So, I'm reading George Orwell's 1984...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm only half way through (yes, I've never read it before :(), so this observation may be a bit premature. I'm also not sure this is an entirely conspiracy theory-related observation, though many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy referring to the book every once in a while, but...

I'm not sure the people who refer to have actually read it, because...

1) They don't seem to realize that the whole mess apparently begins with a revolution against the "current" system and not an evolution (or devolution) of the current system.

2) Emmanuel Goldstein, the alleged leader of the anti-Party underground, and the focus of the Two Minutes Hate toward the beginning of the book... is Jewish (judging only by the name, of course).

It occurred to me that the world in which Winston lives may actually be the result of a successful revolution by the type of people we mock here at JREF.

Again, I'm only half way through the book, so there may be a revelation that blows this away (and if there is, don't spoil it for me :p), but I though it was a little creepy.

Heh.

[UNLoVedRebel]

It's probably the best book I've ever read. It's gonna get real good real soon.

There is a part-- I think it was in the middle so it shouldn't be a spoiler--in which Winston and Julia were talking about rockets being fired on the people. Julia suggested it was just the Party doing it to keep the people scared. That's about the only reference to a "false flag" operation I remember.

[Rogue1stclass]

Edit: The first paragraph may be a spoiler, but you should have enough info to know this by now, with Proles and the Party and the revolutions.

Well, 1984 is a critique of Stalinist Communism. After spending time with communistists revolutionaries during the Spanish Civil War, Orwell decided that communism by its very nature leads to totalitarianism and wrote two books to that effect, the second being 1984. So, no, you aren't going to find any NWO or Jews there.

Why the book appeals to CTers is the whole political mind-control aspect. The CTers see the various tactics used by the Party in the mass media. Political Correctness and revisionist history are attempts to change the way that people think and thus the way that are.

Oddly, to an extent, this is true. For instance, the PC movement was orginally established to get sexism out of the language so that, for example, you didn't automatically think "man" when someone showed up to put out a fire. Regardless of whether you think this is good or not, it is Orwellian style thought control.

However, the part that scares the bejebus out of CTers is, well, you'll know it when you see it.

[ktesibios]

Well, here's something to keep an eye out for:

There is an obvious reference to SPAM (the meat product not the email kind) in Nineteen Eighty-Four. See if you can find it.

Orwell drew on his own experience of living in postwar Britain and working at the BBC for some of the atmospherics of the book, e.g., the name "Big Brother" and the description of B.B.'s appearance have been traced to contemporary advertisements for correspondence-school language courses and the phrase "English Socialism" ("Ingsoc" in Newspeak) actually appeared in Labor Party propaganda around the same time.

SPAM was very commonly found in Orwell's England, it being one of the very few meat products not subject to the food rationing that began in WWII and continued into the '50s, hence it's working its way into the book.

I'll check back in a day or two with the answer.

BTW, have you noticed how Goldstein, both in physical description and the role he plays in Oceanian society, is a dead ringer for Leon Trotsky?

[Travis]

I have also often lamented that those who use incessant references to 1984 have not read it!

If you read the book and the only thing you come away from it with is that "mass surveillance = Big Brother" then you clearly missed the point of the book.

Something I find amusing is that we've coined the term "Orwellian" to describe the horrors of Oceania which is exactly the type of simplistic neologism that Orwell would have hated and was trying to combat by illustrating the absurdity of "Newspeak."

[UNLoVedRebel]

Something I find amusing is that we've coined the term "Orwellian" to describe the horrors of Oceania which is exactly the type of simplistic neologism that Orwell would have hated and was trying to combat by illustrating the absurdity of "Newspeak."

I doubleplusagree

[lionking]

I have also often lamented that those who use incessant references to 1984 have not read it!



Beat me to it. One of the world's greatest unreal book, like the Bible and Ulysses.

[Rogue1stclass]

I have also often lamented that those who use incessant references to 1984 have not read it!

If you read the book and the only thing you come away from it with is that "mass surveillance = Big Brother" then you clearly missed the point of the book.

Yep. It's not like Orwell tries to hide what the book is about. In fact, he explains it pretty succintly at one point.

Something I find amusing is that we've coined the term "Orwellian" to describe the horrors of Oceania which is exactly the type of simplistic neologism that Orwell would have hated and was trying to combat by illustrating the absurdity of "Newspeak."


"Orwellian" is simply an adjective used to describe particular concepts he used in his fiction. As such, it doesn't limit thought like Newspeak was designed to, but actually engages by describing a situation in a way that words like "oppression" and "paranoia" can't. In this way, it is no different from "Lovecraftian" or "Shakespearian".

His name adjectivizes well.

[thatguywhojuggles]

wtf!!?? lol! du u think d@t n3wsp3@k will 3v3r h@pp3n?

[ChrisC]

Nineteen Eighty-Four is the only book I've read that physically startled me at some point, like someone sneaking up on you and popping a balloon.

[MG1962]

Nineteen Eighty-Four is the only book I've read that physically startled me at some point, like someone sneaking up on you and popping a balloon.

Yep I had a similar reaction - I first tried to read it in my teens - three tries later and into my early 20's I got through the book. Not that it is bad in anyway, simply the imagery and concept was so horrific.

And to the OP - please ensure all sharp impliments are stored away and you have the local suicide watch phone number on your speed dial

As I once said to someone. This book starts in a stark horrible place, then gets worse

[Wildy]

But then it gets better...






... if you can call it that.

[tomwaits]

2) Emmanuel Goldstein, the alleged leader of the anti-Party underground, and the focus of the Two Minutes Hate toward the beginning of the book... is Jewish (judging only by the name, of course).

I should point out that, as another poster suggested, 1984 is based on the Stalinist Soviet Union. Within this context, Emmanuel Goldstein is based on Leon Trotsky. Both were founders of the revolution. Both were ostracized after the revolution as traitors who were allegedly working with the enemy. Both wrote books that critique the (then) current system. Both were Jewish. In fact, Trotsky's original surname was Bronstein.

[dahduh]

Wildy, I wish you would change your avatar. I just spent 5 minutes staring at it.

For me, the most chilling lines in the book:

One of these days, thought Winston with sudden deep conviction, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly.

There is a kind of inevitability; once the machinery is in place to crush free thought it just grinds on forever, like a planet orbiting the sun.

[kmortis]

Beat me to it. One of the world's greatest unreal book, like the Bible and Ulysses.

Biggest difference between 1984 & the Bible or Ulysses is that it is a shortish, easily read book whereas the other two are long and dense; the Bible had multiple authors and Ulysses only seems like it did.

[MG1962]

Wildy, I wish you would change your avatar. I just spent 5 minutes staring at it.

For me, the most chilling lines in the book:



There is a kind of inevitability; once the machinery is in place to crush free thought it just grinds on forever, like a planet orbiting the sun.

For me the most chilling quote from the book, almost life defining is where Winston begins his diary. The first line is " One plus one equals 2 - accept this, and all else follows"

[dahduh]

For me the most chilling quote from the book, almost life defining is where Winston begins his diary. The first line is "One plus one equals 2 - accept this, and all else follows"

It's a pity more bankers and stock traders didn't read this book.

[ravdin]

I see a lot of bumper stickers in Berkeley advocating for a "Department of Peace", which always makes me think of 1984.

I reread 1984 recently and it was still fresh and startling- the endless wars, government lies (specifically, the regime's campaign to invent its own reality by publishing misinformation), and torture all hit uncomfortably close to home.

[lightfire22000]

I think the government is becoming a Nineteen Eighty-Four(I like the spelled out title) like state, but in a manner that is very different than that described in the book. We're losing our discipline because of our prosperity. This makes us willing to sacrifice our freedoms.

[MG1962]

It's a pity more bankers and stock traders didn't read this book.

Given that later Winston is convinced that his interogator is holding up less fingers than he really is, maybe they did :rolleyes:

[dudalb]

I should point out that, as another poster suggested, 1984 is based on the Stalinist Soviet Union. Within this context, Emmanuel Goldstein is based on Leon Trotsky. Both were founders of the revolution. Both were ostracized after the revolution as traitors who were allegedly working with the enemy. Both wrote books that critique the (then) current system. Both were Jewish. In fact, Trotsky's original surname was Bronstein.


Although to call Orwell a Trotskite would be wrong. In his essays, he is very critical of Trotsky as bringing in a lot of the machineary of totaltarianism that Stalin perfected.
You really need to read a lot of Orwell's essays to understand where Orwell was coming from.

I recommend this complete edition:
http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Everymans-Library-Classics-Contemporary/dp/0375415033/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244486303&sr=8-2

[Rogue1stclass]

*Possible Spoilers*

As was pointed out earlier, surveillance does not equal 1984. What makes 1984 is the dissolution of the individual in favor of perpetuation of the State. The paranoia and repression are part of it, but those really only apply to the members of the Party. The Proles, for instance, aren't watched particularly hard, but they also have less opportunities for individual expression to begin with, being overworked and subject to constant brainwashing.

Everyone in Oceana is just a cog in the machine, even Big Brother, who may or may not actually exist. The sole purpose of these cogs is the continuation of the machine. Individuals matter not at all outside of what they can produce to keep the society running. This, to Orwell, was the distillation of Communism. Specifically Soviet Communism, but it also applies to idealized, Marxist Communism (though I don't think Orwell saw the distinction).

From a non-Conspiracy viewpoint, I don't think that in the current times, a 1984-style oppressive regime is even possible in Western Democracies, where generally the rights of the individual are held in very high regard. We can and will get elements of it, but even then, it will be within the power of individuals to change those elements, as we do from time to time.

ETA: Oh, and I can't really let any discussion of 1984 go on without mentioning the role-playing game Paranoia, which takes the themes of the book and uses them for black comedy in a science fiction setting.

[dahduh]

As was pointed out earlier, surveillance does not equal 1984. What makes 1984 is the dissolution of the individual in favor of perpetuation of the State.
I'm not sure that's the main message. I thought it was more the idea that to ideologues truth is something flexible, something that can be managed and tailored by re-writing history and re-designing language. The same sorts of ideas emerged with postmodernism.

When Winston is being tortured, it's not to punish him or get information out of him: it's to get him to admit that 2+2 is sometimes not 4. That's what's important.

[tomwaits]

I'm not sure that's the main message. I thought it was more the idea that to ideologues truth is something flexible, something that can be managed and tailored by re-writing history and re-designing language. The same sorts of ideas emerged with postmodernism.

When Winston is being tortured, it's not to punish him or get information out of him: it's to get him to admit that 2+2 is sometimes not 4. That's what's important.

A further exposition of the manipulation of language is in his essay Politics and the English Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language).

[Caius Textor]

1984 is not (just) a critique of Stalinist Communism, and it is not an allegory the way "Animal Farm" is with clear identifications between characters and historical figures.

1984 goes much further than just commie-bashing. The rewriting of history, the invasion of the public in the private, massive government surveilence (just to name a few) are not exclusive to communism or totalitarian regimes in general, but can be seen at work in any society with varying degrees. 1984 should be read under a much broader light else its message be lost as a temporally locked political pamphlet.
Used to criticize "Stalinism", 1984 gets both shallow and trivial. Compared to our own societies is where it's most powerful.

[dudalb]

ETA: Oh, and I can't really let any discussion of 1984 go on without mentioning the role-playing game Paranoia, which takes the themes of the book and uses them for black comedy in a science fiction setting.

You dare to doubt the Computer?

[maddog]

Nineteen Eighty-Four is the only book I've read that physically startled me at some point, like someone sneaking up on you and popping a balloon.

Not the only book that startled me like that, but it definitely did. I listened to it as a book-on-tape, and when

Big Brother's voice addressed Winston (and Julia) in their love nest,
I nearly had a urinary accident. But not quite, thankfully.

[godless dave]

I see a lot of bumper stickers in Berkeley advocating for a "Department of Peace", which always makes me think of 1984.


The US Department of Defense was called the Department of War until 1947.

[ChrisC]

Not the only book that startled me like that, but it definitely did. I listened to it as a book-on-tape, and when..."

That's what got me too.

[Corsair 115]

For me the most chilling quote from the book, almost life defining is where Winston begins his diary. The first line is " One plus one equals 2 - accept this, and all else follows"


My copy of the book is packed away at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the math used in the book is two plus two equals four.

[Rogue1stclass]

You dare to doubt the Computer?

Of course not! The Computer is my Friend!

Citizen, you know that accusing another Citizen of Treason falsly is Treason.

*Makes sure laser is handy*

[arthwollipot]

Of course not! The Computer is my Friend!

Citizen, you know that accusing another Citizen of Treason falsly is Treason.

*Makes sure laser is handy*Citizen! Are you threatening another citizen of higher security clearance? You are aware that's a Class LL misdemeanor, are you not? I hereby assign you a fine of 100 credits. I will submit Form LL-13 "Report of Fine Levied on Lower-Clearance Citizen" when I return to my office in FAR sector in three weeks. Maintain that smile, Citizen, or I will be forced to perform a Mandatory Hygiene Inspection as well!

[Rogue1stclass]

Citizen! Are you threatening another citizen of higher security clearance? You are aware that's a Class LL misdemeanor, are you not? I hereby assign you a fine of 100 credits. I will submit Form LL-13 "Report of Fine Levied on Lower-Clearance Citizen" when I return to my office in FAR sector in three weeks. Maintain that smile, Citizen, or I will be forced to perform a Mandatory Hygiene Inspection as well!

I wasn't threatening the Good Citizen, I was merely pointing out that Article 12, Statue 192-7, Paragraph 21X106 of Alpha Complex Law (Fun Edition) points out that Treason is a serious offense that should not be made lightly. Friend Computer considers those who take Treason lightly to be Traitors, and likely Commies and Mutants too.

Can you proove for a fact that dud-ALB has in fact never worn a fuzzy hat or pronounced his "v's" as "w's"? Until such a time as you can, I recomend you keep your own laser handy.

[Rogue1stclass]

1984 is not (just) a critique of Stalinist Communism, and it is not an allegory the way "Animal Farm" is with clear identifications between characters and historical figures.

1984 goes much further than just commie-bashing. The rewriting of history, the invasion of the public in the private, massive government surveilence (just to name a few) are not exclusive to communism or totalitarian regimes in general, but can be seen at work in any society with varying degrees. 1984 should be read under a much broader light else its message be lost as a temporally locked political pamphlet.
Used to criticize "Stalinism", 1984 gets both shallow and trivial. Compared to our own societies is where it's most powerful.

Of course, there are several themes in the story, which is why it's a classic. But I think that without the restraint on individuality, and especially free expression, the other mechanisms of Big Brother wouldn't have been successful.

That's how I took the story. Not as an indictment of the evils of government, but as a warning about the loss of self.

'Cause in the end, that's actually what Winston loses. Himself.

[maddog]

I think the themes are competing & complementary - Winston is fighting for a sense of self, but BB is taking it from him, as well as from everyone else. Is it a story of BB winning, or of Winston losing? Can those themes be separated? I don't think so -- they are necessarily linked.

[MG1962]

My copy of the book is packed away at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the math used in the book is two plus two equals four.

You may well be right - It has to be 20 years since I read it - Brain tends to seize up a bit at times after all that use :o

[Rogue1stclass]

I think the themes are competing & complementary - Winston is fighting for a sense of self, but BB is taking it from him, as well as from everyone else. Is it a story of BB winning, or of Winston losing? Can those themes be separated? I don't think so -- they are necessarily linked.

I'll agree to that.

The loss of self and the oppression of the Gov't feed off each other. Which is more important is really a chicken/egg concept.

[maddog]

Old TJ said it best:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

1984 shows what happens when the people stop paying the price and accept limits to get "security".



*Thomas Jefferson, of course.

[Ikarus]

Old TJ said it best:

1984 shows what happens when the people stop paying the price and accept limits to get "security".



*Thomas Jefferson, of course.

Perhaps Orwell said it even better, himself: Freedom is slavery?

[Soapy Sam]

It's not a long book- what, 3-4 hours steady reading?
As the OP dates from June 6th, I wonder if the poster has a final comment?

[Paul W]

I doubleplusagree

I think this should be "I doubleplusgood agree".

[Paul W]

The problem with George Orwell was that he was an extremely complex guy. "Animal Farm" represents (actually, "seems to me to represent") his angst with communism, but what "1984" represents is rather more problematic.

In the late '60s Silvia Orwell (his widow) published four volumes of "The Collected Essays, Letters and Journalism of George Orwell." These are well worth visiting, as are his collection of novels.

The short answer seems to me to be "I dunnow", but he makes me think - which is what is important.

[maddog]

Perhaps Orwell said it even better, himself: Freedom is slavery?

Interesting, but I'll stick with TJ. Orwell's quote puts such a negative spin on it. Not to say that he doesn't have a point, but, with freedom, there is the choice of eternal vigilance -- slavery denotes a lack of choice.

[Ikarus]

Interesting, but I'll stick with TJ. Orwell's quote puts such a negative spin on it. Not to say that he doesn't have a point, but, with freedom, there is the choice of eternal vigilance -- slavery denotes a lack of choice.
What is funny, is that the people of Oceania (and Eurasia and Eastasia) were obligated to eternal vigilance, and so was their government.

Liberty itself is a choice, which obligates to permanently live by it, in order to continue having the choice to change your mind and be a slave. Liberty is a paradox, at least.

Even choice is not as free and absolute as the word suggests. It obligates to choose and not choosing is a choice, too. When faced with a choice, you really have no choice but to choose. :)

I find a quite pure definition of (absolute) liberty to be the inhibition to exert your will over others. That makes liberty something you carry out.

I'm sorry, I have lost where this is going... I'm going to post it hoping the point will return to me when I read it again, later. :boggled:

[dann]

It occurred to me that the world in which Winston lives may actually be the result of a successful revolution by the type of people we mock here at JREF.

A more recent book comes closer to that description, Ben Elton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALvReaBQ8NU)’s novel Blind Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith_(novel)) describes a new-agey society where the resistance movement consists of Darwinists and "vaccinators":Infant mortality is frighteningly high!

I can recommend this (Marxist!) article from 1984: Free Speech: It Can Be Had Without Orwell! (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/free_speech.htm)
It contains a paragraph about The Bourgeois Personality Cult – and dudalb will hate it. :)