=============================
Begin-
Opinion versus statement, an essay of accumulated theories, contradictions, dis-approvements, and citations.
Above all, while 1984 is fiction, it is a moral lesson, not solely a pre-cursor to potentially impending events.
I believe George Orwell wanted to write history before it could happen, not to cause it, as it seems some try to do in the way they go about explaining the "inevitable." The prevention and chill of this very possible vision is its essance.
George Walker Bush is an aspiring cowboy from a family of politicians that don't have Texan accents... he's not going to be the decider of civilized human fate. That's all I'll say about that.
Whenever I read a persons speculation on the impending 'new world order' I try to figure out what they're actually writing it for. Are they trying to warn others? When they themselves think everyone else has no social control of themselves? That doesn't make sense, why would they want to help people they've shuned? Are they trying to stop their worst fear of a totaliterian state from manifesting by treating it like a plot twist in a book? I don't remember Vladimir Lenin overturning his government by simply adopting a " Dude watch out, the everyone's out to get you, they won't get me 'cause I know and am prepared" attitude.
Of course this is all a very interesting topic, but what I have a problem with, is the fact that some of those people that have their certain theories, try to push it unto others, treating it like an inevitability. If people say it is, then they're just advocates of attrition;Willing to see such a horrible thing for the sake of experience. All because of the romantic vision of a nameless revolutionary.
Radical change calls for radical action (dude), not drawn out provision, that never got anyone anywhere. Also, be careful what you wish for.
Isn't it nice to cogitate something so exhilirating while under the influence of comfort?
A dramatic change in our known way of life will not happen overnight. The United States isn't the only country in the world.
People should come up with solutions for our modern day problems, not try to decide on what they would do "if", this world is "it".
It is no less fanatical presuming what you'd do in this situation, than those who prepare themselves for a zombie epedemic.
Free thought is not in danger, it's quite admirable to tell someone to keep their thought to themselves, but not to go beyond their word. No thing can take away free thought, not even god himself. Look at the definition of the phrase, "Free thought", independant cognition aside from all other influences, can't be taken away, simply because you'd never know it was gone. Free thought outside inner diologue is another figure, that can be regulated of course, but it all depends on your definition of the word.
Some will tell people to think outside the box, yet all they've done is jump into another. Anyone can also say they are the opposite of what's written, how convient is that? Let's try having a controllable reprise.
Some of these assessments are absolutes, some of them opinions, and while I don't want the reader to take them as ways of direction, more appropriately, I would want them to think of why I would write this, not how they can disprove it.
You can't fight something that isn't there. Dwell on conspiracy, and you become one. While all that I said was bullshit, I still want you to have fun! XD
"Most of them sound more like parents telling their children a scary story, not prophesiers."
=========================
(this is not pointed at a specific group or individual, so please don't come at me saying, "That's not how I am, I'm whatever, I fucking, whatever, I want to, yeah, I contradict anything and everything you say." That's really cute and all, but like I said, it's convinient to counter something written. I also can't fill my article with a bunch of " I meant this, but not that, and this really means that." Take it as you were, and will")