George Orwell Blogs From the Grave 102
flaming error writes to tell us the Orwell Prize organization will, starting today, post George Orwell's diary entries online exactly 70 years after they were written. NPR discussed the blog and shared excerpts from the diary. We talked about a similar undertaking several years ago, when a diary from 1660 was put online. According to the blog's creators, it will allow you to "follow Orwell's recuperation in Morocco, his return to the UK, and his opinions on the descent of Europe into war in real time. The diaries end in 1942, three years into the conflict."
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think most people would prefer to have the entire diary available to download in one lump sum rather than having bits and pieces rationed out at intervals. I know I certainly would.
I think it's wonderful that they're publishing them, but imho the format is idiotic.
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can read some of them here
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/index_en [orwell.ru]
This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat [orwell.ru]
(v) Pacifism. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:1, Insightful)
His name is Eric Blair. Let's stop perpetuating the wrong name shall we?
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many times a day to read on /. someone saying something like, "Iran has a right to the bomb" or "US invades countries. Hitler invaded countries. Coincidence?" or my favorite, "Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!". That moral equivalency bullshit is exactly what Orwell is calling out here.
In the passage quoted, he is calling out fascist sympathizers feigning pacifism as a means to an end of selling their country. He does elsewhere callout true pacifists as "objectively pro fascist", but later renounced that thinking as Stalinist, which it is.
British pacifists were clearly misguided IMHO, but were German pacifists in '38 and '40, not to mention '14? Their views were suppressed too, should we applaud that?
"Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!".
What else makes a terrorist evil? I suppose torture and kidnapping, but the US does that too.
If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort. Bush and bin-Laden are both mass murdering war criminals that should be brought to justice, using force if necessary, and tried for their crimes.
You'll note there is no moral dimension to Orwell's argument, he's point is about patriotism and putting your country before your ideals or your political fantasies. In this situation, where the US is not faced by an existential by a superior military force bent on its destruction, but is instead waging an unprovoked war of aggression, it's the closet fascists in the pro-Iraq war faction that have (this time successfully) betrayed their country.
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:3, Insightful)
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.
Orwell later wrote his regrets about that bit.
If you haven't figured it out yet replace "fascist" with "terrorist", "Germany and Japan" with "Al Qaeda and Iran"
Why would anyone do something so ridiculous? This is exactly the kind of muddled thinking of which Orwell correctly accused pacifists in his day.
There were German pacifists in 1914 and 1939. Should we applaud their suppression the same as we do the British pacifists?
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny how easy it is to mischaracterize your opponent's position, find an Orwell quote that condemns it, and believe yourself to be an intellectual.
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides which, the man's other writing clearly displayed a realization of the consequences of this kind of "with us or against us" thinking, and it was not a bright world that he saw emerging from that sentiment.
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you! That is one of the finest examples of the moral equivalence bullshit arguments I was talking about.
What else makes a terrorist evil? I suppose torture and kidnapping, but the US does that too.
So, you equate the capture and interrogation of combatants to the kidnapping, torture and beheading of civilians, journalists and aid workers?
How many captured terrorists have been executed by the US? How many by the terrorists (I can list two by NAME!)? Like I said, perfect example.
If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort. Bush and bin-Laden are both mass murdering war criminals that should be brought to justice, using force if necessary, and tried for their crimes.
What you fail to consider is the target and the reaction. Bin Laden targeted civilians. He wanted to kill men, women and babies and the more, the better. When he killed 3000+, there was dancing in the streets in the Arab world.
The US, on the other hand, targets military targets exclusively. The US military actually goes out of its way to avoid civilians and even misses some targets because of it. When civilians die as a result of a US action, the US is quick to apologize.
But, I guess it's all the same to you. Intent makes no difference and the US Soldier is the same as Mohamed Atta in your eyes.
You'll note there is no moral dimension to Orwell's argument, he's point is about patriotism and putting your country before your ideals or your political fantasies. In this situation, where the US is not faced by an existential by a superior military force bent on its destruction, but is instead waging an unprovoked war of aggression, it's the closet fascists in the pro-Iraq war faction that have (this time successfully) betrayed their country.
Uh, yeah. Because the US was never attacked on 9-11. Iraq did not violate 17 UN resolutions, fire on US and NATO forces and attempt to murder a former US president. The USS Cole was never attacked and no one shot down BlackHawk helicopters that were there trying to feed the starving.
Like I said, a perfect example of the moral equivalence bullshit argument and you are exactly the type of batshit-crazy pacifists that Orwell was talking about.
Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading. (Score:3, Insightful)
likewise the US military doesn't give a shit who they target so long as all they have to do is *appear* remorseful afterwards
You're knowledge of the US military appears as if it comes from Al Jazeera. As a veteran, I can tell you that you're wrong. I've seen us let targets go because civilians were present. Don't believe me? Look at how many mosques are still standing in Iraq. How many schools that were packed with ammo and AAA were not blown apart. I can honestly say that you are full of shit. You are a politically motivated, partisan hack who will say or do anything to justify your hatred of all those that think differently.
Now before you go getting your panties in a wad
Too late. I don't deal with liars well.
I am not a pacifist and believe that violence can be a means to an end, but in the words of General Smedley Butler, "the only 2 things worth fighting for are our homes and the Bill of Rights". The USA military's current endeavours are nothing more than acting as enforcers for powerful financial interests.
Yeah, we're making so money from Iraq right now that I don't have to pay taxes. And the money we're squeezing out of Afghanistan is amazing! Don't even get me started on the coin we are making from Germany and Japan! Didn't you know that Mercedes and Toyota are wholly owned by the US Govt!
To quote the most retarded president of the USA ever "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"...
And to bring this back on topic, that "retarded" president was loosely quoting Orwell. You'd know that if you were keeping up with this thread. So, was Orwell retarded too?
...well GW, I think you're BOTH insane and will fight to the death to protect myself and my family from both groups.
First, you won't need to fight to the death from GWB. However, that is the goal of the terrorists. The US Servicemen and women will, however, fight to the death to protect you. Nothing is more important to the US Serviceman or the President than protecting the lives of Americans. Second is their freedoms. Third is the lives and freedoms of innocent people around the world. It makes me sad to think that so many are so willing to bite the hands that protect them. Don't worry, if you don't want the protection, that's fine. I hear Mexico is nice this time of year. Rest assured that the second you get past Laredo, you are free from the tyranny of GWB. I'm not saying "love it or leave it", but as long as you are within these borders, you are protected, want it or not. Your only escape is to leave the country. Good luck.