eagleye13 Loc: Fl

The novel; '1984' - a Synopsis
Definition of Synopsis: a condensed statement or outline (as of a narrative or treatise)


There are many brands of "conservative".
Many that have been "given" that brand.
The term is not very definitive any more.
Likewise for the term "liberal".
In my opinion it is the "neoCON" cover that has been used; as being "conservative".
But that is the purpose.
Orwell knew what was up when he wrote '1984' using the term "newspeak".
Terms are bastardized for a purpose; confusion being one.
IMO; Sinister and diabolical.
After all; Satan is the Father of all lies.

(from WikileakS)
Nineteen Eighty-Four, often published as 1984, is a dystopian novel published in 1949 by English author George Orwell.[1][2] The novel is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public manipulation. The superstate and its residents are dictated to by a political regime euphemistically named English Socialism, shortened to "Ingsoc" in Newspeak, the government's invented language. The superstate is under the control of the privileged elite of the Inner Party, a party and government that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrime", which is enforced by the "Thought Police".[3]

The tyranny is ostensibly overseen by Big Brother, the Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power."[4] The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party, who works for the Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue in Newspeak), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to rewrite past newspaper articles, so that the historical record always supports the party line.[5] The instructions that the workers receive portray the corrections as fixing misquotations and never as what they really are: forgeries and falsifications. A large part of the Ministry also actively destroys all documents that have not been edited and do not contain the revisions; in this way, no proof exists that the government is lying. Smith is a diligent and skillful worker but secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother. The heroine of the novel, Julia, is based on Orwell's second wife, Sonia Orwell.[6][7]

As literary political fiction and dystopian science-fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four is a classic novel in content, plot and style. Many of its terms and concepts, such as Big Brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime, Newspeak, Room 101, telescreen, 2 + 2 = 5, and memory hole, have entered into common use since its publication in 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four popularised the adjective Orwellian, which describes official deception, secret surveillance, and manipulation of recorded history by a totalitarian or authoritarian state.[5] In 2005, the novel was chosen by Time magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005.[8] It was awarded a place on both lists of Modern Library 100 Best Novels, reaching number 13 on the editor's list, and 6 on the readers' list.[9] In 2003, the novel was listed at number 8 on the BBC's survey.

Dr. Evil Loc: In Your Face

Hmm...not interested in the good of others and solely interested in power. Sounds a little bit like the clinton agenda.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Doesn't sound like much has changed other than adding that progressive/socialism/communism in the heap of names that now play the role along of course with the totalitarin.authoritarin state...

Brilliant he was!!! Scary his accuracy although since much doesn't change in the world of politics and power other than the names is it no wonder???
Great post, eagle..... Did you read this book?? I did not...

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

I have to admit; not in total. I never got around to it. I should have.
I always remember the "newspeak" part. It was used to greatly diminish the ability to have intellectual and definitive communication. The huge reduction in vocabulary. Now we have the "public" school system to help with that.
Oh and Big Brother!!!
If Orwell could see us now.
Maybe he does.

BTW; I loved WkipediaS synopsis. It covered more than I realized.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Do you know the difference between the goals of the conservative moment and the liberal/progressive movement? Yeah, I couldn't find one either. The ultimate goal of all political party's, ideological movements, and such - is control of the masses. The details of the ideology don't really matter all that much, the whole purpose is to gain control of the Government, then impose whatever "ideology" they believe will enable them to control the people and help them KEEP power.

How does one ensure that one's "way' is perceived as the only viable option? Demonize and disparage the competition, belittle their goals and ambitions, ridicule those that support the competition - and do it more effectively than the competition, who is trying to do the same. To ensure supremacy, one then develops a pogrom against compromise, labeling such practices as weak, and equivalent to surrender. Does any of this seem familiar?

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

" The details of the ideology don't really matter all that much, the whole purpose is to gain control of the Government, then impose whatever "ideology" they believe will enable them to control the people and help them KEEP power."
And add; fill their pockets.

"Does any of this seem familiar?"
It should; but not by enough people. The elections are covered on both sides by the PTB/Big Money.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Sad - but true. It isn't surprising though, they've had many centuries to perfect their strategy. I was always amazed to see the poor masses used as "cannon fodder" by the nobility, actually think they has to do what they were told. Medieval armies had far more conscripts than professional soldiers/Knights - who could have turned on their masters, ended the war before it started - and gone home to their families. They did not ( with a few exceptions ), because they had been conditioned since birth to believe that they HAD to obey the nobility, often taught that it was because God ordained such.

Weak minds are easily led to their destruction. The weakest minds will go to their doom with a smile on their face - having been led to believe it was their own idea.

JimMe

What the Synopsis didn't explain was that by the end of the story, it's revealed that the Totalitarian Government of Oceania is truly in Total Control of every individual, to the point that they even set-up the Rebellion Groups that look to overthrow the Government, and when necessary the Government torture Rebels that are deemed too dangerous - a fate that befalls both Smith and Julia - and at the end they too are brainwashed into Loyal Followers of the Government and they both have come to "Love Big Brother"...

Also, a side note in the story is that the perpetual "wars" that are fought are nothing but fabricated "conflicts" that have never taken place, and the "wars" are made-up to have the people support the Government because of "...imminent invasion of Oceania by other countries..." that will never really take place...

George Orwell depicted a True Totalitarian Empire...

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

George Orwell was a prophet.
Thanks for your added information, Jim. Makes me wish I paid more attention. I was to busy with non-fiction, current events, and real history.

Maybe I can find the time now. I have a copy.

QuestGirl Loc: Jayhawk Country

Yeah, it describes my mother and her sisters. May they all rest in peace!

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Seriously, you've never read 1984. Where did you go to school?

Read "Animal Farm". More allegorical.

maureenthannon

I read 1984 a while ago. I also read his book "Animal Planet". Don't remember as much of these books as you seem to, but I do remember that I was amazed at how similar his predictoins are to modern America. It's amazing how he could see so clearly what things would happen. Maybe not so amazing, human nature hasn't changed, people have always been self centered and power hungry. No matter, in the end, theLord has the final say.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Orwell understood what was going on when he wrote the book in 1949.
It is a 100X worse now. Big Bro is hard at it.
And the sheep continue to graze.

Armagh

Interesting, isn't it, how the Leftist/Liberal/Democrats--like Bill Maher and others---are now trying to back pedal and claim that the Liberal control of media and speech is not "true" Liberalism? That, in fact, it is Liberalism that envisioned and developed free speech?

I guess they still think they can pull the wool over our eyes. How dumb do they think we are? As if the Liberalism of yesteryear was anything like what it is today. Even, that in yesteryear there were accurate definitions of the idiotology?

Perhaps they are beginning to understand that yes, it is true, American conservatives are going to drive a stake through the dead, dark heart of Leftist/Liberalism. So they are attempting to downplay protests, media control as if they have nothing to do with Leftist/Liberalism. Won't work, buddy.

They are still, even, claiming Berkeley was the "cradle of free speech". Again, how dumb do they think we are?

It wasn't Liberalism that created the U.S. Constitution. But the Leftist/Liberals would have you believe that it was.

Armagh

On Liberalism (its affilliation with the French Revolution---why it is considered abominable), John Adams said:

”Helvetius and Rousseau preached to the French nation liberty, till they made them the most mechanical slaves; equality, till they destroyed all equity; humanity, till they became weasels and African panthers; and fraternity, till they cut one another’s throats like Roman gladiators.”

And that is how, I believe, Liberalism and Communism are associated.

There was nothing "great" about the French Revolution. It gave rise to the philosophy of Hegel, and then of Marx, and thus of totalitarianism.

And there are shades of Rousseau in the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man"---the "general will".

Consider this: From the storming of the Bastille, up until Napoleon, the French people were unable to govern themselves. That is why Napoleon.

Here's a good link: http://www.cato.org/blog/liberalism-french-revolution

Remember, the American Revolution was unique in the history of mankind.