oo there will be a special presentation on the History channel about the 9-11comission but maybe that will be a lie too

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 People will always believe a lie than the truth.

quote:

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

Anyone who takes George Orwell unconditionally serious and literally is a fool - Victor Davis Hanson, Author of Carnage and Culture, Soul of Battle, Between War and Peace : Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq .

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Wasn't the 9-11 truth movement started by family members/friends of the victims family shortly after 9-11 after being disatisfied with the official story and unanswered questions by the goverment? Is that their website?

precisely

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.pht..._Truth_Movement

http://www.911truth.org/article.php...041026093059633

and there are more... here's just a few:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...over-usat_x.htm

http://www.septembereleventh.org/about.php

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/3838/1/174

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/mod...article&sid=596

http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/arc...17/oped/911.php


http://www.house.gov/mckinney/news/pr050722.htm

http://www.truthemergency.us

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto Anyone who takes George Orwell unconditionally serious and literally is a fool - Victor Davis Hanson, Author of Carnage and Culture, Soul of Battle, Between War and Peace : Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq .

And as a military historian, Hanson may have some amazing insight into battles that have already been fought. However, Orwell and Huxley were visionaries who were both generations ahead of their time, while Hanson is merely writing about what has already been said and done.

And for the record, I don't cling to every chapter and verse from Orwell - I just take note of the serious implications that could befall mankind if his notions of a "Big Brother" society controlled by "Thought Police" ever come true - which appears to be happening.

http://www.orwelltoday.com/why.shtml

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/20


http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/lit-med...y1256-des-.html
http://somaweb.org/w/sub/Brave%20Ne...20fulltext.html

Hanson, is an extremely insightful writer because he doesn't just write about battles or conflicts but brings you deeper insight than any one else could. He delivers alternative reasons for events and outcomes. Orwell gives you a broad description of a world that hasn't and will never come true to even 1/10th of the degree he claims it will. The only part of "1984" that applied to our world were the history of the world with different classes and their struggles.

Also, Orwell hated intellectuals.

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid oo there will be a special presentation on the History channel about the 9-11comission but maybe that will be a lie too

Well, as much as I do enjoy watching the History Channel, I also keep in mind that it's owned by A&E Television Networks, a joint venture of Hearst, ABC, and NBC. In other words, I wouldn't expect to see any revelatory information to be presented.

As much of a dork as this is going to make me sound, I like C-Span as I feel it's the last true source of information regarding anything about our government and/or international community.

http://www.c-span.org

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/mod...article&sid=656

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto Also, Orwell hated intellectuals.

But yet he wrote about having "intellectual integrity?"

quote:

Originally posted by George Orwell 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.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X As much of a dork as this is going to make me sound, I like C-Span as I feel it's the last true source of information regarding anything about our government and/or international community.

No C-Span is good. I especially like it when C-Span shows the Bristish politicans debating. It is a lot more exciting and vocal

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto Orwell gives you a broad description of a world that hasn't and will never come true to even 1/10th of the degree he claims it will. The only part of "1984" that applied to our world were the history of the world with different classes and their struggles.

I like how you somehow try to discredit him for not fully describing everything that he was foreseeing, not recollecting, as Hanson is doing.

Orwell's views on a tyrannical one world government are not far from the mark, especially given the current events and the state of todays world.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I like how you somehow try to discredit him for not fully describing everything that he was foreseeing, not recollecting, as Hanson is doing. Orwell's views on a tyrannical one world government are not far from the mark, especially given the current events and the state of todays world.

go out and buy a copy of 1984 in the foreword or the preface they talk a little about his views and how he hated intellectuals and revolutionary thinkers and some other shit.

he wasn't also, reffering to our society, kid. you wouldn't know the first thing about this unless you study his works in college, and not in an english class.

recollecting....I guess the part where I said Hanson offers his OWN VIEWS AND EXPLANATIONS that made no dents....

Let's all hug our little 1984s like a bible.

read fahrenheit 451 next and also apply that to the US

Orwell didn't write the book based on the tyrants around the war though at his time there were many present, he wrote the book because of his essay on the society structure in 1984. He saw that the same pattern with people keeps on re-occuring through out the centuries in all different cultures around the world. He then proceeds to imagine a world where this is suppressed to the fullest. If you also even read the book you remmember that winston lived in london and that the whole world was controlled by different but yet very similiar if not altogether identical "Parties". It's about supression of humanity by the ones who have the power, and whose will is so strong to hold it that they go to extreme measures to redifine our human nature and deeper and beyond.

In 3 years Bush will be out and what then? lol Also, I've heard more than one of my professors on the subject that this book has been applied as an image of our society during varaious presidents, also (something obvious) Russia, Vietnam, Korea, The Balkans, England and many other places around the world...

methinks you missed the actual point of the book.

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

Last edited by Lepanto on Sep-15-2005 at 23:10

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto go out and buy a copy of 1984 in the foreword or the preface they talk a little about his views and how he hated intellectuals and revolutionary thinkers and some other shit. he wasn't also, reffering to our society, kid. you wouldn't know the first thing about this unless you study his works in college, and not in an english class. recollecting....I guess the part where I said Hanson offers his OWN VIEWS AND EXPLANATIONS that made no dents.... Let's all hug our little 1984s like a bible. read fahrenheit 451 next and also apply that to the US Orwell didn't write the book based on the tyrants around the war though at his time there were many present, he wrote the book because of his essay on the society structure in 1984. He saw that the same pattern with people keeps on re-occuring through out the centuries in all different cultures around the world. He then proceeds to imagine a world where this is suppressed to the fullest. If you also even read the book you remmember that winston lived in london and that the whole world was controlled by different but yet very similiar if not altogether identical "Parties". It's about supression of humanity by the ones who have the power, and whose will is so strong to hold it that they go to extreme measures to redifine our human nature and deeper and beyond. In 3 years Bush will be out and what then? lol Also, I've heard more than one of my professors on the subject that this book has been applied as an image of our society during varaious presidents, also (something obvious) Russia, Vietnam, Korea, The Balkans, England and many other places around the world... methinks you missed the actual point of the book.

reffering to our society? methinks you need to brush up on your English a little bit before you attempt to dictate to anyone your personal translation of ANY English literature.

Also, I've always maintained a strong resilience to Orwell's collectivist thought, but I never lost sight of the broader message that he was trying to convey - which was ultimately the antithesis of any fascist/tyrannical dictatorship and/or oligarchy. This was all derived from personal understanding, not brought upon me by any professor's partisan motivations and/or inclinations. And no, contrary to popular opinion, I don't hug any books, not even the bible - but it was nice of you to try and make the failed attempt at understanding.