Category Archives: general

George Orwell’s 1984: Summary + Video + Audio Book

Check out George Orwell’s 1984 Video SparkNote: Quick and easy 1984 synopsis, analysis, and discussion of major characters and themes in the novel. For more 1984 resources, go to www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984.

Video SparkNotes: Orwell’s 1984 Summary – YouTube

Video SparkNotes: Orwell’s 1984 Summary

1984 is a 1956 film loosely based on the novel of the same name by George Orwell. This is the first cinema rendition of the story, directed by Michael Anderson, and starring Edmond O’Brien. Also starring are Donald Pleasence, Jan Sterling, and Michael Redgrave. Pleasence also appeared in the 1954 television version of the film, playing the character of Syme, which in the film was amalgamated with that of Parsons. O’Brien, the antagonist, was renamed “O’Connor,” possibly to avoid confusion with lead actor Edmond O’Brien.

After the customary distributor agreement expired, the film was withdrawn from the theatrical and TV distribution channels by Orwell’s estate and was not legally obtainable for many years

Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 — 21 January 1950),[1] known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism and commitment to democratic socialism.[2][3]

Commonly ranked as one of the most influential English writers of the 20th century and as one of the most important chroniclers of English culture of his generation,[4] Orwell wrote literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. He is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945), which together (as of 2009) have sold more copies than any two books by any other 20th-century author.[5] His book Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, is widely acclaimed, as are his numerous essays on politics, literature, language, and culture. In 2008, The Times ranked him second on a list of “The 50 greatest British writers since 1945″.[6]

Orwell’s work continues to influence popular and political culture, and the term Orwellian — descriptive of totalitarian or authoritarian social practices — has entered the language together with several of his neologisms, including Cold War, Big Brother, thought police, Room 101, doublethink, and thoughtcrime.

? 1984 George Orwell – Full Movie – Hollywood best Greatest blockbuster movie Film – YouTube

1984 George Orwell – Full Movie

The audio book:

CITI: These 6 Huge Trends Are Completely Reshaping The World Economy | Business Insider

Trend 1: The world is getting more integrated.
Trend 2: The global population is getting older.
Trend 3: Next-generation technology will enter the global market place.
Trend 4: Emerging economies will drive global economic growth.
Trend 5: Systemic risks are a threat to globally integrated companies.
Trend 6: Global governance systems will fail to solve international problems.

CITI: These 6 Huge Trends Are Completely Reshaping The World Economy | Business Insider

What Firechat’s Success in Hong Kong Means for a Global Internet – The Atlantic

And, crucially, it [FireChat] doesn’t need the Internet to work. It connects users directly to each other through their phone’s wi-fi or Bluetooth.

Firechat is, in the word of Stanislav Shalunov, “an electronic megaphone, that’s more resilient and goes further” than other tools. Shalunov is a co-founder and CTO of OpenGarden, the startup behind Firechat.

Firechat, in other words, erects a mesh network among its users. Unlike the modern Internet, which is essentially built around certain huge centralized hubs,  mesh networking allows users to connect directly to each other. Even if “the Internet” is still blocked, a mesh network still works—there’s no main outgoing connection to block.

What Firechat’s Success in Hong Kong Means for a Global Internet – The Atlantic

“Where is liberalism going?” – Toward authoritarianism

But in order to achieve this goal of a soft, liberated citizenry, the left will have to dominate and to control more of society—a tendency that is already in evidence, Williamson argued.

“At some point we’re going to have to really face in a very difficult way that we’re dealing with a really naked, aggressive authoritarian movement,” he said.

Recent events testify to this tendency, Williamson said. Robert Kennedy, Jr., a climate change activist and part of the most famous political family in America, argued recently that conservatives who disagree with the climate-change alarmists should be jailed. Senate Democrats just voted to repeal the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Several proposed graduation speakers were forced to withdraw from speaking because of protests from students who disagreed with some of the speakers’ past work.

These events and the ideology undergirding them are a far cry from the democratic constitutional republic envisioned in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The progressive agenda is, according to this panel, diametrically opposed to the American political project, as it wants to dismantle the constitutional order and the personal mores necessary for self-government and replace them with a much more authoritarian system.

But the question the panel did not really answer is why the left exists now and, more specifically, whether there is anything about the American system that naturally gives rise to the political left.

Liberalism in America | Washington Free Beacon

The modern liberal believes that men basically have a good heart. But that´s not what the Bible says:

Jeremiah 17:9 – The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Mark 7:21 – For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

So the foundation of the liberal is diametrically opposed to that of the conservative.

The article goes on the say that ultimately liberals are going nowhere. I think that statement is misleading. I think liberals will ultimately drive the US over a cliff. Maybe they´ll end up nowhere, but most of the people are going to suffer a lot in the process.

What President Obama left out of his ISIS address

The rise of the Islamic State, Hamas aggression against Israel, Russia’s revanchism in Eastern Europe and China’s territorial assertion in the Pacific have ended the most recent spell of U.S. isolationist delusion. Disparate in nature, these international crises share common features: exploitation of perceived U.S. weakness and repudiation of an international system that recognizes the territorial integrity of nation-states. Addressing these challenges must begin at home.

While President Obama promised to fundamentally change America, few realized his policies would fundamentally weaken it. Yet, the administration’s defense priorities and international retrenchment increasingly reflect a pre-Sept. 11, 2001 mindset. Moreover, the administration has sought to erode America’s national identity by dissolving our borders and nullifying immigration laws essential to U.S. sovereignty and security.

TRACCI: Restoring international stability begins at home – Washington Times

John Kerry Places Climate Change On Par With Ebola and Isis

US Secretary of State John Kerry has placed climate change on the top of world agenda, alongside Ebola and Isis, saying it has an immediacy that people have come to understand.

In remarks to foreign ministers of the 20 biggest economies, Kerry said climate change should be at the top of the agenda despite competition from more immediate challenges, according to The Guardian.

Experts and climate activists are raising the pitch to get world leaders to commit to limiting global temperatures to 2 deg C using strong policies.

This is the tipping point in temperature beyond which climate change effects will become irreversible.

John Kerry Places Climate Change On Par With Ebola and Isis

Dear Fellow Liberals: I’m Done Apologizing for Israel | TIME

As a species, we don’t seem to cotton to facts—especially when it comes to Jews

Some years ago, I was seated at dinner next to a British law professor, whom my husband, also a law professor, had invited to a conference that he’d organized. The conversation soon turned, as conversation often does among professional intellectuals, to Israel, specifically to the then-recent conflict between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian fighters in the West Bank town of Jenin, which my dinner partner (and much of the European press) referred to as the “massacre of Jenin.”

Oops—forgot about it already? Here’s a refresher: in 2002, the IDF went into Jenin during the Second Intifada, after Israel determined that the town served as a launching pad for missile and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. The 10-day operation claimed the lives of around 50 Palestinian gunmen, and 23 Israeli soldiers. My acquaintance, after repeating Palestinian claims of atrocities committed by Israeli forces—claims that had already been roundly debunked—capped off his assessment by saying, “What happened in Jenin was no more and no less than another Holocaust.”

Really?

Dear Fellow Liberals: I’m Done Apologizing for Israel | TIME

“As a liberal American Jew, I’m tired of apologizing for Israel’s actions regarding its own security, and as of last month, I’m done with it.”

You don´t need to tell us if you are liberal and Jewish. You only need to tell us if you are not liberal.

Here is a Jew basically complaining about other liberals. That they don´t like facts. Of course they don´t like facts. If they liked facts then they wouldn´t be liberal. The reality is slightly more complex, though. Liberals can understand facts but there is always so much background noise that reality gets flipped upside-down. The facts end up not mattering. But how can you argue with someone where the facts don´t even matter? Exactly!

The problem here is a little like banging your head against the wall. It feels so good when you stop. That´s what it is like arguing against liberals. You can´t agree on many of the facts, and even when you can agree they just don´t matter. Nothing matters. The facts end up not mattering because liberals have a model for how the world works. You won´t be surprised to learn that this model is the opposite of the conservative world model. Anyway, facts that don´t fit into this model just don´t register. It is as if they don´t exist.

Liberals believe that people behaving badly, like the Palestinians, are only reacting to their environment. When they seek to kill Jews and attack Israel it is only because of the oppressive environment that Israel created. Therefore, anything the Palestinians do is the fault of Israel. And Israel´s reaction may only be proportional as measured by deaths. Any kinds of facts otherwise are irrelevant. More Palestinian deaths is evidence of more cruelty (and evil) by Israel. Again, the actual facts of the situation are irrelevant.

Israel, and America too, fit into the bad-guy mold of the liberal world model. The only way out of that mold is to let the Palestinians kill more Israeli Jews. Insane, no?

In the end, one can´t argue so much about Israel. One has to attack the entire liberal model of how the world works. Good luck with that.

Think Tanks for Sale or Rent :: Daniel Pipes

In a eyebrow-raising 4,000-word exposé, “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks” published in the New York Times on September 7, Eric Lipton, Brooke Williams and Nicholas Confessore look into the novel issue of foreign governmental financing for American think tanks.

The trio found that while the total scope “is difficult to determine … since 2011, at least 64 foreign governments, state-controlled entities or government officials have contributed to a group of 28 major United States-based research organizations.” Using the sketchy available information, they estimate “a minimum of $92 million in contributions or commitments from overseas government interests over the last four years. The total is certainly more.”

In exchange for this largesse, the research institutions in question offered their donors two main benefits: One, they pressured staff members both to “refrain from criticizing the donor governments” and “to reach conclusions friendly to the government [that had provided] financing.” And two, they have been “pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities.” The result: Overseas money has thrown doubt on the legitimacy and objectivity of think-tank research while “increasingly transforming the once-staid think-tank world into a muscular arm of foreign governments’ lobbying in Washington.”

My responses, a week later, to this bombshell of a report:

Think Tanks for Sale or Rent :: Daniel Pipes

Crush or be Crushed

Recent events in Israel and Gaza prove that the winning-hearts-and-minds approach to ending wars and insurrections has the same success rate as getting rain by praying for it. If it were indeed the key to victory, armies would have exchanged their weapons for public relations kits ages ago.

The ancient Persians conquered the Babylonians, and the Greeks the Persians, and the Romans the Greeks, and the Turks the Byzantines, and the British the Turks not by capturing their hearts and minds, but by overwhelming them with so much might that they lost their will to fight and surrendered.

Articles: Crush or be Crushed

Of course you have to defeat the enemy military, but you change hearts and minds by killing lot of civilians. You kill so many that the remaining acknowledge defeat and give up. No acknowledgment of defeat means you keep killing civilians. In the case of Israel, that probably means wiping out at least 75% of their neighbors and driving off the remaining.

Yes, I know that’s a war crime. It’s also why the West will never win another war until it wises up. The military is an extension of the civilian world. Both must be defeated, or they will just keep coming back. However, they can’t won’t back if they are defeated or dead.

How to see into the future – FT.com

Tetlock published his conclusions in 2005, in a subtle and scholarly book, Expert Political Judgment. He found that his experts were terrible forecasters. This was true in both the simple sense that the forecasts failed to materialise and in the deeper sense that the experts had little idea of how confident they should be in making forecasts in different contexts. It is easier to make forecasts about the territorial integrity of Canada than about the territorial integrity of Syria but, beyond the most obvious cases, the experts Tetlock consulted failed to distinguish the Canadas from the Syrias.

Adding to the appeal of this tale of expert hubris, Tetlock found that the most famous experts fared somewhat worse than those outside the media spotlight. Other than that, the humiliation was evenly distributed. Regardless of political ideology, profession and academic training, experts failed to see into the future.

Most people, hearing about Tetlock’s research, simply conclude that either the world is too complex to forecast, or that experts are too stupid to forecast it, or both. Tetlock himself refused to embrace cynicism so easily. He wanted to leave open the possibility that even for these intractable human questions of macroeconomics and geopolitics, a forecasting approach might exist that would bear fruit.

How to see into the future – FT.com