful weapon...

Sometimes more powerful than the gun.

Trust me. I know these things. :D

Trust me. I know these things. :D


I always get scared when someone says "trust me." That is usually followed by a sharp pain somewhere.... :headbang:

The government of the United States could become a totalitarian dictatorship tomorrow if enough people refused to believe it was happening right in front of their eyes.

That's a very big if.

I always get scared when someone says "trust me." That is usually followed by a sharp pain somewhere....


As it should be.

The message was directed more at those who would seek to apply Orwell's message specifically to one President or one party, and from your other posts in this thread, I'd assume you're not one of those. And you won't find many people less enamored of big, powerful government than me. I just think you're overstating your case when you talk about "government omnipotence." We're going through a relatively oppressive period in American history (though once again I don't believe it's as bad as the Democrats would like us to think it is), but I think history shows the American people can only be pushed so far before they realize how much ground they've given and start pushing back.



Hey, if I learned anything the first hundred times I had this discussion, it's that if you honestly don't believe Bush won Florida, there's no point in me trying to convince you otherwise.

Certainly, Americans would fight back. If they became conscious of a threat to their freedom. I'm not a conservative or a Republican, but I support the right to bear arms, as long as you aren't a violent criminal. I'm not a liberal or a Democrat, but I think the government has a responsibility to provide you with health care, the same way you have a responsibility to pay tax, the cost of civilization. I'm not a communist, but I think that America's gap between rich and poor is staggering.

I invoked "government omnipotence" to respond to your message.

What makes you think Bush won the vote in Florida? As far as we know, before the voting was halted by the Supreme Court, Gore had a lead. Perhaps Bush had more. But that would just be speculation. And I don't think I'm biased on that. I'm being completely rational.

That's a very big if.

True, it is a slim possibility that enough people can be fooled by the media. But it is a real possibility nonetheless.

Acutally, I'm more concerned that the US is going the way of the Roman Empire. We have all the earmarks of the latter part of that era. Free bread for the masses, those in power more interested in remaining in power than actually governing, circusses to keep the smallfolk entertained while those in power do whatever they please. ETC.

Interesting point.... (Rightwingetc.)

America's got enough good intentions shoved up our collective ass to pave the road to hell.

Actually, some claim we have.

True, it is a slim possibility that enough people can be fooled by the media. But it is a real possibility nonetheless.

Acutally, I'm more concerned that the US is going the way of the Roman Empire. We have all the earmarks of the latter part of that era. Free bread for the masses, those in power more interested in remaining in power than actually governing, circusses to keep the smallfolk entertained while those in power do whatever they please. ETC.

I happen to agree with you there on the Roman Empire bit. And I happen to dislike most right-wingers. Anyhoo. I think we are certainly imperialistic. But I think that in the process of losing whatever democratic institutions we will end up losing, we will gain totalitarian elements in the process. I don't think we will become Oceania. I think we will become an American Empire. And, like all empires, eventually collapse.

I happen to agree with you there on the Roman Empire bit. And I happen to dislike most right-wingers. Anyhoo. I think we are certainly imperialistic. But I think that in the process of losing whatever democratic institutions we will end up losing, we will gain totalitarian elements in the process. I don't think we will become Oceania. I think we will become an American Empire. And, like all empires, eventually collapse.

Nah, we won't become an empire through that process. The world is due for another set of Dark Ages. When society as we know it collapses, then totalitarianism will rise in this part of the world.

I invoked "government omnipotence" to respond to your message.

I understand that, but why? I think we've had some kind of miscommunication here.

What makes you think Bush won the vote in Florida? As far as we know, before the voting was halted by the Supreme Court, Gore had a lead. Perhaps Bush had more. But that would just be speculation. And I don't think I'm biased on that. I'm being completely rational.

Whoa... voting halted by the Supreme Court? There was a recount stopped by the Supreme Court (after the first recount showed a win for Bush).

America, just in the sense that it is a great society, if not literally, is an empire. It will eventually collapse. It is inevitable. That's just how things work.

I'd say we're past the glory days. The turning point in American history was when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

Ironically, helping to defeat Fascism and expansionism in WWII was probably our greatest achievement--

But because of what we (thought) we had to do, we're now simultaneously loved and hated by the rest of the world.

Are we the liberators? Are we the defenders of freedom?

Or just the people for whom the ends always justify the means?

The War in Iraq is our greatest test yet--

Because in the eyes of the world, this question will be answered.

If we succeed in taking the nation of Iraq and converting it into a stable, democratic country, we are the liberators and defenders of freedom;

But if we fail, and our campaign in Iraq is a failure, or if we end up in even more conflicts over these issues/against 'terrorist'-allied nations, we are the people for whom the ends always justify the means--

Because we'll drop the bomb again, and everybody knows it.

How does this apply to what was said about 1984?

Maybe someday the enemy really is a threat and not just suicidal.

Maybe someday nukes are the only way to win.

And maybe propaganda's the way to convince the people it's necessary.

I understand that, but why? I think we've had some kind of miscommunication here.



Whoa... voting halted by the Supreme Court? There was a recount stopped by the Supreme Court (after the first recount showed a win for Bush).

The first vote was tainted by tens of thousands of black voters whose votes mysteriously didn't register in the total. I typoed on "voting", I meant to say "voting count".

True, it is a slim possibility that enough people can be fooled by the media. But it is a real possibility nonetheless.

Acutally, I'm more concerned that the US is going the way of the Roman Empire. We have all the earmarks of the latter part of that era. Free bread for the masses, those in power more interested in remaining in power than actually governing, circusses to keep the smallfolk entertained while those in power do whatever they please. ETC.

Not a bad comparison, although once again some of these have been pretty common throughout history.

I happen to agree with you there on the Roman Empire bit. And I happen to dislike most right-wingers. Anyhoo. I think we are certainly imperialistic. But I think that in the process of losing whatever democratic institutions we will end up losing, we will gain totalitarian elements in the process. I don't think we will become Oceania. I think we will become an American Empire. And, like all empires, eventually collapse.


I didn't so much intend to refer to the US as being or becoming an empire. What I meant was that what we already have could collapse much as the Roman Empire did, mainly from within due to mismanagement and weakness in the population.

The first vote was tainted by tens of thousands of black voters whose votes mysteriously didn't register in the total. I typoed on "voting", I meant to say "voting count".

Tens of thousands? Do you have a reputable source for that?

Tens of thousands? Do you have a reputable source for that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3960679.stm
not necessarily blacks, but a large amount nonetheless.

I also remember hearing about a black man who was ineligable to vote because he had commited a felony back in 2007. Or so his records showed.

EDIT: I assume we're talking about 2000, because Ohio had some issues in 2004.

EDIT: I assume we're talking about 2000, because Ohio had some issues in 2004.

We are, but your link refers to the 2004 election.

C'mon! Somebody adventurous, read my last post! Take me on! I'm hungry to debate with somebody who doesn't necessarily agree with me. Groupthink is starting to irritate me.

*Reads your last post*.

America, just in the sense that it is a great society, if not literally, is an empire. It will eventually collapse. It is inevitable. That's just how things work.

I agree. All systems eventually fail. Not because they are weak, but simply because everything reverts into simpler component forms. It's a fact of life.

I'd say we're past the glory days. The turning point in American history was when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

Ironically, helping to defeat Fascism and expansionism in WWII was probably our greatest achievement--

We are certainly past the glory days. It seems nowdays that we triumph over defeating third world nations. That in itself seems pathetic to me. I think the atomic bomb ushered in the modern age, just not being a turning point merely in American history. It affected the world, and the entire course of history.

I'd agree with the defeat of fascism. But it wasn't just us. The Soviets fought most of the war in terms of manpower, materiel, and casualties. If the Allies hadn't invaded Italy and France, continental Europe would have fallen behind an even more massive Iron Curtain. The glory of the Second World War grudgingly belongs to the Soviet Union, hands down.

But because of what we (thought) we had to do, we're now simultaneously loved and hated by the rest of the world.

Are we the liberators? Are we the defenders of freedom?

Or just the people for whom the ends always justify the means?

Many prominent American leaders signed the document known as something like the New American Century, or some bullshit like that, basically being a document declaring our new state of imperialism, and the need of the world to accept American domination, it's just about that blatant, literally (Google search "New American Century). That's certainly something that makes us hated, with good reason. We were loved until we refused to give combat a rest in Vietnam. World opinion then began to go downhill, to the pitiful level today.

We both liberate and conquer, set free, and set dependent upon us.

With America, nowdays, with a doctrine of pre-emptive war, we have basically embraced the idea that the ends justify the means in that respect.

The War in Iraq is our greatest test yet--

Because in the eyes of the world, this question will be answered.

If we succeed in taking the nation of Iraq and converting it into a stable, democratic country, we are the liberators and defenders of freedom;

But if we fail, and our campaign in Iraq is a failure, or if we end up in even more conflicts over these issues/against 'terrorist'-allied nations, we are the people for whom the ends always justify the means--

The whole "war" we are in is our greatest test yet, as a nation. As long as American troops remain in Iraq, the violence will continue. Our cause for war was unjust, and casualties of war are something we deserve. We killed Iraqi civilians, now American troops shall in turn pay a price. It's war. An unjust war. But it happened. And I wish the best to the troops, and I honestly wonder how Bush and Karl Rove can sleep soundly at night, knowing what terrible things they have done.

On another note, I have seen some comments by obviously Republicans, that even Japan had democracy forced upon it. Same with Germany, and Italy. Only catch is that there was not a single incident of post-war violence against American troops in Japan, and in Germany, there were only a few cases, which mostly ended within a year or so. In Italy, the same can be said. Iraq is a bloodbath compared to the occupation of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan.

Because we'll drop the bomb again, and everybody knows it.

How does this apply to what was said about 1984?

Maybe someday the enemy really is a threat and not just suicidal.

Maybe someday nukes are the only way to win.

And maybe propaganda's the way to convince the people it's necessary.

"Tactical" nuclear weapons have been authorized by the administration. There's no reason to assume that they have not been used in Iraq so far against former Iraqi military installations or troop concentrations. There are now even neutron bombs.

Nuclear weapons aren't the way to win.

And propaganda is simply slanted and biased. If lies and extreme exaggeration is required to convince people of something, they deserve to wallow in their own shit.

Pre-emptive disclaimer--this is not, I repeat, NOT a muslim bashing note.




On another note, I have seen some comments by obviously Republicans, that even Japan had democracy forced upon it. Same with Germany, and Italy. Only catch is that there was not a single incident of post-war violence against American troops in Japan, and in Germany, there were only a few cases, which mostly ended within a year or so. In Italy, the same can be said. Iraq is a bloodbath compared to the occupation of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan.



At the end of WWII there did not exist a literally world wide religious organization that was capable of sending hundreds or thousands of militant, suicidal insurgents into any of the defeated axis countries in order to disrupt the Allies attempts at reconstruction. That is the difference between then and now.

Pre-emptive disclaimer--this is not, I repeat, NOT a muslim bashing note.

Why be so insecure as to worry about anonymous people thinking you're anti-Muslim just because your post mentions militant [Islam]? Don't worry about that shit. Just say your mind and ignore the need for disclaimers.

At the end of WWII there did not exist a literally world wide religious organization that was capable of sending hundreds or thousands of militant, suicidal insurgents into any of the defeated axis countries in order to disrupt the Allies attempts at reconstruction. That is the difference between then and now.

If Al Qaeda does exist, I don't think it is a religious organization, it would be a terrorist one. The leader of Al Qaeda isn't a prophet or a mullah. And you have to stop and think about their situation, why would people possibly send themselves to kill foreign invaders, and be willing to sacrifice themselves in the process? 1. They have nothing to lose; 2. the invading American troops came to Iraq on false justification.

On yet another note, at the end of WWII, there wasn't an available army to invade Iraq through threats and lies. We were too busy encircling communism.

Oh, and one more thing. The forces in Iraq that are currently trying to occupy the country aren't any sort of Allied force. Most of the world, through the UN, condemned the invasion, and we went in, with a few thousand troops from places like Poland and Japan and Nicaragua, which really don't even count as "real" countries when it comes down to military power. And their troops never took part in the offensive war, they came in as support troops. And countries listed in our "coalition of the willing", like Palau and Costa Rica, don't even have standing armies.

*sigh* It is quite disturbing. I have read 1984 a numerous amount of times and have noticed many of the points you made but had over looked several others.

That the American "empire" may fade away one day is not the end of the world, collapse of the roman empire, or anything that drastic (although it could be.) The sun never set upon the mighty British empire, but Britain had to give up its empire. It didn't fall off the face of the world. In fact European countries are better off not having to sink all that money into colonies (as well as morally better off for not being imperialists.) We went to Vietnam in order to create a "democracy" in South Vietnam and make it really great (so no one would want to be a communist.) We failed in our paternalistic goal. But America didn't fall off the earth. And American influence (barring some major disaster) doesn't seem to be on the decline either.

I'm not against Bush. I'm against the deception of our government to "protect" us by cracking down on our freedoms. Sure, we can go buy an XBOX, or order a webcam online, but you can't travel much without getting dry anal sex by security checkers, your reading material can now be monitored, surveillance is more pervasive than ever before, and people can still be detained without warrants. I think it would be lunacy to say that there's no threat to our society at this moment. I just despise the apathy and doublespeak plenty of people are using, both in real life and online, in saying that "there's nothing to worry about" or "it's good for us", because frankly, it's not good, and it's something to worry about. To eliminate freedom in order to provide security, that's not democracy at all.

Anyone who would trade liberty for safety deserves neither. Paraphrasing one Ben Franklin.

Most of the rest of your supposed 1984/present day correlations are based on the administration building unjustified fear in the population to retain power. You see unjustified fear; I see long overdue realization of a ruthless, immoral enemy.

You forget that, to them, we are the ruthless and immoral enemy... So, chew on that for a moment.

*sigh* It is quite disturbing. I have read 1984 a numerous amount of times and have noticed many of the points you made but had over looked several others.




true.....

Anyone who would trade liberty for safety deserves neither. Paraphrasing one Ben Franklin.

Knowing your post was simply flammatory, I still feel a need to put you in your place. For one, you haven't paraphrased Benjamin Franklin, so you can't say I've "plagarized" him. And I can quote whoever the hell I want. Go back to Nazi Germany.

Why be so insecure as to worry about anonymous people thinking you're anti-Muslim just because your post mentions militant [Islam]? Don't worry about that shit. Just say your mind and ignore the need for disclaimers.



If Al Qaeda does exist, I don't think it is a religious organization, it would be a terrorist one. The leader of Al Qaeda isn't a prophet or a mullah. And you have to stop and think about their situation, why would people possibly send themselves to kill foreign invaders, and be willing to sacrifice themselves in the process? 1. They have nothing to lose; 2. the invading American troops came to Iraq on false justification.

On yet another note, at the end of WWII, there wasn't an available army to invade Iraq through threats and lies. We were too busy encircling communism.

Oh, and one more thing. The forces in Iraq that are currently trying to occupy the country aren't any sort of Allied force. Most of the world, through the UN, condemned the invasion, and we went in, with a few thousand troops from places like Poland and Japan and Nicaragua, which really don't even count as "real" countries when it comes down to military power. And their troops never took part in the offensive war, they came in as support troops. And countries listed in our "coalition of the willing", like Palau and Costa Rica, don't even have standing armies.

I'm not really worried about others perceptions, I just wanted it clear that I wasn't hate mongering.

Anyway, my statement was not an attempt at justification of the invasion of Iraq (I've posted that I'm against it, was against it and always will call it a blunder). What I was referring to was the fact that you called Iraq more of a bloodbath than the occupation of the former axis powers. The axis powers were utterly devastated, just as Iraq has been following the invasion. The axis powers were in need of rebuilding, just as Iraq now is. The difference is that now we have a situation where even the people who are honestly there to assist in reconstruction and not just the occupational forces are at serious risk from extremists (who fight in the name of a religion, whatever their leadership), and not just radical extremists from the occupied country, but imported, highly motivated killers. They would rather kill 20 civilians to get at one infidel who happens to be in country to help rebuild the water supply than see the problem get fixed.

I blame the leadership of my country for the present mess's origins, but I get very frustrated at the world blaming the United States for the sad fact that now more civilians get killed by radical extremist murderers bent on chaos than ever got killed by stray bullets from the guns of American soldiers.

Has anyone considered that maybe Goldstein is in fact the leader of Oceania? It seems perfectly ridiculous considering the storyline in 1984 is so vehemently opposed to the "traitor". But, the Party is supposed to be evil. It seeks power for the sake of power, and it does so because as a collective entity, it feels that Man by himself could eventually become greater than he is now, and establish greater means of equality and justice. The Party is opposed to these ideals, because they take away absolute power. Besides, Goldstein couldn't hide in a world like 1984, if he's on the damn telescreens each morning. Perhaps the Thought Police captured and killed him, but it would have made him a MARTYR, something the Party would never dare do. In fact, the reason why there is a Chestnut Tree Cafe in the world of 1984 is to put former deviants on subtle public display. Yes, Goldstein was a necessary function for Oceania to survive. But it seems more fitting to the interests of the Party to use its own secret leader, Goldstein, as a way for the masses to express their repressed hate and anger, while those in the "know" despise society for being so dull and stupid. It's just a theory. And besides, the entire book seemed to indicate that there was no real Resistance, or that if it did, it was comprised completely of Thought Police agents that trapped thoughtcriminals by handing out the copies of "Goldstein's" book.

Now I'm going to have to re-read the book. I need a refresher.

So many books, so little time.

I guess I could give up the internet......

Now I'm going to have to re-read the book. I need a refresher.

So many books, so little time.

I guess I could give up the internet......

1984 free online copy. (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/)

Just read 1984 for the first time in a few years, made some notes as I went along of some of the similarities we might find in the world today. Your thoughts, and suggestions are most welcome (provided they aren't rude :) )




Well, evidently it doesn't work so well since you're so smart and wise and perceptive. :p Seriously, though, George Orwell was a very smart man and he was very perceptive about how people can be manipulated. I notice you didn't mention telescreens, but we have them too: Televisions and internet connections are in every house and are left on almost constantly. And I'd be very surprised if those system files and broadband folder contents with long incomprehensible names which can't be opened by any program allow the CIA to read the contents of your computer.

That said, it's absolutely true that Islam is a backward, disadvantageous (to people who follow it), and hostile (to everyone who doesn't follow it) religion. I know. I've lived in Muslim countries (Indonesia and Malaysia), I of all people would know.

Well, evidently it doesn't work so well since you're so smart and wise and perceptive. :p Seriously, though, George Orwell was a very smart man and he was very perceptive about how people can be manipulated. I notice you didn't mention telescreens, but we have them too: Televisions and internet connections are in every house and are left on almost constantly. And I'd be very surprised if those system files and broadband folder contents with long incomprehensible names which can't be opened by any program allow the CIA to read the contents of your computer.

That said, it's absolutely true that Islam is a backward, disadvantageous (to people who follow it), and hostile (to everyone who doesn't follow it) religion. I know. I've lived in Muslim countries (Indonesia and Malaysia), I of all people would know.

Telescreens are pretty obvious. The manuscript of 1984 which was published posthumously included a section in the book concerning inter-continental communication between multiple individuals across Oceania, "internet". Why Orwell crossed it out and didn't include it in the book, I have no idea.

Curious thought/hypothesis: If there was a major terrorist strike in the USA in September/October 2008, because of which the elections were postponed indefinantly ("until the situation settles/resolves etc" or because one of the 2 candidates at that time died in the terror attack), would this mean Bush was a dictator?

(Making the assumption that the attack is clearly identified as a terrorist not aligned with any faction backing one side or the other, and there is documented physical impartial proof of this (or just very well faked proof :-) ))

If not, then why not, and when would it?, if so then why is this much different to the current situation (until the election)?

Curious thought/hypothesis: If there was a major terrorist strike in the USA in September/October 2008, because of which the elections were postponed indefinantly ("until the situation settles/resolves etc" or because one of the 2 candidates at that time died in the terror attack), would this mean Bush was a dictator?

(Making the assumption that the attack is clearly identified as a terrorist not aligned with any faction backing one side or the other, and there is documented physical impartial proof of this (or just very well faked proof :-) ))

If not, then why not, and when would it?, if so then why is this much different to the current situation (until the election)?
What a very strange and convoluted question. Elections cannot be "postponed indefinitely." Your hypothetical situation bears no resemblance whatsoever to "the current situation," which is one where there has been a constitutionally elected President who is serving out his period of office.

This entire post of yours is a thinly disguised attempt to somehow "prove" that President Bush is a dictator, which he is not. Nice try, but you lose.

Small sidenote, Orwell's telescreens aren't something new or flashy, he took the concept of being watched daily from a Russian novel called 'We' written in the twenties. The people in that dystopian book live in houses made of glass, so they can be watched by the state 24/7. Orwell used this idea and combined it with the recent developments in television and media.

not so. I do not think he is a dictator, and i currently accept what he is doing as the rights of the US president. However at uni on Friday a collegue asked my opinion of him if that did happen. My response was i would consider it an irrecovocable (sp) step down the path to a BB society as what is done once can be done again and for longer periods.

(the original question posed to me was a 2 week delay on the election.)

Because of this i thought i would post it to the general NS community to see their thoughts.

(...)There's a lot of difference between an ordinary tin pot dictatorship ran by some president going wild or an Orwellian society.

PS: Eutrusca, your post bears a very aggressive undertone.

There's a lot of difference between an ordinary tin pot dictatorship ran by some president going wild or an Orwellian society.

PS: Eutrusca, your post bears a very aggressive undertone.

Most right-wingers are.

I'd say that from what I know about North Korea, it seems pretty Orwellian if I was to go and live there myself. I was watching a documentary a couple years ago, about North Korea, where a few people were allowed to document North Korean life, and interview several North Korean families. The radio that is in every home cannot be turned off, and the lowest volume it can be set to is a whisper. There's basically two channels: Party propaganda, or military march music. Television is basically the same. As with much of the rest of their entire society.

bump?

bump?

I challenge thee to a du-el!

What a very strange and convoluted question. Elections cannot be "postponed indefinitely." Your hypothetical situation bears no resemblance whatsoever to "the current situation," which is one where there has been a constitutionally elected President who is serving out his period of office.

This entire post of yours is a thinly disguised attempt to somehow "prove" that President Bush is a dictator, which he is not. Nice try, but you lose.


Bush isnt a dictator, but you must admit silmilarites can be drawn between one, and Bush.

What makes a dictator?

A ruler of a country, that rules single-handedly, or is aided only by few.
One who does not consult a parliament, or Congress in decision making.
Onew who forces his nation into an unpopular, and unprovoked military conflict?

One who makes policy, and appoints subordinates without consulting the people, or even the people chosen representatives?

Sounds like Bush to me, and even you cant deny that.
Is he a dictator, no not as of yet....but hes not far from one, now is he?

It was about the USSR.

That's right, it was all about the USSR. 1984 is just a kind of numerical anagram for 1948, George Orwell's time.
Orwell had a great grudge against Stalin and the Soviets. Stalin was responsible for killing several of his friends and he was determined to bring him down. George Orwell wasn't even his real name.

Orwell's 1984 is a satire of Soviet Russia. Of this there is little doubt. The moustachioed 'Big Brother' is clearly intended to be Stalin. The character of Goldstein is a stand in for Trotsky - a founder of the regime who fled and was used as an excuse by the regime to purge the population. Orwell was an enormous critic of Stalinist Russia because he believed that socialism had been completely subverted by Stalin. The novel is an attack on the Soviet Union.

However Orwell's book is one that resonates on many levels. It is not just a satire of communism government or a satire of totalitarian government but a satire of all governments as all governments share some characteristics. Consider the work of the Ministry of Truth and then consider the modern political art of spin doctoring. There is perhaps not a great deal of difference. This is why the orginal poster was able to find so many parallels from the book when compared to modern America.

However Orwell's book is one that resonates on many levels. It is not just a satire of communism government or a satire of totalitarian government but a satire of all governments as all governments share some characteristics. Consider the work of the Ministry of Truth and then consider the modern political art of spin doctoring...

Dammit, it's the Office of Strategic Initiatives. Get it right!

[EDIT] Oh, you meant the actual 1984.

Orwell's 1984 is a satire of Soviet Russia. Of this there is little doubt. The moustachioed 'Big Brother' is clearly intended to be Stalin. The character of Goldstein is a stand in for Trotsky - a founder of the regime who fled and was used as an excuse by the regime to purge the population. Orwell was an enormous critic of Stalinist Russia because he believed that socialism had been completely subverted by Stalin. The novel is an attack on the Soviet Union.

However Orwell's book is one that resonates on many levels. It is not just a satire of communism government or a satire of totalitarian government but a satire of all governments as all governments share some characteristics. Consider the work of the Ministry of Truth and then consider the modern political art of spin doctoring. There is perhaps not a great deal of difference. This is why the orginal poster was able to find so many parallels from the book when compared to modern America.

1984 was a satire on totalitarianism. Several elements were borrowed from the affairs of the day in the Soviet Union, such as the "lean, jewish face" of Goldstein, and definitely the picture of a mustachioed Big Brother. But it's complete idiocy to say it is JUST about the Soviet Union. It was NOT just about the USSR, and I'm glad you tried to elaborate on that. 1984 meant all of us, too.

Dammit, it's the Office of Strategic Initiatives. Get it right!

[EDIT] Oh, you meant the actual 1984.

:p

Too scared to read the book. Don't need to be reminded how messed up this world is.

having read the book again last night -thanks whoever put up the online copy :-) i have to state my position as unchanged, withholding judgement until the next election.

I prefer Fahrenheit 451 for future predictions. Most of that stuff has actually come true, at least.