>>34285200 omg! like, the government is totally bad! Hey, OP, let's hang out after middle school at the soda shop! Because you'd have to be in middle school to still honestly read and adhere to the philosophies of this book.
>>34285752 >we who have learned from Orwell's book can identify political trends that lead to totalitarianism and nip them in the bud. Yeah, because that's happened at all in the decades since the book came out and was mandatory 6th grade reading.
>>34285915 indeed, he sympathized with socialism alot but thought it was being steered in the wrong direction (animal farm) much like modern communists, i wonder if he ever realized toward the end of his life that what he wanted would never work.
>>34285957 And everyone crying out about that stuff has definitely kept that stuff from happening, hasn't it. Yeah, I don't get recorded literally every where I go. There's no database recording every single internet search and post we all make, all thanks to 6th graders whining about this shit after reading the book!
>government at war successfully protects people >have a leader for the public to rally behind during these tough times >finds out people want to undermine it and put everyone at risk >find those people and arrest them >instead of killing them, try to convince them they are wrong
protagonist was just some whiny faggot who couldn't adapt to the realities of life during wartime
>>34286175 >>34286160 >>34286186 >being illiterate I never said it didn't happen, I said that no one stopped any of it in the decades since the book's been around and even literal niggers have read it. In fact, the only book more infantile and widely read is Animal Farm, and by the way, Animal Farm and its readership did nothing to stop oppression, either. If you can show me one instance, just one single instance where having read 1984 was actually useful to stopping the growth of big brother, I'll shut up. If anything, big brother's gotten only bigger and keeps getting bigger, despite everyone knowing about it. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is more apt for describing current political affairs. We're all aware of this shit, no one cares, and the few people who care don't matter. The few times the people who cared actually changed anything, it was in name only, the new boss was the same as the old boss.
>>34286673 >>34286655 How many times do I have to say, I'm not saying it's not happening, I'm saying that reading these fucking books doesn't stop it from happening. It's very fucking simple >read book >is it happening? >yes >did reading the book stop it from happening? >no That's what I'm saying, you fucking illiterates.
>>34285200 I JUST read this so excuse my very serious answer.
It seems like Winston's biggest issue was his eagerness to substitute one dictator for another.
He mindlessly agrees to do anything the brotherhood suggests, without any thought toward what he personally thinks is right or wrong. He describes sex not as an act to be done for its own sake, but as an act preformed against Big Brother, for the sole reason that B.B. discourages sex.
To me, the book seems to suggest that any definition of morals outside your own is a form of giving up control. It also suggests that rebellion isn't a legitimate form of disagreement, since by "rebelling" you agree that what you're doing goes against norms.
>>34286701 >Right-wingers are potential terrorists >The major mass shooters are from progressive liberal backgrounds >Majority of homicides happen in Democratic controlled counties >As we speak left-wing blacks destroy, vandalize, loot and terrorize a US city
I read 1984 at 16 it was required reading for my english class, Not until the age of 19 did i realize what i had read at the time was epic as fuck. Just a breakdown of population control and total surveillance.
>>34287025 That's the state of the world today though. Don't have the right haircut? Ostracized. Not wearing the latest fashion? Ostracized. Said something unfunny and awkward? I'm telling my other friends, and you're ostrasized.
>>34286673 No, actually Brave New World is about Soma and the ramifications of the apes basic desire to self medicate into oblivion.
1984 was the year papist and Holy Wood cowboy Ronald Reagan signed the concordat with the Pope of Rome ushering in the NWO, relocating from the old world apparently. Its predictive programming at its finest, you will probably find no better example. H.G. Wells also authored 'New World Order' in 1940 which describes a world under global Catholic socialism (Fascism).
There is a theme in the book were the Party to gain further control of the populace provides opportunity for rebellion. For example Goldstein's book, Venturing to the Proletariat areas and visiting prostitutes, pornography its a sort of sanctioned and not meaningful rebellion
>>34287119 He was let in on some of the things that were in the works. He didnt care for it so much so he exposed it as fiction knowing someday if what he had been told was true people would be like oh damn this book is like what is happening. Incredible this is required reading for highschool students in my state.
>>34287032 Exactly. >If hope exists, it exists with the proles B.B. wouldn't have brought the hammer down if his ideas weren't threatening in some capacity, Winston just chose to explore the wrong sectors of thought. Namely sex. It's a very tempting drive.
>>34287244 You probably know nothing about eric blair fucking dumb kid. Do you know anything about the mans life? Social connections..Anything? No you dont you fucking twat fuck now get the fuck off 4chan. Leave now assfuck.
>>34286464 >If you can show me one instance, just one single instance where having read 1984 was actually useful to stopping the growth of big brother, I'll shut up. I cannot give an example of the police state NOT expanding. You're asking us to prove a negative.
>>34287500 He went to go to spain to search for inspiration because he couldn't write for shit. Got tangled up with some anarchists and fell in line with them. Despite not understanding little about their position. Then he went back to Bongland, wrote a shitty metaphor of the Soviet Union with farm animals in 1943, though it didn't get immediately because war time. Then he wrote this piece of shit when he was dying. But not before giving the British government names of fellow commies.
To me it was all about language control and how the elite of a nation can engineer society so that being able to go against the party line is impossible. A lot of people read this book when they were young and lefty but is really worth re-reading once you become more /pol/ in your beliefs.
For me the books about political correctness, almost everything else is just a frame to get the point across
>Winston picked his way up the lane through dappled light and shade, stepping out into pools of gold wherever the boughs parted. Under the trees to the left of him the ground was misty with bluebells. The air seemed to kiss one’s skin. It was the second of May. From somewhere deeper in the heart of the wood came the droning of ring-doves.
What I learnt was that social class is endemic in totalitarian societies that rather than the state being the great equalizer it maintains and encourages class warfare. Its practically the same in Brave new world
to me what makes the book significant is the enlightening inner monologue of winston. i think orwell is a much better writer of prose than people give him credit for. i love reading winston's thoughts when he's talking to syme, or when hes working in the office
Also, does anyone else think that goldstein's book was fascinating? People always say it's the dullest part of the book, but I thought it was amazingly written.
>The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition. This last difference was cardinal. By comparison with that existing today, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups were always infected to some extent by liberal ideas, and were content to leave loose ends everywhere, to regard only the overt act and to be uninterested in what their subjects were thinking. Even the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.
>>34285200 That security at the cost of liberty isn't worth it. That government shouldn't be trusted. Especially governments who want to run your life or have a nanny state. Don't trust women or men. Know that people bend the English language to suit themselves. eg torture = enhanced interrogation. Society group-think is poisonous.
>>34285281 I'm afraid I disagree with you on the matter of Orwell's writing. His virtue was that he could write about anything in perfect prose, while also putting forward a reliable moral and political message, creating simple yet significant stories and building intriguing settings.
Have you read any of his work other than 1984, or were you just too angry at the author of every book they made you read in the Home for Troubled Boys?
Immolate yourself on a pyre of your Eragon book collection.
>Why should 21st century hate be characterized as illegal thought crimes? Because thoughts become actions. The hate begins in the mind with thoughts, then comes to life with the action of the hate crimes, not vice versa. The book 1984 instilled this irrational fear of outlawing modern free speech when it comes to insensitive words at one end of the spectrum and thought crimes on the other end of the spectrum. Have you noticed that when someone thinks and then plans carefully about killing, rather than murdering at the spur of the moment, or even by accident, its called premeditated and has enhanced penalties? Have you noticed when someone commits a crime of violence with racism in mind, its called a hate crime? Thoughts proceed actions, not the reverse. Thoughts do matter, and certain thoughts should be made illegal,
i learned that people's freedoms will be taken away, and they will be totally okay with it. they'll be ok putting their shit on facebook, being subjected to cameras everywhere, and the like, all in the name of peace and security.
people won't rebel about privacy. we have to be aware of that.
>>34288865 >Appeal to authority fallacy of course a bunch of retarded liberal faggots are going to talk shit about Rand. That doesn't make them correct, it just makes them butthurt. Communists are the ones with a childish ideology. "If we just make everyone work for free and give everyone free money the world will be perfect!"
>>34286205 >Adapt to the realities of life during wartime What situation was there to adapt from? No country should remain constantly at war in order to destroy dissenters. In addition to this, it is heavily implied in Orwell's novel that most of the rebels are actually just manufactured by the state. Also, the government does not protect the people from gruesome rocket attacks that happen almost constantly. On top of all of this, in the end, Winston will be killed eventually. The only difference is that he was not allowed to die with dignity.
What I don't understand is the torture process. How can someone be "broken"? Do they have to constantly suppress their old thinking or do they really believe what they are told? Also why did Winston find it hard to think in the end?
>>34287841 Animal farm isn't a true representation of communism and its forms, but it's a good representation of Stalinism or Totalitarianism in a communist state. Perfect communism would be a utopia and imperfect humans will never achieve it no matter how hard they try.
Now that I think about it, why hasn't somebody created a communist manifesto that takes into account the corrupting influence of people, especially those who run the system. I guess most think a new revolution will wipe the state clean, but revolution and counter-revolution is too destructive for meaningful progress.
In the ramifications of party doctrine she had not the faintest interest. Whenever he began to talk of the principles of Ingsoc, doublethink, the mutability of the past, and the denial of objective reality, and to use Newspeak words, she became bored and confused and said that she never paid any attention to that kind of thing. One knew that it was all rubbish, so why let oneself be worried by it? She knew when to cheer and when to boo, and that was all one needed. If he persisted in talking of such subjects, she had a disconcerting habit of falling asleep. She was one of those people who can go to sleep at any hour and in any position. Talking to her, he realized how easy it was to present an appearance of orthodoxy while having no grasp whatever of what orthodoxy meant. In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.
>>34285552 Sure, we know that. But I've long said if Britain wanted infinite energy all they'd have to do is hook two electrodes up to Orwell's body - he must be spinning at relativistic speeds by now.
In the end, the Good Guys (who first destroy the world's economy, which sounds like something the Illumanti) who go free John Galt from the President of the United States who is torturing John Galt until he fixes the economy in the most boring rescue mission ever (since the guards guarding the prison flee in terror or die upon sight of Dagny). After the rescue mission, the Good Guys "win" by hiding in a valley in Colorado, protected by a magic force field that makes people under it invisible from the air. For obvious reasons, objectivists never, ever mention this part of the story.
>>34285200 I learned the powers that be read the book and adopted another tactic. That of one from Brave New World
Oppress the masses by keeping them bogged down with items of pleasure.
>24/7 free porn access >Games console/family entertainment unit >unlimited access to tv and film through netflix. Why leave the house? >Order all your shopping from your phone,pc or tablet, have it delivered to your door for no extra charge!
>>34290084 Orwell's state orthodox philosophy, a comically exaggerated version of the Stalinist communist state philosophy, is so laughably crude it is unimaginable that any modern human civilization with an economy more advanced than peasant farming could function with it. Orwell also used his dystopia as a pack horse for things he didn't like: sexual repression, dumbing down of the language and literature, young attractive women who didn't want to fuck him, etc., without bothering to explain how these things were indelible features of totalitarianism or at all beneficial to the regime.
You can all circle jerk about how right Orwell is, but in a way Huxley was more right(And in a way, both are right in some ways.)
Orwell believed what we feared would destroy us. Huxley, however, believed what we love would. In Brave New World, the people were controlled by inflicting pleasure. Even now we see it in our own society.
Its always easy to be afraid of what we see as bad and evil, but how easy is it to see what you love is slowly corrupting you?
Everyone thinks of "surveillance" when they think of 1984, but I almost think the Newspeak aspect is more important. Nobody who hasn't read the book knows about it though. PC SJW terminology and biased media are just the beginnings of Newspeak to me
>>34291671 Orwell makes much of 'Newspeak' as an organ of repression - the conversion of the English language into so limited and abbreviated an instrument that the very vocabulary of dissent vanishes. Partly he got the notion from the undoubted habit of abbreviation. He gives examples of 'Communist International' becoming 'Comintern' and 'Geheime Staatspolizei' becoming 'Gestapo', but that is not a modern totalitarian invention. 'Vulgus mobile' became 'mob'; 'taxi cabriolet' became 'cab'; 'quasi-stellar radio source' became 'quasar'; 'light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation' became 'laser' and so on. There is no sign that such compressions of the language have ever weakened it as a mode of expression.
As a matter of fact, political obfuscation has tended to use many words rather than few, long words rather than short, to extend rather than to reduce. Every leader of inadequate education or limited intelligence hides behind exuberant inebriation of loquacity. Orwell reminds me of that kid who bitches about present trends and future prospects to see old and wise. I mean hell his character refuses to use a ball point pen because "of a feeling that the beautiful creamy paper deserved to be written on with a real nib instead of being scratched with an ink-pencil'. However this is dumb because steel pens, you will remember scratched fearsomely, and you know ball-points don't.
1984 is a book for pseudo-intellectuals written by a pseudo-intellectual.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.