If you identify as a liberal, you should read this

[Nick Young]

The modern liberal handbook:
http://www.robinmalau.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/1984.jpg

[Real Men Wear Green]

2016: 32 years after fictional events.

[Terahite]

2016: 32 years after fictional events.

The novel was as much a personal memoir as it was a work of "fiction". A radical-socialist-turned-realist, Orwell was an insider who had a shrewd understanding of how oligarchic power groups use collectivist socialism and liberal ideology to manipulate the innate humanitarianism of the masses as a prelude to their totalitarian takeover. :lol

The "story" was based in large part on Orwell's reading of the ex-Trotskyist James Burnham's non-fiction work The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World about the rise of the pro-Stalinists in the West during the war and the "servile state" they created. President Eisenhower would later in his farewell address warn about this group which he termed the "scientific elite". (I could do a whole thread on how this same group murdered JFK who was closer to what a a real liberal really is which is closer to what Orwell was.)

But yeah, calling 1984 mere "fiction" is like calling Animal Farm mere "fiction". :no:

[Nick Young]

But yeah, calling 1984 mere "fiction" is like calling Animal Farm mere "fiction". :no:
This point goes completely over their head, dude.

Modern libs like Real Men Wear Green lack all sense of self awareness.

[Labissiere]

If you identify as a conservative, you should watch this:

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk4NDYyNTU3Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjE4NTQ0MQ@@._ V1._CR11,6,327,487_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg

[Nick Young]

If you identify as a conservative, you should watch this:

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk4NDYyNTU3Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjE4NTQ0MQ@@._ V1._CR11,6,327,487_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg
Idiocracy is a good example satire showing where modern Brave New World-style leftyism will lead us.

Great suggestion bro. :cheers:

[Real Men Wear Green]

The novel was as much a personal memoir as it was a work of "fiction". A radical-socialist-turned-realist, Orwell was an insider who had a shrewd understanding of how oligarchic power groups use collectivist socialism and liberal ideology to manipulate the innate humanitarianism of the masses as a prelude to their totalitarian takeover. :lol

The "story" was based in large part on Orwell's reading of the ex-Trotskyist James Burnham's non-fiction work The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World about the rise of the pro-Stalinists in the West during the war and the "servile state" they created. President Eisenhower would later in his farewell address warn about this group which he termed the "scientific elite". (I could do a whole thread on how this same group murdered JFK who was closer to what a a real liberal really is which is closer to what Orwell was.)

But yeah, calling 1984 mere "fiction" is like calling Animal Farm mere "fiction". :no:Well, it is. No one on the left is pushing for massive restrictions of the press or a dictatorial government. This topic has nothing to do with reality.

[Nick Young]

Well, it is. No one on the left is pushing for massive restrictions of the press or a dictatorial government. This topic has nothing to do with reality.
Holy shit. Are you really that naive bro?:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:

Just like I said. The libs are completely lacking in self awareness.

[falc39]

Well, it is. No one on the left is pushing for massive restrictions of the press or a dictatorial government. This topic has nothing to do with reality.

Are you sure? Manipulation of the press has been occuring at a much more subtle way: [/URL]
[url]http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058 (http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058)

To be fair, both parties are at fault for different reasons and the party establishment on both sides would jump to take away all our privacy rights if it weren't for that constitution standing in the way.

[Dresta]

Well, it is. No one on the left is pushing for massive restrictions of the press or a dictatorial government. This topic has nothing to do with reality.
Yeah, you're kind of right: Huxley's Brave New World is a far more accurate portrayal of a pleasure-worshipping world, which has eradicated all forms of suffering and difficulty, that liberals are hell-bent on trying to achieve.

Though the perpetual war of Orwell, and the one minute at war with Eastasia, the next minute at war with Eurasia (and allies with Eastasia) was rather prophetic, and is exactly how political leaders treat their citizens when it comes to war-making. And yes, the press has been almost wholly subservient to these interests.

[Nick Young]

Yeah, you're kind of right: Huxley's Brave New World is a far more accurate portrayal of a pleasure-worshipping world, which has eradicated all forms of suffering and difficulty, that liberals are hell-bent on trying to achieve.

Though the perpetual war of Orwell, and the one minute at war with Eastasia, the next minute at war with Eurasia (and allies with Eastasia) was rather prophetic, and is exactly how political leaders treat their citizens when it comes to war-making.
Modern western society has become a perfect mixture of Brave New World and 1984.

Huxley was a prophet.

[BoutPractice]

Liberalism is a complicated political tradition which is very different from communism, and especially different from stalinist totalitarianism.

In fact liberal thought is one of the main intellectual influences behind the policies adopted by such communist radicals as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

And while liberalism has been claimed by both the left and the right (you might call this a feature of liberalism rather than a bug), the lowest common denominator of liberalism (political and religious toleration, guaranteed individual rights and liberties) is the conceptual antithesis of totalitarianism.

Radical left wing views sometimes evolve out of liberalism. But liberals who no longer believe in pluralism and individual rights can no longer claim to being liberal in any meaningful sense...

[NumberSix]

Well, it is. No one on the left is pushing for massive restrictions of the press or a dictatorial government. This topic has nothing to do with reality.
Of course they are. Not in the form of 1 individual person as dictator, but in the form of intrusive centralized government.

Keep it real. If you went to a college campus and asked these lefty "students" if they would be in favor of a government agency like "The Bureau of Sanctioned Speech", "The Bureau of Politically Correct Communications" or "The Department of Hate Speech Infractions" do you really doubt you'd have a hard time finding students that would be totally in favor?

[ThePhantomCreep]

The novel was as much a personal memoir as it was a work of "fiction". A radical-socialist-turned-realist, Orwell was an insider who had a shrewd understanding of how oligarchic power groups use collectivist socialism and liberal ideology to manipulate the innate humanitarianism of the masses as a prelude to their totalitarian takeover. :lol

The "story" was based in large part on Orwell's reading of the ex-Trotskyist James Burnham's non-fiction work The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World about the rise of the pro-Stalinists in the West during the war and the "servile state" they created. President Eisenhower would later in his farewell address warn about this group which he termed the "scientific elite". (I could do a whole thread on how this same group murdered JFK who was closer to what a a real liberal really is which is closer to what Orwell was.)

But yeah, calling 1984 mere "fiction" is like calling Animal Farm mere "fiction". :no:

Thanks wikipedia...er terahite, but none of this shit moves "1984" any closer to the non-fiction section of the library. You're actually pretty stupid for thinking it does.

The book "Psycho" and the character of Norman Bates are based on real life Wisconsin killer, Ed Gein. Guess what? The book is FICTION.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Of course they are. Not in the form of 1 individual person as dictator, but in the form of intrusive centralized government.

Keep it real. If you went to a college campus and asked these lefty "students" if they would be in favor of a government agency like "The Bureau of Sanctioned Speech", "The Bureau of Politically Correct Communications" or "The Department of Hate Speech Infractions" do you really doubt you'd have a hard time finding students that would be totally in favor?

There are misguided souls on either side of the political spectrum, especially on the Right:

http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/


The Times found that nearly 20% of Trump supporters did not approve of freeing the slaves, according to a January YouGov/Economist poll that asked respondents if they supported or disapproved of “the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government”—Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.

[Terahite]

Thanks wikipedia...er terahite, but none of this shit moves "1984" any closer to the non-fiction section of the library. You're actually pretty stupid for thinking it does.

The book "Psycho" and the character of Norman Bates are based on real life Wisconsin killer, Ed Gein. Guess what? The book is FICTION.

So is this book.

http://s16.postimg.org/5uoe3r6vp/51_CSOTHb_TAL.jpg


http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Michael-Jordan-laughing.gif

[Dresta]

The system of press manipulation presently in place is actually far more effective than the old style Soviet means, because few people actually fell for the latter, as it was so obvious. Power elites in the West have learnt from this and recognised it's far more effective to preserve the pretence of a "free" press, while simply controlling and dictating 90+% of its content through surreptitious means. It preserves the illusion in the minds of many that they are receiving impartial information, when in reality they're being fed exactly what power elites want them to see. If you can't see how public opinion has been deliberately manipulated from above on Iraq, on Syria, regarding Libya, the "refugee" crisis, terrorism, and so on, then you simply aren't paying attention. These people have psychologists who they ask "how can we get people to respond this way", and use them in the same way the advertisement industry has used them since the 50s (and before).

Those who dissent are generally ostracised and demonised, or simply ignored.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Holy shit. Are you really that naive bro?.
Everything you post is dumb, uninformed, and ridiculous. You can stop now.
Are you sure? Manipulation of the press has been occuring at a much more subtle way: [/URL]
[url]http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058 (http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058)

To be fair, both parties are at fault for different reasons and the party establishment on both sides would jump to take away all our privacy rights if it weren't for that constitution standing in the way.
A political campaign attempting to manipulate the way it's candidate is covered is not the same thing as the government directly manipulating the news like what happens in 1984. Plus the Clinton campaign tactics are pulled by just about everyone. Trump got Fox News to cancel a debate a week or two ago, of course twits like the OP don't want to mention that and act like it's just a liberal thing, which is patently ridiculous.
Of course they are. Not in the form of 1 individual person as dictator, but in the form of intrusive centralized government.

Keep it real. If you went to a college campus and asked these lefty "students" if they would be in favor of a government agency like "The Bureau of Sanctioned Speech", "The Bureau of Politically Correct Communications" or "The Department of Hate Speech Infractions" do you really doubt you'd have a hard time finding students that would be totally in favor?
Social media backlash to perceived bigotry is not the same thing as calling for the government to further censor the press. You are confused.

[Dresta]

There are misguided souls on either side of the political spectrum, especially on the Right:

http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/
Maybe they know more about history than you do? The Emancipation Proclamation was a political maneuver to cut off the South from receiving European aid. It didn't actually "free" any slaves.

[Nick Young]

Everything you post is dumb, uninformed, and ridiculous. You can stop now.
A political campaign attempting to manipulate the way it's candidate is covered is not the same thing as the government directly manipulating the news like what happens in 1984. [/QUOTE]
:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:


German Media ‘Are Subject to Strict Censorship, Restrictions'

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160201/1034034727/german-media-censorship.html


COLOGNE: Google, Facebook and Twitter Yield to German Govt Demand to Censor Anti-Migrant ‘Hate Speech’

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/07/cologne-google-facebook-twitter-yield-german-govt-demand-censor-anti-migrant-hate-speech/


Flagship news publications in the United States mainstream media have been forced to admit that over the years they quietly forged partnerships with the federal government in order to withhold from American taxpayers vital information on such topics as the government’s drone-assassination program, torture, secret prisons and warrantless snooping.

Some of the worst cases of collusion and suppression go back 10 years to the early days of the modern “war on terror.” The existence of a secret U.S. drone base in Saudi Arabia which The Washington Post and The New York Times admittedly kept hidden for two years is the latest in a string of coverups. Others include: The Times obeying Bush Administration demands in mid-2004 to cover up warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ communications for 18 months and the Post concealing which nations served as secret, unlawful Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) torture prison locations.
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/mainstream-media-censorship-exposed/#sthash.qgn0KvoZ.dpuf
http://americanfreepress.net/mainstream-media-censorship-exposed/



Swedish Police, Accused of Cover-Up, Look Into Reports of Sex Assault at Festival
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/world/europe/swedish-police-coverup-sexual-assault.html?_r=0


In George Orwell's novel, "1984," Newspeak refers to language designed by a totalitarian regime to control thought and make subversive speech impossible. It destroyed words with prohibited meanings so that heretical thoughts couldn't be expressed. A form of censorship, Newspeak employed euphemisms and words deliberately opposite the reality they described. For example, "joycamp" was the term assigned to forced-labor camps. The "Ministry of Truth" was in actuality an organ of disinformation.

Newspeak was created to institute thought control and thereby exert political control through restrictive changes to the language. The term is now commonly used to refer to attempts to obscure the truth, especially in political rhetoric which abounds with instances of it. For example, President Obama's administration has officially replaced "terrorism" with the phrase "man-caused disasters." Terrorist activity, such as suicide bombings perpetuated by Al Qaeda and other Islamic groups, is now benignly called "anti-Islamic acts." In abortion debates, the taking of a human life is reframed as a "woman's right to choose."

Newspeak usage also crops up in legislation with titles that are the exact opposite of a bill's intent. With ever-shortening American attention spans and media's increasing focus on entertainment news, Newspeak is not simply a fictional danger but a real threat to the practice of democracy in America. Some recent examples include: "The Respect for Marriage Act," "The Employee Free Choice Act," "Internet Freedom Preservation Act," "American Clean Energy and Security Act" and "America's Healthy Future Act." A quick examination of each reveals Newspeak at work.


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/10/welcome_to_the_world_of_newspe.html



is not the same thing as the government directly manipulating the news like what happens in 1984.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JcwS6jpAVlc/UOGXfiAHLII/AAAAAAAAFSc/UL9a0gGd4D0/s1600/War+is+peace.jpg

[falc39]

A political campaign attempting to manipulate the way it's candidate is covered is not the same thing as the government directly manipulating the news like what happens in 1984. Plus the Clinton campaign tactics are pulled by just about everyone. Trump got Fox News to cancel a debate a week or two ago, of course twits like the OP don't want to mention that and act like it's just a liberal thing, which is patently ridiculous.

You think that would just stop if she wins office? The US has also dropped in free press rankings during Obama's administration. It's a culture that won't go away and I agree that both parties are a threat to it. But no way are the dems (or repubs) on the good side of it.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Maybe they know more about history than you do? The Emancipation Proclamation was a political maneuver to cut off the South from receiving European aid. It didn't actually "free" any slaves.


LOL @ this conservative sugar-coated history revisionist bullshit. Next lesson: The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery! It was about tariffs or some shit. :rolleyes:

The fcking document explicitly states that all slaves are considered free in the eyes of the US government--for the hundreds of thousands of men and women who escaped to the North after the proclamation was released, this was far more than just a symbolic gesture.

But...it didn't free any slaves. Uh huh. :facepalm

Trump supporters couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the "c", the "t", and the "a", so no, they don't know their history at all. All they know is:

Free slaves = bad
Giant Trump Wall = good

[Nick Young]

Does anyone know which political party started a Civil War in the name of preserving slavery and institutionalized racism?

Does anyone know which political party was responsible for interning Americans in concentration camps for their ethnicity?

Does anyone know which political party fought AGAINST Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights movement?

Does anyone know which political party in 2016 is shutting down peaceful political rallies via organized acts of violence and rioting?

Anyone?

[ThePhantomCreep]

^^Another idiot reichwinger who confuses political parties with ideologies.

Because nothing says "progressive" like a desire to maintain a slave economy long after most of the Europe and even Latin America had abolished the practice.

Nothing says "progressive" like separate water fountains in Selma AL circa 1955.

And clearly, the modern-day South is loaded with liberal meccas like Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Texas, and Louisiana.

<sarcasm off>

Why can't reichwingers/Trump supporters revel in what they are? Why the self-loathing?

[NumberSix]

There are misguided souls on either side of the political spectrum, especially on the Right:

http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/
Complete bullshit. Already debunked. The same stupid "study" also said 13% of democrats said that they were against ending slavery. It's nonsense.

[Nick Young]

Does anyone know which political party started a Civil War in the name of preserving slavery and institutionalized racism?

Does anyone know which political party was responsible for interning Americans in concentration camps for their ethnicity?

Does anyone know which political party fought AGAINST Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights movement?

Does anyone know which political party in 2016 is shutting down peaceful political rallies via organized acts of violence and rioting?

Anyone?
Does anyone have the answers to these pressing questions?

America wants to know.

[ThePhantomCreep]

I totally forgot that beta bitch Nick Young put me on ignore! Like that other reichwing dipshit, Starface. :roll:

Donald Trump runs from debates too, so it's understandable why these idiots flock to him.

[Dresta]

LOL @ this conservative sugar-coated history revisionist bullshit. Next lesson: The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery! It was about tariffs or some shit. :rolleyes:

The fcking document explicitly states that all slaves are considered free in the eyes of the US government--for the hundreds of thousands of men and women who escaped to the North after the proclamation was released, this was far more than just a symbolic gesture.

But...it didn't free any slaves. Uh huh. :facepalm

Trump supporters couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the "c", the "t", and the "a", so no, they don't know their history at all. All they know is:

Free slaves = bad
Giant Trump Wall = goodNo, it doesn't.


The Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (unnamed but occupied by Union troops since 1862) and lower Louisiana (also under occupation), and specifically excluded those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army.

God damn you're a retard. How exactly does a Proclamation that applies only to States that had seceded (i.e. over those which the Federal Government had no jurisdiction), and didn't apply to those slave States that remained in the Union "free the slaves"?

If you think the Civil War was only about the matter of slavery, then you simply do not know your history. If it were, then the Corwin Amendment (supported and backed by Lincoln and Seward) would have appeased the process of secession, but you obviously don't even know what that is, because you're an historical ignoramus.

It was the Emancipation Proclamation that made the war explicitly about slavery, and that's why Lincoln signed it (because Britain and other European powers, who were sympathetic to--and aiding--the South, would not support them if the war was explicitly about slavery).

It was an act of deliberate and calculated political expediency, and if you can't see that, then you're just an ignorant fool.

edit: now he's calling other people "reich-wingers"--you are the definition of an ignorant and intolerant bigot.

[TheMan]

Remember folks, Nick Young is a self proclaimed independant and a moderate :oldlol:

Dude is as far right as Michael Savage, Mark Levin and those kinds of goofballs. :facepalm

[ThePhantomCreep]

No, it doesn't.



God damn you're a retard. How exactly does a Proclamation that applies only to States that had seceded (i.e. over those which the Federal Government had no jurisdiction), and didn't apply to those slave States that remained in the Union "free the slaves"?

If you think the Civil War was only about the matter of slavery, then you simply do not know your history. If it were, then the Corwin Amendment (supported and backed by Lincoln and Seward) would have appeased the process of secession, but you obviously don't even know what that is, because you're an historical ignoramus.

It was the Emancipation Proclamation that made the war explicitly about slavery, and that's why Lincoln signed it (because Britain and other European powers, who were sympathetic to--and aiding--the South, would not support them if the war was explicitly about slavery).

It was an act of deliberate and calculated political expediency, and if you can't see that, then you're just an ignorant fool.

edit: now he's calling other people "reich-wingers"--you are the definition of an ignorant and intolerant bigot.

Now you're just backpedaling:

"It (emancipation proclamation) didn't actually free any slaves".

This isn't a true statement at all. Obviously the promise contained within the document was contingent on the North winning the war, so it didn't literally make every slave free, but its wording is plain as day--they would be free once the war was over. And for the thousands of slaves who escaped to the North and instantly became free, it was not a symbolic gesture.

Read the various Declarations from South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, etc. They all site the issue of slavery as the primary driver for their secession. But yeah, it was that bigot Lincoln who made it all about slavery, in 1863 :rolleyes: . Anyone who argues or even implies that slavery was a mere footnote in the cause of the Civil War is a reichwing revisionist idiot.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Remember folks, Nick Young is a self proclaimed independant and a moderate :oldlol:

Dude is as far right as Michael Savage, Mark Levin and those kinds of goofballs. :facepalm

Dat self-loathing doe. :lol

White supremacists are literally picking out Trump's cabinet for him, but it's the liberals and progressives who attract bigots to their side. :rolleyes:

A lot of reichwingers have a hard time reveling in what they are:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/white-supremacist-party-releases-proposed-trump-cabinet-and-its-predictably-bonkers/

[Terahite]

I totally forgot that beta bitch Nick Young put me on ignore! Like that other reichwing dipshit, Starface. :roll:

Donald Trump runs from debates too, so it's understandable why these idiots flock to him.

Trump is the only reason people watched the debates you sack of shit. :yaohappy: