Thursday
Sep252008
Reading matters
Thursday, September 25, 2008 The Free Society will be giving away ONE THOUSAND copies of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four to people attending The Freedom Zone.
The publisher, Penguin, says: "Nineteen Eighty-Four is George Orwell’s terrifying vision of a totalitarian future in which everything and everyone is slave to a tyrannical regime."
According to its Wikipedia entry, "The book has major significance for its vision of an all-knowing government which uses pervasive and constant surveillance of the populace, insidious and blatant propaganda, and brutal control over its citizens."
The Freedom Zone and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Spot the connection?
in Books
Books
Reader Comments (19)
'1984' ?
Nah, it'll never happen here.........
But I'm STILL going to report you.
2 + 2 = ?
Don't give them more ideas, Simon!!
DoublePlusGood!
Thanks very much, but I don't need a copy! Winston Smith's 'world' is alive, well and with us as I write. I studied the text for 'A' Level English very very many years ago, and at that time never imagined I would experience the same feelings of fear, alienation and disillusionment:)
Would you like to send me one? Thank you.
At least I'll take the trouble to read it!
Simon, I am coming up with a friend of mine and will be there for both days. I look forward to seeing you.
I read '1984' in the early 70s and still recall the horror with which it filled me and the anxiety as 1984 approached in case Orwell's world would become reality.
As people do when imagining the world created in a book, I wondered how I'd feel in Oceania. I can now report that I hate it with a vengeance!! How do so many people manage to apparently remain oblivious to it all?
I read 1984 years ago and thought Orwell was a fantasist and that it would never happen and now here we all are right in the middle of his nightmare prediction.
If there's another Orwell out there I wonder what his prediction would be for say 30 years time... I guess we'd all rather not know.
I've read it but I don't think George Orwell meant it to be a template for future Govts to follow -- perhaps you could point that out to the Tories while in Birmingham.
I really wish I could make it to the Freedom Zone but I can't. I hope you all have a great time.
BTW, the journalist Winston Smith is alive and well and working in newspapers across the country. I once had my own job of re-writing history .. it was a nostalgia column but I was banned from using the "offensive" words of the day .. I had to translate them into today's politically correct language.
Great - I just re-read the book! Those who read it years ago should re-read it, facinating.
At least Winston had Victory cigarettes.
Interestingly O'Brien seemed to have the voice of Rchard Burton this time around!
west
----
What a grave misuse of such a great work. And shows great ignorance of Orwell. He wrote, "I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone.'
But then went on to denounce this theory as "sentimental nonsense."
In reality he was a believer in strong government and strong laws.
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
Britain 2008
Smoking bans come and go
Government-imposed smoking bans have been spreading across the United States and around the world in the past two decades. Cities, counties, states, provinces, and even whole countries have embraced the idea that the slight public health risk possibly caused by secondhand smoke justifies the use of police powers to enforce smoking bans on private property.
Most news accounts regarding smoking ban proposals make it seem as though this phenomenon is fresh, new, and progressive, and that once passed, smoking bans are likely to remain on the books and be enforced forever. However, history shows the reality is quite different.
Many smoking bans have been adopted in the past, often for reasons that appear ridiculous in hindsight, and they were repealed when cooler heads prevailed.
"Many smoking bans have been adopted in the past, often for reasons that appear ridiculous in hindsight, and they were repealed when cooler heads prevailed." Idlex
They have?
Pity they didn't stick to them.
Oh, and as for the current bans, I wouldn't hold your breath. People want them to stay and so they will. That is called democracy.
Idlex, your link doesn't work.
People want them to stay and so they will. That is called democracy. - Joss
No, it's not democracy.
In opinion polls, most people - 70% - wanted choice. But opinion polls aren't democracy, so it doesn't really matter what opinion polls say. What matters is what people actually vote for. And what they voted for in the last election was for a partial smoking ban, in which pubs that didn't sell food would be permitted to allow smoking. That was what was in the Labour party manifesto. They broke their own manifesto promise when they legislated for a complete smoking ban. The British people never voted for a complete smoking ban.
Have any people anywhere ever voted for a complete ban? As far as I can see, they're all bans that are imposed by governments, rather than called for by popular demand. Antismokers seem to always seem to work within governments rather than in the democratic arena. Smoking bans are often introduced as public health measures which often get nodded through committees without ever being put to a public vote. In Britain antismoking organisations like CRUK and ASH got their own employees to simulate public opinion by sending letters and emails to parliament in what Deborah Arnott described as a confidence trick.
That's a far better description of what happened. It was a confidence trick - a swindle - and not democracy at all (about which antismokers care nothing anyway).
Sorry, Frank. The correct link to the Heartland Institute should be:
History Shows Smoking Bans Likely to Be Repealed
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=23460
Oh well Joss, that's democracy for you is it?
The majority oppress the minority. I'm not sure that was the original idea. All other minorities are catered for , but not smokers?. How convienient. How paternal.
The truth is much more interesting, and I've stated this here before, but for your benefit...
Say there are 12 million smokers in the UK, and being generous to you,I'll say that 8 million are against the ban. Every one of those must have 'at least' 3 relatives/friends who agree with them and choice. That's 32 million adults.
Considering there are around 40 million adults in the UK, your so called majority can be seen to be a total illusion, and the product of the incredible scam that we are all witnessing.They're even telling us how we think without even asking, and the gullible continue to believe and make 'bleating' noises.
By the way, for me personally I would count around 40 relatives /friends who are for choice, and most of them non smokers.