NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently read the book 1984, and was frightened by some of the parallels that can be made with the US.

Telescreens are telling us what to think, and we are being monitored (although not yet widespread). We are told to believe in perpetual wars that we will one day "win" and the only way to support them is by use of doublethink. We even have doubleplusgood duckspeakers here in the forums, like this guy, http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501676 .

I'm kind of scared. :(

BTW- This is my first post :), though I have read these forums for a little while. Hello everyone.

I recently read the book 1984, and was frightened by some of the parallels that can be made with the US.

Telescreens are telling us what to think, and we are being monitored (although not yet widespread). We are told to believe in perpetual wars that we will one day "win" and the only way to support them is by use of doublethink. We even have doubleplusgood duckspeakers here in the forums, like this guy, http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501676 .

I'm kind of scared. :(

BTW- This is my first post :), though I have read these forums for a little while. Hello everyone.

Hello :D
Nice first post.
I like you already.
(proceeds to gore and trash your arguement by being the devils advocate.)

you elect your leaders. 1984 didnt.
there is nowhere on earth that america is parrellel in power to, ergo the whole system of 1984 is different.
George bush as big brother would result in the fastest mass-emmigration ever recorded, faster than a tramp with a meal ticket.
(feels dirty)

Although there are some parrallels.
Like theres an ultra-conservative in charge.

Hee,hee I remember starting a thread on this same topic when I first read 1984, if I remember right I think that might have been the first thread I ever started. {wanders off thinking about past general discusions}

you elect your leaders. 1984 didnt.

True, although the election process is a total sham. There are only two parties with a chance to be elected, and they aren't very different... ones just worse than the other. We don't reallly have a choice on what our country does, at all, anyway. A president can say one thing and do another and it is considered normal.


there is nowhere on earth that america is parrellel in power to, ergo the whole system of 1984 is different.

It is headed there, in the same way 1984 was. The UK sides with the US and becomes Oceania, the EU absorbs more around it and becomes Eurasia, and China absorbs around it and becomes Eastasia. I'm not saying in our lifetimes, but it can happen. Nuclear war would make it so.

You call that a first post? No gun smilies or animated emoticons of any kind, a high level of literacy with no "text speak" or 1337 and a considered point.

Newbies of today, eh?

Anyway, hello ;)

But yes, it is somewhat concerning. I wonder if Tony Blair realises that 1984 was meant, in part, as a criticism of English Socialism rather than as its ambition. Of course, calling Tony Blair a socialist with a straight face is an achievement in itself...

You call that a first post? No gun smilies or animated emoticons of any kind, a high level of literacy with no "text speak" or 1337 and a considered point.

Newbies of today, eh?

Anyway, hello ;)

But yes, it is somewhat concerning. I wonder if Tony Blair realises that 1984 was meant, in part, as a criticism of English Socialism rather than as its ambition. Of course, calling Tony Blair a socialist with a straight face is an achievement in itself...

I can do it.
He is a socialist.
...
I think i swallowed my tongue

You call that a first post? No gun smilies or animated emoticons of any kind, a high level of literacy with no "text speak" or 1337 and a considered point.

Newbies of today, eh?


Haha, thanks, i guess. :D

The problem is this - in 1984, people were so madly in love with Big Brother that it didn't matter if he told them to eat toadstools; they would effing do it. Here, if Dubya told us to eat toadstools, only stupid people would do it. Frankly, I hope he does tell us to eat toadstools (just as a direction, not as a binding law) so that the people who do eat them go insane.

1984 is also obviously set around what appears to be a Communist government. It's a metaphor for Stalinism; the Big Brother figure is designed after Stalin, and the arch-nemesis of Big Brother is designed after Trotsky. One of the government ministries was in charge of all the means of production. Ministries gave themselves names that generally reflected the opposite of what they did (just like the infamous Soviet newspaper "Pravda," meaning "Truth," which spewed propaganda.) It also sought to change people's ways of doing things and erase the past, hence the introduction of Newspeak and the fact that the government wanted people to use "Comrade" to address one another.

One thing it also frowned upon was the family ("it" being the Big Brother government.) Marx advocated the abolition of the family; Big Brother took it to the extreme that party members should procreate solely for the party, not for themselves (even going so far as to advocate artificial insemination rather than natural procreation as a means of abolishing sex in the Party. Until that point, sex among party members was solely to procreate for the Party and for no other reason.)

A revolution like the one that occurred in 1984 is virtually impossible in the U.S. We're too damn stubborn and set in our ways to go for it.

Right. There are as many parallels between 1984 and the US as there are between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union.

sigh. For the 1000th time. Despite what the far left keeps screaming The United States of America is not 1984 nor Nazi Germany. To state as much is pure ignorance. The United States is a free Republic and it along with its people do not want war. But the US does not fear war either if it must to protect its freedoms, and its people.

Although there are some parrallels.
Like theres an ultra-conservative in charge.

To be fair to conservatives, the IngSoc Party, as a revolutionary organisation that made the paradigm shift between viewing power as a means and viewing it is a pure goal, could hardly be called conservative.

I recently read the book 1984, and was frightened by some of the parallels that can be made with the US.

Telescreens are telling us what to think, and we are being monitored (although not yet widespread). We are told to believe in perpetual wars that we will one day "win" and the only way to support them is by use of doublethink. We even have doubleplusgood duckspeakers here in the forums, like this guy, http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501676 .

I'm kind of scared. :(

BTW- This is my first post :), though I have read these forums for a little while. Hello everyone.

While I think you're being more than a bit alarmist, this is a good first post. You don't gun smiley, and while you do use smilies, you use them as their intended purpose was, to convey emotion. Welcome to the forums, we need more literate and non-whacko individuals here.

sigh. For the 1000th time. Despite what the far left keeps screaming The United States of America is not 1984 nor Nazi Germany. To state as much is pure ignorance. The United States is a free Republic and it along with its people do not want war. But the US does not fear war either if it must to protect its freedoms, and its people.

Too bad the US goes to war and doesn't accomplish any protection of Freedom or of its people.

sigh. For the 1000th time. Despite what the far left keeps screaming The United States of America is not 1984 nor Nazi Germany. To state as much is pure ignorance. The United States is a free Republic and it along with its people do not want war. But the US does not fear war either if it must to protect its freedoms, and its people.

He didn't say that the US is a perfect parallel to 1984, he stated that there were certain parallels with 1984, which there most certainly are. However, most of the parallels present are prevalent in most political systems. People are rather natural inclined to believe propaganda and other such ideas.

Also, although we are a Republic, the same can technically said about Oceania. The people technically are free to do as they wish in Oceania as well-as long as they don't go against the rules of the Government. Same works here.

One can state parallels with with something else without saying that one is something else.

2 resembles 20 but is not twenty. That sort of thing.

True, although the election process is a total sham. There are only two parties with a chance to be elected, and they aren't very different... ones just worse than the other. We don't reallly have a choice on what our country does, at all, anyway. A president can say one thing and do another and it is considered normal.


It is headed there, in the same way 1984 was. The UK sides with the US and becomes Oceania, the EU absorbs more around it and becomes Eurasia, and China absorbs around it and becomes Eastasia. I'm not saying in our lifetimes, but it can happen. Nuclear war would make it so.


you have to ask yourself, do you truly see a dystopian future in your midst? Or are you coming to your Orwellian conclusions because you do not like Bush and his politics? He will be gone in 2 years.

i agree with you on the 2 party system being a problem...but try telling a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer that the two parties are basically the same. There are a number of "hot button" issues which separate the parties.

the election is not a sham. it has its flaws, but it has kept this country functioning for around 230 years now. some would say the 2 party system actually keeps the country moderate and centrist because the politicians try to appeal to as many people as they can to keep their jobs. Even Bush, who you may see as an "arch-conservative" has a rather liberal view on immigration, domestic spending and setting up federal programs/bureaucracies such as TSA and HSD.

you have to ask yourself, do you truly see a dystopian future in your midst? Or are you coming to your Orwellian conclusions because you do not like Bush and his politics? He will be gone in 2 years.

i agree with you on the 2 party system being a problem...but try telling a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer that the two parties are basically the same. There are a number of "hot button" issues which separate the parties.

the election is not a sham. it has its flaws, but it has kept this country functioning for around 230 years now. some would say the 2 party system actually keeps the country moderate and centrist because the politicians try to appeal to as many people as they can to keep their jobs. Even Bush, who you may see as an "arch-conservative" has a rather liberal view on immigration, domestic spending and setting up federal programs/bureaucracies such as TSA and HSD.


Well, you must also ask yourself are those "hot-button" issues really distinctive of either party. Being pro-life does not instantly make a person Republican, as there at least some Republicans in Congress who are pro-choice. Infact, there are many Pro-Life Democrats. Moral issues as such do not define party lines. The two parties are not to terribly different from one another. There ARE a few key difference, but the two are pretty much the same on almost all issues. The only "differences" are merely at face value-those which are publicized, but not truly indictive of the party, which are brought forward due primarily from propaganda from the party, and party supporters.

Also, the election is pretty much a sham. First off, the electoral college is broken. One doesn't need to get the most public votes to win(I'm not talking about the 2000 hair thin difference in popular vote, but a greater difference), and the fact is a person have a large majority of the popular vote, and still lose the election. Why? The electoral college does not accurately portray how states vote. I would vastly prefer that states proportionalize their electoral votes, reflecting accurately how the states, and people, vote. Not only would this cause greater meaning to each person's vote(Face it-if you're a Dem in Texas, your vote Doesn't matter, nor a Republican in California/New York), but it would also make candidates care a bit more for the small states. No more would the focus be solely on the large states, as there wouldn't be the winner-take-all mentality.

Also, Electoral delegates do not need to vote how they're states voted.

For instance, in Minnesota there were, as I recall, 13 electoral votes last election. Now, Minnesota generally goes democrat. Now, if one of the people who is sent to cast his/her vote decides to use it to go Republican other than Democrat, there is NOTHING barring them from doing so. This happened A LOT in the early days, with delegates voting however they pleased, completely ignoring how the people voted. Fair? No. Hardly.

230 years, believe it or not, is NOT a long time for a country. Compared to many other countries, we are teenagers. Nobody knows where the future will go, and to say that it has "worked till now" is not good-some things need changing to become better. China had an Emporer for thousands of years, and it stayed afloat in that state, not only surviving but flourishing and thriving, and from your statement, that would make that system far better than ours. I mean, they flourished for thousands of years. We only have for a couple hundred.

Second, the two-party system is absolutely terrible. In the past, there have usually been several parties, perhaps two or three more prevalent, but there were still many which had some influence. Today, there are virtually no parties other than the big two, something which has not occurred since the formatino of the United States(however that two-party system was far different, as the two parties actually were quite different from one another and completely different ideals). The only thing the current two-party system is doing is dividing party lines, and setting up a system where NOTHING gets done, as neither party is willing to work with each other because doing so would be "betraying" party lines.

And Bush is most certainly not Conservative. Neo-Con? Perhaps. Conservative? Hell no. Just look at his administration's massive spending to realize why.

Well, you must also ask yourself are those "hot-button" issues really distinctive of either party. Being pro-life does not instantly make a person Republican, as there at least some Republicans in Congress who are pro-choice. Infact, there are many Pro-Life Democrats. Moral issues as such do not define party lines. The two parties are not to terribly different from one another. There ARE a few key difference, but the two are pretty much the same on almost all issues. The only "differences" are merely at face value-those which are publicized, but not truly indictive of the party, which are brought forward due primarily from propaganda from the party, and party supporters.

Also, the election is pretty much a sham. First off, the electoral college is broken. One doesn't need to get the most public votes to win(I'm not talking about the 2000 hair thin difference in popular vote, but a greater difference), and the fact is a person have a large majority of the popular vote, and still lose the election. Why? The electoral college does not accurately portray how states vote. I would vastly prefer that states proportionalize their electoral votes, reflecting accurately how the states, and people, vote. Not only would this cause greater meaning to each person's vote(Face it-if you're a Dem in Texas, your vote Doesn't matter, nor a Republican in California/New York), but it would also make candidates care a bit more for the small states. No more would the focus be solely on the large states, as there wouldn't be the winner-take-all mentality.

Also, Electoral delegates do not need to vote how they're states voted.

For instance, in Minnesota there were, as I recall, 13 electoral votes last election. Now, Minnesota generally goes democrat. Now, if one of the people who is sent to cast his/her vote decides to use it to go Republican other than Democrat, there is NOTHING barring them from doing so. This happened A LOT in the early days, with delegates voting however they pleased, completely ignoring how the people voted. Fair? No. Hardly.

230 years, believe it or not, is NOT a long time for a country. Compared to many other countries, we are teenagers. Nobody knows where the future will go, and to say that it has "worked till now" is not good-some things need changing to become better. China had an Emporer for thousands of years, and it stayed afloat in that state, not only surviving but flourishing and thriving, and from your statement, that would make that system far better than ours. I mean, they flourished for thousands of years. We only have for a couple hundred.

Second, the two-party system is absolutely terrible. In the past, there have usually been several parties, perhaps two or three more prevalent, but there were still many which had some influence. Today, there are virtually no parties other than the big two, something which has not occurred since the formatino of the United States(however that two-party system was far different, as the two parties actually were quite different from one another and completely different ideals). The only thing the current two-party system is doing is dividing party lines, and setting up a system where NOTHING gets done, as neither party is willing to work with each other because doing so would be "betraying" party lines.

And Bush is most certainly not Conservative. Neo-Con? Perhaps. Conservative? Hell no. Just look at his administration's massive spending to realize why.


You make good points though I must comment on the Electoral College. There have only been a few instances, I believe 3 to be exact, where the President-Elect lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams and George W. Bush. So it seems the popular and electoral votes usually match up.

yes a delegate could go rogue and vote for the candidate whom his state did not vote for, and this has happened in the past but is very rare in contemporary times. The process one must go through to become a delegate is so stringent that only the most loyal of party hacks are allowed to become delegates. The threat of a stray is still there, but tightly controlled and highly unlikely.

There would not have been a Union if it was not for the compromise of the Electoral College. This ensured that smaller states would not get drowned out by larger states when it came to the election process. Sure, North Dakotas 3 Electoral votes may not seem like much, but is more relevant than their couple hundred thousand of citizens compared with California's tens of millions of citizens. Plus, when all the small states are added up they stand a chance at having their voices heard next to the massive states of New York or California. Without the Electoral College, the smaller states never would have joined the United States of America.

I do not feel Elections should be dictates by the largest of states. The Electoral College is perfectly fair in my opinion, even if a candidate loses the popular vote. Essentially it is the states who choose the President, not the individual voters and this is how it had to be in order for their to be a country in the first place.

Now some states such as Nebraska I believe have a system where their electoral votes are divided up proportionally where each candidate gets a certain amount of votes depending on the percentage of the vote they received. A system like this I may consider supporting if all the states adopted it.

And you are right, we are a young country. Probably have not hit puberty yet, but America is the oldest of the modern democracies and has only gotten more stable as time goes by, so we are at least headed in the right direction.

oh and yes there are pro-choice republicans and pro-life democrats but in order to be a true national contender a republican pretty much has to be pro-life unless he is special (like a Giuliani) and a Democrat has to be pro-choice. It is like this with many issues... though when you compare the two parties to the ones seen in Europe or even Canada the differences do seem miniscule.