COMPARE AND CONTRAST: Ron Suskind NYT magazine excerpt & Orwell's 1984.

[MallRat]

Holy shit.

This is the most frightening, cynical, totalitarian thing I have ever, ever read about this Administration. Why? Because it doesn't highlight specific acts- this goes directly to their philosophy and methods of consolidating power.

If THIS isn't Orwellian, I don't know what is.

==============================================================
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_17.php#003698
Ron Suskind, "Without a Doubt", New York Times Magazine
==============================================================

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'



==============================================================
George Orwell, 1984
Part III, Chapter 2
==============================================================

O'Brien's manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial.

'On the contrary,' he said, 'you have not controlled it. That is what has brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.'

:scared:

[JUS]

1. we are truly FUCKED

if these fascists get in a second time....

[MallRat]

6. The thing I find striking is...

...that they don't even seem to have any qualms about this. Reality control? Sounds good to me!

Their singleminded focus on the acquisition of absolute power is unprecedented in this country. Now more than ever, I believe this election is taking on near-apocalyptic proportions.

If we lose, and the neocons solidify their grapplehold on every square inch of our government, then our nation is toast.

We have to win this thing. There is no alternative.

-MR

[bpcmxr]

2. Great catch, MallRat!

Mind if I pass this around?

[MallRat]

3. PLEASE, PLEASE do.

We have only two more weeks to open some eyes.

-MR

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Why I keep sauying, Germany 1934

and why they get a second term, there will be NO elections in 2008

The end of the Republic is here

[Lorien]

5. Suskind's article is a must read

here's another snip:

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored "road map" for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman - the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress - mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden," Bush said. "They're the neutral one. They don't have an army."

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: "Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army." Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. "No, no, it's Sweden that has no army."

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. "You were right," he said, with bonhomie. "Sweden does have an army."

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. An American/Christian Taliban is not the solution to the WOT

as much as many may believe so.

[MallRat]

8. MEMBERS OF THE REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY, UNITE!

Atrios is all over this. Check out the new banner!

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com

-MR

[JUS]

9. .

[Supersedeas]

10. "impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party

that's about sums up Bush Apologists

[wiggs]

11. You are right. Now what?

If, as in Orwell, the media are controlled, the intellectual community is marginalized, the electorate is rallied around fear of a shadowy enemy (who may strike again soon and at any time), and the party controls three branches of government and fourth estate, what happens next? Is it too late?

Did we really lose this 2004 election (and maybe the next) in 2000 when we unknowingly voted in this crooked, dangerous, lying group? Was there a paradigm shift in 2000 in politics and media that we are only now becoming aware of too late?

Once alive, the beast that is the party is immortal as Orwell said. Is this beast alive enough to defend itself at any cost?

Is this election our last, slim chance for a long while?

I may not sleep well tonight.

[NashVegas]

12. In Hoc Signo Vinces - By This Sign You Conquer

Discordians have an explanation for reality and it's transient nature.

With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids.

When you have several different groups of people all perceiving the world through several different grids, and one group of people (that accounts for 25-40% of the number encompassing all groups) perceiving the world through one grid, it becomes easy for that one group to hold sway while everyone else is getting their shit together. Or not.

The man who told Suskind what he did about reality was correct. And it's why Bush (and the RW of the last 10 years) in three years has been able to ram so much shit through, because they have been diseminating a controlled message, while the mainstream has been attempting to see reality, as mentioned above, judiciously. The BFEE reality is one that its presenters are confident of, and that's attractive to many in a time in human existance where we are on the brink of god-knows-what: human cloning, job outsourcing, technology replacing human capabilities, etc., etc. It's comforting to see someone with a plan they believe in, so 'hey, I guess I'll believe in it too.'


Long lasting success in any human endeavor is never the result of blind luck. The achievement of a clearly defined goal, whether it be the act of walking from point "X" to point "Y", the building of a house, or the organization of a business, is always the product of three things:

The intellectual ability to perceive the problem involved, the opposition which must be expected, and the best way to overcome that opposition to reach the goal.

The will and determination to do whatever may be necessary to reach the desired goal, regardless of opposition.

The physical means, strength, and courage to enforce and carry out the plan or fight conceived by the mind and determined by the will.

If any of these three elements be lacking on one's purpose, failure is the inevitable, predictable result.

You can all imagine why someone who would espouse a view like that would back Bush, right? Would you be shocked to know that text comes straight off the website of the American Nazi Party?

[MallRat]

13. Wow. That last part sounds like it comes right out of the GOP handbook.

Unreal.

[NashVegas]

14. Don't It?

I reserve it for a specific portion of the Republican Party (just can't call them 'grand'), though. Looking back, I can't help but wonder if it also couldn't have been applied to FDR. The difference being we know FDR moved mountains and rivers out of a genuine concern for humanity, or at least the US portion of it.

FYI, I came across that text while doing a web search on the phrase "in hoc signo vinces."

[MallRat]

15. kick for the Tuesday crowd.

:kick:

[troublemaker]

16. Related topic from Sunday:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency

I asked the advisor whether he feared that the people would eventually reject the sort of pervasive official deception my Hughes article had documented.

He replied, “Do you see any evidence that that is happening, Ron? Or any reason why it should? "

He paused, sizing me up. Was I important enough to be worth the trouble to educate? After a moment he asked, in a calm and distant tone, "Do you believe in God, Ron? "

I was taken a bit aback but, wanting to see where it led, I gave the expected answer. "No."

"Then what is it, this principle that will defeat us? "

"I don't know. The spirit of Man… some basic desire for freedom."

"And do you consider yourself a man?"

“Yes. Of course.”

"If you are a man, Ron, you are the last man. Your kind is extinct. You are outside history. Men like you are in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.''

I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will – we will act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1095255

(This is not an extended quote from Suskind's article. I combined portions of his article with a different (famous) source to make a point about how it's difficult to separate the two sources. In a democracy it should be really EASY to distinguish journalism and dystopic fiction.)

[MallRat]

17. Wow. For a moment there, I thought it WAS an extended quote from Suskind.

God help us all.

-MR