1984 discussion

This book is very enjoyable. Dystopian literature really grasps my attention and I like it over all the other ones. It is a hard topic to grab on to at first but really captures your attention later on. It is an easy to read work of literature and nothing too complex. The theme is very realistic making the book even more intriguing. The concept is so real that it makes one wonder if it will ever become.

1984 is one of my favorite books. Dystopian literature is often a good way to satirize current society by taking current trends and extrapolating them to their extreme ends.

Jon wrote: "1984 is one of my favorite books. Dystopian literature is often a good way to satirize current society by taking current trends and extrapolating them to their extreme ends."

Yes, and that is something that many lose sight of. 1984 was never about predicting the future. It was always about holding a mirror up to the present.

This is the greatest book I have ever read after THE FOUNTAIN HEAD. The most disturbing and dystopian story which clearly explains what the current world is actually going through.

But friends, i have a question, Since it is from the author of Animal Farm, does this story also tells about something that happened really?

Lpriyar wrote: "Since it is from the author of Animal Farm, does this story also tells about something that happened really?..."

1984 is also a fictionalized account of the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Big Brother is modeled on Stalin's cult of personality. Goldstein is a stand in for Trotsky. Oceanian revision of the conflict with Eastasia mirrors Soviet attitudes toward the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The slogan "2+2=5" was actually used in Stalinist propaganda-- "2+2=5: The Five Year Plan in Four Years".

thecryptile wrote: "Lpriyar wrote: "Since it is from the author of Animal Farm, does this story also tells about something that happened really?..."

1984 is also a fictionalized account of the Soviet Union under Stal..."

That's really awesome to know! I'm teaching this book at a new school in two weeks and my students (honors level juniors and seniors) are looking forward to it. I'm excited to teach it as I think it may be one of the first books that teaches that rebellion is merely an extension of the state and freedom of will is only an illusion in a totalitarian system. Thank you for getting me thinking about Stalin's propaganda slogans. I was going to show them Soviet realism to get them thinking of art/culture/message.

Wikipedia says: "Propagandist Iakov Guminer supported this campaign with a 1931 poster reading "2+2=5: Arithmetic of a counter-plan plus the enthusiasm of the workers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_...

The Mark of Man

For those that love dystopian literature...

Owen H. Lewis

Owen wrote: "Celebrate Mark's Day today - 14.12.14 - the first day of an alternative existence - www.amazon.co.uk/Mark-Man-Owen-H-Lewi... see what's in store... #TheMarkofMan"

Dude, don't advertise your work here. I'm all for supporting independent authors, but people come to these threads hoping to discuss a specific work of literature, not to be pitched to.

thecryptile wrote: "Lpriyar wrote: "Since it is from the author of Animal Farm, does this story also tells about something that happened really?..."

1984 is also a fictionalized account of the Soviet Union under Stal..."

It was also a satirical portrayal of Nazism, as evidenced by their portrayal of Goldstein as the official scapegoat of the Party and focus for all hatred within the state. Not to mention all other forms of totalitarianism, reaching back to the Papacy of the Middle Ages and the imperial dynasties of the ancient world.

Goldstein is clearly Lev Davidovich Trotsky, "the official scapegoat" and "focus of hatred" in the Soviet Union when 1984 was written.

Krystal Ball not withstanding, 1984 and Animal Farm are about Stalinism and the failures of the Left. Orwell, a disillusioned Leftist himself, was particularly sensitive to the hypocrisy of his compatriots.

Anti-Semitism has always been common on the Left (National Socialists were Lefties- what was the Final Solution but a Big Government solution?).

Even Marx, a Jew himself, was hostile to the Jewish religion. In his essay on the "Jewish problem", Marx opines: "An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible... We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element...".

Marx's successors are even more strident anti-Semites. Stalin's Doctors' Plot was accompanied by denunciations of Zionism and likely would have lead to full-scale pogroms had he lived. The BDS campaign is an effort by Leftists to destroy the Jewish State and turn Israel over to terrorists. Today, most anti-Semitic violence in Europe stems from "Pro-Palestinian" groups.

thecryptile wrote: "Goldstein is clearly Lev Davidovich Trotsky, "the official scapegoat" and "focus of hatred" in the Soviet Union when 1984 was written.

Krystal Ball not withstanding, 1984 and Animal Farm are about..."

Animal Farm was a satire on Stalinism, but 1984 was much more broad in its condemnation of totalitarianism. Orwell was certainly disillusioned with the revolutionary left, but he never broke ranks with socialism or the political left. In fact, his essay "The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius" - which he published in 1941 during the war - showed his commitment to "English Socialism", which he contrasted to the Soviet model.

As for Goldstein, he was certainly inspired by Trotsky's own vilification, but the name and the portrayal was also largely inspired by the Nazis portrayal of the stereotypical Jew. And the Goldstein Manifesto, which Orwell wrote first as the centerpiece of the novel, directly addressed how the totalitarians of the 20th century on the political left and right were both responses to growing equality. He did not limit himself to Marxist-Leninism or Stalinism in his condemnation.

As for anti-Semitism, that knows no official political affiliation. Still, if we're comparing, the political right takes the cake when it comes to vilifying and persecuting Jewish people. Whether it was fascism, Nazism, ultra-nationalism, or other far-right political groups, anti-Semitism was a central feature.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - which was purportedly written by Pyotr Rachkovsky, a Russian conservative - was a favorite amongst Russian, German and French ultra-conservatives and used by the Nazis (alongside Martin Luther's "On Jews and their Lies") to justify stripping Jews of their rights. German ultra-nationalism and Volkish thought has laid the groundwork for the Holocaust by teaching Germans that Jews were their natural enemy. And similar movements in France, Poland, the Balkans and Central Europe helped pave the way for the institution of the "Final Solution". None of these were manifestations of the political left, they came from the political right.

As for the rest, that all sounds politically motivated. Support for Palestinians and criticism of Israeli policy does not automatically entail anti-Semitism. It is the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Front, the Neo-Nazis and the Aryan Nation, all manifestations of far-right that are guilty of this trend. To say that the BDS' demands that Israel conform to international law and cease apartheid-like administration is anti-Semitic, or to claim they want to "hand Israel over to terrorists" by asking for a Two-State Solution, seems ludicrous by comparison.

I'll grant that anti-Semitism sometimes crosses political boundaries, and some monarchists advocated anti-Semitic policies but the rest of your assertions are misguided and false.

Fascists, National Socialists, both paleo and neo, are Leftists. They exalt the State over God and the individual just like Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists and all the rest of the rotten bunch. To lump them in with small government conservatives is patently ridiculous.

Support for anti-Semitic terrorist organizations like Hamas and the PLO is anti-Semitic in and of itself. The leaders of Hamas and the PLO (a long-time darling of the radical Left) have only one goal-- the destruction of Israel and its replacement with yet another Islamo-fascist state.

Israel is the only Jewish State in the entire world. There are many Arab Muslim states. In all of these Arab Muslim states, Christians and Jews are treated far worse than Israeli Muslims. Israeli Muslims aren't subject to imprisonment or execution for worshiping or proselytizing the way that Christians and Jews are in many Muslim states.

The so-called "Two State Solution" is propaganda used by terrorists to beguile their gullible Western allies. The "Palestinian" national identity is an effort by Arab Muslims to present themselves as an oppressed minority and claim the coveted victim status for themselves. The fact is that Arab Muslims are the oppressors, not the oppressed.

Leftists can't acknowledge this, as the Party demands adherence to vague doctrines of Privilege which excuse any bad actions by victim classes. Terrorists murder Israelis? Israeli colonialism is to blame, not the terrorists.

Orwell came up with the term "blackwhite" to describe this. "Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary."

I tip my hat to your defiance of reality. You're a doubleplusgood goodthinker.

Nazis were not leftists. They gained support from German industrialists because they were against the socialists and Bolsheviks. Don't be confused by the name "national socialist".

Is The Peoples Democratic Republic of North Korea either "democratic", or a "republic"?

This is a quite common claim of the ill-informed on the Right. And "patently ridiculous". Jingo-bells, jingo-bells...., jingo all the way. :}

E.D. wrote: "Nazis were not leftists. They gained support from German industrialists because they were against the socialists and Bolsheviks. Don't be confused by the name "national socialist".

Is The Peoples ..."

The only manner in which Nazis could be described as socialist was the way in which they distributed income. Stick the Jews in concentration camps, seize their assets and distribute them to the Aryan overlords.

E.D. wrote: "Nazis were not leftists. They gained support from German industrialists because they were against the socialists and Bolsheviks..."

I dunno, a party that is anti-Christian, anti-hunting, pro-gun control, pro-socialized medicine, pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia sounds pretty Left wing to me. The National Socialists even had their own version of the War on Christmas.

It's a pretty common claim on the ill-informed Left that opposition to the Bolsheviks somehow makes one Right wing. This is obviously untrue, as infighting amongst Leftist groups has always been common.

Anarchists also opposed the Bolsheviks, but does that make Nestor Makhno a TEA Party Republican?

Your comment on the DPRK actually goes to prove my point-- just because National Socialists claim to be Right wingers doesn't mean they are.

Mussolini, the original Fascist, started out editing a socialist newspaper. Fascism is a development of Marxist thought and therefore Left-wing. QED.

Geoffrey wrote: "The only manner in which Nazis could be described as socialist was the way in which they distributed income...."

This is one of the main reasons why they belong on the left side of the aisle. National Socialists advocate redistribution of income from those that earned it to those that didn't. Real conservatives believe that individuals shouldn't be penalized for success.

Substitute "the 1%" for "Jews" and "the People" for "Aryan Overlords" and you're describing typical Leftist demands. I should note that a disproportionate number of the "1%" happen to be members of the Tribe. The next iteration of anti-Semitism in the West, if it is secular rather than Islamist in nature, might well be the "CEOs' Plot".

I *do* know pseudo-libertarian mumbo-jumbo. QED. :}

thecryptile wrote: "I'll grant that anti-Semitism sometimes crosses political boundaries, and some monarchists advocated anti-Semitic policies but the rest of your assertions are misguided and false.

Fascists, Natio..."

That's an ironic accusation coming from you, friend. You are the one aligning your thinking with your own politics, not reality. The best example is you're thinking that Fascism and National Socialism are leftist political manifestations. They are examples of extreme conservatism, people who wanted to turn back the clock on history, social progress and subject all people to central rule. You're qualification that they put the state above religion does not make them the same as Communists.

Second, support for a Two-State solution does not entail support for terrorist organizations. The belief that it does is in itself Islamophobic and hypocritical. Believing that everyone is entitled to human rights and that apartheid and military occupation are somehow justified when it's your allies doing is just plain stupid.

And you're arguments about there being many Arab states only echoes the same exact prejudices used to justify "Greater Israel". It says that the Palestinians are not entitled to a home because one Arab is as good as the next. The idea that Palestinians simply need to simply live somewhere else so Israel can exist is an untenable argument for anyone with a basic grasp of logic, and reprehensible to anyone with a grasp of morality.

And the Two-State solution is being advocated by proponents of peace, which is precisely what the signatories of the Oslo Accords were agreed on in good faith. People who support a one-state solution are the ones interested in war, and they include people within Hamas as much as they do the Likud Party.

And is Arab Muslims are the oppressors, how is it that 4 millions of Palestinians are living under military occupation, in refugee camps, under embargo or in exile? No Jewish populations live under Muslim occupation, and no Arab states possess a single nuke compared to Israel's 200.

It is one-sided right-wing thinkers who ignore these realities, hypocritically claiming they support Israel and opposing anti-Semitism when what they are doing is nothing but bigotry and blind support for political ideology.

And like so many other people of various political stripes, you try to claim Orwell for your own. I can recall a few people claiming 1984 was a demonstration of the evils of secularism, who believed - despite all the evidence - that Orwell was endorsing a religious worldview. You've done the same, claiming he supports your right-wing appraisal. The funny thing is, you don't even see it.

And nice try citing Orwell, but for your information, blackwhite was just an aspect of doublethink. You know what this is, I trust. "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it."

You've demonstrated this perfectly with your claims to truth and righteousness while simultaneously arguing against them. My congratulations on you're perfect execution of it, though I doubt you are even aware of the fact that are doing it. Sad really...

thecryptile wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Nazis were not leftists. They gained support from German industrialists because they were against the socialists and Bolsheviks..."

I dunno, a party that is anti-Christian, anti-hunt..."

You're shallow appraisal misses one all-important aspect of things. Fascism, Nazism, and all other manners of extreme conservatism were all about war. Without it, all fascists are nothing but clowns walking around in costumes. They believed war would heal the nation, absorb the individual into the whole, and silence all political opposition and demands for reform.

Right-wingers claim this is a leftist philosophy because they foolishly think Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism were leftist philosophies, when in fact, they had more in common with extreme conservatism than anything on the left. Leftists, in their extreme form, are anarchists. They believe in total freedom and no state rule.

They believe that human beings need not be governed and that the state has no place redistributing income, legislating morality or thought in any capacity. They believe that once the state is gone, there will be no theft, no war, no crime and no inequality. It's naive in the extreme, but it is hardly totalitarian.

You can be forgiven for not knowing this, you've been so obviously indoctrinated yourself. Like many, you probably believe that you advocate freedom, when in fact you serve an entirely different master with your narrow-minded philosophy.

Oh, and another thing: you're political views and appraisal of anti-Semitism have nothing to do with Orwell's own. 1984 was written by an avowed socialist who believed that totalitarianism was a response to human beings having come - through the application of industrialization and technological innovation - closer to true freedom than at any time in their history.

In short, stop trying to claim Orwell for the right. He has nothing in common with you and would find your worldview laughable.

Geoffrey wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Nazis were not leftists. They gained support from German industrialists because they were against the socialists and Bolsheviks. Don't be confused by the name "national socialist".

Is..."

Well observed. The "Liberal Fascists" argument is one of convenience, appealing to the gullible and defiant ultra-conservatives who desperately want to believe they don't have something in common with the most heinous personification of evil ever created. They also seem to forget that in their drive to oppose Communism, conservatives aligned themselves with Franco, Mussolini and Hitler.

1984 is anticlerical, you are all barking up the wrong tree.

I don't see how. It certainly makes its point by addressing the oppression of the Catholic Church, but this is one reference on the road towards the Party's totalitarian model. To say its anticlerical as if this were the only point it had to make would be as almost as out-to-lunch as thecryptile's notion that it is an indictment of the left and not the right, or that it was an indictment on secularism.

E.D. wrote: "I *do* know pseudo-libertarian mumbo-jumbo. QED. :}"

Yet, you are apparently unable to refute any of it.

Matthew wrote: "The best example is you're thinking that Fascism and National Socialism are leftist political manifestations. They are examples of extreme conservatism, people who wanted to turn back the clock on history..."

The idea that destroying Christianity and instituting a New Order based on the "science" of eugenics is "turning back the clock" is risible.

The Fascists were revolutionaries who wanted to overthrow traditional values. They didn't want to restore the past, they had their own twisted vision of the future. Their disputes with other social revolutionaries do not make them conservatives.

Abortion, euthanasia, socialized medicine, redistribution solutions, bans on private gun ownership, hunting, and Christmas displays... these are the causes espoused by so-called progressives today and these were the causes espoused by National Socialists and Communists then.

Matthew wrote: "Second, support for a Two-State solution does not entail support for terrorist organizations..."

The PLO, Fatah, and Hamas are terrorist organizations. Supporting the so-called "Two-State solution" means supporting the aforementioned terror groups having their own state.

The leaders of this "Palestinian" state admit that their goal is the destruction of Israel. It's only their Western enablers who deny it.

Matthew wrote: "No Jewish populations live under Muslim occupation..."

That's a laughably ignorant statement. Christians and Jews have lived under Muslim occupation since Muhammad's first conquests.

Although they are increasingly rare due to Islamist violence, Christians and Jews continue to live in Muslim countries. There they are subject to sharia law, which imposes many draconian restrictions on their rights up to and including the death sentence for professing their beliefs.

Matthew wrote: "...you try to claim Orwell for your own..."

I don't seek to claim his works as my own, I didn't write them. I merely have my own thoughts about his works. Chief among them is that his observations apply mainly to hard Left groups such as Stalinists and progressives.

Matthew wrote: "but for your information, blackwhite was just an aspect of doublethink..."

Yes, like the doublethink on display when violent criminals and terrorists are cast as helpless victims through the murky concept of Privilege.

Or doublethink like those that push the idea that all men are rapists and that all whites are racist, regardless of their actions simply because of their sex and race while they claim to be against judging others by their sex and race.

Matthew wrote: "You're shallow appraisal misses one all-important aspect of things. Fascism, Nazism, and all other manners of extreme conservatism were all about war...."

That's a nice straw-man you have there. I guess you've never heard of Rand Paul. In today's America, there are many small government conservatives who oppose the expansion of state power through war.

"[A]bsorb[ing] the individual into the whole" is the opposite of small government conservatism, which focuses on protecting individual rights from government encroachment.

Matthew wrote: "Right-wingers claim this is a leftist philosophy because they foolishly think Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism were leftist philosophies, when in fact, they had more in common with extreme conservatism..."

Revolutionaries who promise to fundamentally transform their societies and destroy traditional values are not, and can never be, conservatives. Conservatives believe in *conserving* traditional values, not up-ending them with eternal revolution.

To claim that radical Leftist revolutionaries are actually small government conservatives is pure doublethink. You're so thoroughly indoctrinated that I doubt you're even aware of it. It's quite sad really.

Matthew wrote: "Leftists, in their extreme form, are anarchists. They believe... that the state has no place redistributing income, legislating morality or thought in any capacity. ..."

Redistributing income and legislating thought and morality are the main concerns of the Left today, hence the constant agitprop against "the 1%" and efforts to redefine traditional values as "hate-speech".

Matthew wrote: "In short, stop trying to claim Orwell for the right. He has nothing in common with you and would find your worldview laughable..."

I'm not trying to "claim Orwell for the right". I never said he was a small government conservative.
What I actually said was: "Orwell, a disillusioned Leftist himself, was particularly sensitive to the hypocrisy of his compatriots".

Can you see the difference, or does crimestop get in the way?

As to the assertion that we "have nothing in common" and he would "find [my] worldview laughable", did you break out your Ouija board and ask him?

Orwell was a cis-het white male born in 1903. I wonder what his thoughts on homogamy and gender dysphoria were. I suspect they wouldn't mirror the current progressive goodthink.

Matthew wrote: "The "Liberal Fascists" argument is one of convenience..."

No, the Liberal Fascist argument is based on the fact that today's so-called "Liberals" illiberally endorse censorship and oppose individual rights like Freedom of Association and Freedom of Conscience.

Socialists seek the totalitarian control of the economy through direct state control of businesses (nationalization), while Fascists seek the totalitarian control of the economy indirectly by domination of privately owned businesses.

When a government steps in to choose a business's clientele without nationalizing it first, that's Fascism.

Matthew wrote: "...conservatives aligned themselves with Franco, Mussolini and Hitler..."

Pure ignorance. Conservatives like Winston Churchill were amongst the most vociferous opponents of Fascism.

Or did you mean "conservatives" like Stalin?

thecryptile,

By definition, there is nothing in mumbo-jumbo that requires refutation.

Example:

George Washington, the foremost Founding Father, started off as an officer in The Colonial Militia serving King George. American government grew from monarchy and, therefore, is aristocratically plutocratic.

See? Mumbo-jumbo. :}

An interesting topic for a Masters thesis would be to compare and contrast the disullisionment of Doris Lessing and George Orwell with their own "leftists" compatriots.

Matthew wrote: "I don't see how. It certainly makes its point by addressing the oppression of the Catholic Church, but this is one reference on the road towards the Party's totalitarian model. To say its anticleri..."

It's an appeal to secularism.

E.D. wrote: "See? Mumbo-jumbo. :}..."

I know that you probably aren't arguing in good faith (internet progressives seem to be incapable of doing so), but perhaps some other readers of this thread can see at least a glimmer of the truth.

You state that National Socialists are conservatives because they opposed the Bolsheviks (the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact notwithstanding).

Yet as Matt points out, Orwell was no conservative and he also opposed the Bolsheviks. If opposition to Bolshevism is the sole metric for determining conservatism, then Orwell must considered a conservative.

The proper metric to judge whether a group is conservative or not is whether that group seeks to *conserve* traditional values or not.

Fascists and National Socialists do not seek to conserve the traditional values of their societies.

Instead, National Socialists and their ilk seek to replace traditional Christian morality with a new value system based on Social Darwinism and eugenics. This rejection of traditional values excludes them from the category of "conservatives".

If you wish to smear conservatives as violent extremists, use the Islamists. They actually seek to *conserve* traditional values, those of medieval Arabia.

Twice I have posted a laundry list of ideas that Fascists and progressives endorse and that conservatives oppose. You are unable to address this.

As to your example of alleged "mumbo jumbo", there is certainly some basis for describing the US as a plutocracy. Progressives are not wrong when they state that the wealthy have disproportionate power.

However, it is quite simple to refute the idea that the US is aristocratic, as Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8 of the Constitution bans titles of nobility. Therefore, the US is not aristocratic. See how easy that was?

Can you cite evidence that Mussolini did not run a socialist newspaper or was unfamiliar with Marxist thought? I didn't think so.

Gregory wrote: "It's an appeal to secularism..."

Yes, I agree that 1984 is a secularist work. That is why Winston Smith came to such a pathetic end.

Without God as an anchor to reality, he was unable to overcome The Party's lies. This is why totalitarians are always anti-Christian, they can not acknowledge the Almighty without admitting that their control is anything but total.

A Christian would have been able to refute O'Brien's doublethink by pointing out that God knew that Aaronson, Rutherford and Jones gave false confessions. All the memory holes in the world can't erase His memory. If Smith had been a man of faith, he might have died a martyr, but he would never have come to love Big Brother.

thecryptile,

Though I may argue in a Socratic manner often, I assure you, I always do so in good faith. :}

You seem to enjoy selective context. Let me be direct.

Conservative Germans (industrialists, monarchists, capitalists, Prussian militarists, nationalists, etc), supported the Nazis because of their opposition to *German* socialists of *all* stripes and the foreign Bolsheviks.

Christian and conservative are not unified terms historically or ideologically..., no matter how much you declare it so. Neither is your chosen definition of "conservative" universal.

You have, however, picked up a facet of my example of mumbo-jumbo. It contains a drop of fact..., mixed in with a preponderance of convoluted bulldookie. As I said..., by definition.

thecryptile wrote: "E.D. wrote: "See? Mumbo-jumbo. :}..."

I know that you probably aren't arguing in good faith (internet progressives seem to be incapable of doing so), but perhaps some other readers of this thread ..."

Big Brother is God, you colossal clown.

E.D. wrote: "Though I may argue in a Socratic manner often, I assure you, I always do so in good faith. :}..."

If you say so. Just saying mumbo jumbo over and over again isn't much of an argument. At least it's a change from the usual prog tactic of just saying racist over and over again.

E.D. wrote: "Christian and conservative are not unified terms historically or ideologically..., no matter how much you declare it so. Neither is your chosen definition of "conservative" universal...."

No such definition is, or can be, universal. I'm an American, so I tend to use an American definition. In America, opposition to Christianity and capitalism are not usually considered conservative or Right-wing values. Conservatism is usually defined as a belief in small government, traditional values, capitalism and Christianity. You're an American too, so you know this.

Now, Matt says that Karl Marx is an "extreme conservative". That's crazier than anything I've said here.

I encourage him to write "Conservative Communism: The Secret History of the American Right from Karl Marx to Compassionate Conservatism". If he outsells Goldberg, I'll eat my hat and donate $100 to the charity of his choice, even if it is a front for Hamas.

Gregory wrote: "Big Brother is God, you colossal clown..."

Big Brother is Stalin, you mental midget.

He is based on the secular dictator's cult of personality. The Party is attempting to supplant God, but Big Brother is entirely inadequate substitute for the Almighty.

Orwell wasn't transporting his English readers 36 years into the future, he was transporting them 3,000 miles to the east. The only futuristic element is the telescreen, the rest of Oceanian society is just a slightly camouflaged version of Soviet Russia.

He used Stalinist slogans in the novel. I don't know how Orwell could have made it any clearer without actually setting it in Moscow in 1948.

It was not known whether Big Brother was alive or not, you dreadful dunderhead.

Orwell was in Spain for the Civil War, and had become disillusioned with the Left (no surprise). He probably did use Stalin as a model for Big Brother, but the whole "cult of personality", and totalitarianism itself, is a phenomenon which transcends ideologies and has as much to do with humanity's mindless search for a father figure in Government as it does to do with left-wing or right-wing ideology.

That said... the Left has been desperately trying to conceal the Socialist and otherwise leftist origins of Naziism and Fascism in an attempt to salvage themselves (and particularly in their own eyes). With their control of the media, they succeeded in suppressing such knowledge all through the twentieth century, but the truth is "Progressively" coming out << Duane **DUCKS** thrown rotten vegetables and fruits) ( and dead liberals)... >>. Such being the case, they will argue ferociously and tenaciously as we have seen here, by whatever tortuous logic (or failing that, invective, in typical Liberal fashion) to deny it. They're in a similar quandary with Margaret Sanger, the poor babies...). But todays' Left, at its core, is no less totalitarian than their forebears in Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany.

Upon Orwell's death, one of Britain's caterwauling leftists (sorry, can't remember her name) was all but celebrating his demise because, in her words, "he was on his way to becoming a conservative". (OHHhhhhh... The PATHOS... The HUMANITY...)

Duane wrote: "Orwell was in Spain for the Civil War, and had become disillusioned with the Left (no surprise). He probably did use Stalin as a model for Big Brother, but the whole "cult of personality", and tot..."

Complete and utter rubbish.

Why, thank you for your penetrating and incisive intellectual analysis!! Words barely suffice to express... etc. (yawn...)

I was hoping we've rid ourselves of the right-wing idiosyncrasies since I last came by. But it seems that another argument is brewing here. Alas, Duane, it seems you too have fallen in withe "liberal fascism" argument. There has been no effort on behalf of the Left to conceal the origins of Nazism or Fascism, the historical record speaks for itself.

While Mussolini began as a Futurist, a leftist organization by any right, in Italy, he quickly migrated to the far left to found his Fascist cadres. Much like Hitler, who had absolutely no leftists tendencies or roots, Mussolini's Fascism was a ultra-conservative, ultra-nationalist philosophy that glorified war, banned all leftist opposition and organizations, struck alliances with major corporations, and persecuted "aliens".

Nazism was the same. While it borrowed from socialist organizations and parties, it did so with the specific intent of gaining worker support so they could press forward with an ultra-nationalist agenda. War was the main aim, and using conflict and the persecution of outsiders to silence dissent, opposition and demands for social change. It was an attempt to turn the clock back on history and erase the legacy of the 1789 and 1917 - aka. the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.

And it's obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history and politics that it is the conservative right that is attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes. They point to superficial similarities between Fascism/Nazism and Communism in an attempt to claim they are both leftist in origin. But this claim is as misguided as it is transparent. Fascism and Nazism represented the extreme right, reacting to modernity by demanding a "revolution from above" instead of from below.

Their adoption of leftist tactics was a cynical, extremely hypocritical ploy on their part to gain power. To assume that they actually shared this philosophy is to be a willing dupe to one of the greatest lies ever told.

Duane wrote: "Orwell was in Spain for the Civil War, and had become disillusioned with the Left (no surprise). He probably did use Stalin as a model for Big Brother, but the whole "cult of personality", and tot..."

What's more, the idea that today's left are "totalitarian" is also a self-righteous lie. This complaint is so often made by members of the conservative right - screamed, in fact, at the top of their lungs - but what is the basis? Today's conservatives speak openly racist, sexist, homophobic and extremely elitist things, and then bitch and complain about "political correctness being the new Newspeak" when they are taken to task for it. Its purely hypocritical and so terribly transparent that it is pathetic.

One has to wonder, is it because they've managed to make so many to blindly accept that political correctness - i.e. taking issue with deliberately bigoted and ignorant statements - is censorship that they feel they can make prejudicial and hateful statements with impunity? I would have to say yes.

Bring on the flabbergasted responses from our resident right-wingers!

Ireny wrote: "Those adults suffer from a constant void an internal that they can only sastisfy by using their constant immature language against anyone who opposes their views."

Hey, well, like somebody said earlier, "they will argue ferociously and tenaciously as we have seen here, by whatever tortuous logic (or failing that, invective, in typical Liberal fashion)"...

Q.E.D. ...

Duane wrote: "Ireny wrote: "Those adults suffer from a constant void an internal that they can only sastisfy by using their constant immature language against anyone who opposes their views."

Hey, well, like s..."

Hey!!! thecryptile used it first....then I used it as a jibe against it....and now you're using it against me while quoting yourself?

I swoon before the humanity of it. Or the hilarity. Conflicted.

Q.E.D. .....

I'm just amazed that anyone NOTICED me quoting myself... (though you missed your chance to ask me "why are you quoting THAT idiot?") (TOO LATE NOW...)

Dickhead.

Ireny wrote: "Those adults suffer from a constant void an internal that they can only sastisfy [sic] by using their constant immature language against anyone who opposes their views."

The greatest enemy of man is self-censorship.

I find it greatly amusing that both conservatives and liberals think Orwell would have sided with them. The nascent surveillance state was instituted by one of the parties, and entrenched by the other.

Face facts: both sides are in the wrong.

Sadly correct. The Deep State respects no particular ideology...,existing as a force unto itself.

Orwell would probably find that "Orwellian".