Could 1984 actually become a reality?

[TheFoxxx]

A straight answer. NO! For example look at the world we live in today. We can't control a majority of crime, we have rapists, murderers, terrorists, more people than when Orwell wrote the book and not to mention individualism, which has become something that no one could ever control even if they tried. The government would be destroyed within the minute word was let lose such a thing was going to take place. Look at places like Papua New Guenia and The Phillipines for example. Can they control their countries? I think not. Plus remember this book was writen before the likes of Ted Bundy, Charles Starkweather, Henry Lee Lucas and Jeffrey Dahmer were around which just goes to show individualism is something that cannot be supressed.
Look at what just happened in Finland and let's not forget the Chess Board Killer. The governments will never be able to fully control society. It's hate which is most dangerous power of all.

[The Atheist]

A straight answer. NO! For example look at the world we live in today. We can't control a majority of crime, we have rapists, murderers, terrorists, more people than when Orwell wrote the book and not to mention individualism, which has become something that no one could ever control even if they tried. The government would be destroyed within the minute word was let lose such a thing was going to take place. Look at places like Papua New Guenia and The Phillipines for example. Can they control their countries? I think not. Plus remember this book was writen before the likes of Ted Bundy, Charles Starkweather, Henry Lee Lucas and Jeffrey Dahmer were around which just goes to show individualism is something that cannot be supressed.

You need a good dose of history, my Aussie friend.

Ted Bundy pales into boredom against the likes of Jack the Ripper, plus don't forget that Orwell lived at the time of the worst atrocity ever - the Holocaust.

I'm not suggesting it could happen, but you're only viewing a small part of the picture. Human gullibility is such that almost anything is possible. Have a look at how many people truly believe something really, really absurd - the "Moon Hoax" is a classic example; some people genuinely believe the moon landings were a hoax. To believe that requires a monumental amount of self-delusion. If someone could harness that self-delusion, they could rule the world, easily.


Look at what just happened in Finland and let's not forget the Chess Board Killer. The governments will never be able to fully control society. It's hate which is most dangerous power of all.
Funnily enough, the most dangerous human emotion to date has been love. It was the population's love of their country which allowed Hitler and the Nazis to commit their atrocities, even though they played on hate, it was the extreme nationalism - a perversion of love - which allowed the hate to have full rein.

[KurtDunn]

There is one significant difference between 1949 and today.

The advent of global economy.

In my opinion, a Totalitarian state is more likely to emerge from the corporate world now, rather than political. Which would be just as tragic as 1984's government, but alot funnier. ;)

[The Atheist]

There is one significant difference between 1949 and today.

The advent of global economy.

In my opinion, a Totalitarian state is more likely to emerge from the corporate world now, rather than political. Which would be just as tragic as 1984's government, but alot funnier. ;)

Absolutely spot on.

[TheFoxxx]

Hi The Atheist. Nice to meet you. You wrote


Ted Bundy pales into boredom against the likes of Jack the Ripper, plus don't forget that Orwell lived at the time of the worst atrocity ever - the Holocaust.

You're right Ted did fall into boredom compared to Jack The Ripper but definitely not compared to others like Henry Lee Luas, H.H. Holmes, Jeffrey Dahmer, The Zepo killer (who is rumored to of killed over 1200 people all by himself!) John Wayne Gacy, Albert Fish, Ed Gein etc, but having relations with dead bodies is quite sick.

But getting back to my main point, today's society is full of people who are much darker than when Orwell wrote the novel. Even Hitler can't possible compare to some of the twisted people around today. Sure he wanted to kill people but did he eat them, rape them, cut them apart, dress up in their skin, take pleasure at keeping them alive as long as he could whilst ripping their lungs out our cutting out their tongue and making them swallow it. No.

Here is a quote from Carl Panzram


"I have no desire whatever to reform myself. My only desire is to reform people who try to reform me, and i believe the only way to reform people is to kill 'em. My motto is: Rob 'em all, rape 'em all, and kill 'em all"

Okay there is quite a bit more out there which are far more twisted than this but i chose not to put them on this forum as a moderator on two other forums i'm sure you guys have the simular rules.

I believe that people with these twisted minds could not be controlled by any thought Police. No disrespect to Orwell but i think Winston was too femanine. What if we were to say Winston was replaced with a character who thought along the same lines as Patrick Bateman (which i must say for anyone out there who has not heard of this character, he is one of Bret Easton Ellis's master creations in the book American Psycho which contains one of the most important messages inside it and if you haven't already read the book go check it out it, if you only judge it by its misunderstood reputation you will miss out on enjoying a brilliant book.) The novel would move in a totally different direction.

[Aiculík]

I'm sorry, but I never heard of Jeffrey Dahmer or Zepo killer. On the other hand, I did hear about Hitler. Zepo might have killed 1200 people, that is still unimportant number when compared with number of victims of Hitler's twisted philosophy. Zepo couln't become "Big Brother". Hitler would, if he won the war. Stalin did.

It is quite some time that I've read 1984, but if I remember correctly, there are three groups of people in society - inner circle, outer circle and proles. And if I remember correctly, Proles (and most of the people living in Oceania are Proles) were not controlled by Thought Police that much. I think that the Party even had some saying that Proles and animals are free. Proles are less intimidated, and there are also criminals among them.

But does that mean that Proles are really free, that they are not controlled by the state? Uneducated, poor, unable to change their situation at all? Do you think that if some Zape killer occured, would that make Proles more free? How?

And do you really think that Thought Police would be interested in serial killers? Gestapo wasn't hunting murderers either. Thought crime is considered much worse than a murder. I think some character explained it - thought crime does not cause death, it is death. A teacher who would want to educate Proles, to change their situation, would be much greater danger. Why? Because while Proles were poor and uneducated, they were content with cheap beer and porns, and they didn't want to start rebellion. So in fact, Proles are also controled, but by different means that inner party.

And as for individualism - did it save Winston? Or Julia? No. In the end, the fact that Winston cared only about his individual life and safety caused his betraying Julia. And only when he betrayed Julia, he was considered "cured", only then he became truly brainwashed.

So, shortly - yes, I think 1984 could become reality. It is more than possible - and some countires were not far from it. And it's not the matter of the past, either, even now - but I can't and don't want to talk about politics.

[manolia]

I am currently reading 1984 and i believe that indeed Orwell based the book on real facts around him ;) So why can't 1984 become -partly- real?? Certain aspects of the book are real and were real in the past. I'll mention only one example since other users have already said enough. Take a close look to the Young people's Union (sorry for the inconsistency of the term but i am reading a greek translation ;) ). Doesn't it remind you of Hitler's, Mussolini's (and Metaxa's for those acquainted with modern greek history) Unions for young people? I only recall how Metaxa's union was called (EON) but i am sure someone (Baz..?) can recall how the rest were called ;) . All these brainwashing of young people from a very young and tender age, the parades, the flags, the mottos, the songs ;) ..

[bazarov]

Zepo couln't become "Big Brother". Hitler would, if he won the war. Stalin did.

I doubt. Hitler and Mussolini were turned on creating great empires and were not afraid and concerned of imaginary enemies in their own state. They could do that because they had very good economic situation and people had job, which was a great improvement after 1929. OK, they did produce weapons but they weren't hungry. Therefore, they were pleased and had no reason to argue against Duce or Fuhrer.
Hitler and Mussolini were taking care for their men's, which wasn't a situation in USSR.


Take a close look to the Young people's Union (sorry for the inconsistency of the term but i am reading a greek translation ;) ). Doesn't it remind you of Hitler's, Mussolini's (and Metaxa's for those acquainted with modern greek history) Unions for young people? I only recall how Metaxa's union was called (EON) but i am sure someone (Baz..?) can recall how the rest were called ;) . All these brainwashing of young people from a very young and tender age, the parades, the flags, the mottos, the songs ;) ..

Hitler Jugend ( Benedikt XVI was also a member ); and Balilla and Avanguardista in Italy. :)
Same things were happening and are still happening in communist state's also. I am lazy so I'll use Wiki:


A pioneer movement is an organization for children operated by a communist party. Typically children enter into the organization in elementary school and continue until adolescence. The adolescents then typically joined Komsomol or a similar organization. Prior to the 1990s there was a wide cooperation between pioneer and similar movements of about 30 countries, coordinated by the international organization, International Committee of Children's and Adolescents' Movements (French: Comité international des mouvements d'enfants et d'adolescents, CIMEA), founded in 1958, with headquarters in Budapest.

In most socialist countries, membership of the pioneer movement is officially optional. Many features of the pioneer movement made it essentially different from Scout movement, particularly as the Scout movement is independent of government control and political parties. For example, there were no separate organizations for boys and girls. During the existence of the USSR, thousands of Young Pioneer camps and Young Pioneer Palaces were built exclusively for Young Pioneers, which were free of charge, sponsored by the government and Trade Unions. There were a lot of newspapers and magazines published for Young Pioneers in millions of copies. Some features, however, are reminiscent of the Scout movement. The two movements share some principles like preparedness and promotion of sports and outdoor skills. The pioneer movement also includes teaching of communist principles. Opponents of Communist states claim that this is a form of indoctrination.

A member of the movement is known as a pioneer, and a scarf--typically red, but sometimes light blue--is the traditional item of clothing worn by a pioneer. The pioneer organization is often named after a famous party member that is considered a suitable role model for young communists. In the USSR it was Lenin; in East Germany, it was Ernst Thälmann. The Thälmann pioneers were taught the slogan "We are Ernst Thälmann pioneers. We wear our red scarf with pride." It is notable, that Albania, which had severed diplomatic relations with the USSR since 1961, also had a certain variant of Pioneer organization, called Pioneers of Enver, named after the communist ruler of Albania, Enver Hoxha.

And, in my opinion, no matter of Stalin's Russia or China or North Korea or etc; Party could never rule in a way Orwell imagine it.

[TheFoxxx]

In 1984 there were only 3 states. No way could that ever become a reality. Saddam Hussen did turn Iraq into a similar world but look what happened to him in the end. 1984 is too fictional to ever become a reality in the modern world. Like come on we all know one day the governments will overthrown by criminals and we will all be living in a world with no leaders:lol: and i wouldn't call Winston and Julia individuals in the modern sense, maybe in the past but not in the present definition. By the way, Hitler was not sick and twisted in the same way that someone like Henry Lee Lucas, Zeppo etc were, he was more concerned with using people for his own ideal world. If someone like HLL had such power it would have been a case of world annihilation. Hitler was not a Misanthropist.

Aiculik wrote


And do you really think that Thought Police would be interested in serial killers?

If serial killers were killing each and every member of the inner party off one by one i think they would have been for sure. Maybe even scared of who was next.

[manolia]

Hitler Jugend ( Benedikt XVI was also a member ); and Balilla and Avanguardista in Italy. :)
Same things were happening and are still happening in communist state's also. I am lazy so I'll use Wiki:.

Baz i could use you for my encyclopedia ;) :) I bet you are one of those people who remember everything they read ;)




And, in my opinion, no matter of Stalin's Russia or China or North Korea or etc; Party could never rule in a way Orwell imagine it.

You are right. But reading this book i find similarities between the book and what happened in my country during the last dictatorship ;) It is painful you know, although i was unborn then ;)

[bazarov]

Baz i could use you for my encyclopedia ;) :) I bet you are one of those people who remember everything they read ;)

To be honest, I am sometimes surprised with facts I remember; not even sure from where do I know them :D





You are right. But reading this book i find similarities between the book and what happened in my country during the last dictatorship ;) It is painful you know, although i was unborn then ;)

Tell me about it, I am from former Yugoslavia. Luckily, I didn't have to be Tito's pioneer. Otherwise, I would have to learn and sing this stupid poem

Today, as I become a Pioneer,
I give my Pioneer's word of honour -
That I will study and work tirelessly,
respect parents and my seniors,
and be a loyal and honest friend [or "comrade"].
That I will love our independent homeland SFRY.
That I will spread brotherhood and unity
and the principles for which comrade Tito fought.
And that I will value all peoples of the world who respect freedom and peace!

:lol: :lol:

SFRY means Socialistic Federative Republic Yugoslavia

[Aiculík]

I doubt. Hitler and Mussolini were turned on creating great empires and were not afraid and concerned of imaginary enemies in their own state. They could do that because they had very good economic situation and people had job, which was a great improvement after 1929. OK, they did produce weapons but they weren't hungry. Therefore, they were pleased and had no reason to argue against Duce or Fuhrer.
Hitler and Mussolini were taking care for their men's, which wasn't a situation in USSR.

Yes, they weren't concerned about imaginary enemies in their own state - because they were in war with real enemies. Once they would win the war, I'm pretty sure there would be some imaginery enemy. Because these imaginery enemies are very effective ways of manipulation. Peoole that are afraid of some terrible enemy can be brainwashed easily. For example, did you know that in 1950's, terrible American capitalists send huge flocks of potato beetle to destroy the crop in my country? Yeah. And the government called people to fight against this barbaric attack. I bet none of the people from USA here did not know about this terroristic part of their history. :lol: :lol: :lol:

And you are also right that they cared for their people. But that's just it, they cared for their people. Do you really think Hitler would care about well-being of, for example, Slavic people which he considered a lower race, born to be slaves? I think Proles in 1984 had a rich and happy life compared to the poverty and suffering of milions if Hitler won the war.

[bazarov]

Yes, they weren't concerned about imaginary enemies in their own state - because they were in war with real enemies. Once they would win the war, I'm pretty sure there would be some imaginery enemy. Because these imaginery enemies are very effective ways of manipulation.

WWII started on September 1st 1939. Hitler became Kanzler (something like Prime minister) in 1933 and Mussolini in 1925 so they didn't have any enemies for quite a long time.



And you are also right that they cared for their people. But that's just it, they cared for their people. Do you really think Hitler would care about well-being of, for example, Slavic people which he considered a lower race, born to be slaves? I think Proles in 1984 had a rich and happy life compared to the poverty and suffering of milions if Hitler won the war.

When I said their people; I meant on Germans and Italians, I didn't meant on Slavs, Jews, Afroamericans, etc.
Proles were suffering by their own government and that wasn't situation on Itali and Germany.

[manolia]

To be honest, I am sometimes surprised with facts I remember; not even sure from where do I know them :D

And i have the memory capacity of a goldfish :lol: If you want something to be easily and quickly forgotten just say it to me :lol:




Tell me about it, I am from former Yugoslavia. Luckily, I didn't have to be Tito's pioneer. Otherwise, I would have to learn and sing this stupid poem

Today, as I become a Pioneer,
I give my Pioneer's word of honour -
That I will study and work tirelessly,
respect parents and my seniors,
and be a loyal and honest friend [or "comrade"].
That I will love our independent homeland SFRY.
That I will spread brotherhood and unity
and the principles for which comrade Tito fought.
And that I will value all peoples of the world who respect freedom and peace!

:lol: :lol:

SFRY means Socialistic Federative Republic Yugoslavia

Geeeezz..that was horrible. Yep, i have read about Tito, so i know what you are talking about. Unfortunately the Balkans (and the nearby areas) have veeeeeery troubled history :(

[bazarov]

Geeeezz..that was horrible. Yep, i have read about Tito, so i know what you are talking about. Unfortunately the Balkans (and the nearby areas) have veeeeeery troubled history :(

Too many cultures and religions on small area, I guess.

[manolia]

Baz i don't quite agree..i believe Balkans' place on the map (the crossroads of 3 continents etc) is responsible for the mess ;) but we can't discuss that since we are bordering on politics so i am self-moderating my post and stop here :D :p

I am right now reading Goldstein's "Manifesto" which is for me the best part in the book (at least so far). Some great truths here. Don't you think this part speaks volumes on how the real world is working?

I also liked the part were it is said that all the novels and songs are witten by machines. No artistic creation. And how they are creating a new language where all synonyms and antonyms of words are missing. An easy way to narrow the proccess of thought and eventually destroy it, don't you think? I always believed that the beauty and reachness of a language enhances thinking. And also by destroying people's aesthetic criteria you gradually reduce them to a point of foolishness. Hehehe this is partly a reality (check out how awful modern tv programms are and a big quantity of modern songs and novels :lol: :lol: ). This was said half in jest half in earnest ;) .

About the red belt those kids wear..it reminds me of the chastity belt women wore during medieval ages..could the puritanistic turn society has taken in "1984" be an allusion to church and its strict doctrines during past eras..(Orwell doesn't strike me as a religious person) not sure why i thought that :goof: (Well perhaps beacuse celibacy is mentioned too many times and the demonization of sex as a means of pleasure )

Hehehehe take your time..

[bazarov]

Baz i don't quite agree..i believe Balkans' place on the map (the crossroads of 3 continents etc) is responsible for the mess ;) but we can't discuss that since we are bordering on politics so i am self-moderating my post and stop here :D :p

It's not politic, it's...history:D In many places on earth, continents are crossing and there was nowhere such a mess like it was on Balkan through history.
Muslim, Christians and Orthodox on really too small area. Croats are Christians. Then Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina: norther part are Serbs; they are Orthodox. Then Bosnians - they are Muslims, and finally Croatian part; Christians again. Then Republic of Serbia, Montenegro, Greece - all Orthodox. I consider Turkey also as a part of Balkan, no matter of geography. :D Once in Austrian empire, then part of Turkish empire, then Balkan wars against Turkish empire, then WWI, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, WWII, SFRY...and of course; Turkey. Before Mustafa Kemal, they were always in war with someone.
That country in Asia, near the gulf, with 3 religions in it, you know...:D



I am right now reading Goldstein's "Manifesto" which is for me the best part in the book (at least so far). Some great truths here. Don't you think this part speaks volumes on how the real world is working?

Yes, that's the best part. Real world? I hope not! Just hope...


Hah, we live in a time of Dan Brown and Britney Spears, so Orwell was quite right about that! :lol:


About the red belt those kids wear..it reminds me of the chastity belt women wore during medieval ages..could the puritanistic turn society has taken in "1984" be an allusion to church and its strict doctrines during past eras..

Well, I doubt that Orwell was looking in Middle Ages; it think he was referring on red star, proud symbol of communism. Pioneers were wearing them on their funny hats. Church was loosing her influence in communism so I don't see why would Orwell be against them


Hehehehe take your time..

It was a pleasure, although I needed time!

[manolia]

Muslim, Christians and Orthodox on really too small area.
History and politics go together. Politics are a part of history :D ;)

Orthodox are christians too. I am sure you know that but i am clarifying it for anyone who doesn't and may read this post ;) We have here the same christian faith as the majority of Russian people ;)



Yes, that's the best part. Real world? I hope not! Just hope...

Well the part about the constant wars and why they take place is quite realistic ;) and the part that human societies consist of 3 classes mainly ;)



Hah, we live in a time of Dan Brown and Britney Spears, so Orwell was quite right about that! :lol:

Yes, my thoughts exactly plus the whole telescreen thing and how people are constantly brainwashed by it...he (Orwell) wasn't very fond of tv either :lol:



Well, I doubt that Orwell was looking in Middle Ages; it think he was referring on red star, proud symbol of communism. Pioneers were wearing them on their funny hats. Church was loosing her influence in communism so I don't see why would Orwell be against them


No, i didn't mean that. He makes a combination of things and influences. In the part i am reading now he makes a short reference to the strict doctrines of the church ;) and how church succeeded in staying into power for centuries by "adopting" people from various social strata rather than belonging to a certain class and also by giving people the hope that there is an after life. So church is definately mentioned in the book.
Now the part about the kids and their way of life reminds me both of what i said before and what you said above (which is kinda obvious ;) ). Who knows? Two in one..

[KurtDunn]

"There is, after all, not that much difference between a society that floods the masses with cheap, noveltish romance, raucous and sentimental pop music, and pornography to keep them amused and politically inert and one that does the same thing for commercial gain-but the identical ultimate political result: apathy, ignorance of real issues, and acquiescence in whatever the politicians are doing. And does not commercial television do just that?"

The result is the same, but the intent is drastically different. The similarities between today and the world of 1984 are motivated primarily by profits, not a desire to control.

[TheFoxxx]

bazarov wrote


Hah, we live in a time of Dan Brown and Britney Spears

I know who Dan Brown is, sorry, can't say i am much of a fan but who is Britney Spears? I found Dan Brown boring, he doesn't even seem to try to put any effort into captivating his readers. Seems pretty amateur compared to some of the greatest writers like Stephen King and Bret Easton Ellis. I'm guessing Britney Spears is another one of those writers similar to Dan Brown, if she is, tell her not to waste her time writing because it is boring. It goes on and on and on........ :crash::lol:

[bazarov]

I know who Dan Brown is, sorry, can't say i am much of a fan but who is Britney Spears? I found Dan Brown boring, he doesn't even seem to try to put any effort into captivating his readers. Seems pretty amateur compared to some of the greatest writers like Stephen King and Bret Easton Ellis. I'm guessing Britney Spears is another one of those writers similar to Dan Brown, if she is, tell her not to waste her time writing because it is boring. It goes on and on and on........ :crash::lol:

:lol: :lol: Even my mother knows who is Britney Spears; she is what they call ''popular singer'', American. I don't know how somebody doesn't know that although; I must admit I envy you on that!

[Mortis Anarchy]

I think that 1984 is a reality in small ways. I'm not saying it could become a reality, but a lot of the things Orwell said does make sense. I agree with the earlier comment about it being more from the Corporate world. Privacy is one thing that stands out, but I won't get into that...also, look at the similarities between North Korea and 1984. Its insane.

[TheFoxxx]

bazarov wrote


Even my mother knows who is Britney Spears; she is what they call ''popular singer'', American. I don't know how somebody doesn't know that although; I must admit I envy you on that

You want to know something else that is Hilarious, i am a music journalist. If i heard one of her songs i might know who she is but as for names. Sorry mate:lol:

I'm into Country and New Wave. My favs are Lindsey Haun, Lila McCann, The Wilkinsons, Carrie Underwood, Ryan Adams, Doc Walker, Jewel, The Cars, Tears For Fears, Emerson Drive, The Warren Brothers, Aleyce Simmonds and Shooter Jennings. The only new pop singers i have taken any notice and liking to are Avril Lavigne, Daughtry, Andersrock, Bo Bice and a few others mainly from watching Idol.

Yesterday i watched the American Music Awards to see all the country stars on it but i did not see a Britney Spears on it. However i did see some girl called Beyonce (who i think may of come from Destinys Child) perform a duet with Sugarland.

[The Atheist]

You want to know something else that is Hilarious, i am a music journalist. If i heard one of her songs i might know who she is but as for names. Sorry mate:lol:

Excuse me while I wash the complete disbelief out.

You claim to live in Sydney and that you are a music journalist yet have never heard of Britney Spears?

No polite way I can put this: I'm quite confident that you're lying on one or other of those statements, and probably both.

[The Atheist]

Just out of interest, using Google produces the following results:

"Alanis Morissette" 1.65m responses

"John Lennon" 2.1m responses

"Jesus Christ" 7.6m responses

"George Bush" (which, of course, gets two shots) 11.7m responses

"Britney Spears"?

A staggering 43,900,000 responses.

Having done that, I can't stop!!

"George Orwell" produces 1.6m - and LitNet ranks fourth!

"William Shakepeare" - 5.3m and LitNet 4th again!

Even people in West Sydney with no access to the internet can't escape from the Britney phenomenon; the ABC's site search produced:

307 news articles

Poor Bey-once only had 121.

Thank god for the reality of an actual news organisation, "Dubbya" has over 12,000 stories on him. Given that he's Galactic President for the past seven years, my faith in humans is a little restored by ABC redressing the balance!

I guess it proves the theory that 95% of the internet is rubbish.

Yay that LitNet is in the other 5%!!!

[TheFoxxx]

The Atheist wrote


You claim to live in Sydney and that you are a music journalist yet have never heard of Britney Spears?

Country Music Journalist. It's not my job to listen to pop music nor would i want to from some of the rubbish i have heard such as the Backstreet Boys and Eminem. So i guess i am very lucky.

By the way we just had the greatest change in Australian history this weekend. Kevin Rudd is now our Prime Minister. This is a great man who will lead us into the future.

[TinyDancer27]

in my opinion, i believe that there is a possibility that 1984 could very well become a reality.As my teacher said, It won't be long before future generations are sitting in class being watched by teachers or higher administration. i think that Orwell is telling us many times that this book could very well end up as the way of life,if we're not careful:

[TheFoxxx]

Not in Australia mate:lol: We now have one of the best governments around. You know i was just thinking yesterday, if nineteen eighty four could become a reality then so could Resident Evil: Apocalypse. No doubt we better watch out or the Umbrella Corporation (the largest commercial entity in the world) might take over and turn all its people into zombies:alien: :eek:

[RandomPrecision]

In a word? Yes. In some ways, it already is.

Try not to think of it in terms of a world that is precisely as Orwell envisioned it. Instead, think ahead. Look at where we are now and imagine what could happen based upon what you already know.

I believe the internet has been Big Brother just waiting to happen since it's inception. Now I know a lot of eyes are rolling but think about it. Someday, probably not in the too distant future, it will be all but impossible for the average nitwit to do anything online without it being possible for all of it to be monitored and recorded. Currently, there are ways to avoid this but they involve a little more complexity than the average user is willing to go through just for anonymity. As the saying goes "I have nothing to hide so I'm not worried about it".

And while the internet may not technically be able to monitor you with a physical lens like the 1984 Telescreen, it has the potential to be far more insidious. It has the potential to record what you think and how you think. Also what you're interested in. It has the potential to stare deeper into your being than even Orwell imagined.

Technology advances. What is science fiction today is reality in ten years or whatever. If you can imagine it, it can probably be done.

So. While we're all sitting here feeling all safe and comfortable, what we have sitting in front of us is a telescreen in disguise. Maybe a primitive one. Maybe your every thought isn't being piped into some gigantic supercomputer to be scrutinized and analyzed yet but how far off do you think that is? Take a look at the headlines from the last few years. Warrantless wiretapping, data mining, etc.

Think about how much information a single hard drive can hold. Just a common hard drive that anyone might have in their computer. And the capacities are growing exponentially. Google has so much free storage space that they can afford to give people 4 gigs free. And it isn't lost on me that Google has been developing increasingly sophisticated software. Who doesn't use Google to search for the things they're interested in?

Some people would say this is "tin foil hat paranoia". Maybe so. But such people would be Big Brother's best friend. They would ridicule anyone who saw him coming and the peer pressure would silence anyone who didn't want to be ridiculed.

The thought police is/are everyone. Everyone is so paranoid that they willingly do Big Brother's hardest job for him.

Big Brother, in turn, is not a person but rather, the personification of tyranny. He is the symbolic figurehead of a tyrannical government. Not just a government but an entire system that's built from the ground up to enforce compliance. In fact, Big Brother can be interpreted to be everyone. People willingly obey BB because of the social pressures placed upon them by other people. BB is more than any one man or even just a government or a corporation. He's everyone working together to defeat and/or destroy any trace of individuality.

Thoughtcrime is anything (particularly an idea) that displeases or threatens Big Brother or his hold on power.

The so-called mental health system and the CJS is (in a way) the ministry of love and room 101. It tells us we're crazy if we don't conform to social norms and gives us pills to keep us "sane". If we're especially disobedient, we are sent to room 101 (prison) to face our greatest fear. Loss of freedom (what little there is) and being subjected to an overwhelmingly frighting environment.

Love for BB must consume us and our obedience to him must be unquestioning. To the point to where we would report our own lovers, children, parents or siblings for disobedience.

Is it like this yet? No. But there are ominous warnings everywhere. It's no surprise that references to 1984 are popping up everywhere.

[The Atheist]

Is it like this yet? No. But there are ominous warnings everywhere. It's no surprise that references to 1984 are popping up everywhere.

Nope, I think you're badly wrong, but to tell you why would be to get into politics, so we can't do that.

The reason references to 1984 abound right now is that Orwell and 1984 have been largely hijacked by pubescent boys who like to pretend to be revolutionary by seeing consipracies on every street corner. It's essentially a form of cowardice - attack organisations which will not act against you - governments and government agencies.

Don't respect the ravings of a small number of idiots to let you think the world is inexorably headed towards 1984.

[RandomPrecision]

Nope, I think you're badly wrong, but to tell you why would be to get into politics, so we can't do that.

The reason references to 1984 abound right now is that Orwell and 1984 have been largely hijacked by pubescent boys who like to pretend to be revolutionary by seeing consipracies on every street corner. It's essentially a form of cowardice - attack organisations which will not act against you - governments and government agencies.

Don't respect the ravings of a small number of idiots to let you think the world is inexorably headed towards 1984.

My thoughts are not based upon the ravings of idiots and pubescent boys.

They're based upon my own observations of a society that is becoming more and more tolerant of government interference in all aspects of everyday life. What happens when people trust a government too much? I think it's a society that is ripe for something similar to what is depicted in 1984. Perhaps not down to the last detail. Maybe the government will never be able to rule so completely. But technology is making things possible that have never, ever been possible in human history. Who knows what could happen?

I don't think it's so much a "conspiracy" as it is just society and government doing what comes naturally. Wanting more and more control in order to make life more convenient and safer for the collective (To the very real detriment of some individuals). IOW, it doesn't have to be some vast, grand conspiracy in order for it to just gradually happen.

I've been thinking about this for quite a while. I haven't been hanging out with conspiracy theorists and talking about the NWO or black helicopters or any of that. I've just been quietly observing and theorizing on what could possibly happen based upon what's happening now.

I've also been observing people's behavior. And how easily manipulated most people are. This is easy with the internet. People will blurt out things online they'd never say in person. Not because they aren't thinking it. But because they feel more comfortable online. All of the things Orwell wrote about (Newspeak, doublethink, thoughtcrime, etc) are happening. In fact, it's out in the open. Nobody is even trying to hide it. It's just that few recognize it for what it is and those few are ridiculed if they say anything.

I think it's highly possible a future world could be worse than anything Orwell could have imagined. But it may be that it won't seem bad to most of it's inhabitants because it will just be the way things are and they'll have just gotten used to it. Like "traffic cameras". We're used to them. I don't even really notice them. But when you really think about it, they are creepy in that BB sort of way when you realize how many of them there are.

The internet is creepy in that it has the potential to become the next best (or worst) thing to having a physical camera in every home in the world. All it really takes is a government that decides it wants to know everything and it can be done. Would our government do this? I don't know. Could they? Sure. When something can happen, it's usually a good idea to watch for signs that it is happening or will. Because that's just the way things are. People will often do whatever they can do. Or, as they say, whatever they can get by with.

So what I was saying wasn't that what is now or what may be to come will be 1984 down to the finest detail. But it could be something similar. A little imagination. I think Orwell was more right than wrong about the future he imagined. There are things that were unheard of in his time that have come to pass (in some form) and in fact, become commonplace.

[bazarov]

What happens when people trust a government too much? But technology is making things possible that have never, ever been possible in human history. Who knows what could happen?

People will never trust their government too much, they barely trust them anything; it always was like that and I am pretty sure it always will be. Technology is today powerful tool in leading and controlling, but proles also have it; and they can also hack/hijack/control government; which is obviously happening. In real world humans have possibility, proles didn't have it.



I've also been observing people's behavior. And how easily manipulated most people are. This is easy with the internet. All of the things Orwell wrote about (Newspeak, doublethink, thoughtcrime, etc) are happening. In fact, it's out in the open. Nobody is even trying to hide it. It's just that few recognize it for what it is and those few are ridiculed if they say anything.

People are easily manipulated because they are stupid, and they were stupid before internet and will be stupid if you forbid them usage of internet. You, me, The Atheist; we also use internet, but I doubt anyone can manipulate us. After all, you can shut down your computer, nobody is forcing you to use it.
That last part reminds me on Conspiracy Theory...



People will blurt out things online they'd never say in person. Not because they aren't thinking it. But because they feel more comfortable online.

It's a human thing, not an Orwellian thing. It's easier to people to say some things through SMS, letters, Skype, MSN or anything like that than face to face. It's unpleasant for people to say some things face to face, I am sure you were in situations like that; we all were.

[RandomPrecision]

People will never trust their government too much, they barely trust them anything; it always was like that and I am pretty sure it always will be. Technology is today powerful tool in leading and controlling, but proles also have it; and they can also hack/hijack/control government; which is obviously happening. In real world humans have possibility, proles didn't have it.


Well. I don't know where you live but here in America, there are things people don't trust the government on and things they just don't see as a threat. They generally don't like things like taxes and socialized medicine but few people complain about cameras everywhere or a loss of privacy. What it comes down to is that here, people care more about money and easy living than they do about individual rights.



People are easily manipulated because they are stupid, and they were stupid before internet and will be stupid if you forbid them usage of internet. You, me, The Atheist; we also use internet, but I doubt anyone can manipulate us. After all, you can shut down your computer, nobody is forcing you to use it.


Of course I realize that I'm using the very technology that I distrust. But I also recognize it as a threat. I try to warn people (when they'll listen).

I also realize that people were stupid before the internet. This is nothing new. People have been using technology they didn't understand for some time now. But it's getting more and more sophisticated and fewer and fewer people actually understand it. I don't understand it myself. But I know enough to know there could be consequences that nobody ever imagined. Or if they did, they just didn't say so.



That last part reminds me on Conspiracy Theory...


Yes. But I guess you didn't get what I was saying. If anyone who sounds the alarm is ridiculed as being a conspiracy lunatic, it's a whole lot easier for a real conspiracy to actually happen. Because people don't like to be ridiculed. It's a form of social pressure that's been used to silence people and is often quite effective.



It's a human thing, not an Orwellian thing. It's easier to people to say some things through SMS, letters, Skype, MSN or anything like that than face to face. It's unpleasant for people to say some things face to face, I am sure you were in situations like that; we all were.

I think you misunderstood. I realize why people are more comfortable talking about some things online. I was trying to point out that I've read a lot of what many people have to say when they don't feel like they have to hold anything back and have consequently gotten a pretty good idea of how and what most people think. And the picture this paints is an entire civilization that is ripe for being controlled. Even people who claim to be free thinkers follow the herd more often than not. Whether or not that is done knowingly, I'm not sure.

People can be manipulated in many, many ways. A master manipulator would have a blast with a country like America. Not because everyone in America is easily manipulated. But because most are and the minority is always ignored in countries like America.

[Castalian Girl]

I think world is moving towards society described in 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. I believe (this is only my personal opinion) that key issue is motive and the way governments (or whichever powers to be) are trying to achieve such model of society. Usual motive is need to have more power or ability to fill their pockets (relatives often included in dictatorships ;) ). Orwell described society driven by fear (children accusing their own parents for not loving Big Brother), Bradbury described people who only entertain themselves and live empty lives, never questioning anything (not because they are afraid to, but because they firmly believe they don't need to).
The world can become combination of the two. After all, large numbers of people watch TV and read Dan Brown rather than think or try to produce something creative and read Shakespeare, Faulkner, Homer or Orwell. These people also like to believe they are free individuals because they can spend their money, go out clubbing or buy a house. And the world IS free for those fitting the profile of majority. But even today, being different is hard. How come you don't want to have a nice house, family, cat, dog and nice car? How come new fashion and new TV show is not interesting? Everyone loves it, why can't you?
Back to motive: as long as majority is busy with earning money and spending money on things they don't need (you MUST have beautiful, perfect white teeth, new mobile phone, new clothes... you must see the new club and like it there because everyone else thinks its great; you must believe in god/gods/something-above-us-all, you must love to travel and spend more money because it relaxes you...), government can do something else - raise taxes, cut down social care... So, no, maybe we won't live in society where police would arrest us for thinking, reading books or painting. But majority would think readers, artists or intellectuals are weird and slowly, but surely, isolate the weirdoes. Why put blood on your hands when everything can be done so easily and legally?
Make sure that majority believes they are happy and free. Majority will quiet down the minority. And there you go, problem solved. Everyone is watching new celebrity on premiere, no need to bother with boring statistics about ageing population and need for more effective social care. After all, perfect, beautiful people look better on TV than old women who can't afford face-lifting.
Being a pioneer and promote your party or being an average consumer and promote spending money lifestyle - what is different?

[The Atheist]

This theead really is getting quite reminiscent of some CT threads I've been involved in elsewhere.


They're based upon my own observations of a society that is becoming more and more tolerant of government interference in all aspects of everyday life.

Ok. I'll make a call on this, because I don't accept it for a second.

In what way is society more tolerant of government intervention than is say, 1948?


What happens when people trust a government too much?

When and how can this happen? People get sick of governments after extended periods - recent poll results in two major democracies - UK and USA - show that most people don't trust the government at all.


I think it's a society that is ripe for something similar to what is depicted in 1984. Perhaps not down to the last detail. Maybe the government will never be able to rule so completely. But technology is making things possible that have never, ever been possible in human history. Who knows what could happen?

Fortunately, we have a couple of superb examples of governments which tried to completely control the people. Despite the best efforts of hundreds of thousands of KGB agents, plus the millions sent to the Gulag, what happened to USSR?


I don't think it's so much a "conspiracy" as it is just society and government doing what comes naturally. Wanting more and more control in order to make life more convenient and safer for the collective (To the very real detriment of some individuals). IOW, it doesn't have to be some vast, grand conspiracy in order for it to just gradually happen.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what it does have to do. No politician I can think of wants to "control" the populace - aside from the odd Green Party members maybe. The natural form of democratic government is "hands off".


I've been thinking about this for quite a while. I haven't been hanging out with conspiracy theorists and talking about the NWO or black helicopters or any of that. I've just been quietly observing and theorizing on what could possibly happen based upon what's happening now.

Fair enough. I just think your observations are flawed.


I've also been observing people's behavior. And how easily manipulated most people are.

Hate to tell you, but this is nothing new. Religion once held total control of the people, with 99.99+% of people believing what they were told by priests. Now, USA is the last bastion of christianity, with almost all other Western nations having more secular people than religion.

Given that religion covers not only this life, but also the next, would not religion still be universally believed if people were really as stupid as you paint them?

I can guarantee you that if your premise held any water at all, Bazarov and I would be the first two blokes on your boat. As it happens, we seem to be of the opinion that you're worrying about nothing.


This is easy with the internet. People will blurt out things online they'd never say in person. Not because they aren't thinking it. But because they feel more comfortable online.

Yep, I did a study on this some time back, and that's purely to do with anonymity. People are more comfortable when they aren't able to see the eyes of the person they're talking to. This has no relevance at all to your claim.


All of the things Orwell wrote about (Newspeak, doublethink, thoughtcrime, etc) are happening. In fact, it's out in the open. Nobody is even trying to hide it. It's just that few recognize it for what it is and those few are ridiculed if they say anything.

Well, instead of ridiculing you for it, I'll just ask for some evidence to back up your assertion that "All of the things Orwell wrote about (Newspeak, doublethink, thoughtcrime, etc) are happening."

I claim that none of them are happening - please provide your evidence to the contrary. (Note: evidence consists of actual facts and copies of what you mean rather than an assertion that these things have happened.

As I see it, Newspeak does not exist, nor have I seen any signs of it being attempted. (and I am a linguist, for what it's worth)

Doublethink has always existed. Astrology is a perfect example of it in operation, where one must believe that the earth is the centre of the universe to accept astrology as true. We know for certain that the earth is nowhere near the centre of the universe and that the stars do not orbit the earth, yet people choose to believe it. That, however doesn't fit your scenario, where you are talking about political doublethink - politicians lying about their intentions. That is nothing new. If you have examples of political doubelthink beyond old-fashioned lying, please present it.

Thoughtcrime does not exist in USA, UK or any developed nation. That is self-evident from the fact that conspiracy theorists are allowed to spew their ridiculous garbage about 9/11, JFK, chemtrails, anti-AGW and many other subjects, without any thoughts of censure. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.


I think it's highly possible a future world could be worse than anything Orwell could have imagined.

I think that's extremely likely, but on a completely different scenario.

Food shortages, climate change, disease and over-population will ensure humanity has a bleak future, but it has nothing to do with your premise.


But it may be that it won't seem bad to most of it's inhabitants because it will just be the way things are and they'll have just gotten used to it. Like "traffic cameras". We're used to them. I don't even really notice them. But when you really think about it, they are creepy in that BB sort of way when you realize how many of them there are.

Traffic cameras creepy?

A device which saves an incaculable number of lives annually by modifying driver behaviour into a safer mode? How are traffic cameras restricting freedom or helping government control? I've had two extremely close brushes with death thanks to traffic screaming through red lights and I'll be happy when every single traffic light has a camera on it.

Aside from the obvious point that those obeying the law will never be caught by a traffic camera.

I see no connection to BB at all.


The internet is creepy in that it has the potential to become the next best (or worst) thing to having a physical camera in every home in the world. All it really takes is a government that decides it wants to know everything and it can be done.

In what way can the government add a camera to the internet without our knowledge? Or enforce having a camera on? My computer has no webcam and it sits in my office anyway. When I'm not at the computer, even a secret camera is going to show nothing about me to anyone. Have you even thought this stuff through? It certainly doesn't appear so. I submit that any government which advocated online cameras for surveillance would be voted out in very short order indeed.


Would our government do this? I don't know. Could they? Sure.

See above, no they couldn't.


When something can happen, it's usually a good idea to watch for signs that it is happening or will. Because that's just the way things are. People will often do whatever they can do. Or, as they say, whatever they can get by with.

There's a name for that - paranoia. An irrational fear of being watched or followed. That kind of thinking leads to madness. What if Mars attacks? or Venus? Or if alien microbes from Betelgeuse 5 make their way to earth in their invisble interstellar craft?


So what I was saying wasn't that what is now or what may be to come will be 1984 down to the finest detail. But it could be something similar. A little imagination. I think Orwell was more right than wrong about the future he imagined. There are things that were unheard of in his time that have come to pass (in some form) and in fact, become commonplace.

Well, hopefully, you'll be able to adapt that view.

Ask yourself this:

If governments were so keen to turn the world into 1984 why have all democracies enacted privacy legislation? This legislation is a barrier to what you're suggesting, so a government wanting to reduce privacy wouldn't waste its time enacting privacy laws, would it? And if you think "double-bluff", then I suggest the above paranoia comment may fit. (I don't mean that nastily, but if you did think that way, I'd be concerned at your state of mind.)

[RandomPrecision]

In what way can the government add a camera to the internet without our knowledge? Or enforce having a camera on? My computer has no webcam and it sits in my office anyway. When I'm not at the computer, even a secret camera is going to show nothing about me to anyone. Have you even thought this stuff through? It certainly doesn't appear so. I submit that any government which advocated online cameras for surveillance would be voted out in very short order indeed.

You either aren't reading very carefully or you're deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying. I said the next best thing to a physical camera. Which means I wasn't talking about a camera at all.

What you do and say and where you go online would tell anyone who was watching for patterns a lot more about you than an actual camera probably could. A standard video camera can't see anything but your face if you're just sitting at your desk. A hard drive recording everything you do online, every object you click on, every URL you visit, everything you download or upload could tell an observer more about you than your own mother knows. Computers and sophisticated analytical software make things possible that just couldn't be done easily in the past.

So. This is not something that is a secret. And I'm not even saying anyone would want to do this. But it is possible. Unless you're really geeky and really know your stuff, it's pretty difficult to be invisible online. Many people feel like they have more privacy online than they actually do.



There's a name for that - paranoia. An irrational fear of being watched or followed.


Well. That pretty much seals it. I can see that you have your views and I have mine.


That kind of thinking leads to madness. What if Mars attacks? or Venus?

These things are not possible as far as we know. Hitler and Stalin proved that what I'm talking about can happen more easily than some people are comfortable with. And while it didn't work in either case, many millions of people paid the ultimate price for the lack of some kind of vigilance.


Or if alien microbes from Betelgeuse 5 make their way to earth in their invisble interstellar craft?

Possible, but extremely unlikely.




Ask yourself this:

If governments were so keen to turn the world into 1984 why have all democracies enacted privacy legislation?

Do you watch the news? I'm just curious. We have privacy laws but we also have people who seem intent on tearing them up. Why would they want to do that? There are people who try to protect privacy. But when something like 9/11 happens, people throw caution to the wind. You'd be surprised how many people don't believe a person has any right to privacy. Anywhere. Is it a majority of people? I don't know. Probably not. Not yet anyway.

As I said, people don't trust the government. You're absolutely right about that. But they're more concerned about other things. We are a race of beings who don't think about the future. Oh, yeah. Intellectuals do but the guy on the street? He wants his GPS and his internet connectivity and so forth. It's impossible to calculate all possible outcomes of everything that is done. But we have been very reckless with technology. Frankly, I'm surprised we survived the cold war.

[The Atheist]

A hard drive recording everything you do online, every object you click on, every URL you visit, everything you download or upload could tell an observer more about you than your own mother knows.

Sorry, but this is just wrong.

In all honesty, following someone's browser is likely to reveal very little about them. In my case, a watcher would see that I post here, at another couple of fora, play cards and read news sites. Certainly, someone who spends all their life online may be revealing, but you'd think those people would hardly be worth watching anyway.


But we have been very reckless with technology.

While I'm not sure I'd use "reckless" the comment does echo this gem:


We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

[RandomPrecision]

Sorry, but this is just wrong.

In all honesty, following someone's browser is likely to reveal very little about them. In my case, a watcher would see that I post here, at another couple of fora, play cards and read news sites. Certainly, someone who spends all their life online may be revealing, but you'd think those people would hardly be worth watching anyway.

Well, I guess I should have said someone who may want to observe an average person who is curious and very active online would be able to get a lot of information.

If you have the time, Watch the video at the following URL. It's pretty long but well worth watching if you're even the slightest bit intrigued as to where the internet could take us. I think most people already vaguely know most of the things this guy is talking about. But this guy in this video isn't a conspiracy theory nut. He's a private investigator. You can believe the things he says.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-383709537384528624&q=privacy&ei=aM4jSLahJ4Xw4QKCsKynDA




While I'm not sure I'd use "reckless" the comment does echo this gem:

I guess that's one thing we can agree on. I actually had that quote in mind when I was making that post so it's kind of ironic that you posted it.

Carl was brilliant and if he were alive today, I think he'd be fascinated with the internet.

So look. I think what I was trying to say is this. If you had anything to hide from the hypothetical thought police (anything at all, no matter how insignificant), just from where we're at today, it would be next to impossible. Is BB a reality right now? Not really. As I said, in some ways, yes. But not on the scale of 1984. What I was saying is that there's a lot of potential for things to go in that direction. If you watch the video I posted the link to, I don't see how you could argue that isn't the case. Can I say for certain that's what's going to happen? No. Can anyone? No. Will it be exactly like 1984? Probably not.

There's a lot of stuff that goes on at the government level that is classified. If we do hear about it (And I'll grant you that we usually do in some form or another), it's usually 10 years after the fact or something. And there's a lot of stuff that just happens. Not because some sinister group is meeting in some dark cellar somewhere plotting our demise. But because it's just a normal byproduct of the way we live and the technology we use.

The only thing that it really takes for an Orwellian situation to become a reality is the will. The way is already there. And it will only get easier. The Nazis used every bit of technology that was available to them. They used machines that were made by IBM. They kept track of people by keeping records and used the records that the old government had left behind to identify, for example, Jews and gays. Gays were also tracked down by magazine subscriptions and other such things. Seemingly harmless info that can be misused. Now we live in a society that keeps track of everything. I don't believe our government has any terribly sinister ambitions at the moment or in the foreseeable near future but as I said, I doubt people living in Germany in the 1920s thought so either. At least, I doubt that they could have even imagined what was going to happen.

[The Atheist]

Well, I guess I should have said someone who may want to observe an average person who is curious and very active online would be able to get a lot of information.

Yes, and as always, the driver is money and the thrust of internet access is all commercially driven. Certainly, the US and other western military can and do search all internet text for keywords in the "war on terror" and that could be expanded upon should a government ever decide to do so.


If you have the time, Watch the video at the following URL. It's pretty long but well worth watching if you're even the slightest bit intrigued as to where the internet could take us.

Wow, he is the most boring man ever to stand in front of a video camera! I bet the rush to get out at 2 pm was like a fire exit.

I skimmed through enough to know where he was going and I'm aware of all the technology available and how it works. I agree that it has the potential to be used harmfully, but so did TV - and to some extent it was. (and still is)

I just don't buy the chance of it ever being used against us, unless we're breaking laws, in which case, good job!


I guess that's one thing we can agree on. I actually had that quote in mind when I was making that post so it's kind of ironic that you posted it.

Carl was brilliant and if he were alive today, I think he'd be fascinated with the internet.

Agree entirely. One of the few true immortals - as long as man exists, people will discuss Sagan; I feel privileged just to have shared the planet with him.


So look. I think what I was trying to say is this. If you had anything to hide from the hypothetical thought police (anything at all, no matter how insignificant), just from where we're at today, it would be next to impossible.

I think you've created a dichotomy where all thought crime is internet related and I think that's where you miss out. Only the really stupid crooks have any record of anything, online or otherwise. Like spies, they operate on a need-to-know basis. Just have a look at organised crime - is it reduced or increased in the past half century? Is drug dealing still a problem anywhere in the world?

Basically, if governments could use the internet or any of its descendants to control the population, they'd be doing it firstly in the name of justice - exactly as USMI uses the internet in the WoT. It ain't happening. There were two keys which made the telescreen infinitely more useful than a computer, or even computer + cellphone will ever be:

They could not be turned off by anyone other than Inner Party members.

They covered everything. Winston was unique in having an alcove invisible to the telescreen. He missed the point that its mere invisibility was a clue to his unorthodoxy, so the telescreen even gave that away. Until we are unable to use the "off" switch, nothing's a problem as regards giving away secrets. If you have secrets, don't put them on a MySpace page.


The only thing that it really takes for an Orwellian situation to become a reality is the will. The way is already there. And it will only get easier.

The trouble with the will for it is the history of those who have come close. You mentioned Nazi Germany - a classic example of why it won't work now.

Alongside the mass media, the internet has enabled groups of people from all across all spectrums of life - radical islam to christianity to Buddhists to anarchists to liberals to conservatives to literature fans. Every interest group has its own network of information. Mine comes entirely from alternative media sources which are read by hundreds of thousands. The net itself would defeat any attempt to control it covertly and overt measures are fairly remote, in my opinion.

I think the threats facing humans for the next century or so will all be physical ones.