IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
George Orwell's '1984', The fourth pyramid...

Devilsadvocate
post Nov 1 2010, 01:14 AM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



For the last sixty-odd years, the usually accepted viewpoint in regard to Orwell's novel has been "Oh...it was intended as a warning against Stalinism".

I hereby dare to question that view:

This book has nothing to do with 'Stalinism' or 'Fascism' or any other ideology- and yet it has everything to do with all of them; for above all else, it is a dire warning against human fallibility...and against selfrighteousness.

I don't know if anyone has noticed before; if so- my apologies in advance--, but the story contains a number of discrepancies which are easily overlooked.
This is not an accident; the book was in fact designed that way- on purpose.
Had Eric Blair openly described what he really means- this book would never have been published.

I'd love to provide a link to an online-version of the novel; unfortunately it will not be in the public domain under American copyright-laws for quite some time. Just google it- and make sure you read it before reading the contents of this topic.

And then- read very carefully...


There are two statements in Orwell's story which must be juxtaposed: Together they reveal the true structure of his nightmare.

The first statement is found in Goldstein's book.

What must be understood beforehand is that this book is part of the mechanism by which the status quo in Orwell's world is maintained.
"Big Brother" and "Goldstein" are in fact merely symbols; they do not exist in any physical sense.

They form the two poles of a battery which is the source of power for the rulers.

Since any form of communication between individuals- whichever kind on whatever kind of level- is virtually made impossible, feelings such as 'Love' or 'Affection' do not have any normal outlet.
"Big Brother" thus becomes the only possible focus for 'Love'; people simply are given no other choice.

"Goldstein" is the other pole of the battery- not merely the focus of hate, but the means by which love is transformed into hate. While "Big Brother" takes the role of 'God', the figure of "Goldstein" becomes the 'Devil'.
The feeling of 'love' is transformed into 'hate'- and people can receive their daily top-up during the 'Two Minutes Hate': The ultimate form of "Divide Et Impera".

Goldstein's book is a part of that mechanism.

In a society in which the 'Prols' are fighting over wonky cooking-pots and buy what they believe to be illegal pornography provided to them by the 'Pornosec'-department of the Ministry of Truth, the middle class formed by the 'Outer Party' which is teetering on the brink of starvation tends to hide Goldstein's book under their jackets- which they believe to be "illegal pornography" in a different sense.
That book is provided to them by the 'Inner Party'- by O'Brien's own admission.

The reason why Winston discovers (during the "Two Minutes Hate") that it is possible to shift one's hate from "Goldstein" to "Big Brother" lies in the fact that he has already made one tiny step towards becoming a follower of Goldstein:

He has bought the old diary- from an antiques-shop run by a member of the Thought-police.
The diary is in effect provided to him like the bait in a rat-trap:
It is the Thought-Police which creates Goldstein's followers, for the purpose of keeping the divisions within that society going.

This is also the explanation for Winston's fear of rats: He is scared to death of them- because he is practically no more than a lab-rat running through a labyrinth himself- with O'Brien being the mad scientist who makes him run. Being faced with the prospect of having rats released into his face, he reveals his own nature:
He acts like a true rat...

"...Please- not me...Do it to her...Do it to Julia!"

The 'Inner Party'-members then have their own form of titillation- in the shape of 'Room one-o-one':
Their own form of 'pornography'...

They are not exactly 'rich'. Neither are they as powerful as they make themselves believe- by way of the same mechanism which keeps the rest of society in check: The 'Doublethink'-principle…

The statements in Goldstein's book must be seen in that light.

In chapter one of that book ("The theory and practise of oligarchical collectivism"), Goldstein explains how the three nations were formed; he then explains that these nations are constantly at war, that these wars effectively are just one war, and that this war is de facto un-winnable-- because the three nations are perfectly balanced.

The idea of 'perfect balance' is in itself fallacious; if all three nations are equally strong- then how is it possible that they should be individually powerful enough to withstand an alliance of the other two?

Imagine two boxers in a boxing-match whose skills are perfectly matched: Their strength, their agility, their skill, their concentration.
The outcome would be a stalemate.
Now imagine a boxing-match where those two are joined by a third boxer who shares all the attributes of the first two- and this boxer sides with one of the other two:

The outcome would be a forgone conclusion.

The reason why this simple fact is usually overlooked is found partially in the fact that Orwell's book was at some stage declared to be 'anti-communist' or 'anti-Stalinist'- which made it difficult to look at the novel from any other angle.

At the same time, the average reader can not help but to sympathise with the figure of 'Winston Smith'- simply because there is nothing else he could really identify with (and that effect is very much wanted- because the reader in effect IS Winston Smith. We all are…)

Seen in this light, Goldstein's book takes on an air of authority: Goldstein and Winston become associated, because they both appear to be rebels against an inhuman world. Doubting Goldstein's words would mean doubting the act of rebellion itself.

The simple truth is that Goldstein's book was written by members of the 'Inner Party'- for the purpose of helping to maintain the very status quo which both Goldstein and Winston supposedly rebel against. Winston is a rebel only on the surface: In reality, he quite and simply does exactly what the rulers expect him to do, and by doing so he provides the focus for the hatred which fuels the power-machine:

This is a society based on manipulation


The second statement I mentioned is found at the beginning of the story, during the 'Two Minutes Hate'.
While Winston joins in with the crowd howling abuse at the figure of Goldstein up on the Telescreen, there is a curios sentence worked into the storyline.
Referring to Goldstein, it reads:

"He was a subject of hatred more enduring then even Eurasia or Eastasia, for even when Oceania was at war with one of these powers, it was generally at peace with the other".

This statement is not part of Goldstein's book, it does not originate from the 'Inner Party', it is not part of the mechanism designed to maintain the status quo, and it is not part of any dialogue.

It's a narrative- with Orwell himself being the narrator.

That means it represents an absolute truth.


In practical terms, it means that of the three possible configurations imaginable, only two are ever realised:

Either Oceania is allied with Eurasia- with Eastasia subsequently facing two opponents at the same time.

Or else Oceania is allied with Eastasia and the roles are reversed.

Any alliance between Eurasia and Eastasia against Oceania is automatically excluded by the statement that Oceania is "...generally at peace with the other".

Oceania is in fact the only one of these three powers which never has to face two opponents at the same time.

The other two will incur an increased amount of damage during the periods whenever they face Oceania as the second opponent, and they will recover from that damage whenever the alliance shifts- facing only one opponent while sharing the burden with Oceania.

Oceania only ever faces one opponent- and the burden is always shared with someone else…


Thus Oceania continuously accumulates surplus which comes to pass quite simply because Oceania never needs to expend resources for the purpose of recovering from the kind of damage they would incur had they to face two opponents.

This is surplus which according to Goldstein's book shouldn't even exist.

If Oceania would continue to accumulate this surplus over several cycles during which alliances are changed in the way described above, they would eventually have enough reserves to defeat the other two one after another.

But this does never happen; the surplus is not used for this purpose either.

So- were does this surplus go…?

If Eurasia and Eastasia would be true independent, sovereign states- then sooner or later they would form an alliance against Oceania.

This possibility is as I said excluded by the statement "…it was generally at peace with the other".

If they never form an alliance against a nation which apparently shifts alliances at will and seems to accumulate surplus which could be the deciding factor in a conflict- then the only possible explanation is that they quite and simply are not sovereign or independent at all.
Unless one presupposes that their rulers use the "Doublethink"-principle to brainwash themeselves into accepting that Oceania enjoys a special status...Which would be quite nonsensical.

This in turn means that Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are in fact part of one single structure.

The society of Oceania is supposedly structured like a pyramid- with lower strata, mid section, superstructure and a capstone in the shape of "Big Brother".

By rights, this pyramid should be four-sided—like an Egyptian pyramid.

But the fact that Oceania and the other two 'Nations' appear to form a single structure means that the nature of this pyramid takes on a different form as well.

Someone seems to re-set the chess-pieces into their starting position whenever checkmate becomes possible- someone who is outside of the field of sight even of the members of the supposedly omnipotent 'Inner Party'.
The entire power-structure described in the book suddenly looks like an illusion- in a world made of illusions.

The pyramid is not four-sided at all; although seen from the proper angle, it appears so.

In reality, it is a three-sided pyramid—as are the other two.

Together, they are arranged inside of a triangle; above them is the structure which contains the true rulers of Oceania:

A fourth pyramid-- but one which does not contain any layers whatsoever.

This pyramid is in reality a giant capstone- the true pyramidion. This is where the surplus goes...

Orwell explains that 'Airstrip One' is the province of Oceania with the third-largest population. That statement is true.

The other two provinces are Eurasia and Eastasia. They are each the province with second-largest and the largest population- at the same time…

You may ask "...how could that be possible…?"

The explanation is simple. 'Airstrip One' used to be Great Britain. An 'Airstrip' could be defined as a 'Provisional Frontline Air Force Base'.
During World War two, there were hundreds of 'Airstrips' set up throughout Britain; but the concept originated in the Pacific war theatre.
In the Pacific, an 'Airstrip' would usually be set up on some relatively small island; runways would consist of pre-fabricated interlocking metal-sheets. There are many islands in the Pacific were these perforated metal-sheets can still be seen today.
Features like a 'Control-tower' were constructed of palm-logs or bamboo; aircraft would be maintained out in the open, and soldiers would be accommodated in tents.

In other words- these were very much temporary installations which were kept as simple and primitive as possible, and which could easily be re-located to another island whenever necessary.

The ones in Britain were somewhat more sophisticated; but the original idea was based on the concept of 'simplicity' and was therefore linked to the concept of 'primitive'.

In the novel, Britain has not only been reduced to the level of a mere province but to the level of a makeshift frontline military installation: Like a world war one trench used by aircraft…

One can safely assume that the terminology used in Eurasia and Eastasia will follow the same pattern. One of them is 'Airstrip Two', and the other 'Airstrip Three'.

The overall population of Oceania is 300 million: The third-largest province contains 60 million.

The other two contain plus/minus 120 million each: Since the overall number of people there will fluctuate with the shifting alliances, they are each both the largest and second largest province of Oceania at the same time- while people living there are not even consciously aware that they are in fact Oceanian citizens.

'Airstrip One' only ever faces one opponent while sharing the burden with the other 'province'. The population there remains therefore relatively constant.

Since the other two are subjected to the effects of the shifting alliances, their status will alternate between being 'largest' (whenever they are allied to 'Airstrip One') and 'second-largest' (whenever they face 'Airstrip One).

This is the true meaning of Goldstein's claims that the three nations are completely balanced while being powerful enough to withstand even an alliance of two.
Oceania with a population of 60 million can sustain a war with an opponent double the size- because Oceania is always allied to a nation with a population of around 120 million.

Oceania's opponent faces a combined strength of around 180 million- until the chess-pieces are re-set…And the configuration of the alliance is changed from 'A' to 'B'.


The fourth pyramid only contains the rulers- there are no layers in the capstone of the structure.

The reasons why these rulers are de-facto omnipotent pseudo-immortal Gods lies firstly in the fact that they form an 'immortal' collective and secondly in that no one in the lower structure is ever consciously aware that the capstone even exists.

And if you don't even know that it exists- then how can you ever develop the desire to overthrow it…?

The remainder of mankind consists of 300 million individuals who can not communicate with each other or with anyone further away than 'the countryside'. They are not aware of the true reality of the structures which govern their existence.
The illusion of a social hierarchy is maintained- for the purpose of concealing the true power-structure, nothing else.
The various groups- 'Prols', 'Outer Party' and 'Inner Party'- are kept apart by this illusion; they are manipulated in such a way that the status quo is maintained at all times.

The true rulers are never in any danger of being ousted. Subsequently their 'collective' does not need to exceed a certain size- which is dictated by only one consideration: Genetic sustainability.
In order to prevent in-breeding, a certain number of individuals will be required- a few hundred at the most.

The 'pyramid' which appears on the surface is nothing but an elaborate illusion- like everything else in a world made of illusions.
In reality, there is only one single gigantic lower class made up of 'Prols'- and of people who believe the illusion that they are anything but 'Prols'.
They are not ever consciously aware that there is a ruling class of pseudo-gods above them.

And in the absence of a true middle class, there will be no one who can "...promise them a class-less society..."

(Edit: Incidentally, that part of Goldstein's book is to be questioned as well...)

This is the true meaning of "Oligarchical Collectivism": A form of society in which the vast majority is ruled by a tiny minority elite forming a pseudo-immortal collective.

And with that it also forms the true meaning of Orwell's nightmare-vision:

Call it "The religion of un-creation"- with Goldstein's book being the relevant 'un-creation myth'...

And compare it with Eileen O'Shaughnessy's poem found here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...0#entry10800442

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Aug 8 2011, 12:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Nov 1 2010, 12:51 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



it is my understanding that the novel was mostly a record of blair's experiences at the bbc during ww2. and how ww2 was the portal for entry into global totalitarianism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Nov 1 2010, 02:40 PM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Nov 1 2010, 04:51 PM) *
it is my understanding that the novel was mostly a record of blair's experiences at the bbc during ww2. and how ww2 was the portal for entry into global totalitarianism.


Yes- almost certainly. But not only:

His first wife worked for several years in the censorship-department.
Something tells me that the two of them were very close; her poem (and her death in march 1945) seem to have an awful lot to do with the novel.
The fact that they adopted a little orphan boy named Richard certainly plays a role. It must have resulted in both of them thinking and talking about the future a lot.
The structures which had existed before the war had already worried Eileen; her poem shows that.
But the war resulted in additional structures developing, and in the existing ones being refined.
They must have known that this was there to stay.
It seems that both of them came to the conclusion that no answers could be found in any ideology- simply because they realised that the pyramidical hierarchy had wormed its way even into communism (which was supposed to create a class-less society).
But the origins of those structures lie not in communism- but in greed, which has little to do with ideology.
It's merely a human weakness...

What Eric Blair describes in '1984' is not merely an oppressive political system.
The only way in which the rulers in this system can maintain their perpetual grip on power is by way of continuously manipulating peope's perception.
For that purpose, they destroy the language- by removing anything which could lead to questions, criticism or discontent. With that, they are "un-creating" the very concept of creativity itself- while destroying creation while they are at it.

The result is what you could call "the religion of un-creation", ruled by pseudo-immortal pseudo-Gods. If brought to its conclusion, this would not just be a world which is "chiselled in stone".
By its very nature, it is unbelievably destructive:
Not so much because it is genocidal- but because entire nations are simply "un-created" so that they de-facto never even existed.

"He who controls the past controls the present- and who controls the present controls the future."

Mankind in this world consists of 300 million individuals- who are not individuals but robots incapable of any creative thought, and who are incapable of any form of affection or love.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Nov 2 2010, 12:09 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 839
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Good post there DA. I enjoyed the read and it made me think a lot.

It holds true today I feel, the opposition as controlled as the supporters and equally vital for the system to survive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Nov 2 2010, 05:21 PM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



QUOTE (KP50 @ Nov 2 2010, 04:09 AM) *
Good post there DA. I enjoyed the read and it made me think a lot.

It holds true today I feel, the opposition as controlled as the supporters and equally vital for the system to survive.


Yes- but at the same time it goes way beyond that.

You have to remember that the 'population' of 'Oceania is in fact the whole of mankind.

Big Brother and Goldstein are interchangeable. Bin Laden is Big Brother- and at the same time, he is Goldstein- depending which part of mankind you belong to.

The unfortunate thing is that whenever people are faced with problems which seem impossible to deal with for an individual, they have a tendency to place their hopes into an external protector:
Someone who has the means to deal with the problem.

That concept was viable only as long as people lived in hunter/gatherer societies:
The buffalo-spirits of the Native Americans were external protectors- but it was one which could be internalised by the hunter who needed to overcome a creature far more powerful than himself.
He became one with the buffalo-spirit-- and with that, he became a buffalo himself...

It was a highly effective way of gaining self-control.

When people became settled, they were no longer dependant on skills like that.
And the role of the buffalo-spirit was taken by the priest who could provide the calendar...
Or the specialised warrior who protected the farmer against intruders. Or the craftsman who provided him with the tools he needed. Or the chief who provided him with laws needed in the absence of the mechanisms which had helped to protect the integrity of a nomadic tribe of hunters and gatherers.

These 'external protectors' can not be internalised: They are human beings.
The farmer tried to be independant from the whims of nature- and became dependant on other human beings: In effect, he became a slave.

And the protectors, once they become aware of the power they have over others, develope a new kind of hunger: The hunger for power...

This principle is the basis for today's power-mechanisms. People are manipulated by means of supposed 'external enemies' like Bin Laden (the 'Big Brother' presented to muslims who is the 'Goldstein' of the west)- or 'The President' (America's 'Big Brother' who is 'Goldstein' to muslims)- and in the absence of communication, only hate can flourish.

It is the Thought-police who generate 'Goldstein' and his followers...

Call him 'Bin Laden'. 'Ahmedinidjad'. 'Putin'. 'Santa Claus'.

If they are not mere figments of imagination created by the worshippers of the God of power, then they are already Goldstein's followers themselves...

Remember that Winston is asked by O'Brien if he is willing to join Goldstein's side...?

O'Brien: "...Are you willing to throw acid into a child's face ?"

Winston and Julia: "YES !!!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aeronca
post Dec 31 2010, 03:05 PM
Post #6





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 30-December 10
Member No.: 5,551



The key to Orwell's 1984 is in the ability to understand the analogies embodied in dreams, and the realization that the element of time (he was uncertain of) is not as he described. So the concern expressed is not over, certainly not the atomic bombing of London and Paris (the real location of the Chestnut Cafe he modeled in his book). If you take a look into Numbers 12:6 you will see the key to foresight, and realize that everyone dreams. Sure he modified and didn't use the information exactly, but where he did much of it is actually prophecy.

Now extend that to the rest of what he foresaw by using his dreams as an inspiration for his 1984, and the connection to Big Brother (and it being located in a nation of 300 million [the USA]), and that the doublecrossing sting operation was an accepted practice of Big Brother. So maybe you need to examine who Big Brother really represents and why he is seen yet in reality is hidden. Yes I know a lot more however I'm jaded by the lack of people who can reason, and who have learned to understand the analogies of their dreams.

Bin Laden is not Big Brother. He works for Big Brother. You need to see the connection to the Illuminati as being some of the Hebrews who fled Egypt with Moses who still worship their sun gods, and still are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Jan 9 2011, 07:09 PM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



QUOTE
Big Brother and Goldstein are interchangeable. Bin Laden is Big Brother- and at the same time, he is Goldstein- depending which part of mankind you belong to.


QUOTE (aeronca @ Dec 31 2010, 07:05 PM) *
Bin Laden is not Big Brother. He works for Big Brother.


You have taken my statement out of context. Neither 'Big Brother' nor 'Goldstein' exist in any physical sense; they are both illusions designed to maintain the status quo in the world described in the novel.

What I meant was that Bin Laden serves a similar role in this world: To parts of the muslim world, he has been presented as the 'Big Brother'-figure who provides protection- much like a father-figure.
To the west, he is presented as 'Goldstein'- complete with people hurling abuse at him: God and the Devil.
In reality, he exists in neither form- being just as much an illusion as the two imaginary contrahents in the novel (In fact, most people here will agree that the actual person Bin Laden is dead and has been for some time).
Thus he becomes the means by which 'enemies of the state' are generated- which can be presented to an already fearful public in an attempt to generate support for wars which would otherwise be way too unpopular- and he becomes the means by which the status quo in the 'real world' can be maintained.

The true rulers contained in the fourth pyramid do not belong to any particular ethnic group or even exclusively to one particular nation (although the fourth pyramid is located in the heartland of Oceania-- which is also the heartland of Eurasia and Eastasia:
The one place which is never subjected to any bombardment-- the former territory of North- and South- America).
The one thing these people well and truly share is an unbelievable appetite for power...

Edit:
QUOTE
So the concern expressed is not over, certainly not the atomic bombing of London and Paris


QUOTE
...and it being located in a nation of 300 million [the USA]...


Goldstein's book mentions that one of the main aims of the perpetual war is to gain control over the 'disputed territories' defined by four points located at Tangiers, Brazzaville, Darwin and Hong Kong, and that whoever controls these territories will also have control over

QUOTE
...the scores of hundreds of millions of under-paid hardworking coolies...


One 'score' equals 'twenty'; since the plural is employed, there must be a minimum of two score.
That would mean 'forty'.
'Hundreds of millions' again employs the plural; there must therefore be a minimum of two-hundred million.

Forty multiplied with 200 million makes 8000 million, or eight billion slave-workers.

In another passage, Goldstein explains that these slaves constitute one-fifth of mankind.

Therefore, mankind should by rights consist of a minimum of 40 billion people, of which eight billion live in the 'disputed territories'.

As I have already explained- the three 'Nations' are no 'Nations', but merely the three provinces of Oceania- with an overall population of 300 million.

That means that 31.7 billion are not living in the 'disputed territories', and not within any of these three provinces.

Unfortunately that leaves a conundrum: The 'disputed territories' and the three provinces together cover practically the entire landmass of planet earth-- which means that these 31.7 billion people have no space to exist in.
In fact- they don't exist at all; Goldstein explains that there was a war in the 50's during which "hundreds of atomic bombs" were used against "industrial centers".
That automatically means they were used against "population centers"- because industry can not be separated from its labour-force.
Those 31.7 billion people were "vapourised".

The eight billion slaves don't exist either- unless anyone wants to believe that it is possible for an army which by needs can only be counted in hundreds of thousands or perhaps one million is in any position to control populations counted in billions.

The figure of "300 million" does therefore not relate to any nation- but to the whole of mankind.
If one-fifth of mankind are slaves, then that makes it 60 million-- which is the population of 'Airstrip One'.
The 'slaves' there are the ones creating the (supposedly non-existant) surplus flowing to the true rulers of that world.

Neither London or Paris are hit by nuclear bombs; by the time Winston Smith is writing his diary, the 'perpetual war' is exactly that: Perpetual.
The use of nuclear weapons as a means to decide that war would jeopardise the status quo existing by then:
That war has effectively been long since decided, with the rulers being the winners.
By Winston's time it's merely a sham.

As for the Hebrews- they are represented in the form of Emmanuel Goldstein and a few assorted "Jewish-looking" people only: They serve as scape-goats in that book.

And Goldstein does not exist in physical form anyways.

Neither, by the way, does America. The only people living there are the rulers- a few hundred people at the most.

And they don't worship any Gods. They are Gods...

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Jan 9 2011, 07:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Aug 7 2011, 11:27 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



Around Octobre last year, I posted some of the stuff above on a website called 'Gradesavers', in the form of comments-- under the user-name 'JoeB'.

The idea of that website is that students ask questions about works of literature, which are then answered or discussed by teachers and students.

Most of the questions asked are fairly harmless run-of-the-mill stuff, along the lines of "I got to write an essay- can someone help with this- that or the other?"

So- for the first couple of months none of those good peole running that website even noticed.
When they finally did notice, there was a sudden explosion of questions... The harmless variety, mind.
The kind which won't get people to do too much thinking.

And the questions were of course answered as well, usually by the same fellow (calls himself 'Aslan').


Someone with a well developed sense of sarcasm posted the following question--

QUOTE
Can anyone tell me what events took place in chapter one of part two of George Orwell's "1984"? I have a hard time pointing them out.


Signed: "Educated Graduate".

Aslan posted his own interpretations; I took the liberty of posting mine- with a bit of sarcasm of my own mixed in.

At this point, it looks as if I've been locked out. Still-- it was worth worth a try...

One of the 'new' questions reads:


QUOTE
why does Orwell include detailed passages from Goldstein's book in 1984?



This is the reply by 'Aslan': teach.gif

QUOTE
This is pretty long and drawn out section. I tend to skip this section when teaching this novel in favour of a simpler format. Basically the chapter addresses the three slogans of the Party. They are essentially paradoxes that serve the Party's autocratic ideology. Goldstein systematically takes them apart exposing what an educated reader already knows. "War is Peace " explains the all for one mentality behind conflict. As long as people do not question a war, the state is theoretically peaceful. “Ignorance is Strength” addresses the idea that if everybody stays stupid, they can be controlled and thus create a strong state. "Freedom is Slavery" addresses the idea that free will divides people and makes them vulnerable to outside attacks. Goldstein takes time exposing the party's intent of manipulating these slogans for their own ends.



Educated, alright... blink.gif

https://www.gradesaver.com/1984/q-and-a/#ask_question

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Aug 7 2011, 11:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 8 2011, 10:59 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
That question is so good- it would be a right pity to spoil it with an answer...

Read the book.


laughing1.gif

Just what I was thinking when I read that question!
Some lazy bugger student is looking for somebody to do their homework.

Typical teacher too. "Skipping" subjects that just might open a door in an inquisitive young brain. Orwell's villains wanted that door to remain shut too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Aug 8 2011, 12:27 PM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



Hehe... You're right about the teacher; but I'm not so sure if that student was a lazy bugger...

His user-name is "Educated Graduate"-- in the US, that's someone with a Masters degree. I had a feeling that this guy did a wee bit of thinking of his own.

In which case this was well worth the effort. Although I don't think 'Aslan' likes me very much, but I think I can just about live with that...

What Orwell describes is a society in which mankind is completely divided, to the point were not even individuals can communicate in any normal way, and that society is effectively ruled by a tiny number of people which remain entirely hidden.
Instead people are lead to believe that they are ruled by "Big Brother" and an aristocracy made up of secret service-arstocrats, political aristocrats and scientific aristocrats:
Structures which by now exist in this form in reality.

The historical model for this kind of structure is ancient Rome: The Romans replaced the existing Kings in the places they conquered with Roman governors.
While the role of those Kings had been to provide unity between the different social groups, the Roman governor was there to squeeze his province like a lemon, and to maintain control.
He did that by the very principle the Romans invented: "Divide Et Impera"-- Divide and rule...

The difference is that not even the 'Aristocrats' of the 'Inner Party' are consciously aware that there is a group above them. The only exceptions are the 'Governors'-- one of which is the character called "O'Brien'.

Aslan is part of the 'scientific aristocracy'; but in reality he is a glorified 'Prole'...
This guy is an educator: His job is to educate young people.

That includes among other things a fundamental principle:

He is supposed to teach those youngsters about "thinking"-- not in the sense of "This is what you must think", but in the sense of "This is how you can make up your own mind".
He could have challenged what I wrote; he could have questioned it, and he could have tried to refute it with arguments.

Instead he chose to bury it.

That's what the 'Inner Party'-proles in Eric Blair's book do. Precisely that.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Mar 16 2012, 09:57 AM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



I just came across a little detail.
Remember the three party-slogans?

QUOTE
"War is peace"---"Freedom is slavery"---"Ignorance is strength"


Together they yield the following letters (with the frequency of their usage):
E = 7 x
R, S = 5 x
A, I = 4 x
N = 3 x
C, G, O, T = 2 x
D, F, H, L, M, P, V, W, Y = 1 x

They form a perfect anagram-- i.e., an anagram which does not require any additional letters, and which re-uses all the existing letters without exception.
Since we can safely assume that this is definitely not a mere coincidence, I am going to attribute it to the person to whom it should be attributed to:

QUOTE
"DOMINANCE'S PRICE IS SLAVERY FOR THE SEGREGATES IN WAR"
(Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell)


(Edit: Typo corrected-- Thanks for pointing it out, Tamborine man!)

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Mar 20 2012, 02:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Mar 16 2012, 02:09 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 905
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



Quick, change a to e -

well done regardless mate .......

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Mar 16 2012, 02:15 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Mar 1 2014, 04:09 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



Here's some additional material:

As we have seen from the analogy with the boxers above, it's possible for two of the three "nations" to defeat the third.

The statement about Oceania being "...generally at peace with the other" shows that Oceania has a special status - they are only ever at war with one of the other two, and they always share the burden with an ally.

This also opens the door to the following:

Let's assume we replace the boxers from the analogy with the nations. In the first example, we had two of the cloned boxers fighting - the result was a stalemate.
Now imagine that there is a battle fought between Eurasia and Eastasia.

If they are equal to each other, it would stand to reason that they would have an equal capacity to inflict damage. Thus, if the Eurasiansd would destroy two tanks in a battle, then the Eastasians would also be able to destroy two Eurasian tanks: Stalemate.

But there are three "nations" - and one of them (say, Eurasia) would be allied to Oceania.
If all three have an equal capacity to inflict damage , then the Eurasians (in a compatible battle) would destroy two Eastasian tanks - and the Oceanians would also destroy two Eastasian tanks.
The Eastasians would therefore lose four tanks during that cycle.
The Eurasians on the other hand would face only one opponent, and they would share the burden with Oceania.
Statistically, this would mean that the Eastasians (having the same capacity to inflict damage as the others) would destroy two tanks as well- one Eurasian one, and one Oceanian one.

That would mean that Oceania's opponent would suffer four times the number of casualties as Oceania's ally.

Obviously, they would also have to make up for their losses: If they were to lose four tanks during the first cycle while being allied to Oceania during the next cycle, then they would lose a total of five tanks during those two cycles - and they would have to replace those tanks before the end of the second cycle, since they would again face two opponents during the third cycle. If the losses would not be compensated for, they would mount up - which would upset the apple-cart.

Oceania on the other hand has a special status - they only ever face one opponent, and they always share the burden with an ally.
They would thus lose just one tank during every cycle...

But if they have an equal capacity to make up for losses, they too would be able to build five tanks by the end of the second cycle.
This means that they could build up their forces.

This concept is compounded by the fact that in Chapter three of Goldstein's book, the part about the disputed territories also mentions resources found within those territories: Namely - Rubber.

These days, rubber is produced by and large synthetically. But Orwell's book was written in the 1940s - just after WW II.
And while back then it was possible to produce rubber synthetically, the process was awkward and expensive; it yielded only small amounts of rubber, and the quality was quite low. Thus, the production of rubber depended heavily on natural rubber - or "caoutchouc".

In the examples above, I have talked about 'tanks' - and when one thinks of armored vehicles, the word 'rubber' does not immediately come to mind...
But that may be surprisingly different.
During WW II, the mainstay of the German army was the 'Pzkw IV' ('Pzkw' = 'Panzer - kampfwagen' or "Armored combat vehicle"); the allies called it the 'Mark IV'.
The production of one single 'Mark IV' required 700 kg (nearly 3/4 of a ton) of rubber...
The reason was that the wheels are actually lined with solid-rubber tires, whose main function is to protect the running-gear from being damaged when rocks and stones get caught between the wheels and the tracks.
Those tires therefore are quite an important feature; without them, the tank is in danger of becoming a 'sitting duck' very quickly.

Germany had severe difficulties in obtaining rubber: That stuff doesn't grow in Germany...
The result was that they even send U-boats to places like South America to buy the odd cargo of rubber and bring it back to Germany - and a U-boat is obviously not a cargo-vessel. It can only transport very small amounts of that stuff.

The Russians had similar problems - rubber doesn't grow there either.

When we now look at Eurasia, we find that Eurasia consists of "...the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic landmass, from Portugal to the Bering strait" -- and there is no place there where rubber could be produced...
Eurasia would therefore have to rely entirely on the resources found within the disputed territories.

Eastasia, by rights, should have no problem obtaining those resources: Eastasia consists of "...China and the countries south of it" - which would include Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia: Three of the main producers of rubber...

The problem is that these areas also fall into the disputed territories - which means that Eastasia is faced with exactly the same conundrum as Eurasia, namely the fact that they also depend on the resources found within those disputed territories.

This means that they can only gather those resources whenever they are allied to Oceania - since neither of them would ever be able to dislodge two opponents at once from those territories: They therefore would have to re-build their five tanks during one single cycle... Once they gain access to the resources they need.

Oceania, on the other hand, has an added advantage to their special status: They don't depend on rubber from the disputed territories at all, since Oceania's territory includes "...the Americas" - i.e., North and South America... And rubber is produced in South America.

This means that if they have an equal capacity to produce tanks, they would be able to build five tanks during every cycle - since they have the advantage of having access to the relevant resources at all times.
This effectively means that the Oceanians could build five tanks for every single one they lose...

Thus, they would be able to build up their forces all the time, while the other two would merely replace their losses. They could easily defeat first one opponent (while being allied to the other), and then the second right afterwards - simply because they would have the longer breath.

The strange part is this:
Oceania could defeat the other two - and thus gain "World-Domination". But instead they accommodate themselves with a Damocles-sword hanging above their heads - in the shape of the possibility that the other two could form an alliance against Oceania which would result in Oceania being "vaporized".

Eurasia and Eastasia could defeat Oceania, and then end up with exactly the status quo described in Goldstein's book - namely the fact that the two remaining "nations" would be too equal as that they could defeat each other. Instead, they too accommodate themselves with a Damocles-sword over their heads - since Oceania could build up its forces and defeat both of them...

Under these circumstances, it would be ridiculous to assume that any of these three "states" would be in any way "sovereign, independent nations".
All three are ruled by puppets...

Incidentally, the next post will contain some information about the true 'rulers' of that world: Orwell provided a pointer - but the information is a bit more difficult to access.

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Mar 2 2014, 08:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Mar 1 2014, 05:40 PM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



The true rulers:


After Winston Smith has been arrested, he sits in his cell, waiting to be "interrogated".
Then the door opens, and
QUOTE
...in shambled the poet Ampleforth...


Winston asks him what he's in for, and Ampleforth explains to him that he had been working on a "Newspeak"-version of Rudyard Kipling's poems.
One of those poems contained the word "rod" - which was rhymed with the word "god". Since Ampleforth couldn't find a viable way of replacing the word "god" with another word, he left it in - and was promptly arrested for "Thoughtcrime".

I have been wondering which poem this refers to; eventually I found a website with the collected poems of Kipling. The poem in question is called "McAndrew's Hymn" - which I posted here:

McAndrew's Hymn

The McAndrew in the poem is an engineer aboard a passenger-ship (which Kipling himself identified as the SS 'Doric' - an early passenger-liner build in 1883)

The engineer draws a parallel between the "iron sceptre" (sometimes translated as the "iron rod") mentioned in the bible with which god will rule over (or punish) man, and the connecting-rod of a steam-engine.
Gradually it becomes clear how man (i.e., the passengers and crew aboard the ship) becomes utterly dependent on the machine: The 'Doric' had one engine and one propeller; if the engine stalled in the wrong moment, the ship would have become a play-ball of the waves, since without propulsion it would be no longer maneuverable.

As a result, the engineer effectively becomes a slave of the machine:

QUOTE
That minds me of our Viscount loon---Sir Kenneth's kin---the chap
Wi' Russia leather tennis-shoon an' spar-decked yachtin'-cap.
I showed him round last week, o'er all---an' at the last says he:
"Mister McAndrew, Don't you think steam spoils romance at sea?"
Damned ijjit! I'd been doon that morn to see what ailed the throws,
Manholin', on my back---the cranks three inches off my nose.
Romance! Those first-class passengers they like it very well,
Printed an' bound in little books; but why don't poets tell?
I'm sick of all their quirks an' turns---the loves an' doves they dream---
Lord, send a man like Robbie Burns to sing the Song o' Steam!


In other words - the engineer was basically in the engine-room, crawling on his back through a manhole into the crank-case of the engine -- with the rotating crankshaft inches away from his face.

Steam engine animation

(Edit: I came across this video - the engines of the RMS 'Titanic' were obviously a good deal larger; but you get a good idea what it might mean to have the cranks three inches off your nose...)

There is a parallel here:

Winston Smith is like an engineer who keeps the machinery of power going...
And at one point, there is a first-class passenger who is ticked off by the fact that the machinery has taken the romance out of things.
That first-class passenger is Julia - who basically stood behind Winston while he was stuck inside of that very machinery of power, with the movable parts of that machinery (in the shape of two rats) inches away from his face...
Julia is a member of the "Inner Party" - and an agent of the "Thought-Police" who has been groomed for this job at an early age.
She is the one who gives a shriek while Winston is facing the helmet with the rats - and is rewarded by Winston for the fact that she just had re-discovered her humanity by him acting like a rat himself.

This left me wondering if there was a link between Orwell and Kipling -- and there is.
Orwell wrote an Essay about Kipling in 1942.

Kipling Essay

In this Essay, he explains :


QUOTE
No one, in our time,
believes in any sanction greater than military power; no one believes
that it is possible to overcome force except by greater force. There is
no 'Law', there is only power. I am not saying that that is a true
belief, merely that it is the belief which all modern men do actually
hold. Those who pretend otherwise are either intellectual cowards, or
power- worshippers under a thin disguise, or have simply not caught up
with the age they are living in. Kipling's outlook is prefascist. He
still believes that pride comes before a fall and that the gods punish
HUBRIS. He does not foresee the tank, the bombing plane, the radio and
the secret police, or their psychological results.


Note that the system described in '1984' is a system without laws - and as O'Brien explains to Winston Smith, the aims of that system consist of power - and nothing but power: "God is power!"

He later points out that
QUOTE
Although
he had no direct connexion with any political party, Kipling was a
Conservative, a thing that does not exist nowadays. Those who now call
themselves Conservatives are either Liberals, Fascists or the accomplices
of Fascists.


This is a rather interesting statement: The Liberals mentioned here are included under the tag "conservatives" because they tended to "conserve" achievements like health-care, pensions and a social system which people had fought (and died) for for a long time.
(Edit: And as Mr. Orwell points out - they are not really interested in actual changes...)

And the rest are "Fascists or the accomplices of Fascism"
This essay was written in 1942... Who was the prime-minister of Britain around that time again...?
Churchill...? As in WINSTON Churchill...?

Ah. And Churchill was a Liberal, yes...?

In this context, the following is of interest:
Winston Smith is 39 years old in April 1984 - which means he must have been born between April 1944 and April 1945 - while the war was still going on.
You can safel;y assume that a young boy in Britain who received the name Winston at that time had this name chosen by his parents for a good reason.

Winston is scared to death of rats - not the least because he lives in a society where everyone rats on everyone else.

Winston Churchill made the following statement around 1927:

QUOTE
"Everyone can rat --- but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat..."



In the sixty-odd years since 'Nineteen-Eighty Four' was published, there have been whole generations of Intellectuals - with the Western ones droning on and on that the book "...is about Communism" -- while the ones from the Communist countries were droning on and on about that book being "...an insult to Communism".

The reality is -- it looks as if not ONE of those dimwits even found it necessary to read that book.
Instead, it looks as if all the concepts described in the book - from "Doublethink" and "Crimestop" to "Blackwhitethink" were not just little bits of fiction used to spice up the novel...
They have been working perfectly.

So, dear Intellectuals of this world:
Here is my own personal take on this.

I don't give a damn about your measly shitty worthless little careers.

You have the advantage of having had a university-education: I used to be a Diesel-mechanic.

You have the privilege of being paid for thinking - I don't.

You are there to find answers to questions - and you don't even find it necessary to ASK questions...?

You pretend to yourselves that you can fill the boots of giants:
On closer inspection, all I can see are the tracks left behind by barefooted ants.

Get your goddamn heads out of your arses - because if you keep ignoring this any longer, YOU will be the engineers who keep the engines of power going.
And YOU will be watched by the 'Thought-Police' : In case you didn't notice, the 'Proles' in that book for the most part can't even afford a bloody telescreen.
(Never even mind the helmet with the rats... That's just O'Brien's little "hobby")

But above all -- it will be YOU who will help this whole nightmare which Eric Arthur Blair described to become reality.

And in that case -- keep in mind that it may very well be possible to monitor billions of e-mails and phone-calls...
(Can we watch people like Big Brother on steroids...? "Yes - WE CAN!")

But it is NOT possible to CONTROL the scores of hundreds of millions of under-paid hardworking coolies who happen to populate this planet, anymore than the combined armies of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia would be able to control those 'disputed territories'.

That makes those coolies an obstacle in the way of anyone who wishes to obtain "World-Domination"...

And unfortunately, there would be only one way of removing that obstacle.

Catch my drift...?



Edit:
I nearly forgot... The true rulers of Orwell's world are made up of those who believe that there is no 'law' - only power: People who see the use of force as the only option, and who believe that a larger problem simply requires more power.
People like that tend to develop an ever increasing hunger for power - a hunger that can never be stilled, because it results in an even greater appetite.

Those are the fascists and the accomplices of fascists:
The western, democratic fascists - or the communist fascists...

Fascists are fascists.

Unfortunately, fascism is not merely an ideology - but a state of mind.

The seed from which it grows is self-righteousness;
The soil on which it grows is made of ignorance and stupidity;
It's fertilized by by generous amounts of hypocrisy,
and it's watered by fear and insecurity:

It yields a wonderful crop of sheer, unadulterated horror.

And I wish I could say that I'm free of those flaws: But alas - I'm a mere human being...

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Mar 10 2014, 05:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st September 2014 - 07:30 PM