The longer I live the more I realize how much of a fucking genius George Orwell was. Everything really is the opposite of reality with these people.

Watching this resulted in another one of those incremental increases in appreciation for the man. Fuck these fascist assholes in their fascist fucking assholes!

@NetRunner. Downvoted your comment because I dislike the cut of your jib.

But seriously, I'm not sure even Orwell knew what he was. He was a Democratic Socialist as much as a Tory Anarchist and a member of the Labor Party. He was also, more than any other affiliation in his life, an Anarchist. But he certainly stood against capitalism, I'll admit that.

I don't get why it's important to bring up in the first place. Why believe someone's individual beliefs has anything to do with their art? I'm obviously Libertarian, yet I made a movie with a good Marxist buddy of mine. Our personal politics aren't meant to be dissuading factors for enjoying the many political themes within the narrative.

So, up until the 8 minute mark this sounded utterly correct. In particular around 7:20 or so, he mentions that the system of ownership breaks down when you get a fair income distribution, and see a middle class start to emerge.

I agree.

Then he takes a really stupid rightward turn, and insists that it's unions who're doing the hatchetwork for our owners. Please. Unions don't work for governments, or for companies. They work for us livestock.

Government, on the other hand, can easily wind up doing all the hatchetwork for the owners. Take the ultimate libertarian government -- one that only enforces ownership rights. What more could our owners want than that? Here is the natural endpoint of such moronic ideas. All the better if people come to believe that such slavery is really freedom. After all, freedom only belongs to the owners, and limits on their freedom so you can have some is wrong.

That's why income equality is such a threat to the owners -- once people get to the point where they're not constantly in a struggle to provide the basics for their family, and get a taste of real disposable income, they realize how very little money they really need, and they get very, very dangerous to the system.

They're right that economic growth attracts thieves -- the capitalist kind, who demand tax cuts and a continued maintenance of welfare to keep their livestock healthy and educated. That leads to debts, debts that they don't have to worry about paying, because they can just use their ill-gotten gain to keep bribing politicians and brainwashing the ignorant livestock into thinking it's us livestock who've been living lives of undeserved excess.

PS: The other 1984 slogans were "War is Peace", "Ignorance is Strength", along with "Freedom is Slavery". They'd fit nicely on the RNC front page.

PPS: George Orwell was a democratic socialist.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'valve, halflife 2, mac, apple, 1984, big brother, orwell' to 'valve, halflife 2, mac, apple, 1984, big brother, orwell, crowbar' - edited by youdiejoe

The southern borders to the south are porous by design.
Mexican nationals have been here for over 2 centuries and only when the ramped-up destabilization of the U.S. by the elites who really run the show entered another phase did the signs of real strain begin to show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Ike saw a reason to curtail the dark elements within the power elite (Imperialism) with his MIC speech on his way out as well.
The real enemies of humanity use race-baiting and propaganda in the form of spokespeople like Maddow..... constant newsspeak programs piped into every home, 24-7/365. (see Orwell's epic rant) Their agenda has been the same for a long, long time....Empire-building, consolidation of power, dominion.

Simple formula really-The elements of a successful takeover include destabilization of economies and nations through tactics we are experiencing worldwide.This shit is not unique to any one nation anymore because power and dominion over the planet have reached planetary proportions and is no longer relegated to individual nations. Next phase is coming soon......... one big country called the NAU.

This shit (National News cunts taking sides) is diversion. The real issue is how the systematic dumbing-down of populations while distracted by infotainment has kept most of the planet's landless peasants in a state of hypnosis ala bread and circuses and endless legalities with a view to enslaving them....so far it has been utterly successful, evidenced here in the delusional reasoning in most of the comments above.

The regime that may become our future (if you all don't pull your collective heads out of the asshole of television) will be totalitarian, and worldwide.....Corporations exist on the scale they do nowadays, because we forgot how insidious consolidation of power is.

I don't believe people will continue to sleep though, I have more hope for humanity than that.

The elimination of currencies, free energy and full-disclosure of the crimes of our keepers is the next step in human evolution.There is simply a cabal of fucking human garbage who have successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of us for too long and these times are either the birth pangs of awakening, or the prelude to more complete global enslavement.

Scary, isn't it?

And people thought that Orwell was writing fiction.

I can see why it is illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. It can cause panic because people have no time to assess the validity of the statement.

Anything less direct must be protected by law, or everything will be lost. Fuck people's hurt feelings. Hurting someone's feelings is not like breaking someone's arm. And incitement to violence? Again, only if it is a very short term situation, where people feel they must rely on the source of the information or their lives will be at risk.

Making claims that an incoming ideology is cancerous to a society is not a life or death immediate situation. There is time for people to discuss the point and embrace or dismiss it based on their own findings. If I were to claim that all short people steal babies, then some moron goes and kills a midget "to protect his child", that is entirely the fault of the idiot who failed to invalidate my claim. There was no life or death spur of the moment decision that needed to be made.

Our laws must respect our need to bring up topics of concern for discussion, even if they are emotionally charged. Even if one side eventually is proven wrong. We must be able to debate, or society will collapse into some form of fascism like in Orwell's 1984.

Now society, on the other hand, can and should be allowed to shun whatever idiots come up with stupid claims. Scientology, for instance. Nobody should ever try to make it illegal, but if people want to picket in front of their buildings and point out how stupid they are, great! That's debate, and it will help people make more informed decisions.

And similarly, if Wilders (no relation btw) wants to make terrible films describing his feelings about Islam, I don't care how emotionally charged and obscene they are. I don't even care if they are completely wrong! He must be able to speak, otherwise the ability to hold open debate on any topic is in jeopardy. It is the responsibility of the listener to interpret and work through the validity of the claims he makes, and abstain from any action until reaching their own informed opinion. It should never be done in a court.

I guess the ruling is a matter of degrees compared to what we already have...but it is a matter of degrees in the wrong direction, and as time goes on, this will just lead to more erosions of populist programs and more control to the global corps.

Worst case scenario, as I see it: war with Iran by 2012, maybe sooner.

The cons want that like a 13-year-old by wants a Playboy centerfold, and they've been wanting it for a long time.

Looks like Orwell's right again.

Department of Homeland Security. That's reason enough to not hold the Olympics in the USA. I'm a Caucasian male in his mid-twenties with no criminal record and I don't dress like a hippie or a terrorist, yet whenever I arrive at a US airport, I am treated like one.

On my first post-9/11 trip to the US, I was disgusted by the security measures at my departing airport in Düsseldorf, Germany. But compared to the arrival at JFK, it was a fucking breeze. Heavily armed guards on an airport? As if we landed in bloody Beirut.

We traveled in a group of four and one of us, a French of Tunesian heritage, was snatched and detained in a backroom for three hours while the rest of us where searched thoroughly and stripped of all electronic equipment (notebooks, mobile phones, MP3 players). They made an image of the only unencrypted HDD and kept the other three notebooks. They were mailed to our home addresses four months later. All the while we were barked at and ordered around. Now, all four of us spoke English rather well and were well dressed, so I can't even imagine what it's like for many others.

Your DHS demands more information about me in advance to any flight than my own bloody mother knows. And that's from a country that is part of the Visa Waiver Program. Fuck, crossing the intra-German border prior to '89 was more pleasant than travelling into the US as a foreigner. Biometric passport, Orwell would be proud.

Oddly enough, the Travel Promotion Act, intended to lure visitors back into the US, aims to impose a $10 fee upon entry into the US. That's some fucking logic.

Edit: "Data helps prevent crime before it happens. Smarter public safety for a smarter planet." <<-- that's an IBM info tablet on airports and again, Orwell would be proud.

I'm willing to bet most of the people there don't even understand what the G20 is, they just see it as world government, and how that has to be bad because..well...Ministry said so in that one song.

I didn't realize citing facts was hyperbole. Those were anarchists, they identified as such and they came there with no other reason other than to pick fights and start shit. That's what they do. They're idiots. They're also cowards, covering their faces, starting shit and then running away so innocent protesters can get the grief for it.

You haven't been to Pittsburgh, I live here. That street they pushed that dumpster down was steep. It could crush someone easily. That is assault. End of story.

And you can't endorse violent revolution AND believe in nonviolence. You're big into Orwell I assume, doublespeak much? If you really think that "When the government takes your 1st Amendment rights, there's always the 2nd Amendment to fall back on. This is when watering the tree of liberty is necessary" then you should sign off your computer, stock up on weapons and get to work. All you anti-govt types who think the police are instituting a police state, 9/11 was an inside job, you have no freedom of speech, etc, you're all a bunch of wussy blowhards. All talk, no action. Get to work and start killing government officials already! Or would you rather someone else do it so you can watch it on YouTube?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Doublethink is a form of trained, willful intellectual blindness to contradictions in a belief system. Doublethink differs from ordinary hypocrisy in that the "doublethinking" person deliberately had to forget the contradiction between his two opposing beliefs — and then deliberately forget that he had forgotten the contradiction. He then had to forget the forgetting of the forgetting, and so on; this intentional forgetting, once begun, continues indefinitely. In the novel's notes, Orwell describes it as "controlled insanity".

Love this movie and the book, but as a historian I felt it necessary to poke 2 holes in both. Napoleon is meant to resemble Stalin and all the horrific things he and his regime enacted. However I must bring into the picture that 1) in response to Napoleon being portrayed as a lover of lush things, fine dining, and expensive living costs; in reality Stalin lived a rather simple personal life. His own personal manor was no more fabulous than a member of the upper-middle class regardless of how revered he made himself out to be and 2) Stalin was made out to be an obsessive lover of Whiskey and liquor when in reality he very rarely indulged in them. Stalin actually would drink white wine or water and tell his comrades, whom he would invite to meetings to get drunk, that he was drinking hard liquor/vodka so they would get drunk while he remained sober. In this manner, Stalin was able to take advantage of his drunken counterparts and gain information from them they wouldn't ever dare tell sober. I'm not taking up for Napoleon (Stalin) by any account; they are both complete monsters. I am however pointing out some obvious holes in Orwell's theory while creating this fantastic tale.

And they thought he was only good for comedy. He sounded pretty knowledge, and patient around people right there. Tough subject matter, made worst, when the audience lives on sound bits of lies and misinformation. That crowd there, seemed hostile at the start, and started calming down as time progressed. If the fear and misinformation is taken out of the problem, the problem is easily managable and understood.

But I would like quantumushroom to tell all of us want 'real freedom' entails. Or is he getting at Animal Farm? "All the animals are equal, but some are more equal" ('Animal Farm', George Orwell).

I think those people QM, got some real freedom. They got to see our goverment at work, and in their presence, speaking to them.

I see what you're getting at now. I thought that part of his comment was rather childish, but I very much agreed with the rest of it, so I gave him the upvote anyway.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I was trying to display the hypocrisy in his statement about "best schools" and then using a wikipedia quote. I agree that wikipedia is an EXCELLENT place to start research, but only in browsing their sources will you go far enough beyond wikipedia to not get docked points on a paper at the "best schools" or even community college...

Because wikipedia has a bad rap with the more controversial topics, being that they've had problems with articles changing for someone's personal gain, college staff has pretty much ruled out wikipedia as a valid source of information. At my college anyway. All you need for "valid" research is 1 degree beyond wikipedia.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^rottenseed:
Anybody who has been to an average school let alone the "best" would know that quoting wikipedia as a source of your argument is a NO-NO.


Why? It's about as accurate as any other encyclopedia and certainly more up to date.

Would it have been better if he said the quote was from orwell.ru?

This idea that Wikipedia is useless is ridiculous. Read it with some skepticism, as you should with any encyclopedia, and check the source citations, which may not be an option with a traditional encyclopedia.

I was trying to display the hypocrisy in his statement about "best schools" and then using a wikipedia quote. I agree that wikipedia is an EXCELLENT place to start research, but only in browsing their sources will you go far enough beyond wikipedia to not get docked points on a paper at the "best schools" or even community college...

Because wikipedia has a bad rap with the more controversial topics, being that they've had problems with articles changing for someone's personal gain, college staff has pretty much ruled out wikipedia as a valid source of information. At my college anyway. All you need for "valid" research is 1 degree beyond wikipedia.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^rottenseed:
Anybody who has been to an average school let alone the "best" would know that quoting wikipedia as a source of your argument is a NO-NO.


Why? It's about as accurate as any other encyclopedia and certainly more up to date.

Would it have been better if he said the quote was from orwell.ru?

This idea that Wikipedia is useless is ridiculous. Read it with some skepticism, as you should with any encyclopedia, and check the source citations, which may not be an option with a traditional encyclopedia.