# We are living 1984



## gng8 (Aug 5, 2005)

I recently read 1984 for the third time. By now I am mostly used to closed circuit TVs recording my every move. What bothers me the most is "Homeland Security." An Owellian notion if ever there was one.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

*From a personal UK perspective.*

I will try to keep it as a literary critique or we will get bumped off.

Where Orwell got it wrong was under estimating just how truly base civil authority could get, the book is an insight into his inner fears and a poor prophesy, (we now know) it is not just the time scale where he erred.

What has actually happened is CCTV is being used to issue "parking" tickets for the most trivial reasons, to generate cash on a considerable scale.
Another technology, ANPR - automatic numper plate recognition -deployed at first as a crime fighting aid, is used to police "Congestion" Charging and by bailiffs in city centres to locate and clamp vehicles belonging to drivers who have failed to pay these tickets, it is also expected to be used soon for tracking all types of debtors, not political miscreants.

The book is an atmospheric and scary read and belongs on The Paranoia Shelf alongside Kafkas' The Trial, a great and wonderful work, the problem with these fictions is that while our awareness and fear of political imprisonment is heightened, many people fail to recognise the actual abuse of the population for financial, rather than political motives.

F.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

A good anecdote is THE BRAVE COWBOY by Edward Abbey.
This is the novel turned into LONELY ARE THE BRAVE with Kirk Douglas.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Franko said:


> I will try to keep it as a literary critique or we will get bumped off.
> 
> Where Orwell got it wrong was under estimating just how truly base civil authority could get, the book is an insight into his inner fears and a poor prophesy, (we now know) it is not just the time scale where he erred.
> 
> ...


I respectfully disagree. I don't think Orwell was putting forth a blueprint for the future. Its a thought experiment; a sort of monologue as to how the state can slowly intrude from the periphery of our lives to penetrate our thoughts and actions. Its a call to active citizenship.

I have read criticism of Orwell, particularly of 1984, before. I think most relate a sort of Western point of view and while certainly the West has been relatively immune to a 1984 future, it has happened in the USSR, Nazi Germany and is still going on in North Korea.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

gng8 said:


> I recently read 1984 for the third time. By now I am mostly used to closed circuit TVs recording my every move. What bothers me the most is "Homeland Security." An Owellian notion if ever there was one.


Whenever I read Wikipedia, I think of the news organizations in _1984_, rewriting descriptions of battles to make it look like we had always been at war with a particular country, rather than the other one.

Of course, the reasons are exactly the opposite. Rather than an organized entity putting out misinformation, the general ignorance and stupidity of mankind is given automatic credibility. Search for "JFK" and "hat" and you'll find lots of blog posts about how JFK killed men's hats. Fact? No. But if you read the same thing from different people you might believe it.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

*Perceptions.*



pt4u67 said:


> I have read criticism of Orwell, particularly of 1984, before. I think most relate a sort of Western point of view and while certainly the West has been relatively immune to a 1984 future, it has happened in the USSR, Nazi Germany and is still going on in North Korea.


Fair point PT, politely put and in conjunction with the unquoted portion of your post, probably a better literary analysis than mine.

But some people do believe The State Machinery is over - controlling in an _Orwellian_ fashion, even in 'The West' this also aids the market for very popular films like The Bourne series or others, sometimes with Denzil Washington, where a lone avenger battles with an omnipotent goverment and it's dirty tricks, utilised to crush truth and the ordinary man.
I do realise that cinema goers (mostly) understand they are viewing fiction and just enjoy the suspense, rather like a slasher flick.

I do wonder though if the filmed version of All The Presidents Men bore much relationship to the book and that books' relationship to the actual events, on the other side of the coin/world, perhaps the film is regarded in North Korea as a documentary.

F.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

Miket61 said:


> Whenever I read Wikipedia, I think of the news organizations in _1984_, rewriting descriptions of battles to make it look like we had always been at war with a particular country, rather than the other one.


Problem is that very learned people put out information, described as books, in all their respective catergories like History, Biography etc that purport to newly grasp events that occured years ago, an almost annual event is a new book with a revelation concerning the identity of Jack the Ripper.

I have just read a review of yet another biography of a now controversial British WW1 commander, this also seeks to stun with sensational new facts or perspectives that seemingly eluded his 'co- workers' and enemies at the particular moment in time.

F.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

1984 was a significant year for me.

I hope no-one was watching!


----------



## Joe Frances (Sep 1, 2004)

The thing that bothers me is the highway cameras in and around Phoenix that flash at speeders and send them tickets. That is annoying; intrusive; 1984ish and expensive. Orwell never considered how Big Brother could make a buck on us.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

*Sorry to tell you this.*



Joe Frances said:


> The thing that bothers me is the highway cameras in and around Phoenix that flash at speeders and send them tickets. That is annoying; intrusive; 1984ish and expensive. Orwell never considered how Big Brother could make a buck on us.


Just the thin end of the wedge, mate.
This pox will spread across the rest of the states, it will be aided by automobile and modern life haters, crunching numbers and spewing statistics that purport to demonstrate how much safer life will be with even more cameras, the businesses that operate them will descend into more Orwellian speak and be described as "Safety Camera Partnerships".

Coming to highways first and then suburbs near you, will be Average Speed Cameras and CCTV will be increasingly used to issue parking tickets, generating revenue to fund more cameras.

F.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

Mr. Pipps said:


> 1984 was a significant year for me.
> 
> I hope no-one was watching!


Only on U-Tube Global, Pippsie.

F.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

When I left politics, I accidently left a copy of that book in my desk. Little did I realize, my successor would sort through my papers and happily mail it to me.

Somewhat ironic, seeing as I was a minor official who's job was to write speeches for another higher official and fact check them with Communications branch. 

Thomas


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Joe Frances said:


> The thing that bothers me is the highway cameras in and around Phoenix that flash at speeders and send them tickets. That is annoying; intrusive; 1984ish and expensive. Orwell never considered how Big Brother could make a buck on us.





Franko said:


> Just the thin end of the wedge, mate.
> This pox will spread across the rest of the states, it will be aided by automobile and modern life haters, crunching numbers and spewing statistics that purport to demonstrate how much safer life will be with even more cameras, the businesses that operate them will descend into more Orwellian speak and be described as "Safety Camera Partnerships".
> 
> Coming to highways first and then suburbs near you, will be Average Speed Cameras and CCTV will be increasingly used to issue parking tickets, generating revenue to fund more cameras.
> ...


Perhaps a last and most desperate option, would be to abide by the rules of the road and municipal ordinances put in place to allow society to function smoothly for all...not just for those willing to violate traffic and municipal codes!


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

*There's always one.*



eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps a last and most desperate option, would be to abide by the rules of the road and municipal ordinances put in place to allow society to function smoothly for all...not just for those willing to violate traffic and municipal codes!


Actually the "last and most desperate" contribution to this thread, derived from ignorance and believing that clutching platitudes is a form of wisdom and a key to social justice, quite Orwellian really.ic12337:

What actually happened in London, as a great example of perverting sound principles "to allow allow society to function smoothly for all" into an excuse to bring in not just tighter rules but many needless ones, purely to increase local authourities' revenues, mugging people for the equivelant of a days wages for the crime of popping into the dry cleaners for five minutes, particularly in locations where the 'offence' was not detrimental to traffic flow, however the penalty is absolutely detrimental "to allow society to function smoothly for all" any one who thinks that fining a taxi driver for stopping to pick up a sandwich a on a wide and unproblematic road at 02:00am has a corrupted view of what should constitute a 'municipal code' I am being deliberately polite here, I actually think that anyone who believes that using 'municipal codes' to beat money from the general public is a fascist apologist at best, it's simpler and probably more accurate just to describe them as a c*nt.:icon_smile:

F.


----------



## noble (May 22, 2007)

*I find the name "Homeland Security" funny.*

It does sound Orwellian and in reality it is. Don't they pay their people enough to come up with better ideas?

The cold war against an enemy that never made a move, the war on drugs that targeted any citizen who didn't agree and made more than a few police agencies quite wealthy with all the cash, homes, cars, etc,,,that were confiscated for the slightest offenses. Now the war on terror....how long has this war been going on yet has anyone ever seen these armies of terrorists we are giving up our freedoms to be protected from?

Big brother at his finest.

noble


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

noble said:


> It does sound Orwellian and in reality it is. Don't they pay their people enough to come up with better ideas?
> 
> The cold war against an enemy that never made a move, the war on drugs that targeted any citizen who didn't agree and made more than a few police agencies quite wealthy with all the cash, homes, cars, etc,,,that were confiscated for the slightest offenses. Now the war on terror....how long has this war been going on yet has anyone ever seen these armies of terrorists we are giving up our freedoms to be protected from?
> 
> ...


If Homeland Security really was somehow Orwellian, would the government have called it something that didn't sound quite so Orwellian?

Anyway, I don't think that the use of the term "war" is Orwellian in the context of either the Cold War or the War on Terror. The broad use of the term to include hostilities that are not armed conflicts is well established, and it can hardly be said that the Soviets never made aggressive moves. While the WoT could certainly have a more appropriate name, it clearly is a war in the sense of an armed conflict. The concept of war doesn't necessarily requires that the belligerents be the governments of states or that the opposing forces be organized as armies.

Also, I'm not sure what "we" you have in mind, but from an American standpoint, I think that a lot of this talk about losing our freedoms in the name of the WoT is grossly exaggerated. There have been some new legal restrictions in the last seven years, but if anything the scope of civil liberties has actually broadened overall.

I'd say our present trajectory looks more like it's headed for _A Brave New World_ than it does _1984_.


----------



## Edouard (May 30, 2006)

The one interesting aspect of 1984 that is not so much commented on by mainstream media, imo, is that picked up later by Foucault ("Discipline & Punish"): that society itself is being structured to watch society's members and force them to conform. In 1984 it's the kids and the work colleagues that will denounce the father for not conforming. Maybe one day the state will not need cameras to catch speedsters - a quick phone call from a well-meaning driver will be far more efficient and cheaper for the taxpayer too!

I think this point resonates rather well with the members of this forum. By caring about what we wear, we almost single ourselves out from mainstream society.

Non?

I agree with the previous poster. Brave New World. With islands/pockets of weird eccentrics who happen to think differently. People are getting lazier.


----------



## Edouard (May 30, 2006)

noble said:


> It does sound Orwellian and in reality it is. Don't they pay their people enough to come up with better ideas?
> 
> The cold war against an enemy that never made a move, the war on drugs that targeted any citizen who didn't agree and made more than a few police agencies quite wealthy with all the cash, homes, cars, etc,,,that were confiscated for the slightest offenses. Now the war on terror....how long has this war been going on yet has anyone ever seen these armies of terrorists we are giving up our freedoms to be protected from?
> 
> ...


I don't think it is fair to lump the Cold War with the War on Drugs. One was a legitimate fight of ideologies, where one state bankrupted another peacefully (a fantastic strategy in my humble opinion) whilst the other is a beautiful waste of taxpayer money (beautiful in its power, planning and reach as well as its fantastic marketing efforts - the govt literally created a market for fear).

Ultimately the problem stems from the fact that civil service maximises its own utility. For as long as the people in governments will act with their own interests in mind, rather than the selfless desire to serve the nation best, there will be large governments finding idiotic reasons to milk the taxpayer some more to fund their growth. It is so easy nowadays to justify any decision with a couple of populist announcements (see pretty much most of what was said during the past 6-12 months about hedge funds, the banning of shorting was especially amusing).

When acting "Big Brotherly", the state is not, like Big Brother or the USSR or to an extent the PRC, attempting to control populations. Rather, it is increasing its size just like a company would increase market share, for the same reasons: bigger organisation equals bigger status and compensation and power. I think the Big Brother aspects are just side-effects of the gradual, poisonous growth of governments past their (again, my opinion only) roles of providing justice, law enforcement and some infrastructure only. At the end of the day, we, taxpayers, pay for services and unfortunately the government has a (local) monopoly.

And let us remember that the government caused the current recession, by massively intervening in the housing market (Fannie and Freddie magically gained 30% market share in 2000...) fuelling artificial growth, a housing bubble, and undermining banks' best efforts to lend on safe terms! I hear most players blamed by the crisis but none mention the government, with the exception of a few fringe groups.

So yes, 1984. What does the system want? Where is it heading? Who is benefiting from the status quo?


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

I thought it arrived when the Clinton era began Newspeak -- political correctness.

That got so out of hand.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

I don't know if I should start a new thread with this but here goes. 

I don't see 1984 as becoming more true to like, at least in America. It is in the nature of governments to try to expand their power but I think we're doing a pretty good job opposing that trend. We could do better, but it's nowhere near 1984 levels.

I do see the country coming to resemble another novel though. Reading the papers today is almost like reading parts of Atlas Shrugged. Any other Ayn Rand readers out there? What do you think?

If you haven't read it you really should.


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

*BNW*

Perhaps Huxley captured our conundrum better in his "Brave New World"?

In "BNW," the people happily hand over their freedoms in exchange for the promise of safety and security. Whereas in "1984," they fight it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

norton said:


> I don't know if I should start a new thread with this but here goes.
> 
> I don't see 1984 as becoming more true to like, at least in America. It is in the nature of governments to try to expand their power but I think we're doing a pretty good job opposing that trend. We could do better, but it's nowhere near 1984 levels.
> 
> ...


On the contrary, Rand spoke to individualism and freedom to achieve free from state and societal interference. We're slipping toward the opposite I'm afraid.


----------



## coynedj (Jun 1, 2008)

Edouard said:


> The one interesting aspect of 1984 that is not so much commented on by mainstream media, imo, is that picked up later by Foucault ("Discipline & Punish"): that society itself is being structured to watch society's members and force them to conform. In 1984 it's the kids and the work colleagues that will denounce the father for not conforming. Maybe one day the state will not need cameras to catch speedsters - a quick phone call from a well-meaning driver will be far more efficient and cheaper for the taxpayer too!


As I read through the first posts in this thread, it was exactly this concern that was first in my mind. I'm glad someone else commented on it - one always worries about being the only one worried about something.

Being aware of criminal activity and not immediately reporting it is being criminalized. Employers are effectively deputized to enforce immigration laws. Developments such as these do worry me.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

I've always seen 1984 and Brave New World as really about two different things:

1984 is about the corruption of language, culture and society to foment a sterile order

Brave New World is about the commodification and industrialization of human beings themselves (THX-1138 also demonstrates this idea). If I remember correctly it starts with a piece about harvesting eggs from an ovary that is being maintained in a lab

more Orwellianisms:
Employee Free Choice Act
Fairness Doctrine


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Joe Frances said:


> The thing that bothers me is the highway cameras in and around Phoenix that flash at speeders and send them tickets. That is annoying; intrusive; 1984ish and expensive. Orwell never considered how Big Brother could make a buck on us.


I just saw a story on television about the red light cameras in Gwinnett County, Georgia - they've stopped being a revenue source so they're taking them down.

Is it a bad thing that they admit that they only did it for the money, now that they'll soon be gone?


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

Miket61 said:


> I just saw a story on television about the red light cameras in Gwinnett County, Georgia - they've stopped being a revenue source so they're taking them down.
> 
> Is it a bad thing that they admit that they only did it for the money, now that they'll soon be gone?


No.
It's a good thing that they admit the true purpose of utilising this technology.

The bad bit was installing it.

All things considered I would be prepared to commute the normally appropriate death sentence and hand them over for Peoples Justice with my recommendation for mercy, perhaps only the loss of a couple of eyes, , , , , ,each, provided they complete and return the mea culpa form within the statutory fourteen days.

This demonstration of clemency would help other potiental miscreants to see the error of their ways and to develop a social awareness programme, to modify their behaviour.

F.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Miket61 said:


> I just saw a story on television about the red light cameras in Gwinnett County, Georgia - they've stopped being a revenue source so they're taking them down.
> 
> Is it a bad thing that they admit that they only did it for the money, now that they'll soon be gone?


It may be a bad thing that they installed the technology for the wrong reason but, the real tragedy here is their decision to take the equipment down, after it has effectively eliminated a very real problem of drivers ignoring traffic signals and putting other drivers at risk! :teacha:

PS: OK Nolan, it's time...you can call me Orwellian again!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> It may be a bad thing that they installed the technology for the wrong reason but, the real tragedy here is their decision to take the equipment down, after it has effectively eliminated a very real problem of drivers ignoring traffic signals and putting other drivers at risk! :teacha:
> 
> PS: OK Nolan, it's time...you can call me Orwellian again!


I think I agree. I think the growing presence of security cameras is disturbing. On the other hand, I admit to being a little bit confused at the principle that being observed doing something in broad daylight in the public street can be considered an invasion of one's privacy.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> I think I agree. I think the growing presence of security cameras is disturbing. On the other hand, I admit to being a little bit confused at the principle that being observed doing something in broad daylight in the public street can be considered an invasion of one's privacy.


Most people don't have a problem with being caught when they commit an offence that can be construed as causing a danger to others, (broadly) though there are grievances regarding speeding tickets and the stringent level of the penalties, here in the UK.

What has got up the nose of mostly sane people is the manner in which 'offences' have been freshly contrived now that cameras are able to record billions of vehicle movements each hour.
People are not mistaken in believing that the deployment of cameras and new rules about where a car can stop on many roads_ at any time of day or night_ has been skewed to simply create income, the policies are a hinderance to most peopls lives and not a help in the overall scheme of things.

One effect is that entire departments have been set up to cash in on the woes of people who are now regarded as little more than hapless mugs.

It's funny the twists that can be found in the phrase, "Yes We Can" adding "And We Will", all because there's money in it, is that Owellian enough for you, Eagle?

F.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Franko said:


> ...
> It's funny the twists that can be found in the phrase, "Yes We Can" adding "And We Will", all because there's money in it, is that Owellian enough for you, Eagle? F.


Indeed what you describe can be interpreted as Orwellian however, the placement of cameras at high volume/high risk (as determined by the frequency of accident occurrence) intersections has proven strikingly effective in reducing the incidence of infractions and accidents at those locations. These cameras literally save lives! A municipality viewing the use of such technology primarily as a means of generating revenue is a perversion of the original intent of the program...insuring the public safety!


----------



## tjensen13 (Mar 13, 2009)

Edouard said:


> Maybe one day the state will not need cameras to catch speedsters - a quick phone call from a well-meaning driver will be far more efficient and cheaper for the taxpayer too!


Yes, well we can see that with social media and the web, individuals are documenting more and more of their daily lives and what they observe in others. This makes for an extensive tattletale system...which can take away privacy. But on the other hand, it also means that everything is now much more transparent, because anyone can document on the public web. And on social media sites like Twitter, people can broadcast message to hundreds of thousands of people at once.

I find it fascinating that while having a digital footprint takes away some of our once freedoms and privacy, they in a sense restore the freedoms of the greater public. I wonder how our 2.0 web and beyond will alter the 1984 landscape that we increasingly find ourselves in.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

The concept of Orwell's 'newspeak' language has already emerged in reality.

A particularly interesting edition of 'From our own correspondent' on the World Service radio detailed how this new form of evolved international business English is becoming increasing difficult for native English speakers to understand at meetings and in the global workplace. This is apparently due to its rather atypical usage of non-emotive verbs and its trimmed-down vocabulary.

How prophetic of Mr Orwell to see that coming...!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

1984 describes a world that is infinitely less terrifying than 2018.

'I know you think you're awful square but you made everyone and you've been every where

Lord I think you’d overdose if you knew what’s going down'.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

What most of this "newspeak" and attempt at legislating language (well, I say attempt, but in Canada there are now actual laws) - the pronoun issue in particular - derives heavily from the subversion of the Left by French postmodernism in the 70s (which replaced 60s radicalism).

Most of what we call "the Left" in the USA is actually a species of activist postmodernism derived from readings of Lacan, Derrida, and Foucault (the latter a particularly intellectually dishonest character).

There's a very interesting discussion between Jordan Petersen and Camille Paglia on this very subject: 




DH


----------

