Orwell’s Perfect Specimen: Cass Sunstein
There has been a lot of discussion in recent months regarding the policies and direction the Obama administration is taking. Speculation and quite honestly, good deductive reasoning would lead one to conclude that Cass Sunstein is behind the push for net neutrality and other freedom quelching procedures. A move that Obama is following given his recent speech about the Internet and the “distractions” and “misinformation” it causes.
Cass Sunstein has been a part of both the legal world and academia since he graduated from Harvard Law in 1978. He gave a lecture in 2007 called “He said that, she did what?” a piece where we glean a little more about his own political philosophy. This lecture was in line with his book “On Rumors” and “Going to Extremes.” On Rumors discusses the harm that spreading rumors via the internet, media, or other forms of communication, can cause. In his book he suggests regulation for these sources of information so the truth is known and rumors aren’t spread. This view is controversial, and rightly so, because it is in direct violation of the first amendment. Most political philosophy, for example, is based upon personal beliefs and opinion and not on fact, like mathematics, so how can a regulatory agency enforce certain opinions or belief systems?
Opening his lecture, Sunstein declared that one of his goals was “to drive a wedge between the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ and ‘Truth.’” Identifying truth specifically with factual accuracy, he outlined three mechanisms by which false rumors gain traction in that marketplace and become widely held beliefs.[…]
Focusing on false rumor propagation, Sunstein voiced two concerns unaddressed by these explanations. First, people tend to be unaware of the bias of the groups in which they are participants. Second, individuals discount the importance of ideologically minded people to willfully mislead. As he explained, “It’s underestimated the extent to which, with respect to certain rumors, there’s a self-interested or ideologically-motivated mover who is starting the information [process].”
Connecting these behavioral observations to issues of freedom of speech, Sunstein discussed certain Supreme Court decisions. Using the example of a case centered on a newspaper’s publication of the name of a rape victim, he noted the Court’s reliance on the argument that, if a fact is already in the public domain, then wide publication of that fact should always be protected. But this sort of publication can cause irreparable damage, he said, which might prompt a more nuanced application of law.
Raising a more recent phenomenon—YouTube—Sunstein warned of the dangers of turning every citizen into “their own Truman Show,” in which the minutiae of everyday life is broadcast to the world. “A life is not an incident or an event, but a series of them,” he explained, a fact which is lost when incidents are broadcast over the Internet or other media, without context. “Sometimes the isolated segment or event will have a kind of defining character, in a way that will be extremely destructive, not only to the individual involved, but also to people trying to make rational judgments about the relevant person.”
The freakiest part of his lecture wasn’t deciding truth from fiction from an already biased source such as himself, but what he said about the freedom of press: (Watch the webcast.)
Sunstein quoted Felix Frankfurter as saying, “Freedom of the press is not an end in itself, but a means to the end of achieving a free society.” After offering some examples in which uninhibited press freedom leads to the destruction of other freedoms, he proposed a reconsideration of the idea of the ‘chilling effect’”:
“Many First Amendment questions in this domain are resolved by reference to the ‘chilling effect’ concern. Indeed, it has become quite clear that references to the ‘chilling effect’ have had a very serious ‘chilling effect’ on engagement with the constitutional question …The question shouldn’t be whether there’s a chilling effect and how to avoid it, but how to achieve the optimal chilling effect.”
“Zero chilling effect, in light of the mechanisms just described, would be profoundly destructive to a host of relevant variables.”
One can only assume that a chilling effect in essence is the regulation of freedom. Chilling something usually slows it down. If I chill a gas does it not start to become a liquid and equally a liquid becomes a solid? I think it’s time to start saying “Hands off my youtube.”
Sunstein’s other book is “Going to Extremes” in which he believes that people become more and more polarized when they associate with like-minded people on a continuous basis like the internet, social networks, specific organizations and of course talk radio. I find it interesting that talk radio was mentioned specifically. I must also believe that he probably thinks there is no perfect time like the present to enforce his social and philosophical experiments on the masses when organizations and powerful grassroots movements like the Tea Party are shaping the political landscape.
It was Cass Sunstein, now a Harvard constitutional law professor, who first alerted a broad public to the kind of polarization that has preoccupied us most in recent years. Society, with the help of the Web, was sorting people by ideology in a way that eroded fellow-feeling and fostered mindless partisanship. Almost a decade ago, his Republic.com lamented that while daily newspapers confront people with all kinds of material they didn’t ask for, the Web allows them to dodge what they disagree with. This was an alarming refutation of our smug claims about the Internet. In theory, the Internet opens people up to new ways of looking at things. In practice, it lets people wall themselves off in informational micro-environments of their own design. It makes them not more cosmopolitan but more parochial.
Now Sunstein has written Going to Extremes, a short book about the nature and roots of extremism. It is meant to unsettle us in the way his earlier work did. He finds that sitting people down to deliberate does not necessarily lead them to compromise or to converge on their mean opinion. They tend to radicalize in the direction of whatever bias they had to begin with. Teams of doctors, deciding collectively, are more likely to support the “extreme” strategy of heroic efforts to save terminally ill patents than the average individual doctor among them. Juries tend to vote, after discussion, for much more “extreme” monetary awards than the average individual juror among them would. Talking things over isn’t necessarily wrong. But it doesn’t lead reliably to moderation, either.
An additional source can be found at the Harvard Law Record:
Sunstein stated that extremism in multiple domains (labor unions, corporations, environmental protection, gay rights, and more) “is a product of a distinctive kind of crippled epistemology resulting from group polarization.” In other words, individuals tend to come to more extreme views if they deliberate a given issue with like-minded people.
From Sunstein’s essay: “Delibrative Trouble? Why Groups Go to Extremes” [can’t you just hear Billy Joel singing as you read this?]
Polarization is also likely to be produced by magazines with identifiable political convictions, such as the American Prospect, the Weekly Standard, the New Republic, and the National Review; by Pat Robertson and his special television programs devoted to his preferred causes; and by talk radio hosts with distinctive positions that are generally shared by their audiences. Because the results of group polarization cannot be evaluated in the abstract, nothing need be dishonorable in these efforts.
What can be said, in the abstract, is that attempts to ensure discussion among people with similar predispositions may succeed in increasing the confidence of individual participants and also in moving them toward more extreme positions. Thus would-be social reformers do well to create forums, whether in person, over the air, in cyberspace, or in print, in which people with similar inclinations frequently speak with one another and can develop a clear sense of shared identity.
[…]
An understanding of group polarization raises more general issues about communications policy. Under the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned, broadcasters were required to devote time to public issues and to allow an opportunity for opposing views to speak. The second prong of the doctrine was designed to ensure that listeners would not be exposed to any single view. When the FCC abandoned the fairness doctrine, it did so, on the ground that this second prong often led broadcasters to avoid controversial issues entirely, and to present views in a way that suggested a bland uniformity. Subsequent research has suggested that the elimination of the fairness doctrine has indeed produced a flowering of controversial substantive programming, frequently with an extreme view of one kind or another; consider talk radio. Typically this is regarded as a story of wonderfully successful deregulation. But from the standpoint of group polarization, things are more complicated. The growth of issues-oriented programming with a strong, often extreme view may create group polarization, and all too many people might be exposed to louder echoes of their own voices, resulting in social fragmentation, enmity, and misunderstanding. Perhaps it is better for people to hear fewer controversial views than for them to hear a single such view stated over and over again.
It is not clear what can be done about this situation. But it certainly makes sense to consider communications initiatives that would ensure that people are exposed to a range of reasonable views, not simply one. This was the original inspiration for the fairness doctrine, and there is reason to encourage media outlets to implement the same goal today. Thus Habermas’s suggestion: (Harbermas’ tenets are described as Marxist in nature)
The diffusion of information and points of view . . . is not the only thing that matters in public processes of communication, nor is it the most important. . . . [T]he rules of a shared practice of communication are of greater significance for structuring public opinion. Agreement on issues and contributions develops only as the result of more or less exhaustive controversy in which proposals, information, and reasons can be more or less rationally dealt with.
Perhaps a code of fair programming could promote voluntary self-regulation in this direction. With respect to the Internet, Andrew Shapiro has suggested public subsidy of a civic icon that would promote exposure to substantive discussions from a variety of viewpoints. An appreciation of group polarization suggests the need for creative approaches designed to ensure that people do not simply read their “Daily Me.”
[…]
The answer is that we often do know enough to see which views count as reasonable, without knowing which view counts as right, and this point is sufficient to allow people to construct deliberative processes that should correct for the most serious problems potentially created by group polarization. What is necessary is not to allow every view to be heard, but to ensure that no single view is so widely heard, and reinforced, that people are unable to engage in critical evaluation of the reasonable competitors.
When did it become the government or even one czar’s job to assess and regulate whether people decide to congregate with like-minds or with differing views? Is that not the freedom of choice we were given as a people when this country was founded? This is what is most disconcerting, although an intention may be good (and I still do not believe that is the case), ultimately all human beings have a bias. As a member and friend to an ideological Democrat, it can only be assumed that the regulatory czar, himself, is biased (especially when he was also a contributing editor to The New Republic). Ultimately, whatever party is in power would lean towards their ideological principles, especially if it came to enforcing a policy like net neutrality.
I will again draw the point that the tea parties are a huge contingent and based upon the writing of Sunstein and his views on “extremism” and “group-think,” or as he likes to call it, “polarization,” the tea party movement is a prime target of his regulatory experimentation. Sunstein would love nothing more than to decide which voices and views should be heard. A regulatory agency or an individual would decide which opinions are reasonable – with a liberal deciding those things, the tea party would never have a voice.
The exact arguments that Sunstein makes in the second paragraph of Sunstein’s preface to Republic.com 2.0 ‘Revenge of the Blogs,’ is that staying in like-minded circles is like 1984, when it reality, having some bureaucrat legislate what is extreme, enforcing multiple viewpoints, or deciding what is a rumor is more Orwellian than free. Extremism can be both good and bad, but it is within the individual to decide what they will do with it. Human nature can, and never should be legislated. It is something the founders knew, but it is something that progressives seem to cannot grasp.
So wouldn’t it make sense that the FCC is going to find a backdoor way to “nudge” this policy into place? Sunstein is also associated with FreePress.net, the Soros-funded group that advocates for, what they consider media diversity, localism, ownership caps and other regulations that restrict free speech. FreePress.net is pushing for Net Nuetrality and in 1995 published Sunstein’s work, “Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech.” A snippet:
Sunstein writes that an overhaul or requalification of the existing judicial, academic, and social interpretations of the First Amendment would lead to a greater understanding of the actual intent of the framers. He argues from a Madisonian standpoint that the First Amendment is above all designed to promote self-government, and that current free speech law compromises the intent of Madison and other founders.
The FCC:
This week, the FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, from many and various sources intends to change the classification of the Internet from Title I, which is an information utility, to Title II telecommunication’s utility. The new reclassification will allow the Title II regulatory authority to enforce Net Neutrality. At this time is doesn’t quite make a whole, more like a half change. The agency will not be enforcing the regulations to the fullest of extent, against broadband providers, immediately, though, it seems odd that the push would be to re-title, in order to enforce at some future point. Oddly enough, by this reclassification, the FCC is going against the last 10 years of its own legal rulings.
In order to sidestep the recent court’s rulings against the FCC’s authority to enforce Net Neutrality, and to be able to watchdog the internet, broadband usage, etc. the FCC is doing this unprecedented move. This will allow more ability for them to regulate what occurs on the Internet. Since the court’s decision on Net Neutrality and it’s stance that the FCC had no right or authority to enforce Net Neutrality, it is almost expected that this will open the door to further litigation by those affected by this decision that the FCC has chosen to make.
For your viewing pleasure I have included a fun little diddy from the movie “The Best Little Whore House in Texas” – “I like to do a little sidestep”
Wouldn’t it also make sense that Elena Kagan, a fellow colleague and an admirer of Cass Sunstein would follow in these same philosophies that academia so loves to experiment with? Kagan wants to suspend Miranda Rights for American citizens, wants to control gun rights, and give more power to the executive branch when it comes to REGULATION: PERFECT for both Obama and Sunstein, who see the Supreme Court as too right-wing, and find their rulings to be more ‘fundamentalist’ than ‘minimalist’ as Sunstein writes in his book “Radicals in Robes.” Sunstein also believes, and I would assume his former boss Kagan does as well, that the Regulatory State needs to be reconsidered in his Harvard Law Review article in 1989 “Interpreting Statutes in The Regulatory State,” and his 1993 book, After the Rights Revolution:
In this provocative and lively book, Sunstein argues that the Reagan adminstration’s vigorous attack on government regulation was misplaced, contending that government regulation is superior to the behavior of private markets…Sunstein thus offers a spirited defense of the ‘rights revolution’ embodied in the new social and economic regulation–from clean air and water to antidiscrimination rules–that have swept government since the New Deal, and especially since the 1960s…The result is a careful, prescriptive study positioned among theorists’ visions of justice, laywers’ concepts of due process, and politicians’ imperatives for effective policy. (American Library Association )
Over the past decade Cass Sunstein has emerged as one of the country’s most prolific and provocative legal scholars. After the Rights Revolution is a rich discussion of how the courts have handled–and should handle–the plethora of regulatory statutes enacted since 1932. It deserves to be read widely by students of politics.
Liberals really have issues when it comes to the imperfections that human nature gives us. Rather than seeing the beauty in the imperfections, they want to eradicate them so society becomes as homogenous and equal as possible. Take for example Sunstein’s view on American Exceptionalism and its false notion in regards to the Constitution:
The third explanation Sunstein rejects is a cultural one that he refers to as the story of “American exceptionalism.” This explanation proposes that America’s culture is hostile to the idea of positive rights because of America’s unique history, which has never included any significant experiment with socialism. Sunstein rejects the cultural argument because he believes that “it is utterly implausible to suggest that something in the [nation's] culture foreordains our practices, present and future.” Additionally, Sunstein points out that although the political left in America is relatively conservative in comparison to almost all other developed countries, America is not without its own social welfare tradition. He cites Roosevelt’s New Deal, the movement for female equality, and the recent movement for recognition of gay and lesbian rights as examples of the flexibility of American culture, and, therefore, the falsity of the cultural argument.
Come to think of it, that certainly sounds similar to what Elena Kagan recently said regarding socialism.
I would consider the Internet, blogs, talk radio all innovative examples of American Exceptionalism, where people have aspired to and become successful bloggers, online investigative journalists, talk radio hosts or large Internet companies. Content will not always be fair and equal, to the chagrin of Sunstein, because we have the freedom of speech and of press. Sunstein and his ilk, however, would prefer that equality is forced upon his “subjects.” Would the forcing of equality actually become an oxymoron? How can one enforce equality but then make it appear that freedom of choice, which gives us the most equality, is being adhered to?
Sunstein would also prefer that average citizens don’t do their homework on elected officials, lest it ruins a liberal’s reputation or give us information to work from in order to investigate. Most truths start out as conspiracies. They only become fact when they are proven. That means it’s time to sign off before Sunstein scrubs my post, which would probably be deemed a conspiracy theory – something he abhors.
TELL REPRESENTATIVE KOSMAS ~ WE WILL BE HEARD!
TOWN HALL MEETING NOTICE
Do you live in Florida’s 24th Congressional District?
Do you believe that your voice is ignored by Rep. Suzanne Kosmas?
In fact, since her election, Suzanne Kosmas has not held a single town hall meeting providing any accountability to the people of the 24th District.
Ok, what has she done since she was elected?
-
She has failed us miserably by voting for huge deficit spending that adds to our already overwhelming National Debt, payable by us and our children.
-
She has failed us miserably by voting to increase the power and size of an already over-burdensome and non-accountable Federal Government.
-
She has failed us miserably by voting in favor of a failed and pork-filled stimulus scheme & a bloated, pork-filled budget.
-
She has failed us miserably by voting in favor of a “cap & trade” tax scheme that would increase cost of all produced goods, utilities and gasoline for everyone.
-
She again failed us miserably by voting “yea” on a job killing, budget busting, liberty robbing, government growing, health care scheme opposed by the majority.
-
Were all that not enough, unemployment in the state of Florida has risen 50% from an level in January 09 to over 12.2% in February 2010, all on her watch.
It’s time to hold her accountable for her votes, and since she
refuses to meet WITH us, we will be sure that she hears FROM us!
Come to the 24th Congressional District Town Hall and be heard. Make comments and ask questions as you would in any typical town hall setting. We will feature an empty podium with Rep. Kosmas nameplate on it as a symbol of how she has turned a deaf ear to our district and our will. We will have the entire meeting recorded on video to share with Rep Kosmas and to post on “youtube” (and other sites). We believe it’s important to document how we feel about her non-representation of us, and to share that with media outlets and the voters in our district between now and Election Day.
WHEN:
Friday, April 9th 2010 – 7PM to 9:15
WHERE:
Oviedo Memorial Building (Next to the Firehouse – Downtown Oviedo) 38 S. Central Avenue Oviedo, FL 32765
There’s No Turning Back Now
On 09-12-09 our Country came together in Washington, D.C. to protest our government. I came back with renewed hope for my Country; I’m sure I am not alone in this renewed hope. During the trip I met scores of people from all walks of life and every corner of this land. Many people arrived without a plan. They heard of the march and felt compelled to be there. It was like a scene from Close Encounters where everyone was driven by an inexplicable force to meet at Devil’s Mountain. Not knowing exactly what to expect didn’t prevent them from understanding they just had to be there.
The march was to begin at Freedom Plaza on Pennsylvania Avenue.
The route was a mile long down the avenue to the Capital. At 8:30 a.m., Freedom Plaza itself was packed and overflowing into the street. Some of those with our group and I took up space across the street at the Wilson Building to wait for the rest our group. This side of the street, we were told by volunteers, was not part of the area which the permit was covered. 14th Street also continued to allow vehicles. I’m not sure if was part of the D.C. Police’ plans or not, but it became increasingly evident that their attempts to keep 14th Street open to traffic were futile and they closed it to vehicles. From the steps of the Wilson building, as far as the eye could see up and down both Penn Ave and 14th Street, the people were pouring in from all directions.
Those who have ever been to a championship game of their favorite home team know the feeling of being among thousands of like minded people. I have been to such a game and although the electricity is incredible, it pales in comparison to the energy of thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions (the count still isn’t finalized) of people in one place and of one heart… love of Country.
I was not expecting to be overwhelmed with emotion and the tears on my cheeks caught me off guard. When I turned to those beside me and saw their moistened faces I could no longer contain my feelings. Until this day, I had been filled with anger at my government and fear for my Country. Anger so strong and bottled that I had been snapping at those closest to me. Anger so strong that I was learning what it felt like to hate. That anger collided with love on Saturday and together they healed my broken soul. I wasn’t alone.
One by one at different moments during the march each of us became overwhelmed with the emotion and energy of the crowd. We wept tears of happiness and tears of sorrow for our Country. Until you have cried tears of love for your Country and tears of loss for your freedom it is impossible to understand why we marched; why we are so passionate for our beliefs; why we feel remorse for the direction our Country is heading.
On that beautiful day in D.C., we marched. Young and old, healthy and infirm… we marched. Kids with signs, kids in strollers, kids in costume. Parents and grandparents. People with walkers, canes, and wheelchairs. We marched. All came to Pennslyvania Avenue and made the mile long trek past office building windows filled with onlookers. We marched with one mind… to stand at the Capital and roar with one voice that we have had enough.
And roar we did! One of the most incredible moments of the entire event took place a couple of blocks into the march. From far behind me in the crowd I could hear a rumbling. I wasn’t sure what the eerie sound was but as it drew closer my spirit leaped in recognition. I let the first wave wash over me and move forward through the crowd as I listened to thousands of people chant, “U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A.” With the next wave I joined in as we yelled in one accord, “You Lie! You Lie! You Lie!” The raw pure emotion experienced in wave after wave of ever increasing crescendos of chanting was a liberating experience.
If you were to ask the marchers why they were there you would likely get just as many diverse answers as there were creative, hand made signs. If you were to question them further and inquire as to whose fault it is that our government has gone so far awry, the vast majority would point to themselves for allowing it. This is where Washington has underestimated us. We are awake now and we are watching. Things will NEVER be the same.
The White House – or is it “The Ministry of Love” – Has Begun Our Re-Education
They are taking the trouble, because like poor Winston being interrogated by O’Brien in “1984,” we are “worth trouble. We suffer from a defective memory and are unable to remember real events.
We believe that we have seen unmistakable documentary evidence proving that the plans the administration has for us all, will lead us to rationing of health care, massive inflation, destruction of industry – even “death panels.”
It’s OK, citizen. They are really here to help. Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present controls the past. The administration controls all records and all memories, and so, they control the past.
An e-mail sent out by the White House yesterday by Senior Advisor David Axelrod states, “right now someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.”
And so, am forwarding it. To you. Albeit with a few of my own translations and answers to the treatise on the eight ways reform is good for us. Title “Reality Check,” it is only missing the straps and the rack and the pain-giving dial in Orwell’s masterpiece.
The eight ways reform provides security and stability to those without coverage
1. Ends Discrimination for pre-existing conditions – There’s no discrimination, because government functionaries who have never met you, will determine what is right – and those decisions will create classification systems. You and your illnesses will be classified and contained and dealt with using the same efficiency the government currently processes mail.
2. Ends exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays – This is why the small amount of the bill which actually has been released to the public talks about a card system which will be connected to your bank account.
3. Ends cost-sharing for preventative care – because prevention is easy with complete control of everything. People are healthier, or they are dead.
4. Ends dropping of coverage for seriously Ill – because it’s not possible to drop coverage when there is only one coverage plan – and the government’s handy assistance in “end-of-life” planning.
5. Ends gender discrimination – Distant panels which never meet the patient, yet make life-or-death decisions regarding care, do not discriminate. Nor do they actually care. They are simply providing a service – a function in the greater good of society.
6. Ends annual or lifetime caps on coverage – because we don’t have to call them caps. We can call them something else – like, “voluntary, private consultations for those who want to make end-of-life decisions.”
7. Extends coverage for young adults – because Big Brother wants to cure all. They want to be able to tell you how to raise your family. They want to control what you feed them. They want to create productive citizens. They must be productive.
8. Guarantees insurance renewal. The government can guarantee insurance renewal, because all other insurance options will be eliminated. You will eventually have no choice but to “conform.”
According to the White House, reform will stop “rationing,” not increase it – yet by the statistics from European and Canadian plans which this system is being modeled after, the results are clearly visible – there is rationing under those plans – there is government take-over of the entire health care system.
According to the White House (or the Ministry of Love), we can’t afford to fix the problems we currently have in the present system, and instead we must scrap everything and move to this new method. The email states that the President has found ways to pay for the “vast majority” of “up-front” costs. As John Lee Hooker once wrote in one of his songs – “Talkin ‘bout the back-rent.” We don’t even have any “front rent.” It’s not possible to “bust the budget” because we’ve already done that. We can’t afford this health care plan – because we can’t afford anything. We’ve already blown the product of untold generations on “stimulating the economy.”
According to the White House, the new health care plan would never “encourage” euthanasia. Instead, “for seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of-life decisions,” the government would help to cover these “consultations.”
According to the White House, Veteran health care is safe and sound – in the loving hands of the Ministry of Love’s minion, the Department of Veterans Affairs. Please take a short road trip to your nearest VA hospital for more information on that.
According to the White House, reform will benefit small business. But it would never destroy an entire insurance industry by becoming the only game in town. It would never put the squeeze on small businesses who are barely able to make payroll now, let alone with the massive game-changer and all the new regulation which will come along with it. No – all those small businesses will be just fine in the loving embrace of Big Brother.
Your Medicare is safe, says the White House, because the new system will help to “Close the Medicare doughnut hole” and make prescription drugs more affordable to seniors. Of course, those will be the drugs which are on the formulary approved by government panels and in-line with decisions on the appropriate level of care for each senior as decided by “The Ministry of Love,” much like some prescriptions are simply unavailable to troops in the current Veterans Administration. And lastly, those medications are of course assuming the aforementioned senior hasn’t taken advantage of the government consultations on euthanasia.
And of course, your government will allow you to keep your own insurance and never force you to change doctors – unless of course the massive government plan forces the private companies out of business and only accepts an “approved” list of doctors for their new health care service. Then you might be forced to select from the Ministry of Love’s approved list.
And lastly, there’s no way, according to the White House, that te government will do anything with your bank account. They only want their new health plan cards to be connected to your bank account purely for convenience’ sake. This way it is easy for you to pay bills in a method, which you choose. And it will be so very private – because, after all, it is only between you and Big Brother.
O’Brien, also had this to say, during his interrogation of poor Winston in Orwell’s 1984 – “Even now, I am well aware, you are clinging to your disease under the impression that it is a virtue…” But citizen, the White House tells us our disease is curable.
“You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline” wrote Orwell. “You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one… It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.”
If Orwell’s vision of 1984 even comes close to running a parallel with the current U.S. administration’s wishes, we must succumb as poor Winston.
We must humble ourselves “before we can become sane.”
All I can finish this article with is a warning to anyone reading. It is possible that we will have all of these horrific pieces of legislation heaped on top of us. It is possible we will not escape – and that the grip of our own seemingly impossible “Big Brother” will continue to squeeze until there is nothing left to give – no act of contrition, no taxation which has not already been taken from us.
It is possible that we will be “lifted clean from the stream of history.”
Then again, it is possible that those very same elected officials who are treading down this path, will be removed from office. It is possible the people will not allow this to occur here in America. It is likely, dear Party members, that you have marked yourselves by your own actions. Believe yourselves to be untouchable.
It changes nothing, because we are coming for you.
We are coming for you all.
