You have to take a little from Orwell, Huxley, and Bradbury as well.

I can't look at a Kindle or Kinect without thinking about a world voluntarily giving up books for immersion gaming and entertainment.

No, you have it reversed. Assuming liberals prefer a larger government that is more engaged in telling people what to do, as well as passing laws to make them do it?

>> ^StukaFox:

A liberal reads 1984 as a warning.
A conservative reads 1984 as a blueprint.

>> ^NetRunner:

I could've just as easily have downvoted for the stupidity of your pox upon both their houses view of modern politics though. I don't really get the sense much of anyone on the left is filled with some sort of "zeal" for the "donkey" -- and the disdain for the Republicans largely stems from the way they seem to be functionally identical to the Inner Party members from 1984.
---
The fact that one side, and only one side has fully committed to this level of partisan loyalty should make even the most cynical, above the fray, non-partisan person sit up and take notice.


It seems to me having (effectively) just two parties makes some degree of partisanship mandatory for anyone participating in politics. You yourself talk of sides. A blue vs. red system like that leaves anyone truly independent-minded somewhat disenfranchised.

I was talking with a guy from California not long ago, he was pretty pissed that his tax money was being used to blow people up in other countries. Will Obama stop the killing? Will Romney? Who should someone who really, really doesn't want to have his government blow folks up vote for, the nice guy with blood on his hands or the nice guy who's waiting to get some on his? Or should there actually be some other option?

>> ^NetRunner:

a battle to stop a group of committed fanatics without a shred of human empathy from pushing out the last vestiges of the flawed, inept, but well-meaning opposition standing in their way.


I steadfastly hold the view that those who are most suited to power are least suited to attaining power, and those who are least suited to power are most suited to attaining it. Those who feel no remorse are able to lie, cheat and steal their way to any goal whilst those who have the empathy we need in a leader would never dream of doing such a thing in return. The kind of leader we need now would never accept money from huge businesses in exchange for favours when they're in power. So they're never gonna get in power, and we're left to be led by those who are most capable of tricking us.

Think about it. If an extremely intelligent person decides (or is already decided) that they want something, it's very hard to stop them. It's simple to manipulate and trick people less intelligent than you are, we all know that, we've all surely experienced it at some point (perhaps through accident). The only thing that stops you is your conscience.

There are people in this world with immense intellect and empathy, people who are held accountable to their own conscience more than they could ever be held accountable in law. Yet we live in a world where we (on average at least) PREFER to listen to people who sound and look convincing.

There are people who spend their entire lives thoroughly investigating things to satisfy their own desire to understand the world - and we show skepticism towards THEIR opinion.

When a government drug expert reports upon scientific and statistical findings that show how marijuana and ecstasy are less harmful than alcohol (amongst other things), he was instantly sacked and replaced by someone who said something different.

We have government ministers in britain stealing from our pockets, getting caught in the act, and then later having the gumption to say "If you pay someone cash in hand, you are allowing them to dodge tax, therefore YOU are immoral." Do these idiots even understand the word "hypocrite"?

We actively shun and show disdain to intelligent people. We've become fixated on celebrity. When a huge news item comes along, we cut to katy perry's twitter feed to find out what she thinks, or a person on the street who knows nothing more than i do about the situation to hear what their opinion is. This is Idiocracy.

>> ^kevingrr:

As Huxley said, "It is possible to make people contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the past, but then I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with breads and circuses and you can provide them with endless distractions and propaganda."
@StukaFox
Your comment is as clever as it is simpleminded. You can worship the elephant or the donkey and I'll disagree with you based on the zeal you have for one and the disdain for the other. The world is a complicated place and whats best isn't found in one camp or the other.
Look at Huxley's last novel Island. He merges 'East and West'. He takes what he feels is best from both.


I upvoted because my reaction to this is that we've ended up in a world a lot closer to Aldous Huxley's shiny, distracted, and soul suckingly disconnected dystopia than we have 1984's drab, brutal, overtly totalitarian one. Our dystopia is much harder to break out of, because on the surface it seems open, free, and filled with prosperity, until you scratch the surface, and see the rot festering underneath.

I could've just as easily have downvoted for the stupidity of your pox upon both their houses view of modern politics though. I don't really get the sense much of anyone on the left is filled with some sort of "zeal" for the "donkey" -- and the disdain for the Republicans largely stems from the way they seem to be functionally identical to the Inner Party members from 1984. They can shamelessly go from lauding an individual mandate as the "personal responsibility principle that's essential to bring costs down" and then when the party's needs change, decry the same policy as somehow being a violation of everything that Americans hold sacred. All this while demanding they still be treated as if they were serious people of conviction and principle, and painting those who dare to point out their hypocrisy as some sort of dishonest partisan hack.

The fact that one side, and only one side has fully committed to this level of partisan loyalty should make even the most cynical, above the fray, non-partisan person sit up and take notice. Maybe it's time to stop pretending this is politics as usual, and see it for what it really is: a battle to stop a group of committed fanatics without a shred of human empathy from pushing out the last vestiges of the flawed, inept, but well-meaning opposition standing in their way.

>> ^StukaFox:

A liberal reads 1984 as a warning.
A conservative reads 1984 as a blueprint.


A anarchist reads 1984 as a challenge.

Your video, George Orwell - A Final Warning, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'George Orwell, 1984, opression' to 'George Orwell, 1984, oppression' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'George Orwell' to 'George Orwell, 1984, opression' - edited by messenger

I couldn't finish it Orwell's 1984 is becoming true right now, this shit makes me hope Animal Farm becomes a reality too!

George Orwell said this better back in 1946 in his essay "Politics and the English Language"

>> ^kymbos:

Where does all that lost shit go?


Into their pockets, that's why cenk is furious and i totally understand why. We need more angry young men to shout and scream the odds, we need people to get motivated. This person has 'borrowed' money, then told you he won't pay it back, and furthermore told you that he wants you to work harder to give him more money in the future.

He simplifies the problem thus:

He (and you, and the entire working population) has given the man many many trillions of dollars. Now that man is turning around and saying "you will not get your money back."

Can you imagine if you said that to a bank loan?

He's right to be furious. I think the interview was a fresh change, and i think it was about time that someone spoke the truth, hard and clear, in natural language that everyone can understand, to fuckpigs like this who have utterly no conscience and utterly no morals and REALLY DO steal money from you every single day.

On TV, in the open, for everyone to see, strip it bare, strip it down to the simple facts - someone has taken your money and spent it, and now they're telling you to give them more. And they're doing it in a way that you can't legally fight back, and it doesn't matter how many letters you write to them, or anyone else, or who you vote for, you WILL be giving them more of your money, and they will NOT be reimbursing you.

I'm surprised cenk didn't call him a few choice names. When asked where the money was, or whether it was going to be reimbursed, the guy just sat there, LAUGHING, and said "well it's gone now, so you're gonna have to put more in!"

Seriously, can you believe that? Could Orwell have written that any better?

was just talking about this movie this morning -- about how scary/creepy it was to some children when it came out (and perhaps a few, still, today)... And I summarily hypothesized it had something to do with the dark, suggestive, elements about corporate ownership of the consumer and how, unlike Orwell's 1984 where books are burned in an effort to maintain an ignorant society, no books are burned in Willy Wonka's world because no interest in books even exists -- such interest has been supplanted by craving for sugar, chocolate, and other candies -- and not even the "fine print" is considered....

"Who can take a sunrise?"
"The Candy Man can!"

Yes, @marinara, I'm down with traditional anarchists (though I believe the movement to be unrealistic to the extreme). My gripe is with anarcho-capitalists. It makes no sense to me to want to tear down all authoritarian structures, save capitalism. It reminds me of the Orwell Quote from animal farm about all animals being free, but some animals being more free. My gripe with Ron Paul stems from this, though I know he is probably not a full blown an-capper.

Ignoring your blatant and ignorant mischaracterization of the bible for a moment, perhaps you don't realize the role the 10 commandments has played in our legal system. Not withstanding that every single one of those commandments were once laws of this nation, it has also profoundly influenced the legal system as a whole. Some quotes:

Delware supreme court:

Long before Lord Hale declared that Christianity was a part of the laws of England, the Court of Kings Bench, 34 Eliz. in Ratcliff's case, 3 Coke Rep. 40, b. had gone so far as to declare that "in almost all cases, the common law was grounded on the law of God, which it was said was causa causans," and the court cited the 27th chapter of Numbers, to show that their judgment on a common law principle in regard to the law of inheritance, was founded on God's revelation of that law to Moses.
State v. Chandler, 2 Harr. 553 at 561 (1837)

John Adams

"It pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, . . . is immutable and universally obligatory. . . . [and] was incorporated in the judicial law."

John Quincy Adams

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. . . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down."

Chief Justice John Jay

The moral, or natural law, was given by the sovereign of the universe to all mankind."

Jusice James Wilson

"As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed law. As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature; as addressed to political societies, it has been denominated the law of nations. But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God. . . . What we do, indeed, must be founded on what He has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of His. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law as discovered by reason and moral sense forms an essential part of both. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form part of the law of nature, are of the same origin and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually."

Alexander Hamilton

"The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”"

Justice Joseph Story

"I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations." (emphasis added)
>> ^shuac:
Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.
If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Here they are. Get ready.
1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.