War is Peace

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Nikolokolus

There's always next year
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
30,704
Likes
6,198
Points
113
In light of recent events (Syria, Snowden, Manning, Iran, blah, blah, blah) and Obama's recent comments, "[...] we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition and allow Syria ultimately to free itself from these kinds of terrible civil wars [...]" http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-limited-proportional-strikes-would-allow-syria-to

I thought this little essay by George Orwell written in 1949 might be worth reading.

The splitting-up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.
In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one's own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.

To understand the nature of the present war - for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war - one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive.

[...]

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This - although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense - is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: War is Peace.

http://panarchy.org/orwell/war.1949.html
 
It's not just foreign policy where this tactic occurs. Domestic politics is rife with it. Mobilize your base by demonizing your opponents. Make them inhuman, unfeeling and evil. Then the ruling class of those sides make deals with one another to preserve their power at the expense of the people who support them.

President Bush did it with the evangelicals and President Obama is doing it with the 99%. Orwell was one prescient dude.
 
It's not just foreign policy where this tactic occurs. Domestic politics is rife with it. Mobilize your base by demonizing your opponents. Make them inhuman, unfeeling and evil. Then the ruling class of those sides make deals with one another to preserve their power at the expense of the people who support them.

President Bush did it with the evangelicals and President Obama is doing it with the 99%. Orwell was one prescient dude.

I think you could safely say that the duopoly that rules this country operates under those rules. There are some window dressing differences between Republicans and Democrats at the top, but really there is no material difference in their economic philosophies and foreign policy stance. Both appear to favor a security state with no fourth amendment protections, an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy, unfettered free trade agreements meant to funnel wealth to the investor class and both slaves to the military industrial complex.

Maybe we've gotten what we deserve? It seems we live in an apathetic society obsessed with trivialities; too fat, too ignorant, too stupid and too easily manipulated to reverse the course we're on. I wonder if the general populace in Rome felt like this in the 300s?
 
I think you could safely say that the duopoly that rules this country operates under those rules. There are some window dressing differences between Republicans and Democrats at the top, but really there is no material difference in their economic philosophies and foreign policy stance. Both appear to favor a security state with no fourth amendment protections, an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy, unfettered free trade agreements meant to funnel wealth to the investor class and both slaves to the military industrial complex.

Maybe we've gotten what we deserve? It seems we live in an apathetic society obsessed with trivialities; too fat, too ignorant, too stupid and too easily manipulated to reverse the course we're on. I wonder if the general populace in Rome felt like this in the 300s?

That's exactly right. Repped.

Who knew our grand experiment would die through allowing our body to be covered with leeches?
 
what a crack up..I just finished re reading 1984 again last night.
 
If we're going to talk Rome in the 300's, I have to ask when our republic turned into an empire. The fall of the republic I can see parallels to but I don't know if we're already at the fall of the empire.
 
If we're going to talk Rome in the 300's, I have to ask when our republic turned into an empire. The fall of the republic I can see parallels to but I don't know if we're already at the fall of the empire.

I'd say the end of WWII and the start of the Cold War shifted a lot power towards the executive branch investing them with something akin to the power the Roman emperors wielded, but with more of a fig leaf of republican rule. The situations aren't entirely parallel but wherever we're headed it feels like our rise and fall are on an accelerated timeline. To quote Mark Twain, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
 
Last edited:
I'd say the end of WWII and the start of the Cold War shifted a lot power towards the executive branch investing them with something akin to the power the Roman emperors wielded, but with more of a fig leaf of republican rule. The situations aren't entirely parallel but wherever we're headed it feels like our rise and fall are on an accelerated timeline. To quote Mark Twain, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

Possibly so.
 
It's not just foreign policy where this tactic occurs. Domestic politics is rife with it. Mobilize your base by demonizing your opponents. Make them inhuman, unfeeling and evil. Then the ruling class of those sides make deals with one another to preserve their power at the expense of the people who support them.

President Bush did it with the evangelicals and President Obama is doing it with the 99%. Orwell was one prescient dude.

Excuse me, but when did Bush ever demonize evangelicals in public or to the media? If you're trying to appear unbiased, at least find something factual to support your POV.
 
Excuse me, but when did Bush ever demonize evangelicals in public or to the media? If you're trying to appear unbiased, at least find something factual to support your POV.

That's not what he said.
 
War is the red herring for the coming economic collapse. :MARIS61:
 
Our chief export is war (weapons, military occupation, police actions)... that's economic gold. Obama can't let that opportunity slip by.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top