Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Ignorance Is Slavery

By Russell Dovey in Op-Ed
Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 10:43:47 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq.

This is the first time I've read 1984 all the way to the end, and I finally understand it, and why it's so important. Winston lost entirely, and it was the most complete loss that is possible. This was important, because it sticks in the mind.

Ironically, Orwell understood how to manipulate people's emotions, but he used this knowledge for the good of us all.


Now that so many have read 1984 it will be much harder for those who want absolute power to get it, because first they'll have to make us forget 1984.

I don't mean consciously, because there are very few people who actually want that sort of power consciously and with true dedication. But there are a lot more people who think of a world where they, and "their kind of people" are in power as very desirable, and it subtly drives their actions towards that end.

With cold, hard, unflinching logic alone, it is very difficult to defend the idea of human rights.  To do that you must appeal to people's basic sense of right and wrong, which is rooted in our evolutionary instinct to be nice to one's little group, one's clan, one's own special bunch of monkeys.

Now, one might suppose that this monkey morality could never be killed in us, because it is so completely basic to our makeup. However, as technology grows more powerful, there will one day cease to be a limit to a sufficiently determined psychopath's control over human nature.

I see 1984 as a real possibility when the necessary level of technology is reached. So the only way that we can be sure it won't happen is to remain alert at all times to signs that society and technology is heading in that direction, and to work as hard as we can to make people everywhere smarter and more aware of its danger.

The only hope lies in the proles, in 1984 as now; the key to stopping this from coming about is spreading the necessary inoculating concepts through the general population: human rights are sacrosanct, the government is not your friend, and education is God.  

In 1984, the party's rule will one day be destroyed; either by a sufficiently large natural disaster to completely collapse "civilisation", or by a revolutionary genius among the proles who happens to escape being spotted by the Thought Police until he is old enough to understand why he must avoid them entirely.

But this might take tens of thousands of years, and all that time will be universal madness, violence and pain. We owe it to our descendants not to let that happen.

(By the way, it is obvious by the end of the novel that the Thought Police in the Ministry of Love can literally read thoughts. O'Brien was simply too magically aware of what Winston was thinking towards the end to explain away by body language or psychology.)

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
We are at war with ____. We have always been at war with ____.
o Commies. 8%
o The Rich. 10%
o Andre the Giant. 1%
o Wales. 6%
o The Monkees. 2%
o Croutons. 2%
o The Meek. 3%
o Riboflavin. 2%
o Antidisestablishmentarianism. 8%
o Joke Polls. 13%
o The Dagobah System. 6%
o Blue Monday. 4%
o Combine Harvesters. 2%
o Lethargy. 4%
o God. 21%

Votes: 137
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o read 1984
o forget 1984
o Also by Russell Dovey


Display: Sort:
Ignorance Is Slavery | 119 comments (104 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
telepathic thought police? (3.00 / 12) (#4)
by scorbett on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:35:36 PM EST

(By the way, it is obvious by the end of the novel that the Thought Police in the Ministry of Love can literally read thoughts. O'Brien was simply too magically aware of what Winston was thinking towards the end to explain away by body language or psychology.)
That's an interesting take on it. I always rather thought it showed that the interrogator had broken so many people just like Winston in his career, that he knew what Winston was going to say even before Winston himself did. The interrogator had the advantage of experience, not telepathy. Just my two cents.

+1 from me when it goes to vote.

whoops, should have been topical (nt) (none / 0) (#5)
by scorbett on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:36:12 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Something like that. (3.00 / 7) (#7)
by cburke on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:04:50 PM EST

It's been a while since I read the book, but I took it as a combination of the fact that O'Brian had read through Winston's extensive journals and a thorough understanding of human psychology.  Part of why I vowed never to write down what my worst fear in life was, so should I ever be taken to Room 101 they won't know that it's to die from exhaustion having tantric sex with nubile young women.  Oops!

[ Parent ]
Not sure (3.00 / 3) (#11)
by GenerationY on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:54:05 PM EST

I think it is actually supposed to show how thorough the manipulation of thought is. Winston makes this mistake in the first chapter when he thinks that the party can't read his mind so he can think what he likes. Problem is, the entire society and in particular Newspeak is designed to limit thought itself. Winston was setup long before the novel actually begins and his rebellion is merely him playing his part.

Remember also that Winston very early on thinks he is safe because they can't read his mind. And so he is betrayed from the beginning.

As O'Brien explains:
'And remember that it is for ever. The face will always be there to be stamped upon. The heretic, the enemy of society, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again. Everything that you have undergone since you have been in our hands -- all that will continue, and worse. The espionage, the betrayals, the arrests, the tortures, the executions, the disappearances will never cease. It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph. The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism. Goldstein and his heresies will live for ever. Every day, at every moment, they will be defeated, discredited, ridiculed, spat upon and yet they will always survive. This drama that I have played out with you during seven years will be played out over and over again generation after generation, always in subtler forms. Always we shall have the heretic here at our mercy, screaming with pain, broken up, contemptible -- and in the end utterly penitent, saved from himself, crawling to our feet of his own accord. That is the world that we are preparing, Winston. A world of victory after victory, triumph after triumph after triumph: an endless pressing, pressing, pressing upon the nerve of power. You are beginning, I can see, to realize what that world will be like. But in the end you will do more than understand it. You will accept it, welcome it, become part of it.'

You see, the sanctioned heretic is as important to the party as the obedient prole.

[ Parent ]

Er (none / 0) (#12)
by GenerationY on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:54:43 PM EST

sorry, ingore the repetition.

[ Parent ]
I support the mundane version (none / 0) (#91)
by coljac on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 07:54:52 PM EST

In 1984 The Enemy Goldstein writes:

"The scientist of today is either a mixture of psychologist and inquisitor, studying with real ordinary minuteness the meaning of facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice, and testing the truth-producing effects of drugs, shock therapy, hypnosis, and physical torture..."

Indicates that they don't have a mind-reading machine.



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

We have always been at war with ________ (none / 1) (#9)
by FlipFlop on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:32:45 PM EST

Orwell got one thing wrong. Why would the government say "we have always been at war with _____"? People tire of the same old thing. Instead it is a dangerous new world. We must declare war on _____ until the new evil has been neutralized.

AdTI - The think tank that didn't

The govt would say it if it could. (3.00 / 3) (#10)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:50:46 PM EST

Since people aren't yet thoughtslaves, they won't tolerate being immediately told that they're at war with someone else, or that they went to war for a different reason than what they originally said.

You can't just change from "We're going to Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction" to "We went to Iraq to get rid of Saddam and fight terror" within a few days yet. You've got to ease it over slowly. Even then some people will notice.

Bush changed his war on Terror to a war on Iraq. You've got an example right there of how governments do exactly what Orwell said they do.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

We are at war with... (3.00 / 5) (#34)
by lucifer666 on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 12:35:34 AM EST

1980's: We are at war with the Soviets, the Afgan resistance are our friends.

2000's: We are at war with the Afgan resistance, the Russians are our friends.

[ Parent ]

meh; u'r missing an important point (none / 0) (#68)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 07:04:58 PM EST

the "we have always been ..."

for your post to work it would have to be more like

1984

"we're at war with the soviet russians. we have always been at war with the soviet russians."

2004
"we're friends with the russians. we have always been friends with the russians."

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]

replace russians with saddam (none / 0) (#94)
by QuantumG on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 10:39:48 PM EST

During the build up to the Iraq war (this time and last) the party line was that Saddam is our enemy and always has been our enemy.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
Answer given in the book (none / 0) (#90)
by interjay on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 04:54:21 PM EST

But by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all cases right. It is also that no change in doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted. For to change one's mind, or even one's policy, is a confession of weakness. If, for example, Eurasia or Eastasia (whichever it may be) is the enemy today, then that country must always have been the enemy. And if the facts say otherwise then the facts must be altered.

[ Parent ]
Education is God (2.75 / 4) (#14)
by speek on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:04:05 PM EST

And yet, nothing resembles Orwell's world of 1984 nearly as much as grade schools. A sad bit of irony.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

It is ironic, but... (3.00 / 3) (#16)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 09:44:46 PM EST

What does education have to do with grade schools?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

thus the irony (2.00 / 2) (#43)
by speek on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 09:17:44 AM EST


--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

State-run Education != God. (none / 0) (#53)
by sudog on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 12:42:29 PM EST

Home-school and encourage your kids to participate in social events and sports. It's the only way to keep your children smart enough to thrive.

With the pablum-like history and knowledge they dribble out in spurts in the public education system, it's the parents at home who are responsible for keeping their children intelligent and wise.


[ Parent ]

-1 Twenty years out of date (1.00 / 6) (#19)
by RandomLiegh on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 09:48:35 PM EST

retro alert is at orange

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
Should I buy duct tape or Debbie Gibson CDs? (nt) (3.00 / 4) (#24)
by cburke on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:56:40 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Did you attend Hope College? (none / 0) (#45)
by CodeWright on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 10:53:40 AM EST

Cuz that sounds like a reference to Zippy the Wonder Slug.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
No. (none / 0) (#71)
by cburke on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 07:48:31 PM EST

The only Wonder Slug I know is Bob.  If you know who that is, you're one of two people, including me.

[ Parent ]
Orwell got it wrong (2.86 / 22) (#20)
by MeowChow on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 09:59:41 PM EST

Which is precisely why 1984 is so ubiquitous within the "literary" curriculums of the nationalized schools in the most effectively brainwashed nation-state in the world. And, yes, for those of you lacking attention or perceptiveness, I am referring to the United States of America.

Orwell's 1984 is readily digested by an audience that likes facile answers to complex questions. It preaches that totalitarianism and propaganda come in plainly marked packages, and that you'd have to be a mindless prole not to recognize them. It tells us that until we have ministries monitoring our bedrooms, Photoshopping our history, and hanging our dissidents, we have little to fear from our government. Orwell's tome nurtures the "it couldn't happen here" mentality, which is, of course, the direct historical antecedent of massive suffering and genocide. 1984 is a red herring, eagerly disseminated by the state, that reinforces, via counterexample, the mantra that "we are a free and open society", and that our political system expresses the will of the people, rather than the will of an elite few.

Most disturbic and ironic of all is that Orwell's manifesto suffers the same fate as its protagonist, as it gets coopted by and becomes a tool for the ruling class.

Well, they did. (3.00 / 6) (#21)
by jolly st nick on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:07:09 PM EST

It preaches that totalitarianism and propaganda come in plainly marked packages, and that you'd have to be a mindless prole not to recognize them.

Well, in 1948 they did; they just weren't recognized by everyone as being as bad as they really were. It wasn't just the proles, if anything it was the sophisticates who were most easily duped. Later, times changed and the mode became crypto-totalitarianism. Your comment is more aproporiate for those times.

[ Parent ]

Orwell got it right (3.00 / 13) (#27)
by GenerationY on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:28:54 PM EST

But if you are going to read a fifty-five year old book that was written to be topical for the Great Britain of 1949/50 in such a brutally simplistic way then I suppose it will seem to provide fairly facile answers.

Orwell suggests absolutely nothing that you claim. In particular, the whole point for Orwell was this might damn well happen here. In 1948 people were still being told what to do by Ministry of Information films, having their movements restricted and the British Broadcasting Corporation was at its full height of "Mr Chumley-Warner" pomp. People really were eating 'ersatz' rubbish and necking nasty gin because rationing and austerity wouldn't end for another six years. If we leave out that which is plot specific, it is Britain in 1948, no question about it. An Atlantic Ocean and 55 years away, what do you expect will be the outcome if you engage with it in a deliberately anachronistic manner?

I agree it is a book much abused -- I rarely if ever agree when someone suggests a thing is "Orwellian" (weirdly on the internet, most of the time they mean Kafkaesque anyway) -- but that is not the fault of the author who seems to hold some sort of record for being misunderstood by a modern world that likes to have a label they can use to file people away under.

[ Parent ]

We're getting our targets crossed. (2.00 / 3) (#36)
by MeowChow on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 01:56:35 AM EST

You are interested in the book as it was written in 1949. I am interested in what it represents today.

On its own merits, 1984 is a simplistic and unsubtle screed decrying the evils of soviet-style totalitarianism. Kudos to Mr. Orwell for juxtaposing Stalinist Russia upon an England four decades hence. And excuse me while I yawn.

Perhaps I overstated when I said Orwell got it wrong. In a parallel universe, he may be revered for his foresight. Unfortunately this book has few lessons to teach about the real 1984, or even today's world. And that is exactly why it has been taken up with such zeal by the establishment.


[ Parent ]

Too many words. Here's a revision. (none / 0) (#87)
by smegma hauler on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 01:05:27 PM EST

"1984 is simple. It's boring. It's irrelevant today, so that's why the establishment likes it."

[ Parent ]
That's a little harsh (3.00 / 2) (#47)
by gumbo on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 11:12:57 AM EST

But I take your point regarding the function of the novel in public education. The CIA loved Orwell, especially when he could be used towards their purposes. And his concern to prevent the spread of Stalinism was such that he didn't mind cooperating with Big Brother when he felt it necessary.

I prefer his autobiographical writing.

[ Parent ]

Correction.... (2.75 / 4) (#22)
by cactus on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:14:40 PM EST

Ignorance is Ignorance and Slavery is Slavery. We apologize for the confusion.
--
"Politics are the entertainment branch of Industry"
-- Frank Zappa
can we (1.83 / 6) (#23)
by bankind on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:47:28 PM EST

have a discussion about Pink Floyd's the Wall?

That shit is like sooo deep bra, with the flowers and the like hammers like freaking nazis.

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman

Speaking of "The Wall" (ot) (none / 0) (#61)
by Wah on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 04:05:08 PM EST

has any of ya'll seen the updated 'laser light' show for The Wall in a modern planetarium, or as they called it, 'a domed theatre'?

If you get a chance, check it out, really pretty freakin' amazing.  The one I caught was in Houston, TX.  Massive, high quality 3-d images that cover your entire field of vision can give you some wild perceptions, as anybody who has seen the 'helicopter ride' at am Imax can attest.
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

The Australian Pink Floyd Show (none / 0) (#107)
by user six on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:57:25 PM EST

Speaking of The Wall, I was at The Australian Pink Floyd Show concert in Ottawa on Sunday, and they were awesome.

[ Parent ]
The party has always and will always be in power (2.90 / 11) (#25)
by D Jade on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:18:43 PM EST

The party will never be defeated. Even if a natural disaster were to wipe out modern Oceania, the party would still succeed.

It's unfortunate that George Orwell's original afterword has been omitted in later editions. In this afterword he gives a history of the events to follow on from Winston's story. Much of the same continues. Most importantly, the use of linguistics to control the proles. By removing words or changing their definition, the party makes it increasingly harder to speak out against them.

After years and years of this kind of manipulation, the language of Doublespeak consists of only one word: YES. This was one of the ultimate successes of the party because now there was no way that the proles could deny the party's every request.

Your article would be more interesting if you had made mention of the use of language to control the masses because this is the most similar aspect of our current world leaders' methods for controlling the global perception.

Think about these two terms:
Terrorist
Freedom Fighter

Both of these words refer to people who perform the same function. They are non-government organisations who attack civillians. The only difference between the two is their political agenda.

If the organisations's political agenda is in conflict with our own agendas then organisation is a terrorist group.

If the organisations's political agenda is in line with our own agendas then organisation is a group of freedom fighters.

At the end of the book it is not obvious that the Ministry of Love can read thoughts. What is obvious is that the ruling class has become extremely proficient at tackling the problem of individual thought.

O'Brien knew what Winston was thinking because i)he has had Winston watched from the day he was born; and ii) it is O'Brien's function to force independent thinkers into submitting to the will of the party and employs methods which have been tried and tested on countless others before Winston.

To read this book and not see that the party has become most expert at control the behaviour of the proles - through the dissemination and collection of information, through the use of education to shape loyalty in its subjects, and through constantly monitoring their responses to the stimuli that is presented to them - is to entirely miss the point of the story. (The party uses market research techniques which are commonplace today and are the reason you need THAT car and THAT pair of shoes rather than the other one).

Ignorance IS slavery, yes. But education is not god; it is not going to be our saviour. Modern Education is control - over you and everyone else.

This could be a really good piece if you had given more thought to the story and the party's methods and their ultimate goal.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive

Agreed! (2.50 / 4) (#26)
by regeya on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:23:57 PM EST

Think about these two terms:
Terrorist
Freedom Fighter
One thing I'll give Bush's administration credit on: they've been able to convince a number of people of one thing: you're either a patriot or you're against Bush. You can't be one or the other. Oh, no. If you're against war in Iraq, go live there, you traitor!

Anyone who allows a tyrant like Bush to continue and willingly puts the shackles on in the name of patriotism doesn't deserve their freedom.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

-1, Stupid Strawman Argument (none / 0) (#104)
by lordDogma on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 10:34:53 PM EST

This is a favorite strawman argument of the left. Its old and tired. Please stop.

When people criticize leftists for being unpatriotic they are generally talking about these people:

Non-patriots

and these people:

More non-patriots

In particular, I'm talking about the signs that say things like "War Against America is the real war on Terror" and "Long Live Iraqi Resistance", etc. etc.

Disagreeing with the Iraq war does not make you unpatriotic at all. But siding with Holy Head-cutting Jihadists against the US does.

[ Parent ]

So it does make you unpatriotic (none / 0) (#110)
by D Jade on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 03:08:32 AM EST

Disagreeing with the Iraq war does not make you unpatriotic at all. But siding with Holy Head-cutting Jihadists against the US does.

See, if you are against the war in Iraq then you are on the side of the terrorists. Saddam helps Al Qaida and has weapons of mass destruction which the terrorists are going to use against the US of A.

So by not agreeing to the war in Iraq, you are agreeing with the Head-Cutting Jihadists and are therefore (as you say) unpatriotic. The irony is that the head-cutters would not be cutting those heads in Iraq if not for the war in the first place.

Either way, you're Unamerican if you don't support the Bush Administration.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#116)
by lordDogma on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 09:52:50 PM EST

I'm not sure what the hell you just said. Are you (a) agreeing with me?, (b) disagreeing with me, and attempting to put words in my mouth?, or (c) making your own statement on this thread independent of what I said? -- LD

[ Parent ]
I am agreeing with you (none / 0) (#118)
by D Jade on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 11:55:54 PM EST

That being against the war on Iraq would not make you unpatriotic/american. But siding with Holy Head-cutting Jihadists against the US does.

Although the message from the US Admin is that the war in Iraq is a war against those head-cutting terrorists and if you are against the war then you are on the side of the terrorists and therefore ARE unamerican.

So while I agree with you that being opposed to the Iraqi war is not unpatriotic, I also realise that this means you side with terrorists because you're not doing anything to stop them... Remember, Saddam helped Al Qaida and every other Islamic group (because they're all terrorists) to make your kids do drugs.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

You're right, of course. (none / 0) (#30)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:41:28 PM EST

I'll rewrite it, stealing your points (and more of my own stuff, don't worry) and re-post when the people who think they're on Slashdot yelling "Duplicate! Duplicate!" have gone to sleep.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

That's cool (none / 0) (#31)
by D Jade on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:47:04 PM EST

Just make sure to give me some credit bro.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
P.S. (none / 0) (#32)
by D Jade on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:49:41 PM EST

Reply to this when you've rewritten it so I can check it out.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Watched since birth? (none / 1) (#33)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:58:03 PM EST

What makes you think that? Winston was born at the beginning of the Revolution, why would he have been watched then?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

No, that's your own brain-washing kicking in... (3.00 / 3) (#35)
by Skywise on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 01:29:23 AM EST

Descriptive terms are ALWAYS relative.  Consider these two words:

Ugly
Beautiful

If a person's appearance agrees with you then you say they are "Beautiful".

If a person's appearance disagrees with you then you say they are "Ugly".

How about other control words?  Like pro-choice and anti-abortion?  Or is it pro-life and pro-abortion?

Is it a budget CUT when budgets are still raised, but not as much as they were last year?

How about "It depends on what the meaning of is, is?"

Perception control is EVERYWHERE.  It's a natural domination tactic.  Where do we learn about it?  From our PARENTS.  From the school bullies, from the con artists who want to paint our roof.  

"There's a sucker born every minute"  Why is that?  Because you walk up to a guy and say "Can I kick you in the nuts?" and they say, "Yeah, go ahead!"??  No, because you go up to the guy and say, "Wanna play RoShamBo?  It's lots of fun!", "Sure", "Okay, I'll go first" >WHACK< "Hey, you kicked me in the nuts".  That's called PERCEPTION CONTROL.  And why does it work?  Because people don't WANT the truth.  They want the fantasy.

How do you protect yourself from that?  Be an independent thinker.  Today it's incredibly easy to think Bush is the next Hitler and the world is going to hell in a handbasket, just go to Kerry.Slashdot.Org or DailyKos.  What was more frightening was just 4 years ago when the US was undergoing constant terrorist attacks on bases worldwide AND domestically and the US was enjoying it's biggest economic boom because company's were robbing each other blind, the "common" perception was that everything was wine and roses because Clinton and all the reports said it was so.

Or maybe you prefer your facts in DoubleSpeak like "The documents are forged, but what they say is accurate."


[ Parent ]

You need to up your dosage (2.00 / 2) (#39)
by D Jade on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 03:30:27 AM EST

Not necessarily. If a person's appearance agrees with me I don't necessarily call them beautiful nor do I call someone ugly because their appearance disagrees with me... I don't know what your point is.

Freedom fighter/Terrorist are words employed by the government to force the perception on the public that the government wants them to have. You can't argue that because it's true. Personally, I think all terrorists are freedom fighters and vice-versa because they are.

I wouldn't say that Bush is the next Hitler because Hitler managed to run the Germany better than Bush runs the US.

Things were better when Clinton was in power. We didn't have stupid Americans trying to interfere with our culture and affect our laws and actions when Bill was in power.

I know there wasn't the massive defecit your country now suffers, and I also know that while there was companies "robbing each other blind", the average citizen was doing much better for themselves than they are now.

And I also know that the corporate crimes being committed were, in large part, carried out by people on George Bush's side of the fence and are the result of the corruption that has plagued US Government for over 50 years now.

However, I really don't care about corporate crimes and a good quality of life for Americans. I couldn't care if you were all living in third world conditions. All I care about is that the current US Administration wants to control the world and it's starting to affect my freedoms and quality of life and I don't even life in your stupid United States.

And as for terrorist acts being comitted against the US, I don't see what the problem with that is. The US have been providing terror to small, poor and weak countries for nearly 50 years or more and there's no problem with that.

Anyway, go see your Doctor about upping your medication because those anti-psychotics don't seem to be working no more.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 1) (#48)
by aristus on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 11:18:40 AM EST

"We didn't have stupid Americans trying to interfere with our culture and affect our laws and actions when Bill was in power."

So you are saying the Telco Act of 1996, described as the biggest public robbery in history, didn't happen on Clinton's watch? Nor the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998? "Managed Care" didn't become the bane of millions of sick people? Ruby Ridge and Waco and the Elian silliness were fiction?


--

??? "A man of imagination among scholars feels like a sodomite at a convention of proctologists." -- Paul West


[ Parent ]
Or if you are not in the US (none / 1) (#50)
by aristus on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 11:35:58 AM EST

The WTO, invasions of Somalia & Yugoslavia, cruise missiles to Sudan, etc etc etc were benevolent? He may not have interfered too much in Western Europe. He didn't have to. But from that it's incorrect to conclude he would not have.
--

??? "A man of imagination among scholars feels like a sodomite at a convention of proctologists." -- Paul West


[ Parent ]
You're demonstrating my point perfectly. (none / 1) (#60)
by Skywise on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 01:37:40 PM EST

That you can't understand that somebody telling you that a person is "beautiful" or "ugly" is the same thing as a government saying that an action is an "act of Terror" or the "act of a Freedom Fighter", shows how much you've sucked up your minitruth's double plus good "facts".

Really, how DID you arrive at your beliefs that Clinton didn't interfere in your culture or affect your laws?  Because your minitruth LIKED those interferences.  How did you arrive at your beliefs that Bush is interfering with your culture and affecting your laws?  Because your minitruth HATES those interferences.

How about this spin:  France today was invaded by Hitler's freedom fighters, liberating our country and allowing us to join the growing revolutionary movement.

to wit:  All reality is perception and subjective.  Things that happen outside of your own personal experience is even moreso.  Words are ideological memes and no matter how painstakingly they're made neutral, they will carry context and connotation.  Trust no one and trust nothing.  Because even Kofi Annan of the UN  can now assure us that the Iraq war was "illegal" and it took him only two years after the fact to figure that out...right next to an election for the US.  He wouldn't be interfering in a country's laws and culture, would he?  (But I'm sure that's a good thing in your eyes because that's a double plus good thing to do)

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0) (#101)
by jmzero on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 05:59:26 PM EST

They are non-government organisations who attack civillians.

Meh?  I'd be more likely to call them "terrorists" (ie. using terror to forward some political goal) when they're killing civilians and "freedom fighters" when they're killing personnel of an occupying military power (ie. fighting for their freedom of their country directly against their oppressors).

Thus, I'd say that some Iraqi insurgent actions (like bombing tanks) could be called "freedom fighting", whereas some (like kidnapping civilians and chopping their heads off) are better called "terrorism".  

Speaking of which, your whole argument is overstated.  People don't approve of people kidnapping janitors and chopping their heads off on video.  This is not because it's called terrorism - it's because people, in general, think that's a bad thing to do.  Similarly, people don't tend to approve of the Abu Ghraib abuses - regardless of what the all-powerful government might want the media to call it.

Go back to WWII.  Then you'll see some real propoganda.  Watch Donald Duck pull down Hitler's pants and slur the Krauts.  Back then, you towed the line or you were a fifth columnist.

2004 in America is pretty much the all-time high-water-mark for cynicism and distrust of government.  I'd say the government have less power than ever to do the sort of thought control Orwell describes.  

Sure the government now is trying to market itself - but I think it needs to be emphasized that this is not new, nor is the current government having any special success.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

bad but not the worst (none / 0) (#108)
by adimovk5 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:32:51 PM EST

2004 in America is pretty much the all-time high-water-mark for cynicism and distrust of government.

I disagree. The late 60s and 70s were much worse. After the hope of the Kennedy years, the US sufferred through the administrations of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Communism was expanding with the fall of Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, and Vietnam. The United States had lost its first war. Civil rights battles were tearing the country apart. Political arguments often ended in mass violence. Riots occurred in numerous cities. Unemployment was high. Inflation was high. Japan's economy was growing and many feared it would overtake America. OPEC was raising oil prices and strangling the economy.

[ Parent ]

+1 About time we had some serious discussion (2.00 / 3) (#28)
by Nursie on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:31:29 PM EST

of decent english paranoia.
Justified paranoia on the whole, much respect to the orwellian. Not sure about the telepathy, but the rest rocks.

Meta Sigs suck.

You don't seem to get 1984. (2.87 / 16) (#37)
by Kasreyn on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 02:20:16 AM EST

One of the most important points IN 1984 was that, for an eternal tyranny like Oceania to work, those in charge would HAVE to be both conscious of - and unconscious of - their purpose. At the same time they would have to have a total cynicism and a total naive faith.

A mere peer group with an agenda would eventually fall from power for the reasons outlined in Goldstein's handbook on tyranny. Simply wanting those like you to be preferred is not ruthless enough to maintain power forever. Usually, regimes based on simple cliquism don't even last a lifetime.

As to the proles: they have never, and will never, be conscious. If an individual becomes conscious, they are no longer a prole. The reason why there is still a great mass of the people who can be so described is because few ever do become conscious, and the ones who don't are a self-renewing resource.

The plan of education you propose is as futile as the implied one by Goldstein. Number one can be defeated by depicting all enemies of the state as subhuman. This works for the same reasons you detailed - we prefer our own group of special monkeys. People always fall for this one because it is flattering. Number two fails routinely because without education, the proles have never been able to tell their country from their government. They always fall for the "don't you love your country?!" heartstring-plucker. Number three fails as soon as education contradicts an arbitrary religious belief - ego demands that the belief structure prevail over reality. When science contradicts religious text, the proles decide science is wrong. If science can be wrong, then the government can vilify scientists and educators as bumblers or corruptors, and either eliminate them or take control of them.

O'Brien's awareness wasn't mind-reading technology. It was experience, both with breaking captives, and with Winston in specific. He'd read his diary. He'd studied him like a bug under glass for seven years. He'd had every detail of his life racked out of him with torture. He'd debated with him already, by this point, for weeks. And Winston is right about one thing - O'Brien's mind contains his own.

Any catastrophe that takes out the Party will return humanity to the Stone Age, since the proles have no knowledge of their own. And a return to the Stone Age would likely be permanent, since none of the building block resources of technology are available in low-initial-cost forms. Ie., we've mined and pumped all the shallow ores and oils out. What's left, requires technology to obtain. We've shot our bolt.

No "revolutionary genius" would escape. Within a few generations, Oceania would have all reproduction occur by artificial insemination and all children raised by the state. There would be careful testing for intelligence or rebellious behavior from before a child could read. The telescreens would watch THEM all their lives, too. Think on that - there would be a Thought Police member whose job would be to note down names of children to be vaporized. There would be no way to escape this. The only kind of genius who could possibly avoid detection in this way might be an autistic, and they would be incapable of leading any revolt.

Humanity's one hope does not lie in the proles. It lies in the tools of ultimate power not being sufficiently monopolized by an elite few. For instance, if Friendly AI is developed, or replicator/constructor nanites. Possibility A: they are developed in a military or government test lab with rigorous security. Even if the government starts out with the best of intentions, eventually, inevitably, we wind up in Oceania. Possibility B: they are developed in a civilian lab, or they are leaked to the public by a concerned military/government scientist (who will doubtless suffer the Rosenburg's fate for his selfless act). In option B., the technology would rapidly become so widely disseminated that no amount of central control could recapture it. In the end, it would be the end of the rule of humans over other humans. Each man his own kingdom, like in The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect. Note how the official representatives of The System attempted to execute Lawrence when they realized they had lost the keys to ultimate power. This will be the fate of the one to come, unless he thinks to protect himself with his invention somehow.

Basically, the Singularity is coming. If it's on the watch of a man like Lawrence (from MOPI), game over: we win. We all win, for good. If it's on the watch of some Dr. Strangelove - or even simply a scientist working for the Man who has an irrational patriotism complex, or doesn't realize *no* government could be trusted with it - or if someone accidentally discovers Unfriendly AI or unleashes the Grey Goo - then also game over. We lose, forever.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
A few points for consideration... (3.00 / 3) (#51)
by sudog on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 12:34:03 PM EST

There're a *pile* of natural resources all over the place which can be used to rebuild technology meaningfully in a post-apocalyptic world. Open pits, unexplored northern resources, the fact that the rocky mountains are so new--this all means there's lots of ore left to be mined by low-tech.

Also, the amount of knowledge dissemination right now is so vast and complete that somewhere out there, there will always be an archive of important scientific knowledge (AND the learning textbooks required to understand it and utilise it) which can be tapped by anyone who's able to take the time to do so.

As soon as agriculture gets back on its feet and we return to an agrarian society, the free time of the populace would increase to the point where that would, again, become feasible. After all, after the first major die-off from starvation because of a lack of oil-based fertilizer and mechanized farming technique, the populations would stabilise at a sustainable level using low-tech, Amish-like farming methods.

Also, the people who monitor would need to be born and trained from a child too--and who would possibly be capable of designing a program which can churn out more thought police who never, ever broke the party line? Or who were incapable of breaking the party line? If the word "No" is erased from everyone's vocabulary, the concept itself stripped (which would be impossible) then how could the Thought Police recognise it when they saw it?

If the Thought Police were capable of understanding and recognising rebellion, then they themselves would in fact be capable of it. The universal constant in human nature is greed. One of the problems of 1984 was that the Thought Police themselves were a tool of the elite, and were so tremendously powerful and trained--yet took no action to attempt to further themselves up the chain of command.

How in hell would that be possible? Answer: it wouldn't, and 1984 was in fact just making a point.

I mean come on: a completely cooperating centralised party with a stagnant hierarchy? Gimme a break.

You're also making a big mistake in your logic: You're assuming that normal, average people (who you state specifically will never wake up) will somehow be able to use the power granted by a publically disseminated Singularity (as you put it) in a way that would either stalemate everyone else with that godlike power (God vs. God == dead earth) or would somehow magically cooperate with everyone else.

Seems to me you're ignoring all those millions of years of evolved human nature.


[ Parent ]

I always thought (none / 1) (#89)
by rpresser on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 04:03:05 PM EST

that the Thought Police were the elite.  Like the Second Foundationers.  No higher to go.  No more fulfilling position than ratting out your family and neighbors and putting them through Room 101.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
Sorry, your knowledge base isn't there (none / 0) (#103)
by cdguru on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 07:29:18 PM EST

Also, the amount of knowledge dissemination right now is so vast and complete that somewhere out there, there will always be an archive of important scientific knowledge (AND the learning textbooks required to understand it and utilise it) which can be tapped by anyone who's able to take the time to do so.

Well, maybe. But probably not. Since the dawn of the Internet Age, and more importantly, the dawn of the Digital Age, we have embraced storage media that requires considerable technology to access. Take you average CD-ROM - it is possible to envision a 1940's device that would read such a thing. It would be difficult to get a spot of light focused just right and the "logic" behind this would be pretty large, but it would be possible. DVD-ROM? Forget it. Dual-layer DVD? Double forget it.

If anything knowledge is becoming more inaccessable and if there is a "tech crash" most of it will be utterly and permanently lost.

[ Parent ]

Hey BTW: (none / 0) (#52)
by sudog on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 12:38:18 PM EST

In that "science is wrong" link you provide, your arguments are based on assumptions as much as the woman's arguments you were arguing with were.

You could've had a chance to convert, but you must first learn to approach someone on the same ground that they are standing on. You can't shout at someone from your own island of faith and insist that yours is right and theirs is wrong. You must wander over, learn about the person, and use their own belief system to point out the logical mistakes and inconsistencies, and that there is a better alternative where there is no conflict.

The attractiveness of a belief system that has no conflict is obvious to anyone with a mind open enough to be changed. For those whose minds are impossible to change, as soon as this fact is recognised it should be obvious to the enlightened one that he is wasting his time, that a sheep, once a sheep, can't very rarely be awakened to consciousness.


[ Parent ]

better islands? (none / 0) (#65)
by LilDebbie on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 05:51:13 PM EST

what about when your mind becomes so open that you notice that all the islands are the same? do you sit down where you're at and watch the sunset and smile?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Yes. [n/t] (none / 0) (#84)
by sudog on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 12:12:52 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Well, yes... but no... (none / 0) (#114)
by Shubin on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 04:33:21 AM EST

You're correct, with one small exception. Until now, all attempts of total control led to degradation. No need for global catastrophe that takes out the Party. The world would slide down towards Stone Age by itself, and in 1984 is does.
Those countries who tried total control were easily destroyed by more freedom-advanced neighbours. Until now. After the fall of the USSR the rest of the world is in a big danger - there is no natural enemy. With that 'globalization' the world will soon be controlled by ONE power.
The rest you can read in the 1984 book.

[ Parent ]
Read it again (3.00 / 6) (#38)
by Gerhard on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 02:29:38 AM EST

You missed the most important point: The party's rule will never be destroyed.

1984: The hope lies NOT in the proles. (2.80 / 5) (#40)
by megid on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 03:57:06 AM EST

You missed the point: The proles will never have a successful revolution, the Party will rule forever. This is the final message of the book.

--
"think first, write second, speak third."
Jesus, seriously (none / 1) (#56)
by I Am Jacks Severed Testicles on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 01:01:48 PM EST

You would think people who write whole essays around the topic would've actually finished the book. What a bunch of dumbasses.

Support our troops - buy W Ketchup!
[ Parent ]
Reposted from diary entry: (2.81 / 16) (#44)
by LilDebbie on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 10:24:48 AM EST

You say this could happen. Look around, dumbass. It did happen. They celebrated the milestone by having bb unveil the Apple Macintosh. Granted, it is not entirely as Orwell envisioned - it's much, much worse.

"Surely," you cry, "this is not the case. Where are the Thought Police?" To this, I reply, they are everywhere. They stare at you through the television, they watch you on the job, the converse with you on message boards such as this. We have been so thoroughly programmed that we cannot even rebel in any meaningful way. You say education is God and you are right, but not in the way you intended. Education is where we learn to love Big Brother. Education makes us obedient little slaves who are incapable of harming our masters.

Minitrue was renamed CBS, or MSNBC, or Fox News. Don't you find it the least bit disconcerting that Dan Rather and 60 Minutes can present obviously forged documents as fact and those who see them for the fraud they are have to employ experts and do in depth document analysis, just to get the other media giants to admit that they might have been forged?

Tell me, Winston. What do you plan to do when Dubya wins another four years? Sure, there'll be plenty of evidence of election fraud, but it'll just turn out to be a small scandal that'll get pushed to the side by the next news cycle. Are you going to go to a demonstration? There'll be plenty available. They'll have websites up with directions. The cops will be there directing traffic. You can even buy that snazzy new "Fuck Bush" t-shirt that was stitched together in a Chinese sweatshop that only cost $0.50 to make, but you'll pay $20 because you live in America. Another third world country will get bombed to shit and AIDS will spread into India and China and millions will die but you'll be too busy arguing on k5 to give a shit.

But it's not all bad, is it? You've got Half-Life 2 to look forward to. Hollywood will keep making shitty movies and sitcoms and reality shows for you to sleep through. And some day you'll have kids, a mid-life crisis, and eventually cancer, and you will be forgotten within a generation. Congratulations, you stupid fuck.


My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Christ (2.33 / 3) (#54)
by spasticfraggle on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 12:54:34 PM EST

And I thought I was a miserable bastard! ^_^

--
I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!
[ Parent ]
To further depress you: (3.00 / 3) (#58)
by LilDebbie on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 01:10:37 PM EST

My weekday schedule:

0700 - wake up and shower, or sleep til 0730 and not shower
0745 - drive to work
0830 - get to work
1700 - leave work
1745 - get home, start drinking
~1200 - pass out

This marvelous system allows me to exist eternally on the weekends, as the blotto removes any distinct weekday memory.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Correction: (none / 1) (#59)
by LilDebbie on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 01:12:02 PM EST

~1200 should be ~2400

I'm getting careless

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Thats sounds more like (none / 0) (#76)
by richarj on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 10:38:51 PM EST

"We" than "1984"

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
What the fuck are you complaining about? (none / 0) (#100)
by rob1 on Sat Sep 18, 2004 at 11:29:08 AM EST

9 - 5 is sweet.

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. -- GWB
[ Parent ]

naw, huxley was right (3.00 / 3) (#63)
by minerboy on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 05:12:09 PM EST

"Brave new world" is much closer to current reality than 1984. Now, Go take your Soma and shut up



[ Parent ]
true dat (none / 1) (#64)
by LilDebbie on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 05:47:50 PM EST

similar idea tho, I just stick with the metaphors at hand.

and I only wish we had soma. I have to make do with alcohol and black market solutions. I would happily put my taxes towards soma research.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
No need for research ... (none / 0) (#72)
by mrt on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 09:04:05 PM EST

and I only wish we had soma. I have to make do with alcohol and black market solutions. I would happily put my taxes towards soma research.

Where-ever you find cows, there too will be soma. So go find some cows, but try not to get shot by the nasty farmers.


-

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
[ Parent ]
There actually is a drug called Soma (none / 0) (#109)
by UCF BullitNutz on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 12:40:53 AM EST

It's a muscle relaxant that goes really well with alcohol. Makes 3 beers seem like 8.
----------
" It ain't a successful troll until the admin shuts off new user registration for half a year." - godix
[ Parent ]
About the proles... (3.00 / 3) (#46)
by toychicken on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 11:06:28 AM EST

Hmm, I tend to find that the 'proles' are the ones that don't give a fuck about human rights, or education, though they do have a healthy mistrust of the government...

Someone tell me any different...

- - - - - - -8<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just how many is a Brazillian anyway?


Really? Damn. -nt- (none / 0) (#85)
by proles on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 12:22:24 PM EST


If there is hope, it lies in the proles.
[ Parent ]
Brain scan thought police? (none / 0) (#49)
by sllort on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 11:34:00 AM EST

1984 didn't have them.

But we do.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.

-1, you're NZian (1.42 / 7) (#55)
by I Am Jacks Severed Testicles on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 01:00:06 PM EST

Don't pretend to speak as if "you're" at war with Iraq, when you actually have nothing to do with it.

Support our troops - buy W Ketchup!
I'm Australian, dumbfuck. (none / 0) (#70)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 07:22:39 PM EST

Our special forces guys were in there along with yours.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

No, you're NZian, numbnuts (none / 1) (#79)
by I Am Jacks Severed Testicles on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 11:00:32 PM EST

And your country has no part in it.

Support our troops - buy W Ketchup!
[ Parent ]
Okay, you've found me out. (none / 0) (#80)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 11:28:47 PM EST

I'm a sheep-shagger. A Kiwi. Someone who says "sex" every time they count their fingers. Very well spotted.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Dont Worry Russell (none / 0) (#112)
by ha1 on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 08:47:07 PM EST

...having 'nothing to do with it' is something to be proud of.

[ Parent ]
1, you're an idiot (none / 1) (#74)
by wji on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 10:01:00 PM EST

as if you posted that shit from a firebase in ramadi. shut the hell up, you national narcissist nut.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]
-1, Blah blah blah, US/crypto-fascists are coming! (1.33 / 3) (#62)
by tarpy on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 04:31:01 PM EST

Good lord, can't the lot of you just go somewhere else and rant?

I hear Buzzflash is looking for guest contributors.


Sir, this is old skool. Old skool. I salute you! - Knot In The Face
-1 (1.66 / 6) (#67)
by Esspets on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 06:36:51 PM EST

1984 was not profound or interesting.


Desperation.
Dear esspets (2.00 / 2) (#73)
by wji on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 09:59:51 PM EST

I write in order to inform you that although I only rated you 3, I really think this comment deserves a 5. 1984 may be the most over-rated book in the entire history of literature.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]
ror (1.00 / 6) (#75)
by Esspets on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 10:27:21 PM EST




Desperation.
[ Parent ]
ror is gay -nt. (1.00 / 3) (#86)
by smegma hauler on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 12:56:29 PM EST



[ Parent ]
ror (1.00 / 3) (#93)
by Esspets on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 10:30:37 PM EST




Desperation.
[ Parent ]
gay (1.50 / 2) (#95)
by smegma hauler on Sat Sep 18, 2004 at 12:26:26 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Clichéd "ew that's gross" username. (1.33 / 3) (#97)
by Esspets on Sat Sep 18, 2004 at 02:15:32 AM EST




Desperation.
[ Parent ]
It'll have to compete for that... (none / 1) (#83)
by pwhysall on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 05:30:12 AM EST

...along with Catch-22 and all of The Lord Of The Rings.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]
-1 stop doing your homework on K5 /nt (2.00 / 3) (#69)
by spooked on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 07:14:37 PM EST



Seriously.
Have you read "We" (3.00 / 2) (#78)
by richarj on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 10:53:31 PM EST

By Zamyatin?

I haven't yet finished the book. Oops this page reveals the plot.

Frankly I like Logan's Run better

Have you also ever considered this other proposition. The world state will be challenged/destroyed by outside forces. As seen in say the Foundation series by Asimov and the Dune series by Frank Herbet. For a recap for those who have forgotten or not read them. In Foundation the fear is that the psychohistorians can only control humanity, what if there was an alien species?(Foundation and Earth) I think. In dune the closed system of the Houses, CHOAM, Bene Gesserit is challenged by humanity that had developed outside of their space "Lost ones" and now was coming back in (Heretics of Dune).



"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
write in (1.50 / 2) (#81)
by fleece on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 01:47:19 AM EST

apathy



I feel like some drunken crazed lunatic trying to outguess a cat ~ Louis Winthorpe III
forgetting 1984 (3.00 / 3) (#82)
by nml on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 03:36:42 AM EST

Now that so many have read 1984 it will be much harder for those who want absolute power to get it, because first they'll have to make us forget 1984.

Is this comment supposed to be ironic? Because i hardly feel that i need to point out that recent world events suggest that either people reading 1984 hasn't made much difference or not enough people have read 1984. Students for orwell seem to think so too (apologies to whichever k5ian had it as a sig, i can't remember who you are to give you credit).

Report thoughtcrime! (none / 0) (#92)
by Pholostan on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 09:37:16 PM EST

It's your patriotic duty!

- And blood tears I cry Endless grief remained inside
[ Parent ]
ahh shit, how cute... (2.00 / 3) (#88)
by ShiftyStoner on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 02:22:49 PM EST

Ignorance is slavory, how right you are. Maybe you don't realize, you're a slave.

Think about it. What would be, what is the most eficiant way to control a slave? Is it starving them and beating them into submision? That's prety efective, but not the most efective. The best way to control the masses is having them believe they are free. because then there's nothing to fight and die for, nothing to rebel against, just work for aliving. If you don't your a social outcast, human garbage. Well, the only thing to fight and die for is the preservasion of your "freedom" that the government so graciously allows you to have. Like killing people who arn't even a threat to you illusion of freedom.

Or do you enjoy hoping out of bed everymoring 5 days a weak. maybe you believe you do.
( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler

That's preposterous. (3.00 / 2) (#96)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Sep 18, 2004 at 12:53:01 AM EST

If I were a slave to ignorance, surely I would have noticed.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

You must be stoned. (n/t) (none / 0) (#111)
by Qwaniton on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 05:48:11 PM EST



[ Parent ]
If ignorance is slavery, K5 is Guantanamo (2.00 / 3) (#98)
by the77x42 on Sat Sep 18, 2004 at 03:27:53 AM EST




"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

Nice Written, Mr Dovey (1.50 / 2) (#99)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Sat Sep 18, 2004 at 08:11:40 AM EST

Smooth like butter.

Mmmm....butter.


___
If you can read this signature clearly, you are sitting too close to your monitor.
doesn't everyone read 1984? (2.50 / 2) (#102)
by xmnemonic on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 06:38:07 PM EST

In my government-funded public high school, in the fine Commonwealth of Virginia, "1984" was standard reading for all 12th grade english classes. And we read Ayn Rand in 10th grade english. Maybe the government-paid educators aren't as government-controlled as people think (cf. liberal public universities like UC Berkeley, UVa and U of M).

Not here (none / 0) (#115)
by rogun on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:28:21 AM EST

When I was in high school we didn't read either of the two you named, unfortunately. Although I still haven't read either of them, I do intend to one day soon. I do know what the book is about though and I've always wondered if in our attempts to prevent 1984 from coming true if we're not creating a similar scenario in a reactionary response. One reason I want to read 1984 is so I'll have an understanding of how it comes across to it's readers. My instinct tells me that people who read the book take the scenario presented too literally and are therefore less likely to recognize other situations that may be slightly different. This is just a guess, since I haven't read the book though.

[ Parent ]
Some context (3.00 / 2) (#105)
by GenerationY on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:42:31 AM EST

If you want to know what Orwell's intentions and concerns really were, I recommend you take a look at part IV of his essay "Looking back at the Spanish Civil War"; this is normally published in the same volume as "Homage to Catalonia" now, but is also available here.

I think in a way your review has misfired slightly in that you concerntrate on the technology and action of totalitarianism itself rather than the main issue which so worried Orwell which was the control of history and language.

I think there is also an adequate rejoiner here that pre-empts the suggestion that 1984 is in some way simplistic, far-fetched or irrelevant to sophisticated being such as ourselves.

IGNORANCE IS SAVORY (3.00 / 3) (#106)
by Kim Il Sung on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:57:59 AM EST

20 million people can't be wrong!

1984 ... BNW (none / 1) (#113)
by Dr Phineas Fogg on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 12:56:51 AM EST

When you get a moment, you may want to read Huxley's works: Brave New World, and Brave New World Revisited. Similar perspective. Slightly different angle.

the good of us all (none / 1) (#117)
by cthulhain on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 09:57:06 PM EST

Ironically, Orwell understood how to manipulate people's emotions, but he used this knowledge for the good of us all.
I'm sure we're all much better off because of those charitable souls who take it upon themselves to manipulate our emotions for our good. How would it be possible for us to have any good in our lives without their benevolent wisdom? God bless you, George Orwell! (And Russell Dovey!)

I was going to write more, but it is time for me to go and read the latest thrilling installment in the Left Behind series. For my own good, of course.

--
nothing in his brain except a ruined echo of the sky.

actually (none / 1) (#119)
by the77x42 on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 11:49:28 PM EST

I thought the Party was more like the role of God for Berkeley.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

Ignorance Is Slavery | 119 comments (104 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!