Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#4341 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 14 November 2004 - 12:57 PM

Multipolar world is only way to peace.

The best illustration of nonsense of Kibbutz illustrates the nurse school test .
Shouldn
  • 0

#4342 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 November 2004 - 02:53 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Multipolar world is only way to peace.

The best illustration of nonsense of Kibbutz illustrates the nurse school test .
Shouldn-t we learn from children experiment ?.
The result was book the King Macius the First by Karol Makuszynski .
Makuszynski presents the results of uncontrolled from outside coop reality. It very quickly transformed in dictatorship.
Why ? Because structure of power creates itself naturally even in a line to public restroom in summer in any American resorts, or in any traffic movement in high way repair section where frequently one obstructs the movement . One is consider himself as chosen by God and nature.

Solution for the world is only multipolar world ; when power limits and control the power as in chemical jonic bonding.

Everything else is only the state of activity which in social language leads to one plato thru the war .



Woj, let's use the same example of the line to the restroom. Some leader emerges... What I'm saying is that we should promote options: more restrooms.

You are saying though we should take the stupid bully as a natural fact of evolution or creation. But he's still denying you choices. Well, pee on him...;)
  • 0

#4343 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 November 2004 - 03:26 PM

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted all else follows."

Here I'll like to quote the conclusion to an article. Orwell is warning us what NOT to do. More than one road is possible: socialism, anarchism, or the mix of the two, or perhaps NOTHING DOGMATIC. And, of course, he was anti-lion...:cool:

"Orwell's anti-authoritarianism became more pronounced as he came closer to Nineteen Eighty-Four, where we see Orwell as a fairly consistent anarchist who saw the dangers of the State and leaders in general."

But first and foremost, he's warning us: "Beware of the pigs out there!";)

Conclusion

On the surface Orwell's political development may seem filled with contradictions. After his time as a policeman in Burma he was an anarchist; a superficial one perhaps and not very consistent but that was how he felt. In the early 1930s he became more critical of society, and in The Road to Wigan Pier we see him as a socialist. But he is an undogmatic socialist who does not care much for the theories and who criticises the doctrinaire socialists, who precisely because of their theories, have forgotten that socialism first and foremost is about liberty and justice. After Spain he was very sympathetic to anarchism and was even more undogmatic after having seen what dogmatism can lead to. The membership of the ILP therefore seems inconsistent, since party membership will always to some extent result in dogmatism. But this must be seen in relation to the war, which at that time was just around the corner. Orwell was against the war and he felt that the ILP was the only party that would adopt the right attitude to the war, most likely because of the party's pacifism. With the war a drastic change in Orwell took place. Having been against the war he was now for it; he criticised the pacifists for views that he himself had held just a few years before; and he left the ILP. With Animal Farm he took up the themes from Spain and Homage to Catalonia and elaborated on them. Orwell's anti-authoritarianism became more pronounced as he came closer to Nineteen Eighty-Four, where we see Orwell as a fairly consistent anarchist who saw the dangers of the State and leaders in general.

As said, this development may seem contradictory, but this is because Orwell lived in the present. His views were always to some extent shaped by the situation he at any given time was in. Perhaps he only had one view. In 1936 Orwell said that to him socialism first and foremost meant liberty and justice, and this view he never left. The contradictions were in many ways a consequence of this basic belief.

It is difficult to put a political label on Orwell, precisely because he was undogmatic. Unlike the doctrinaire socialists Orwell saw socialism as the social aspect of an all-encompassing moral attitude; a view that undoubtedly was caused by meeting the Spanish anarchists to whom anarchism was a moral attitude with political consequences.

It would, however, be an exaggeration to say that anarchism was Orwell's all-encompassing moral attitude, although there are many anarchist traits in Orwell's criticism of society, of the communists, the professional politicians and the elitist socialists, who believed they were the vanguard of the working class. But one of the most basic tenets of anarchism, the rejection of the State, Orwell could not accept. Orwell meant that some form of state was necessary to maintain freedom. In his view, the stateless society of anarchism contained totalitarian tendencies. In Politics vs Literature from 1946 he says:

"This illustrates well the totalitarian tendency which is implicit in the Anarchist or pacifist vision of society. In a society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by 'thou shalt not', the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by 'love' or 'reason', he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else." [CEJL vol. 4 p. 252]

Although rejecting the alternative society of anarchism Orwell did not have anything better to put instead. He was against the society of the day but had no ideas about how and to what it should change. The importance of Orwell as a political writer is not as a theoretician but as a critic, the guilty conscience and loyal opposition of the Left. To Orwell socialism was the only solution. It would not lead to a perfect world but at least to a better world, but in order for that to happen constant criticism was necessary.

We cannot really put a political label on Orwell. We can call him an undogmatic socialist but that is a rather vague description. He had so many facets and aspects that he escapes any unequivocal definition. And since he himself tried to maintain his individuality and avoid the dogmas with their unresolved contradictions, this seems only fair. At one point, Winston in Nineteen Eighty-Four writes in his diary:

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted all else follows." [NEF p. 68]

Let these words in their seductive simplicity be the conclusion of Orwell's political development.

http://www.k-1.com/O...d1.html#Chap2_3
  • 0

#4344 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 14 November 2004 - 05:53 PM

How about a Social Cynic?
  • 0

#4345 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Bader
How about a Social Cynic?



It doesn't sound like a bad chap to me. And he certainly wasn't a lion though he could have lived as one...

"Most writers, after struggling for fifteen years to achieve literary success, would have remained in London to be lionized and enjoy their celebrity. But Orwell, immune to the effects of wealth and fame, couldn't endure his success: it didn't match his idea of himself. Desperately tired and jaded in the spring of 1946, he complained to Koestler that 'everyone keeps coming at me wanting me to lecture, to write commissioned booklets, to join this and that, etc. - you don't know how I pine to get free of it all and have time to think again'. Nineteen Eighty-Four was beginning to take shape in his mind, and he wanted to rest for two months and allow the idea to germinate. Quite unexpectedly, the man who hated Scotland took off for the remote island iof Jura in the Inner Hebrides..."

And even though he was sick he felt he had a mission...

"Michel Kopp visited Jura in the summer of 1947 and found the farmhouse 'rather dilapidated'. Orwell was driving himself hard, 'working day and night at his book with perhaps the premonition that Nineteen Eighty-Four would be the last one and that death was lurking in the background...I used to see him mainly at supper-time. He was looking in poor health, eating little, chainsmoking and drinking a lot of coffee.'"

http://www.orwelltoday.com/juraorwell'slife.shtml

And best of all, he inspired me. Thank you, Eric Blair...;)
  • 0

#4346 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 05:08 AM

Howdy DonQ:

I have never seen any detail of his life. Some have claimed he was an insider but never said on what that was based.
Your first post said he became more critical and it seemed he didnt have any specific focus it related to so and looked like his criticism may have gone into the negative side.
After all Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty Four are not mere
criticism, however they may have been written for effect, which doesnt mean then that they reflect him.
  • 0

#4347 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Bader
Howdy DonQ:

I have never seen any detail of his life. Some have claimed he was an insider but never said on what that was based.
Your first post said he became more critical and it seemed he didnt have any specific focus it related to so and looked like his criticism may have gone into the negative side.
After all Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty Four are not mere
criticism, however they may have been written for effect, which doesnt mean then that they reflect him.



Well, if this guy wasn't real, I want to know who is...

'Orwell wrote "1984" for us, the future, in the hope we would recognize the signs and symptoms of tyrannical world government and prevent its establishment in our world. Let's make sure he did not write in vain.'

WHY ORWELL WROTE "1984"

Eric Blair, pseudonym George Orwell, was a master writer and story teller. He wrote his first poem at the age of four or five, by dictation to his mother. In the last sixteen years of his life (born in 1903 - died in 1950) he wrote nine major books and 700 essays and articles.

In the essay WHY I WRITE, published in 1947, Orwell says:

"...In a peaceful age I might have written ornate or merely descriptive books, and might have remained almost unaware of my political loyalties. As it is I have been forced into becoming a sort of pamphleteer. First I spent five years in an unsuitable profession (The Indian Imperial Police, in Burma), and then I underwent poverty and the sense of failure. This increased my natural hatred of authority and made me for the first time fully aware of the existence of the working classes, and the job in Burma had given me some understanding of the nature of imperialism: but these experiences were not enough to give me an accurate political orientation. Then came Hitler, the Spanish Civil War, etc. By the end of 1935 I had still failed to reach a firm decision. The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects. Everyone writes of them in one guise or another. It is simply a question of which side one takes and what approach one follows. And the more one is conscious of one's political bias, the more chance one has of acting politically without sacrificing one's aesthetic and intellectual integrity."

"...I write because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing. ...Of late years I have tried to write less picturesquely and more exactly. ANIMAL FARM was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole. I hope to write another fairly soon. It is bound to be a failure, every book is a failure, but I do know with some clarity what kind of book I want to write. ..."

As we all know, the book Orwell went on to write was "1984". It has since been translated into 62 languages and it, along with ANIMAL FARM, had sold more than 40 million copies by 1984. In the USA it sold 1,000 copies a day that year. Quoting Orwell again from WHY I WRITE:

"...All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a mystery. Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention. ..."

Not only figuratively but also literally was the writing of "1984" like a bout of some painful illness for George Orwell. Throughout its writing he was fighting tuberculosis and was at times admitted to the hospital where his typewriter was taken away from him. Undaunted he sat in bed, propped up on pillows, and wrote in longhand with ball-point pen. He was administered a newly developed drug to which he developed a severe allergic reaction. His skin flaked, his mouth became painfully ulcerated, his hair and nails fell out. After several months recuperating in the sanitorium Orwell returned to his home on the remote Scottish island of Jura, one of the most inaccessible spots in the British Isles, and finished writing "1984" in December 1948. He then went immediately back into hospital and was never again healthy enough to be discharged. "1984" was published in June 1949 and Orwell died seven months later on January 21st, 1950, at the age of 46.

In "1984" George Orwell describes how a hierarchical world tyranny is set up, how it stays in power, how it treats its people, and what life is like living under such a system. "1984" is in fact a coded blueprint for world tyranny, laying bare its structure and exposing its components.

Orwell wrote "1984" for us, the future, in the hope we would recognize the signs and symptoms of tyrannical world government and prevent its establishment in our world. Let's make sure he did not write in vain. ~ Jackie Jura
  • 0

#4348 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 01:44 PM

Originally posted by donquijote
Well, if this guy wasn't real, I want to know who is...
WHY ORWELL WROTE "1984"

Eric Blair, pseudonym George Orwell, was a master writer and story teller. He wrote his first poem at the age of four or five, by dictation to his mother.



Mummification of the body can brings life extension in memories of people.
It happened to pharaohs or Lenin, but reheating of Eric Blair corps it can bring only stink ..Colonial British officer in Burma who criticizes communism.! This inferior body had never seen communism between elephants waste but he condemn it.:)
Great Pretender is not only title of song ;
When Roman emperor decided that that Pecunia non olet- money don't sting , and start collecting money for using public utilities.
In US they are free, and practically don
  • 0

#4349 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 01:59 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Mummification of the body can brings life extension in memories of people.
It happened to pharaohs or Lenin, but reheating of Eric Blair corps it can bring only stink ..Colonial British officer in Burma who criticizes communism.! This inferior body had never seen communism between elephants waste but he condemn it.:)
Great Pretender is not only title of song ;
When Roman emperor decided that that Pecunia non olet- money don't sting , and start collecting money for using public utilities.
In US they are free, and practically don-t exist.
And we can go further; Statue of Freedom pretends to be Freedom, and US military around of the world pretends to be democracy.



For not reading his books you still defend communism. You still like the pigs...;)

Or is it you defend Mr. Jones?:confused:
  • 0

#4350 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 03:23 PM

Originally posted by donquijote
For not reading his books you still defend communism. You still like the pigs...;)




The wars of classes are finished on the world.
Wars of the nations start.
People the same ethnicity will solve their problems peacefully and they move to their first necessity ; Cleaning their countries from cuckoo nests.

Slavs unite, it is a lot for Slavs to do, instead of fighting each other, we should eliminate our common enemies. .
  • 0

#4351 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 03:54 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
The wars of classes are finished on the world.
Wars of the nations start.
People the same ethnicity will solve their problems peacefully and they move to their first necessity ; Cleaning their countries from cuckoo nests.

Slavs unite, it is a lot for Slavs to do, instead of fighting each other, we should eliminate our common enemies. .



Oh, I thought you still believed in the class struggle...

So now, the Slavs are all of a sudden enemies, say, to Germans? You don't believe there's Slavic lions and German lions and that these are the worst enemies?:confused:
  • 0

#4352 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 04:16 PM

Originally posted by donquijote
Oh, I thought you still believed in the class struggle...

So now, the Slavs are all of a sudden enemies, say, to Germans? You don't believe there's Slavic lions and German lions and that these are the worst enemies?:confused:



It is not as bad as one thinks

*The American general who serves as Nato's military commander threatens the long-term viability of the operation
The countries that have publicly refused to send troops to Iraq include the US's long-time opponents of the war, France, Germany and Belgium, as well as Spain, after its change of government. Luxembourg and Greece are also among those believed to be withholding forces.
The US has separately complained that France and Germany have forbidden staff seconded to Nato headquarters in Mons, Belgium, and Norfolk, Virginia, to participate in the Iraq missions. Such a move could breach the alliance treaty, which requires officers assigned to Nato to be subordinate to Nato orders and not their national chains of command.* http://news.ft.com/c...000e2511c8.html
For NATO nations , the nations order are more important that NATO orders. For Slavs German not an enemy any more. It was US Mrs. Albright wh sent Germany military against Yugoslavia as a
  • 0

#4353 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 06:06 PM

Accepting on face value Orwells motive in writing I find it a little
puzzling that he was primarily anti-authority yet believed in socialism which is a classic model of submission to authority/rigid
organisation.

Was he simply the same as those who still believe in communism
claiming the ugly mess (that 1984 points to) was a diversion
from the true path, but he could see it coming? Although of course it had already started before he started writing.

There are many who wrote to expose and warn, C.H. Douglas was one of them and they used the real world not fantacy to draw pictures that could be taken as fiction and entertainment. But warnings and exposures were all
treated as "conspiracy theories" so from the first world war on
the lies and "sensorship" was well established and for many they are only starting to wake up now since Sept 11 and see it a little too late, with sovereignty thrown out of each nest by the cuckoo.
  • 0

#4354 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Bader
Accepting on face value Orwells motive in writing I find it a little
puzzling that he was primarily anti-authority yet believed in socialism which is a classic model of submission to authority/rigid
organisation.

Was he simply the same as those who still believe in communism
claiming the ugly mess (that 1984 points to) was a diversion
from the true path, but he could see it coming? Although of course it had already started before he started writing.

There are many who wrote to expose and warn, C.H. Douglas was one of them and they used the real world not fantacy to draw pictures that could be taken as fiction and entertainment. But warnings and exposures were all
treated as "conspiracy theories" so from the first world war on
the lies and "sensorship" was well established and for many they are only starting to wake up now since Sept 11 and see it a little too late, with sovereignty thrown out of each nest by the cuckoo.



Well, you could say our lion is "fictional" too, and yet we suffer him every day. I just tried to launch my kayak and leave the jungle behind, but was prevented by the park guard. He didn't prevent though a homeless couple near me from encroaching on my right to a clean park, and asked me how I was bothered by them... I demanded the police be called, but, of course, lion helps lion, and I was roared at--and almost swallowed. I asked them why they don't take care of the homeless in the park, and they told me that was a different issue. And then I asked, "where's the law that prevents me from launching a kayak at this park?" He said there's no law, only the law of the guard. And I'd add, I know that law, THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE...;)

You may think whatever you want about Orwell, but he foretold everything and upon reading his novels you can only think of resisting the lion. Little animals' rebellion is in order.
  • 0

#4355 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 09:52 PM

Today comes out why Soros & Co were so pushing Kerry candidature for president.
They need Kerry to push Israel candidature to EU.
Israel says that in their hands is Middle East and oil , which Europe needs so much.
Israel is offering the Medleast oil for UN membership.

Israel recognizes value of US support in pressing EU for Israel membership in EU. Israel considered that Kerry with his background would be more interested in Israel interest.
We might say that Israel was involved in 2004 election in US.
  • 0

#4356 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 10:12 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Today comes out why Soros & Co were so pushing Kerry candidature for president.
They need Kerry to push Israel candidature to EU.
Israel says that in their hands is Middle East and oil , which Europe needs so much.
Israel is offering the Medleast oil for UN membership.

Israel recognizes value of US support in pressing EU for Israel membership in EU. Israel considered that Kerry with his background would be more interested in Israel interest.
We might say that Israel was involved in 2004 election in US.



Involved with the Democrats? I think they do like corporations: bet on the two parties...;)
  • 0

#4357 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 10:37 PM

<ALBatro <a.l.beretta@virgilio.it> wrote:

all in all I am glad.
But It isn't anarchism who joins us.
Or whatever else other want us to be.
Only Banana Revolution joins us.
Enough with OLD ideologies.

ALB.>

Having a POLITICAL PLATFORM in place (http://webspawner.co...ers/donquijote1) we can afford to be called "anarchist," "socialist," "communist" or even "fascist" ("right-wing libertarians are OK," I say) because we have the program in the hands of the people, and democracy is simple: VOTE WITH YOUR FEET. And then the COOPS are a second safety feature. People will be in control of the lion by whatever name it goes.

While other parties come up with fancy names to camouflage their empty platforms, we can afford anything.

Oh, of course, my favorite name: Banana Revolution (we can even afford that)...;)
  • 0

#4358 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 16 November 2004 - 01:06 AM

Thats a bit rich, some thought H G Wells predicted everything as well. I have yet to hear anyone say they had any answers.
Then there is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, perhaps a little more extreme than 1984 but I think that Wells and Huxley knew a few things the general public didnt, there are many people in various occultic bodies who know things about the future because they either have their own in positions of power or control those who arent. Orwell may have been one of them.

Webspawner.com political platform is a bunch of policies (good things) to chose from, like pushing a trundler around a supermarket and select the things you want.
There is no philosophical aspect outside of good intentions and
the nature of humanity doesnt allow things to just happen for the good of all, so there needs to be some structure- legal and political to give some indication that it can stand up and walk.
Only creatures with some form of skeleton can stand up and walk,
there is none evident.
Another major question is how is it going to be financed.
From someone who is moved by Orwell it seems very contradictory that you make no provision for what he predicted
outside of good intentions.
  • 0

#4359 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 16 November 2004 - 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Bader
Thats a bit rich, some thought H G Wells predicted everything as well. I have yet to hear anyone say they had any answers.
Then there is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, perhaps a little more extreme than 1984 but I think that Wells and Huxley knew a few things the general public didnt, there are many people in various occultic bodies who know things about the future because they either have their own in positions of power or control those who arent. Orwell may have been one of them.

Webspawner.com political platform is a bunch of policies (good things) to chose from, like pushing a trundler around a supermarket and select the things you want.
There is no philosophical aspect outside of good intentions and
the nature of humanity doesnt allow things to just happen for the good of all, so there needs to be some structure- legal and political to give some indication that it can stand up and walk.
Only creatures with some form of skeleton can stand up and walk,
there is none evident.
Another major question is how is it going to be financed.
From someone who is moved by Orwell it seems very contradictory that you make no provision for what he predicted
outside of good intentions.



Well, we have coops starting from scratch if need be, as they all have and we have, and then we have...you and your theories that represent the theories of many out there. I hope they work though...

I'm not saying that Orwell is the greatest man that even lived and that we should make him a symbol, just like the communists made of Marx, but he's probably the writer that better explains the world today: Big Brother, eternal war, betrayal of the revolution...

He didn't explain though the economics of it.

But I'd put it another way: the more famous people we can gather on our side the better. And that list includes:

Jesus, Gandhi, M.L. King, Orwell, Tolstoy, Kropotkin and many others.

Locked in an Orwellian eternal war
By Robert Fisk

In George Orwell's 1984, Oceania --in which Britain is "Airstrip One"-- is engaged in eternal war with Eastasia. Victories are constantly announced by the British government. Our battle with Eastasia, over the years, has become routine. In George Bush's 2001, the West is engaged in eternal war with Iraq. The "degrading" of Iraq's forces is constantly announced by the American and British governments. And on Friday, the mission of the planes, which have been bombing Iraq for 10 years, was officially announced by the American President as "routine".

As in 1984, the characters in 2001 do not change. In 1991, defence secretary Dick Cheney and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Colin Powell were urging the bombers on to Baghdad with the backing of President George Bush. In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney and secretary of state Colin Powell are urging the bombers on to Baghdad with the backing of President George Bush Jr. In 1991, the Beast of Baghdad was Saddam Hussein. In 2001, the Beast of Baghdad is Saddam Hussein.

And woe betide us if we feel like Winston Smith, eternally feeding old newspaper cuttings into the oven. Bin those clippings about how we "defanged" Saddam in 1991. Forget the UN arms inspectors who would eliminate forever Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction". Make no complaint about the half-million Iraqi children who have died under UN sanctions. Destroy all reference to the New World Order.

We are engaging --an Orwellian cracker this, from the Pentagon on Friday night-- in "protective retaliation". And by yesterday morning, a military "expert" was on our very own BBC --its defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, no less-- to announce that Iraq had acquired 30 surface-to-air missiles from Serbia and Ukraine to boost its military might. Really? Is this true? We in the West impose sanctions on Iraq so strict that we prevent the import of lead for schoolchildren's pencils lest it be put to military use; yet we cannot stop the Iraqis lugging anti-aircraft missiles over their border.

When we started bombing in the no-fly-zones in the aftermath of the Gulf War 10 years ago, we did so in retaliation because the Iraqis shot at our planes, just as we supposedly did this weekend. When we fired 200 cruise missiles into Iraq just over two years ago, President Clinton --a brief interlude in the war between the Saddam and Bush families-- told us that Saddam has "disarmed the (UN) inspectors". Tony Blair, agonising about the lives of British forces involved (all 14 pilots) told us --a real Orwell masterpiece-- "we must act because we must".

So what Newspeak do our masters produce for us this weekend? Why, our own Foreign Secretary Robin Cook tells us that Saddam --not sanctions-- are to blame for all those Iraqi deaths. It was the same Mr Cook who has repeatedly and truthfully told us during this eternal war that Saddam has used gas "against his own people"-- without mentioning the other truth: that he did so during an aggressive war with Iran in which we enthusiastically supported Saddam. So tell Winston Smith to burn all articles about a village called Halabja if they inconveniently mention Iran. Iraq's state television yesterday announces "an attack by American aggressors". The forces of Oceania, it seems, killed a woman and wounded 11 civilians in the Eastasian capital of Baghdad. Oceania insists the attacks were aimed at "sites well away from civilian areas". The planes were "well within the 33rd parallel" --the limit of the self-appointed Oceanian no-fly zones -- and used "standoff" missiles to hit their targets.

When President Clinton faced the worst of the Lewinsky scandal, he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan. When he faced impeachment in 1998, he bombed Iraq. Faced with an explosion between Israelis and Palestinians, George Bush Jr bombs --why, Baghdad. And still Mr Cook tells the Iraqi people Saddam is their "problem". Note to Winston Smith: burn at once all references to George Bush Sr's 1991 call to the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam and his subsequent willingness to let Saddam massacre the lot.

Then there's that $29m aid package about to be handed over by Washington to the so-called opposition "Iraqi National Congress". Note to Winston Smith: place into the incinerator all newspaper reports about the Jordanian conviction for massive fraud of one of the INC's most prominent leaders. Let's keep it simple: Down with the brutal regime of Eastasia! Long live Oceania!
  • 0

#4360 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 16 November 2004 - 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Bader
From someone who is moved by Orwell it seems very contradictory that you make no provision for what he predicted
outside of good intentions.



Nothing can offer the recycling high school propaganda, maybe only memory of the British colonial past.
You are shooting down elephant from Burma after its rage. Elephant it is title of another Orwell story of that time.
Orwell today is like embarrassing jokes of Queen Elizabeth's Husband , who haven
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru