Warnings In 1984 Quotes

We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares. But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possiblity of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover against his will what another human being is thinking and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand.

Politicians in our times feed their clichés to television, where even those who wish to disagree repeat them. Television purports to challenge political language by conveying images, but the succession from one frame to another can hinder a sense of resolution. Everything happens fast, but nothing actually happens. Each story on televised news is ”breaking” until it is displaced by the next one. So we are hit by wave upon wave but never see the ocean. The effort to define the shape and significance of events requires words and concepts that elude us when we are entranced by visual stimuli. Watching televised news is sometimes little more than looking at someone who is also looking at a picture. We take this collective trance to be normal. We have slowly fallen into it. More than half a century ago, the classic novels of totalitarianism warned of the domination of screens, the suppression of books, the narrowing of vocabularies, and the associated difficulties of thought. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, published in 1953, firemen find and burn books while most citizens watch interactive television. In George Orwell’s 1984, published in 1949, books are banned and television is two-way, allowing the government to observe citizens at all times. In 1984, the language of visual media is highly constrained, to starve the public of the concepts needed to think about the present, remember the past, and consider the future. One of the regime’s projects is to limit the language further by eliminating ever more words with each edition of the official dictionary. Staring at screens is perhaps unavoidable, but the two-dimensional world makes little sense unless we can draw upon a mental armory that we have developed somewhere else. When we repeat the same words and phrases that appear in the daily media, we accept the absence of a larger framework. To have such a framework requires more concepts, and having more concepts requires reading. So get the screens out of your room and surround yourself with books. The characters in Orwell’s and Bradbury’s books could not do this—but we still can.

Socialists seem to think George Orwell’s 1984 is a suggestion, or at least are unashamed of mimicking the methods of the totalitarian state Orwell depicted. Libertarians know it to be a warning, and a government that micro-manages all aspects of humanity an intolerable reality.

Animal Farm is a warning to every reader. Beware the utopia; beware the perfect solution and the easy slogan; beware those who claim to know what is best for you; beware bombast and dogma; beware the death of doubt; beware those who do not practice what they preach. Beware the chosen. Beware the one and only true path.

Alone, alone, Oh! We have been warned about solitary vices. Have solitary pleasures ever been adequately praised? Do many people know they exist? —Jessamyn West (1902–1984) American Quaker author

Novelist and essayist George Orwell wrote the masterpiece 1984 about a dystopian future. But he was also a shrewd observer of political life in democracies. He warned about the political choices people make regularly in an elective system of government. “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.”4 The progressive message continues to be “hand us more power.” What they are asking us to do is ignore history—including their history—in how such power is actually exercised. We must ask ourselves: Why trust someone with more power when you cannot even trust them with the little they already have?

When Postman wrote the introduction to his important book Amusing Ourselves to Death, he set forth the stance he adopts by contrasting the warnings of George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World: Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity, and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think…. What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much information that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared that the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared that we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared that we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.34

The late Francis Schaeffer, one of the wisest and most influential Christian thinkers of the twentieth century, warned of this exact trend just a few months before his death in 1984. In his book The Great Evangelical Disaster he included a section called “The Feminist Subversion,” in which he wrote: There is one final area that I would mention where evangelicals have, with tragic results, accommodated to the world spirit of this age. This has to do with the whole area of marriage, family, sexual morality, feminism, homosexuality, and divorce. . . . The key to understanding extreme feminism centers around the idea of total equality, or more properly the idea of equality without distinction. . . . the world spirit in our day would have us aspire to autonomous absolute freedom in the area of male and female relationships—to throw off all form and boundaries in these relationships and especially those boundaries taught in the Scriptures. . . . Some evangelical leaders, in fact, have changed their views about inerrancy as a direct consequence of trying to come to terms with feminism. There is no other word for this than accommodation. It is a direct and deliberate bending of the Bible to conform to the world spirit of our age at the point where the modern spirit conflicts with what the Bible teaches.2 My argument in the following pages demonstrates that what Schaeffer predicted so clearly twenty-two years ago is increasingly coming true in evangelicalism today. It is a deeply troubling trend.

Our society has come to adopt many of the draconian measures Orwell tried to warn us about. Cameras monitor citizens from nearly every street corner in the United Kingdom, and there are a steadily growing number of them mounted on traffic lights in America. The fact that Orwell’s 1984 remains a part of the required reading curriculum in many high schools across the country is laughably ironic. What is truly sad is how many readers acknowledge the brilliant foresight of Orwell yet fail to grasp how closely present-day America (and England) resemble Winston Smith’s Oceania.

Huxley and Orwell, wrote Postman, did not predict the same future. “Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity, and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think,” As Postman explained: What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny ‘failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.’ In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.

Orwell, like the authors of the other negative utopias, is not a prophet of disaster. He wants to warn and awaken us. He still hopes—but in contrast to the writers of the utopias in the earlier phases of Western society, his hope is a desperate one. The hope can be realized only by recognizing, so 1984 teaches us, the danger with which all men are confronted today, the danger of a society of automatons who will have lost every trace of individuality, of love, of critical thought, and yet who will not be aware of it because of "doublethink." Books like Orwell's are powerful warnings, and it would be most unfortunate if the reader smugly interpreted 1984 as another description of Stalinist barbarism, and if he does not see that it means us, too.

Decades before Sergey Brin and Larry Page were born, authors like George Orwell and Aldous Huxley painted scenes of technology-driven dystopias in books like 1984 and Brave New World. “Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression,” wrote media theorist Neil Postman. “But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity, and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

Cory Doctorow hat dieses Werk unter der Creative-Commons-Lizenz(CC-BY-NC-SA) veröffentlicht die es jedermann erlaubt, das Werk frei zu verbreiten und zu bearbeiten ... (siehe wikipedia "little brother", dort auch Links zu den ebooks der Übersetzung) Unter Nutzung dieser Lizenz hat Christian Wöhrl eine deutsche Übersetzung des Romans angefertigt. Aus dieser ist ein Fanhörbuchprojekt entstanden. ... hier meine Zitate aus Readmill: Ich hatte also grade 10 Sekunden auf dreitausend Rechnern gemietet und jeden einzelnen angewiesen, eine SMS oder einen VoIP-Anruf an Charles' Handy abzusetzen; dessen Nummer hatte ich mal während einer dieser verhängnisvollen Bürositzungen bei Benson von einem Post-it abgelesen. Muss ich erwähnen, dass Charles' Telefon nicht in der Lage war, damit umzugehen? Zuerst ließen die SMS den Gerätespeicher überlaufen, sodass das Handy nicht mal mehr seine Routinen ausführen konnte, etwa das Klingeln zu koordinieren und die gefälschten Rufnummern der eingehenden Anrufe aufzuzeichnen. (Wusstet ihr, dass es völlig simpel ist, die Rückrufnummer einer Anruferkennung zu faken? Dafür gibts ungefähr 50 verschiedene Möglichkeiten - einfach mal "Anrufer-ID fälschen" googeln...) Charles starrte sein Telefon fassungslos an und hackte auf ihm herum, die wulstigen Augenbrauen regelrecht verknotet ob der Anstrengung, dieser Dämonen Herr zu werden, die das persönlichste seiner Geräte in Besitz genommen hatten. Sekunden später kackte Charles' Handy spektakulär ab. Zehntausende von zufälligen Anrufen und SMS liefen parallel bei ihm auf, sämtliche Warn- und Klingeltöne meldeten sich gleichzeitig und dann wieder und wieder. Den Angriff hatte ich mithilfe eines Botnetzes bewerkstelligt, was mir einerseits ein schlechtes Gewissen bereitete; aber andererseits war es ja im Dienst einer guten Sache. In Botnetzen fristen infizierte Rechner ihr untotes Dasein. Wenn du dir einen Wurm oder Virus fängst, sendet dein Rechner eine Botschaft an einen Chat-Kanal im IRC, dem Internet Relay Chat. Diese Botschaft zeigt dem Botmaster, also dem Typen, der den Wurm freigesetzt hat, dass da Computer sind, die auf seinen Befehl warten. Botnetze sind enorm mächtig, da sie aus Tausenden, manchmal Hunderttausenden von Rechnern bestehen, die über das ganze Internet verteilt sind, meist über Breitbandleitungen verbunden sind und auf schnelle Heim-PCs Das Buch passte grade so in die Mikrowelle, die sogar noch unappetitlicher aussah als beim letzten Mal, als ich sie brauchte. Ich wickelte das Buch penibel in Papiertücher, bevor ich es reinsteckte. "Mann, Lehrer sind Schweine", zischelte ich. Darryl, bleich und angespannt, erwiderte nichts. Dann packte ich das primäre Arbeitsgerät unserer Schule wieder aus und wählte den Klassenzimmer-Modus. Die SchulBooks waren die verräterischsten Geräte von allen - zeichneten jede Eingabe auf, kontrollierten den Netzwerkverkehr auf verdächtige Eingaben, zählten alle Klicks, zeichneten jeden flüchtigen Gedanken auf, den du übers Netz verbreitetest. Wir hatten sie in meinem ersten Jahr hier bekommen, und es hatte bloß ein paar Monate gedauert, bis der Reiz dieser Dinger verflogen war. Sobald die Leute merkten, dass diese "kostenlosen" Laptops in Wirklichkeit für die da oben arbeiteten (und im Übrigen mit massenhaft nerviger Werbung verseucht waren), fühlten die Kisten sich plötzlich sehr, sehr schwer an. Mein SchulBook zu cracken war simpel gewesen. Der Crack war binnen eines Monats nach Einführung der Maschine online zu finden, und es war eine billige Nummer - bloß ein DVD-Image runterladen, brennen, ins SchulBook stecken und die Kiste hochfahren, während man ein paar Tasten gleichzeitig gedrückt hielt. Die DVD erledigte den Rest und installierte etliche versteckte Programme auf dem Laptop, die von den täglichen Fernprüfungs-Routinen der Schulleitung nicht gefunden werden konnten.

Le “Smart Tv” ascoltano e diffondono ciò che sentono in casa 308 parole Il Grande fratello, ipotizzato da George Orwell in «1984», è tra noi e può spiare le nostre conversazioni casalinghe. Lo strumento che usa sono le «Smart Tv» e l’attivazione delle funzioni vocali dei telecomandi. Questo perché il televisore ascolta quello che si dice davanti a lui e può condividere quello che sente sia con il produttore del televisore sia con i proprietari delle applicazioni installate sul televisore. Quello che poteva sembrare una battaglia contro il mondo globalizzazato diventa un pericolo reale se a dirlo è la Samsung, uno dei principali produttori mondiali di televisioni «intelligenti». Il «warning customers» avverte che il microfono del telecomando può catturare le conversazioni e trasmetterle attraverso la Rete a «terze parti» non bene identificate e dà dei consigli sulla privacy. Ma questo non è il primo allarme, un altro produttore di tv, Lg, era finito sotto accusa perché raccoglieva dati del proprietario del televisore anche se questi, dal menu, ne negava espressamente il consenso. Ogni volta che una chiavetta usb veniva inserita tutte le informazione dei file venivano trasmesse sui loro server. In questo modo le aziende riescono a sapere quali sono i nostri gusti, le nostre abitudini, anche in termini di orari e così ci «offrono» pubblicità mirata. Una volta scoperta Lg si è giustificata così: «Offriamo moltissimi modelli di Smart Tv e di tipo differente per ciascun mercato, quindi chiediamo pazienza e comprensione durante lo svolgimento degli accertamenti». Nell’attesa, togliete i televisori dalla camera da letto, non si sa mai.

As Donald Trump defended the results of his disastrous trade policy, he warned his followers: “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” As George Orwell predicted in 1984, “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Only later would Teicher discover that Tollefson had also omitted from his talk that day information that would have been even more damaging to Lilly’s defense of Prozac: One of the company’s international clinical trials had indeed shown an increased risk of suicidal acts among patients taking Prozac (as compared to placebo). After seeing this data in 1984, the German regulatory authorities had declined to approve the drug’s use. (When Prozac was finally approved in Germany six years later, it came with a clear warning that it could cause problems and that it might be necessary for physicians to coadminister a sedative to prevent the agitation and suicidal behaviors sometimes caused by the SSRI.)

One of the most outstanding conclusions of some postmodernists is that all of reality is socially constructed. They have even taken issue with the conclusions of Newton and Einstein, on the basis that the privilege of those scientists is obvious in their equations and, as old white guys, their biases inherently prevented them from knowing anything real of the world.

Postmodernists have been at the leading edge of promoting the view that reality is socially constructed.

Humor is the mechanism by which we sort out the gray area of what can and can't be said. A humorless society, community, or group of friends likely has large problemas lurking just beneath the surface.

Our current higher education system is steeped in a philosophy that doubts our ability to even perceive the physical world. That philosophy is called postmodernism.

As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a ‘categorical pledge’ were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.

There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand

We now live in an information deluge only dystopian novelists could have foreseen. In the introduction to his landmark book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman contrasted two very different cultural warnings, those of George Orwell’s 1984 and of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Orwell argued that books would disappear by censorship; Huxley thought books would be marginalized by data torrent. Postman summarizes the contrast well. “Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much information that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared that the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”2 Huxley seems to have won.

The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand. In so far as scientific research still continues, this is its subject matter. The scientist of today is either a mixture of psychologist and inquisitor, studying with extraordinary minuteness the meaning of facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice, and testing the truth-producing effects of drugs, shock therapy, hypnosis, and physical torture; or he is chemist, physicist, or biologist concerned only with such branches of his special subject as are relevant to the taking of life.

So what happened? How did we go from leader of the pack to lost and left behind? It’s hard to determine a single cause for any event in this complex world, of course, but forced to choose, the answer is best summed up as follows: $ Sure, plenty of people will throw up excuses about Kenyans having some kind of mutant muscle fiber, but this isn’t about why other people got faster; it’s about why we got slower. And the fact is, American distance running went into a death spiral precisely when cash entered the equation. The Olympics were opened to professionals after the 1984 Games, which meant running-shoe companies could bring the distance-running savages out of the wilderness and onto the payroll reservation. Vigil could smell the apocalypse coming, and he’d tried hard to warn his runners. “There are two goddesses in your heart,” he told them. “The Goddess of Wisdom and the Goddess of Wealth. Everyone thinks they need to get wealth first, and wisdom will come. So they concern themselves with chasing money. But they have it backwards. You have to give your heart to the Goddess of Wisdom, give her all your love and attention, and the Goddess of Wealth will become jealous, and follow you.” Ask nothing from your running, in other words, and you’ll get more than you ever imagined.

There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand.

Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past,” Orwell wrote in 1984. “Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records, and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it.”59 We are living in the future Orwell warned about; I am living in the 1984 my

Fiction has a way of portraying ideas and contentions in a way that essays and non-fiction just can’t, when warning against extremes and horrid futures, the truth just doesn’t cut it.