1984 speak in 2025

[stxjimmy]

There's no great mystery to how that happened. They're all about hating and fearing the government, as well as accusing the other side of things they are actually guilty of. 1984 is a perfect blueprint for that, and their lack of critical thinking skills combined with their unwillingness to see what's really going on means of course they're going to miss the real point.

It particularly irks me how reich guide claims Orwell said people sleep safely at night because of strong men prepared to do violence on their behalf. And that his not a lawyer sidekick pipes up to support him.

 

[Politruk]

It particularly irks me how reich guide claims Orwell said people sleep safely at night because of strong men prepared to do violence on their behalf. And that his not a lawyer sidekick pipes up to support him.

He did say something like that, in his essay on Rudyard Kipling: "He [Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them."

 

[stxjimmy]

He did say something like that, in his essay on Rudyard Kipling: "He [Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them."

He sees means Kipling not Orwell

 

[stxjimmy]

And quote tracking websites find no mention of Orwell saying such a thing, but point to a journalist first saying it of Orwell. The same quote is often credited to Churchill.

 

[eric_erosfan]

And quote tracking websites find no mention of Orwell saying such a thing, but point to a journalist first saying it of Orwell. The same quote is often credited to Churchill.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/

 

[stxjimmy]

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/

Thank you
“Reply from Quote Investigator:There is no substantive evidence that George Orwell who died in 1950 made this remark. The earliest known matching statement appeared in a column in the Washington Times newspaper written by the film critic and essayist Richard Grenier in 1993”

 

[TheGxForum]

Many who have heard of Orwell don't know that he was a self-ID'd Socialist to the end of his life.

Socialist maybe but not a fascists...

 

[YDB95]

Keep in mind that we're talking about right-wingers who think Martin Luther King would be on their side if he were around today. Historical accuracy ain't their strong point.

 

[TheGxForum]

Animal Farm is the story of a revolution gone wrong -- but there's nothing in it to suggest the revolution was a bad idea, or that there was anything wrong with Old Major's vision. Presumably things would be fine if only the pigs were of better character.

Everything anywhere would be fine without pig culture...

 

[TheGxForum]

It particularly irks me how reich guide claims Orwell said people sleep safely at night because of strong men prepared to do violence on their behalf. And that his not a lawyer sidekick pipes up to support him.

He's simply pointing out that when the government has the monopoly on violence society is bring sold a false sense of security in exchange for the forfeit of control over everything in that society especially taxation...

 

[Boat1]

maybe some of you should read the book, or heck, wikipedia

Have you read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross?

Edit: Don't trust the Wikipedia hack job on it though. The book itself is great!

 

[stxjimmy]

He's simply pointing out that when the government has the monopoly on violence society is bring sold a false sense of security in exchange for the forfeit of control over everything in that society especially taxation...

Sorry but I disagree. He’s making shit up to buttress his own narrow mindedness and outlook.

 

[TheGxForum]

Sorry but I disagree. He’s making shit up to buttress his own narrow mindedness and outlook.

Care to explain...?

 

[Politruk]

He's simply pointing out that when the government has the monopoly on violence society is bring sold a false sense of security in exchange for the forfeit of control over everything in that society especially taxation...

Libertarianism has no value at all.

 

[Bray123]

1984 foretold a dystopian nightmare when everything you did would be watched.

In 2025 people buy their own cameras and worry that nobody is watching.

 

[Boat1]

Libertarianism has no value at all.

Government has no value at all.
FIFY!

 

[TheGxForum]

Libertarianism has no value at all.

What that have to do with Orwell...?

 

[TheGxForum]

1984 foretold a dystopian nightmare when everything you did would be watched.

In 2025 people buy their own cameras and worry that nobody is watching.

Because society is somehow convincing people to not care about their own privacy...probably has something to do with the allure of fame and fortune and popularity...

 

[LilKitKat]

Have you read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross?

Edit: Don't trust the Wikipedia hack job on it though. The book itself is great!

No, sorry. Gun control and rights is one of my...primary issues...I pay attention to, so perhaps I need to huh?

 

[Politruk]

What that have to do with Orwell...?

Only that he would have agreed. Sociailst.

 

[Boat1]

No, sorry. Gun control and rights is one of my...primary issues...I pay attention to, so perhaps I need to huh?

I consider it to be very well written.

 

[TheGxForum]

Only that he would have agreed. Sociailst.

Well socialist does not equal fascist necessarily nor does socialist equal authoritarian necessarily nor does socialism equal dictatorship so that's why I'm not seeing any connection...

 

[Politruk]

Well socialist does not equal fascist necessarily nor does socialist equal authoritarian necessarily nor does socialism equal dictatorship so that's why I'm not seeing any connection...

Nevertheless, socialism does necessarily equal the antithesis of libertarianism -- at least in its American, LP form. There is also such thing as Libertarian socialism, but most American Libs are not that at all, they're vulgar libertarians.

I recall reading a piece by Robert Anton Wilson from 1980, when he was covering Barry Commoner's presidential run as a Citizens Party candidate. Wilson remarked, "In terms of my politics I suppose I should have supported the Libertarian Party, but I'm not that kind of Libertarian. I don't hate poor people."

If you ever have to choose between freedom and equality, you should choose equality -- or you'll end up with neither. And that's how Orwell would have seen it.

 

[HisArpy]

Well socialist does not equal fascist necessarily nor does socialist equal authoritarian necessarily nor does socialism equal dictatorship so that's why I'm not seeing any connection...

And yet...

 

[TheGxForum]

Nevertheless, socialism does necessarily equal the antithesis of libertarianism -- at least in its American, LP form. There is also such thing as Libertarian socialism, but most American Libs are not that at all, they're vulgar libertarians.

I recall reading a piece by Robert Anton Wilson from 1980, when he was covering Barry Commoner's presidential run as a Citizens Party candidate. Wilson remarked, "In terms of my politics I suppose I should have supported the Libertarian Party, but I'm not that kind of Libertarian. I don't hate poor people."

If you ever have to choose between freedom and equality, you should choose equality -- or you'll end up with neither. And that's how Orwell would have seen it.

I don't think Orwell would have seen it that way and we'll never know since we can't ask him now but anyways I don't think it's important to prove whether a libertarian socialist could or could not exist because too much time is being wasted on trying to pidgeon hole people into a certain stereotype or another...for me the point or Orwell books is that authoritarian and dictatorships and fascists are the good intentions that pave the way to hell or evil...