#oldspeaker

[theodorosmpahoumasvintageworld]

TECHNICS beige vintage speakers

TECHNICS beige vintage speakers

Photographed by me Theodoros Mpahoumas

#speaker #speakers #old #classic #classics #vintage #oldspeaker #oldspeakers #classicspeaker #classicspeakers #vintagespeaker #vintagespeakers #technics #technicsspeaker #technicsspeakers #technicsoldspeaker #technicsoldspeakers #technicsclassicspeaker #technicsclassicspeakers #technicsvintagespeaker #technicsvintagespeakers

[she-posts-nerdy-stuff]

On the edge of tears listening to 1984 by George Orwell (this is my first time reading it) and hearing the words “By 2050, earlier, probably, all real knowledge of oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron. They’ll exist only in newspeak versions; not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be” whilst living in a world where people are using AI to summarise books into paragraphs to read them.

[purpledemonlilyposting]

Okay it's time for me to go a bit crouching retard hidden genius here, take off the clown nose and put my thinking cap on. Cause unlike many, many people who reference Nineteen Eighty-Four I've actually read it. Several times. And not as a school mandate.

What does "He loved Big Brother" tell you about media literacy?

Like what even is that point, Lorch? What does just knowing the final sentence of the book tell you about someone's media literacy? What do YOU even think that line means? Cause I'd love to hear it and I doubt you've ever actually read the fucking book.

There are many take-aways you can have from Nineteen Eighty-Four regarding the control of the populace through deception, fear, propaganda, regulation, indoctrination of the young, the dumbing down of language, and sheer hypocrisy. I'd be more interested in someone's take on passages like this to gauge their media literacy:

'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take "good", for instance. If you have a word like "good", what need is there for a word like "bad"? "Ungood" will do just as well -- better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of "good", what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like "excellent" and "splendid" and all the rest of them? "Plusgood" covers the meaning, or "doubleplusgood" if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words -- in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.'s idea originally, of course,' he added as an afterthought. A sort of vapid eagerness flitted across Winston's face at the mention of Big Brother. Nevertheless Syme immediately detected a certain lack of enthusiasm. 'You haven't a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,' he said almost sadly. 'Even when you write it you're still thinking in Oldspeak. I've read some of those pieces that you write in The Times occasionally. They're good enough, but they're translations. In your heart you'd prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?' Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on: 'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'

The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed. The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax. But at the moment he had other things to preoccupy him. It was during the moment of disorder while the posters were being torn down that a man whose face he did not see had tapped him on the shoulder and said, 'Excuse me, I think you've dropped your brief-case.' He took the brief-case abstractedly, without speaking. He knew that it would be days before he had an opportunity to look inside it. The instant that the demonstration was over he went straight to the Ministry of Truth, though the time was now nearly twenty-three hours. The entire staff of the Ministry had done likewise. The orders already issuing from the telescreen, recalling them to their posts, were hardly necessary. Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now completely obsolete. Reports and records of all kinds, newspapers, books, pamphlets, films, sound-tracks, photographs -- all had to be rectified at lightning speed. Although no directive was ever issued, it was known that the chiefs of the Department intended that within one week no reference to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in existence anywhere. The work was overwhelming, all the more so because the processes that it involved could not be called by their true names.

Also please read Nineteen Eighty-Four everyone. It's a very good book, it's not very long, and it's still scarily relevant to today.

[elfieafterdark]

Alecto trying to parse Harrow and Ianthe's argument through her oldspeake is hilarious, and exactly what I needed after that ending holy shit.

More thoughts to come after I have breakfast and gather up the shattered bits of my sanity.

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.3 Why do anarcho”-capitalists place little or no value on equality?

Murray Rothbard argued that “the ‘rightist’ libertarian is not opposed to inequality.” [For a New Liberty, p. 47] In contrast, genuine libertarians oppose inequality because it has harmful effects on individual liberty. Part of the reason “anarcho”-capitalism places little or no value on “equality” derives from their definition of that term. “A and B are ‘equal,’” Rothbard argued, “if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute … There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be ‘equal’ in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all their attributes.” He then pointed out the obvious fact that “men are not uniform … the species, mankind, is uniquely characterised by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation: in short, inequality.” [Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays, p. 4 and p.5]

In others words, every individual is unique — something no egalitarian has ever denied. On the basis of this amazing insight, he concludes that equality is impossible (except “equality of rights”) and that the attempt to achieve “equality” is a “revolt against nature.” The utility of Rothbard’s sophistry to the rich and powerful should be obvious as it moves analysis away from the social system we live in and onto biological differences. This means that because we are all unique, the outcome of our actions will not be identical and so social inequality flows from natural differences and not due to the economic system we live under. Inequality of endowment, in this perspective, implies inequality of outcome and so social inequality. As individual differences are a fact of nature, attempts to create a society based on “equality” (i.e. making everyone identical in terms of possessions and so forth) is impossible and “unnatural.” That this would be music to the ears of the wealthy should go without saying.

Before continuing, we must note that Rothbard is destroying language to make his point and that he is not the first to abuse language in this particular way. In George Orwell’s 1984, the expression “all men are created equal” could be translated into Newspeak “but only in the same sense in which All men are redhaired is a possible Oldspeak sentence. It did not contain a grammatical error, but it expressed a palpable untruth — i.e. that all men are of equal size, weight, or strength.” [“Appendix: The Principles of Newspeak”, 1984, p. 246] It is nice to know that “Mr. Libertarian” is stealing ideas from Big Brother, and for the same reason: to make critical thought impossible by restricting the meaning of words.

“Equality,” in the context of political discussion, does not mean “identical,” it means equality of rights, respect, worth, power and so forth. It does not imply treating everyone identically (for example, expecting an eighty year old man to do identical work as an eighteen violates treating both equally with respect as unique individuals). Needless to say, no anarchist has ever advocated such a notion of equality as being identical. As discussed in section A.2.5, anarchists have always based our arguments on the need for social equality on the fact that, while people are different, we all have the same right to be free and that inequality in wealth produces inequalities of liberty. For anarchists:

“equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity … Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations… . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence.” [What is Anarchism?, pp. 164–5]

So it is precisely the diversity of individuals (their uniqueness) which drives the anarchist support for equality, not its denial. Thus anarchists reject the Rothbardian-Newspeak definition of equality as meaningless. No two people are identical and so imposing “identical” equality between them would mean treating them as unequals, i.e. not having equal worth or giving them equal respect as befits them as human beings and fellow unique individuals.

So what should we make of Rothbard’s claim? It is tempting just to quote Rousseau when he argued “it is … useless to inquire whether there is any essential connection between the two inequalities [social and natural]; for this would be only asking, in other words, whether those who command are necessarily better than those who obey, and if strength of body or of mind, wisdom, or virtue are always found in particular individuals, in proportion to their power or wealth: a question fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of the truth.” [The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 49] This seems applicable when you see Rothbard proclaim that inequality of individuals will lead to inequalities of income as “each man will tend to earn an income equal to his ‘marginal productivity.’” This is because “some men” (and it is always men!) are “more intelligent, others more alert and farsighted, than the remainder of the population” and capitalism will “allow the rise of these natural aristocracies.” In fact, for Rothbard, all government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man. [The Logic of Action II, p. 29 and p. 34] But a few more points should be raised.

The uniqueness of individuals has always existed but for the vast majority of human history we have lived in very egalitarian societies. If social inequality did, indeed, flow from natural inequalities then all societies would be marked by it. This is not the case. Indeed, taking a relatively recent example, many visitors to the early United States noted its egalitarian nature, something that soon changed with the rise of capitalism (a rise dependent upon state action, we must add). This implies that the society we live in (its rights framework, the social relationships it generates and so forth) has far more of a decisive impact on inequality than individual differences. Thus certain rights frameworks will tend to magnify “natural” inequalities (assuming that is the source of the initial inequality, rather than, say, violence and force). As Noam Chomsky argues:

“Presumably it is the case that in our ‘real world’ some combination of attributes is conducive to success in responding to ‘the demands of the economic system.’ Let us agree, for the sake of discussion, that this combination of attributes is in part a matter of native endowment. Why does this (alleged) fact pose an ‘intellectual dilemma’ to egalitarians? Note that we can hardly claim much insight into just what the relevant combination of attributes may be … One might suppose that some mixture of avarice, selfishness, lack of concern for others, aggressiveness, and similar characteristics play a part in getting ahead and ‘making it’ in a competitive society based on capitalist principles. … Whatever the correct collection of attributes may be, we may ask what follows from the fact, if it is a fact, that some partially inherited combination of attributes tends to material success? All that follows … is a comment on our particular social and economic arrangements … The egalitarian might respond, in all such cases, that the social order should be changed so that the collection of attributes that tends to bring success no longer do so. He might even argue that in a more decent society, the attributes that now lead to success would be recognised as pathological, and that gentle persuasion might be a proper means to help people to overcome their unfortunate malady.” [The Chomsky Reader, p. 190]

So if we change society then the social inequalities we see today would disappear. It is more than probable that natural difference has been long ago been replaced with social inequalities, especially inequalities of property. And as we argue in section F.8 these inequalities of property were initially the result of force, not differences in ability. Thus to claim that social inequality flows from natural differences is false as most social inequality has flown from violence and force. This initial inequality has been magnified by the framework of capitalist property rights and so the inequality within capitalism is far more dependent upon, say, the existence of wage labour rather than “natural” differences between individuals.

This can be seen from existing society: we see that in workplaces and across industries many, if not most, unique individuals receive identical wages for identical work (although this often is not the case for women and blacks, who receive less wages than male, white workers for identical labour). Similarly, capitalists have deliberately introduced wage inequalities and hierarchies for no other reason that to divide and so rule the workforce (see section D.10). Thus, if we assume egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, then much of capitalist economic life is in such a revolt and when it is not, the “natural” inequalities have usually been imposed artificially by those in power either within the workplace or in society as a whole by means of state intervention, property laws and authoritarian social structures. Moreover, as we indicated in section C.2.5, anarchists have been aware of the collective nature of production within capitalism since Proudhon wrote What is Property? in 1840. Rothbard ignores both the anarchist tradition and reality when he stresses that individual differences produce inequalities of outcome. As an economist with a firmer grasp of the real world put it, the “notion that wages depend on personal skill, as expressed in the value of output, makes no sense in any organisation where production is interdependent and joint — which is to say it makes no sense in virtually any organisation.” [James K. Galbraith, Created Unequal, p. 263]

Thus “natural” differences do not necessarily result in inequality as such nor do such differences have much meaning in an economy marked by joint production. Given a different social system, “natural” differences would be encouraged and celebrated far wider than they are under capitalism (where hierarchy ensures the crushing of individuality rather than its encouragement) without any reduction in social equality. At its most basic, the elimination of hierarchy within the workplace would not only increase freedom but also reduce inequality as the few would not be able to monopolise the decision making process and the fruit of joint productive activity. So the claim that “natural” differences generate social inequalities is question begging in the extreme — it takes the rights framework of capitalism as a given and ignores the initial source of inequality in property and power. Indeed, inequality of outcome or reward is more likely to be influenced by social conditions rather than individual differences (as would be expected in a society based on wage labour or other forms of exploitation).

Rothbard is at pains to portray egalitarians as driven by envy of the rich. It is hard to credit “envy” as the driving force of the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin who left the life of wealthy aristocrats to become anarchists, who suffered imprisonment in their struggles for liberty for all rather than an elite. When this is pointed out, the typical right-wing response is to say that this shows that real working class people are not socialists. In other words if you are a working class anarchist then you are driven by envy and if not, if you reject your class background, then you show that socialism is not a working class movement! So driven by this assumption and hatred for socialism Rothbard went so far as to distort Karl Marx’s words to fit it into his own ideological position. He stated that “Marx concedes the truth of the charge of anti-communists then and now” that communism was the expression of envy and a desire to reduce all to a common level. Except, of course, Marx did nothing of the kind. In the passages Rothbard presented as evidence for his claims, Marx is critiquing what he termed “crude” communism (the “this type of communism” in the passage Rothbard quoted but clearly did not understand) and it is, therefore, not surprising Marx “clearly did not stress this dark side of communist revolution in the his later writings” as he explicitly rejected this type of communism! For Rothbard, all types of socialism seem to be identical and identified with central planning — hence his bizarre comment that “Stalin established socialism in the Soviet Union.” [The Logic of Action II, pp. 394–5 and p. 200]

Another reason for “anarcho”-capitalist lack of concern for equality is that they think that (to use Robert Nozick’s expression) “liberty upsets patterns”. It is argued that equality (or any “end-state principle of justice”) cannot be “continuously realised without continuous interference with people’s lives,” i.e. can only be maintained by restricting individual freedom to make exchanges or by taxation of income. [Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pp. 160–3] However, what this argument fails to acknowledge is that inequality also restricts individual freedom and that the capitalist property rights framework is not the only one possible. After all, money is power and inequalities in terms of power easily result in restrictions of liberty and the transformation of the majority into order takers rather than free producers. In other words, once a certain level of inequality is reached property does not promote, but actually conflicts with, the ends which render private property legitimate. As we argue in the next section, inequality can easily led to the situation where self-ownership is used to justify its own negation and so unrestricted property rights will undermine the meaningful self-determination which many people intuitively understand by the term “self-ownership” (i.e., what anarchists would usually call “freedom” rather than self-ownership). Thus private property itself leads to continuous interference with people’s lives, as does the enforcement of Nozick’s “just” distribution of property and the power that flows from such inequality. Moreover, as many critics have noted Nozick’s argument assumes what it sets out to proves. As one put it, while Nozick may “wish to defend capitalist private property rights by insisting that these are founded in basic liberties,” in fact he “has produced … an argument for unrestricted private property using unrestricted private property, and thus he begs the question he tries to answer.” [Andrew Kerhohan, “Capitalism and Self-Ownership”, pp. 60–76, Capitalism, Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miler, Jr, Jeffrey Paul and John Ahrens (eds.), p. 71]

So in response to the claim that equality could only be maintained by continuously interfering with people’s lives, anarchists would say that the inequalities produced by capitalist property rights also involve extensive and continuous interference with people’s lives. After all, as Bob Black notes “it is apparent that the source of greatest direct duress experienced by the ordinary adult is not the state but rather the business that employs him [or her]. Your foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week than the police do in a decade.” [“The Libertarian As Conservative”, The Abolition of Work and Other Essays, p. 145] For example, a worker employed by a capitalist cannot freely exchange the machines or raw materials they have been provided with to use but Nozick does not class this distribution of “restricted” property rights as infringing liberty (nor does he argue that wage slavery itself restricts freedom, of course). Thus claims that equality involves infringing liberty ignores the fact that inequality also infringes liberty (never mind the significant negative effects of inequality, both of wealth and power, we discussed in section B.1). A reorganisation of society could effectively minimise inequalities by eliminating the major source of such inequalities (wage labour) by self-management. We have no desire to restrict free exchanges (after all, most anarchists desire to see the “gift economy” become a reality sooner or later) but we argue that free exchanges need not involve the unrestricted capitalist property rights Nozick assumes (see section I.5.12 for a discussion of “capitalistic acts” within an anarchist society).

Rothbard, ironically, is aware of the fact that inequality restricts freedom for the many. As he put it “inequality of control” is an “inevitable corollary of freedom” for in any organisation “there will always be a minority of people who will rise to the position of leaders and others who will remain as followers in the rank and file.” [Op. Cit., p. 30] To requote Bob Black: “Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the essence of servitude.” [Op. Cit., p. 147] Perhaps if Rothbard had spent some time in a workplace rather than in a tenured academic post he may have realised that bosses are rarely the natural elite he thought they were. Like the factory owner Engels, he was blissfully unaware that it is the self-activity of the non-“elite” on the shop floor (the product of which the boss monopolises) that keeps the whole hierarchical structure going (as we discuss in section H.4.4, the work to rule — were workers do exactly what the boss orders them to do — is a devastating weapon in the class struggle). It does seem somewhat ironic that the anti-Marxist Rothbard should has recourse to the same argument as Engels in order to refute the anarchist case for freedom within association! It should also be mentioned that Black has also recognised this, noting that right-“libertarianism” and mainstream Marxism “are as different as Coke and Pepsi when it comes to consecrating class society and the source of its power, work. Only upon the firm foundation of factory fascism and office oligarchy do libertarians and Leninists dare to debate the trivial issues dividing them.” [Op. Cit., p. 146]

So, as Rothbard admits, inequality produces a class system and authoritarian social relationships which are rooted in ownership and control of private property. These produce specific areas of conflict over liberty, a fact of life which Rothbard (like other “anarcho”-capitalists) is keen to deny as we discuss in section F.3.2. Thus, for anarchists, the “anarcho”-capitalist opposition to equality misses the point and is extremely question begging. Anarchists do not desire to make people “identical” (which would be impossible and a total denial of liberty and equality) but to make the social relationships between individuals equal in power. In other words, they desire a situation where people interact together without institutionalised power or hierarchy and are influenced by each other “naturally,” in proportion to how the (individual) differences between (social) equals are applicable in a given context. To quote Michael Bakunin, ”[t]he greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results … the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give — such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.” [God and the State, p. 33]

Such an environment can only exist within self-managed associations, for capitalism (i.e. wage labour) creates very specific relations and institutions of authority. It is for this reason anarchists are socialists. In other words, anarchists support equality precisely because we recognise that everyone is unique. If we are serious about “equality of rights” or “equal freedom” then conditions must be such that people can enjoy these rights and liberties. If we assume the right to develop one’s capacities to the fullest, for example, then inequality of resources and so power within society destroys that right simply because most people do not have the means to freely exercise their capacities (they are subject to the authority of the boss, for example, during work hours).

So, in direct contrast to anarchism, right-“libertarianism” is unconcerned about any form of equality except “equality of rights”. This blinds them to the realities of life; in particular, the impact of economic and social power on individuals within society and the social relationships of domination they create. Individuals may be “equal” before the law and in rights, but they may not be free due to the influence of social inequality, the relationships it creates and how it affects the law and the ability of the oppressed to use it. Because of this, all anarchists insist that equality is essential for freedom, including those in the Individualist Anarchist tradition the “anarcho”-capitalist tries to co-opt (“Spooner and Godwin insist that inequality corrupts freedom. Their anarchism is directed as much against inequality as against tyranny” and so ”[w]hile sympathetic to Spooner’s individualist anarchism, they [Rothbard and David Friedman] fail to notice or conveniently overlook its egalitarian implications.” [Stephen L. Newman, Liberalism at Wit’s End, p. 74 and p. 76]). Without social equality, individual freedom is so restricted that it becomes a mockery (essentially limiting freedom of the majority to choosing which master will govern them rather than being free).

Of course, by defining “equality” in such a restrictive manner, Rothbard’s own ideology is proved to be nonsense. As L.A. Rollins notes, “Libertarianism, the advocacy of ‘free society’ in which people enjoy ‘equal freedom’ and ‘equal rights,’ is actually a specific form of egalitarianism. As such, Libertarianism itself is a revolt against nature. If people, by their very biological nature, are unequal in all the attributes necessary to achieving, and preserving ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’ … then there is no way that people can enjoy ‘equal freedom’ or ‘equal rights’. If a free society is conceived as a society of ‘equal freedom,’ then there ain’t no such thing as ‘a free society’.” [The Myth of Natural Law, p. 36] Under capitalism, freedom is a commodity like everything else. The more money you have, the greater your freedom. “Equal” freedom, in the Newspeak-Rothbardian sense, cannot exist! As for “equality before the law”, its clear that such a hope is always dashed against the rocks of wealth and market power. As far as rights go, of course, both the rich and the poor have an “equal right” to sleep under a bridge (assuming the bridge’s owner agrees of course!); but the owner of the bridge and the homeless have different rights, and so they cannot be said to have “equal rights” in the Newspeak-Rothbardian sense either. Needless to say, poor and rich will not “equally” use the “right” to sleep under a bridge, either.

As Bob Black observed: “The time of your life is the one commodity you can sell but never buy back. Murray Rothbard thinks egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, but his day is 24 hours long, just like everybody else’s.” [Op. Cit., p. 147]

By twisting the language of political debate, the vast differences in power in capitalist society can be “blamed” not on an unjust and authoritarian system but on “biology” (we are all unique individuals, after all). Unlike genes (although biotechnology corporations are working on this, too!), human society can be changed, by the individuals who comprise it, to reflect the basic features we all share in common — our humanity, our ability to think and feel, and our need for freedom.

[actualphysicalviolence]

"By 2050 - earlier, probably - all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron; they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like 'freedom is slavery' when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

George Orwell, 1984

[belethlegwen]

Hi Belle! I'm back again with my silly questions!

Since the ask about how the Idiot Brigade would react to a tiny person, I have been wondering...How would the crew react to someone washing up on shore, speaking another language other than King's tongue?

This question comes from my personal hyperfixation and daydreams, mostly because my first language isn’t English.

What about a language barrier? How would the cast of The Stranding react and adapt to (let's say, a giant) washing up on shore and not speaking their language?

I would love to hear your thoughts on these!

Hope you have an amazing day! -S

Hey Potato!! <3

SO, ABOUT YOUR QUESTIONS...

In regards to the first one, about how they'd treat your average-sized shipwreck survivor/sudden visitor who didn't speak King's Tongue, it would entirely depend on what language the person did speak, and if it sounded closer to, say, the Hostenian language, or if it sounded more like Oldspeak-- which is a language/small group of languages that they have SOME history of in the lands but that have essentially been fully replaced over the last several hundred years by King's Tongue-- at least in the lands of the current Vogunti Reign.

A person speaking a wholly unknown language, or one they could not find a way to clearly communicate with, would be captured and held "prisoner" (but still well looked after) until a Royal Scholar (ideally of Languages) could perform enough of an examination to see if the language possibly had Hostenian-language roots anywhere, or if they could perhaps overcome the language barrier. If the person was deemed not a threat, they would be released into the care of the Scholars until communication could be more stable, and then the adventure would continue from there based on what kind of information they could glean from the new person. (i.e - Are there lands previously undiscovered by the Vogunti Royalty and it's militaries? Could they get there? Is this a potential other dimension/time travel/weird situation like what Melanie and Henry have going on in The Stranding currently? is there technology or other information to be gleaned from the newcomer that could help the Vogunti nation against possible outside 'threats' like the Hostenians, or perhaps this new 'nation', etc)

If the person was speaking something that sounded a bit too much like Hostenian? Incarcerated and imprisoned, heavily interrogated by the Scholars, and if they were still suspicious afterwards they'd begin correspondence of some kind with the Hostenian government similarly to how they would for actual Hostenian prisoners for trial/exchange/release/etc., at least to try and glean "HEY, IS THIS ONE OF YOURS?" or not.

AS FOR IF THEY WERE GIANT:

Immediately try to lock down/chain them up/interrogate them to the best of their ability. I'll be honest, if their language sounded too much like Hostenian and they seemed like too much of a threat? The Royal Guard leadership may demand they be attacked/killed/destroyed out of fear of safety. If the giant could communicate they aren't a threat/could be non-fatally taken down and imprisoned somehow, then it would be a real real rough ride. Language Scholars to try and communicate, break the language barrier if it isn't one known among the lands, etcetera. If it was *too much like* Hostenian/it was easier for one of the Scholars who knows Hostenian to speak with them in *that* language? War may be openly declared by Vogunti upon Hostenia because they'll assume this thing is one of theirs, sent as a hostile action, etc.

It would be a lot of politics.

There is a CHANCE, depending on the stir this giant makes and if Hostenia and Vogunti could keep away from each other's throats enough to trust that the giant belongs to NEITHER of them, that the nations may actually come together to try and determine who this is/where they came from/what their intentions are/etcetera, but Vogunti would try to maintain as much control of the situation as possible and there would be constant worries of "would this giant side with one country over the other, could there be more giants, where did this one come from/could we get there/could more get here/where would allegiances lie" etc.

Again, lots and lots of politics.

I hope these answers were fun! We don't get into like, direct perspectives from any Hostenian characters in The Stranding, so I don't know if narratively it would satisfy a language barrier in that regard as they would encounter Melanie? Her interactions with them thus far have uh... not been a conversational sort, but that could be something to still maybe look forward to in future chapters if/when I get the opportunity to write again.

IN COMPLETELY BONUS NEWS: WE MIGHT HAVE FOUND A NEW PLACE TO RENT. The relief is insane, but it's still not like finalized yet. There's a bit more juggling, but, my hopes have been higher the last few days.

Thank you so much as always for the great questions and for giving me like, low-pressure things to get my head back in the game on my therapeutic self-made escapes ;-; it's more appreciated than you know <3

[sleepdeprivedskelton]

Magic and the Second Realm (Part 1)

The following document is transcribed from the heavily damaged original printing of Divine Theory, etc., By Magnus Helderon, Pioneer of magical research. This is the translated and abridged introductory section, for the magic lithograph, and unabridged text, refer to the branch headmaster of the Tarbrind Royal Library, Historical Division.

Introduction to the Text Magnus Helderon is a difficult to track figure. No one knows when or where he was born, or when he died. Only a single small portrait of him was made during his brief visit to Tarbrind. His grave is located in the royal crypts, after his exhumation from an obscure village in western Dragonspine area in 1368.

Magnus, a "folk wizard" hailing from the relatively unsettled southeastern region, was, by most accounts an "esoteric madman" who practiced some slight degree of what is commonly referred to as folk magic. He was reportedly taught by his grandmother to cure warts and witch for water and rain, among other things. He is believed to be the first person to discover the utility of the "Ember" found scattered across the world after the great cataclysm in 1253. Rather than share his findings, he delved into hermitage and studied the phenomenon ceaselessly. Despite having almost no formal teaching, He produced a 1758 page codex known as the Divine Theory, Of Magics, Embers, and Dragon-bone. It was written entirely in the Oldspeake, and was nearly unintelligible in handwriting. He personally delivered the book to the miniscule magician's guild of Tarbrind, only six months after the conclusion of the great famine, where it sat in storage for nearly a decade, completely unread.

The tome was recovered while the guild was preparing to relocate, its numbers bolstered by the recent emergence of ember magics following the incineration of Horus Tob some 18 months prior. By this time, the book was heavily water damaged. It rested in the hands of the Scribe's guild for nearly 3 years before the readable portions were translated and compiled into the Theory of Magics, a textbook used in teaching the fundamentals of magic to this day. (approx. 150 years later)

The first section, and final third of the book, some 700 pages total, were completely beyond recovery for several more years, before more advanced recovery techniques were developed. While some sections remain lost to history, What was recovered changed the fundamentals of magic forever.

Here is an audio transcript made with ElevenLabs. AI was NOT used to write this document.

[newty]

one thing that gets me is that ffxvi has way less oldspeak than ffxiv does so while writing i have to keep toning it back in the name of Accuracy

but i wonder why that decision was made. its easier to write? they didn't want to scare more casual players away? mercy on the voice actors so they can sound natural more easily?

[the-orion-scribe]

Honestly they sound like oldspeak of the 1500s, or would-be names for streaming services

the existence of "maybe", "perhaps", "perchance", and "mayhaps" suggests there should also be "maychance" and "perbe"

[onenakedfarmer]

GEORGE ORWELL 1984

The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it never has been altered in any specific instance. For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version IS the past, and no different past can ever have existed. This holds good even when, as often happens, the same event has to be altered out of recognition several times in the course of a year.

At all times the Party is in possession of absolute truth, and clearly the absolute can never have been different from what it is now. It will be seen that the control of the past depends above all on the training of memory. To make sure that all written records agree with the orthodoxy of the moment is merely a mechanical act. But it is also necessary to REMEMBER that events happened in the desired manner. And if it is necessary to rearrange one's memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to FORGET that one has done so. The trick of doing this can be learned like any other mental technique. It is learned by the majority of Party members, and certainly by all who are intelligent as well as orthodox. In Oldspeak it is called, quite frankly, 'reality control'. In Newspeak it is called DOUBLETHINK, though DOUBLETHINK comprises much else as well.

DOUBLETHINK means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of DOUBLETHINK he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. DOUBLETHINK lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.

To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies--all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word DOUBLETHINK it is necessary to exercise DOUBLETHINK. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of DOUBLETHINK one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of DOUBLETHINK that the Party has been able--and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years--to arrest the course of history.

[perpetual-peace]

Black September (September Hitam)

I finished the reading challenge #BacaBukuSejarahBareng on September with 4 books: 1984 by George Orwell, Bumi Manusia by Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Berita Kehilangan from KontraS, and TEMPO's Investigation Report titled Pengakuan Algojo 1965.

Keep reading to find the review of each books.

1. 1984 by George Orwell — 5 stars

I wasn't a fan of George Orwell until this year, so I haven't had time to delve deep into his political ideology. My very first introduction to his work was when I read Animal Farm. That book's genius enchanted me so badly that the next day I immediately ordered "Homage to Catalonia" and "1984". Despite having both of them since April, only 1984 screamed loudly to me when September came. As an Indonesian who loves history, September was an important month. Although in 1984, Indonesia was mentioned only once, the political satire from this book is actually relatable to what happened in Indonesia in 1965.

If my ego as a politics student speaks, then this book is a good satire toward totalitarianism and not only that, but also to my country's current political situation (as of 10/10/2024).

There is one thing that we as humans do almost all the time, and it is incorrect: separating politics and culture. I wasn't going to talk much about Newspeak and how its grammar can help people to become dull and unintelligent, but I'm going to highlight the brilliance of Big Brother (if he is even real and not a fictive figure made by The Party) and The Party in using politics to redefine cultures, and by saying cultures, it also means the change from Oldspeak (Standard English) to Newspeak. The culture reset The Party was trying to do can determine every aspect of everyone's life.

The Party knows tremendously well the importance of controlling and remaking the culture as they like with their political power. And this narrative that Orwell brought is so genius as to even touch the surface of the most fundamental thing in everyone's life: language. Changing the language can change habits and perspectives. And The Party wasn't even finished with language as the main tool of control. It also uses psychological manipulation and brainwashing. I mean, how many times did we see that Oceania (the country where The Party resides) changed its war enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia? And how fast can the news be changed so that no one can trace that there was an error made by The Party?

I was foolish to think that Orwell would go easy on this book, by giving the reader a slight romance and sweet forbidden love. I was also naïve to think that Winston and Julia would go hand in hand, meeting the Brotherhood and- Jesus, I really was naïve. But of course, it is really Orwell's book when he won't give the wonderful and happy ending closure to the reader.

2. Bumi Manusia (This Earth of Mankind) by Pramoedya Ananta Toer — 5 stars

In these times, it is an enviable privilege when someone possesses the Buru Quartet series by Pramoedya Ananta Toer. Those who have read 'This Earth of Mankind,' the first book of the aforementioned series, should rejoice for being able to enjoy this magnificent novel in its original language. We should also be proud that our nation's dark history was still willingly written with such skill by Pramoedya Ananta Toer, who was continually oppressed by the state through imprisonment and marginalization.

'This Earth of Mankind' is an excellent opening book for the Buru Quartet, providing a solid foundation for understanding Indonesia's journey through this historical fiction. Set in the late 19th century, this book tells the story of Minke, a native Javanese youth (inlander) born into the aristocratic class (priyayi). From the beginning, Minke's character is left mysterious and unclear in origin, though said to come from a priyayi family background. Thus, readers are made curious about Minke, and this curiosity grows along with Minke's journey as a student at HBS or Hogere Burger School.

A spotlight often shone on Minke is how he, as a native, was able to attend HBS and achieve excellent rankings at the school. This was an extraordinary achievement for a native because HBS was mostly filled with totok or pure Dutch and Indo or mixed Dutch. Not only that, Minke was also praised by many for his fluency in Dutch, like a native speaker. This fluency even made his own mother doubt his Javanese-ness.

The main conflict of the novel begins when Minke meets Nyai Ontosoroh, a concubine who, according to Minke, is unlike typical concubines. Nyai Ontosoroh has a very strong character, supported by her proficiency in Dutch and her ability to read Dutch magazines. Minke had never known a Nyai or concubine capable of speaking and (seemingly) being as educated as Nyai Ontosoroh. Minke's heart is also stirred by the beauty of Nyai Ontosoroh's daughter, Annelies Mellema. The meeting of these three is an unusual one, causing all mouths in their town to gossip about them.

'This Earth of Mankind' itself was inspired by Tirto Adhi Soerjo, the Father of Indonesian Press. He was a journalist, writer, and nationalist who lived from 1880 to 1918. Tirto Adhi Soerjo also founded several newspapers such as Medan Prijaji, which in its time became the first newspaper operated by natives in the Dutch East Indies.

This novel writes a scathing critique of Dutch colonialism that occurred in Indonesia, as well as the complexities of racism and classism during Dutch colonialism. Not only that, Javanese traditionalism is also challenged by the modernity brought by Dutch knowledge, making this book not simply place one party in the black camp and the other in the white. In fact, some argue that the Dutch East Indies Government and the Javanese Priyayi who held positions in the Dutch East Indies government were two giant pillars that suppressed the lives of people without positions and noble blood.

Minke's own morality can be questioned. On one hand, he is greatly advantaged by the noble blood flowing within him, allowing him to attend a good school, but on the other hand, he is also disgusted by and curses Javanese aristocracy which he feels greatly demeans other humans. From Dutch school, he learns about individual rights and freedom of thought and opinion, but at the same school, he realizes that no matter how free a person is, they cannot be freer than the colonizers who come to colonize.

Buru Quartet, series which Pramoedya Ananta Toer narrated during his exile on Buru Island, has been praised for many years yet the availability of these books remain limited. It is why I am hoping that may the rumors regarding of Pramoedya’s works’ reprinting in 2025, truly happen. Because it is such a shame for everyone in Indonesia to not knowing this great roman.

3. Berita Kehilangan from various writers compiled by KontraS and Ultimus — 4.5 Stars

Inside of the reading communities spread across X (formerly Twitter), many have agreed to give September a moniker: Black September. This is done to commemorate the enforced disappearances and killings that occurred in September-October 1965 and many that followed during Orde Baru (New Order) Regime. There's also hashtag going online titled #BacaBukuSejarahBareng which then motivated me to pick up history-themed books available on the bookshelf in my room.

I've owned "Berita Kehilangan" since 2021, but as per my usual habit, I waited for this book to "call out" to me to be read. At the right moment, last September, I finally decided to break the seal of this book to enjoy its contents.

But how could I enjoy what I read, if it contains an anthology of heart-wrenching short stories inspired by enforced disappearances to cruel murders? Throughout all the short stories, the main perpetrator consistently points to the government. The government through its racist policies, through its brutal and cruel military apparatus, and through the cultures of enforced disappearances deliberately perpetuated to create an atmosphere of terror, so that society remains submissive and obedient to the government.

This anthology of short stories originated from the "Berita Kehilangan" short story writing competition held during the Week of Enforced Disappearances 2021 (held by KontraS) and participated by 280 writers. There are 15 selected short stories from 15 writers through the competition and 5 short stories from 5 guest writers, that fill this book. All of them stem from real events and experiences of people who witnessed or became victims or were affected or also those who studied the dark history of this nation.

One of the short stories in this book that made me pause for quite a while is the fact that there were forced relocations/abductions of underage children from East Timor during the conflict with Indonesia from 1975-1999. These children were taken by military personnel to Indonesia. Many children then lived in neglect and grew up in poverty, and not a few experienced sexual abuse and forced religious conversion.

There's also a story inspired by the true story of a young Chinese activist, who was found murdered in her home. Ita Martadinata Haryono was a key witness who was to testify at a UN hearing in New York in October 1998. Ita was about to testify about the mass rape of Chinese Women after the 1998 reformation.

4. Pengakuan Algojo 1965 — 4.5 stars

"That ideology (Communism, Marxism, and Leninism) has long been bankrupt. The Soviet Union is in shambles, China is now as capitalist as America. The idea of a classless society is an outdated and futile utopia... In other words, face communism with relaxation. Because that ideology is actually quite ordinary."

This book contains 10 pages dedicated to a "disclaimer" stating that Tempo's investigative report is intended for a higher purpose and not merely to "corner" certain groups or perpetrators of violence. This report is published and compiled to inspire national reconciliation for the victims and families of the 1965 Incident. The book also provides historical facts that many Indonesians have almost forgotten about how military personnel, religious organizations, and thuggish actions could unite to kill hundreds or even millions of people.

This institution was called the Operational Command for the Restoration of Security and Order (Kopkamtib), established on October 2, 1965, to crush the PKI and restore state order that had just been hit by the September 30th Movement. The National Commission on Human Rights, through its investigation, found that Kopkamtib was the main perpetrator of gross human rights violations in the 1965-1966 events.

The format of this book is quite interesting, as it provides a series of interview results and investigations of people who were once involved in the killing of party members and PKI sympathizers, and also highlights the experiences of people who directly witnessed these events. Not only that, several articles from historians and researchers are also included to add insight into the events that occurred 59 years ago.

Nevertheless, this book does not focus too much on cases that befell women at that time. Most of those interviewed as victims were only men (there is only one article with a female source).

[putinlizardsinme]

“By 2050, earlier, probably – all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron – they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness” I know its in no way what this thread is about, but using dumb robloxisms like "unalive" are sorta an optimistic rebuttal to 1984's views on limiting language to limit thought. Social media companies are actively trying to abolish words from the language to try to make concepts they don't like (read: not advertiser friendly concepts) impossible to express. And its failing. Even as big brother removes words from the dictionary, we simply repurpose the words we still have available to mean these forbidden concepts. Kids telling eachother to unalive on roblox is a small cry against the neutering of language by authoritarians and that is doubleplusgood

[dixiedrudge]

The Use and Misuse of History

Help Dixie Defeat Big-Tech Censorship! Spread the Word! Like, Share, Re-Post, and Subscribe! There’s a lot more to see at our main page, Dixie Drudge! From the Abbeville Institute: “I am heir to  the greatest civilization the world has ever known. I’d like to defend it but I wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.” –Alice Teller “By 2050—earlier probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have…