
George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon - finid
http://www.openculture.com/2017/01/george-orwells-1984-is-now-the-1-bestselling-book-on-amazon.html
======
noobermin
While I love 1984, I think Fahrenheit 451 has become more true than Orwell's
novel. People have willingly given into an information bonanza that is the
internet, with headphones always in (seashells). We don't need the TV walls,
as our cellphone has taken that role, altogether with the hyperactive delivery
of such content.

A collectivist state has not become the dominating power, but wealthy
individuals and corporations have, although with similar results--while that
part wasn't really part of Montag's universe, the part that is is that we have
given up to the "firemen" on our own freewill, because it fits our narrative
or it's our safe space.

Nonetheless, I am very optimistic. I think for all the faults that the
internet and mobiles and social networks and globalization has wrought us, the
world today still is a better world it was say 20 or 30 years ago. When ontop
of oscillations, they are never obvious from the vantage point of a single
wiggle. I still feel that despite many of the shortcomings of the previous few
decades and years and months, we can still arrive on net at a better place
than we were yesterday.

~~~
wallace_f
> the world today still is a better world it was say 20 or 30 years ago

Are you sure? Can you tell me why you think this? Domestic crime has
increased. We're bombing seven countries. Civil rights have been diminished.
Human rights have been diminished. The last administration went to far greater
lengths to go after whistle blowers and journalists than any in history.
Income inequality is at all time highs. More than ever struggle to afford a
home or to pay off debt (student loans).

The biggest improvements seem to have been isolated to those in technology.

~~~
Arizhel
20 years ago in the US was an anomaly. Remember "The Matrix" when Agent Smith
said that 1999 was our society's peak? He was right, the movie makers just
didn't realize how right they were at the time. Many things have indeed gone
downhill since then, thanks to Bush.

For the stuff about war, what you're forgetting is all the stuff that came
before: Vietnam, Korea, WWII, various other police actions, Beirut, etc. The
60s and 70s were a particularly turbulent time in recent American history. Do
you see the National Guard out, shooting American protesters today? Nope. But
they did exactly that in the 60s.

You're factually wrong about many things here. Civil/human rights were much
worse in the past; just look at how hard it was for black people before the
Civil Rights Act of the late 60s. You think today's incidents of cops shooting
unarmed black people in the back is bad? It was a lot worse in the past,
people just didn't care and no one had cameras to record it all. Rodney King
was the first big instance of this being recorded by a bystander. Someone else
mentioned gay marriage; 30+ years ago gay people had to hide in "the closet",
many of them marrying heterosexually just to hide themselves. Crime is lower
today than in the past, despite what some alarmists would have you believe. Go
look up the actual stats. Crime in America has been on a downward trend for
decades.

Income inequality is not at an all-time high. It's a lot worse than it should
be, I agree, but go back to the Gilded Age and compare. It was worse back
then. They didn't even have simple worker protections like 40-hour work weeks
and OSHA to keep from getting maimed or killed on the job.

Yes, in many ways (but not all), things are definitely worse for Americans
than in 1997, but overall things are a lot better than there were in the past
before that. The 90s were simply an exceptional time, especially if you were a
white American: the economy was booming, we were in a big lull between
military adventures, the Soviet Union had collapsed and the Cold War was over,
the Internet was becoming a household item (much like electricity or the
telephone or the automobile became commonplace decades before, radically
changing society). It was a great time to make money, buy a house, not worry
about nuclear annihilation, etc. About the only people who were having a
really bad time were the people in former Yugoslavia.

~~~
bzbarsky
> About the only people who were having a really bad time were the people in
> former Yugoslavia.

Or the people anywhere in the vicinity of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War)
(which conveniently didn't appear in the news much). Pretty sure they were
having a much worse time than people in former Yugoslavia...

~~~
Arizhel
Yeah, that didn't get much exposure in the west. I've never even heard of it.

Also, this isn't to say that the rest of the world was doing great either;
lots of other 3rd-world places were surely having a hard time too. But the
question is, were they having an unusually hard time during the 90s, or was
that normal for them? In former Yugoslavia, it was abnormal: before that they
had stability behind the Iron Curtain, and after the war they had peace and
stability too for the most part (though still some troubles with Kosovo). The
war they went through in the 90s, and all that stuff with Milosevic, was an
abnormal time for them.

~~~
bzbarsky
The death toll numbering in the millions was pretty abnormal for the region,
yes.

~~~
Arizhel
Huh? According to Wikipedia, only roughly 140,000 people died during that
10-year period:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars)

Still a horrific number, but one or two orders of magnitude fewer than
"millions". There were millions displaced though.

Edit: I'll also add that that number (140k) is far less than the number of
Rwandans killed during their 1994 genocide, and in Rwanda's case that happened
in just a few days IIRC, not over a multi-year period.

------
beloch
I must admit, I'm really confused by how impeachment works in the U.S..
Clinton was impeached for perjury and abuse of power because he took advantage
of his position (and a political intern) and then lied about it.

Now we have a president who is not giving up his business interests while in
office and who has already told some absolute whoppers, including the release
of official press releases that were nothing but "alternative facts". Why tell
such obvious falsehoods? We're all laughing (nervously) now because the lies
seem to be harmless, self-serving vain ones. However, is Trump just a little
insane, or is he actually finding out who is willing to say "We've always been
at war with Eurasia" and who isn't?

This is probably a good time for people to be reading 1984.

~~~
pavanred
I really wish people and the media stop over emphasizing about every gaffe and
focus on real news stories. For instance, the "alternative facts"
comment/incident is being talked about everywhere, from TV news channels to
news parody shows to talk shows to social media etc. But, at the same time it
seems like there is so much more important news that one would think deserves
more attention like the executive orders, withdrawal from TPP, revival of oil
pipelines, changes in healthcare spending etc. I even just saw news articles
headlining on the guardian now about agencies being banned from sharing
information on social media or to reporters and few journalists getting felony
charges after covering the protests around the inauguration.

It almost makes me wonder if it would be a good idea if there was a website
that covered the latest gaffe and the corresponding actual news worthy story
that was lost out on optimal coverage because of it.

Edit: I couldn't find this before but here is an interesting article I read
yesterday [0]. It's an opinion piece by Alexey Kovalev. - "I’ve reported on
Putin – here are my tips for journalists dealing with Trump".

[0]
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/23/report...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/23/reported-
putin-journalists-trump-media)

~~~
kbenson
In one respect, the gaffe is insignificant to current events. In another, it's
vastly more important, because while small it erodes the underpinnings of the
system by which we actually disseminate information.

It's like having to choose between being upset about the person that mugged
you for $500 on the street, or the bank that surreptitiously added 0.05% APR
or the loan you just got for your house. One feels more important in the
moment, but the other has much farther reaching implications, not just to your
pocketbook, but as to whether you can trust anything about that institution
going forward.

If this is the beginning of a new trend for the Whitehouse where _nothing_
presented can be trusted, and it continues through future presidencies, I can
definitely tell you which _I_ think will be more important in 20 years.

~~~
soft_dev_person
The cynical among us have been saying that nothing presented by the White
house (and any other government institutions) can be trusted at face value for
years. I guess now is the time where everyone becomes a cynic.

But is that such a bad thing?

They say access journalism is dead, but access journalism is just repeating
stuff said by people with power. Making them accountable is a good thing.

Trump may have unintentionally restored investigative journalism...

~~~
joeguilmette
>> Trump may have unintentionally restored investigative journalism...

This can happen if they can find a way to monetize text that costs 100x more
to produce and has 100x less engagement than clickbait.

~~~
halomru
If there's 10000 times less competition in investigative journalism than in
clickbaiting those numbers add up to being profitable

------
bbctol
Orwell's work beside 1984 is better (in the sense of more complex/relevant to
our time, not as entertaining.) In particular, his writing on the Spanish
Civil War has seemed relevant today:

"I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway.
I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and
biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea
that history could be truthfully written. In the past people deliberately
lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after
the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case
they believed that ‘facts’ existed and were more or less discoverable. And in
practice there was always a considerable body of fact which would have been
agreed to by almost everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in,
for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, you will find that a respectable
amount of the material is drawn from German sources. A British and a German
historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but
there would still be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither
would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of
agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of
animal, that totalitarianism destroys."

1984 is largely about the surveillance state and oppression, with a bit at the
end about Orwell's views on truth; for those who say 1984 was a worse
predictor of the future than Fahrenheit 451, I say the idea of the destruction
of truth was more important than the methods anyway.

[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/Spanish_War/english/esw_1](http://orwell.ru/library/essays/Spanish_War/english/esw_1)

~~~
nathan_long
> I say the idea of the destruction of truth was more important than the
> methods anyway

I agree. I'm appalled that Trump feels free to lie about something as
falsifiable as the weather
([https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-
tru...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-trump-
inauguration-crowd-white-house.html)). And it does make me worry about
totalitarianism.

But in American culture, the use of "alternative facts" is hardly an invention
of the government. Postmodernism made deep inroads into the thinking of
average people. "What's true for you" or "true for me" became a common idea in
religious conversations. And it extends into our debates about things like
gender.

When everyone is allowed to have their own facts, we can quarrel, but we can't
debate, because we have no common assumptions. And if we can settle anything
by debate, coercion is the only option.

It's an intellectual environment ripe for authoritarianism. But not created by
it.

~~~
bbctol
To what are you referring when you say "postmodernism"? Which postmodernists
have you read?

------
Mikeb85
Kind of ironic given Bush and Obama were the ones to expand the surveillance
state, Hillary demonised the shit out of Russia to try create an
enemy/scapegoat, and here Trump is, only a few days in power, not having done
anything particularly bad.

Also, I should add - for Democrats out there who keep trying to compare Trump
to Hitler, say he's fascist, etc... That weak rhetoric is what gave you guys
your worst election result in what, 80 years? The more you cry foul over
nothing, the less people will actually believe it. Just an outsider's opinion
after an entertaining and somewhat perplexing election.

~~~
endisukaj
The worst result in 80 years is winning the popular vote with a margin of
about 3 million?

~~~
halflings
In an electoral system that doesn't take the popular vote into consideration?
Yes. Democrats are now pretending that they lost "by chance", but their
campaign (like the Republicans') is engineered and fine-tuned/optimized to get
the swing states, not to optimize by how much they will win in traditionally
blue states.

------
dpweb
Its right to question which direction the country is headed, but i have to
wonder what damage is being done to the nation's psyche with all the
apocolyptic imagery. What's it like to feel in constant crisis. It makes
people scared all the time and drives divisiveness. Its as dangerous as
anything the prez may have planned.

~~~
davesque
It's a tricky question. On the one hand, you can try to calm yourself and
avoid living in constant paranoia which could be a net gain. On the other
hand, you can risk the water slowly coming to a boil all around you without
your noticing. I've tried to remain as calm as possible throughout all of
this, but I can't get the image of the frog on the hotplate out of my mind. I
seem to recall that people who lived through the rise of Nazi Germany
described things in that way. No one really realized how insane things were
getting until it was too late.

------
kylelibra
Also highly relevant is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World)

~~~
ibmthrowaway218
Both were influenced by _We_ by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

~~~
liamzebedee
An incredible book if I may add. Zamyatin was one of few dystopian writers to
actually be involved in the going-ons in the Russian revolution at the time.

------
nickff
It also had a (possibly smaller) resurgence after the Snowden revelations.[1]
I only wish that Orwell's masterpiece was better understood and appreciated.

In addition, I should point out that the book's title is "Nineteen Eighty-
Four", not "1984".

[1] [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/1984-rockets-
amazon...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/1984-rockets-amazon-
bestseller-list-article-1.1371606)

~~~
aaron695
> In addition, I should point out that the book's title is "Nineteen Eighty-
> Four", not "1984".

So it is....

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nineteen_Eighty-
Four#Requ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nineteen_Eighty-
Four#Requested_move_Nineteen_Eighty-Four_.E2.86.92_1984)

------
Natsu
Just hope it doesn't get deleted from your Kindles again.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18ama...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0)

------
pinewurst
More people need to read Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here" (1935) which I
didn't take so seriously when I first read it in high school.

~~~
apeconmyth
From NYT Book Review: Reading the Classic Novel That Predicted Trump
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/books/review/classic-
nove...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/books/review/classic-novel-that-
predicted-trump-sinclar-lewis-it-cant-happen-here.html)

------
robbiep
1984 is out of copyright in Australia and many other countries so you can grab
it from project gutenberg for free

~~~
chrisper
[https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=1984](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=1984)

Don't seem to be able to find anything?

~~~
sien
[http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt)

------
banku_brougham
This is amazing. The womens marches over the weekend and these seem to be an
indicator of a very sudden awakening.

~~~
vixen99
Why would a march be more significant than the votes of 62 million people?

I agree that an awakening is overdue given that for instance, America’s child
poverty levels are worse than in any developed country anywhere, including
Greece and only Slovakia, Chile, Mexico and Turkey have worse infant mortality
rates. Median adult wealth is 27th out of 27 high-income countries; internet
speed and access is 16th out of 34 countries and for people living below the
poverty line - US is 36th out of 162 countries, behind Morocco and Albania.

However the US does score a first in its prison population. It comes #1 out of
224 countries. Only China comes close.

~~~
flukus
Identity politics hides issues like this more than anything. A poor black
person in a ghetto and a poor white one in a trailer park should be the same
voting block but they've been polarized by both sides trying to lock down
their demographics.

~~~
humanrebar
Are you saying poor black and white people are too naive to vote for
themselves? Should they vote the way _we_ tell them to? Is principled politics
a luxury of the privileged?

I'm not a fan of this meme.

~~~
flukus
I'm saying the political system is far to tribalistic. We all fall for
tribalism but it seems to have become way to set in lately.

~~~
humanrebar
I'll agree with that. We discuss membership in groups, not ideas. It's
signalling and dog whistles all the way down.

------
KON_Air
Isn't it a bit too late to read 1984? I'd say it is too late get into
cyberpunk too, because most if not all of those "warnings" came and passed
largely unnoticed. It is quite pitiful "waking up to the corporate state" just
because "not-our-candidate" won, while living in one for past 2-3 decades.

------
Animats
The 1954 movie version is on YouTube.[1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajWC_J-
jgLc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajWC_J-jgLc)

------
andrewclunn
Wait, so the "#1 bestselling" of something can just mean for that day? They
might as well call it a trending list at that point.

------
siculars
1984 and Brave New World are my all time double plus good books. We've been
gradually sliding towards those worlds over the last number of decades,
regardless of Trump. If nothing comes of this election but stronger
protections around all sorts of freedoms then I'll be happy for it even if
just by way of grassroots demand from the general public through awareness and
engagement.

I really do hope this election increases citizen participation in the public
sphere.

~~~
Simaramis
Instead I can recommend Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, or to understand
presently overwhelmed United States: Cervantes' Don Quixote. Both much less
stale and dry in their prose, but incredibly more insightful.

------
EasyTiger_
Do we really need Trump news on HN. I've left Reddit because of the political
insanity there, I'm hoping it doesn't come here too.

------
james_niro
This book is available for free download through archive.org

[https://archive.org/details/Orwell1984preywo](https://archive.org/details/Orwell1984preywo)

------
inopinatus
The recursive irony is strong, could only be increased if the "Customers Also
Bought" included _The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism_ , E.
Goldstein, Brotherhood Press 1949.

------
yCloser
I agree with Isaac Asimov (review:
[http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm))

~~~
popee
Very interesting

------
EJTH
Nice! Maybe people will stop comparing the current state of things to 1984,
when they actually read it...

------
beezischillin
I think 1984 painted a scary, but important fictional picture of what life
behind the iron curtain was like, several similar books attempted to deal with
the issues of 20th century life in similar fashion, but I think it should be
recognized that much of this is no longer as applicable to the discussion we
should be having -- the post modern situation has become way more subtle in
its presence, despite the loud and brash way it's presented.

An interesting book I read recently about a relatable topic is home the book
Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible by Peter Pomerantsev, about early
2000s Russia and the oil boom years, the role of the media, young money,
memetic content created by the media and the way all of that affects
population, it's scary and some of it kind of can be seen reflecting back on
today's western society as well.

I just wish (and was secretly hoping for) that media and oppositional politics
recognized the role they played in this fiasco and tried to change their
behaviour up to try and change it. I seem to be wrong, sadly.

We're jumping from one nice sounding headline to the next one (like this one!)
and we're ignoring much of the actual discussion we should be having, because
this is more convenient. It kind of hurts to a large majority being aware of
the issues and then just pressing on, choosing to ignore it, because it's more
convenient to share a dumb meme about numbers, complain about alternative
facts or to watch SNL.

I wouldn't say that this is the end of the leading role of western
civilisation in the world (I am not smart enough to make such statements), but
it really seems to me that we are opening up our weaknesses to foreign powers
that will try hard to exploit them and it's a pretty damaging process.

/rant

------
thinkMOAR
And if you like this book, you will probably like Netflix series, Black Mirror

------
gits1225
Fun fact: Mark Zuckerberg is born in 1984 : )

------
myf01d
Maybe the Americans are just over-dramatic

------
mk89
More than Orwell's 1984, I think that people should start reading about
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis)
\- a very old concept which unfortunately keeps repeating itself.

------
nym
Buy one and give it to someone else.

------
ThomPete
I think what the careful reader of 1984 will realize is that the book is
perfectly good at explaining not just Trump but most other politicians.

------
happycube
... ironically(?), at this moment, a post on the USA previously having 4
billion chestnut trees is #4 while this is #1.

------
SloughFeg
Doublethink is pervasive in a lot of modern thought. Hopefully this trend will
make people evaluate it a bit more.

------
sochix
Here you can Download it for FREE and search through the full-version of the
book
[http://ambardemo.rdseventeen.com/?query=1984&doSearch=true](http://ambardemo.rdseventeen.com/?query=1984&doSearch=true)

------
EleventhSun
I would actually argue that what we have today is worse than 1984. If you read
the book, the protagonists have economic security/stability, even if in a
totalitarian government. We have both nightmare spying AND economic
insecurity.

------
satyajeet23
Becoming more relevant by the day.

"In a time of deciet, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

------
buro9
The strangest tangent from reading this article.

> George only has the new administration to thank

But George has been under the Earth for the longest time hasn't he? He
couldn't be thankful for anything any more. Off to Wikipedia I go, yup since
1950 from tuberculosis.

But a section on the article mentions the his homophobia, and so I read that
because I find it surprising that it's mentioned when it was the norm at the
time and seems like some kind of revisionism.

That then leads to a segue on phrasing Orwell used in 1984 to describe the
"nancy left" or "pansies", and the presence in the Chestnut Tree (at the end
of the book) gay men.

Then another segue to David Bowie and his last album which contains "Girl
Loves Me" as it references the Chestnut Tree and contains polari... and this
morning on BBC 6 Music I had heard a long forgotten Morrissey track that was
on an album called Bona Drag, and when I put the album on over breakfast I
listened to the opening track "Piccadilly Palare" and some of the same strange
phrases were present as in the Bowie track, and now I also recognise them from
having read 1984 (except Orwell was using the slang phrases pejoratively).

A further segue as I remembered that Lucky Lisp from the same album has
references also to polari, and on the Orwell wikipedia page there was a
mention of the Chestnut Tree scene again, and how Orwell included a lisp for
the "Nancy" characteristics which he identifies in detail and with "some
disgust".

And this leads to the most fascinating Wiki discovery of the day:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_lisp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_lisp)
. The tested hypothesis being that sexual orientation of men can be determined
from how gay men phonate their s's distinctively to the degree that
measurements of guesses were accurate beyond a rate that could be chance.

The rabbit hole goes deep when one strays onto Wikipedia.

------
3chelon
This is double-plus-plus-plus ungood, as either Trump or Big Brother might
say.

Seriously, I have pointed out before that Trump seems to have actually learnt
the rules of Newspeak with terrifying effectiveness.

------
faceyspacey
I can't help but perceive this as being a result of people thinking Trump is
somehow kickstarting our Orwellian future/present, when he's probably the
highest profile person to point out how government before him has been working
on this plan of ultimate control for a very long time. The biggest examples
being:

1) that he pointed out there were no weapons of mass destruction and--false
flag or not--our government used that to manipulate our perceptions to
perpetrate an atrocity.

2) the supposed Russian cyber attack; he's one of the few that spoke out
against the lack of evidence and that the US Intelligence report was
propaganda. That document was so obviously propaganda--I read the whole thing
and there wasn't even one word such as "system log" regarding what was
redacted. For my purposes, it doesn't matter that he spoke out against it
solely because it served him to do so.

So not that Trump won't continue more of the same control tactics or do more,
but as we all know as programmers when we break things, only to rebuild them
better: things almost always gotta get worse before they get better. I'm under
no delusion that Trump in it/himself will be good for us, but if it finally
unveils the lies and false flag politics/acts that have been far more harmful
to society, I'm all for it.

The problem has been we have politicians that knowingly manipulate us and have
another "face" behind the scenes. There is clearly some Machiavellian things
going on behind the scenes. In addition, I don't blame headlining politicians.
Clearly US Intelligence has a stronghold over them--either directly or
indirectly through manipulating their perception just as ours.

Our country has clearly been on a decide path of the following 2-fold
strategy:

1) project strength no matter what 2) convince us it's for higher ideals to
maintain the perception of being the "good guy"

That's all it boils down to. It's looking like the US Government has killed
about 1 million people in the middle east since 9/11\. The numbers I've heard
for Vietnam were 3.5 million. We're talking people that are basically
defending their land here. And against the biggest military force the world
has ever seen. In other words, in comparison, these victims were all
civilians. The "Dominos" never fell, and ISIS is a small fraction of muslim
people in the middle east. It's also very clear that ISIS is a result of our
actions. What they are up to is retribution, not an attack on american ideals.
We are talking highly religious people who see everything through a religious
lens, so of course the way they are going to communicate their mission is that
of a religion one--but at the core of it is anger and hatred that we invaded
them, destroyed their land, dominated them and tried to control them. How
would we feel if an invading force from across the world made our home a
warzone--we wouldn't be like "well, it's for higher ideals, we'll just let
this slide." Yea right. America seems incapable of putting ourselves in the
shoes of others.

As if human lives and suffering isn't enough (well, it obviously isn't if it
is far away), we are now paying the debt from both Bush administrations for
years to come. Numbers I read stated that 72% of our national debt is from the
2 Bush presidents. We are currently paying $250 billion per year for those
wars. By 2020 the numbers suggest it will be $500 billion per year. The
numbers also stated that's 6% in 2015 and 12% in 2020 of where the taxpayer
money will be going to. Over however many years to pay that back, that's
enough money to have revamped our education system, invested in R&D and lived
up to the potential we once had. Techcrunch just last week said the government
is only investing $86 billion in tech investments. Imagine if that was $500
billion year after year.

Now all that said, I agree that the perception republicans and Trump portray
of america being in shambles is far from accurate. What I think is accurate is
that we aren't living up to our potential and we don't have the economic
acceleration we had before. People can feel that. That's a problem. What's
also a problem is that the numbers for unemployment which are good and other
positive figures seem to primarily reflect improvements for the lower class.
It is a major problem if the middle class isn't benefiting similarly. These
are the people most invested into the system, paying the most taxes into it,
and things have gotten harder for them.

So in conclusion, conspiracies aside (of which many are likely true), we have
sacrificed much to project strength. I don't believe in believing what I can't
see for myself, but I clearly see that projecting strength is the core of our
philosophy. I believe it's an incomplete (as well as aging) viewpoint. For
one, it's where all civilizations go to die as they overextend themselves
through military and far-reaching interests (history teaches us that--do we
have to be the next Roman empire?). But secondly, perhaps its just enough to
be able to defend yourself when push comes to shove. We have the buttons to
press, which few others have--do we really need to be a military presence
everywhere, especially now in this digitally connected world which devalues
actual physical presence?

So it's my conclusion that we have created more harm than good; we have
created enemies. We can hide behind ideals, and frame others as the bad guys--
but, for example, how much militarism has Russia really shown since WW2? And
compare that to how much we have shown. I deal with Russian developers all the
time--they seem to be participating in a form of capitalism not too different
than ours. It's almost as if we need a bad guy to make us look like the good
guy. Is Russia a staple of our perception control? I think so. From what I've
researched, Gorbachev wanted to do a major dis-armament deal and the Reagan
administration turned them down. Why? For one, we don't want to disarm, but 2,
Reagan had too much riding on his Star Wars plan, and 3, that would make
Russia look like the good guy. Did you hear Obama's last address about a month
ago--he said "Come on, Putin was the head of the KGB...", implying he was such
an evil foe. So what, are they not entitled to have an intelligence group too?
George HW Bush was the head of the CIA. How is being the head of the KGB
somehow meant to imply he's evil. Consistency is why. Consistency of message.
Clearly, the US Government needs to keep justifying their lie/thread that
Russia is so evil. It's the same as in every day life: if you acknowledge a
mistake, you actually acknowledge the chain of mistakes that lead up to it.
America simply isn't ready to acknowledge our past mistakes. Other countries
have called for us to apologize for Vietnam. Is apologizing for something so
big easy to do, not to mention costly? So going down this path of righting our
wrongs would bring up a bunch of dirty laundry. So we have to continue our
lies. The powers that be--besides seeing the world completely differently--
would never backtrack and exhibit what they perceive as weakness. I however
think it could be a moment of strength for humanity.

~~~
faceyspacey
CONTINUED...:

At the end of the day, the hardest part is that we are talking a country here,
and many/most of our leaders believe the perception imposed on them. I don't
believe in some grand conspiracy. I believe in people susceptible to taking on
information they don't know for themselves as truth. So the result is we have
ultimately good people--hopefully--in congress that literally believe we are
helping the world by policing it. And because the layer cake is so deep, of
course there are people in the midst who have much to gain by current
perceptions, and as a result find it easier to justify our violence,
destruction and militarism. It's a bad concoction. And on top of it, there
likely are some truly selfish people with nothing but self-interest in mind.
My hunch is that the scare about communism after World War 2 has a lot to do
with the fact that wealthy Rockefeller barron types were absolutely terrified
of communism and what it would do to their wealth that they got politicians on
their side to scare the nation about communism. Now in the age of public
corporations, that's less likely the case--and with billionaires devoting
their money to the greater good--but back in the day it was a different world.
Communism isn't good, but what I see in history is countries trying to find
themselves as the suffering bottom portion of the population tried to fairly
get a piece of the pie. We might have stumbled through communism/socialism in
many places, but in almost all, the result has been a hybrid. Perhaps we have
"American Ideals" and American FORCE to thank, but it's my viewpoint that for
civilization to mature any farther we can't continue with the "gun against
your head" liberty America has enforced that perhaps made it all possible. And
that's if it made it possible--maybe it wasn't necessary throughout the 60s,
70s, etc.

Lastly, without a doubt civilization has improved greatly over the past
several hundred years, perhaps the most this past century. And the fact that
we were able to do that as our population exploded this last century (I think
it went from a billion in 1900 to approaching 10 billion now), is an even more
amazing thing. So things are getting better. In the states, things like the
civil rights movements were successful; I can now talk on forums like this
positively about communism/socialism without being persecuted like in the 50s
and 60s. We have minds more open than ever and venues to express the thoughts
that come out of them. I'm not pessimistic. I just think we could and should
be moving a lot faster.

On a side note, that's basically what Trump is pointing out, even if it
requires denigrating any progress made since the Bush administration and the
Wall Street near-collapse. So I think for the first time a better different
future is in reach. We can almost grab it, but with the government--the same
Government Hillary would keep alive--we could stagnate unnecessarily for a
very long time. That's not to say Trump will just become complicit--let's just
hope not.

I think a lot of us technologists see the obvious future: DE-CENTRALIZATION!
Decentralize money, decentralize government (give more tax money to localized
smaller governments that can actually do something; crypto-governments maybe
one day?), and create an environment where we can "vote with our feet" and
money. For example, I think if all the states got more money and we cut our
military and federal budget by a lot, that would kickstart a lot of
competition for the states. Europe seems to be doing better than us--and I'm
willing to bet it has a lot to do with the fact that it's comprised of a lot
of competing smaller countries. In addition, this is all identical to the
promise of decentralized cryptocurrency goals and the sharing economy. That's
clearly the future. Well maybe not clearly what's gonna happen, but clearly
the future that would serve us best.

On another side note, part of that challenge is acknowledging that the
Republicans are right on one thing: big government is not the way. That's one
of the hardest things to reconcile with the fact that democrats and liberals
clearly are pitching a more compassionate message. I don't see us escaping
this endless stalemate without liberating ourselves from the prism/prison of 2
party perception and the religion of government in general. That is, the
religion of somehow the government is gonna be what saves us and makes our
lives better. That's where the less government aspect Republicans tote is so
important.

We need something big and different to happen for us to have any hope of
getting past this any time soon. It likely won't be Trump, but will it be the
aftermath? And if so, ARE WE PREPARED TO WELCOME THE IDEA THAT SOMETIMES
THINGS MUST GET WORSE BEFORE THEY GET BETTER?? That's a pill most aren't
willing to follow, but also such doubling down on touch decisions, the
difference between our successful projects/startups and those that join the
99.99999% that fail.

Let's take advantage of the next time those in power try to manipulate us with
such things as bogus reports on Russian cyber attacks. Those are blessings in
disguise. Silver linings in the clouds. The less credibility they have, the
more power new viewpoints can have. Very few--if only the US Government--can
state something as fact without evidence and get the entire media repeating
their claims as if facts. That's dangerous.

The revolution begins now--as ironic as it is that it's been kickstarted by a
megalomaniac that will do and say anything if it serves his self-interest. We
don't need to let that get in our way. Let's use what we need from it and keep
our eyes on the prize.

Transparency and decentralization is the war cry! That's the war cry of
economic advancement.

The war cry of stability and humanity is: no more invasions (of other
countries and, secondly, privacy). Iraq may very well be the last "Iraq"\--the
next battles very well may be fought at home to protect us from a truly
Orwellian future.

~~~
faceyspacey
I was very happy with what I finally put to words, so I mediumed it too:
[https://medium.com/@faceyspacey/in-response-to-george-
orwell...](https://medium.com/@faceyspacey/in-response-to-george-
orwells-1984-now-being-the-1-bestseller-on-amazon-583565f1e29e#.l7o1mnaes)

------
donretag
Amazon Best Sellers:
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/)

------
lngnmn
Is it because of Putin or Trump?

If Trump then it should be the Atlas Shrugged instead.

------
nottorp
You're doing it wrong. You should get Brave New World instead.

------
lb1lf
Orwell was an optimist.

------
AdamN
People should also read Down and Out in Paris and London - a fantastic book
about being a poor vagabond in England and France.

------
null4bl3
It's ironic that the CIA rakes in on that, since they have the publishing
right for several of Orson Welles books

~~~
dragonwriter
Orson Welles and George Orwell are different people, despite the latter's last
name also being a common subsequence of the two names.

------
likealcohol
I don't see a blog post about a best selling book, I just see a load of Amazon
affiliate links everywhere.

------
bencollier49
Someone was clearly using the arithmetic from 1984 in the inauguration
attendance figures. 2+2=5, indeed.

------
libeclipse
That's strange, I just bought the book off Amazon yesterday. Coincidences,
coincidences.

------
ReganKoopmans
"The worst kind dystopia story is one that's easy to believe"

------
gigatexal
It's a good book. Especially the book-in-a-book part with the manifesto.

------
majortennis
I bought it for a friend this year on Amazon, she still hasn't read it

------
rbanffy
Who would imagine Donald Trump would cause a surge in reading...

------
lugg
Pretty amazing a public domain book is still selling so well.

------
lolive
You should also read "Propaganda" by Edward Berneys.

------
kazinator
It's properly called _Nineteen Eighty-Four_.

------
stevenmays
Customers also bought: Anthem by Ayn Rand. Irony.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Trumps protectionism is right out of the Ayn Rand villains handbook.

~~~
vedranm
This is simply untrue. Ayn Rand doesn't speak about international free trade
in Atlas Shrugged, as the rest of the developed world in her story turns into
People's States. She did support international free trade, but not "free
trade" of TPP and TTIP.

What remains to be seen is whether the domestic trade policies of Trump will
be in alignment with what Ron Paul and other Ayn Rand devotees propose. He
promised deregulation, so it might happen [1].

tl;dr: Trump might be moving the world towards a Galt's Gulch analogue without
being an Ayn Rand devotee.

[1] [http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/trump-tells-business-
leaders-...](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/trump-tells-business-leaders-he-
wants-to-cut-regulations-by-75-percent-or-maybe-more.html)

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Ayn Rand in the novels has 'villains' who bring politicians into power who
then decide upon legislation that then protects those 'villains' from cheaper
and better competition.

The 'heros' in Ayn Rands novels embrace competition because they invent new
things and know/think they are the best and the best should win.

So yes, protectionism as a concept to protect factories from cheaper and
better competition is right out of the 'villains' playbook. This is also
something that Thiel doesn't understand about Trump.

Also Trump supports coal against competition of cheaper energy. Not Trump, but
the recent legislation efforts in Wyoming do exactly the same (protecting
coal) and I'm sure Trump is at least happy with it.

"Trump might be moving the world towards a Galt's Gulch analogue"

No Trump is moving the world straight in the other direction. Protectionism is
just the first step to protect his cronies (e.g. textile), next moves will be
protecting coal against solar, oil/gas against electric cars etc.

How did Trump make his money? Not by inventing (e.g. Musk would be a 'hero' in
Atlas Shrugged) but by shady deals on casinos, buildings and using the system
(tax breaks etc.) for him, like the 'villains' in Ayn Rand novels. So for sure
Trump is on the 'villain' side in Atlas Shrugged - if you don't agree, read it
again ;-)

------
tu7001
It's not an instruction manual...

------
ElectronCharge
The most amazing thing to me is that the 0bama administration was very good at
Orwellian manipulation, yet it was rarely remarked upon.

I mean, the guy got a Nobel Peace Prize, then proceeded with eight years of
undeclared war on many different countries. "Droning" became a verb...

~~~
tim333
I don't think you can call getting the Nobel manipulation by the Obama
administration. They didn't arrange that I believe.

~~~
erroneousfunk
Obama seemed a little embarrassed by the prize, although he handled it in a
graceful way. It would have been a bigger blunder for him to reject the prize.
I certainly don't think that anyone can call him a hypocrite for receiving the
Nobel Peace prize though. If anything, it reflects badly on the Nobel
committee.

