Politics

[prozak at anus.com]

> These political assholes have ruined the Pynchon List. They want to
> argue about Pynchon's Foreword to 1984 because it hasn't been published.
> They want to debate Iraq. They have proven that their views of such
> matters are based on feelings and not facts. 

Hold that thought.

> In 1984, Newspeak is language that has been deliberately distorted and
> designed to ensure the political enslavement of speakers. Its objective
> is to render all thoughts contrary to the Party unthinkable. Recall that
> final parable, the final vision in the novel wherein we are told  what
> will happen when Newspeak replaces Oldspeak entirely-a horrible and bone
> chilling vision of what will happen when the deliberate manipulation of
> language makes freedom of thought, and therefore expression, impossible. 

I think it's impossible to read 1984 without reading its predecessor, 
"Brave New World" - in both, an apocalyptic culture of not political 
or social but commercial importance dominates behind the scenes. 
"Brave New World" is also more realistic, where 1984 relies on the 
idea of totalitarianism-as-blatant-and-self-identifying-enemy, which 
as I can see from history is a bit naieve.

> 1984 is now available in Afghanistan. It's banned in Iraq, Iran, and
> North Korea. 

Mein Kampf is only availabe in Iraq, for a comparison.

> Anyway, the parable is not one that translates well. For
> there is, particularly now, a sense in which the heterogeneity and
> versatility, flexibility and variety

Language = thinking is a somewhat favored paradigm these days, but 
there could be more to the equation.

However, what I want to say here is: I'm with you so far. Avoiding 
the division of reality into uniform, self-definining-in-absolute-
context containers is optimum.

> of the English language seems to
> guarantee to its users their individual right to think and to express
> their free thoughts without encumbrance. This freedom and flexibility is
> unmistakably English.  

Yes, because it's a language arising from commerce, democracy and 
western theocratic liberalism, among other things. (To understand the 
roots of English, one must speak Sanskrit, and I don't - sorry.)

Words like "rights" "freedom" "free" however are not driven by facts -
they are charged with emotions. 

I would like to submit that the antithesis to a scary normative force 
is not the embrace of what appears to be its opposite, but an embrace 
of an intelligent balance between the two. Let's be honest: most 
people contribute nothing except in very localized situations. Why 
must we necessarily balance "freedom" against "oppression," thus 
using the same constructs our "oppressors" do?

> "The destruction of words is [not] a beautiful thing." 
> 
> Blair, 1984


-- 
Backup Rider of the Apocalypse
www.anus.com/metal/
DEATH AND BLACK METAL