Was George Orwell a Prophet ?

Orwell depicted a Dystopian society where Big Brother was every.where and the people had little or no individual liberty.

This society was both a surveillance and propaganda state. Big Brother was always watching and the ministry of truth was where they produced propaganda which was continually thrust on the masses.

The ministry of pleasure was where they tortured people and there was constant war - or rather the "fear" of constant war was used to keep the people occupied.

We now live in a surveillance state. If you are not on camera your movements are tracked through your phone or electronic transactions (debit or credit card). China recently arrested some fellow who went into a bar on the basis of facial recognition technology. The Gov't wants to tax Bitcoin and it would not surprise if they go after Gold.

The State wants to either limit or eliminate cash transactions (under the guise of money laundering).

In 2013 it became legal for our intelligence agencies to create and disseminate propaganda on US citizens. The MSM is a propaganda arm of the State/Establishment and we no longer have news on the major networks. The print is mostly spin although one can sometimes find news there but, viewpoints that disagree with the Establishment narrative are being censored.

The media constantly promotes "fear" as justification for restrictions to individual liberty. It is now our "Patriotic Duty" to give up essential liberty. Obama then changed the name of the act which takes away liberty to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "freedom act".

Things are not as bad as Orwell's world at the moment but, should we not be concerned about the future ?

 

Sorry but no.

Its called technology.

If you use it you can and probably will be tracked.

Go live off the grid if you're worried about it.

A positive thing though, they don't have enough resources to track every person in the world, or even our nation, so you have that going for you.

Sure you will be in a database somewhere but nobody will know it unless you put up a red flag for something.

I can guarantee you that there are not six guys sitting in a room watching me put a purchase from Bath & Beyond on my credit card.

 

the Trump administration with it's alternative facts too

 

I also see benefits, like cop cams, youtubes of gov officials making comments past and present, makes harder for them to say "I never said that"

politicians that say things like this about people that lose the popular vote for example - all recorded forever and will become part of hisotry

 

Your response causes me physical pain because I know that your argument/justification, horribly bad as it is, is the rule rather than the exception.

Obviously you do not care about privacy rights which is fine .. its a free country. Just because you do not care about privacy rights for yourself however, does not give you the right to restrict privacy rights of others (agree with restrictions to privacy rights of others).

What is also horribly sad is your (don't worry) attitude. This is either some kind of denial/avoidance mechanism or you just have not thought much about it.

The ability to monitor anyone at anytime gives the the Gov't incredible power (you may not have thought about how much power this gives Gov't but I encourage you to do so). What happens when Gov't goes bad and abuses this power ? This is not an "If" but a when. It is just a matter of time - perhaps not in our lifetime but down the road it is going to happen.

You say "there is not six guys sitting in a room watching me". This is not about you - at least not in the present. There are six guys in a room watching someone.

What happens when those six guys in a room start targeting people on the basis of political dissent ? People that are "problematic" to the Establishment in some way shape or form.

This is not some future we are talking about - this is happening as we speak. What happens when the Gov't starts going after people for "thought crime" - as it has done in the past and it is happening again.

Without fair and free media there is no such thing as functional democratic process. Perhaps you do not care but, you will care when it effects you ... when you find yourself in indentured slavery - and this is the path we are on - and speaking out against this problem gets you in trouble with "Big Brother".

 

One has to wonder what you are hiding that makes you so afraid.

They can keep a file on me 6 inches thick if they like, they can peer through all my mail, why do I care?

Do I really believe they are holding meetings on the fact that my aunt found a new cross stich?

Hell, if they want to follow me around with a personal drone I would think that is cool, I would name her Penny and point her out to all my friends.

"look how important I am, the government gave me my own drone"!

 

The Trump admin is the least of my worries. Presidents come and go -- the Establishment (international financiers that pull the strings, Political and Bureaucratic elite) remains.

What concerns me is the alternative facts/propaganda/lies/false narrative coming out of the MSM. An MSM which is owned and/or influenced and/or controlled by the Establishment.

What concerns me is that right now the Establishment is actively censoring or stifling voices that conflict with the Establishment narratives.

We already live in a propaganda state .. the surveillance state will then be used to target and stifle dissent.

This is right here right now ...

 

correct, the problem is the people allowing Administrations like Trump to come to be, let's hope voters vote better in the future....

 

Isn't it just so cool how government can use technology to get around the Bill of Rights? If Orwell wasn't a clairvoyant he was amazingly brilliant.

 

What part of "This is not about YOU" did you not understand ? Just because you do not care about your right to privacy - does not give you the right to restrict the privacy of others.

There is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence. (law).

If you are OK with living in a totalitarian police state - because they are not after you - that is fine but, do you even realize that this is your argument ?

 

How are voters going to do so in the future ? We have a two party system (Red and Blue) and it matters not which one votes for as the political elite on both sides of the fence are members of the Establishment. How then do we get rid of the Establishment ?

It goes deeper though. You do not get to Elect SCOTUS. SCOTUS is an arm of the Establishment. SCOTUS hates the main principle on which this nation was founded "individual liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of the state.

How are you going to get rid of SCOTUS ? This could take decades - assuming one could get people into power that would appoint Judges that have respect for the founding principle.

The raging masses are the ones who elect people. If there is no fair and free media - and you live in a propaganda state ..the majority of the raging masses will vote on the basis of this propaganda because the majority are sheep who do not know any better.

There is no functional democratic process in a propaganda state.

 

Its not just technology .. It is how we allow that technology to be used. We could allow use of this technology for "terrorists" and things that rise to that level but, if we are going to 1) allow use of this technology (which gives the police state huge amounts of power) there should be 2) stiff penalties for misuse, huge protection for citizens against abuse, and 3) major oversight.

We have done 1) but not 2 and 3) . We are allowing the Gov't to have huge amounts of power without the needed protection .. this is super dangerous.

Power corrupts and more power corrupts more.

The other way the Establishment gets around the Bill of Rights is through propaganda. Right now "Utilitarianism" is the main way individual liberty is stepped on yet the MSM does not discuss that this is happening.

Utilitarianism is a justification for law that look only at "what will increase happiness for the collective". This justification completely ignores individual liberty. (on this basis alone I throw these justifications out in all but the most grey of areas). The other problem is "who gets to decide" one mans poison is another mans pleasure.

For example "If it saves one life" or "Harm reduction" as justification for law.

These are very insidious arguments because they sound good on the surface "who does not want to save one life" and so the raging masses are tricked.

This is horrible justification for law and leads to, and in fact IS, totalitarianism. Full Stop !!

If this is valid justification for law - we should ban skiing tomorrow. Would this not save one life ? What about boating - that is really dangerous as one could drown. Driving a car ? forget it. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

In a free society one has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to oneself.

Look at Pot. What arguments do we hear against legalization. "the Children .. the Children". It is illegal for Children to smoke pot. What do "the children" have to do with my right to smoke pot ?

Should we ban all things for adults that children should not do ? What about he rule of law ? One person is not to be punished for the actions of another. Why am I punished for the actions of some kid? Why should an athlete be responsible for being a "role model" ?

Where does it stop ? Why don't we just say "All adults are role models and so cannot do anything that might cause a child to want to mimic that behavior and by doing so do harm to themselves"

Swimming, smoking, drinking, sugar, mountain climbing, sports, driving, and so on.

12 years of school and we fail to educated a kid in the main principle on which this nation was founded "Individual liberty is ABOVE the legitimate authority of Gov't"

12 years of school and we fail to teach the basics of Philosophy ( logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument, critical thinking)

Without these basic skills in the tool box .. how are the raging masses to be expected to be able to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and bad argument raining down on them from politicians and the MSM on a daily basis ?

Were hooped .. screwed glued and tattooed.

 

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Acton

 

Just don't join the "Tea Party".

 

Orwell probably knew the prophecies about a one world government and how no one will be allowed to buy or sell without the number of the beast. He knew history and how propaganda was used by the Bolsheviks to take over the Russian Empire, as well as how it was used by the Germans so they would fight against Russia in WWI. Then there was the propaganda used by Britain as well as the false flag of the sinking of the Lusitania, so that taking it all into account, it wasn't too hard to figure out what the future would hold.

This does't mean he wasn't enlightened, he probably was - but not from an evil source like Nostradamus and others.

 

You fine as long as you don't walk by a surveillance cam wearing a MAGA hat.

 

I'm not saying I agree with the OP or not (because in many ways I do not)...But you obviously never read 1984. That was exactly how the protagonist got caught. He thought he had found a "safe place" among the proles...

 

I like my version better Power corrupts .. more power corrupts more !

 

Not sure about the OWG prophecies but he definitely was aware of the age old trick of using fear of an external threat to take away liberty.

The founders knew this trick as well which is why the main principle on which this nation was founded was "Individual liberty is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't"

Think of the rallying cry for the revolution "Give me liberty or give me death" Ben Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

Stalin used this tactic - fear of an external threat to trade liberty for security - "Security for the Motherland"

Hitler did the same "Fatherland Security"

Bush, lacking the creative ability to come up with a new name "Homeland Security"
He then made it our "Patriotic Duty" to give up essential liberty. "Patriot Act"


Obama then came along and changed the name to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act".

Orwell described a situation where the three major power groups in the world (Eurasia, Americana, Asiana or some such thing) were always at war .. this fear was used to take away liberty.

The Russians are coming ... Russia is our enemy .. Russia Russia. Like Russia is some threat to our individual liberty and security that is more than a rain drop in the midst of a hurricane - the Hurricane being the Establishment.

 

I'm very grateful for Spooky's arguments because these are the arguments of the raging masses due to the complete failure of our education system to educate kids in the basics such as the difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence (law).

or just the Golden Rule - If you do not want people messing with your individual liberty then do not do the same to others - especially on the basis of the really really bad argument - I have nothing to hide ... they are not coming after me (Yet )

 

What is it that you disagree with ? And get ready for a CRUSHING !!!!

 

Yes, Orwell was a prophet. The technology makes it possible. Where we went wrong was involving the feds in our personal lives. The feds should only deal with the states and let state and local governments deal directly with the people. Welfare, Medicare, personal taxes, should be state programs. Feds should collect taxes from the states based on population.

 

This has been a long path down the slippery slope. We have gone away from the main principle on which this nation was founded ... "That Individual liberty is ABOVE the legitimate authority of Gov't"

and .. that this authority comes from "We the people/consent of the governed" and not from "Divine Right/God or SCOTUS"

Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism viewed simple majority mandate as "Tyranny of the Majority". In other words - the Gov't does not have the right to mess with individual liberty on the basis of simple majority mandate. If this was the case there would be no point in putting individual liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Gov't is not supposed to make any law - with respect to individual liberty- outside its legitimate purview - which is protection from harm - direct harm (murder, rape, theft) one person on another.

Jefferson put it like this:

If Gov't wants to make a law outside this purview it must appeal for a change to the social contract (construct by which we the people give authority to Govt). It must appeal to we the people.

The bar however is not 50+1 .. no no no ... that is tyranny of the Majority. The bar is overwhelming majority 2/3rds at least.

The rational for this is that Gov't power was to be very limited and individual liberty sacrosanct.

Few people think murder should be legal .. The bar is no different from any other law. If the action is so bad .... so horrible .. that we need to give power to some authority to punish folks who do this bad thing .. then the overwhelming majority will agree.

 

I believe his major concerns of authority and power are coming to fruition. The doublespeak and language perversion are pretty much already a reality.

 

There were two dystopian prophets: Orwell and Kubrick (Clockwork Orange).