Case in point that came home recently for me. The constant comparisons of September 11th with Pearl Harbour "suprise" attack. Until recently I'd not know that Pearl Harbour was known about, and quite likely encouraged or even engineered by the US government of the day. Motive - to get the US a good fat pretext for entering a war.

"He who controls the past controls the future"

So Bush can sit there with a straight face comparing September 11th with Pearl Habour and now the US is in another eternal war for eternal peace.

Orwell envisaged a world where the past was re-written daily. But he thought it needed to be done by force. The reality is more sinister and more hopeless.

I hadn't really beleived the stories about Pearl Harbour, but then the other week I found the same stories on the Senate's own web site. Seems that they had asked for the two top ranking military types at Pearl Harbour to be reinstated to their rank during the war (posthumously) because after all, it wasn't their fault, and 60 years after the events, it could be said. Washington knew of the attack but never forwarded the data. Part of a larger bill, Clinton refused to sign the part to give back the rank. I guess it's sitting in Bush's in tray still..... it was just the other year.

quote:

---

So Bush can sit there with a straight face comparing September 11th with Pearl Habour and now the US is in another eternal war for eternal peace.

---

He should have put more emphasis on the willing ness of people to be subjected to the control of the party. The best parts were his dealing with "The two minutes of hate" and the way he mentions that the dreaded telescreens were something people voluntarily bought for themselves (at least among the workers). The way people learn doublethink so naturally too.

He never really did come up with any justification for the system, the "WHY" was lacking. O'Brien claims it is all about power, but does O'Brien have any power? Not at all. If he had power why would he spend seven years of his life investigating Winston? If Winston is nothing then O'Brien is doubly nothing. What kind of a bumb job is that? "Oh keep an eye on this guy for seven years and then torture him for no reason for a few more years."

If O'Brien had had seven girlfriends like Hef then we'd all understand he had power. But instead O'Brien was probably spied on as much as anyone else and wasn't getting any. 'nuff said.

Another weakness. The idea that martyrs were avoided by breaking them somehow didn't really pan out for me. Because the people didn't know that they were really broken. All they saw was the same Soviet-style confessions which were assumed to be false and taken under torture.

The whole point with Julia and the rats seemed a bit flat too. So they "betrayed" each other. So what? Get over it.

quote:

---

My question is - is it sometimes acceptable to distort the truth about history and if so, how do we know when to stop?

---

The picture hasn't changed at all. The sculpture is a work of art that allows for artistic discretion. The moral is that though this tragedy was born of religious hatred, the love of people from all walks of life have come together to over come.

Sure seems to me they seem awful afraid of social harmony in the face of a threat.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

The truth is the truth. Only fanatics try to distort it to satisfy their need to feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Imagine if it had been three black men who erected the flag. Do ya think Dr conway would be supporting erasing two of them from the statue and replacing one of them with a *gasp* white man? To promote - how did he put it - "social harmony in the face of a threat."

Yeah right. I can just see the good Dr. marching beside Jessie Jackson through the streets of New York. Screaming that the no good white oppressor is rewriting history in his own image.

You are quite the piece of work Doc.[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

Trying to bait me is not going to work, pal.

(edit to add that incidentally, the "threat" is the apparent likelihood of further terrorist acts, and as such conservatives such as yourself spare no effort in reminding us all that the brave United States of America is ridding the world of evil, blah blah blah. And in such times, it would seem just a tad prudent to be more willing to encourage all parts of society to work together, rather than carping because you don't want a memorial to reflect the true composition of society.)

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

You see Doc, There are some of us who value the truth - even truths that others may find distasteful or offensive. Truth, after all, is absolute - except in the hands of people like you who would expunge all offensive truths from existence simply because they hurt your sensibilities and do not fit with your vision of how things shoud be or should have been.

We have to be on our guard against people like you - people who think they know what's good for others and are willing to lie and cheat to mold society to the form they feel is desirable. It is you that Orwell was warning us about.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

quote:

---

You see Doc, There are some of us who value the truth

---

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee har har har har har har heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.

Fuck was that funny. I mean just look at this from a past post of yours.

quote:

---

Hey, I'm just tryng to help.

---

To borrow a work from Michelle.

quote:

---

Willie, Tell me about your childhood.

---

Now why in the world would I do that? To open myself to some twisted ridicule from someone I hold in low regard?

Surely you can't be so ignorant that you would think that such a sophomoric intelect such as your own could even begin to comprehend the psychological make up of another let alone how it came to be.

Chrarity begins at home gerbie. I suggest you look to yourself to understand the questions that plague your thoughts and learn to love who you are rather than who you would like others to see you as.

Also, really, ALL conservatives think that way? Uh huh.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: judym ]

However, for the record, I've just edited the post in question.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Leftitis is a curable disease.

---

Orwell was in fact a socialist, or at least a "democratic socialist." Part of his critism of Soviet-style Communism came through what he experienced in the Spanish Cival War.

Back to the topic of using racial insults in the context of illustrating the bigoted mind, I think context should definitely be considered instead of just looking at individual words. I would hope we are all mature enough to understand concepts of irony and sarcasm.

The problem with a lot of bigots today is that they dress their hatred up in fancy words and twisted statistics, when what they really mean is "gays are bad because they're icky" or "blacks are bad because they're skin is a different colour. Cutting through the BS and pointing out their true motivations should be an acceptable part of political discourse.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]

Surveillance by the state isn't really a part of BNW. The focus of BNW is a state where consumerism is the official religion, mood "enhancing" drugs and banal media keep the people in a state of ignorant bliss, and genetic engineering creates a "perfect" population (including semi-morons to do the menial labour).

When people are compelled to rebel against the system and try to think for themselves, they are relocated to a special island where free-thinkers can do their research without contaminating the social environment of the majority.

For another, they provide a cautionary example -- "see? This is how humans used to live, in those benighted years B.F."

quote:

---

It's not explained explicitly, but there are several good reasons. For one, they're an amusing diversion for the city-dwellers -- an object of tourism.

---

Wouldn't a theme park with simulated savages that one can control be a better tourist attraction?

quote:

---

For another, they provide a cautionary example -- "see? This is how humans used to live, in those benighted years B.F."

---

Could this purpose be served by a few well-produced "Heritage Minutes"?

quote:

---

For yet another, this is not one of your bad old totalitarianisms, ruling by means of secret police, deprivation, genocide, and the like. It's a kinder, gentler sort, preserving the trappings of humanism. Outright massacre, or even killing by neglect, is unthinkable.

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't a theme park with simulated savages that one can control be a better tourist attraction?

---

Well, this is a society with a fairly high degree of control, recall. They control the savages by limiting them to a small area and keeping them as happy as possible.

quote:

---

Truth, after all, is absolute

---

When a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to hear it, it DOES make a sound. There is just no-one to hear it.

And if the truth gets buried beneath a mountain of lies and noone is aware of it, it is STILL th etruth.

If you're waiting to hear the truth,
I suggest you get comfortable,
For the forest's carbon sinks
will have been credited then debited
the ledger lost,
the fire spent,
the land paved over,
before attainment of enlightenment.
Nor would I suggest
seriously contemplating that quest.
The acrid sweetness you quote as "bitter,"
is a subjective modifier of human fancy.
The truth,
being objective, being pure of thought
cannot be viewed with the rods and cones
of your particular retina.
But do know this:
If you ever catch a glimpse
of that elusive neutrino with the proper spin
just remember, close at hand,
is a lot of frosted icing.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]

is truth absolute , or is it a cognitive , very subjective , context bound , interpretation of reality ?

question: was orwell a really a socialist ? many people fought in the spanish civil war to fight fascism. that didn't mean they were communists , anarchists , or any other ists. some of his other books ( animal farm , road to wigan pier ) seemed highly critical of socialism , although perhaps animal farm was a condemnation of the bolshevic betrayal of socialist goals and promises.

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: freedom2002 ]

quote:

---

was orwell a really a socialist ? many people fought in the spanish civil war to fight fascism. that didn't mean they were communists , anarchists , or any other ists. some of his other books ( animal farm , road to wigan pier ) seemed highly critical of socialism , although perhaps animal farm was a condemnation of the bolshevic betrayal of socialist goals and promises.

---

Orwell was indeed a socialist. He was critical of the movement, but not the ideals and goals.

Animal Farm was critical of Stalinism and Soviet-style dictatorship, not socialism itself.

The first half of Road to Wigan pier criticises the class system in 1930's England. It describes the widespread poverty and the shitty conditions of the working class, specifically miners.

The second half of Wigan Pier criticises the middle-class intellectual types who control the socialist movement and turn working class people off of socialism. A critisism which I think is still valid today.

Here's a link for a little more info. (Note: I chose a literary site, not a political one.)

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]