Nineteen Eighty-four

[trolls' bane]

Okay, I'm not sure if this is or isn't SciFi/Fantasy, but as the book was not written for that to be the major theme, I'll just err on the side of caution.

Well, I've never been good at opening arguments, so I'm going to jump right in with this question:
If, for instance, a child of a party member had thought-criminal thoughts, would the party treat them the same as an adult or do you think they would "rehabilitate" them in other ways, being that they are young with thoughts easily molded.

[Alcuin]

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask a student at Columbia University in New York City what happens when you say something the Thought Police dislike? (Click here to find out what happened when the president of the anti-illegal immigration group Minutemen was invited to speak: be sure to watch the video, and pay particular attention to the campus police, who do absolutely nothing: which side should we suppose the University supports, regardless of what it may say to unhappy alumni and donors?) They have considerable experience in shutting down the wayward children of Party Members. I believe that current punishments range from shouting down to ostracizing to beating.

This is now the pinnacle of American Intellectualism. Little wonder the United States cannot come to a national consensus on anything: there is one side in the debate that seeks to shut down, silence, criminalize, and terrorize those who dare to disagree with them, and violence is a perfectly legitimate tool for them. Their actions are officially but quietly sanctioned by large segments of society in the United States, the United Kingdom, and across Europe, while their antics and destruction are deliberately obfuscated by journalists and editors who sympathize with them: the video would certainly not be available without the internet, and reports of the riot at Columbia would have been vilified both by University officials and the people who perpetrated it as nothing but malicious slander.

Do not ask how would the party react to a wayward child in 1984, troll’s bane. Ask how they react in 2006 – in universities, public schools, and the press, and you will begin to form a reasonable answer. (And only 22 years behind George Orwell’s original timeline!)

[Spock]

Actually this book is Science Fiction and should be moved to that section.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask a student at Columbia University in New York City !)

Columbia has been taken over more times than Cuba. A conservative should know better than to go into 'indian territory'

[brownjenkins]

I think they'd try to rehabilitate anyone, but in the case of a child, they probably would not execute the child after rehab, as they would with an adult.

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Spock

Columbia has been taken over more times than Cuba. A conservative should know better than to go into 'indian territory'

Well, it puts the lie to idea that Columbia is providing its students a “liberal education.”

Or are you saying that Columbia University is an example of Gresham’s Law at work: “The Bad drives out the Good?” That is a theme of 1984, is it not?

[trolls' bane]

I love this green entmoot banner and its incredible shades of blue.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid to click that link. It's not you, it's just that every time I open a page with a video on it, my computer freezes.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Well, it puts the lie to idea that Columbia is providing its students a “liberal education.”

Or are you saying that Columbia University is an example of Gresham’s Law at work: “The Bad drives out the Good?” That is a theme of 1984, is it not?

Both actually.

[Bran]

Sweet. 1984 was actually the last book I read and I was near to starting a thread on which to discuss it.

I don't know what they would do with a child. It's a really disturbing thought, as I'm sure it wouldn't be nice. What I wonder though, is how likely it would be for them to catch a child commiting Thought-crime. Like Troll'sBane mentioned, children's minds a very easily molded and wouldn't be as likely to resist the programing the citizens of the Party recieve. Which it felt to me the author thought, also, as it seemed almost as if the children were some of the most fanatical.

*Spoiler Warning*
It was a horrifying read, to say the least, and the book had a very emotional effect on me. Standing by while and watching while O'Brian slowly broke Winston was excrutiatingly painful. The idea of someone being able to reach into another persons mind and re-wire them to the point of betraying their own identity; their reasoning, their ideals and even their love was such a saddening thought.

George Orwell clearly understood better then many of us how bad it could really get if we don't hold fast to our freedom, and he's got me on my toes, I can tell you.

P.S. By the way, how do you hide spoilers like I've seen done on others posts? I couldn't seem to find how to make the backround go gray in order to hide the writing. I'd appreciate knowing how if anyone can tell me?

[trolls' bane]

You use the

and

tag. (Quote this post to see what the tag looks like.)

I think the children were the most fanatical, because they, unlike their parents, were taught the Party's ideals from the very instant of their birth. However, for there to be a need of a Miniluv (Ministry of Love=torture), they would have to expect that one of them, not quite fully integrated into Newspeak* and still know and use Oldspeak, could come to realise a flaw in the system. Catching them would be easy: that's what telescreens are for.

I think the party wouldn't have a rehabilitation at all. They would just control the flow of thoughts into the individual's mind, and eventually "make the individual realise" the "just cause" of the Party.

* I find Newspeak a very interesting subject. As you probably know, when you speak in English, you think in English. I'm just starting to realise the significance of Newspeak, though I finished the book over a year ago. When the population of Oceania spoke only Newspeak, they would only think in Newspeak, and since Newspeak doesn't have enough words to form thoughts of...er...thoughtful concepts, thinking is drastically limited. (I'm assuming that someone who knows many languages is probably a much better abstract thinker than I. I'm saying this, not referring to the statement above, but drawing from a logical conclusion of my train of though. Ironic that we're talking about Newspeak here.)

[The Telcontarion]

I need to read this book. What I know from it reminds me much of what is happening in our society today...

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Do not ask how would the party react to a wayward child in 1984, troll’s bane. Ask how they react in 2006 – in universities, public schools, and the press, and you will begin to form a reasonable answer. (And only 22 years behind George Orwell’s original timeline!)

Exactly!!

[trolls' bane]

Personally, I disagree with that point of view. If we were really bad (oh, I haven't had a chance to see the video, because I'm still afraid it will crash my computer. What happens?) enough to be called a "police state", the very fact that I'm saying "police state" would wind up having me disappear into the back of one of those sinister looking black vans I've always joked about. Many of you will agree with me, but I think, as a global society we're getting better. Admittedly, we'd be on top of the world if we spent half as much money on scientific research and those "dumb, expensive projects" like the space elevator as we do potato chips and video games and flavored toothpicks and movies.

I have to admit, however, that I marvel that I can remain so optomistic after spending a week, even a day, at school.

[Bran]

I think the children were the most fanatical, because they, unlike their parents, were taught the Party's ideals from the very instant of their birth. However, for there to be a need of a Miniluv (Ministry of Love=torture), they would have to expect that one of them, not quite fully integrated into Newspeak* and still know and use Oldspeak, could come to realise a flaw in the system. Catching them would be easy: that's what telescreens are for.

I think the party wouldn't have a rehabilitation at all. They would just control the flow of thoughts into the individual's mind, and eventually "make the individual realise" the "just cause" of the Party.

Very true. There obviously isn't going to be a whole load of previous programing to overwrite in an infent, so they're going to be much easier to control. I wonder also if they would have a rehabilitation center at all for children, and if instead of disposing of the Thought-criminals they simply continue to bombard them with propaganda knowing they'll submit.

Thanks for the help with the spoiler warning thing, by the way. That's helpful

* I find Newspeak a very interesting subject. As you probably know, when you speak in English, you think in English. I'm just starting to realise the significance of Newspeak, though I finished the book over a year ago. When the population of Oceania spoke only Newspeak, they would only think in Newspeak, and since Newspeak doesn't have enough words to form thoughts of...er...thoughtful concepts, thinking is drastically limited. (I'm assuming that someone who knows many languages is probably a much better abstract thinker than I. I'm saying this, not referring to the statement above, but drawing from a logical conclusion of my train of though. Ironic that we're talking about Newspeak here.)

Newspeak is an interesting subject, I agree. Previding a populice with a language in which complex thoughts aren't possible would indeed be an effective way of reducing the number of Thought-crimes commited. But this leads me to a detail I found particularly intriquing about the book, which was Parsons arrest at the end of the book. Parsons, who, if you remember, was a loyal member of the Party before he committed the thought-crime of saying "down with big brother" in his sleep. So while being a seemingly loyal Party member through and through, he clearly nursed in his subconcious an understanding that something about the party was wrong, and it needed to fall. This is a clear implication that George Orwell believed that, while Big Brother could take control of the masses concious thoughts, that he couldn't subdue human nature and it's need to be free.

Thanks for the help with the spoiler warning thing, by the way. That's helpful

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I need to read this book. What I know from it reminds me much of what is happening in our society today...

Everyone needs to read this book, because the best thing about it is its critique of modern society.

Things which ring spookily true:

War is Peace: our leaders have launched us into a perpetual and unwinnable warlike status. This status is used to mobilise patriotism and stifle criticism. One of the most scary moments in the book is when the enemy changes from being Eurasia to Eastasia (or is it the other way round?); this has spooky parallels with how Afghanistan, then Iraq and now Iran and North Korea have been seamlessly substituted in the role of enemy #1.

One thing which Orwell understood was the economics of warfare: that one way to stimulate the economy is to consume via warfare. Tax revenues are thus diverted to industry on a massive scale. Some key phrases here: military industrial complex, outsourcing, Halliburton.

Ignorance is strength: more subtle than portrayed in the Ministry of Truth, there is nevertheless a vibrant and burgeoning industry of spin within our governments. The purpose of this industry is to manipulate our beliefs. Asking awkward questions is routinely derided as unpatriotic and, crucially, undermining.

Freedom is slavery: Of course, freedom™ is our rallying cry and our fig leaf. There is an interesting discussion to be had around the extent to which we actually have freedom.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

Personally, I disagree with that point of view. If we were really bad (oh, I haven't had a chance to see the video, because I'm still afraid it will crash my computer. What happens?) enough to be called a "police state", the very fact that I'm saying "police state" would wind up having me disappear into the back of one of those sinister looking black vans I've always joked about.

Oh, it is a fore gone conclusion my friend:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ushwaiting.htm

with this law in effect, you can be arrested and detained without due process, tried by a secret tribunal (if your lucky) and shot in the face a couple times kid...
Here also is a video of a documentary, it is long but...oh, my, god...

http://infowars.com/terrorstorm/google_high_quality.htm

By the way, you donot live in the united states of amerrica, you are now a member of the american union, which already suspends the constitution anyway. What, didn't know that, just type into google, american union or use the search engine of the site I posted earlier. America is dead my friend.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

. America is dead my friend.

Rather a harsh statement from one who chooses to live here.




Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read- Groucho Marx

[The Telcontarion]

What I meant spock is that the country as you know it has ceased to exist. Laws now can be made without the consent of the congress or the senate, thus without the consent of the american people. All I am doing is sounding the alarm, I am not the one causing it.

As for living here, I am desperately trying to find a way to leave as soon as possible, but my career and love ones are here so it is not easy. Eventually though I will be leaving, things are just way to scary; especially in NY. But the police here are very aware of what is going on and they talk about it all the time with the war protestors or just in random conversation in the subway whenever I engage them about it, and that is a very encouraging sign.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

What I meant spock is that the country as you know it has ceased to exist. Laws now can be made without the consent of the congress or the senate, thus without the consent of the american people.

I understand what your saying, however, it's too generalized. Laws, no, terrorist related laws, yes.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

All I am doing is sounding the alarm, I am not the one causing it.

That's the minimum a concerned citizen can do.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I am desperately trying to find a way to leave as soon as possible,

I went through a similar phase a few years ago but determined that the economic cost to me would have been too great. That and the fact that most countries give job preference to their own citizens first.

[The Telcontarion]

Now do you think it's 1984 trolls' bane?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...6Olbermann.htm

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

* I find Newspeak a very interesting subject. As you probably know, when you speak in English, you think in English.

Are you saying language is necessary for thought?