it's time for a new 1984 film.

it's time for a new 1984 film.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why are half of the letters bold

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it is some neurodivergent speed reading thing for adhd zoomers

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        seems like a pseudo technique

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        im not even questioning this, its fricking moronic so probably real

        • 3 weeks ago
          Αnonymous

          A decade ago I installed something similar that made every single letter shift in a 1% different shade of blue and then red and then blue, etc.

          I tried converting a book to an HTML file so I could speed read the book, but the add-on only wanted to deal with webpages, so I tried uploading it to some blogging service, but copy-pasting an entire book or looking at a single webpage holding an entire book lagged my computer to miserable shit, and I never got back to it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Ju by Sa Ne re -a ne Nine Ei -Fo
      >Th ambi rete fr Ju's po of vi gi Wins Sm's lo th ag she la
      >Suza Hami as Ju in Mich Radf's fi adap of Ge Or's Nine
      >or deca, femi ha be poin ou unde limi to Ge Or's wo an lif. As deir Be pu it ne ye ag, he wa "tota bl" to th ro th

      What did she mean by this?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You gotta get me out of here

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just by sawing new reticula, another new nine eidolons form.
        The ambivalent retexturing frantically juxtaposes offishly visions, smelting's Loa, the age shelters labor.
        Suzerains? A Hamitic Juror in Michigan radiates femininity's final adaptogenic offal. Generals Origin's Nine.
        Orbiting decalcifiers feminize ham, berating points outbreeding underworlds limited to geranium ores, woken and lifelike.
        Ask Deirdre, be put iteration! Nets yearn again, he warned "total black" to the Roman throne.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >A Hamitic Juror in Michigan radiates femininity's final adaptogenic offal
          Bros?????

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hmmmm..... I'm stumped but I'm not Hamitic

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thank you anon

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I legit thought it was a code and strung it together in my head....basically got the same thing. Must be encrypted. Should we use a Caesar Cypher anons?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is a shockingly adept translation of this song's lyrics

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Have a (You)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      newspeak

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Ju by Sa Ne re -a ne Nine Ei -Fo
      >Th ambi rete fr Ju's po of vi gi Wins Sm's lo th ag she la
      >Suza Hami as Ju in Mich Radf's fi adap of Ge Or's Nine
      >or deca, femi ha be poin ou unde limi to Ge Or's wo an lif. As deir Be pu it ne ye ag, he wa "tota bl" to th ro th

      What did she mean by this?

      It made my brain bleed but the top line is saying (with chunks missing):

      By June Nine Sane Eire (Ireland) FOA or AFO (whatever these stand for),

      or

      By June Nine, Sanity. For your review.(?)

      the dashes and capitals may be "shift" cues on how to read the cypher. sometimes bold, sometimes plain.

      Sub sentence has "Shellacked" at the end (possibly "Pollacked" as in as ref to Poland) and "This Wins" at the front for possible starting points. "int OF VIew" may mean "interview". "The Agency" stands out. But also as "The AG"(?).

      Can't find the complete letter set, but it vibes like it's saying "The Interview is All Over The Agency" + "Shellacked" as the outcome.

      >Shellacking is a noun that means a decisive defeat or a lopsided loss.

      "Julia's Point of View" has two possible thematic meanings:
      Ju-ew-es kinda stretched out along the top line at the end. This could be a reference to Le Kiques of course, but in mason-lore The Juwes (like Jack the Ripper wrote it) are two or three figures who murdered the Chief Architect of Solomon's Temple, Hiram Abiff while trying to extract deep masonic secrets from him. There's more to it, but it's a big ref to the CIA as I understand it.

      2nd meaning is Julia as in Julius Caesar. Either a Caesar Cipher is needed to interpret some of the final code (the stuff above is just surface chatter or a misdirect) or it relates to "The State of Rome". ie: The Halls of Power.

      I could be nuts. And the ADHD explanation here:

      it is some neurodivergent speed reading thing for adhd zoomers

      could be shitty and gay enough to be true in the IRL Clownworld 1984 sense (we broke everything else, now it's time to break clear standardized sentence legibility).

      that actress got so naked in the 1984 movie with john hurt, it was distracting how often she was without clothes

      This is clearly, deep deep "Bush Code", we must investigate further anons!!

      inb4 ban for off-topic.
      don't post coded shit here if you don't want autists poking at it. this is OUR special-needs classroom, not yours. you are guests here. Dailymail is one click away.

      top-linked anon asked, I answered,

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women are the bureaucrats implementing 1984 in reality. Also what is with the bolding?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    oh god my monitor is sending me secret messages again!

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    reddit gaming circle jerk approved thread
    trans rights

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the ambitious retelling from Julia's point of view gives Winston Smith's lover the agency she lacked
    Yes, because sexual dynamics was the entire point of the book you see

    Is this ragebait or did someone actually publish this trite

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This woman, like all women, is a fricking moron.

      You mean tripe. Trite is an adjective. Tripe is bland unappealing pap.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You mean tripe
        You say tomatoe, I say potatoe

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Everything—and I mean everything—has to be about women and Black folk. There is no room for any form of entertainment whose point is not making men and women or different races hate each other. Anything that isn’t divide and conquer demoralization propaganda is reactionary swill for chuds

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The love element was an important part of the story, its what allowed them to break winston in the end

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think that Julia was basically a party honey-pot looking for susceptible men to make an example of.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's the even-blacker blackpill read, but I think it's very likely she was.

          Orwell is very specific about the level of adherence to the system the women in that world have. They're the first and most "bought-in", so a "Free" woman is the biggest temptation for a "divergent" man there is.

          Cinemaphile alone is a comprehensive testament to that obsession among outsider/divergent/dissident men for this sort of "Unicorn". Even GATE has that weird deal with the "israeli Artist Girlfriend" thing.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wait, wasn't it putting his face in a cage filled with rats, that finally caused him to snap.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Winston isn't a hero, he's just a normie who becomes disillusioned with his existence as a cog in the machine and looks for an opportunity for real human connection.
          The idea isn't to change his mind, the idea is to make him accept his place in the machine while knowing it's wrong. Everyone knows it's wrong but you've got no choice in the matter and if you attempt to do anything other than comply you will be made an example of.
          The problem with these people is that they will prop up the regime out of fear of personal consequences carried out by the collective, nobody has a good life, they live in a perpetual state of fear that they will do or say the wrong thing and end up like Winston.

          Winston was always broken, they just chose to show him the folly of his ways.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >leans into microphone
    MY vegana

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that actress got so naked in the 1984 movie with john hurt, it was distracting how often she was without clothes

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it was distracting how often she was without clothes

      ?t=13

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fricking hilarious

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's fantastic

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That moron has neither read the book nor watched the movie.
      It was Winston Smith who lacked agency, and Julia who literally gave it to him.

      They literally only met to have sex.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She had a big growler if my memory of high school English serves me correctly

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Changing the POV is such a pointless addition that was clearly only made so they can throw in some shit about the patriarchy when the entire point of the books is that literally everyone is a slave to the state.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's literally the fundamental basis of feminism

      Men identify the ills of society and theorise models to rationalise this, forming a perspective or lens to view individual issues though. Politics is explored on a detached, objective basis independent from personal experience alone, thereby making political discussion accessible to all parties. Accesible, egalitarian, exceeding the limits of individual bias. Classical political history.

      Women identify what personally inconveniences them. they view issues by how it relates only to them. feminism is exclusionary. the shallow nature of an ideology formed purely be anecdotes and biased interpretations is rationalised as some brave alternative view instead of being lazy masturbatory pseudo-intellectualism. Exclusive, narcissistic, elitist. Cultish modernist behaviour.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Good post, anon. Enjoy a well-earned (You).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >men discuss politics in an objective way
        go on /misc/ and tell me how objective those morons are

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Ha got him, he said all men
          You're the exact narcissist he's talking about
          So which is it? Are you a woman or a pathetic simp who talks like one?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the femine man screeches* as you btfo his busted subjective logics,
          >(*to whom he thinks are uninvolved strangers)
          lol, lmfao.

          u fkn liteweight girlyman

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The proles are free though

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they live only slightly better than party members, they are not free.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The proles don't buy in to the message of the party and because they're poor they just get ignored and looked down upon by the enlightened party members who are basically the enforcers of their own oppression. It still has enormous relevance today because this is how the middle classes have always viewed the working classes and it never changes.

          The biggest irony possibly ever is that this movie is precisely the kind of propaganda that INGSOC would produce as a way to indoctrinate the public, it misses the point to an incredible level.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bush

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What????? She has just about as much agency as Winston in the book except its from his point of view. I dont understand the point being made? Because she uses sex as an escape?

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >have recommended it be read as a companion piece to the book Wifedom by Anna Funder, which is a biography of Orwell’s first wife Eileen O’ Shaughnessy nee Blair (Orwell was Christened Eric Blair). This apparently portrays Orwell as an insensitive misogynist, possibly a closet homosexual, who took many of his best ideas from Eileen, without acknowledging her contribution. Eileen died in 1945, four years before the publication of Nineteen Eighty Four, but it seems written a poem of this name several years earlier. She also suggested he write his planned satire on the degeneration of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia as an allegorical a fable. This book of course became his second most famous novel, Animal Farm. Funder alleges that Orwell’s dislike of women, or at least his belief that they were of little political importance, was embedded in his writings, in his novels, his essays and his letters, which is not something I personally have noticed, despite having read virtually everything he ever wrote by the end of the 1980’s. To be fair to Funder though, I’m not a woman, and wasn’t looking for such things.

    Feminist revisionism of historical figures is becoming rampant. Also, getting an idea from your wife is not the same as actually writing it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Of course they want to discredit Orwell. These people love censorship, big government, and want to throw you in prison if you say something they don't like.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://gematriaeffect.news/?s=orwell

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Orwell kinda glows, I have a theory that all these dystopian stories only exist so they can be pointed at as examples of how things aren't so bad since they aren't like the book

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          didn't We come first? based on Russia at the time.

          it's just straight speculative fiction (to go all Harlan Ellison about it).

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You need to listen to Christopher Hitchens on Orwell. I know you won't, but you need to.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Αnonymous

            >Christopher Hitchens on Orwell
            Which one do you want me to click, anon?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He was part of the Fabian Society along with Huxley who was more the mark anyway. People are happy in their euphoric gooning.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Αnonymous

            >tattooing paperwork to your body.
            What did this conversation look like.
            How much eye-rolling did the tattoo artist have to suppress, since I assume tattoo artists aren't this pozzed.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He was a predictive programmer for the ~~*Fabian society*~~.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The world of 1984 existed already in Russia. Orwell understood this (perhaps influenced by russian dissident authors). i think he wanted people to think about these issues more and therefore wrote speculative fiction in the same way he wrote about these issues as allegory in animal farm.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He was a literal masonic think tank member. None of this shit is organic.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Stop reaching. Look up the book Darkness at Noon.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Look up early life of author

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Frick off. You know nothing of which you jabber about.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Αnonymous

                nta but what am I supposed to get out of Darkness At Noon, in this conversation?
                Koestler wrote anti-Soviet shit. (without naming the Soviets)
                Orwell wrote anti-Soviet shit. (without naming the Soviets)
                So what? Orwell copied Koestler?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Αnonymous

              Redpill me on Orwell.
              What is the masonic endgame of distributing something like 1984 or Animal Farm?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The world of 1984 existed in the West as well and had done for hundreds of years. The middle classes have always tone policed one another and have a propensity for believing in fad ideologies that the lower classes just don't have the time or inclination for.
            The idea in 1984 is to show how the middle classes could potentially build a very dystopian society based on the way they operate as a group and ignore reality in favour of adherence to group think and ideology.

            People shouldn't just focus on the Soviet era aesthetics of it, that's a very surface reading of the material. We've seen everything from 1984 play out in the modern world for decades, the political class has never been more detached from the concerns of the common man.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          my brother in Christ, the Canadian parliament gave a member of the SS a standing ovation because
          >Russia is our enemy, Russia has always been our enemy
          We can't point at the book and say things aren't so bad if they're already that bad.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the Canadian parliament gave a member of the SS a standing ovation
            Broken clock moment.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Frankly it's well passed the time for SS members to be getting standing ovations.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anybody who thinks our time isn’t as bad as 1984 hasn’t read the book, he was pretty much describing now.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          1984 is a vision of how Orwell saw things going if the middle classes increasingly got their way and he was absolutely correct.
          You see 2+2=5 thinking everywhere from movies to the news and everything that comes out of politicians mouths.

          Trans day of acceptance.
          Black people built America.
          All cultures are equal.
          Men and women are interchangeable.
          The economy is doing great.
          Gender is a social construct.
          White people are responsible for slavery.
          We have always been at war with Eastasia.

          People focus on the aesthetics rather than the core ideology of overwhelming managerialism and propaganda in 1984, this is a very low IQ understanding of the message.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      many of the best misogynists were homosexuals. they saw through the game.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >who took many of his best ideas from Eileen, without acknowledging her contribution
      I'm counting the days until it's "revealed" that Tolkien stole all his ideas and languages from some thus far unknown female relative/writer/whatever and now we have to change (his)tory because of that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        hly sht, kek

        don't give them ideas.

        some radfem psychonaut is even now starting on her 20k page long re-telling of LotR from Rosie's (Sam's crush) pov.
        (Spoiler: she protected and guided Sam and his friends via White Wicca Magix so powerful even the great wizards couldn't detect it)

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's not real..

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >big brother is now actually the good guys
    Brave and bold and daring !

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1984 IS WHEN YOU CAN'T GET RAW DOGGED BY 10 MEN WITHOUT MAYBE HAVING A BABY

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >i'll just print this out on my fax machine
    >and scan
    >aaand post to Cinemaphile

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Re ju by sa ne re a ne nine ei fo

    What does this code mean?

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >commies subverting fricking 1984
    God I want a nuclear war so much it's unrreal.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Feminism is a tool created to enslave majority of population to the state, so this retelling is surprising to literally no one.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Emma?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        She went on a number of unearned feminist rants which, in light of Weinstein’s abuses, were probably borne from that.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Didn't know she was on some Brie Larson shit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, is he wrong?

      All bullshit aside

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not exactly although I’d debate it is more of an age versus sex issue. But yes, young women tend to be the worst extremists.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Seeing how even white feminists will subserviently keep their fricking mouths shut about nonwhite rape, assault, abuse and overall hating women while making a mainstream cultural moment out of how white men sit on the subway or whatever shit, it does force you to realize why misogyny is so in us. Really do think we’re about to see an exodus of white people from leftism, also misogyny swinging back like fricking crazy as both boys and girls internalize modern white women.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >literally written in newspeak
    it wasn't supposed to be a documentary

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s called real life.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The literal beginning of feminism had suffragettes publically shaming boys and men who objected to dying in the pointless blood bath that was WWI. Look up the white feather movement

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the Handmaiden's Tale 2.0
    >all the people censored and disappeared are abortion activists
    >big brother looks like Trump

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can we get a version of The Road to Wigan Pier from the point of view of the woman who was unblocking the drainpipe with a stick?

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    id wathc it

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i'm fricking sick of orwell so much, every fricking bookshop in the world is 90% various editions of fricking 1984 or fricking animal farm and nothing else, i'm even in armenia of all places right now and even HERE it's all you fricking see

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Well you see INGSOC are actually the good guys

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I love that Orwell has this huge essay in the middle book describing how the world got this way only for us to find out it was written to lure dissidents of the state. Lore is useless.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The rebel bit is fake, but I thought the actual lore was real.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty much everything Orwell wrote was hopeless and blackpilled. Women rewriting 1984 would fit perfectly into his worldview.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1984 is a shitty book. Read Asimov’s review of it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Αnonymous

      >1984 is a shitty book. Read Asimov’s review of it.
      Read Asimov's Early Life page.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Αnonymous

      >1984 is a shitty book. Read Asimov’s review of it.
      Read Asimov's Early Life page.

      I'm actually reading it.
      http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm
      Ironically, Asimov starts his review with an Early Life look on Orwell, (not that Orwell is israeli).
      >In this chapter, I will discuss the book, but first: Who was Blair/Orwell
      and why was the book written?
      Blair was born in 1903 into the status of a British gentleman. His father
      was in the Indian civil service and Blair himself lived the life of a
      British Imperial official. He went to Eton, served in Burma, and so on.
      However, he lacked the money to be an English gentleman to the full.
      Then, too, he didn't want to spend his time at dull desk jobs; he wanted to
      be a writer. Thirdly, he felt guilty about his status in the upper class.
      So he did in the late 1920s what so many well-to-do American young people
      in the 1960s did. In short, he became what we would have called a 'hippie'
      at a later time. He lived under slum conditions in London and Paris,
      consorted with and identified with slum dwellers and vagrants, managed to
      ease his conscience and, at the same time, to gather material for his
      earliest books.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Αnonymous

        >http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm

        >1984 is a shitty book. Read Asimov’s review of it.
        Read Asimov's Early Life page.

        I love that Orwell has this huge essay in the middle book describing how the world got this way only for us to find out it was written to lure dissidents of the state. Lore is useless.

        Orwell was unable to conceive of computers or robots, or he would have
        placed everyone under non-human surveillance. Our own computers to some
        extent do this in the IRS, in credit files, and so on, but that does not
        take us towards 1984, except in fevered imaginations. Computers and tyranny
        do not necessarily go hand in hand. Tyrannies have worked very well without
        computers (consider the Nazis) and the most computerised nations in today's
        world are also the least tyrannical.
        Orwell lacks the capacity to see (or invent) small changes. His hero
        finds it difficult in his world of 1984 to get shoelaces or razor blades. So
        would I in the real world of the 1980s, for so many people use slip-on shoes
        and electric razors.
        Then, too, Orwell had the technophobic fixation that every technological
        advance is a slide downhill. Thus, when his hero writes, he 'fitted a nib
        into the penholder and sucked it to get the grease off. He does so 'because
        of a feeling that the beautiful creamy paper deserved to be written on with
        a real nib instead of being scratched with an ink-pencil'.
        Presumably, the 'ink-pencil' is the ball-point pen that was coming into
        use at the time that 1984 was being written. This means that Orwell
        describes something as being written' with a real nib but being 'scratched'
        with a ball-point. This is, however, precisely the reverse of the truth. If
        you are old enough to remember steel pens, you will remember that they
        scratched fearsomely, and you know ball-points don't.
        This is not science fiction, but a distorted nostalgia for a past that
        never was. I am surprised that Orwell stopped with the steel pen and that he
        didn't have Winston writing with a neat goose quill.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Αnonymous

        >http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm
        Then, too, Orwell had the technophobic fixation that every technological
        advance is a slide downhill. Thus, when his hero writes, he 'fitted a nib
        into the penholder and sucked it to get the grease off. He does so 'because
        of a feeling that the beautiful creamy paper deserved to be written on with
        a real nib instead of being scratched with an ink-pencil'.
        Presumably, the 'ink-pencil' is the ball-point pen that was coming into
        use at the time that 1984 was being written. This means that Orwell
        describes something as being written' with a real nib but being 'scratched'
        with a ball-point. This is, however, precisely the reverse of the truth. If
        you are old enough to remember steel pens, you will remember that they
        scratched fearsomely, and you know ball-points don't.
        OH MY GOD, YOU GIGANTIC homosexual, WHO THE FRICK CARES ABOUT THE PEN WINSTON WAS WRITING WITH? IS *THIS* WHAT MAKES 1984 A BAD BOOK?
        This is not science fiction, but a distorted nostalgia for a past that
        never was. I am surprised that Orwell stopped with the steel pen and that he
        didn't have Winston writing with a neat goose quill.
        This reads like a modern day basedjak quote. What a fricking israelite.

        Read his fricking review. Every sentence he writes is wrong. It's incredible.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Αnonymous

      >1984 is a shitty book. Read Asimov’s review of it.
      Read Asimov's Early Life page.

      [...]
      I'm actually reading it.
      http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm
      Ironically, Asimov starts his review with an Early Life look on Orwell, (not that Orwell is israeli).
      >In this chapter, I will discuss the book, but first: Who was Blair/Orwell
      and why was the book written?
      Blair was born in 1903 into the status of a British gentleman. His father
      was in the Indian civil service and Blair himself lived the life of a
      British Imperial official. He went to Eton, served in Burma, and so on.
      However, he lacked the money to be an English gentleman to the full.
      Then, too, he didn't want to spend his time at dull desk jobs; he wanted to
      be a writer. Thirdly, he felt guilty about his status in the upper class.
      So he did in the late 1920s what so many well-to-do American young people
      in the 1960s did. In short, he became what we would have called a 'hippie'
      at a later time. He lived under slum conditions in London and Paris,
      consorted with and identified with slum dwellers and vagrants, managed to
      ease his conscience and, at the same time, to gather material for his
      earliest books.

      >Consequently, when Great Britain was fighting for
      >its life against Nazism, and the Soviet Union fought as an ally in the
      >struggle and contributed rather more than its share in lives lost and in
      >resolute courage, Orwell wrote Animal Farm which was a satire of the Russian
      >Revolution and what followed, picturing it in terms of a revolt of barnyard
      >animals against human masters.
      OY VEY, Orwell is mocking our Judeo-Soviet Saviors when they're saving us from the hecking NAZIS!!!
      WHERE DOES THIS GOY GET OFF?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Αnonymous

      I haven't found a single moving criticism of 1984 in this review.

      >1984 is a shitty book. Read Asimov’s review of it.
      Read Asimov's Early Life page.

      [...]
      I'm actually reading it.
      http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm
      Ironically, Asimov starts his review with an Early Life look on Orwell, (not that Orwell is israeli).
      >In this chapter, I will discuss the book, but first: Who was Blair/Orwell
      and why was the book written?
      Blair was born in 1903 into the status of a British gentleman. His father
      was in the Indian civil service and Blair himself lived the life of a
      British Imperial official. He went to Eton, served in Burma, and so on.
      However, he lacked the money to be an English gentleman to the full.
      Then, too, he didn't want to spend his time at dull desk jobs; he wanted to
      be a writer. Thirdly, he felt guilty about his status in the upper class.
      So he did in the late 1920s what so many well-to-do American young people
      in the 1960s did. In short, he became what we would have called a 'hippie'
      at a later time. He lived under slum conditions in London and Paris,
      consorted with and identified with slum dwellers and vagrants, managed to
      ease his conscience and, at the same time, to gather material for his
      earliest books.

      >The great Orwellian contribution to future technology is that the
      >television set is two-way, and that the people who are forced to hear and
      >see the television screen can themselves be heard and seen at all times and
      >are under constant supervision even while sleeping or in the bathroom.
      Pretty prophetic considering smartphones didn't exist yet.
      >Hence, the meaning of the phrase 'Big Brother is watching you'.
      >This is an extraordinarily inefficient system of keeping everyone under
      >control. To have a person being watched at all times means that some other
      >person must be doing the watching at all times
      Let's put aside the fact that AI and facial recognition system could easily help with this today, and that surveillance doesn't necessarily mean monitoring in the present, but recording for reference later.
      Let's put aside the obvious fact that the Panopticon in the 18th century, was a means not of actively monitoring all the inmates, but of putting all the inmatesin constant fear that the moment they do wrong could be the very moment they were being monitored...
      >(at least in the Orwellian
      >society) and must be doing so very narrowly, for there is a great
      >development of the art of interpreting gesture and facial expression.
      > One person cannot watch more than one person in full concentration, and
      >can only do so for a comparatively short time before attention begins to
      >wander. I should guess, in short, that there may have to be five watchers
      >for every person watched. And then, of course, the watchers must themselves
      >be watched since no one in the Orwellian world is suspicion-free.
      ...let's focus on his specific idea that someone would need to watch the watchers. Is ~~*Asimov*~~ really going to pretend he doesn't know the Soviets literally did this? If this was posting on Cinemaphile I would call him a new-Black person, but I know that he's really a israelite.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Experts say

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't believe Asimov wrote a single page worth reading in his entire life.
      His review of 1984 only shows how weak a thinker he is.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Asimov's early life
      shocking

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it is kinda cringe chuds think Orwell would side with them when there's a passage in 1984 literally telling people to stop being freaks obsessed with politics and have sex

    • 3 weeks ago
      Αnonymous

      >it is kinda cringe chuds think Orwell would side with them when there's a passage in 1984 literally telling people to stop being freaks obsessed with politics and have sex
      I don't remember that passage. I remember this line:

      and I remember the controlled opposition author was named Goldstein.

      Why don't you share your quote with the class.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I don't remember that passage. I

        When you make love you're using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don't give a damn for anything. They can't bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you're happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?”
        ― George Orwell, 1984

        go have sex chud

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any attempt at a mainstream adaptation of 1984 will suck for the foreseeable future.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Im just gonna read the graphic novel

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Im just gonna read the graphic novel

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I agree
    The book is good too

    Ryan Gosling as Winston. He was good in Bladerunner, his understated delivery suits a dystopian world.

    Anya Taylor-Joy as Julia. She's believable as a hot little young Party member that Winston wants to ravage.

    Both would increase box office because normies know and like them and would check it out. But also, if a good director guides them to act with the gravity the book deserves, it would appeal to more serious filmgoers too.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is it yet another property highjacked because a c**t can't invent something on her own? YOU BET IT IS.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    since I'm broke I sold my edition of 1984 to some 40 year old dude
    I remember he said that "you know my dad of 86 hasn't read it yet, but you gotta right?" with the biggest grin on his face.
    What the hell is wrong with people?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Explain?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        why does he want to lock up his dying dad with depressing novels instead of spending time with his family?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ???
          He's not allowed to read? Do you think he spends time with them 24/7?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean what good does reading it do for you at 86? If anything it's just going to get him to die faster, but maybe that was his intention

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              what good does doing anything for you when you are 86?
              What is he suppose to do with his free time?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                jerk off

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The books is like a max 2 hour read
          It's basically a novella

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's buying a book for his dad and you're mad? What?

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Implying?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She had a full on bush. That's all I liked about the movie. The book was much better. I agree it would be good for someone else to have a go at making it into a movie.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Julias entire sense of agency came from seducing and fricking higher ups in the party but in reality she had none just like everyone else because everyone is equally a prisoner of a dehumanizing totalitarian system like that.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only if directed by Denny's Villenueve

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women are such moronic children

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wasn't one of the themes of 1984 the lack of agency everyone in society had?

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1984 was too omptimistic
    >we need a less problematic version
    Ministry of truth would hate this the most of any piece of literature if people could still read.

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What was the inspiration for Newspeak? Is changing the language a common tactic for regimes?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      orwell has a well known essay where he laments the state of modern (1940s) english writing. I assume it was part of his inspiration given this exert
      >As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Don't have to change laws if you change the meaning of words; like what is considered a person.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >he asks this, in current year, when they are literally doing that
      >particularly in the pushing of shitholes like twitter SOMEHOW becoming the forefront of political debate, despite the fact that the format and character limit are a hard limit on the complexity of ideas able to be expressed and thus influencing the complexity of ideas able to be thought

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Twitter is a regime? They issue statements about the new meanings for words? Oh, you’re just an idiot.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          nta, but you're being very dense. Twitter is a platform utilized by the ruling regime.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      orwell has a well known essay where he laments the state of modern (1940s) english writing. I assume it was part of his inspiration given this exert
      >As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy

      Here's an extract from the essay
      >In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
      >
      >While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would I watch a 1984 from a woman's point of view?
    Women are the literal control as dictated by the movie.

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no. frick no. ok?

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    orwell was such a fricking hack holy shit
    >le soviet union is... LE BAD
    >NOOO, WORDS CHANGE DEPENDING ON WHO'S USING THEM IN WHAT WAY, HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?
    >the epic le dystopia has taken control over all of us
    >SO WHAT IF I COULD MOVE ELSEWHERE?
    >brainwashing is bad *was brainwashed by british govt. since his birth, thinks they're superior to Germany and russia*

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >le soviet union is... LE BAD
      Correct. It was lead by completely schizo israelites that thought everyone will become some 500 IQ intellectual if they just kill enough rich people.

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Giving Women equal rights to Men was a mistake

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why? Were already living it

  51. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A remake? Why bother? We've been living it uncontested since the Patriot Act.

  52. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a bunch of Black person and women screeching about white supremacy? sounds fricking gay

  53. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Let me guess she gets fricked a lot

  54. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When Julie's not on screen will all the characters ask, "where's Julie?"

  55. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just turn on CNN and MSNBC. We're living in Orwell's 1984.

  56. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She looks like a moronic Trump supporter.

  57. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana MUH vegana

  58. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It wasn't supposed to be a documentary

  59. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Thambiretefrjuspofvigiwinssmslothagshla

  60. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    funny thing about 1984 is, that the proleteriat lived mostly happy lives. It was the party members living in fear and they deserved it. Shame Orwell got out of Spain

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *