Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

“He could not help feeling a twinge of panic. It was absurd, since the writing of those particular words was not more dangerous than the initial act of opening the diary, but for a moment he was tempted to tear out the spoiled pages and abandon the enterprise altogether.
He did not do so, however, because he knew that it was useless. Whether he wrote DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER, or whether he refrained from writing it, made no difference. Whether he went on with the diary, or whether he did not go on with it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed â€� would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper â€� the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“In the latter half of the twentieth century, two visionary books cast their shadows over our futures.

One was George Orwell's 1949 novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, with its horrific vision of a brutal mind-controlling totalitarian state - a book that gave us Big Brother, and Thoughtcrime and Newspeak and the Memory Hole and the torture palace called the Ministry of Love, and the discouraging spectacle of a boot grinding into the human face forever.

The other was Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932), which proposed a different and Softer Form of Totalitarianism - one of conformity achieved through engineered, bottle-grown babies and Hypnotic Persuasion rather than through brutality; of boundless consumption that keeps the wheels of production turning and of officially enforced promiscuity that does away with sexual frustration; of a pre-ordained caste system ranging from a highly intelligent managerial class to a subgroup of dimwitted serfs programmed to love their menial work; and of Soma, a drug that confers instant bliss with no side effects.

Which template would win, we wondered?

....Would it be possible for both of these futures - the hard and the soft - to exist a the same time, in the same place? And what would that be like?

....Thoughtcrime and the boot grinding into the human face could not be got rid of so easily, after all. The Ministry of Love is back with us...

....those of us still pottering along on the earthly plane - and thus still able to read books - are left with Brave New World. How does it stand up, seventy-five years later? And how close have we come, in real life, to the society of vapid consumers, idle pleasure-seekers, inner-space trippers, and programmed conformists that it presents?

- excerpts from Margaret Atwood's introduction (2007) to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.”
― Margaret Atwood

“Sonnet 1984

Government IDs are just ankle monitors, issued
to tag citizens like dogs, or I should say, apes.
There can be governments without constitution,
but there is no government without surveillance.

When you elect a so-called representative,
you're officially signing your life to them.
Don't be naive enough to think otherwise,
and then yell about human rights violation.

Violation of citizen rights is right of the government,
it's the unspoken rule of the handbook of democracy.
Once in a blue moon you may get a benevolent government,
but 9 times out of 10 you'll end up under an autocracy.

A freethinking citizen is contradiction in terms,
no good to the grand design of democratic dictatorship.
Democracy in books is, for the people, by the people,
democracy on street is rule of the apes in a land of sheep.”
― Abhijit Naskar, Azad Earth Army: When The World Cries Blood