This nation has NOT "been sold"; unless you are referencing the freebies and sellouts of secrets by Clinton and his horde. But that is a different topic................
Orwell wrote 1984 as a condemnation and commentary on COMMUNISM. He had once been a fervent SOCIALST and this book was a refutation of all that, as well as his own past works such as DOWN AND OUT IN PARIS AND LONDON; to name but one such previous work.
BRAVE NEW WORLD was not really a foray into politics. Rather, it was far more just one of Huxley's Sci-FI turns. From his early days of being a rather minor/fringe member of the Bloomsbury Group, until his death, he was more or less a Fabian. And if this is the only book of his, that you've ever read, I suggest that you read AFTER MANY A SUMMER DIES THE SWAN ( anther fantasy/Sci-Fi kind of thing ) as well as THE GENIUS AND THE GODDESS, which is his paean to Ottoline Morrell...one of THE ugliest women who has ever lived, but the virtual head of the Bloomsbury bunch.
Taking cues from works of fiction, as how one should react to reality, is usually NOT a very good idea.
You wrote:
"Taking cues from works of fiction, as how one should react to reality, is usually NOT a very good idea."
I write:
Yes, but using a work of fiction to draw an analogy; is not the same as "Taking cues from works of fiction..."
I thought I went over that with you?
You wrote: "I am fully cognizant of what you wrote and what you(R)intentions were, when you wrote your post."
I write:
Then you must be 'psychic' to know what my "intentions" were, when I wrote my post.
You wrote:
"This nation has NOT 'been sold'..."
I write:
Simply disagreeing with my assessment that, in fact, this nation HAS 'been sold' -- without backing up your argument in some fashion -- will not win the day for you.
You further wrote:
"...unless you are referencing the freebies and sellouts of secrets by Clinton and his horde. But that is a different topic..."
I write:
You know very well I was not: 'referencing the freebies and sellouts of secrets by Clinton and his horde'(such as to the Chinese I might add) But -- I agree -- it 'is a different topic...'
So why did you use circumlocution to avoid the main topic?
You wrote:
"when you wrote your post. It was childish and you are still writing emotional drivel..."
I write:
Well, my "emotional drivel" has, apparently, elicited quite an exited response from you -- hasn't it?
Contrary to popular belief: strong emotion, passion, and a temperamental disposition, are indicators -- among others --of Intelligence. The Founding Fathers were certainly passionate, and also highly intelligent. The mentally retarded generally do not enjoy these qualities.
So lets review my post that seems to have rankled you so.
In that post I wrote:
" Welcome to Pan America. Your country is officially no longer your country -- It's been sold!
Can we get it back?
Watched reruns of 'brave-heart' the other day. I think William Wallace had it easy compared to what we face. Our modern 'Nobles' could care even less about America than the ones in his time."
Now the gist of the above post is:
(1)America has been sold.
(2)Our elites have been complacent.
(3)Can we get our Country back?
You disagree with point number one.
You wrote: "This nation has NOT 'been sold'"
Your "argument" is that, well... you disagree!
You can do better, I'm sure.
Please address the three simple points made in my post starting with number one.
If you can explain to me(make a case for)how our Country has NOT been sold; then you need not address points two and three(see above), as those points would then become moot.
I would much welcome -- I would rejoice -- in a refutation of my post.
I don't welcome The United States merger with Mexico and Canada, to become "Pan America" (or whatever it will be called)-- modeled after it's twin sister The European Union.
So go ahead and show me how wrong I am.
Make me a happy man!