Posted on 01/02/2023 2:50:17 AM PST by Phoenix8
228,722 views Nov 14, 2022 For a hundred years now, we have been fascinated by DYSTOPIAS: nightmare-visions of environmental disasters, squalor, societal decline, or tyrannical governments maintaining complete control over a society—whether through brute force, propaganda, censorship or denial of free thought, brainwashing, or all of the above, leading to the complete loss of individuality.
But in this ever-expanding genre, there is one dystopian film that stands out as horrifyingly unique, breaking the mold, and creating a dystopian world unlike any other—except maybe, potentially, our own. Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 film adaptation A Clockwork Orange follows the deviant peregrinations of a young criminal named Alex Delarge, as he navigates a dystopian of version of London, England. This video explores the nature of crime, government, and culture. Why does authoritarianism fail to create safety and prevent crime? Can democracies be totalitarian? What makes policing ineffective? How do liberals respond in a world where liberalism is falling out of favor? How does culture, art, and architecture reflect the character of a society? Are their similarities between A Clockwork Orange and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World? If so, what do these classic novels have to say about our own societies?
Just ran across this brilliant expose on it and realized with the new safe-T act in Chicago as well as increasing violence everywhere and dysfunctional government this novel is becoming our existence.
Ergo, those creating our dystopian future will be met with non-institutional force.
That seems to be something the Democrats and the Deep State have considered hence their targeting of "far right terrorist" groups as their "public enemies number one."
The question arises, do any Democrats and employees of the FBI have the presence of mind to consider that they are being used by the Marxists among them to create chaos and thereby destroy our current society and system of government.
When I saw Kubrick’s movie, I didn’t believe that society could ever become like what it depicted. Now I’m living in it.
No.
That's like asking if a dictator will obey the will of the people. A dictator wouldn't be a dictator if he did.
A question I’ve wondered about myself.
Prohibition was an experiment in democratic totalitarianism. Although it failed, there is no reason in principle why it could not have continued.
We are no longer a democracy and will not be again until we have eliminated fraudulent elections. We begin to eliminate fraudulent elections at the local level. Observe, expose, and demand prosecution of the guilty (including corrupt judges). Once state legislatures are put on notice that fraud will not be tolerated things will start changing for the better.
A dictator can follow the will of the people if he wants to.
What if 51% vote to euthanize all colored people?
That’s a totalitarian democracy.
In the end it depends on one’s definitions I think.
Fails to take into account that the public institutions will vigorously prosecute vigilante justice, while turning a blind eye to mob violence, looters, aggressive vagrancy, etc.
Just go to San Francisco to see what I mean!
Regards,
.
Oh really?
Ever hear of mob rule?
People are leaving San Fran in droves and they are taking their contribution to city revenues with them.
BTW, there isn't a seamless filling of voids in nature and reality. Things don't happen immediately. Give them time.
Funny though that you mention San Francisco. Take a gander this (in the 1850's)...San Francisco Vigilantes.
In 1856, San Francisco was entirely under the control of its famous Vigilance Committee, a determined band of citizens that held the city under firm rule. When the Vigilance Committee was formed, the conditions of the city’s outgrowth had caused widespread municipal corruption by a gang of organized political plunderers. Operating in their own individual best interests, the city government held control of San Francisco at the expense of the honest and respectable citizens of the city.For years, some of the worst elements of San Francisco had held control of the political machine, stuffing ballot boxes, bribing voters, intimidating those that couldn’t be paid off, and electing their own judges. Going to any and every extreme to hold their offices, the politicians were raping the city, taking home bucket loads of money, and enjoying their power.
However, on May 14, 1856, James King, the editor of the Bulletin newspaper, who had persistently exposed the misdeeds of the political powers, was murdered by a low-life politician and known ballot-box stuffer named James Casey. Trusting that the political machine would take care of him, Casey surrendered partly for protection from King’s friends.
Word of King’s murder spread quickly, and determined citizens were ready to end the political corruption at any cost. Soon, a citizens delegate approached William T. Coleman, who had belonged to the Vigilance Committee of 1851, asking him to form another vigilante group to take measures against the politicians. At first, Coleman was reluctant but was soon convinced there was no alternative. A call for arms was soon made signed by the “Committee of Thirteen,” the same title under which the Vigilance Committee of 1851 was disbanded.
Vigilante justice is frowned upon because it competes with government-run justice.
And as with any bureaucracy, it does not want to solve problems - making them worse is job security.
Gee, I don't see the connection.
I think "mob rule" is more like "tyranny."
A situation where a dictator may choose to "listen" to the people on an issue but still retains full power is NOT a democracy, is it?
No, a listening dictator is not a democracy.
I was merely addressing the points in post #4.
There are two separate points.
BTW, I’m not in favor of vigilante action or justice. I’m just saying that it will fill the void when legal institutions fail to maintain law and order.
When I said "obey" I did not mean the dictator was "listening."
Q: Why does authoritarianism fail to create safety and prevent crime?
A: That was never its intention from the start.
Q: Can democracies be totalitarian?
A: Hello-oo
Q: What makes policing ineffective?
A: SELECTIVE policing
Q: How do liberals respond in a world where liberalism is falling out of favor?
A: They attribute all of liberalism’s unintended consequences to be the result of the practices of those opposed to liberalism.
Q: How does culture, art, and architecture reflect the character of a society?
A: They no longer reflect the character of a society. Today, their purpose is to mold the character of society.
Same here.
This is the “social contract” laid out by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.