0
27

[–] YellyYuropoor 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Everybody knows, at least knew before crawling back into wilfull ignorance. It takes personal sacrifices to stand up and do something about it. People love their coca-cola, people love their tv, people pay tax because they do not want to get in trouble.. We chose this. Noncomplience is all it takes to make it stop. I guess burgers are just too damn good and the fear of prison or losing your house is just too big. They've done an excellent job killing our spirit. "It's just the way it is" We're divided more than ever. We hate on people that are running for their lifes because we're made scared beyond reason. Things are escalating across the globe and "from chaos, we will create order." Everything is going according to plan. But by all means let's not reckonise that and continiou to hate eachother and buy the products from companies that make the brave new 1984 run. (uploaded from my Iphone......)

2
18

[–] Kithsander 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago 

Years ago I worked for a now defunct video rental company. One of the store managers was stealing shit from the store. DVDs, candy, whatever. On top of this they were also the laziest person I've ever met, and would only actually do work when the store manager was around and even that was underwhelming. The store manager was aware of all of this, as was everyone else in the store. Somehow, every "team meeting", the lazy managers list of undone tasks was blamed on the underlings by the store manager. Even pointing out that these were tasks that were to be done specifically by that particular lazy manager were useless. The underlings were blamed. We got together and decided after a particularly crappy meeting that we weren't coming back. There were four of us, counting myself. One of the others had been my best friend from middle school, through high school, and at that time right at the end of college.

When it came time for the people to do what they said they would, to stand up for what they thought was right, I was the only mother fucker dumb enough to believe that a man does what he says he will.

I love the movie cliche where the hero gets told that if they're brave enough to lead the charge, the people will follow. No, no they won't. They'll stand around in a herd with their eyes as large as dinner saucers, watching as that one person who stood up to do what they felt was right gets gunned down in a thundering cloud of bullets. And then they'll go to lunch.

0
10

[–] YellyYuropoor 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

if they're brave enough to lead the charge, the people will follow. No, no they won't. They'll stand around in a herd with their eyes as large as dinner saucers, watching as that one person who stood up to do what they felt was right

And yet it takes somebody not affraid of standing alone to make a difference. It's superdemotivating watching everybody sit and do nothing, yes. Don't give up. If you don't do it for those fricking sheep do it for your soul. Just in case you need it one day. ..At least that is what I tell myself when I do good things and I see others pretending their nose is bleeding.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] mindful 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

People love their coca-cola, people love their tv, people pay tax because they do not want to get in trouble.. We chose this

Do people love coca-cola by their own choice or because they have successfully marketed it, with the help of marketing firms which know how to create want, for decades?

Do people love tv by choice or because it hijacks our reward system in the brain with dramatic music, fast cuts and overly dramatic stories?

I don't think people choose a lot of this stuff. Psychology and other sciences have greatly advanced our understanding of ourselves and this was then used to influence us on a daily basis. Supermarkets being created so that you spend long time in them, products being placed on different heights which affect your choosing/evaluation of them, ad's which have been designed by people that know how to get your attention. We may choose this as in we get persuaded to do so, but i doubt many know how much they really are influenced in their choices on a daily basis.

There's even a law in the US that allows the government to use propaganda against it's own citizens:

  • The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (section 1078 (a)) amended the US Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be released within U.S. borders for the Archivist of the United States (source

How much worse can it get?

0
4

[–] YellyYuropoor 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I believe in taking responsibility for your own actions. I do not drink softdrinks, I haven't owned a tv for 15 years. Everything is a CHOICE. Even when million dollars are spend to make you forget that. You are right, a lot of money is being spend in supermarklets, commercials and magazines. I still trust in people to do what they want to do. If you drink coke you know it's not good for you, but you CHOOSE to ignore it. The same with everything else. It's easy to blame others for your actions because that way you will never have to adjust your ways.

It can get plenty worse..., and as long as we convince ourselfs it's marketing and propaganda that makes what we do, it will. Take matters into your own hands, if you are aware of the propaganda and the marketing and you still do not act accordingly, you are willfully ignorant. Awareness comes with responsibility.

7
-6

0
16

[–] mindful 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Recently read Brave New World by Huxley after seeing this comic which compares the fears/predictions that Huxley and Orwell had. It's quite interesting to see how these two novels relate or differ from one another. Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1931, 18 years before orwell published 1984, and Huxley at one point even taught Orwell French for a year at Eton college.

There's also a letter from Huxley to Orwell:

Wrightwood. Cal. 21 October, 1949

Dear Mr. Orwell,

It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book. It arrived as I was in the midst of a piece of work that required much reading and consulting of references; and since poor sight makes it necessary for me to ration my reading, I had to wait a long time before being able to embark on Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not tell you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is. May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual's psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf. The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it. Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World. I have had occasion recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.

Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply in the field of government. Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or six generations. Another lucky accident was Freud's inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism. This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years. But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World. The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency. Meanwhile, of course, there may be a large scale biological and atomic war — in which case we shall have nightmares of other and scarcely imaginable kinds.

Thank you once again for the book.

Yours sincerely,

Aldous Huxley

(emphasis added)

I think Brave New World should be mentioned more often when talking about 1984 and Orwell.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] mindful 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

“A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights – research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them – can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people,”

Must be to tempting to resist the available knowledge/techniques to rule your people.

“[T]o more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the federal government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs,”

From the linked article to dailycaller:

*According to a document released by the White House at that time, the program was modeled on one implemented in the U.K. in 2010. That initiative created a Behavioral Insights Teams, which used “iterative experimentation” to test “interventions that will further advance priorities of the British government.” *

What a great world to live in. :)

1
13

[–] Onlio 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

It is way past 1984. Bit by bit we did this to ourselves. We are so cucked that we are terrified of standing up for ourselves. Our grandfathers would be so ashamed of us.

1
3

[–] Lobotomy 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Hey man, speak for yourself. I'm that rare, dangerous, mixture of loud, unconventionally moral, outspoken, crazy, and I absolutely do not care when or how I die.

I have almost sexual fantasies of stabbing politicians to death, and lapping up the blood from the knife, as I publicly defile their corpses. Suffice it to say, I'm ready.

0
1

[–] Onlio 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You sound awesome and ready!

0
0

[–] Waterburger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

We need to organize something. But where do we start?

0
7

[–] WallingFortian 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Campus' banning words because of 'Microagression'. If they don't have a word for it, they can't think it.

"the purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."

0
4

[–] Ugwump 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Since when have bullies needed to think to be aggressive?

0
6

[–] Maxcactus 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It has been coming on for quite a while. As soon as people started signing those contract agreements without reading them all privacy was dead. The Patriot Act blew away any remnant of protection we had from the government. When the Bush Regime worked everyone up into a mob shouting death to the terrorist the game was over. We fell for the oldest trick in the tyrant's book. All they have to do is create an enemy that you want them to protect you from. Pretty soon those same tools get turned against the citizens as the friend/foe boundaries blur .

0
5

[–] LetItBurn 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

You do realize that everything you just wrote was a concocted narrative spun into being for short term gain. Having been a cog in this very large endeavor called the cold war. The things codified in the Patriot Act had been on going since the second world war. Though they were still illegal the information was gathered. The group of countries that help collect that information called the five eyes have been doing so to my knowledge since at least the 50's. At the end of the 1980's a sea change in how we collected data moved from human Intel to our growing electronic capabilities, this change had the effect of making us overly reliant on comms with no ground information or way of verification. We had always used one to check the other . Now it became necessary to gather more and more information to be able to verify data we had. While the data collection done was illegal it was not something that could be used but would give direction that evidence would be collected from. It is far more complex than can be touched on here but if you don't really understand the problem you have no chance of fixing it.

0
2

[–] Maxcactus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I was there too for the Cold War. We are mostly in agreement on this. What saved average people back in those days was that there was not enough technology and people to watch everybody. All you had to do was keep your head reasonably down and could escape notice. The big difference today is that there are lots of organizations watching everything, logging it away and collating. Undoubtedly some future authoritarian state could generate lists of potential enemies from the data.

0
4

[–] SaneGoatiSwear 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

1
4

[–] Butelczynski 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

We are in 1984 for last maybe 10-20 years,definitely since widespread internet. I can't think of a single thing from book not around today. "Newspeak" on other hand has been pumped into our heads since at least 60s-it is so bad kids are not even being tough proper English anymore. I learned most of my English from co-workers-school didn't teach me much.25 years later I'm still learning :)

0
2

[–] Yorn 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Every time I see a blog starting with "As a CIS white male..." I always know I'm in for a good chuckle, but lately, they're starting to really irk me. These are supposed to be educated people, for Christ's sake most of them seem to be in college, whether its their first four years or otherwise.

This recent blog post I happened across started talking about specific words that were too offensive to mention because of their origins. I was astounded that this guy was actually self-censoring himself in order to avoid offending imaginary minorities. It had a troll aspect, but given this was a personal blog of his, I'm quite certain it wasn't. He didn't just stop at self-censoring though, he started going further, and used the word "not" without a hyphen as a prefix for another word, to show how an offensive word could be avoided in use by taking a positive word and denoting its opposite as a replacement.

It immediately reminded me of 1984, specifically this part:

"It's a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.'s idea originally, of course," he added as an afterthought. (1.5.23, Syme)

And then later on:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten." (1.5.23, Syme)

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)