[Ed. note: This is one of the longest stories I've seen submitted to the site. I was unsuccessful in my attempts to shorten it. As I found it to be well-written, I have decided to post it in its entirety — in my view it is well worth the read.]
Tom Secker has been continuing his research and reporting on the engagement of the security services in the entertainment industry. A recent two part edition of his podcast, ClandesTime covers prolific author Tom Clancy, his books and the subsequent adaptations into film.
From ClandesTime 074 – The Secret World of Tom Clancy Part I – The Films:
Tom Clancy was one of the most popular spy authors of all time, but was he a spy himself? What are the nature of his government connections? How were the film adaptations of his novels supported by the Pentagon and the CIA? What script changes were made by the DOD in exchange for their support? In Part I of this two-part podcast we examine five Tom Clancy films – The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, The Sum of All Fears and Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. I outline the government involvement in each adaptation and the censorship involved in their production.
[...] a reasonably high number of American spy authors, at least some of the more prominent ones have been CIA or ex-CIA. E Howard Hunt, William F Buckley Jr. and Charles McCarry spring to mind. But the most successful authors like Robert Ludlum, Alan Furst and Tom Clancy do not appear to have been spooks. And I should say – I am a fan of several of these authors, I even like Ian Fleming despite the misogynistic and colonialist overtones to pretty much everything he ever wrote.
Essentially, there is no evidence that Tom Clancy was a spy, he never actually worked for intelligence or military intelligence or even private intelligence, at least as far as we know. But he was something. He moved in that world to some extent, he was certainly much closer to being a state propagandist than other authors are or were.
[...] since the beginning all of the movie adaptations of Tom Clancy's books have been supported by the Pentagon and/or the CIA. This often came at a price, and occasionally the script changes brought to bear by the government had the effect of pissing off Clancy himself. This does raise the question of the extent to which Clancy was on board with the DOD and CIA's overall propaganda missions. However, even the one film – Clear and Present Danger – that the DOD heavily altered and the CIA refused to properly support still had some CIA consultancy and the DOD worked for months to get the script into a shape they were happy with.
What this proves is that there are differences between what is tolerated in book format and what is tolerated in film format. The usual assumption is that people who read books are more intelligent, which is often true. As such they can be subjected to more controversial information without the state being too bothered about it. By contrast, for the plebs who go to the cinema and mindlessly munch popcorn, the DOD and CIA only wants good images of themselves.
From ClandesTime 075 – The Secret World of Tom Clancy Part II: The Government Connections:
[Continues.]
Tom Clancy's books are known for their technical accuracy, their political realism and their curious ability to foreshadow future events. In this episode we explore his government connections – to the FBI, CIA, Pentagon and the White House. We examine whether these connections are what enabled Clancy to write such prophetic fiction, and the impact of that on his readers. We also look at the influence of Clancy's work on the government, from an elaborate inside joke within the CIA to the reading habits of Ronald Reagan. We round off looking at two possible Clancy copycats, both American men who flew planes into buildings (one before 9/11 and one after).
[...] This whole question of where Clancy got his ideas from has come up time and again in interviews with him. One nice example is provided by a 1987 New York Times article, [...] What I love about this article is that they act as though this guy who is lunching with the Secretary of the Navy, going on submarines and talking to a Soviet defector is just doing what any of us could do. As though you or I could just sit down to lunch with the Secretary of the Navy or a Soviet defector.
The article also mentions the United States Naval Institute, but neglects to mention that it is they who published Hunt for Red October, which as we learned last time was the book that got Clancy in with the CIA and got his books in with Hollywood. Nor does it mention that Clancy was a lifetime member of the US Naval Institute, nor that their headquarters are at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland (which I've been to). They are supposedly an NGO, but if you believe that then I've got a canal in Panama to sell you.
[...] Apparently, back in the 1980s someone within the CIA wrote a spoof account of how the real CIA leadership would have dealt with the events of the book. The Hunt for Red October: The Untold Story then became something passed around Langley, and then emailed around when that became the norm. As the former analyst says in the thesis:
For me, "The Hunt for Red October: The Untold Story" also served as a sort of barometer for my own acculturation process.During my first week of work in May of 2007, at least five people eagerly sent me the file saying things like, "You have to read this—it is the funniest thing ever!" But I didn't get it, of course; not right away. By the end of my time there in early 2011, however, I revisited the text and found myself laughing out loud. Even though this story echoes other themes of this chapter, I place the Red October discussion here because of its legendary status; everyone seemed to know this story, so it was a shared cultural and institutional memory among the initiated. In fact, I was specifically told that "you aren't truly initiated into CIA until you think that 'The Hunt for Red October: The Untold Story' is funny."
The article includes a full version of the spoof and it is pretty funny, so what that says about my relationship with the CIA is not something I will dwell on, but there is a serious point here too. Clearly the CIA in the 1980s with Clancy and Red October was a bit like the CIA in the 1950s with George Orwell or in the 1960s with James Bond – a bit of an obsession.
[...] Clancy also seems to have made a serious impression on Ronald Reagan. Recently declassified Downing Street files record the run up and reaction to the 1986 Reykjavík Summit between Ronnie Reagan and Mike Gorbachev. They make for interesting reading for a dozen reasons, not least of which was Reagan's ludicrously inflexible politics and outright neo-con paranoia and constantly blaming the Soviets when the talks collapsed. But one memo detailing a conversation between Thatcher and Reagan before the summit shows that Reagan recommended to Thatcher Tom Clancy's new book Red Storm Rising, which Reagan thought 'gave an excellent picture of the Soviet Union's intentions and strategy'.
Unlike Ian Fleming, or even George Orwell to some extent, Clancy was born an outsider. He is a guy who charmed his way into the establishment by writing popular books that flattered the establishment. I very much believe that was the dynamic at play at that stage at least. However, where this gets really spooky is with Clancy's relationships with Soviet defectors.
[...] Clancy knew three defectors, and met one other Soviet officer by being escorted to a reception at the Soviet embassy by an officer in the US Navy. This leads us the obvious question – how did Clancy get to know Soviet defectors? These people don't just post their addresses and phone numbers in the newspaper. Clancy must have contacted someone in a position to know, and they must have helped make it happen. Again, the likely suspect is the CIA and given the timeline, when Clancy was invited to Langley after the publication of Red October in '84 and became acquainted with at least two of these defectors in '86, did Clancy ask the CIA for help in speaking to and getting to know these ex-Soviets? However, to get to know a defector in Britain living under a pseudonym would presumably require help from British intelligence too, so it seems Clancy spent the 80s cuddling up to a lot of agencies.
There is a lot more information in the podcast. I encourage anyone with an interest in this topic to keep an eye on Tom Secker's work.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday April 25 2016, @11:22AM
Let me translate: intelligent people aren't a danger to us. If their bias is towards us, we don't have a problem.
If they are against us, we can bury their voice if we keep the massive plebeian population brainwashed.
For example, how many of them even heard about Noam Chomsky [wikipedia.org]?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 25 2016, @12:44PM
Literature is tailored propaganda for slightly more competent critical readers. Just enough information to counterpoint any voiced arguments, without actually raising an opinion one way or the other.
They call it postmodernism and narrative. And argue all sorts of pseudo-philosophical nonsense to justify it. But it's merely misinformation tactics to cast reasonable doubt around every issue.
The end result leaves the critical thinkers uncertain and unwilling to argue. Keeping the decision making process at the hands of interest holders uncaring for the public's welfare.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday April 25 2016, @12:59PM
Interesting... but...
Does it mean to say that, for example, SciFi (say, the dystopian sub-genre) is not literature?
Take 1984 for example (just ignore it's not quite Sci), can you make an argument of it on the line of your assertion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2, Disagree) by jmorris on Monday April 25 2016, @04:01PM
All of it from a major house at this point. The Long March Through the Institutions is complete. Go read the Hugo Awards controversy if you are unclear as to the extent of Party domination of the Science Fiction / Fantasy field of literature. Hint, it is the publishers that are at the heart of that corruption controversy.
The Progs still posture about being a counter culture, revolutionary movement but of course (see SJW Law #1) they are lying. They ARE the establishment. In Government, Industry, Finance, Entertainment, Education they dominate all of the commanding heights. And they must be destroyed before their insanity destroys us all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 25 2016, @04:37PM
What would you do without a nebulous, ever-present, ever-elusive enemy to fight? Shades of 1984 :) The irony here is as chewable as good beef jerky. (And that's cute, you think those people are actually progressives...).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 26 2016, @03:48AM
nebulous, ever-present, ever-elusive enemy to fight
Eh? WTF are you going on about? They are quite in the open these days, the Long March phase is over. We got a Goddamned third generation Commie sitting in the White House, most of the Fortune 500 is now so SJW Converged they are rapidly losing the ability to perform their economic function, the Universities leave their victims more ignorant than when they entered in most cases, and so on. If the shooting phase of the counter revolution gets going, finding targets will be an embarrassment of riches.
And that's cute, you think those people are actually progressives...
Well part of their doctrine is ever changing names, front groups, etc. And even in victory they seem to be maintaining that from habit. So I just settled on Progressive as a catch all for Progressives, Liberals (modern US usage), Socialists, Communists, etc.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 26 2016, @04:33AM
...Jesus unicycling Christ, you're calling Barack Hussein Obama a communist?! With a capital C no less?! The man is right of Reagan! The only socialism he's engaged in is forcing We The People to bail out his fucking banker buddies and twisting the "Afforable Care Act" into what amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of the insurance industry. There's your goddamn Communism. And hey, guess what? The other name for that? Crony Capitalism. The wheel's come full circle.
You're beyond redemption. At this point words lose their meanings in your mouth and emerge as twisted, antimatter parodies of themselves. This country's Overton Window has shifted so far to the right that Eisenhower would get kicked out of the Green Party for being too much of a leftist.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 26 2016, @05:10AM
Perhaps you might want to read Mr. Obama's books. Ghostwritten they may be (ok, certainly are) but most of the basic biographical details are not in serious dispute. The titular father in Dreams From My Father was thrown out of an avowedly Socialist Kenyan government for being too extreme. He wanted to outright seize the assets of all foreign investments. Pray tell what is to the left of Socialism? Or perhaps you want to try a No True Scotsman gambit on President Kenyatta as not an authentic enough Socialist?
But while Obama Sr.s beliefs are an open record, the real Communism is up the mother's line. Read between the lines a little in the official bio and it is pretty clear, a little Google fu will end all doubt and get you the three generations I mentioned.
We The People to bail out his fucking banker buddies
And nationalized the banks in all but name in the process. Now take a closer look at the banking, finance and investing industries and you will find them pretty uniformly Party operations these days. Why do you think Mrs. Clinton has been swimming in their donations?
twisting the "Afforable Care Act" into what amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of the insurance industry.
You take a look at it, they are all going broke. They were played for suckers. The Affordable Care Act is doing exactly what it was designed to do, fail. See James Hacker's statements archived forever on YouTube. The whole thing was carefully designed to collapse into Single Payer and it is working exactly on schedule.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 26 2016, @05:22AM
Crony Capitalism, like I said. We're getting to the point where corruption is so rampant that there is no essential difference between what you wish to call Capitalism and what you wish to call Communism any longer. It's plain ol' fucking GREED now. What are you gonna do about it?
That's right: nothing. You'd prefer to shit all over the few people who want to do anything to stem this tide of insanity rather than do anything constructive.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 26 2016, @06:47AM
Crony Capitalism
Why are you proggies calling it that made up word? There is a well defined term for when big govenment and big corporate interests get into bed together for their mutual benefit. Fascism. Or if you don't like that one, the Chinese seem to prefer state capitalism, planned economy or mixed economy. Either way, it is merely a slur to call this Party run economy Capitalism, a shameless attempt to divert blame for everything bad to the old overthrown economic system's name. Much like calling thousand page tangled treaties "Free Trade Agreements" instead of the more accurate "managed trade deal."
It's plain ol' fucking GREED now.
Of course, once you eliminate any market based feedback and let the government run the economy, what else did you expect?
What are you gonna do about it?
The Conservatives are still making pathetic efforts to solve the problem in the normal political way, to vote to return to a Constitutional Republic that has been dead a Century or more. Realizing that is well intentioned but pointless, I voted for Trump to blow the whole damned edifice up in the hope something better crawls out of the wreckage; in the full knowledge that has almost no chance of happening, that it will only get worse, a lot worse before the whole think collapses under its own weight of suckage and we start over. The masses have discovered they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury, that has never peacefully self corrected in any recorded example. The existence of Twitter and cable TV does not change that reality. Boom! It is the only way out.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 26 2016, @08:12AM
I love it how you say "the masses" but it's actually "the greedheads."
Listen, JMorris, there are welfare queens all right, and they all have fucking corporate charters. You have fallen for the very divide and conquer the greedheads use as their bread and butter, and I'm sure they'll welcome you to Hell with open arms when you get there for being a good little stooge. That "vote Trump and blow the lot up" is incredibly selfish; if you're going to cause an earth-shattering kaboom, at least vote for the guy (Sanders) whose win would spark a generational effort to rebuild something more akin to Norway than Airstrip One,
I realize some people just want to watch the world burn but there are some of us who aren't utter fucking nihilists and we do NOT appreciate your sociopathic frat-boy bullshit. Feel free to go "kaboom" all by yourself somewhere else and let the adults do the heavy lifting.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @09:21PM
The Progs still posture about being a counter culture, revolutionary movement but of course (see SJW Law #1) they are lying. They ARE the establishment. In Government, Industry, Finance, Entertainment, Education they dominate all of the commanding heights. And they must be destroyed before their insanity destroys us all.
I see you are no longer pleased with a conservative position and you're becoming quite reactionary, my friend.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 26 2016, @06:27AM
Oh I have been slumming in the NRx and Alt-Right ghettos of the Internet for a few years now. Can't buy into their total program, to the extent they have one, either. Same for Libertarianism and Conservatism.
NRx seems to be onto some serious clues though and it is worth it just to find some of the books they are reading, rescuing them from the memory hole. Moldbug's Unqualified Reservations is worth the read for his pretty accurate assessment of the problems facing civilization but like everyone else he hasn't a clue as to a solution; but his spergy mind required him to try.... if you can't find major holes in his neo-cameralism you probably aren't bright enough to hang around with the NRx crowd. Everybody is looking for an Exit but not finding one.
If you go to see for yourself, just dodge the Stormfront tards, they are trying to glom onto the Alt-Right since there is actual movement there while their own efforts have been dead for decades and they kinda realize it. They see the discussions on HBD and assume they are welcome. They generally aren't though some Alt-Right fora tolerate the less crazy and better behaved of their camp. Seems more of a poorly thought out "No Enemies on the RIght" move though since most Stormers are not Right by any historical definition.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 25 2016, @08:19PM
1984 doesn't argue constructively. It's a scarecrow against a communist surveillance state but that's not argument. It doesn't say why communism led to this situation as opposed to any other form of governance. It fails to explain how the regimen sustains itself in a state of continues war. It simply declares it's a perpetual stalemate. Held together by magic, unicorns and a boot in the face.
Well, you know what happens in prolonged military stalemates in the real world? Economic breakdown. Food shortages. Political unrest... There's mistakes being made. Diseases and plagues. Party members try poisoning each other to move ahead. Military leaders gather their units and march on the capital...
Orwell circumvents all that by focusing completely on the individual tragedy. The story teller's perspective is deliberately limited to keep people from poking holes in the story verse. It's sci-fi moniker is earned by it's being a fantasy masquerading as political science. It's brilliantly served it's true purpose at convincing the British intellectual youth to oppose socialism which threatened the posh society. But it wasn't by constructing an argument. It was fear mongering and manipulation. One we just happen to agree and align with.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by jcross on Monday April 25 2016, @08:28PM
It's been a long time since I read the book, but wasn't it kind of hinted that the military stalemate was a bit of a fiction, where the three major powers had more or less agreed to keep it up so they had an excuse to oppress their own citizens?
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 25 2016, @08:56PM
It was speculated but no evidence was provided. But such an arrangement is a political one. As frail as any treaty when power struggles stir the pot.
I think the core issue is that Orwell selectively removed greed from the equation. It just doesn't make sense. Where are all the thieves and murderers in business suits and robes clawing their way to the top? Where is the prince plotting the murder of the king? It just doesn't make sense.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by jcross on Monday April 25 2016, @09:15PM
Interesting point. It sounds like you're saying that such perfect societal control would require perfect peace and balance among those in power, which does seem like a highly unlikely state. Perhaps the greed and corruption of the ruling class protects the rest of us more than we'd like to think...
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 25 2016, @10:14PM
Is it even far fetched to say as much? The magna carta wasn't signed for the sake of the serfs. It was won by a a bunch of rich barons that held a sword to the king's jugular out of greed for power.
Nowadays, it is the tax evaders and corrupt lawyers that champion the fights for privacy against the surveillance state. The good thing is it's likely a win-win scenario for the people. Either our rights to privacy improve, or our collective tax burdens reduced. Regardless, it's not the public's benefit that drives this people to protect us.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 25 2016, @10:34PM
I think the core issue is that Orwell selectively removed greed from the equation. It just doesn't make sense. Where are all the thieves and murderers in business suits and robes clawing their way to the top? Where is the prince plotting the murder of the king? It just doesn't make sense.
The whole society was venal - greed wasn't the only negative personality trait present, but it far from the strongest. "Room 101" was chock full of murderers who would destroy people not only to further the regime or to show that they were in charge over every aspect of their subjects' lives, but just because they could. The "king" was a purely imaginary figurehead. And the protagonist's job was to permanently erase failed princes (and other inconveniences) from the media works and libraries.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 25 2016, @11:43PM
Yes yes all nicely checked greed, crime and vice that's kept in a magical room inside a magical fortress all held together by fairy dust.
You know how much effort goes into maintaining the US prison system and soviet gulags? You need certain social structures to keep it running at the very least. Base commanders either get bribed or are invited to become party members. Guards are kept in relative luxury. Contractors maintaining cameras and infrastructure are all part of the system as well.
The worse the oppression, the more people need to be involved. The more people are involved, the greater the risk for power struggles and human error.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 26 2016, @03:56AM
You are forgetting the pervasive video monitoring of literally everyone. Winston could (or thought be could) evade it for occasional illegal activity because he wasn't important enough for 24/7 observation. He was of course quite mistaken.
The whole society was a prison. I wonder, had the Soviet Union survived another twenty years to the era of cheap video cameras and plentiful digital storage space to keep records, would they have ever fallen?
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday April 26 2016, @08:08AM
Prisons don't sustain themselves. If prisoners were raising their own food and clothing themselves, it wouldn't take long before they'd pay off the guards to look the other way while they kill off the warden. People monitoring video streams and guards patrolling the corridors are in positions of power that they themselves often abuse. What keeps them working for the system and not against it isn't fear from outsiders, it's luxuries and a sense of choice. Take those away and you end up with a revolt sooner or later.
would they have ever fallen?
They would have fallen even faster. What kept the USSR sustainable was that much of the country-side actually liked the way things were. They had food, clothes, fuel to warm their houses... Education was free and if had the drive and intellect, you could become a part of the Academia. People volunteered to serve the army and farmers became ranking officers.
Look, check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_reform_in_the_Soviet_Union,_1956%E2%80%9362 [wikipedia.org]
The working conditions were excellent. The shifts were the shortest in the world. The people who think the Soviets stayed in power due to oppression are completely oblivious to just how good life for much of the country. We read about the gulags and think 1984. But the average Russian was kept well fed with a bottle of vodka and a lot of free time to just do as he likes.
If the government tried to go against all that and start monitoring and enforcing some 1984 madness, they wouldn't have stayed in power for as long as they did.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 26 2016, @05:04AM
Yes yes all nicely checked greed, crime and vice that's kept in a magical room inside a magical fortress all held together by fairy dust.
Again, what is supposed to be magical about this? Orwell pretty much had anticipated your complaints so far.
You know how much effort goes into maintaining the US prison system and soviet gulags? You need certain social structures to keep it running at the very least. Base commanders either get bribed or are invited to become party members. Guards are kept in relative luxury. Contractors maintaining cameras and infrastructure are all part of the system as well.
And?
The worse the oppression, the more people need to be involved. The more people are involved, the greater the risk for power struggles and human error.
The whole society was already involved. There were already power struggles and human error.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 25 2016, @09:14PM
1984 doesn't argue constructively. It's a scarecrow against a communist surveillance state but that's not argument. It doesn't say why communism led to this situation as opposed to any other form of governance. It fails to explain how the regimen sustains itself in a state of continues war. It simply declares it's a perpetual stalemate. Held together by magic, unicorns and a boot in the face.
Magic and unicorns? Well, I guess we don't have to worry about you creating any totalitarian disasters. It's not hard to be in a state of continual war, the Roman Republic and Roman empire, for example, were both at a state of war for around 90-95% of their existence. It's just not that hard especially if your enemies also do the same thing for the same reasons.
Well, you know what happens in prolonged military stalemates in the real world? Economic breakdown. Food shortages. Political unrest... There's mistakes being made. Diseases and plagues. Party members try poisoning each other to move ahead. Military leaders gather their units and march on the capital...
All which were seen in the 1984 world, but as features not bugs. The artificial scarcity created by these wars (real and imaginary!) was yet another tool for coercing fear and obedience from the masses. As to Party members poisoning each other to move ahead, we have two examples just from the book, Emmanuel Goldstein was the ancient loser of some such power struggle who was transformed into a bogeyman responsible for all the problems of the society. And one of the jobs of the protagonist of the story was to remove another such loser from all historical records as if he had never existed. It was heavily implied that this was a routine activity and people frequently were required to forget that certain people or certain events had happened.
Finally, why would military leaders survive to gather their units and march on the capital? One of the main points of these wars is to kill off the ambitious. It is noteworthy that no totalitarian government of the 20th Century had military problems of this sort.
The thing here is that Orwell, or more accurately, the variety of totalitarian governments he modeled 1984 on, thoroughly anticipated all of these problems. What did the real world totalitarian states in was a powerful and thriving outside world. That outside world doesn't exist in 1984.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 25 2016, @11:13PM
It's just not that hard especially if your enemies also do the same thing for the same reasons.
I was arguing against the unexplainable lack of social unrest. The magical "boot in the face". Rome had emperors getting their heads chopped off left and right. Senators born to traders who were born to soldiers who were born to slaves and nobodies. It took longer, but it was a society with social mobility that rivals our own in many ways.
It was heavily implied that this was a routine activity and people frequently were required to forget that certain people or certain events had happened.
But it doesn't make any sense. Is the regime infallible that no one succeeds in these rebellions? Are we to believe a power structure made out of real people can be so fixed and unchanging? It defies human nature. How many times people tried to assassinate Stalin and Hitler? And they ruled thanks to wide support of industry and military interests.
why would military leaders survive to gather their units and march on the capital?
Why not? Random stuff happens and leaders could survive unexpectedly.
It is noteworthy that no totalitarian government of the 20th Century had military problems of this sort.
What totalitarian governments? Closest thing to 1984 was Pol Pot and that didn't last too long. The Soviet Union had to massacre it's citizens until it run out of juice and collapsed economically. North Korea might or might not fit the bill but they're not self-sustaining but are rather being kept alive by China. Seriously, there are US born university professors teaching CmpSci and Engineering in NK so even the worst of the worst aren't anywhere near Orwell's stories.
The 1984 depiction is simply too unrealistic and inconsistent with what we see in real life.
That outside world doesn't exist in 1984.
Inside. Outside... Again, it makes little sense. No one had, has or will have that measure of control that completely nullifies human greed and error. It's just fantasy. A form of magical thinking.
That kind of oppressive regime needs to keep a standing army at the capital to prevent food riots at the very least. And it doesn't take long before the commanding officer of the standing army joins up with a few party members and you end up with a Junta.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 26 2016, @05:01AM
I was arguing against the unexplainable lack of social unrest. The magical "boot in the face". Rome had emperors getting their heads chopped off left and right. Senators born to traders who were born to soldiers who were born to slaves and nobodies. It took longer, but it was a society with social mobility that rivals our own in many ways.
What's inexplicable about it? People who get unresty, get disappeared. A key aspect of the 1984 society was the total surveillance of everyone, including most especially the groups mostly like to revolt like the poor or military leaders, and then the prompt, ruthless action by the State removing a problem once it appeared.
What totalitarian governments? Closest thing to 1984 was Pol Pot and that didn't last too long. The Soviet Union had to massacre it's citizens until it run out of juice and collapsed economically. North Korea might or might not fit the bill but they're not self-sustaining but are rather being kept alive by China. Seriously, there are US born university professors teaching CmpSci and Engineering in NK so even the worst of the worst aren't anywhere near Orwell's stories.
Note every one of those which is not a current going concern fell apart due to external causes. Economic collapse and massacre of citizens doesn't cause a society to collapse. Picking a war with a superior military power (Khmer Rouge versus Vietnam) or competing economically with a superior power (USSR or China versus US or Europe) does.
And one can see this problem with North Korea. There's no external force to push over one of the craziest governments of all time and despite its innumerable failings it has yet to topple. It doesn't have the technological savvy of the 1984 world, but its level of oppression is good enough.
Inside. Outside... Again, it makes little sense. No one had, has or will have that measure of control that completely nullifies human greed and error. It's just fantasy. A form of magical thinking.
What magical thinking? What's special about "greed" that makes it more important than other human failings here? And to the contrary, there's no nullifying of human error in the stories. There are plenty of places where the effects of error are noticed and patched over by the government or outright ignored by a society too scared to show notice of them. "We have always been at war with Eastasia."
That kind of oppressive regime needs to keep a standing army at the capital to prevent food riots at the very least. And it doesn't take long before the commanding officer of the standing army joins up with a few party members and you end up with a Junta.
What makes you think they didn't have that army and didn't have those coups? As I noted, there's already two examples in the book that indicated that coups have happened in the past: the hapless Emmanuel Goldstein and a political figure who was at the time of the start of the story being erased from all records.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday April 26 2016, @07:46AM
People who get unresty, get disappeared
Which requires infrastructure and personal that the regime in 1984 doesn't have. Even if they had computers, it would take a massive workforce to keep tabs on every cork and screw in the propaganda machine 24/7. And you'd need to watch the watchers... No. It just doesn't work. People talk. Political alliances will form. Eventually it will break.
And one can see this problem with North Korea
Again, what keeps NK alive is China. They came close to collapsing multiple times but China kept infusing funds. Those regimes never, ever shown self sustainability in real life. They either get taken out from enemies within their own power structures, or enemies without. And the more land and people your government holds, the more lax you need to manage yourself or you risk someone turning against you.
Look, all this discussion boils down to people wanting power (greed) and willing to risk their lives for it. If you tighten the leash, you just end up having to look over your shoulder all the time. And then, one day you make a mistake and it's over. The fantasy magical thinking part of 1984 is our willful suspension of disbelief when we don't take into account all of this. We live in surveillance states that constantly suffer from leaks and political struggles because the more power you have, the more it corrupts and turns officials against each-other seeking more power and influence. We see refuges picking up their belonging and running away when food and security is lessening. We've seen farmers burning their fields and run to the woods when taxes became unreasonable. 84 tells you running away is impossible. Reality shows people run away all the time. Border guards get bribed. Soldiers defect. Workers sabotage... There's just no reasonable explanation why all of this isn't happening in 84. There's only axioms and assertions: It happened, but it was stopped. They tried, but they failed. They keep watching everything... Run the numbers. Count how much people you'd need to operate this kind of things. How much more people you need to keep your own people in check. I tried to. I even added computers. It doesn't add up.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 26 2016, @01:20PM
Which requires infrastructure and personal that the regime in 1984 doesn't have. Even if they had computers, it would take a massive workforce to keep tabs on every cork and screw in the propaganda machine 24/7. And you'd need to watch the watchers... No. It just doesn't work. People talk. Political alliances will form. Eventually it will break.
Opinion without justification. I think Orwell did a good job of providing both the technology and infrastructure to do just that. Why would people talk? Why would political alliances changes or "breaks" change anything?
Look, all this discussion boils down to people wanting power (greed) and willing to risk their lives for it. If you tighten the leash, you just end up having to look over your shoulder all the time. And then, one day you make a mistake and it's over. The fantasy magical thinking part of 1984 is our willful suspension of disbelief when we don't take into account all of this. We live in surveillance states that constantly suffer from leaks and political struggles because the more power you have, the more it corrupts and turns officials against each-other seeking more power and influence.
Why is this relevant? That was in 1984 too. You have yet to show an instability in the system. Power struggles at the top aren't instabilities if they don't change anything. Revolts by the lower classes aren't instabilities, if they don't change anything (especially if they don't happen at all). A key aspect of the book was to warp everyone's thinking so that they couldn't conceive of anything outside of the box.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @01:03PM
Before the Internet, and the ability to store and analyze petabytes of data, lots of data was public but was hiding in plain sight - someone had to go down to the courthouse, or the Naval Institute in this case, and spend months or years analyzing the data before they had a good picture of it. So when someone like Clancy did that, naturally the government had multiple concerns. Fortunately for them, Clancy was already gung ho on the US armed forces, so that made it easy for them to cooperate and feed him interesting tidbits, so it became a symbiotic operation.
Not saying anyone can do what Clancy did just by having access to the documents, but that is the first hurdle, and it's a big one, that has been removed in many cases (certainly not all).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @01:14PM
... Tom Clancy's books are not remotely realistic. I mean, they are great teen adventure novels, but no one would spend any time trying to scrape them for reality. You might as well read Ian Fleming novels!
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday April 25 2016, @01:34PM
Exactly... CIA made sure it is so, even if any resemblance with reality was accidental and/or unintended.
Besides... the Wikipedia entry for the "Red October" [wikipedia.org] says there was a believer (at least a partial believer) in a power position who based his judgement on Clancy's books. (fortunately for this world, seems like his counterpart knew better).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @07:43PM
U.S. President Ronald Reagan, the latter had advised UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to read the novel in order to gain an understanding of the Soviet Union's intentions and strategy.
Translation: Tom Clancy helped President Regan spread anti-Soviet propaganda to UK PM Thatcher.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by n1 on Monday April 25 2016, @02:34PM
From TFA2:
But really, it's not about being realistic, it's about portraying the CIA and other elite units as very necessary. If they unimaginable did happen, at least we do have those guys in our corner, who while we don't like their methods sometimes, they're doing it for the right reasons, for freedom and liberty. Selfless heroes at best, a necessary compromise at worst.
(Score: 3, Informative) by gman003 on Monday April 25 2016, @08:55PM
There are two types of accuracy at question: technical, and situational.
The books, as far as I know and as far as I have read, are very accurate in technical matters. All the gun porn, plane porn, tank porn, etc. is correct, or at least free of any errors I could have uncovered. Even the speculative stuff is pretty reasonable - maybe not a perfect prediction, but it was never something that screamed out "bullshit!". I'm not an expert, but I have more knowledge than the average reader, and I rarely found anything wrong.
The situational accuracy is much more of a mixed bag, and part of that is simply to make for a narrative. To tell a war story, you have to have a war - so, even if a war is unlikely to actually happen, you still have to write one, it's just a matter of picking the least improbable one. The Soviet Union fighting NATO in the 80s? Completely plausible. China invading Russia to seize resources? Not all that likely, but it's not even close to impossible, and it's a hell of a lot more likely than most random matchups. Islamic terrorists attacking a prominent American institution? The means used in the book were a massive stretch, but the core concept was solid.
Those were the early stories. The later ones kind of fell apart, for reasons I don't know but could speculate about. Environmentalist bio-terrorism? A US-Japan war? A lot of those fail to pass even the sniff test, when you look at them from outside. From inside, most of them seemed logical, which is a testament to Clancy's writing abilities, but if you try to explain them yourself, they sound downright stupid. Because, in all honesty, the later books were kind of stupid.
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Tuesday April 26 2016, @12:16AM
One technical error that comes to mind from Red October was the reactor coolant temperature of a Soviet sub (probably Akula, but that detail escapes me). I remember it was portrayed as being higher than usual, so the sub had greater power available for propulsion, and was thus fast. The water had to be kept under great pressure to keep from boiling (which would reduce the heat transfer capability), of course, which was also described. However, the temperature stated was above the critical temperature of water, so it would not be liquid at any pressure. I'm not sure what that would imply for the design of the reactor, as it seems nobody uses supercritical water reactors...wait, what?
Okay, it looks like Red October predicted them, maybe? Supercritical Water Reactor [wikipedia.org]
In summary, maybe the description in the book could have described it better.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EvilSS on Monday April 25 2016, @02:05PM
This statement is just flawed. It's not about what is "tolerated". It's not like the government has any say in his books. The difference is that books don't really require "official" support from the DoD or CIA. If I want to write about something happening on an aircraft carrier, I don't need access to an actual aircraft carrier to do that. I need info, sure, but that can be obtained easily enough from public info and individuals. If I want to do something in a movie aboard an aircraft carrier, then I need an aircraft carrier (or today, a green screen, but having the real deal is probably always going to be better). So for a a books, I don't need any support at all and can write what I want, but if I want the DoD to lend me use of hundreds of millions of dollars of military hardware for filming, well, then I need to play nice or they can very well tell me to go fly a kite and I'll be stuck using sets, stock footage, and CGI.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Monday April 25 2016, @02:29PM
You sure can write what you want, but that doesn't mean you'll get anyone to publish or distribute your work, especially when we're talking about the time Tom Clancy came to prominence.
I would assume The United States Naval Institute, publisher of the Red October would not print anything that would be truly controversial or risky in the eyes of the DoD for operational or national-security purposes, especially with the membership they have of former Marines and the like.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @04:35PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Institute [wikipedia.org]
They are a 'good ol boys club' of retired vets. Their whole 'point' in existence is to sit around and speculate 'what if' over a brewski. Tom Clancy probably was a member. If you are hanging around these sorts of people you probably would have access to all sorts of interesting people and access to interesting info. They also have one of the largest libraries on naval history. Which it seems Mr Clancy had access to.
It is not what you know but *who*.
He did not have to have suppppper top secret access to anything. His books are adventure political drama. He had to stick close to 'how it is done' to make his books look good. He did not and his sources did not have to give up anything. I would imagine most of his conversations with his buddies went something like 'if you had to do XYZ what would have happened'.
He could create whatever narrative he wanted and back it up with pretty good sources of people who had done it for 20+ years.
His first few books were pretty good. But his later work was rather dull and repetitive. Pretty much anything past Rainbow Six was not worth reading and fairly much a name cash in. Hunt for Red October, Red Storm Rising, and Without Remorse being his best works. He sort of painted himself into a corner when he decided to make his main character the president.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday April 25 2016, @06:12PM
IIRC, that was intentionally done, because he wanted to write about other characters. Having locked himself into that, it was hard to undo for the $$.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @07:49PM
Wow, what a lengthy TFS...
It almost reads like anti-American propaganda.
It would not surprise me to find the ClandesTime podcast is being promoted and funded by anti-USA agents of subversion. [youtube.com]
Has Soylent, or any of its News, ever been a member of the Communist Party?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @08:18PM
You might be onto something. The whole "Spy Culture" website linked in TFS seems to focus only on USA/western spy agencies intersection with media. Kind of odd since the Soviet Regime collapsed and revealed tons of concrete examples of how Soviets manipulated popular culture.
If you were really interested in how such secret state agencies operate wouldn't you be at least interested in dissecting one that has already spilled its guts?
P.S. "what a lengthy TFS" = "what a lengthy the fucking submission/story". Don't make me call in the Grammar Nazis. [imgur.com] (image depicts correlation between Grammar Nazism and Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP, subliminal messaging technique used by propagandists))
>>>/32/
(Score: 3, Interesting) by n1 on Monday April 25 2016, @10:13PM
Now i'm going to take the bait here, but also thanks for taking the time out to agree with yourself on this topic.
If you are aware of other research being done on state engagement with entertainment industry as a means to influence public opinion and perception or similar, in any country, i'd like to see that submitted to this site, and i'm sure Tom Secker would like to read about it too.
Until that happens, just in case you're worried about any anti-US sentiment... here's a recent piece from the Washington Post, now picked up Brookings Institute.
Do you feel better now?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 26 2016, @04:09AM
If you are aware of other research being done on state engagement with entertainment industry as a means to influence public opinion and perception or similar...
You probably won't find much serious research on it for obvious reasons, but it is pretty much settled fact at this point that Hollywood was lousy with Soviet agents back in the day. But since the media and government was too, those who exposed it were the ones History records as the villains of the story. _Trumbo_ recently received an Academy Award nomination for yet another coverup piece on the incident. Have to keep reminding people that resistance is futile.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 26 2016, @08:47AM
I have it on good background that jmorris is a deep-cover, remotely activated Soviet agent. Unfortunately, he out-lasted the Soviet Union, and so like any parasite seeking a host, he latched on to the Republican party, the only close resemblance to Soviet authoritarianism. This explains so much, his hatred of the liberal values that shaped America, the opposition to equal opportunity and racial and gender equality that was so much not a part of the Soviet Union, but is the core of the Republican Party of America today. But the Communist Party under Stalin, and the recent Republican Party of America do share one goal: they both seek to destroy America! And this is why, if you do research, you will not find any evidence that jmorris is a SALT, not even any evidence that he is a Morton! Shouldn't that make you all the more suspicious?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @08:08AM
That's a lot of text for not taking any "bait".
You really should do a single Google search before spewing uneducated nonsense. You could start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union#Soviet_censorship_of_film [wikipedia.org]
Acting as the chief censor for films, Stalin was demanding meticulous revisions in a way befitting his interpretation, as if a co-author. One famous letter Stalin wrote to Alexander Dovzhenko pertained to The Great Citizen, a film about the purge trials. Stalin's letter made several intrusive revisions on the characters, props, and vital scenes such that the entire film needed restructuring.[9] More moderate cases were recorded, such as a picture by Ivan Pyryev, where Stalin only changed the title from Anka to The Party Card. However, movies which Stalin thought did not cohere with socialist realism were denied being released to the public; The Party Card was not such a film. This picture’s screenplay was written during the time of a national campaign to renew individual party cards, and losing one amounted to a serious lack of Soviet discipline. Anka, the main character, has her card stolen by her lover, who is the surreptitious son of a kulak.[10]
There are many instances of such on that page alone. All Historians acknowledge that, "History is written by the victors." This includes portrayals in subsequent plays, songs, etc. TFA itself links to many cited examples of state influence on media. You're deluding yourself to think the western democratic states are the only ones worth looking into about such things. North Korea exists, FFS. If you think Facebook is the only media outlet that Gemany's Angela Merkel has met with to silence dissenting opinion, you're daft.
I'm not your personal Google, so you'll have to engage your own logic to continue down the path of light.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by n1 on Tuesday April 26 2016, @11:08AM
I clearly said I was taking the bait, and your comments have indicated that you did not read either TFA or my comment with any intention of understanding.
There is state sponsorship of media everywhere, in every country at various levels, I have 0 doubt on that. But why should we focus on the known examples from decades past, or the cases where it has little meaningful impact.
What does North Korean propaganda and control of media have to do with the media i am presented with every day? Why is what Stalin did decades ago, which didnt work on the long term, as evidenced by the collapse of the Soviet Union, more important than what the CIA and DoD is doing today? Which, in my opinion, has been quite successful and has evolved since WW2.
Beyond that i'm more interested in what propaganda is being targeted at me... I don't actually speak Russian or Korean, so digging through their records is not something i'm able to do personally. A lot of Tom Seckers work is based off FoIA requests he has made, so that 'soviet stuff already widely available' is being added to by this work, so we can compare and contrast the techniques and evolution of state propaganda from different decades and cultures.
You are not my personal google, I never asked you to be. Judging by the lack of comprehension of the material available here, i'm really glad you're not.