(untitled)

https://web.archive.org/web/20180810090325/https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/ Orwell's proposed forward to Animal Farm. Lots of hints towards the influences for 1984. Spoiler Alert: It was about the effects of Liberal Media and Anti-Facism.

>>2492 Could you please post the foreword you mentioned that is related to the effects of the liberal media and anti-fascism? You appear to have posted one that is brazenly anti Bolshevik and critical of WWII era Soviet worship in liberal western Europe.

>>2492 Thanks OP, that was good. >>2493 He did. Show some patience before getting snarky, geez.

> Spoiler Alert: It was about the effects of Liberal Media and Anti-Facism. If you read that and what you take from it is a bunch of alt-right buzzwords, there is no hope for you. I would tell you need to take the context Orwell was writing in, and compare it today, but it doesn't matter, your brain doesn't work.

>>2503 The fascists of tommorow will call themselves anti-fascists - Churchill Alt-right doesn't exist as a political movement. It was propped up in media as a boogeyman. Look up google search trends of "Richard Spencer", he was an unknown nobody that out of sudden talked for some group of people? No. He is an CIA agent and media is trying to use him as boogeyman. That is why all he said about "liberal media" and "anti-fascists" was correct. Even if he used buzzwords. >context Which is? Let's be honest with ourselves whatever OP, or anyone else says of what context Orwells 1984 was you will try to spin that as incorrect interpretation. What I hate with the left leaning people is they go automatically for the insult of intelligence. If you were so intelligent why resort to petty ad hominems? Why not argue so good that everyone sees how the other person is dumb? I think using insults just shows how insecure you are about your own characteristic of which you try to insults other on.

> Spoiler Alert: It was about the effects of Liberal Media and Anti-Facism. Orwell was a far left socialist, he hated fascism and joined an anti-fascist commie militia in the Spanish Civil War so he could fight them. Read Homage to Catalonia you dumb cunt.

>>2504 Churchill never said that. Huey Long didn't say this either: "When fascism comes to America it will be called anti-fascism." But he may have said something similar. But besides Huey Long being, uh, an interesting figure, he's not speaking to something specific about antifascism, just the nature of popular movements. The remarks had to do with Fascism being distinctly European, and americans rejecting because of that.

>>2504 >The fascists of tommorow will call themselves anti-fascists - Churchill Churchill never said this, or how you would put it "fake news" >Alt-right doesn't exist as a political movement. It was propped up in media as a boogeyman. Look up google search trends of "Richard Spencer", he was an unknown nobody that out of sudden talked for some group of people? No. He is an CIA agent and media is trying to use him as boogeyman. no, he was using politically incorrect board of 4ch/8ch and angry republicans to thrust himself into the mainstream. >What I hate with the left leaning people is they go automatically for the insult of intelligence. If you were so intelligent why resort to petty ad hominems? Why not argue so good that everyone sees how the other person is dumb? when you throw fake quotes and dumb idea of cia backing Richard Spencer. in an era where basic facts don't exist anymore (qanon, global warming denial, etc.) debating anything is stupid and know longer works. Showing how crazy someone is only gives them more media recognition causing more people to join them (a la Alex Jones etc.)

>>2505 Orwell regularly and openly criticized the Left. He was hardly partisan. >Read Homage to Catalonia you dumb cunt. You're extremely rude. Read Looking Back on The Spanish War. >Our memories are short nowadays, but look back a bit, dig out the files of New Masses or the Daily Worker, and just have a look at the romantic warmongering muck that our left-wingers were spilling at that time. All the stale old phrases! And the unimaginative callousness of it! The sang-froid with which London faced the bombinb of Madrid! Here I am not bothering about the counter-propogandaists of the Right the LUnns, Garvins et hoc genus; they go without saying. But here were the very people who for twenty years had hooted and jeered at the "glory" of war, at atrocity stories, at patriotism, even at physical courage, coming out with stuff that with the alteration of a few names would have fitted into the Daily Mail of 1918. -Geroge Orwell, Looking Back on The Spanish War >Political language--and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists--is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable. -Geroge Orwell, Reflections on Ghandi The truth is, of course, that the countless English intellectuals who kiss the arse of Stalin are not different from the minority who give their allegiance to Hitler or Mussolini, -Geroge Orwell, Raffles and Miss Blandish

>>2508 You keep giving evidence that Orwell hated Stalinists, and there were a lot of Stalinists on the English left. No soykaf. (Part of the reason for that is that the USSR was purposfully infiltrating left parties, but certainly some of the Stalinists weren't being paid.) The bridge you are failing to cross is that between English leftists in the 40s and "Liberal Media and Antifascists." English leftists weren't liberals, and the Stalinist faction was not a superset of people who would consider themselves antifascists today.

>>2509 >English leftists weren't liberals, and the Stalinist faction was not a superset of people who would consider themselves antifascists today. What Orwell regularly referred to as 'left-wing intelligentsia' was not limited to just Stalinists and has much in common with modern liberals. >It should be noted that there is now no intelligentsia that is not in some sense "Left". [...] Since about 1930 everyone describable as an "intellectual" has lived in a state of chronic discontent with the existing order. Necessarily so, because society as it was constituted had no room for him. I'm very doubtful Orwell is suggesting all intellectuals are Stalinists. >The mentality of the English left-wing intelligentsia can be studied in half a dozen weekly and monthly papers. Which implies that it's not something specific to Stalinists, unless Stalinists were running several dozen papers in England. More to the point, if Orwell only wanted to refer to Stalinists, he probably would have just used the word Stalinist. Orwell has been consistently critical of all political media. In "England Your England", he preempts Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. Chomsky, "[the media] are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion" Orwell, "Is the English press honest or dishonest? At normal times it is deeply dishonest. All the papers that matter live off their advertisements, and the advertisers exercise an indirect censorship over news." While Orwell is far less critical than Chomsky, much of his writing has been dedicated to the decay of truth or even a belief in truth. This is clear in part IV of "Looking Back at the Spanish War", where he says "History stopped in 1936," as a curt way of saying how journalistic integrity was largely dead. Not to mention the Ministry of Truth or the memory hole in 1984. The idea that Orwell was never critical of the left is false. The idea that Orwell was only ever referring to Stalinists when he mentioned the left is false. The idea that Orwell would never be critical of the modern left is false.

>>2510 you realise that Orwell himself fought against fascists on the side of anarchists? He believed in anarchist society and was himself a part of the Fabian society, a democratic socialist organisation

>>2510 The idea that the link presented in the is about the effects of Liberal Media and Anti-Fascism is false, and ahistorical, and just odd.

>>2507 >to thrust himself into the mainstream If I remember correctly, he was not known in right wing circles until he made that conference with him saying "hail trump, hail victory" while people made hitler salutes coming from a, what you would consider, pretty far right wing guy, is pretty larpy and cringy.... not to mention that those 3 guys doing the salutes where jews and merely because they knew camera was in their line of sight He is a nobody trying to subvert and ride on Trump wave. Nobody on the right even cared when he got sucker punched by that twink of antifa. Only few sargon people got in a hissy fit over "muh freedumb of spich" and how they need to let the CIA agent speak. >and dumb idea of cia backing Richard Spencer It is widely known that FBI and CIA made fake far right/left wing groups to lure out the crazy and stupid. It is also widely known these agencies don't have moral quarrel with political subversion of foreign leaders. Dunno why it is such a big leap of faith that local nobody who came into prominence because media called him edgy is one of their guys trying to stir soykaf against Trump. >qanon Pure larp. Few times he got lucky on his predictions though and few times he got them so horribly wrong he backpedaled into lies. He just made more larpers come out of woodworks tho. >global warming denial Dunno how that denying something is on same level as "manufactueing stories" or fake news. Not to mention that nobody is denying that temperature has been getting higher. It is just that the trend of global warming begins far before past milenium. I think this point of global warming "denial" has no connection with q anon or false quote, it is just you rambling on about propaganda you heard somewhere. >debating anything is stupid and know longer works >know longer works >calls me stupid It works for those willing to change their point of view with arguments and evidence. You got my mind changed because of that false Churchill quote I said and I am sorry but I still think that even though the quote is a lie I think that there is some teuth in that sentence alone. >Showing how crazy someone is only gives them more media recognition causing more people to join them (a la Alex Jones etc.) This is second time you used "etc" after a very very short list of what you considered were quite a good indicators of what you have to say... which makes me think that you either just look at few things on surface level or don't really know a lot of stuff you are talking about. Alex Jones has only now gained tracktion because of all online venues kicking him off all at same time for supposed "policy violation" even though he wasn't derezzed for years and years ... a bit strange don't you think? To be honest with you, I don't even watch the guy. He is obvious con artist that just sells water filters and overpriced supplements, and he just makes us all look crazy so I dislike him even more. But he tries to shed a light on a lot of things that he believes in a fights for since early 90s. He is entertainer and I understand his job is hard and even harder to try and bring attention to such boring topics without giving off over the top emotional reactions to his stories to garner attention. But hr is doing a good job putting those stories out there and putting a light on things that would otherwise pass unnoticed.

>>2511 I've been quoting Orwell directly and all I've gotten is 'nah-uhs'. If people can't be bothered to provide any kind of evidence to back up their claims, maybe they shouldn't post? >>2512 Pulling ideas from older works and seeing how they hold up in modern contexts is the main point in reading older works. I think Orwell would have a lot to say about modern media, despite the fact that it isn't the blatant fascism he feared so much. That OP had the insight to see how ideas repeat themselves over time is valuable. That OP only posted a link and an inflammatory blurb is not, but that's not important anymore. There's little point to studying history if any comparison to modern times is taken as ahistorical and odd.

Of course Orwell was critical of "the left", anybody who doesn't criticize their own political allies is a fuarrrking fool. And of course he was also a committed socialist and anti-fascist for his entire life. Like seriously please stop arguing over Orwell's legacy like this he's rolled around in his grave enough. >>2513 >It is just that the trend of global warming begins far before past milenium. there's no way that any climate data from more than 200 years ago could be accurate at the scale and precision that current climate data has. So, either this natural warming/cooling cycle is much slower than the spike in temperatures we're seeing now, or the previous spikes don't actually show up in that data

>>2515 >there's no way that any climate data from more than 200 years ago could be accurate at the scale and precision that current climate data has Precision isn't the main goal when looking for a rough pattern or trends. You can easily read out temperature of past in deep undisturbed ice sheets of Antartica. Here you go, a peer reviewed study for you to read: http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html Hope you aren't one of those global warming deniers or something. >So, either this natural warming/cooling cycle is much slower than the spike in temperatures we're seeing now, or the previous spikes don't actually show up in that data Love how the moment you are presented with opposing view, idea and evidence you immediately go to rationalize how that new evidence just incorporates into your old ideas. And you were the one that said arguing has no goal or impact? Talk about irony. Go read the study and then come back instead of just trying to keep this stupid idea that man made global warming is real thing. I will wait.

>>2514 You're providing quotes that are irrelevant to the claims OP made. Yes, Orwell criticized other leftists, that is what he is most famous for doing. What does that have to do with the modern "liberal media." When you answer that question, through analogy perhaps, maybe this garbage thread will have produced something of value. Is the "Liberal Media" too easy on the ANC because of their own white guilt? I don't think so, but that would at least suggest some parallel between Orwell's world of Leftist ideologues covering up for a failed system and the world of today. >Orwell regularly and openly criticized the Left. He was hardly partisan. He most certainly was partisan.

>>2516 >Precision isn't the main goal when looking for a rough pattern or trends. I should clarify: you wouldn't be able to see, say, average global temperatures rising by 1 full degree celsius over the course of a few decades using ice sheet data. The study you linked provides no counterpoint to this, it's about atmospheric CO2 trends over the course of thousands of years.

>>2517 >You're providing quotes that are irrelevant to the claims OP made. There's really no point in me arguing with people who can't read even when relevant material is shoved under their face from several different places. I wouldn't mind if someone explained the "actual" meaning of the quotes or provided context explaining why they don't mean what they mean. Instead, I get vague snobbery. It's clear that nobody who cares enough to disagree with me cares enough to write a decent counter-argument. Maybe they don't have one? Maybe none exists? I'll never know. Oh well. Other people can read the thread and make their own judgments.

>>2517 >He most certainly was partisan. This word has very different meanings in different contexts. What I meant was that he was not dogmatic. I did not mean that he wasn't part of an irregular fighting force at any time or that he was not a strong supporter of socialism. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

>>2513 >Go read the study and then come back instead of just trying to keep this stupid idea that man made global warming is real thing. I will wait. Here is a nasa filled with studies peer reviewed for you, https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ go back to your koch "think tank" to justify Beijing level pollution for oil megacorps

>>2518 Are you braindead or are you literally arguing that hundreds of thousands of years of global warming trends aren't in full effect at the moment?

>>2521 So you never read the study and just link me back a "counter argument". Lol okay. You didn't read mine and just keep on blabbering the propaganda about "muh 1%"? I won't click on your link or regard you sincerely either This game works both ways hippie

He literally fought against facists as part of an anarchist army (see Homage to Catalonia). I think you might be extending hist comments here further than what he was discussing about...

>>2524 He was also a sub-divisional police officer in Burma where prisoners were forced crowded into cages and flogged. Obviously a single sentence of truth doesn't tell the whole story. Context is required for a full picture.

>>2524 The army he was in was the socialist one who fought in alliance with the anarchist militias if you want to get particular. This alliance also included literal Stalinists who were armed and funded by Uncle Jo himself. There was even fighting between different of these factions at points, such as over the telephone exchange in Barcelona.

>>2523 The fact is, that the one or two sources doesn't invalidate the general and overwhelming consensuses around the world. All you proven is that you can cherry pick one source. btw your source only says that their is a correlation between co2, it doesn't include methane gas and a bunch of other green house gases. Second it's a red herring because we are looking at temperature of the planet not just co2. >neurosuggesting I don't know your just doing this to sh!ll your thread

>>2527 >that the one or two sources doesn't invalidate the general and overwhelming consensuses around the world That world is warming up? This study only shows that to be true. I don't know what are you arguing about? That global warming is caused by manmade activities? I would like to see proof of that. >All you proven is that you can cherry pick one source. Cherry picked? No, it is widely known that global warming is a thing but nobody knows why earth is warming up and now this study comes up to show that it is warming up due to 100 thousand year cycles. Don't know what is the issue. >your source only says that their is a correlation between co2, it doesn't include methane gas and a bunch of other green house gases >he doesn't know the difference between there, their and they're No actually the correlation between Co2 and temperature is other study that this study cites. You didn't read it up entirely. Also if you would look back to >>2513 you would see it includes methane analysis. I think you just keep trying to rationalize how this new evidence contridicts your worldview to be honest. >Second it's a red herring because we are looking at temperature of the planet not just co2. I mean, as long as temperature/Co2 correlation goes true, and it keeps on going true, then there shouldn't be any problem with that correlation, right? But I reiterate, this is not the study to make that claim, it is another study that this study cites. And as far as I know that study has passed peer review so I don't understand how by your standards a published scientific paper can be not up to par. >I don't know your just doing this to sh!ll your thread Hey, you started talking about global warming denial, I just connected on that topic and if you would look back onto our discussion it is you who started accussing me of all this balloney and going on some rampage about qanon and fake news that nobody even mentioned. If anything it id you who is sh1lling these inane topics into trying to debate someone... and then failing miserably and calling up these logical fallacy buzzwords as if they mean anything when you try to argue validity of peer reviewed scientific papers while also not knowing hoe to spell basic words.

>>2522 are you literally braindead or are you arguing that the world isn't warming up faster than 1 degree per millenium?

>>2531 Lol Just because I said hundred of thousand of years cycle doesn't mean that it is warming up slowly or over thousands of years. Learn to read. There is Co2 stored in the deep ice of antartica you know? The temp grows faster and faster. Dumbo