[Closed] I've never read 1984. Should I?

I haven't read the book but I rate the film very highly.. after someone pointed out the now very obvious 'twist'. Remarkable in fact that it's so blatantly obvious but our Hollywood conditioning seems to hide it in plain view.

Eh? Whats the twist?

I often wonder how you guys see these things, but I took the film as a laddish shoot em up. Now, prompted by ninfan's post my brain is in overdrive and I wiki'd the book/storyline - even the film uses military uniforms based on the WW2 German uniform and therefore leading the way to promotion of fascism? The blatant destruction of and belief in superiority of the Bugs intended to also portray the same / racial extermination/overtones?

I can't work out whether I'm too thick to see these things, or people are reading much too much into what people write down for the sake of critical comment.

Nah, the book is much more introspective about the nature of democracy, society and personal liberty - the filum is just garbage as, other than the short bit in school, it completely glosses over/misses the analysis.

Also one to throw out there in dystopian concepts is Heinlein's Starship Troopers (needless to say I'm talking about the book, not the travesty they called a film)

Heresy! It's a great film, as long as you take it as a black comedy and don't worry too much about the book.

The twist is that the humans are the baddies. If you watch it with that in mind, it's glaringly obvious - Nazi uniforms, the imperial eagle, even the SS are there.

It may not be the same as the book but that doesn't stop it standing alone as a film.

Starship troopers is a dark dark book. well worth the read.

So, the reading list so far, from this thread:

Down and Out in Paris and London
Something by Noam Chomsky
Starship Troopers

What else?

Animal Farm

and not from the thread so far but probably relevant
Lord Of The Flies

Read both of those. Both fantastic, and both very relevant every day. More so than 1984, I reckon, because they are about basic human nature.

What else?

Wigan Pier or Priestleys 'English Journey'

Modern:

Talebs 'Black Swan'

for those with an interest in policing:

James Patrick's 'The Rest is Silence'

military buffs:

Seelowe Nord: Andy Johnson
Chieftians: Bob Forrest Webb
A Measure of Danger: Memoirs of war journalist Michael Nicholson

Brave New World is the obvious choice if you haven't read it yet.

But if we're going for SF-dystopian-future type novels:

The Drowned World
Riddley Walker
A Canticle for Leibowitz
The Day of the Triffids

The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin, the best book I've ever read about the political and the personal and how they cannot be seperated

We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Generally thought to be a major influence on both Brave New World and 1984. And a really good read.

Necessary Illusions or Manufacturing Consent are the two most well known starting points for Noam Chomsky

Brave New World was good, but suffered from being so seminal of course. By which I mean its ideas have been reused so often in the last 80 years that we think of them as part of the landscape now.

*searches for starship troopers on kindle* Bugger, not there.

The legend that is David Icke on the connection between Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World

So, the reading list so far, from this thread:

Down and Out in Paris and London
Something by Noam Chomsky
Starship Troopers

What else?

Keep the Aspidistra Flying - this is a great book, possibly my favourite of Orwell's novels. Blackly comic. It's a precursor to the theme he takes to a terrifying conclusion in 1984 - the impossibility of retaining individual liberty in the face of societal pressure.

Alone In Berlin - the German title for this is "Every Man Dies Alone" - spookily close to Orwell's projected title for 1984 - The Last Man In Europe. All the more chilling for being set in the actual past as opposed to an imagined future. Ditto, Darkness At Noon - set during Stalin's show trials.

So, the reading list so far, from this thread:

Down and Out in Paris and London
Something by Noam Chomsky
Starship Troopers

What else?

There's also a couple of incidences of Chomsky stepping on his dick in horrendous fashion, and completely failing to acknowledge he was wrong (his infamous article on the Khmer rouge in Cambodia being the most prominent example - genocide? what genocide?). Everyone makes mistakes, but his dissembling, mealy-mouthed response to the whole world telling him he was wrong doesn't sit right.

[url= http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp271/repackrider/avatar235.jp g" target="_blank">http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp271/repackrider/avatar235.jp g"/> [/IMG][/url]
[url= http://sonic.net/~ckelly/Seekay/mtbwelcome.htm ][b]2retro4u[/b][/url]
Marin County, Cali

It turns out that Orwell was far too optimistic.

Yikes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27887639

And

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27781078

The first one is not great, but the second one I'm not worried about. They've collected anonymised data about the locations of people when they search - not really any different to someone sitting outside a shop counting how many people walk in or look in the window. I don't think they'd be able to keep data about you legally - could they?

If you're bothered about your online data and habits being mined for analysis then use a privacy tool such as [url= https://www.torproject.org ]tor [/url], there's also various email privacy programs you can use so your email correspondence stays private.

But if you use Facebook then all hope is lost……... Needless to say i am not a user. 😉

I reckon Road to Wigan Pier and Down and out in Paris and London are better books, but they're not on the curriculum.

Down & Out is just beautiful.

To save a bit of time just listen to the Bowie song.

molgrips - Member
The first one is not great, but the second one I'm not worried about. They've collected anonymised data about the locations of people when they search - not really any different to someone sitting outside a shop counting how many people walk in or look in the window. I don't think they'd be able to keep data about you legally - could they?

It is. Why not, as per the book target government led spin at the public, military recruitement at likely candidates etc?

This CAN happen and already does - I may just be associated with a similar line of work. Those "adds" on STW for example that uncannily are about the very thing you were just googling...

Why not, as per the book target government led spin at the public, military recruitement at likely candidates etc?

That's market research and it happens a lot - has done for years. I'm not sure what the alternative is tbh?

Other people can see your actions. Is that really avoidable? I don't think that EE, in collecting data about how pepole use their services are really doing anything unduly intrusive.

Put it this way - you will still be advertised at just as much. It's just that this way there's more chance of getting something in which you might be interested. Those ads on STW would still be there if you never googled.

But my point is - and I refer back to the generalisation no the specifics or Orwells message - there's only a small leap from advertising a product that some generic software believes I might be interested in, to a government using the same mechanism to throw a message at me which it wants me to believe, enough times and with enough conviction. That I start to believe it Like the 2 minute hate for example.

[i]There's also a couple of incidences of Chomsky stepping on his dick in horrendous fashion, and completely failing to acknowledge he was wrong (his infamous article on the Khmer rouge in Cambodia being the most prominent example - genocide? what genocide?). Everyone makes mistakes, but his dissembling, mealy-mouthed response to the whole world telling him he was wrong doesn't sit right.[/i]

In 1977 he wrote a review if a book about the Khmer Rouge in which he advised readers to [i]" treat with care and caution these numbers, as they are unverified"[/i]

Thus proving that at the time Noam Chomsky along with the rest of the world knew little about just how violent and depraved the Khmer Rouge actually were. So yeah, bang to rights, you've nailed it there, genocide denier, no doubt about it 🙄

there's only a small leap from advertising a product that some generic software believes I might be interested in, to a government using the same mechanism to throw a message at me which it wants me to believe

I think there's a huge leap. For starters, we still have a functioning ballot box, so if a government wanted to push a message without anyone else disagreeing or pushing an alternative, they'd have to crush free speech.

This is the important debate, not market research.

http://www.genewatch.org/sub-567725

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/green-party-peer-put-on-database-of-extremists-by-police

So, given the fact weknow certain police officers lie and falsify accounts, you still think we shouldn't be overly concerned with data-gathering?

I said I wasn't overly concerned about that particular story. I said the previous one was of more concern.

Better to analyse the story and keep an open mind, rather than jerk one's knees, I think.

Thus proving that at the time Noam Chomsky along with the rest of the world knew little about just how violent and depraved the Khmer Rouge actually were. So yeah, bang to rights, you've nailed it there, genocide denier, no doubt about it

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm

Rejecting US state dept and eyewitness reports out of hand, whereas official Cambodian government reports are taken at face value (e.g. the emptying of Phnom Penh). There were ample reports of the Khmer rouge atrocities available in 77, to those prepared to hear them. Chomsky, though, is a man who begins with his conclusion, and is prepared to distort and bend the available facts to fit it.

Like I said - everyone can make a mistake and every leftwing academic on earth was hoping for the Khmer rouge to bring peaceful communist harmony to Cambodia. But seeing how badly Chomsky will contort himself to take an anti-US position should make you realise he's not a serious voice.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with Jenny Jones being on a database of potential nutters, given her public support for the illegal destruction of trial crops

I also find it preposterous to suggest that there is anything wrong with the police monitoring or investigating (within the bounds of the law) the actions of people, including politicians, who do not (yet) have a criminal record - why should Jenny Jones be any more immune from this than Nick Griffin and his mates?

Gary that article you linked doesn't really support your view that he's a genocide denier, it does ask the questions. Can we believe the information we are getting? if that's the best you can come up with to label Chomsky a lightweight, then you've got more work to do to convince me I'm afraid. I read Chomsky for his opposition of All govts that routinely lie, cheat, steal and propagandise at the own citizens and others, not just the USA.

I also find it preposterous to suggest that there is anything wrong with the police monitoring or investigating (within the bounds of the law) the actions of people, including politicians, who do not [b][i](yet) [/b][/i]have a criminal record

So you think it's ok to investigate people on the off chance that you consider they may break the law?,

You are a cop and i claim my £5 finders fee, Nah….you're prob not a cop in real life but from the tone and manner of your previous replies to subjects i can quite confidently claim (in my opinion) you are a richard head.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with Jenny Jones being on a database of potential nutters, given her public support for the illegal destruction of trial crops

Wow. 😆

Let's let the lady herself respond:

The rumours are wrong; I'll be at the picnic on Sunday, not destroying
the crop. I shall voice my opposition to research into GM crops that I
think is a bad, possibly dangerous use of public money.[b] I strongly
support Non Violent Direct Action and disown damage to property[/b], but
there's sometimes a conflict; in damaging military jets in an attempt
to sabotage an unjust war, or breaking windows in the name of womens'
suffrage, direct action has a complicated and distinguished place in
our democratic history. And I do understand the depth of despair and
the desperation that protesters feel. But they must face the legal
consequences of their actions, and think deeply about the ethics of
their actions - like lots of things in life it's more complicated than
some of my critics seem to want to admit.

That's an interesting 'interpretation' you have there, Ninfan. And 'potential nutter'? Jenny Jones?? Really? You're going with that? Ok then... 😆

I also find it preposterous to suggest that there is anything wrong with the police monitoring or investigating (within the bounds of the law) the actions of people, including politicians, who do not (yet) have a criminal record

Why would they monitor specific individuals and not others though? Who gets to choose those who they consider to be 'potential nutters'? Who sanctions such surveillance? Considering the recent high-profile cases involving systematic abuse of police powers, including the undercover monitoring of the Stephen Lawrence family, and the cases I linked to previously, I think it only sensible to question the motives and actions of the police and other state agencies which use covert monitoring targeted at specific individuals. Because the police have certainly proved, time and again, not to be a fit and proper agency to carry out such actions.

why should Jenny Jones be any more immune from this than Nick Griffin and his mates?

You really need to ask that question?

Wow.

That's an interesting 'interpretation' you have there, Ninfan

What, that I think that inciting people to vandalise legal scientific tests should lead to prosecution?

Nick Griffin was cleared of inciting racial hatred in court - it doesn't make him any less guilty of it though, does it?

You see, politicians, even ones that you agree with, are not above breaking the law, shocking I know!

including the undercover monitoring of the Stephen Lawrence family, and the cases I linked to previously, I think it only sensible to question the motives and actions of the police and other state agencies which use covert monitoring targeted at specific individuals. Because the police have certainly proved, time and again, not to be a fit and proper agency to carry out such actions.

You obviously chose to completely ignore the bit where I said "within the bounds of the law"

What, that I think that inciting people to vandalise legal scientific tests should lead to prosecution?

And where has Jenny Jones done that? Do you have any compellinglegal evidence that the CPS etc don't?

Nick Griffin was cleared of inciting racial hatred in court

Really?

In 1998, [b]Griffin was convicted[/b] of violating section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to the offence of 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material' in issue 12 of The Rune, published in 1996. Griffin's comments in the magazine were reported to the police by Alex Carlile, then the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire. Following a police raid at Griffin's home, he was charged with distributing material likely to incite racial hatred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin#Criminal_charges

You obviously chose to completely ignore the bit where I said "within the bounds of the law"

No-one involved in the surveillance of the Lawrence family has yet even faced any charges.

http://www.freezepage.com/1337975364IBOTAIZBTV

telling lies and misrepresenting the facts, openly supporting and publicising criminal acts and publicly justifying them morally, then later disowning illegality, just like Nick does!

Really?

Yes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm

He may have been convicted of something else in the past, But on the incitement charge Nick was found not guilty, [u]exactly like I said[/u], and anyway, Nick claimed he wasn't racist anymore

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6125834.stm

So, according Nick the same courtesy that we are supposed to offer Jenny he's innocent

No-one involved in the surveillance of the Lawrence family has yet even faced any charges.

Which by your standard, as applied to Jenny, means the police are innocent, yes?

This was a good thread... 🙁 well done ninfan, you killed it.

Well, it was Stoffel who decided that poor Jenny Jones was being persecuted by the evil 1984 police state, and took to prove his point by posting reams of quotes that just prove she's a raving anti science nutter!

I would have been happy to leave it at just saying I had no problem with her (or any other) extremist nutter being investigated by the police

Perhaps we can get back onto the point now?