Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

blatham wrote:

okie asked
Quote:
conservatives are Orwellian, is that it?

Nope, that's not it. There is nothing necessarily Orwellian nor authoritarian in conservatism, defined broadly or historically.

Okay, not that is settled. I frankly have ignored this thread for the most part, but just went back to the opening page. blatham, if you are attempting to paint the situation Orwellian because the authorities are trying to collect information on potential terrorists and criminals, it is a real stretch. You can't be serious. Call it Orwellian. I call it common sense law enforcement. I do not feel threatened here. Maybe you do. As far as I am concerned, I am more concerned about scammers collecting information on us, not the government.

0 Replies

Information control is at the heart of the Orwellian world of governance described in 1984. To the extent that anyone would allege that government were attempting to amass data on the activities of all citizens, without regard to prior demonstration of a "terrorist" or criminal connection, one might allege, reasonably, that the effort were Orwellian. You, Okie, inferentially state that government only wish to amass data on alleged terrorists or criminals. They have sought to obtain all records of all subscribers to several nationally-based telecommunications companies--so you allege that they have good reason to assume that anyone who subscribes with, for example, Cingular, is either a terrorists or a criminal?

I consider your assumptions of good will and probity on the part of government--on the part of anyone's government--to be, in the most charitable construction, childishly naive.

0 Replies

okie

To make sense of the term "Orwellian", one needs to be familiar with Orwell's writing, particularly 1984, Animal Farm and his essay Politics and the English Language.

How familiar are you with either of these and how information control fits into the picture?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Information control is at the heart of the Orwellian world of governance described in 1984. To the extent that anyone would allege that government were attempting to amass data on the activities of all citizens, without regard to prior demonstration of a "terrorist" or criminal connection, one might allege, reasonably, that the effort were Orwellian. You, Okie, inferentially state that government only wish to amass data on alleged terrorists or criminals. They have sought to obtain all records of all subscribers to several nationally-based telecommunications companies--so you allege that they have good reason to assume that anyone who subscribes with, for example, Cingular, is either a terrorists or a criminal?

I consider your assumptions of good will and probity on the part of government--on the part of anyone's government--to be, in the most charitable construction, childishly naive.

I believe you are a bit naive as well. The government amasses records on everyone already in all kinds of ways. Its called income tax returns, social security numbers, rolls, etc. Add medicare when you get old. The government knows you exist, where you live, and lots of other things. And many private companies have amassed mountains of information on your buying habits and everything else, through credit cards, etc. You can make a few clicks on the internet, bring up a picture of your house, how big it is, and how much its worth. Who is naive here. I simply think it is realistic for my government to protect me by using information that is already available, to catch terrorists. The key is to have safeguards set up to keep the government in check.

Part of the problem is the liberal political correctness we have to go by. Example, none of us can carry on a spray can of shaving cream onto the airplane, regardless of who we are. 80 year old gray haired grandmothers are checked for bombs in their shoes, while Arabs named Mohammed walk through checkpoints. We cannot stereotype the people, we have to be fair, remember? The liberals gave us this situation.

0 Replies

Okie- Setanta doesn't know what he is talking about. He has probably never read the book- 1984. You see, Okie, the use of the term-"Orwellian" has come into vogue among the oh so hip left wingers who think that their political stances-Stalinism-Socialism-Communism- are benign and the murderous capitalists who want to place their jackboots on the poor of the whole world, are the wave of the future.

In reality, Okie, Communism is dead and Socialism is dying, only the left wing won't admit it. Even China is coming around slowly to a more capitalistic stance and the only countries still mired in the left wing morass are the wonderful economies of North Korea and Cuba.

Now, again, I quote directly from the appendix of the book, which, I am sure most of the posters on the left have not read. They have only heard the word, "Orwellian" tossed around at one of their ubiquitous wine and cheese parties.

Here is what Orwell himself said, Okie!!!

from "The Principles of Newspeak"----Appendix to "1984"

quote

"Newsspeak was the official language of Oceania, anhd had been devised to meet the needs of Ingsoc or ENGLISH SOCIALISM"

(not Capitalism, or Communism, but English Socialism, Okie!)

and, more cogently.

"The purposes of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, BUT TO MAKE ALL OTHER MODES OF THOUGHT IMPOSSIBLE"

Now, Okie, it is clear that Mr. Setanta does not know what he is talking about when he attempts to label the present Administration as Orwellian since the very essence of Orwellianism is the adoption of Newspeak.

Now, Okie, ask yourself, IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MAKING ALL OTHER MODES OF THOUGHT IMPOSSIBLE????

lololololololololololololololololololol

How Laughable!!!!!!!

The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Nation, Time Magazine, Move on.org--The screamer- Howard Dean.

Do you see how ridiculous the "Orwellian" label is when it is applied to the present Administration?

Now, Okie, people like Setanta will fuss and fume. They will fulminate and cause a furor, bu they will NOT examine the lines written by Eric Blair above---TO MAKE ALL OTHER MODES OF THOUGHT IMPOSSIBLE!!!

I have only scratched the surface, Okie. There is much more in Orwell's Principle of Newspeak to show that the oh so hip and clever use of the term Orwellian by the wine anc cheese crowd should really be left to high school sophomores.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

okie

To make sense of the term "Orwellian", one needs to be familiar with Orwell's writing, particularly 1984, Animal Farm and his essay Politics and the English Language.

How familiar are you with either of these and how information control fits into the picture?

I have not read the books. That makes me ignorant in your opinion, right? In all honesty, I am not particularly interested in Orwell's books. What I do know about the books strike me to believe they are rather shallow, and just one man's twisted ideas. I don't think that disqualifies me from registering a valid opinion about your debate here.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Do you see how ridiculous the "Orwellian" label is when it is applied to the present Administration?

They need to take a look at Cynthia McKinney mindset, the example of the left wing of America. When she loses an election, she calls for an armed revolution. Now there is a mindset we all need to be worried about. Or worry more about the Ned Lamonts of the world, the Michael Moores, George Soros, and company.

0 Replies

I think it is very likely that Setanta has indeed read Orewll's novels, including "Brave New World", "Animal Farm", and "1984". Moreover, whether he has or hasn't, his expressed skepticism towards government is well-justified by life and general experience.

For my part, I am less inclined to bet on a ruthlessly efficient government conspiracy than I am to count on merely more of the brueaucratic banality for which governments everywhere are properly well-known. Bureaucrats can be counted on to find a rtationalizatuion for doing what they want, regardless of earlier affirmations of policy. On the other hand, they can also be counted on to mindlessly pursue the divisive protection and isolation of their department, agency or piece of the action in the face of executive demants whether they are motivated by conspiracy or publicly vetted policy. In short they are equally self-limiting, whether for good or evil.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Information control is at the heart of the Orwellian world of governance described in 1984. To the extent that anyone would allege that government were attempting to amass data on the activities of all citizens, without regard to prior demonstration of a "terrorist" or criminal connection, one might allege, reasonably, that the effort were Orwellian. You, Okie, inferentially state that government only wish to amass data on alleged terrorists or criminals. They have sought to obtain all records of all subscribers to several nationally-based telecommunications companies--so you allege that they have good reason to assume that anyone who subscribes with, for example, Cingular, is either a terrorists or a criminal?

I consider your assumptions of good will and probity on the part of government--on the part of anyone's government--to be, in the most charitable construction, childishly naive.

I believe you are a bit naive as well. The government amasses records on everyone already in all kinds of ways. Its called income tax returns, social security numbers, rolls, etc. Add medicare when you get old. The government knows you exist, where you live, and lots of other things. And many private companies have amassed mountains of information on your buying habits and everything else, through credit cards, etc. You can make a few clicks on the internet, bring up a picture of your house, how big it is, and how much its worth. Who is naive here. I simply think it is realistic for my government to protect me by using information that is already available, to catch terrorists. The key is to have safeguards set up to keep the government in check.

Part of the problem is the liberal political correctness we have to go by. Example, none of us can carry on a spray can of shaving cream onto the airplane, regardless of who we are. 80 year old gray haired grandmothers are checked for bombs in their shoes, while Arabs named Mohammed walk through checkpoints. We cannot stereotype the people, we have to be fair, remember? The liberals gave us this situation.

As a matter of fact, the Social Security Act makes your Social Security Account Number, and all the information attached to it, classified information--which is to say, with the same security criterion as any material which the military might classify. If you are at all familiar with tax record reporting, then you would know that your payroll information is not sent to the Internal Revenue Service at the end of the year--it is sent to the Social Security Admininstration. The SSA provides to the Internal Revenue Service all of the data which pertains to your income taxes. All information divulged by the SSA is on a "need to know" basis. Although goverment might violate the statute which created the Social Security Administration, that is not a basis to suggest that government know everything about you--first of all because of the limited nature of the information which the SSA collects about people, and in the second place because any use of it which is not related to the income tax and your Social Security Account is illegal.

Which is the point of what i have said. No private company can have your SSAN just because they ask for it, and the law provides that they cannot deny you any service offered to the general public if you refuse to divulge your SSAN. Your putative "mountains" of information on buying habits can only come from the sale of your credit instrument information--and by law at least, neither the government nor any private entity have any legal right to insist that such data be linked to your SSAN. If government are amassing "mountains of data" on all individuals, which i doubt, they are acting illegally.

Your remarks about "liberals" and 80 year old women as compared to people who appear to be Muslims is just so much drivel, and a pathetic attempt at a straw man. You need to dangle your bait in front of someone with a fuse which is as short as i suspect yours to be. If you think anyone just walks through security checkpoints, then i can only assume that you rarely or never travel by air, and especially not internationally. Anyone with any sense gives themselves from 90 minutes to two hours before an ordinary flight in ordinary times, because of the delay occasioned by the legitimate activities of the TSA in security screening.

0 Replies

Okie- The pitiful Setanta can find no other country that is as free as ours.

He thinks that the gathering of Social Security numbers( gasp) is Orwellian. He does not know that there have been hundreds, if not thousands of cases filed through the EEOC to protect the rights of minorities in their jobs and hundreds, if not thousands of cases filed in our court system to protect those who SAY they have been harmed by negligent physicans.

Mr. Setanta does not know what he is talking about, Okie! He is reflexively Anti-American--probably a left wing Socialist left over from the 1960's.

0 Replies

Welcome back Set.

0 Replies

I have no need of the pity of a gobshite like Ital/Massa/Mortkat/Chiczaria/Bernard. I do not think that the gathering of employment compensation information by the Social Security Administration is Orwellian, nor have i said anything of the kind.

This is a straw man of the type one can expect from a reactionary as pathetic as Bernard.

0 Replies

Blatham, the Mounted Policeman references "Animal Farm"

Here is another left winger who writes like a sophomore, Okie. I read Animal Farm. It is a deceptively simple read but analysis of the story reveals a lot under the surface.

Anyone who is not immured in adolescent fantasies.Okie, knows that Animal Farm does not refer to the USA but rather to the Soviet Union.

The left wing would like to try to transmute the identities of the characters to our country but try as hard as they can, they fail.

There is ample evidence of the country Orwell is speaking about- "Comrade"( decidedly not a word used in the USA except in the Communist cells of the USA in the thirties) is strewn throughout the book.

You see, Okie, it is almost as if characters like Setanta and Blotham read Little Red Riding Hood and insisted that the wolf was American Capitalism.

What pathetic attempts to denigrate the best country in the world- The USA!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

the best country in the world- The USA!!!

<yawn>

0 Replies

Of course, Old Europe, as articulate and expansive as the rest of the left wingers, says Yawn. He can say nothing else because there is proof, both economic and social that the USA is the world's leading power.

Only people with their heads in the sand would say otherwise!!!

0 Replies

Setanta. the pathetic wrote:

Part of the problem is the liberal political correctness we have to go by. Example, none of us can carry on a spray can of shaving cream onto the airplane, regardless of who we are. 80 year old gray haired grandmothers are checked for bombs in their shoes, while Arabs named Mohammed walk through checkpoints. We cannot stereotype the people, we have to be fair, remember? The liberals gave us this situation.

Well, Mr. Setanta, go to Heathrow today and try to get on to a plane with a spray can of shaving cream!!!

Or don't you follow the news???

You call it "political Correctness"?

Don't you know that is exclusively the property of the left wing?

People like you won't be happy until a plane load of innocents is blown out of the skies.

People like Mohammed walk through checkpoints? That's what you say, Setanta. Do you have proof?

They didn't get past the Heathrow screening!!!!!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Welcome back Set.

Cheers--and although i appreciate your kind sentiment, i only gave my eyes a few weeks rest. I hadn't really "gone" anywhere.

*****************************************

For the record (and no reference to McG's remark), i have only stated that someone might allege that the collection of telecommunications information on all subscribers of a certain service constitutes Orwellian behavior--i have not said that it is, and i certainly have not claimed anything remotely resembling the idiotic contention that the collection of payroll information by the SSA is an Orwellian activity.

For those who have not read Orwell's novels and essays (and anyone claiming he is twisted certainly demonstrates a profound ignorance of the meaning of the term Orwellian) it would be useful to briefly outline how the term Orwellian arose.

Orwell, as was the case with many students at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1920s and -30s, was a socialist, who became a devoté of Marxist-Leninist communism as it was believed to be practiced in the Soviet Union in the early days of that polity. Unlike many others, however, Orwell was both extremely articulate and sufficiently honest to have realized that the Soviet Union of Joseph Stalin was a travesty of the ideals in which he had once believed. Animal Farm is a novel in which an old boar (he intended all puns) becomes a ideological theorist, and represented Karl Marx. The livestock rebel, drive out the farmer, and set up their ideal state. The pigs, claiming ideological purity because they are pigs, and were the early disciples of the ideologue, take charge of the farm. They begin to engross more and more of the production of the farm to their own, private use, and roll out the slogan: All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. The novel was a heavy handed parody of Soviet communism, and a scathing rebuke of the idealism of Orwell's generation and of succeeding university students enamored of communism.

1984 was a more subtle work (although not altogether that subtle) which describes a future distopia which would result from the imposition of a Soviet-style socialist regime which is constantly engaged in foreign war. The principle character is Winston, who is employed in re-writing history. The terms "double-think" and "double-speak" and "thought police" derive from the novel. Without going into the complexities of the novel (which i last read nearly 40 years ago), the point is that the government controls all information in an attempt to control all thought. Children are encouraged to denounce their parents, and surveillance devices are present in all homes and public places.

The term Orwellian most commonly refers to the unreality of government propaganda, in which things do not necessarily mean what they patently say. In particular, Orwellian refers to information control--so, for example, Winston engaged daily in re-writing history (specifically, he changed archived newpaper articles to assure that they conformed to current government policy propaganda) was engaged in information control. The novel was a satire, and not at all as far-fetched as some might allege. The current administration does not want people to think about Rummy shaking Sadam's hand in Baghdad in the 1980s with that big ****-eatin' grin on his face--they want people to believe their version of history and the truth. All governments at all times, at least in the modern era (the last 500 years or so) have had that Orwellian aspect of wishing to control the information available to the public and of attempting to enshrine their own particular version of the "truth." Press censorship became a common place within a generation of Gutenberg.

George Orwell, far from having a "twisted" view of the world, wrote with his eyes wide open about the failure of and the dangers of socialist dictatorship. However, i can understand why Okie wouldn't understand that, as he has already admitted ignorance of Orwell's work. Of course, if he has never read Orwell, one does wonder how he came to the conclusion that Orwell's views are "twisted."

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Setanta. the pathetic wrote:

Part of the problem is the liberal political correctness we have to go by. Example, none of us can carry on a spray can of shaving cream onto the airplane, regardless of who we are. 80 year old gray haired grandmothers are checked for bombs in their shoes, while Arabs named Mohammed walk through checkpoints. We cannot stereotype the people, we have to be fair, remember? The liberals gave us this situation.

Well, Mr. Setanta, go to Heathrow today and try to get on to a plane with a spray can of shaving cream!!!

Or don't you follow the news???

You call it "political Correctness"?

Don't you know that is exclusively the property of the left wing?

People like you won't be happy until a plane load of innocents is blown out of the skies.

People like Mohammed walk through checkpoints? That's what you say, Setanta. Do you have proof?

They didn't get past the Heathrow screening!!!!!

What an idiot. I didn't write that--Okie did. You have a breath-taking ability to make a complete fool of yourself.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Setanta. the pathetic wrote:

Part of the problem is the liberal political correctness we have to go by. Example, none of us can carry on a spray can of shaving cream onto the airplane, regardless of who we are. 80 year old gray haired grandmothers are checked for bombs in their shoes, while Arabs named Mohammed walk through checkpoints. We cannot stereotype the people, we have to be fair, remember? The liberals gave us this situation.

Well, Mr. Setanta, go to Heathrow today and try to get on to a plane with a spray can of shaving cream!!!

Or don't you follow the news???

You call it "political Correctness"?

Don't you know that is exclusively the property of the left wing?

People like you won't be happy until a plane load of innocents is blown out of the skies.

People like Mohammed walk through checkpoints? That's what you say, Setanta. Do you have proof?

They didn't get past the Heathrow screening!!!!!

This is freaking hilarious!!!

Hohum. May I point out that the statement you "utterly destroyed" was not by the learned Mr. Setanta, but by the honorable Mr. Okie, who must be an expert in this field....

Bloody funny!

0 Replies

Great minds run on the same course, OE, as my grandmother was fond of saying. But that's Bernard all over--he is almost completely unable to keep track of what is going on in any discussion. Not that he is ever deterred from throwing vitriol all over the place . . .

0 Replies

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know