Once again, from the idiots who slavishly follow Media Matters:
by Maimon (December 29, 2010 7:23 pm ET)
Remember George Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarian governemnt like say: warantless searches..illusinary wars and enemies, saying you are fiscally responsible and blowing up the dept. You know republican government.
Liberals have generally ran more fiscally responsible government than conservatives. They have too, because conservative spend all the time: BushSr..Bush Jr..Reagan...
Liberals tax and spend on:education, social welfare of its citizens, healthcare reform,etc..
Conservative tax and spend on: military, private prison systems, failed weapons programs, private mercenary companies. You know things they own stock in ie. Carlyle Group, Lockheed, Gilead Pharma...
The only conservatives that didn't run deficits or were fiscally responsible were the ones that taxed.: Eisenhower, Nixon. And they were Progressives. They were driven out of the Republican party in recently. This is how they vote in such a tight block.
And newspeak and doublethink are very Frank Luntz..who is often paid for by the GOP.
You should look in the mirror Maxconrad..or should I say O'Brian from the Ministry of Love
• by kamrom (December 29, 2010 7:48 pm ET)
Sadly, you're wasting your effort. The people we are dealing with woudl probably think that 1984 WAS socialism, when of course socialism was the system in place which the party then corrupted, until it meant NOTHING it did before. This kinda of double-talk, while done constantly by the right, tends not to be understood by them. Its a lot like how there was once a group called Conservatives. Fiscal conservatives, generally. And now the group with that name has nothing to do wiht conservation, and is instead all about blaming democrats for the outrageous costs of two pointless wars.
◦ by Absolutely Nobama (December 30, 2010 1:01 am ET)
Please read Nineteen Eighty-Four before you comment on it.
■ by mescal (December 30, 2010 1:07 am ET)
Everybody here has read it. The difference between you and us is that we understood it.
■ by Absolutely Nobama (December 30, 2010 1:12 am ET)
Did you really ? I doubt it.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was a critique of big government. It was not, in any way, shape or form, an endorsement of socialism. In many ways, it mocks it. For example, one of the "crimes" Winston "confessed" to was being an admirer of capitalism.
■ by mescal (December 30, 2010 1:53 am ET)
You do know, don't you, that George Orwell was himself a proud socialist?
I'm kidding, of course. The odds of you knowing any historical facts are nearly nil.
And, by the way... I first read Nineteen Eighty-four was when I was sixteen, and was far more literate then than you demonstrate yourself to be now.
■ by Absolutely Nobama (December 30, 2010 2:55 am ET)
Instead of attempting to tell everyone how smart you supposedly are, why don't you respond to my last post ?
What point do you think Orwell was trying to make when Winston "confessed" to being an admirer of capitalism ?
C'mon, you can do it....go to wikipedia....that's it...
■ by mescal (December 30, 2010 4:00 am ET)
Nineteen Eighty Four was a dissecting of the horrors of Stalinistic totalitarianism, and not merely 'big government'. Orwell's point was not that the authoritarian government that he created was opposed to capitalism. It was that it could, through the use of applied terror, disinformation, and other ruthless forms of mind control, force the individual to say and to BELIEVE whatever it wanted him to believe. People were also forced to confess to practicing Goldsteinism, even though they hadn't a clue as to what Goldsteinism was.
It was about the attempted destruction of the human will and spirit. It was about conformism. It was about hatred raised to an art form. it was about authoritarianism mutating into a national psychosis.
Plucking one isolated little term out of this brilliant novel and citing that as definitive proof that Orwell's intention was to denounce liberalism is just plain vapid. All you did was show that you haven't a clue to what it's about.
Now, let's hear YOUR explanation about Orwell's support of socialism, and how that could POSSIBLY jibe with your anti-liberal screeds.
■ by Absolutely Nobama (December 30, 2010 4:24 am ET)
Lib Argument 765-A
Ignore what your eyes and common sense tell you. We know best.
■ by mescal (December 30, 2010 4:28 am ET)
In other words, you have no argument.
Time for you to declare victory and depart the field.
■ by Absolutely Nobama (December 30, 2010 10:45 pm ET)
Nope. Still waiting for your response.
■ by highlyunlikely (December 30, 2010 5:26 pm ET)
con argument #infinity: never let nuances interfere with your simple-minded world view.
■ by Absolutely Nobama (December 30, 2010 4:28 am ET)
It wasn't isolated at all. There was the mention that in order to survive, Oceanians had to go on the black market, every product was Victory Brand, etc.
I'm begging you. Read the book. Stop bleating out the usual lefty talking points.
■ by mescal (December 30, 2010 4:30 am ET)
I've read the book, fool.
Once again, the main difference between you and most of here is that we actually understood it.
■ by So Fain (December 30, 2010 8:40 am ET)
Wow. Orwell would indeed roll over in his grave at Nobama's interpretation of his work. Is there nothing that the right wing won't twist to support their pro-corporatist, pro-elite agenda?
■ by curiousindependent (December 30, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
The Bible, the Constitution, law, Dr. King, Malcolm X, and now 1984. I am sure that I have missed a lot, and that they are still working diligently to discover what else they can disinform about to make it seem either an indictment of Progressivism, or praise of Recidivism (the opposite of progressivism, for those wingnuts who have a hard time with big words), or both.
■ by SoloPocono (December 30, 2010 1:05 pm ET)
Right? And THIS-the complete alternate reality these wackos live in & defend-is even scarier when you realize they're "re-educating" their children into this hell.
Who needs critical thinking when you have your own "facts". "1984" on steroids.... :(
Now, you didn't think I'd let these nimrods get away with inventing their own facts, do you ? Of course not! Keep reading, True Believer!
by Maimon (December 30, 2010 11:24 pm ET)
I think Animal Farm was his anti-stalinist piece, but I agree with you entirely.
My reading of 1984 is more about how the state creates its own history, its own values , its own myths and its own language. The purpose of all this creation is to manufacture pliable citizens.
Winston is not "released" until he blieves the lies and O'Brian breaks him. BB does not kill people who go against it..it remakes them.
If you look at the following Pink Floyd albums the same themes can be found : Animals, Wish You Were Here, Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall.
• by Absolutely Nobama (December 30, 2010 11:42 pm ET)
And guess what, you're wrong, too.
• by Maimon (December 30, 2010 11:16 pm ET)
LMAO..never said it was an endorsement of Socialism. I stated the writer was an ardent socialist. And he was.
Orwell wrote about broken promises like Stalinism and how it corrupted many of the socialist movements. Orwell was opposed to ANY form of Totalitarianism.
Doublethink and Newspeak is very GOP.
Orwell wrote about what he knew which was socialism...doesn't mean it does not apply to modern movement conservatism/ neoconservatism or paleoconservatism.
Much like Aldous Huxley in A Brave New World. The central ideas in both books are universal and not particular to any political movement.
And so you know,it is only our economy that is capitalistic. Our society is democratic. There is a great distinction between the two.
• by Maimon (December 30, 2010 4:35 pm ET)
lol...I have read 1984 many times. Just like I've read all of Orwell's works. Orwell was a socialist and a trade unionist. He actually served in a "trotskist" militia. He wrote 1984 as a response to ANY form of totalitarian regimes. Also he got paid to write Animal Farm by the British Government as piece of anti-Stalinist porpaganda. He hated Stalin for ruining the movement.
Newspeak and Doublethink are central neocon/movement conservative doctrines. The GOP uses guys like Frank Luntz to test palatability of phrases and concepts:
-estate tax= death tax
-dead civilians=collateral damage
-partial birth abortion is not a medical term
The GOP tells you that they are fiscally responsible, but the reality is they have driven the debt and deficits. Doublethink
The GOP tells you they are tough on foreign affairs: Bush Sr. watched Saddam roll into Kuwait. Bush Jr had 9-11 and two wars that snuck up on him. Reagan missed the Hezbollah bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon. Then Reagan armed the Mujahadin groups that eventually became the Taliban and Al-Queda. Did I mention he funded them through Pakistani ISI. Doublethink
The Lords of Illusion are masters of spin. One of them has a show called" The No Spin Zone" Doublethink
• by Absolutely Nobama (December 30, 2010 2:57 am ET)
Ingsoc....Newspeak for English Socialism.....
Do you libs read at all ?
by magnolialover (December 30, 2010 8:41 am ET)
Apparently, you don't.
by mattcable250650 (December 30, 2010 12:04 pm ET)
Well yes, you're free to spout such idiotic drively, but you look like kinda stupid when you're doing so..
I agree with your general assertion that reading and truly understanding are two different things, but you've given no reason to think that you have any better understanding of 1984 than we do (Yeah, I also read it back in my youth). If you want to prove that your understanding is better, you need to find and cite specific passages and show us that we're wrong. Simply asserting over and over that we're stupid and that you're smart means absolutely nothing.
• by magnolialover (December 30, 2010 1:34 pm ET)
This breakdown of 1984 will not fit on a bumper sticker, so, chances are good, he won't be providing any examples anytime soon.
◦ by Lord of Light (December 30, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
Indeed. Plus it's complex. When a right-winger sees complexity in issues like global warming or terrorism, the solution is always whatever requires no thinking -- in these cases, denial and a pretentious John Wayne pose (as long as the low-income they hate so much do the fighting), respectively.
■ by magnolialover (December 30, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
It is and can be complex. We saw what happens when they don't want to engage in something, they write things like, "YAWN.." and, "Are you done yet?"
• by Absolutely Nobama (December 30, 2010 11:41 pm ET)
You asked for it:
"Rutherford had once been a famous caricturist, whose brutal cartoons had helped inflame popular opinion before and during the Revolution. Even now, at long intervals, his cartoons were appearing in the Times. They were simply an imitation of his earlier manner, and curiously lifeless and unconvincing. Always they were a rehashing of the ancient themes--Slum tenements, starving children, street battles, CAPITALISTS IN TOP HATS [empahsis mine]--even on the barricades the CAPITALISTS [again, emphasis mine] still seemed to cling to their top hats-- an endless, hopeless effort to get back to the past."--George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
You'd think Rutherford worked for the Daily Kos, but no, he was a member of the Inner Party.
"But in among all this terrible poverty were just a few great big beautiful houses that were lived in by RICH [emphasis mine] men who had as many as thirty servants to look after them. These RICH [emphasis mine] men were called CAPITALISTS. [Emphasis mine] They were fat, ugly men with wicked faces, like the ones in the picture on the opposite page."-- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Despite how eerily similiar this is to a Frank Rich column in the New York Slimes, it's not. It's a quotation from the history text book that Winston borrowed from Mrs. Parsons. It was how INGSOC indoctrinated children, much the same way public schools indoctrinate children today. Since it's very obvious none of you actually read the book, INGSOC was the party of Big Brother, and hence the antagonist of the book.
Ah, but there's more:
"He [Winston] confessed that he was a religious believer, an admirer of CAPITALISM [empahsis mine], and a sexual pervert."-- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Freedom is the Freedom to say none of you actually read this book and you're a bunch of pompous blowhards.
Game. Set. Match. Just like when Reagan wiped the mat with Carter and Mondale.
(Just so you know: All grammatical and spelling errors were left in for effect.)