"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

-- George Orwell

George Orwell didn't know about global warming, or his quote might have been a little different at the end.

" The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

-- George Orwell

Reality is a motherfucker, Bob, never forget that.

Alternative Facts is a term coined by George Orwell in the novel 1984. It Implies that the government makes stuff up and makes it a crime to argue with them.

1984 is now the best-selling book on Amazon. Hmm.

From an article by Chris Hedges:

Robert Paxton wrote in “The Anatomy of Fascism”:

The language and symbols of an authentic American fascism would, of course, have little to do with the original European models. They would have to be as familiar and reassuring to loyal Americans as the language and symbols of the original fascisms were familiar and reassuring to many Italians and Germans, as [George] Orwell suggested. Hitler and Mussolini, after all, had not tried to seem exotic to their fellow citizens. No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the pledge of allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.

What an eye opener! I hope this guy does another talk about other weird words, like 'Shakespearean'! I hear it thrown around a lot, but where does it come from? What does it mean? How do it do? I bet it has something to do with George Orwell!

I know this is probably the most insipid possible point to raise over an interesting video, but why is everyone always telling us George Orwell's real name? Other authors don't seem to get the same treatment. In the world of pop music it's Elton John (whose original name was actually Walter Sloppycock or whatever it was), in literature it's George Orwell. Or they'll casually mention some fact about a certain Eric Blair and then pause to not so subtly observe your reaction.

It doesn't seem to me to be a very important thing to know. Like the occasional debate over who actually wrote Shakespeare's plays - probably this bloke called William Shakespeare, but maybe not, who knows - someone did it, and a jolly good job they did of it, and that person we call Shakespeare. The body of work is what counts, and good lord but Orwell had a hell of a body of work. Sometimes the bodies of actual fascists.

"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, is possible to carry this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield"

-- George Orwell.

Since when is Suey Park a conservative? She's the one who started it, which is what cracks me up. I love it when these progressives play it too clever by half and get beat up by other progressives. Progressives are the ones who want to control everyone's speech. A black conservative, for instance, is no longer a black person. They are an 'uncle tom'. Progressives will shut you down faster than the Department of Groupthink.

George Orwell, call your office.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually. "
-James Baldwin

“The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates.”
- Alexandre Dumas

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell

Snowden, like Manning before him, spoke truth to power. In a difficult situation, he saw something that was wrong and took the incredibly brave decision to do something about it, even at the cost of his life as he knew it.

If you found out something you knew to be immoral (and on a massive scale), would you have the bravery to follow his example? When it meant probably never seeing your friends and family again?

I suspect history will ultimately come to see him as more a patriot than a traitor.

"Fort George "Orwell" Meade" nice.

You really don't have to go back that far. Try the late 80's.
Can you imagine what the StaSi of East Germany could have done with the kind of access the NSA has? They couldn't even dream of that shit.
George Orwell must feel pretty stupid now.

Snowden isn't a hero but he certainly deserves some applause. He did exactly the right thing, he did what I'd expect from somebody who fights for freedom. You know, like the people living in the land of the free.

And regarding O'Donnell's point, he's absolutely right. Somebody in a position like Boehner should know his language better and choose it more appropiately. Unfortunately, Boehner would wipe his butt with the constitution if you'd give him enough Super PAC money.

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3

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.