Author Topic: NSA Spying Promotes 1984: (Read 1385 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** June 11, 2013, 08:49:35 PM »

NEWSER) – All the furor about real-life Big Brother-esque surveillance has a lot of people reaching for the fictional version. As of this morning, Amazon sales of George Orwell's 1984 had jumped 6,021% in 24 hours, NPR reports. The dystopian classic is now No. 164 on the online bookseller's charts. Current events have a way of rippling on sales charts like that. During the 2008 financial crisis, Atlas Shrugged was tearing up the charts. And call us crazy (or maybe thought criminals?), but it reminds us a bit of this musical sales spike.

Incredulous · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2013, 09:43:28 PM »

This book is written by a non Catholic, but Msgr. Williamson found some Jєωels in the author's work.

Orwell was inspired to write it after working for and learning the antics of the BBC

More people should become familiar with Bishop Williamson's 1984 and 9-11 lecture.

His explanation of what we are facing and how to deal with it, might just lead them to save their souls via the one true Catholic Faith .

Several years ago I mentioned His Excellency's lecture to a French neoSSPX priest but he failed to get my point, thinking anything Msgr. Williamson would say was just rude or at least politically incorrect.

TheKnightVigilant · « **Reply #2 on:** June 11, 2013, 09:55:57 PM »

I strongly believe that 1984 is a blasphemous, anti-Catholic, Luciferian attack on God. Big Brother represents God, the party the Catholic Church, Winston is Adam, Julia is Eve... There's a ton of evidence within the novel to suggest that this is the case.

poche · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2013, 03:20:47 AM »

Actually a secret court gave the NSA permission to spy on us.
All it takes is an "innocent" mistake, and the NSA can "inadvertently" monitor the private communications of any American citizen without a warrant. This is according to docuмents that reveal judges have signed off on broad orders granting such latitude.

Although the data collection program, known by the codename PRISM, is designed to target foreign communications, it can also collect domestic communications provided the data is collected "inadvertently."

The court signing off on these orders is a secret court, set up with the purpose of protecting Americans from precisely this surveillance. Yet, without public knowledge of the court's existence and virtually no oversight, the court itself has become part of the apparatus and is granting broad powers to the NSA.

The court is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA).

The top secret docuмents reveal both how the NSA is expected to determine if a communication is foreign, and how the NSA is supposed to "minimize" data collection from U.S. citizens.

The docuмents also reveal that the NSA can keep data collected on people for up to five years and access the content of communications between citizens to determine if they are based in the U.S. or overseas. The latter is done ostensibly to remove individuals from the surveillance net.

What is most troubling isn't what's happened so far. It's that the entire program was kept secret, is governed by a secret court, and has the power to do much worse, if it should ever be desired. The continued obscurity that protects the program also affords room for speculation that it could be doing worse, and we simply do not know. Even whistleblower Edward Snowden may not have had full information on the program's doings, and it could be doing much more than we imagine.

There's simply no way of knowing. However, we do know that it is exceptionally powerful and every individual is a potential suspect.

A great trust has been broken between the government and the American people. Even the most naïve individual must now surely see that the current administration and our secret agencies are bound to conduct programs that would disturb us if we knew about them.

Of course, it isn't the things we know about that bother us so much. It's the things we don't know about.

http://catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=51445

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 22, 2013, 02:09:30 PM »

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant

I strongly believe that 1984 is a blasphemous, anti-Catholic, Luciferian attack on God. Big Brother represents God, the party the Catholic Church, Winston is Adam, Julia is Eve... There's a ton of evidence within the novel to suggest that this is the case.

Orwell was a socialist, he just supported the "freedom principle" of Marxism; in other words he believed democracy would bring about the freedom for the working-class. He felt the Soviet Union betrayed Communism by its repressive measures. He felt like Trotsky, in that the model Communist state was NOT the Soviet Union. In fact in Orwell's novels it is always the character based on Trotsky who is the hero of the book since Orwell liked Trotsky.

The "better pig" in Animal Farm for instance is Snowball based on Lenin and Trotsky, and the "better man" in 1984 is Emmanuel Goldstein who is also based on Trotsky. It is a great irony that in our modern times cultural Marxism and Trotskyism has been a success of Communist doctrine since it was adopted by neoconservatives (former Trotskyists, liberals, socialists, leftists, and Social Democrats) while the Soviet state of Lenin and Stalin was a failure.

Lest the point be missed, the point is that these books of Orwell's do not come from a conservative or Catholic point of view, but rather come from a socialist point of view of a man who felt the Soviet Union "betrayed" the Communist cause.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #5 on:** June 22, 2013, 03:40:10 PM »

NSA's Jєωιѕн Spy Masters

(just scroll down to the text if the video is unavailable in your country which might censor...)

TheKnightVigilant · « **Reply #6 on:** June 23, 2013, 12:14:14 AM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
I strongly believe that 1984 is a blasphemous, anti-Catholic, Luciferian attack on God. Big Brother represents God, the party the Catholic Church, Winston is Adam, Julia is Eve... There's a ton of evidence within the novel to suggest that this is the case.

Orwell was a socialist, he just supported the "freedom principle" of Marxism; in other words he believed democracy would bring about the freedom for the working-class. He felt the Soviet Union betrayed Communism by its repressive measures. He felt like Trotsky, in that the model Communist state was NOT the Soviet Union. In fact in Orwell's novels it is always the character based on Trotsky who is the hero of the book since Orwell liked Trotsky.

The "better pig" in Animal Farm for instance is Snowball based on Lenin and Trotsky, and the "better man" in 1984 is Emmanuel Goldstein who is also based on Trotsky. It is a great irony that in our modern times cultural Marxism and Trotskyism has been a success of Communist doctrine since it was adopted by neoconservatives (former Trotskyists, liberals, socialists, leftists, and Social Democrats) while the Soviet state of Lenin and Stalin was a failure.

Lest the point be missed, the point is that these books of Orwell's do not come from a conservative or Catholic point of view, but rather come from a socialist point of view of a man who felt the Soviet Union "betrayed" the Communist cause.

I wasn't aware of that. Interesting.

In any case, the Biblical and historical parrallels in 1984 are quite striking. The portrayal of Big Brother, for example, strongly reminds one of the common skeptical/"atheist" interpretations and criticisms of The Bible and God. Big Brother is a nebulous figure, whose existence it is apparently impossible to ascertain for certain. It is implied that he is perhaps a mere fabrication of "the Party", who perpetuate his reputation in order to enslave the unwashed masses. He is present everywhere, and the people live in bondage to his totalitarian thrall. Such is his power that he can condemn one for "thought crimes", just as God and his Catholic Church believe and teach that evil thoughts are an occasion of real sin. He is the object of a great "cult of personality", who sing chants and hymns in his honor. Further, just as the Church teaches that God always was and will be, it is said by Goldstein of Big Brother that "we may be reasonably sure that he will never die, and there is already considerable uncertainty as to when he was born."

Even Goldstein himself seems to be a figure of Lucifer or the antichrist, or some combination of the two. He is a former top member of "the Party" who is now in open rebellion, but it is ultimately implied that he is a mere fictional creation of the Party, a convenient scapegoat on whom the Party can blame all evils that they and "Big Brother" are, in truth, responsible for, in order to keep the people enslaved.

Maizar · « **Reply #7 on:** June 23, 2013, 08:11:29 AM »

I haven't read anywhere where it was shown with any reliability that Orwell intended 1984 to be a Biblical allegory. More recently I have read that Orwell based the scenes and locations of his novel on places he himself frequented. On Animal Farm, around the time it was published, it was suggested that Orwell received the plot from another writer behind the Iron Curtain and wrote the book to aid freedom of speech.

Whatever his motivations, he was indeed no Catholic, but a socialist.

There is no denying that 1984 is a very powerful book in this day because the similarities of today's surveillance state to those in the book.

To me, Emmanuel Goldstein represents the false enemy that dissidents are directed to. A honey trap. That is the single most important lesson that 1984 teaches.

What I can say is that the dangers are real. People are increasingly paying a real price already for practicing the Faith. Surviving the future with your faith intact will in many cases require ingenious and creative means.

Hatchc · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2013, 06:01:26 PM »

The Church explains the modern world far better than Orwell. When I read it I didn't think it was some great and insightful book. I just saw it as an entertaining suspense story. The importance people attach to this book is ridiculous. You'd think Orwell were some kind of mystic. He was a banal man.

poche · « **Reply #9 on:** June 24, 2013, 12:21:31 AM »

Peℓσѕι defended the Obama administration on this NSA spying. And guess what, she was boooed;

— House Minority Leader Nancy Peℓσѕι has disappointed some of her liberal base with her defense of the Obama administration's classified surveillance of U.S. residents' phone and Internet records.

Some of the activists attending the annual Netroots Nation political conference Saturday booed and interrupted the San Francisco Democrat when she commented on the surveillance programs carried out by the National Security Agency and revealed by a former contractor, Edward Snowden, The San Jose Mercury News reports (http://bit.ly/19fB6U4).

The boos came when Peℓσѕι said that Snowden had violated the law and that the government needed to strike a balance between security and privacy.

As she was attempting to argue that Obama's approach to citizen surveillance was an improvement over the policies under President George W. Bush, an activist, identified by the Mercury News as Mac Perkel of Gilroy, stood up and tried loudly to question her, prompting security guards to escort him out of the convention hall.

"Leave him alone!" audience members shouted. Others yelled "Secrets and lies!," ''No secret courts!" and "Protect the First Amendment!," according to the Mercury News.

Perkel told the newspaper that he thinks Peℓσѕι does not fully understand what the NSA is up to.

Several others in the audience walked out in support of Perkel.

http://news.yahoo.com/Peℓσѕιs-defense-nsa-surveillance-draws-boos-183845402.html

Maizar · « **Reply #10 on:** June 24, 2013, 05:21:41 AM »

Quote from: Hatchc

The Church explains the modern world far better than Orwell. When I read it I didn't think it was some great and insightful book. I just saw it as an entertaining suspense story. The importance people attach to this book is ridiculous. You'd think Orwell were some kind of mystic. He was a banal man.

It's a cautionary tale, showing that there comes a time when, presumably due to the inaction of the general public of a previous generation, the dissent of isolated individuals becomes futile. The book, science fiction, is not a literary masterpiece by any stretch, but it is resonating with the public currently, so for all its faults it remains important and worth knowing something about. It is a standard reader in many schools, as is Animal Farm. Both books have given rise to a groundswell of skeptical thinking about the public narrative and commonly accepted history. There are many such books, such as Brave New World and others, so the genre of dysphoric futurism is not unique to Orwell.

Because Orwell was not religious, and himself a sickly and miserable character, he failed to put any hope into his writings. He offers no answers but merely describes the problems he sees. In 1984 he merely exaggerated and dramatized the oppressive environment he had already found himself living in. It is not difficult to understand that as things get worse, his exaggerations appear to be prophetic, but many things turn out like that. The Church's understanding of the world is excellent indeed, but its ability to communicate this has been atrocious for quite a few decades now.

Hatchc · « **Reply #11 on:** June 24, 2013, 07:24:24 PM »

Quote from: Maizar

It's a cautionary tale, showing that there comes a time when, presumably due to the inaction of the general public of a previous generation, the dissent of isolated individuals becomes futile. The book, science fiction, is not a literary masterpiece by any stretch, but it is resonating with the public currently, so for all its faults it remains important and worth knowing something about. It is a standard reader in many schools, as is Animal Farm. Both books have given rise to a groundswell of skeptical thinking about the public narrative and commonly accepted history. There are many such books, such as Brave New World and others, so the genre of dysphoric futurism is not unique to Orwell.

Because Orwell was not religious, and himself a sickly and miserable character, he failed to put any hope into his writings. He offers no answers but merely describes the problems he sees. In 1984 he merely exaggerated and dramatized the oppressive environment he had already found himself living in. It is not difficult to understand that as things get worse, his exaggerations appear to be prophetic, but many things turn out like that.

Another way to look at it is that it functions as a gatekeeper to keep the general public from knowing what the Church knows. Since people don't want to know the Church, they'll settle for Orwell.

Alex Jones tells the truth some of the time, but he keeps the ultimate truth from his listeners, so what good is he.

Quote

The Church's understanding of the world is excellent indeed, but its ability to communicate this has been atrocious for quite a few decades now.

I'm not referring to the conciliar church.

Maizar · « **Reply #12 on:** June 25, 2013, 03:22:02 AM »

Quote from: Hatchc

Another way to look at it is that it functions as a gatekeeper to keep the general public from knowing what the Church knows. Since people don't want to know the Church, they'll settle for Orwell.

Alex Jones tells the truth some of the time, but he keeps the ultimate truth from his listeners, so what good is he.

Quote
The Church's understanding of the world is excellent indeed, but its ability to communicate this has been atrocious for quite a few decades now.

I'm not referring to the conciliar church.

I fully agree with you.