PDA

View Full Version : Critisism on the Current System



dnc
03-06-2003, 06:54 AM
The system mentioned in 1984 was totalitarian and socialist. Although the system exists currently not such a regime, doesn't it resemble by some aspects such as changing the history or the events, washing the brains of the illiteral people by huge consumption, commercials and tv?

Wanderer
03-06-2003, 01:27 PM
The prophecy of 1984 is a rather fearful thing. It brings to mind Edwin Brock's poem "5 Ways to Kill a Man". Brock states that although man has advanced scientifically, he has regressed socially. With each new technological advancement that enables organisations like the CIA to track our every move, there is a greater chance that Orwell's prophecy will prevail. One does not know if governments are hiding devices in preparation for world domination. Power corrupts. It is sad that we live in a world of such uncertainty. If a totalitarian government is certainly going to be established, people must act fast, or our way of life will be wiped from existence as the past is altered. The public must be constantly aware of this fact. One must not trust too charismatic leaders. Trust is hard to come by these days. It is simpler to trust, but then one cannot take the easy way out. If governments are really concerned over these issues, they should make anti-totalitarian devices, instead of just hiding cameras all over the place. The fact that governments are not doing this is all the more troubling.

crisaor
03-06-2003, 07:24 PM
The system mentioned in 1984 was totalitarian and socialist.

I'm sorry. Socialist????????

dnc
03-07-2003, 11:45 AM
I think 11th of September, Afghanistan and Iraque crisis are a little bit artifical and new enemy of governments not marksism, it is terrorism. The authorities say that and they need enemy everytime same as Eurasia or South East mentioned in 1984. Now, the new enemy is called as terrorism...

Admin
03-07-2003, 03:57 PM
Iraq or Iraqi, not Iraque.

Marxism, not marksism.

apstudent
03-07-2003, 04:30 PM
Oh, come on. You can't possibly believe that President Bush is waging a war on terror just to keep peace as in 1984. If you do believe that, you need to stop and remeber how many people died on September 11th. You also need to know the incredible danger that terrorists present to mainland America. The only way that any country would ever attack mainland America would be through small terrorists groups in which they fund. To say that President Bush is fighting an illegitamate war on terror is a major blow to every man and woman out there that train and fight every day to protect your unappreciative butt.

dnc
03-10-2003, 06:26 AM
I know that so many people were killed on 11th of September unfortunately and I know that about 40000 people have been killed in my country since 1980s by terrorism. I know the effects of terrorism as well as the people in U.S. We should accept that the terrorism is threat for all people all around the world and I am so curious about how the terrorists are armed, how they obtain such weapons and equipments? Who or what gives them such things?

Iraq is another subject to be discussed. It was established by United Kingdom after First World War. As you know , it was full of petrol and its government was puppet of United Kingdom. It was armed by UK, US, France, Germany and Soviets in the progress of time. Then it started to become a threat which is same as in the case of Usame Bin Ladin (as you know during cold war ages, he was armed by U.S. against Soviet Regime in Afghanistan).

Do you think that U.S. would be interested in the democracy establishment in Iraq if it has not any economic(I mean petrol) importance? Or do you think that U.S. would be interested in Talibans in Afghanistan if Afghanistan has not any jeo-strategical importance (I mean bridge to South Asia and drug monopoly)?

TexaninNihon
03-10-2003, 06:43 AM
some of you talk about 1984 and try to equate it to the current US government or the CIA or what not. That is a little bit silly, isn't it? It's people like you unappreciative US citizens or anti-Americans (in whatever country you are in). Governments like the one in 1984 are in my view as much the fault of the people as anybody else. Are governments like the one in 1984 not only able to come into power and exist because of the complacent and ignorant nature of the masses?

We shouldn't confuse the advanced ability of a government to get information on its citizens with another government that conbines that informational ability with a maliciousness of intent. The malicious, paranoid, powerhungry intent was present in 1984, and if you think that America is quickly heading in that direction, you must be joking. Iraq is getting close, though, and North Korea has been there for a while. The biggest difference is that those governments are less fair and more cruel to their citizens than the one in 1984. As a conservative, the only way I can see that America would become like this would be if the Republican party ceased to be. Then the Dems. could jump at the chance to take away my right to smoke in my own home, put me in jail if I punch a black guy who has just grabbed my girlfriend's box and call it a "hate-crime", and when you can presuppose a motive for a crime, what's next? You guessed it...the Thought Police."

Some of you, and I only know this because of your past braggings, claim to be junior high students and high school students. If that is the case, it's a little to young to be making bold political statements (especially if they won't be supported) expecting everyone else to eat it up. You might have seen that on the news and said, "Hmm...that's a nice slogan.". Don't expect the rest of us to be as easily duped. You have to really think things over for yourself.

Any other conservatives in here? I won't expect to many, but I know that I'll get a lashing for this post, so if you agree with me on any level, don't be afaid to say so.

I blaim all spelling and grammatical errors on my 4th grade English teacher, Mrs. Pearce.

dnc
03-10-2003, 10:08 AM
I accept that 1984 is an allegory to Soviet Regime. Big Brother was Stalin and Goldstein was Trocki (sorry for the phonetic,because English is not my native language). Also I accept that current U.S. government is not same with the system in 1984 in ideological wise. Whether the system or ideology is different or not, the target is the same To be world power, governing the world, establishing puppet and artifically democratic regimes all over the world.

Additionally, I would like to emphasize that I am not anti-American. I am only a person that live out of U.S.A., and see the events more clearly. You, the people live in U.S. do not have any opinion about the realities out of U.S. The things are told you right or wrong, and you decide to believe it or not. However, we live all these events and know the right or wrong. This is the difference...

TexaninNihon
03-10-2003, 11:01 AM
I understand what you are saying. I took this opportunity to change my profile to reflect that I am currently living abroad. Since I live outside of America, will you give me the benefit of the doubt that I have a certain amount of "outside the US" clarity also?

Forgive me for straying from the subject of the site, but I have one more thing.

Suppose the US withdrew it's service men from all military bases abroad; became an observer at the UN, and nothing more. Where would South Korea be in five years? What about your country? The US and it's leaders really are trying to do what is right, despite all of the criticism and complacency of other countries. Eastern Europe largely supports the US now. That is because they have been through the kind of regimes that America is trying to stop now. Can you shed any light on this? Some countries will always be trying to expand and further their causes and levels of influence in the world. Imperialism really isn't imperialism when it's benevolent in nature.

Admin
03-10-2003, 11:17 AM
TexaninNihon, considering that your country is one of those occupied by the US I think your opinion is very substantial. Thanks for sharing it.

crisaor
03-10-2003, 11:45 AM
I accept that 1984 is an allegory to Soviet Regime. Big Brother was Stalin and Goldstein was Trocki (sorry for the phonetic,because English is not my native language). Also I accept that current U.S. government is not same with the system in 1984 in ideological wise. Whether the system or ideology is different or not, the target is the same: To be world power, governing the world, establishing puppet and artifically democratic regimes all over the world.

I disagree with Goldstein being Trotski. There is a common point after reading "the book" in 1984, but this was written by the thought police, not by an external enemy as it was believed. Trotski was an external enemy to Stalin's communist party. That's why he left the party and exiled himself in Mexico until Stalin had him killed. If i recall correctly, I think I read somewhere that Orwell himself was trotskist.

I think you're right when you say that the US government is not the same system as in 1984 (thank god, otherwise, I'd be dead by now, and many other people too). But the purpose is indeed the same, and since the purpose it's the same, why wouldn't the method be the same too when given some time? That's why US's methods and attitudes towards war and its foreign policy have to be condemned, or they'll take it to the next step.


You, the people live in U.S. do not have any opinion about the realities out of U.S. The things are told you right or wrong, and you decide to believe it or not. However, we live all these events and know the right or wrong. This is the difference...

Well, I think the same except for the 'only we know right and wrong' part. There are many people in the US (and natives outside of it) opposed to the war and to the general foreign policy of the US. You shouldn't put everyone in the same bag.


Suppose the US withdrew it's service men from all military bases abroad; became an observer at the UN, and nothing more. Where would South Korea be in five years? What about your country? The US and it's leaders really are trying to do what is right, despite all of the criticism and complacency of other countries. Eastern Europe largely supports the US now. That is because they have been through the kind of regimes that America is trying to stop now. Can you shed any light on this? Some countries will always be trying to expand and further their causes and levels of influence in the world. Imperialism really isn't imperialism when it's benevolent in nature.

The US is not trying to do what's right, and I think that's been cleared up already (although it's perfectly normal that you disagree with it). Eastern europe largely supports the US? I know of Spain, Italy and United Kingdom, nothing more. What about France, Germany, Portugal, Ireland, Holland, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, Iceland, and any other? I think you should re examine US's allegiances. And I'm ignoring Asia, western europe (Russia mostly), and the rest of America, since as you should now, Central and Southamerica are America too, a thing many US citizens ignore (or choose to do so). Imperialism is always imperialism, even if you're it and believe it to be in the best interest of the world (and with Bush this isn't the case).

Admin
03-10-2003, 12:08 PM
I have no desire for this forum to be a source of political debate. This is a forum about literature. I'm closing this thread now.