Gaps

[farla]

I can't find a transcript of the Katrina hearings, let alone the video. If it wasn't for references to it in a couple places, it might as well not exist.

There's really no point in knowing these things. No one would believe me if I tried talking about it, and it's not like anyone can accomplish things these days short of a sniper rifle.

How depressing.

Comments

Re: 1984

[farla.livejournal.com]

It isn't, it's used that way. Because we don't have bureau of information control, it's okay that we've got fake journalists being paid to write propaganda. We don't all have cameras in our rooms, so wiretapping is okay.

Rather than seeing parallels, it's seen as a literal checklist, and until all of it is true, nothing is wrong.

Re: 1984

[lolytah.livejournal.com]

It's not seen as a literal checklist - or at least I've never met anyone who interprets it that way. Most people who I know accept the fact it was written about the situation in Russia during that period of time but also accept that it can also be used in context with society today.
And I also don't recall ever hearing anyone say something along the lines of 'we've got fake journalists being paid to write propaganda.' Perhaps next time you could get your information more accurate, less general and somewhat correct?

Re: 1984

[farla.livejournal.com]

...dear god, it took place in London. Not Russia. It was written in 1948. About things that were happening at the time. The 'we have always been at war with...' came from the fact Russia was our enemy at the beginning of the second world war, then they switched to our side and were our 'ally' and suddenly the real enemy was Japan and why do I even bother...?

You (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Williams) are (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Covert_propaganda) so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_administration_payment_of_columnists) right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon). I (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/15466239.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_local) really (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ag-dept-story_x.htm) should (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Gallagher#Pay_scandal) have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McManus_%28columnist%29) done (http://fuckinggoogleit.com/) more (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics/01propaganda.html?ei=5088&en=15a816ad2c204281&ex=1291093200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print) research (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html). It's (http://www.locustfork.net/blog/bush_fake_journalists/index.html) not (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0503-04.htm) like (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/web.us/) it's (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/14/152202) true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distorted_news#United_States) or (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54651-2005Jan6.html) something (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9592).

Re: 1984

[lolytah.livejournal.com]

Still trying to understand why you've already given up. It doesn't show much faith in what you're saying... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Orwell.27s_inspiration)

Re: 1984

[farla.livejournal.com]

Because you've proven Orwell's point by not even knowing the American government repeatedly paid people for fake news, not wanting to bother to check, or caring to look at the links. Well, as long as you don't know, it's not true, right? Comparatively your repeating the line about how 1984 = Russia only proves my point about people not understanding what he meant and misinterpreting the book.

I mean, what's the point? Because obviously, if you don't know, it's not true. Reality is inside your skull, after all.

Orwell is reported to have said that the book described what he viewed as the situation in the United Kingdom in 1948, when the British economy was poor, the British Empire was dissolving at the same time as newspapers were reporting its triumphs, and wartime allies such as the USSR were rapidly becoming peacetime foes ('Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy').

In many ways, Oceania is indeed a future metamorphosis of the British Empire (although Orwell is careful to state that, geographically, it also includes the United States, and that the currency is the dollar). It is, as its name suggests, an essentially naval power. Much of its militarism is focused on veneration for sailors and seafarers, serving on board "floating fortresses" which Orwell evidently conceived of as the next stage in the growth of ever-bigger warships, after the Dreadnoughts of WWI and the aircraft carriers of WWII; and much of the fighting conducted by Oceania's troops takes place in defense of India (the "Jewel in the Crown" of the British Empire).

The party newspaper is the times, identified in Orwell's time (and to some degree even at present) as the voice of the British ruling class — rather than, as could have been expected, a publication which started life as the paper of a revolutionary party (like Pravda in the Soviet Union). Note the lack of capital letters in the name. This is a feature of newspeak, the official party language.

O'Brien, who represents the oppressive Party, is in many ways depicted as a member of the old British ruling class (in one case, Winston Smith thinks of him as a person who in the past would have been holding a snuffbox, i.e. an old-fashioned English gentleman).

Orwell may also have taken a parody of Catholic dogma as part of his inspiration. For example, the term "Big Brother" may be seen as a parody of the Catholic's "Heavenly Father". Like the Catholic's "Holy Father", Orwell's "Big Brother" is an all-seeing, all-knowing figure from which the ruling classes derived their ultimate authority. Orwell suggests, gently, that Big Brother has never existed. Just as some of the more esoteric points of Catholic dogma have sometimes required that the believer disregard or devalue the physical evidence of his/her senses (such as the "miracles" of Transsubstantiation, and the Odour of Sanctity), the Party's notions of "doublethink" champion belief over rational thought.