I speak of polarity inherent in the definition of words rather than the polarity that words represent, though that itself is relevant, good and bad, love and hate, they don't actually exist, it is and that is it. Please don't misunderstand I am not suggesting double plus good as that would require double plus bad, when working from the principle what's best for ALL, polarity is in effect removed, there is no polarity in that.
Have you ever looked at polarity and the way it plays out in our lives
an interesting aspect that I ask you to consider MrE, the inherent polarity and double or multiple interpretations available in our current vocabulary, creates problems rather than allowing us to be free by expression and in that I have for a while wanted to edit the dictionary in much the same way as proposed here, though for the opposite reasons, that once we have rid ourselves of ambiguity, accepted by our acceptance of the inherent polarity in words, we could move forward with true meaning.
@babylonIZfallin I feel that verbal expression is a wonderful thing. The English language is a tool that allows you to verbally express yourself on levels that cannot be attained by many languages, such as Japanese, that focusses on sophisticated Kanji instead. There is no need to simplify language. This will simply lead to an inability to express yourself effectively.
@RockingMrE I disagree MrE when you say ". ...to simplify language. This will simply lead to an inability to express yourself effectively.", though after considering my comments HERE, I REALISE, "each to their OWN", is perhaps the best way forward with this, though, the POINT was, "the inherent polarity and double or multiple interpretations available in our current vocabulary", for instance "shit" means "excrement of the bowels", yet it is used to represent both good and bad when used as slang.
@RockingMrE Language evolves continually, and is based on metaphor and context. To try to fix language in one rigid set of meanings would stultify the language and make it subject to the kind of abuse that Orwell describes.
Ryssia and Irak will attack Israel, eventually, that's prophesy, as the many wars already were predicted. Power takes over the brain to corrupt, and people will believe anything when in a state of trauma, which the conspirators in U.S.A. accieved 9-11. Americans believe anything when in trauma, and even the word peace and freedom will take on a wrong interpretation without questioned. Peace cannot be accieved by war, and freedom is not to kill others for a way of life, how horrid brain-wash.
A interesting and well done video essay. Plus good.
I think Orwell had an excellent insight into they key human weaknesses: why we need to be led, why we believe without proof, why those who desire power must never be trusted, divide and conquer, enslavement, and you'll believe anything if it is told to you often enough.
@MultiErgoproxy I said institutions "like" the Catholic Church. The argument for the needs of the many is the very type of altruism that ends up enslaving mankind through collectivist oppression. You should check out some Ayn Rand. Also check out my vid "Principles for Living." We can only ask for a world that allows us all to pursue happiness, and we cannot infringe upon the happiness of another. Utilitarian arguments are flawed. It's wrong to sacrifice others for thec collective.
@RockingMrE One more thing. If you truly understand plutarchies, plutocracies, or even kleptocracies and crony capitalism then we would be having a very different conversation. No one owes anyone anything, and people should prove their worth to you before you value them. As long as the sytem we live in allows for people to pursue happiness without infringing uon the liberty of others then this is the best we can ask. Altruistic collectivism is a false ideology that leads to tyranny every time.
@RockingMrE The logical fallacy that the "collective ideaology"...somehow pertains to US, and always did, when it NEVER did, and always did come FROM those at the top. The PUREST form of a Republic, is every man for himself, with a common law NOT OVER, but IN-BETWEEN each individual man, for commerce, etc. Otherwise it is COMMUNISM (Common Units (you) + FORCED Unity = Community + Belief in EQUAL slavery = Communism, a Forced Collective on below, from ABOVE, for service = ALL the "-isms".
@MultiErgoproxy The world has been dominated by institutions like the Catholic Church and states, which are collectivist entities. This is far form individualism. Many people don't understand that corporations and states go hand in hand - they work together to control the masses. Think of corporations as feudal lords and you will see what I mean. We live in a Neo-Feudalist society, and it's only when a crisis sets in that you can truly see how little you matter.
Your best vid yet,People need to see this and the history of this filth. This is no way to live if one stands up for this type of sickness they truly need the help and are very sick in the head. I see no way you could be helped their mind is dammd !!
@MultiErgoproxy I'm not stressed by your comments :-) I ask that you look at history before you judge that collectivism makes someone more morally righteous than individualists. Many Libertarians DO care about humanity - I most certainly do. They just see the fallibility of humanity too. If you think you can tame the beast of the state as it grows more totalitarian through taxation and diminishment of liberty then it's a fool's erand, and history tells us so. It's not the solution.
@RockingMrE The scale you question is basically what is highlighted on the political compass. But either way Socialism usually starts out great. But as the pyramid scheme collapses it always leaves chaos in its wake. If anything it is anarchy that hasn't truly been tried, and with the knowledge that humanity now has I feel that with the right philosophical enlightenment this is the future. The state is nothing but a machine of violence that infects humanity. It is a dated and flawed model.
@RockingMrE Interestingly enough, if you look VERY closely at the massive Empires, it is always the same, in that the ponzi scams are SUPPOSED to LOOK and ALMOST make you "feel free"...as the game drags out into the Rule of 72...it is crunch time, because the game MUST crunch you and collapse, to do it again. ALL of the preceeding models were absolute failures, because they ALL failed. If you have to constantly rename it to make it work until it collapses...well, that equals a failure.
@MultiErgoproxy What I'm implying is that collectivism is a slippery slope to totalitarianism. I would put Libertarian Socialism in its most watered down form at the most positive end of the scale, and a completely authoritarian form of Marxism like USSR at the most negative end. Socialism is great when there is enough money to go round, but once the debt kicks in (which is inevitable) you soon find that you are paying a lot of money for very little.
@RockingMrE What this argument really comes down to is idealism from Socialists where they believe they can change the world through altruism. They can't, and all it leads to is diminishment of liberty. Socialism always fails in the end. No one has the right to take away another's liberty for a Socialist dream, and no one has the right to sell their liberty away either. We all have unalienable rights. As long as you have the freedom to pursue happiness then that is all you can ask for.
@RockingMrE That is why, Mr. E, you shall find that "Socialism" goes hand in hand with Pyramid Schemes. It always fails...they know that, yet...the point is to NOT stop it from failing, it is to have it fail, so they can grab up the property the generations successfully created during the old Pyramid Scheme, going into the new one. All the "-isms" are the same- It is a monarchy, and you ain't the boss. Always has been, always will be...unless...well...we are working on that, aren't we? We ARE.
@MultiErgoproxy Libertarian Socialism is where totalitarianism usually starts. But the point is that the slope is slippery because taxes feed the states. As it gets larger it becomes more oppressive. Look at tyranny in history and the pattern is the same. Large states always end up becoming more totalitarian because larger states are nigh on impossible to control. This is the deal we make with the devil. If you sacrfiice liberty for "altruism" then you are setting yourself up for a fall.
@RockingMrE Corporations are part of the mechanism of state control. Hitler used coroporations partly in the manner you mentioned, but today in the West corporations use lobbying and privately funded election money to bribe politicians. Ultimately however the elites behind this facade are the ones that drive the system in their favour. It is an illusion of freedom and in reality liberty is not something that should be "traded" for anything - liberty is too valuable.
@MultiErgoproxy The classic argument to defend radical gender theory is that sexuality and gender are two seperate things. Well, they ARE somewhat seperate, but this STILL totally ignores the "nature" aspect of what makes us who we are. You ask why everyone uses PC. Well, they don't. It is only used against the "oppressive majority". White Christians for example cannot really use PC because they are considered to be the majority. Leftists get to stipulate who is "protected" by PC.
@RockingMrE One more thing. If you genuinely want to understand where I am coming from regarding PC then check out my video "Politically Correct Marxism". This will also give you an insight into the roots of PC.
@MultiErgoproxy The very nature and belligerence of your comment indicates you are a radically inclined individual who would deny biology in favour of sociological arguments. Your ignorance regarding PC's roots also speaks volumes. PC is derived from Cultural Marxist agenda which takes its roots back to the Frankfurt School after WW1, and the think-tank that was first formed there. It is designed to shut people up who disagree with the New Left formed after the civil rights movement of the 60's.
@RockingMrE I'm male but have little interest in trad. male activity, but neither do I have a great particular interest in trad. female activities. This may well be due to diff. in my brain - having older brothers increases the chances of homosexuality as the mothers immune system attacks the male foetus feminising its brain, so perhaps my bisexuality and behaviour is rooted in physical differences. I do think social sit. amplify the small physical diff. polarising behaviour in adult life.
Sorry, the comment space is too small or my ideas are not clear enough... So my argument is somewhere in the middle. The physical difference's in the brain between men and women are small, but a lifetime in social situations leads to radically different behaviour. The level of polarisation today comes from society's expectations, not really anything innate. A change in that thinking wouldn't be bad for someone like me, biologically male, has to put up with expectations against my nature.
@Dnomyarification Interesting comments. I'm not sure how easy it is to prove that the second male is more likely to be bisexual. If you have proof of this then please send it to me, as I'm interested. No one is denying that nature AND nurture are factors that make us who we are. But to deny the extreme power of nature is fruitless. I am all for relaxing societal gender roles, but I hate radical gender neutral parenting because it artificially inflicts a worldview on the child.
@RockingMrE With you on radical gender neutral parenting but one should recognise that you may subconsciously inflict a world view from society that is against the child's nature. A well referenced wikipedia article on fraternal birth order and increased chances of homosexuality in empirical studies. Search wikipedia for Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation. Seems its all fairly recent research and needs further investigation, haven't looked at sample size they had.
Great vid, man. 1984 is one of my favorite books. I've noticed the very same similarities in his fictional future and our present reality too. However, this is one of the best presentations of it I've seen. It's scary how accurate he was. Thanks, man. Great Job!
Education £? Food £? Mortgage 3 bed £? Car new £? Petrol work £? Holiday for two £? Healthcare headache £? Music who? Tv £? Computer £? Clothing chic £? Hairdresser £? Sportsnight £? Pet Shop £? Side of Beef £? Pizza £? Decorating £? Home Improvements £? Birthday Party £? week to week.
bravo,bravo rockingmre really well edited and your voice over was flawless. loving this new format and i can really appreciate the amount of work that you had to put into it. i do find myself asking the question was 1984 a work of fiction or was orwell privy to the plans of the elite. i guess we will never know,but what we can recognize is that our own societies are following the same model and the out look is just as bleak. here's to the world raising up against the tyranny of the few. peace.
@2bsirius So do you endorse gender neutral theory? I would add before you answer however that this is NOT the same as a society where gender roles can be less rigid.
I have no idea what 'gender neutrality is, so no I don't 'endorse' it.
My point was exclusively about Orwell and 1984 and your use of him to support arguments he never made. I don't intend to expand my comments into a lot of gender theory, I do think louisandbob has a good point. A lot of the subtext of some arguments is to label and classify some large portions of humanity as 'different' and therefore destined to behave in certain [often defective] ways.
@2bsirius When you analytically consider a piece of work then it requires that you make your own arguments on top of what another has made. Thus I don't agree with you that I've somehow made arguments Orwell hasn't made because this is missing the point. In actual fact I was comparing Orwell's book to today's world - imagining what he would think if you will.
"When you analytically consider a piece of work then it requires that you make your own arguments on top of what another has made."
You were either doing an analysis of Orwell or you were making your own arguments. Instead you seem to be claiming that your position & Orwell's are the same. They most definitely are not the same. He would not recognize some of the attitudes you're trying to ascribe to him.
@2bsirius "You were either doing an analysis of Orwell or you were making your own arguments."
It escapes me why you think this is an either or situation. You claim Orwell wouldn't recognise the arguments I presented, and yet this video shows quite clearly the similarities between his fictional novel and our own world. Orwell greatly understood how totalitarianism takes hold.
I get the impression you're defending Socialism, as opposed to a view that I have somehow bastardised Orwell.
I agree that for Orwell the critical issue in the novel "1984" is an exploration of the patterns of totalitarianism and how those patterns can be understood to subvert and destroy a culture.
The subversion results in the novel's denouement scene of Winston Smith's torture including the critical line, "Do it to Julia.." In that line he denounces her and is forced to relinquish his loyalty to her. "
@2bsirius Well, on your point here we can agree. Part of the story does revolve around Winston and Julia losing their humanity. I just feel that there are a multitude of other angles to the book, which I've discussed with you already.
Both the dénouement and the climax revolve around the facts of what happens to Winston Smith and to a lesser extent Julia at the hands of a totalitarian state. All the other elements both you and I have discussed are culminated in that, so I don't think it's just "part of the story," but is its final central focus.
Theres that instinct in man to hate that next man over the hill. Its a primal survival instinct which is easy to manipulate in many people who fail to see that their fellow man is their brother and not an enemy.
Hitler used the Jews. Its an obvious link that Orwell used Emmanual Goldstein.
His "Ministry of Peace" is another obvious link to reality. We no longer have a Ministry of War but a Ministry of Defence.
And how people were brainwashed was based on Russian/Chinese gulags etc!!!
@2bsirius Can you elaborate? I was talking specifically about erroneous gender theory being implemented through PC, as opposed to less rigid gender roles in society. If you're talking about my comments on family then I stand by them - the state can't replace the role of mother and father. I'll be expanding on this in the future. I have flexible views about men and women raising children, as long as it's a stable environment with two parents involved wherever practically possible.
The problem for me is that you used 1984 to extrapolate on points that have nothing to do with the book. Yes, very generally, Orwell is speaking about how human beings can be persuaded, manipulated and coerced into unquestioning deference to authority & also very generally, it's very possible to draw the conclusion that that can stem from the state co-opting the role of a parent, but the bulk of your opinions about 'PC' are your own and have nothing to do with Orwell or with 1984.
@2bsirius I feel you're being selective about what is my opinion and what isn't given that I created a critique (backed with evidence) of Orwell's novel compared to our world. Check out a video of mine called 'Politically Correct Marxism' for more info about the roots of PC.
Also check out Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language' for a look at how it relates to PC. Justice should be blind and no one should attain special treatment under the law in a society built on true liberty.
@RockingMrE One more thing, I don't think Orwell was being very general when he wrote 1984. I actually think he had great insight, and it's very apparent through his essays and fiction that this is true. This is what this video highlights most of all.
Sure he writes that people over 30 being frightened of their own [horrible] children, & is critical of unquestioned authority.Show me WHERE in the novel Orwell makes any points about the role of women as care givers though.
I'm familiar with "Politics and the English Language." Orwell is spot on in his criticism of English, [and he's particularly faulting academic English]. It does have too many long words, clichés, etc. That says nothing in favour of your arguments though.
@2bsirius Political speech is something that is used to hide an ulterior motive, hence the reason why I suggested you check out my video "Politically Correct Marxism", which elaborates on the agenda of PC.
i don't mention ONLY women being caregivers. My point was regarding the family unit, and particularly single parent homes, rising divorce culture, and how the two-parent family is being eroded by radical idealism.
@2bsirius Yes I was. Refer to Orwell's belief that political language is used to misguide others. I keep asking you to check out my video "Politically Correct Marxism". If you don't wish to then I don't see how you can see what I mean when I state PC is an ideology masquerading as altruistic.
@2bsirius I disagree with what you are saying to MrE, that you can NOT draw a comparrison, I think the parts he provided in his Film are very accurate in depicting what the book(1984) tries to put over to humanity as a warming. Perhaps you should more accurately look at it this way- the book is a work of fiction that is an artistic encapsulation of what "real-life" is like today, instead of the other way round where persons say reality reflects the book. Is'nt that more logical argument- realism
The point is not that MrE can't do whatever he likes. However, if he is using Orwell as the BASIS for his conclusions then he might want to makes sure that his departures for Orwell's thinking is clear to his viewers. If he is no longer speaking of Orwell's, but of his own thinking, he could delineate the shift. He doesn't do that
As of the accuracy of his schematic summation of 1984, yes, up to about frame 9:00 his summary is very general, but it is FAIRLY faithful to the book
@2bsirius He is free to do whatever he likes, and draw whatever conclusions he wants, for it is his channel. I don't think it is right to try and corner the channel owner- when he is trying to draw attention to important concepts society faces today.Do your own upload if you disagree, put forwards your own conclusions in private, but dont keep trying to nail the guy! I'm not even clear on the distinction you are making to be fair!What is the point you are making about the separation in your view
I'm not trying to corner anyone. I was pointing out inconsistencies.
If viewers, most of whom haven't read 1984, want to accept that this is presenting Orwell without bias, nothing I say will chance that.
It's one set of propaganda talking points (MrE's) being substituted for another set of propaganda talking points, those of the totalitarian state in 1984.
There is nothing in this video about the real crux of the novel. The eradication of Winson Smith & Julia's autonomy.
@2bsirius "There is nothing in this video about the real crux of the novel. The eradication of Winson Smith & Julia's autonomy."
That's only a fraction of what the novel was about. 1984 is really a story of how totalitarianism can be implemented by a state that conceals its true motives of power. Autonomy of the individual is something that is lost when liberty does not ensue. See the end of the video if you don't believe me. Here is the full 2 min version:
That is exactly my point! TOTALITARIANISM IN ALL OR ANY OF ITS FORMS. My problem is that this video makes it sound as if 1984 is a simplistic screed against Marxism, and it most definitely is NOT! Yes, Orwell was thinking of Stalinism BUT he was equally thinking of Hitler and Nazism.
The boot stamping on the human face eradicating human emotion could as easily be a neo-Nazi boot or the boot of a ruthless, Machiavellian media mogul, the initials RM as of a retro-thinking Marxist.
@2bsirius Hitler used Socialism to get what he wanted in the beginning. While there is a difference between Libertarian Socialism and more absolute versions of it, it's really a slippery slope as the state gets larger, and thus more difficult to control. As Hitler gained more money from the people through taxation, and then more power, he used this money to implement a larger army and police the people. Socialism is like making a deal with the devil - you risk your freedom.
Bloody good show MrE. Private Frazer knew it when he said "We're doomed!" Or are we? What is the alternative to this world order and if there was one would the masses want it? Have we went too far now for us to stop and consider alternatives or have we been fed too much bromide to know or care if there are? Good wee wake-up call this morning MrE.
@tatiebogle The alternative is that the masses simply STOP participating. It will be most peaceful revolution in history. The trouble is that the masses have been divided and corrupted by greed, consumerism, and power. Most people don't even have the critical skills to analyse and understand that we are helpless in the present system.
@SEThatered Your point about oil is compelling. Using finite resources to run and power an economy is a disaster waiting to happen. Whether one believes in global warming or not, this is a reality that cannot be escaped.
@SEThatered He was real from what all evidence can suggest they are how ever conspearicy theories suggesting that he did not die ingnoring the fact that the reason trough him quickly to the sea was that A they did not want to bury him somewhere where supporters could admire him and that in islam proper you have too bury people by24 hours after there death how ever this backfired as the suppoorters still admire and tribute him where was killed.
P 2 Turkish, Finnish for an exampel have less gender distinctions than English but most Turks and Finns do not think that gender is a social construct anyway.
Old English hade way more gender than modern English with hade grammatical gender where every noun was inflected in masculin, feminime or neutrem this distiction has been lost in modern english. For me it is a genetic fallacy to presume that for an example not having gender based prounons would mean that one denies gender.
P 1 Last 2 comment for now. Even if I think the video was welldone I think it lacked nuance and sometimes sides with questionable conspearicies, And sometimes verged into fear mongering and judgmental opinions on the working class intrests and what most of them wish to do in the free time. I want to comment on the language question, Even if I do not like politics deciding linguistic evolution. Taking away gender distinction in English would only be that taking away gender distictions.
Great job pulling 1984 since fiction into today’s science facts. We are too stupid to see what is happening to us. As you get sucked into your favorite TV show or video game you will notice that large amounts of time are being wasted not thinking about reality. And as a bonus the powers that be can propagandize the hell out of you at the same time. Read the Communist party manifesto. All they wanted to inflict on society has been completed. We need to wake up now.
@Bassmarko What communist party ? How ever if we go by communist idealogy as in general idea or following the communist manifesto by Marx that is incorrect I have yet to see the following revolution by the working class, devolopment of the dictatorship of the prolitariat , futher spread of the revolution and when the entire world is in the dictatorship of the proletariat all propety, state, nation and money shall wither away so that one can have pure communism.
@Eopyk Congressional Record Jan 10, 1963. Goals of the Communist Party USA.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties. 17- Get control of the schools use for Communist propaganda. control teachers'. 20- Infiltrate the press. 27- Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. 40- Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. (Google it)
I read 1984 when I was in College (in 1973) and I remember one of my Professor's referring to it regularly during her lectures on history.
I'd enjoy saying that I was an activist against the encroachment of our civil liberties but, alas, that would be a lie. I gleefully drank the Statist kool-aide and partied and carried on in willful ignorance, until I lost my job and home. Then I woke up.
I'm reminded of the book every day I hear any news.
People only accept that the system is rigged, when it fucks them over. When something bad happens to you, and the system doesnt care, and keeps demanding money. At some point, you give up trying to please it.
Then you see it, everywhere you go, tricking other people, into the same traps - but they dont want to accept it, because they have to keep moving, to pay the machine.
As long as they can, they run around, to feed it with money !
@King100Joe@RockingMrE@RobertHartlepool Thank you all for your feedback. I do not believe the middle class is the most evil. I believe that it is the ultra rich that are the most evil. The middle class is brainwashed by the politicians bought by the aforementioned evil; they remain fearful and ignorant. The fact is (as it has always been) the ruled outnumber the rulers. There has always been some sort of "spark", if you will, that acts as a catalyst for reform. I remain hopeful for one.
Constant war? The level of violence has been decreasing not increasing. You shouldnt base your arguments on news reports. Relative to population there used to be a lot more warfare before.
@Darvinisti The argument that war has been decreasing is justifed relative to population. But if you look at the 20th Century it's obscene to use this argument when so many people have died in war. Also, the news is an entity that doesn't report on the true bloodshed of war in the present time. It's easy to claim there is no perpetual war when you can escape it, but try telling this to those who have no choice but to become soldiers due to lack of opportunity.
@RockingMrE Why is it obscene? Relative number of people dying do to war has decreased in the 20th century. So many have died but so many times more have not. You have to stick to relativity here. You cant just choose to ignore it to argue your point. Its irrelevant how easy it is to tell this to a child soldier. And by the its easy. Truth remains the same no matter to whom you tell it. Have you any data on the lenghts or wars in history?
@Darvinisti I've come across this argument before but it's flawed. For starters there is no true way to know how many people died in wars relative to population in other centuries due to biased sources, particularly in much earlier periods. Here's a link that shows the amount of people that died in 20th Century conflicts:
scaruffi. com/ politics/ massacre. html
If this is progress then I despair. The 20th Century was the most "efficient" century for mass slaughter in history.
Auctually today it less wars than it was in the past. In fact tofay ever since we have dettled in areas and hade argiculture it is was one of the more peacefull. Then another note democracies are seldom at war with one another. That is another aspects one has to think about often totalitarian regimes are the ones being agressive. Stephen Picker pointed out that in pre-historic hunter gather societies most men died in homocide or in warefare. More or less.
P 2 In it's worse cases if one compared the relative number of deaths in both cases in terms of numbers of deaths then for an example an ancient genocide Germany brought more death by % then even the second world war if I remember the facts correct. War have always existed often it is the result of the demograohic preassure counter enviormental preassure. But other reason exist as well.
@RockingMrE If there is no way of knowing the number of casualties, then thats not an argument for your claim is it. If 20th century would be the only decade which is known then you cant say that we are heading towards constant war. Even inside the 20th century we can see a decline in wars. As all evidence points againts your claim why do you still try do defend it? Im very disappointed with the level on your arguments. First it was emotinal arguments and now double stantards.
@RockingMrE With double standarsd I mean your claims about how we cannot know the deathtolls of historical wars and that last century was the bloodiest. Either we have knowledge on previous centuries or we dont. And just by claiming my argument is flawed doesnt make it so. Check out Stephen Pinkers TED talk about the history of violence.
@Darvinisti Great comments :) The only problem is that Mr E belives that the state is what creates violance even if there is no evidence for that in fact it shows that states reduce violance he has the state as his absolute black sheep.
P 2 The most violent cultures that exists are stateless and hunter gathers I also read alot from diffrent sources for the many diffrent reason for these type of violance. For one example from Marvin Harris an antropologist can see that where there is low tribal and demographic preassure counter the enviromental preassure tend to have less war then in areas where the recources are small compared to the number of tribes or people where war is high. How ever this is one of many reasons
@Eopyk To say that stateless societies are the most violent shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how people exist in their environment. You have no evidence that people kill for the sake of it, but there is ample evidence that people will live peacefully if they are no under pressure. In fact historians and anthropologists show that people lived well in ancient times if there was no pressure on resources. This is easy to see in healthy bone samples alone.
@Darvinisti It's not an either or situation. We have to accept that opposing sides would claim to have done more killing than their opponents, though bones on historical battlegrounds would help us build a better picture. We can make very good estimates regarding the size of the population in the past. I'm honest enough to admit that even in the 20th Century some estimates for casualties might be a bit skewered, But when push comes to shove it's semantics. The 20th Century was the bloodiest.
@RockingMrE If you believe wars have declined in the 20th Century then you need to learn about the nature of war, and why the population has beeen permitted to become so high in relation to population. The ruling class saw the benefit in a larger population so that productivity would increase. Secondly it's a strawman to claim wars are less in the 20th Century when we had the worst wars in history.
@RockingMrE You confuse wars with more powerfull weapons with extent of war. The wars of the past was more and in many cases hade more deaths in relative to the population but modern war seem more extreme because of the massive media reports and the fact that the weapons are more dangerous today.
But as said your basic argument have no support in facts it makes your fear mongerer.
@Eopyk Jasmine you clearly lack the understanding that the world is being globalised by the same elites, the 2% that own all the wealth. The media and the govt are the ones NOT reporting the truth of war, so spare me the doublethink. You claim that you understand productivity, and yet you use an argument about increased productivity being achieved by a larger population. This is EXACTLY what the ruling class know, and they have used it to generate growth. I mentioned it too in a comment here.
@RockingMrE You know what? I'm sick of this. Every time I make a video you come out against any view that chlallenges authority. You are completely subdued, just like Swedes are renowned for. You claim to be about liberty and yet you promote lies through cultural marxism, like gender theory and women's studies. You are a totalitarian, just like your country that lies about not being corrupt when in truth it supported Hitler and implemented eugenics for decades. (cont)
@RockingMrE Gender neutral schools could only ever begin in a crazy place like Sweden, where it is rape to have unprotected sex with a woman. It's time for you to move on Jasmine. I've had enough of you dragging me into bigoted defences of fascism and totalitarianism. Good luck trying to create your Marxist utopia in Sweden. Just know that people like me will always fight tyranny from fascists who don't respect liberty. I'm blocking you - enough is enough and I've been more than patient.
@RockingMrE One more thing. Even people like Proteanview and Gottatfunk understand the world is falling to tyranny, and they have very liberal views in many regards. You on the other hand are happy to stand like a rabbit staring at headlights. You clearly haven't got a clue how CPI and RPI are used to manipulate inflation, and how this has reduced wages while cheap labour and credit are to make people THINK their lives are better. I'll be glad not to go through this with you week after week.
@RockingMrE Fucking hell man, hats off to you being so considerate of them for such a long time, but this was a nut job, the mark of the beast was inside her limbic system my friend. The comments were so convoluted they would have sent you as mad as they are. Madness is what these persons want its about putting their ills onto others. You cant crack a nut, if the nut has got you sat deep inside the shell with them! This is the WAR. You got to be outside with the hammer!
@RockingMrE At first you agreed that "The argument that war has been decreasing is justifed relative to population." and now you state the opposite. WTF
@Darvinisti ·Yes war relative to population has been rather low in the 20th Century, which I already stated. But it doesn't change the quantity of killings in this century far outweighing any other. Also, the only reason we have such a large population is because the ruling class saw the benefits of a larger one during the industrial revolution, and this is a big reason why our quality of life increased too. You are trying to draw me into one-dimensional arguments.
@RockingMrE That is bullshit. Read some Stephen Pciker evolutionary psychologist. No the standard of living tend to decrease with population growth unless production becomes effecient that is what has happend.
@RockingMrE Well obviously the quantity for everything is higher as the population is higher. As I pointed out earlier, more people have NOT been killed by war in the 20th century then ever before. Im sorry, but this level of argument is too ridicilous for me. By just looking at absolute numbers in an increasing population you can similarly argue for any point you want by just choosing one part of the picture.
@Darvinisti Men are becoming more evil because they rape more women now then ever! People are becoming worse drivers since more people are killed in car accidents!
When you can decide as to what side the same facts point then its not about the truth. Then its just about propaganda. Then its just about how many simple minded can you persuade.
@Darvinisti You're missing the point. War is not even measured in the same manner anymore, which is precisely what Orwell warned against. Libya is NOT war according to Obama. In fact the West has been getting involved in the Middle East for decades under the premise of freedom, or covertly via the CIA. I'm not sure how I even got dragged into the amount of people being killed in war - it's not relevant to what I said in this vid. To understand the price of war you need to understand the reason.
@RockingMrE Like I keep saying, I agree that the amount of war based deaths is largely similar in the 20th century compared to others, but it certainly hasn't decreased, as you would suggest. In fact war hasn't really ended in some shape or form throughout the 20th Century. In reality this is always the way it has been, though now it is being disguised with Orwellian doublethink through war based terminology, making people think that we live in times of peace - aka WAR IS PEACE ;-)
@Darvinisti That is true people die less of war today than in the past. In fact we live in oen of the most peacefull areas overall that we know of. That makes what Mr E is doing light fear mongering. As I have stated and as been said by Stephen Picker we in pre-historic hunter gather soceities the most common form of death was homocide and war for men in general. I got pissed of watching this abuse of Orwell for light fear mongering that tries to paint modern reality as stalinism..
And the reason it is made that way, is because those who trael the world freely, and have no restraints whatsoever, benefot much more from dumbed down people, like in this vid, than people who like trabel, or adventure. They are COMPETITION, for the resources available !
But those who can eat mushy peas, every day, and not see a problem, are IDEAL.
Just take a look around you, and see who profits the most - it is those who can sit still, and repeat, repeat, repeat !
@Eopyk Jasmine all your evidence comes from accepting authority implicitly. You are one of the least inclined people to critically think for yourself I've come across, though it doesn't surprise me given that you come from Sweden. If you accept everything that you're told then you should take a good look at the Milgram experiment. Authority has always basically ended up corrupted in some shape or form - FACT.
@RockingMrE There is no conspiracy in this video. If you don't agree with my argument about Bin Laden being a boogeyman that's your choice. But you clearly have no ability to accept that we are walking into a police state like we've never had before, and the wars we are experiencing now are unique given that they aren't even being properly reported. Libya isn't even counted as a war! I can't debate with you anymore Jasmine. You are completely brainwashed by authority.
@RockingMrE As for you comments about breaking down gender language, you are using yet another flawed argument. The English language allows a great deal of expression, and more than most. Masculine and Feminine nouns are a form of expression that deserve to exist, despite cultural marxist nonsense. Once again though you show that you can't respect that Cultural Marxism is a false idol based on flawed and dishonest theories. I will never get you to see reason. I give up.
@jancrowb What are you talking about- with respect you must live in a bubble- Life is orwellian- you should hear about some of the family court cases I have known. Plus It can not be as overt as 1984 otherwise human beings would reject it- the real 1984 is woven inside the fabric of society for men with Misandry and other elements. You're just not educated to this!
@apekillssnake we still are able to criticise the state, the fact that you are now saying what you want to say on youtube, is proof to this. we are not under big brother 'yet', but yes this is the way we are heading. I am in civil court yet again later this month so I do know how the legal system operates.
@jancrowb You may feel you are able to speak out against the state in your ignorance of how free-speech actually works- which is to set up the impression of an equilibrium. A classic example of individuals world-views here. A volcano just errupted out of the top of my head- I could show you so many proofs that what you believe is so wrong- if you are going into a civil or private court your case may even be used to show balance. Family law or politicans e.g like to use these cases to mask truth!
@apekillssnake I am not going to get involved in an arguement with you. but a word of advice, please dont make assumptions about total strangers, as I am a total stranger to you. in respect RockingMrEs video, I will not argue with you. but please dont be so arrogant, as to think that you know me well enough to make assumptions.
what is funny is that I believe Orwells real name was infact Gorden Blair or something like that- a true story... Hmmm where have we heard those names from before??
i'm reading the boook the party about the communist party in china. They even use orwellian names like the central organization bureau. So corrupt is the party it is probably worse then the worst excesses of kmt.
@JulianThePhilosopher The PRC is a real piece of work. In my opinion no one should be getting involved with China in its present totalitarian form. But once again these damn corporations benefit by the cheap labour it provides, when all the while jobs are being transferred from Western shores.
@RockingMrE yea, its really screwed up the PRC, what they do is they sell their exchange on the currency market. keeping the currency undervalued, while accumulating huge reserves and high exports. The current account surplus it runs with the west is unstainable. As orwellian as it sounds, the armed forces has total loyalty to the party (not country). Everyone wants to be a party member as it opens privillages (90 million party members). Run by a powerful group of elites, as orwell predicted.
Outstanding E. Very good job. I'm a big fan of Orwell so there isn't anything I'd disagree with. Personally I've been hoping the 'Brave New World' version, at least you get drugs and can screw around a lot : D I certainly am sticking with 'movement' but sometimes... I was listening to an old Kate Bush tune. ' Can't do anything, just watch them swing with the wind out to sea'... kind of sums it up for me sometimes.
I was thinking about you yesterday. I'm glad you're back.
Yet another one by you to add to my favorites! Also, it's interesting that the masses have also done quite a bit on their own to "streamline" and butcher the language down to simple phrases and meaningless acronyms. The internet is rife with them.
Orwell said one of the only things left for us in this world would be self-abasement and slavery to the state. As I look around, this is all I see. People are truly punishing themselves out of pure frustration of not having any answers as to why all of this horror is beset upon their lives. We punish ourselves because we are helpless to actually change the face of this inhospitable atmosphere of which we are the integral connection. WE ARE INDEED SLAVES and need redemption.
@regardingme1 I disagree- it is only the power of Governments to use lethal force, that stops me- Historically civil wars have proven we loose! At least Spartacus had a fighting chance- If civil law broke down tomorrow or nature stopped society from functioning I know what I would be doing! Man I would be going after Lawyers and Court Judges like nobodies business! Murder would be on my mind and only murder, sadly we all have to live by civilized societies value system unless you want to go nuts
@apekillssnake there is other force aside from lethal force....force of mind, force of denial, force indifference. We are guilty. War is only one way of destruction. You just wrote that it would take civil war for you to go after lawyers and judges. Why are you not doing it now? In all due respect, you are waiting because you are punishing yourself now, you are self-abasing. We all are doing it...unless we take a stand in some other way, we choose to suffer and remain enslaved.
@regardingme1 Yeh that's going right in! Im with you my leader. LOL Have you heard of the terrorist profiling theory "the couple of guys" I forget what psychologist came up with it, its very interesting, I just thought I would put that out there! I dont do it, because I know I would not get enough of them before I was stopped that is why I pray for civil war or natural catastrophe! Look at Roul Mout or Bird how these cases were completely covered up in the media. No, the one off is a mugs game
@apekillssnake You are correct. I don't dare shoot up who I really want to. I also pray that the ball starts to roll and heads with it! I sometimes think we are in hell because we are so helpless yet have all the strength and could take the bastards out in a minute but we just can't get together collectively to just do it. Having power but no way to use it is hell.
@regardingme1 A technically creative force can free us- just like pulling off a Bank Job makes you rich, we have to become smarter or more lucky!- for when man sets his mind to this, he can be truly great- the greatest! I think I might be a little bit further along down the line with this, than you are- It has to come from within mans will-to-power. Man holds up the World on bended knee, he just has to realize this- use the power of myth, put the right symbols in place and stand up!
@regardingme1 well that energy may come from ubermensch(the other you)via a quantum mind type set up or randomness in nature- we may reach a critical mass MRA's and the pineal gland may make something happen. The first Mayan Calendar and before this undocumented was about sets, and the father and son was very much conjoined into that process- then there was the long count that ends 2012 which is interesting. I've meditated on it, do you known anything about the Buddhist monks who self-mummified
I'm so done with 1984. The one book everyone pretends they have read and arrogantly tell others to read, as if it is the be all and end all of literature. It's the Radio 1 of literature, or at least thats what it has turned into. It's like 'Isms' The general understandings of these things are based upon tabloid simplifications that are more than a little outdated. But we all like using those word inc Orwellian because they make us sound educated. (Thats not personally directed at you MrRE)
@JustB3NJI Maybe the reason why people talk about it so much is because it rings true. I often find that Socialists hate 1984 because it offends them (not directed at you). Would you claim that Romeo & Juliet is the Radio 1 of romance stories because it's so popular? When we live in a world where perpetual war is kinetic action, and the family is subservient to the state, and many other comparisons that rign true, then I think it would be foolish to ignore such a powerful story as 1984.
@RockingMrE In my experience it's been socialists that have persistantly tried to get me to read it, namely all my sociology teachers. I love fiction and dont want to imply novelists can't teach people some through fiction. But it's exactly why I made myself unpopular in those Sociology classes when going on an major rant about why we were using South Park to illustrate themes. Fiction is not fact. For me an Atheists to use fiction in such a manner on any subject for me is two faced.
@JustB3NJI I think you should check out Orwell's essay on nationalism. He was far from simply an author. There is a lot of deep meaning and understanding in Orwell's writing and he was a very special author that is quite easily one the of the greatest of all time. The bottom line though is that to truly write great fiction it easy to argue that you should understand reality first.
Shakespeare is overrated to me. He wasn't exactly popular in his time, forever trying to win over the Queen and being forced to move to Soho. He was almost like a Matt and Trey (south park) of his time. It is the views of academics that tell us he is amazing, and that is simply them justyfying their love affair with his work. He's legacy is his story structure far more than the actual stories, and there meaning aint always clear. Did he almost shag his mother?
there is a resistance for all of this
infowars dot com
AuroraSunset 5 months ago
That was awesome, keep up the good work
zegermandude 5 months ago
hey its General Tarkin of Star Wars 3:13
painsey 6 months ago
Excellent clip.
RebelRadius 7 months ago
the prols are the "chavs"
molimhvalaizvoli 7 months ago
I speak of polarity inherent in the definition of words rather than the polarity that words represent, though that itself is relevant, good and bad, love and hate, they don't actually exist, it is and that is it. Please don't misunderstand I am not suggesting double plus good as that would require double plus bad, when working from the principle what's best for ALL, polarity is in effect removed, there is no polarity in that.
Have you ever looked at polarity and the way it plays out in our lives
babylonIZfallin 7 months ago
an interesting aspect that I ask you to consider MrE, the inherent polarity and double or multiple interpretations available in our current vocabulary, creates problems rather than allowing us to be free by expression and in that I have for a while wanted to edit the dictionary in much the same way as proposed here, though for the opposite reasons, that once we have rid ourselves of ambiguity, accepted by our acceptance of the inherent polarity in words, we could move forward with true meaning.
babylonIZfallin 7 months ago
@babylonIZfallin I feel that verbal expression is a wonderful thing. The English language is a tool that allows you to verbally express yourself on levels that cannot be attained by many languages, such as Japanese, that focusses on sophisticated Kanji instead. There is no need to simplify language. This will simply lead to an inability to express yourself effectively.
RockingMrE 7 months ago
@RockingMrE I disagree MrE when you say ". ...to simplify language. This will simply lead to an inability to express yourself effectively.", though after considering my comments HERE, I REALISE, "each to their OWN", is perhaps the best way forward with this, though, the POINT was, "the inherent polarity and double or multiple interpretations available in our current vocabulary", for instance "shit" means "excrement of the bowels", yet it is used to represent both good and bad when used as slang.
babylonIZfallin 7 months ago
@babylonIZfallin Point taken :-)
RockingMrE 7 months ago
@RockingMrE Language evolves continually, and is based on metaphor and context. To try to fix language in one rigid set of meanings would stultify the language and make it subject to the kind of abuse that Orwell describes.
ClaireSapphyck 4 months ago
George Orwell predicted allot of this & it would be good to heed his warning!
crypter27 8 months ago
Yes the people are the enemies of the ruling class,they are the enemines of humanity!
crypter27 8 months ago
Ryssia and Irak will attack Israel, eventually, that's prophesy, as the many wars already were predicted. Power takes over the brain to corrupt, and people will believe anything when in a state of trauma, which the conspirators in U.S.A. accieved 9-11. Americans believe anything when in trauma, and even the word peace and freedom will take on a wrong interpretation without questioned. Peace cannot be accieved by war, and freedom is not to kill others for a way of life, how horrid brain-wash.
chanses2 8 months ago
a bit late but well..
this is the thang!!|briliant homage to the ever briliant novel|!|feeling the urge to read it again hehe ;) preach on mre!!!!
Ricosophy 8 months ago
Good video,my favourite writer,1984 scared the hellout of me.
gaelgeseomra 8 months ago
A interesting and well done video essay. Plus good.
I think Orwell had an excellent insight into they key human weaknesses: why we need to be led, why we believe without proof, why those who desire power must never be trusted, divide and conquer, enslavement, and you'll believe anything if it is told to you often enough.
ChipArgyle 8 months ago
@MultiErgoproxy I said institutions "like" the Catholic Church. The argument for the needs of the many is the very type of altruism that ends up enslaving mankind through collectivist oppression. You should check out some Ayn Rand. Also check out my vid "Principles for Living." We can only ask for a world that allows us all to pursue happiness, and we cannot infringe upon the happiness of another. Utilitarian arguments are flawed. It's wrong to sacrifice others for thec collective.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE One more thing. If you truly understand plutarchies, plutocracies, or even kleptocracies and crony capitalism then we would be having a very different conversation. No one owes anyone anything, and people should prove their worth to you before you value them. As long as the sytem we live in allows for people to pursue happiness without infringing uon the liberty of others then this is the best we can ask. Altruistic collectivism is a false ideology that leads to tyranny every time.
RockingMrE 8 months ago 2
@RockingMrE The logical fallacy that the "collective ideaology"...somehow pertains to US, and always did, when it NEVER did, and always did come FROM those at the top. The PUREST form of a Republic, is every man for himself, with a common law NOT OVER, but IN-BETWEEN each individual man, for commerce, etc. Otherwise it is COMMUNISM (Common Units (you) + FORCED Unity = Community + Belief in EQUAL slavery = Communism, a Forced Collective on below, from ABOVE, for service = ALL the "-isms".
TheCaptainSlappy 8 months ago
@MultiErgoproxy The world has been dominated by institutions like the Catholic Church and states, which are collectivist entities. This is far form individualism. Many people don't understand that corporations and states go hand in hand - they work together to control the masses. Think of corporations as feudal lords and you will see what I mean. We live in a Neo-Feudalist society, and it's only when a crisis sets in that you can truly see how little you matter.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
Your best vid yet,People need to see this and the history of this filth. This is no way to live if one stands up for this type of sickness they truly need the help and are very sick in the head. I see no way you could be helped their mind is dammd !!
RoflmaoAtSheepeople 8 months ago
@MultiErgoproxy I'm not stressed by your comments :-) I ask that you look at history before you judge that collectivism makes someone more morally righteous than individualists. Many Libertarians DO care about humanity - I most certainly do. They just see the fallibility of humanity too. If you think you can tame the beast of the state as it grows more totalitarian through taxation and diminishment of liberty then it's a fool's erand, and history tells us so. It's not the solution.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE The scale you question is basically what is highlighted on the political compass. But either way Socialism usually starts out great. But as the pyramid scheme collapses it always leaves chaos in its wake. If anything it is anarchy that hasn't truly been tried, and with the knowledge that humanity now has I feel that with the right philosophical enlightenment this is the future. The state is nothing but a machine of violence that infects humanity. It is a dated and flawed model.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE Interestingly enough, if you look VERY closely at the massive Empires, it is always the same, in that the ponzi scams are SUPPOSED to LOOK and ALMOST make you "feel free"...as the game drags out into the Rule of 72...it is crunch time, because the game MUST crunch you and collapse, to do it again. ALL of the preceeding models were absolute failures, because they ALL failed. If you have to constantly rename it to make it work until it collapses...well, that equals a failure.
TheCaptainSlappy 8 months ago
@MultiErgoproxy What I'm implying is that collectivism is a slippery slope to totalitarianism. I would put Libertarian Socialism in its most watered down form at the most positive end of the scale, and a completely authoritarian form of Marxism like USSR at the most negative end. Socialism is great when there is enough money to go round, but once the debt kicks in (which is inevitable) you soon find that you are paying a lot of money for very little.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE What this argument really comes down to is idealism from Socialists where they believe they can change the world through altruism. They can't, and all it leads to is diminishment of liberty. Socialism always fails in the end. No one has the right to take away another's liberty for a Socialist dream, and no one has the right to sell their liberty away either. We all have unalienable rights. As long as you have the freedom to pursue happiness then that is all you can ask for.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE That is why, Mr. E, you shall find that "Socialism" goes hand in hand with Pyramid Schemes. It always fails...they know that, yet...the point is to NOT stop it from failing, it is to have it fail, so they can grab up the property the generations successfully created during the old Pyramid Scheme, going into the new one. All the "-isms" are the same- It is a monarchy, and you ain't the boss. Always has been, always will be...unless...well...we are working on that, aren't we? We ARE.
TheCaptainSlappy 8 months ago
@TheCaptainSlappy Completely agree with your points here. I have tried to explain this to so many people who endorse Socialism.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@MultiErgoproxy Libertarian Socialism is where totalitarianism usually starts. But the point is that the slope is slippery because taxes feed the states. As it gets larger it becomes more oppressive. Look at tyranny in history and the pattern is the same. Large states always end up becoming more totalitarian because larger states are nigh on impossible to control. This is the deal we make with the devil. If you sacrfiice liberty for "altruism" then you are setting yourself up for a fall.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE Corporations are part of the mechanism of state control. Hitler used coroporations partly in the manner you mentioned, but today in the West corporations use lobbying and privately funded election money to bribe politicians. Ultimately however the elites behind this facade are the ones that drive the system in their favour. It is an illusion of freedom and in reality liberty is not something that should be "traded" for anything - liberty is too valuable.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@MultiErgoproxy The classic argument to defend radical gender theory is that sexuality and gender are two seperate things. Well, they ARE somewhat seperate, but this STILL totally ignores the "nature" aspect of what makes us who we are. You ask why everyone uses PC. Well, they don't. It is only used against the "oppressive majority". White Christians for example cannot really use PC because they are considered to be the majority. Leftists get to stipulate who is "protected" by PC.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE One more thing. If you genuinely want to understand where I am coming from regarding PC then check out my video "Politically Correct Marxism". This will also give you an insight into the roots of PC.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@MultiErgoproxy The very nature and belligerence of your comment indicates you are a radically inclined individual who would deny biology in favour of sociological arguments. Your ignorance regarding PC's roots also speaks volumes. PC is derived from Cultural Marxist agenda which takes its roots back to the Frankfurt School after WW1, and the think-tank that was first formed there. It is designed to shut people up who disagree with the New Left formed after the civil rights movement of the 60's.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE I'm male but have little interest in trad. male activity, but neither do I have a great particular interest in trad. female activities. This may well be due to diff. in my brain - having older brothers increases the chances of homosexuality as the mothers immune system attacks the male foetus feminising its brain, so perhaps my bisexuality and behaviour is rooted in physical differences. I do think social sit. amplify the small physical diff. polarising behaviour in adult life.
Dnomyarification 8 months ago
Sorry, the comment space is too small or my ideas are not clear enough... So my argument is somewhere in the middle. The physical difference's in the brain between men and women are small, but a lifetime in social situations leads to radically different behaviour. The level of polarisation today comes from society's expectations, not really anything innate. A change in that thinking wouldn't be bad for someone like me, biologically male, has to put up with expectations against my nature.
Dnomyarification 8 months ago
@Dnomyarification Interesting comments. I'm not sure how easy it is to prove that the second male is more likely to be bisexual. If you have proof of this then please send it to me, as I'm interested. No one is denying that nature AND nurture are factors that make us who we are. But to deny the extreme power of nature is fruitless. I am all for relaxing societal gender roles, but I hate radical gender neutral parenting because it artificially inflicts a worldview on the child.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE With you on radical gender neutral parenting but one should recognise that you may subconsciously inflict a world view from society that is against the child's nature. A well referenced wikipedia article on fraternal birth order and increased chances of homosexuality in empirical studies. Search wikipedia for Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation. Seems its all fairly recent research and needs further investigation, haven't looked at sample size they had.
Dnomyarification 8 months ago
Great vid, man. 1984 is one of my favorite books. I've noticed the very same similarities in his fictional future and our present reality too. However, this is one of the best presentations of it I've seen. It's scary how accurate he was. Thanks, man. Great Job!
MBaxtonM 8 months ago
Freya5000 8 months ago
bravo,bravo rockingmre really well edited and your voice over was flawless. loving this new format and i can really appreciate the amount of work that you had to put into it. i do find myself asking the question was 1984 a work of fiction or was orwell privy to the plans of the elite. i guess we will never know,but what we can recognize is that our own societies are following the same model and the out look is just as bleak. here's to the world raising up against the tyranny of the few. peace.
xxxlbrock 8 months ago
Excellent analysis brother
FreiTannenberg 8 months ago
Whatever happen in novels, theaters, tv shows, etc., comes to life.
And those in front are making the rules are the real fools.
mike61524334251 8 months ago
@louisandbob
That's sort of my point actually.
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius So do you endorse gender neutral theory? I would add before you answer however that this is NOT the same as a society where gender roles can be less rigid.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE
I have no idea what 'gender neutrality is, so no I don't 'endorse' it.
My point was exclusively about Orwell and 1984 and your use of him to support arguments he never made. I don't intend to expand my comments into a lot of gender theory, I do think louisandbob has a good point. A lot of the subtext of some arguments is to label and classify some large portions of humanity as 'different' and therefore destined to behave in certain [often defective] ways.
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius When you analytically consider a piece of work then it requires that you make your own arguments on top of what another has made. Thus I don't agree with you that I've somehow made arguments Orwell hasn't made because this is missing the point. In actual fact I was comparing Orwell's book to today's world - imagining what he would think if you will.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE
"When you analytically consider a piece of work then it requires that you make your own arguments on top of what another has made."
You were either doing an analysis of Orwell or you were making your own arguments. Instead you seem to be claiming that your position & Orwell's are the same. They most definitely are not the same. He would not recognize some of the attitudes you're trying to ascribe to him.
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius "You were either doing an analysis of Orwell or you were making your own arguments."
It escapes me why you think this is an either or situation. You claim Orwell wouldn't recognise the arguments I presented, and yet this video shows quite clearly the similarities between his fictional novel and our own world. Orwell greatly understood how totalitarianism takes hold.
I get the impression you're defending Socialism, as opposed to a view that I have somehow bastardised Orwell.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE
No, I'm not defending socialism.
I agree that for Orwell the critical issue in the novel "1984" is an exploration of the patterns of totalitarianism and how those patterns can be understood to subvert and destroy a culture.
The subversion results in the novel's denouement scene of Winston Smith's torture including the critical line, "Do it to Julia.." In that line he denounces her and is forced to relinquish his loyalty to her. "
Also critically here he loses his humanity.
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius Well, on your point here we can agree. Part of the story does revolve around Winston and Julia losing their humanity. I just feel that there are a multitude of other angles to the book, which I've discussed with you already.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE
Both the dénouement and the climax revolve around the facts of what happens to Winston Smith and to a lesser extent Julia at the hands of a totalitarian state. All the other elements both you and I have discussed are culminated in that, so I don't think it's just "part of the story," but is its final central focus.
2bsirius 8 months ago
Theres that instinct in man to hate that next man over the hill. Its a primal survival instinct which is easy to manipulate in many people who fail to see that their fellow man is their brother and not an enemy.
Hitler used the Jews. Its an obvious link that Orwell used Emmanual Goldstein.
His "Ministry of Peace" is another obvious link to reality. We no longer have a Ministry of War but a Ministry of Defence.
And how people were brainwashed was based on Russian/Chinese gulags etc!!!
NicosMind 8 months ago
Interesting....
Naturally I gave this a thumbs up, but your account of the mutually exclusive roles of women and men seemed far too stereotypic to me.
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius Bye-Bye then!!
apekillssnake 8 months ago
@2bsirius Can you elaborate? I was talking specifically about erroneous gender theory being implemented through PC, as opposed to less rigid gender roles in society. If you're talking about my comments on family then I stand by them - the state can't replace the role of mother and father. I'll be expanding on this in the future. I have flexible views about men and women raising children, as long as it's a stable environment with two parents involved wherever practically possible.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE
The problem for me is that you used 1984 to extrapolate on points that have nothing to do with the book. Yes, very generally, Orwell is speaking about how human beings can be persuaded, manipulated and coerced into unquestioning deference to authority & also very generally, it's very possible to draw the conclusion that that can stem from the state co-opting the role of a parent, but the bulk of your opinions about 'PC' are your own and have nothing to do with Orwell or with 1984.
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius I feel you're being selective about what is my opinion and what isn't given that I created a critique (backed with evidence) of Orwell's novel compared to our world. Check out a video of mine called 'Politically Correct Marxism' for more info about the roots of PC.
Also check out Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language' for a look at how it relates to PC. Justice should be blind and no one should attain special treatment under the law in a society built on true liberty.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE One more thing, I don't think Orwell was being very general when he wrote 1984. I actually think he had great insight, and it's very apparent through his essays and fiction that this is true. This is what this video highlights most of all.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE
Sure he writes that people over 30 being frightened of their own [horrible] children, & is critical of unquestioned authority.Show me WHERE in the novel Orwell makes any points about the role of women as care givers though.
I'm familiar with "Politics and the English Language." Orwell is spot on in his criticism of English, [and he's particularly faulting academic English]. It does have too many long words, clichés, etc. That says nothing in favour of your arguments though.
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius Political speech is something that is used to hide an ulterior motive, hence the reason why I suggested you check out my video "Politically Correct Marxism", which elaborates on the agenda of PC.
i don't mention ONLY women being caregivers. My point was regarding the family unit, and particularly single parent homes, rising divorce culture, and how the two-parent family is being eroded by radical idealism.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE
BUT you were strongly implying that you were echoing Orwell in your assertions and you were NOT.
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius Yes I was. Refer to Orwell's belief that political language is used to misguide others. I keep asking you to check out my video "Politically Correct Marxism". If you don't wish to then I don't see how you can see what I mean when I state PC is an ideology masquerading as altruistic.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@2bsirius I disagree with what you are saying to MrE, that you can NOT draw a comparrison, I think the parts he provided in his Film are very accurate in depicting what the book(1984) tries to put over to humanity as a warming. Perhaps you should more accurately look at it this way- the book is a work of fiction that is an artistic encapsulation of what "real-life" is like today, instead of the other way round where persons say reality reflects the book. Is'nt that more logical argument- realism
apekillssnake 8 months ago
@apekillssnake
The point is not that MrE can't do whatever he likes. However, if he is using Orwell as the BASIS for his conclusions then he might want to makes sure that his departures for Orwell's thinking is clear to his viewers. If he is no longer speaking of Orwell's, but of his own thinking, he could delineate the shift. He doesn't do that
As of the accuracy of his schematic summation of 1984, yes, up to about frame 9:00 his summary is very general, but it is FAIRLY faithful to the book
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius He is free to do whatever he likes, and draw whatever conclusions he wants, for it is his channel. I don't think it is right to try and corner the channel owner- when he is trying to draw attention to important concepts society faces today.Do your own upload if you disagree, put forwards your own conclusions in private, but dont keep trying to nail the guy! I'm not even clear on the distinction you are making to be fair!What is the point you are making about the separation in your view
apekillssnake 8 months ago
@apekillssnake
I'm not trying to corner anyone. I was pointing out inconsistencies.
If viewers, most of whom haven't read 1984, want to accept that this is presenting Orwell without bias, nothing I say will chance that.
It's one set of propaganda talking points (MrE's) being substituted for another set of propaganda talking points, those of the totalitarian state in 1984.
There is nothing in this video about the real crux of the novel. The eradication of Winson Smith & Julia's autonomy.
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius "There is nothing in this video about the real crux of the novel. The eradication of Winson Smith & Julia's autonomy."
That's only a fraction of what the novel was about. 1984 is really a story of how totalitarianism can be implemented by a state that conceals its true motives of power. Autonomy of the individual is something that is lost when liberty does not ensue. See the end of the video if you don't believe me. Here is the full 2 min version:
/watch?v=cXIfTNn5bec
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE
That is exactly my point! TOTALITARIANISM IN ALL OR ANY OF ITS FORMS. My problem is that this video makes it sound as if 1984 is a simplistic screed against Marxism, and it most definitely is NOT! Yes, Orwell was thinking of Stalinism BUT he was equally thinking of Hitler and Nazism.
The boot stamping on the human face eradicating human emotion could as easily be a neo-Nazi boot or the boot of a ruthless, Machiavellian media mogul, the initials RM as of a retro-thinking Marxist.
2bsirius 8 months ago
@2bsirius Hitler used Socialism to get what he wanted in the beginning. While there is a difference between Libertarian Socialism and more absolute versions of it, it's really a slippery slope as the state gets larger, and thus more difficult to control. As Hitler gained more money from the people through taxation, and then more power, he used this money to implement a larger army and police the people. Socialism is like making a deal with the devil - you risk your freedom.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
Orwell was well ahead of his time. Good video!
Teloculos 8 months ago
Lots of good points. Good video.
Orwell looked incrementaly at what would happen if the extremes of politics were followed many generations into the future.
I didn't see any mention of the human rights commissions / legal systems globally that have also attempted to outlaw thoughts.
deathByStupid 8 months ago
Bloody good show MrE. Private Frazer knew it when he said "We're doomed!" Or are we? What is the alternative to this world order and if there was one would the masses want it? Have we went too far now for us to stop and consider alternatives or have we been fed too much bromide to know or care if there are? Good wee wake-up call this morning MrE.
tatiebogle 8 months ago
@tatiebogle The alternative is that the masses simply STOP participating. It will be most peaceful revolution in history. The trouble is that the masses have been divided and corrupted by greed, consumerism, and power. Most people don't even have the critical skills to analyse and understand that we are helpless in the present system.
cheers for watching :-)
RockingMrE 8 months ago
Damn good video Sir!
[nothing I can add to this...]
WoodlandRavah 8 months ago
@WoodlandRavah Cheers :-)
RockingMrE 8 months ago
I just started reading 1984, it's well written, entertaining & eerie at the same time!
rooftopeagle 8 months ago
@rooftopeagle It's my favourite book. Let me know how you get along.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE will do my friend :-)
rooftopeagle 8 months ago
Regarding the monetary system/GDP.
It is easy to manipulate these because oil has no real primary value.
It is produced by nature, so the only real cost is in equipment
(which is in fact the same as deep water pump).
So it is only logical: the more oil we pump, the more inflated our economy becomes.
It is as absurd as putting a price tag on solar energy or breathing air...
SEThatered 8 months ago
@SEThatered Your point about oil is compelling. Using finite resources to run and power an economy is a disaster waiting to happen. Whether one believes in global warming or not, this is a reality that cannot be escaped.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
It does not matter if bin laden was real or not:
it was a puppet, a boogyeman for mass media.
As for the movie: it is a sad reality we live in.
If you read world most famous writers of the past centuries, you will find out,
that the were writing about the same problems we have today.
Different age, same problems...
SEThatered 8 months ago
@SEThatered He was real from what all evidence can suggest they are how ever conspearicy theories suggesting that he did not die ingnoring the fact that the reason trough him quickly to the sea was that A they did not want to bury him somewhere where supporters could admire him and that in islam proper you have too bury people by24 hours after there death how ever this backfired as the suppoorters still admire and tribute him where was killed.
Eopyk 8 months ago
The taliban are real and they have elected a new leader it an insult to afghanis suffering to deny them.
Eopyk 8 months ago
@Eopyk
You didn't quite get what i meant.
He was a puppet, manipulated by whoever had more power.
He was a hate object - "axis of evil". In some sense he was a replacement of prev. hated "commies".
So that's why it does not really matter.
SEThatered 8 months ago
P 2 Turkish, Finnish for an exampel have less gender distinctions than English but most Turks and Finns do not think that gender is a social construct anyway.
Old English hade way more gender than modern English with hade grammatical gender where every noun was inflected in masculin, feminime or neutrem this distiction has been lost in modern english. For me it is a genetic fallacy to presume that for an example not having gender based prounons would mean that one denies gender.
Eopyk 8 months ago
P 1 Last 2 comment for now. Even if I think the video was welldone I think it lacked nuance and sometimes sides with questionable conspearicies, And sometimes verged into fear mongering and judgmental opinions on the working class intrests and what most of them wish to do in the free time. I want to comment on the language question, Even if I do not like politics deciding linguistic evolution. Taking away gender distinction in English would only be that taking away gender distictions.
Eopyk 8 months ago
Great job pulling 1984 since fiction into today’s science facts. We are too stupid to see what is happening to us. As you get sucked into your favorite TV show or video game you will notice that large amounts of time are being wasted not thinking about reality. And as a bonus the powers that be can propagandize the hell out of you at the same time. Read the Communist party manifesto. All they wanted to inflict on society has been completed. We need to wake up now.
Bassmarko 8 months ago
@Bassmarko What communist party ? How ever if we go by communist idealogy as in general idea or following the communist manifesto by Marx that is incorrect I have yet to see the following revolution by the working class, devolopment of the dictatorship of the prolitariat , futher spread of the revolution and when the entire world is in the dictatorship of the proletariat all propety, state, nation and money shall wither away so that one can have pure communism.
I have yet to see any of that
Eopyk 8 months ago
@Eopyk Congressional Record Jan 10, 1963. Goals of the Communist Party USA.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties. 17- Get control of the schools use for Communist propaganda. control teachers'. 20- Infiltrate the press. 27- Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. 40- Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. (Google it)
Bassmarko 8 months ago
Love this video. George Orwell was a great thinker.
BoethianAcolyte 8 months ago
This is a very well done video. Thank you.
I read 1984 when I was in College (in 1973) and I remember one of my Professor's referring to it regularly during her lectures on history.
I'd enjoy saying that I was an activist against the encroachment of our civil liberties but, alas, that would be a lie. I gleefully drank the Statist kool-aide and partied and carried on in willful ignorance, until I lost my job and home. Then I woke up.
I'm reminded of the book every day I hear any news.
brasso4u 8 months ago
@brasso4u I guess we all have to learn the truth one way or another. It's never easy, but it's better to know the truth than to live a lie.
Thanks for watching.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@brasso4u
You are very typical, not unusual.
People only accept that the system is rigged, when it fucks them over. When something bad happens to you, and the system doesnt care, and keeps demanding money. At some point, you give up trying to please it.
Then you see it, everywhere you go, tricking other people, into the same traps - but they dont want to accept it, because they have to keep moving, to pay the machine.
As long as they can, they run around, to feed it with money !
Must pay !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@King100Joe @RockingMrE @RobertHartlepool Thank you all for your feedback. I do not believe the middle class is the most evil. I believe that it is the ultra rich that are the most evil. The middle class is brainwashed by the politicians bought by the aforementioned evil; they remain fearful and ignorant. The fact is (as it has always been) the ruled outnumber the rulers. There has always been some sort of "spark", if you will, that acts as a catalyst for reform. I remain hopeful for one.
-Kenn
Capz541 8 months ago
This vid is double plus good.
nightmathzombieethan 8 months ago 2
Constant war? The level of violence has been decreasing not increasing. You shouldnt base your arguments on news reports. Relative to population there used to be a lot more warfare before.
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti The argument that war has been decreasing is justifed relative to population. But if you look at the 20th Century it's obscene to use this argument when so many people have died in war. Also, the news is an entity that doesn't report on the true bloodshed of war in the present time. It's easy to claim there is no perpetual war when you can escape it, but try telling this to those who have no choice but to become soldiers due to lack of opportunity.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE Why is it obscene? Relative number of people dying do to war has decreased in the 20th century. So many have died but so many times more have not. You have to stick to relativity here. You cant just choose to ignore it to argue your point. Its irrelevant how easy it is to tell this to a child soldier. And by the its easy. Truth remains the same no matter to whom you tell it. Have you any data on the lenghts or wars in history?
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti I've come across this argument before but it's flawed. For starters there is no true way to know how many people died in wars relative to population in other centuries due to biased sources, particularly in much earlier periods. Here's a link that shows the amount of people that died in 20th Century conflicts:
scaruffi. com/ politics/ massacre. html
If this is progress then I despair. The 20th Century was the most "efficient" century for mass slaughter in history.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
Auctually today it less wars than it was in the past. In fact tofay ever since we have dettled in areas and hade argiculture it is was one of the more peacefull. Then another note democracies are seldom at war with one another. That is another aspects one has to think about often totalitarian regimes are the ones being agressive. Stephen Picker pointed out that in pre-historic hunter gather societies most men died in homocide or in warefare. More or less.
Secondly
Eopyk 8 months ago
P 2 In it's worse cases if one compared the relative number of deaths in both cases in terms of numbers of deaths then for an example an ancient genocide Germany brought more death by % then even the second world war if I remember the facts correct. War have always existed often it is the result of the demograohic preassure counter enviormental preassure. But other reason exist as well.
Eopyk 8 months ago
@RockingMrE If there is no way of knowing the number of casualties, then thats not an argument for your claim is it. If 20th century would be the only decade which is known then you cant say that we are heading towards constant war. Even inside the 20th century we can see a decline in wars. As all evidence points againts your claim why do you still try do defend it? Im very disappointed with the level on your arguments. First it was emotinal arguments and now double stantards.
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@RockingMrE With double standarsd I mean your claims about how we cannot know the deathtolls of historical wars and that last century was the bloodiest. Either we have knowledge on previous centuries or we dont. And just by claiming my argument is flawed doesnt make it so. Check out Stephen Pinkers TED talk about the history of violence.
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti Great comments :) The only problem is that Mr E belives that the state is what creates violance even if there is no evidence for that in fact it shows that states reduce violance he has the state as his absolute black sheep.
Eopyk 8 months ago
@Eopyk Ehdin jo innostua tästä kanavasta. :<
Darvinisti 8 months ago
P 2 The most violent cultures that exists are stateless and hunter gathers I also read alot from diffrent sources for the many diffrent reason for these type of violance. For one example from Marvin Harris an antropologist can see that where there is low tribal and demographic preassure counter the enviromental preassure tend to have less war then in areas where the recources are small compared to the number of tribes or people where war is high. How ever this is one of many reasons
Eopyk 8 months ago
@Eopyk To say that stateless societies are the most violent shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how people exist in their environment. You have no evidence that people kill for the sake of it, but there is ample evidence that people will live peacefully if they are no under pressure. In fact historians and anthropologists show that people lived well in ancient times if there was no pressure on resources. This is easy to see in healthy bone samples alone.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@Darvinisti It's not an either or situation. We have to accept that opposing sides would claim to have done more killing than their opponents, though bones on historical battlegrounds would help us build a better picture. We can make very good estimates regarding the size of the population in the past. I'm honest enough to admit that even in the 20th Century some estimates for casualties might be a bit skewered, But when push comes to shove it's semantics. The 20th Century was the bloodiest.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE If you believe wars have declined in the 20th Century then you need to learn about the nature of war, and why the population has beeen permitted to become so high in relation to population. The ruling class saw the benefit in a larger population so that productivity would increase. Secondly it's a strawman to claim wars are less in the 20th Century when we had the worst wars in history.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE You confuse wars with more powerfull weapons with extent of war. The wars of the past was more and in many cases hade more deaths in relative to the population but modern war seem more extreme because of the massive media reports and the fact that the weapons are more dangerous today.
But as said your basic argument have no support in facts it makes your fear mongerer.
Eopyk 8 months ago
@Eopyk Jasmine you clearly lack the understanding that the world is being globalised by the same elites, the 2% that own all the wealth. The media and the govt are the ones NOT reporting the truth of war, so spare me the doublethink. You claim that you understand productivity, and yet you use an argument about increased productivity being achieved by a larger population. This is EXACTLY what the ruling class know, and they have used it to generate growth. I mentioned it too in a comment here.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE You know what? I'm sick of this. Every time I make a video you come out against any view that chlallenges authority. You are completely subdued, just like Swedes are renowned for. You claim to be about liberty and yet you promote lies through cultural marxism, like gender theory and women's studies. You are a totalitarian, just like your country that lies about not being corrupt when in truth it supported Hitler and implemented eugenics for decades. (cont)
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE Gender neutral schools could only ever begin in a crazy place like Sweden, where it is rape to have unprotected sex with a woman. It's time for you to move on Jasmine. I've had enough of you dragging me into bigoted defences of fascism and totalitarianism. Good luck trying to create your Marxist utopia in Sweden. Just know that people like me will always fight tyranny from fascists who don't respect liberty. I'm blocking you - enough is enough and I've been more than patient.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE One more thing. Even people like Proteanview and Gottatfunk understand the world is falling to tyranny, and they have very liberal views in many regards. You on the other hand are happy to stand like a rabbit staring at headlights. You clearly haven't got a clue how CPI and RPI are used to manipulate inflation, and how this has reduced wages while cheap labour and credit are to make people THINK their lives are better. I'll be glad not to go through this with you week after week.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE Fucking hell man, hats off to you being so considerate of them for such a long time, but this was a nut job, the mark of the beast was inside her limbic system my friend. The comments were so convoluted they would have sent you as mad as they are. Madness is what these persons want its about putting their ills onto others. You cant crack a nut, if the nut has got you sat deep inside the shell with them! This is the WAR. You got to be outside with the hammer!
apekillssnake 8 months ago
@RockingMrE At first you agreed that "The argument that war has been decreasing is justifed relative to population." and now you state the opposite. WTF
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti ·Yes war relative to population has been rather low in the 20th Century, which I already stated. But it doesn't change the quantity of killings in this century far outweighing any other. Also, the only reason we have such a large population is because the ruling class saw the benefits of a larger one during the industrial revolution, and this is a big reason why our quality of life increased too. You are trying to draw me into one-dimensional arguments.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE That is bullshit. Read some Stephen Pciker evolutionary psychologist. No the standard of living tend to decrease with population growth unless production becomes effecient that is what has happend.
Eopyk 8 months ago
@RockingMrE Well obviously the quantity for everything is higher as the population is higher. As I pointed out earlier, more people have NOT been killed by war in the 20th century then ever before. Im sorry, but this level of argument is too ridicilous for me. By just looking at absolute numbers in an increasing population you can similarly argue for any point you want by just choosing one part of the picture.
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti Men are becoming more evil because they rape more women now then ever! People are becoming worse drivers since more people are killed in car accidents!
When you can decide as to what side the same facts point then its not about the truth. Then its just about propaganda. Then its just about how many simple minded can you persuade.
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti You're missing the point. War is not even measured in the same manner anymore, which is precisely what Orwell warned against. Libya is NOT war according to Obama. In fact the West has been getting involved in the Middle East for decades under the premise of freedom, or covertly via the CIA. I'm not sure how I even got dragged into the amount of people being killed in war - it's not relevant to what I said in this vid. To understand the price of war you need to understand the reason.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE Like I keep saying, I agree that the amount of war based deaths is largely similar in the 20th century compared to others, but it certainly hasn't decreased, as you would suggest. In fact war hasn't really ended in some shape or form throughout the 20th Century. In reality this is always the way it has been, though now it is being disguised with Orwellian doublethink through war based terminology, making people think that we live in times of peace - aka WAR IS PEACE ;-)
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@Darvinisti That is true people die less of war today than in the past. In fact we live in oen of the most peacefull areas overall that we know of. That makes what Mr E is doing light fear mongering. As I have stated and as been said by Stephen Picker we in pre-historic hunter gather soceities the most common form of death was homocide and war for men in general. I got pissed of watching this abuse of Orwell for light fear mongering that tries to paint modern reality as stalinism..
Eopyk 8 months ago
@Eopyk:
Both perspectives are true.
YES, we die less form homicide, than cavemen did, or at any other stage of development.
But the system is a machine.
Its fine for people who like machines, and are happy to repeat what they did yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and the next day (work etc.).
Those who like repetitiveness, will prosper in the sytem, but those who dont, wont.
And so, those who like repetitivness EVOLVE above those who dont, and completely raplace them.
And it IS made thatway
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@Eopyk:
Cont'd.......
And the reason it is made that way, is because those who trael the world freely, and have no restraints whatsoever, benefot much more from dumbed down people, like in this vid, than people who like trabel, or adventure. They are COMPETITION, for the resources available !
But those who can eat mushy peas, every day, and not see a problem, are IDEAL.
Just take a look around you, and see who profits the most - it is those who can sit still, and repeat, repeat, repeat !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@Eopyk Jasmine all your evidence comes from accepting authority implicitly. You are one of the least inclined people to critically think for yourself I've come across, though it doesn't surprise me given that you come from Sweden. If you accept everything that you're told then you should take a good look at the Milgram experiment. Authority has always basically ended up corrupted in some shape or form - FACT.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE There is no conspiracy in this video. If you don't agree with my argument about Bin Laden being a boogeyman that's your choice. But you clearly have no ability to accept that we are walking into a police state like we've never had before, and the wars we are experiencing now are unique given that they aren't even being properly reported. Libya isn't even counted as a war! I can't debate with you anymore Jasmine. You are completely brainwashed by authority.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE As for you comments about breaking down gender language, you are using yet another flawed argument. The English language allows a great deal of expression, and more than most. Masculine and Feminine nouns are a form of expression that deserve to exist, despite cultural marxist nonsense. Once again though you show that you can't respect that Cultural Marxism is a false idol based on flawed and dishonest theories. I will never get you to see reason. I give up.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
orwell certainly had some insight and prophetic wisdom. hope his visions of future states dont come into being.
jancrowb 8 months ago
@jancrowb What are you talking about- with respect you must live in a bubble- Life is orwellian- you should hear about some of the family court cases I have known. Plus It can not be as overt as 1984 otherwise human beings would reject it- the real 1984 is woven inside the fabric of society for men with Misandry and other elements. You're just not educated to this!
apekillssnake 8 months ago
@apekillssnake we still are able to criticise the state, the fact that you are now saying what you want to say on youtube, is proof to this. we are not under big brother 'yet', but yes this is the way we are heading. I am in civil court yet again later this month so I do know how the legal system operates.
jancrowb 8 months ago
@jancrowb You may feel you are able to speak out against the state in your ignorance of how free-speech actually works- which is to set up the impression of an equilibrium. A classic example of individuals world-views here. A volcano just errupted out of the top of my head- I could show you so many proofs that what you believe is so wrong- if you are going into a civil or private court your case may even be used to show balance. Family law or politicans e.g like to use these cases to mask truth!
apekillssnake 8 months ago
@apekillssnake I am not going to get involved in an arguement with you. but a word of advice, please dont make assumptions about total strangers, as I am a total stranger to you. in respect RockingMrEs video, I will not argue with you. but please dont be so arrogant, as to think that you know me well enough to make assumptions.
jancrowb 8 months ago
what is funny is that I believe Orwells real name was infact Gorden Blair or something like that- a true story... Hmmm where have we heard those names from before??
apekillssnake 8 months ago
This is why I am indifferent and cynical of humans.
Swampymcswamp 8 months ago
i'm reading the boook the party about the communist party in china. They even use orwellian names like the central organization bureau. So corrupt is the party it is probably worse then the worst excesses of kmt.
JulianThePhilosopher 8 months ago
@JulianThePhilosopher The PRC is a real piece of work. In my opinion no one should be getting involved with China in its present totalitarian form. But once again these damn corporations benefit by the cheap labour it provides, when all the while jobs are being transferred from Western shores.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE yea, its really screwed up the PRC, what they do is they sell their exchange on the currency market. keeping the currency undervalued, while accumulating huge reserves and high exports. The current account surplus it runs with the west is unstainable. As orwellian as it sounds, the armed forces has total loyalty to the party (not country). Everyone wants to be a party member as it opens privillages (90 million party members). Run by a powerful group of elites, as orwell predicted.
JulianThePhilosopher 8 months ago
Outstanding E. Very good job. I'm a big fan of Orwell so there isn't anything I'd disagree with. Personally I've been hoping the 'Brave New World' version, at least you get drugs and can screw around a lot : D I certainly am sticking with 'movement' but sometimes... I was listening to an old Kate Bush tune. ' Can't do anything, just watch them swing with the wind out to sea'... kind of sums it up for me sometimes.
I was thinking about you yesterday. I'm glad you're back.
acuriousbeast 8 months ago
@acuriousbeast I'll be talking about "A Brave New World" in the future. There are parallels with this version of the future too.
I really appreciate your support :-)
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE : )
acuriousbeast 8 months ago
Yet another one by you to add to my favorites! Also, it's interesting that the masses have also done quite a bit on their own to "streamline" and butcher the language down to simple phrases and meaningless acronyms. The internet is rife with them.
sullenday 8 months ago
@sullenday The internet is another angle, though nothing compares to PC in my opinion. Glad you enjoyed this vid.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
great info, thanks.
whoreson12 8 months ago
Orwell said one of the only things left for us in this world would be self-abasement and slavery to the state. As I look around, this is all I see. People are truly punishing themselves out of pure frustration of not having any answers as to why all of this horror is beset upon their lives. We punish ourselves because we are helpless to actually change the face of this inhospitable atmosphere of which we are the integral connection. WE ARE INDEED SLAVES and need redemption.
regardingme1 8 months ago
@regardingme1 I have those quotes by Orwell at the end of the vid for my conclusion ;-)
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@regardingme1 I disagree- it is only the power of Governments to use lethal force, that stops me- Historically civil wars have proven we loose! At least Spartacus had a fighting chance- If civil law broke down tomorrow or nature stopped society from functioning I know what I would be doing! Man I would be going after Lawyers and Court Judges like nobodies business! Murder would be on my mind and only murder, sadly we all have to live by civilized societies value system unless you want to go nuts
apekillssnake 8 months ago
@apekillssnake there is other force aside from lethal force....force of mind, force of denial, force indifference. We are guilty. War is only one way of destruction. You just wrote that it would take civil war for you to go after lawyers and judges. Why are you not doing it now? In all due respect, you are waiting because you are punishing yourself now, you are self-abasing. We all are doing it...unless we take a stand in some other way, we choose to suffer and remain enslaved.
regardingme1 8 months ago
@regardingme1 Yeh that's going right in! Im with you my leader. LOL Have you heard of the terrorist profiling theory "the couple of guys" I forget what psychologist came up with it, its very interesting, I just thought I would put that out there! I dont do it, because I know I would not get enough of them before I was stopped that is why I pray for civil war or natural catastrophe! Look at Roul Mout or Bird how these cases were completely covered up in the media. No, the one off is a mugs game
apekillssnake 8 months ago
@apekillssnake You are correct. I don't dare shoot up who I really want to. I also pray that the ball starts to roll and heads with it! I sometimes think we are in hell because we are so helpless yet have all the strength and could take the bastards out in a minute but we just can't get together collectively to just do it. Having power but no way to use it is hell.
regardingme1 8 months ago
@regardingme1 A technically creative force can free us- just like pulling off a Bank Job makes you rich, we have to become smarter or more lucky!- for when man sets his mind to this, he can be truly great- the greatest! I think I might be a little bit further along down the line with this, than you are- It has to come from within mans will-to-power. Man holds up the World on bended knee, he just has to realize this- use the power of myth, put the right symbols in place and stand up!
apekillssnake 8 months ago
@apekillssnake so how do you get there?
regardingme1 8 months ago
@regardingme1 well that energy may come from ubermensch(the other you)via a quantum mind type set up or randomness in nature- we may reach a critical mass MRA's and the pineal gland may make something happen. The first Mayan Calendar and before this undocumented was about sets, and the father and son was very much conjoined into that process- then there was the long count that ends 2012 which is interesting. I've meditated on it, do you known anything about the Buddhist monks who self-mummified
apekillssnake 8 months ago
I'm so done with 1984. The one book everyone pretends they have read and arrogantly tell others to read, as if it is the be all and end all of literature. It's the Radio 1 of literature, or at least thats what it has turned into. It's like 'Isms' The general understandings of these things are based upon tabloid simplifications that are more than a little outdated. But we all like using those word inc Orwellian because they make us sound educated. (Thats not personally directed at you MrRE)
JustB3NJI 8 months ago
@JustB3NJI Maybe the reason why people talk about it so much is because it rings true. I often find that Socialists hate 1984 because it offends them (not directed at you). Would you claim that Romeo & Juliet is the Radio 1 of romance stories because it's so popular? When we live in a world where perpetual war is kinetic action, and the family is subservient to the state, and many other comparisons that rign true, then I think it would be foolish to ignore such a powerful story as 1984.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
@RockingMrE In my experience it's been socialists that have persistantly tried to get me to read it, namely all my sociology teachers. I love fiction and dont want to imply novelists can't teach people some through fiction. But it's exactly why I made myself unpopular in those Sociology classes when going on an major rant about why we were using South Park to illustrate themes. Fiction is not fact. For me an Atheists to use fiction in such a manner on any subject for me is two faced.
JustB3NJI 8 months ago
@JustB3NJI I think you should check out Orwell's essay on nationalism. He was far from simply an author. There is a lot of deep meaning and understanding in Orwell's writing and he was a very special author that is quite easily one the of the greatest of all time. The bottom line though is that to truly write great fiction it easy to argue that you should understand reality first.
RockingMrE 8 months ago
Shakespeare is overrated to me. He wasn't exactly popular in his time, forever trying to win over the Queen and being forced to move to Soho. He was almost like a Matt and Trey (south park) of his time. It is the views of academics that tell us he is amazing, and that is simply them justyfying their love affair with his work. He's legacy is his story structure far more than the actual stories, and there meaning aint always clear. Did he almost shag his mother?
JustB3NJI 8 months ago
@JustB3NJI We don't know a lot about Shakespeare's private life, though m