Aside from that marxist **** stain conman of course.
-
I_shit_in_your_mouth — 3 years ago(April 28, 2022 04:27 PM)
"Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that
George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink), and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson"—a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four[2] but political doublespeak is criticized throughout his work, such as in Politics and the English Language.[3]
The New York Times has said the term is "the most widely used adjective derived from the name of a modern writer"
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic.[1] His work is characterised by lucid prose, social criticism, opposition to totalitarianism, and support of democratic socialism.[2]
Orwell produced literary criticism and poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. He is known for the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). His non-fiction works, including The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), documenting his experience of working-class life in the industrial north of England, and Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences soldiering for the Republican faction of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), are as critically respected as his essays on politics and literature, language and culture.
Blair was born in India, and raised and educated in England. After school he became an Imperial policeman in Burma, before returning to Suffolk, England, where he began his writing career as George Orwell—a name inspired by a favourite location, the River Orwell. He lived from occasional pieces of journalism, and also worked as a teacher or bookseller whilst living in London. From the late 1920s to the early 1930s, his success as a writer grew and his first books were published. He was wounded fighting in the Spanish Civil War, leading to his first period of ill health on return to England. During the Second World War he worked as a journalist and for the BBC. The publication of Animal Farm led to fame during his life-time. During the final years of his life he worked on 1984, and moved between Jura in Scotland and London.
Orwell's work remains influential in popular culture and in political culture, and the adjective "Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—is part of the English language, like many of his neologisms, such as "Big Brother", "Thought Police", "Room 101", "Newspeak", "memory hole", "doublethink", and "thoughtcrime".[3][4] In 2008, The Times ranked George Orwell second among "The 50 greatest British writers since -
Soul_Venom — 3 years ago(April 28, 2022 04:38 PM)
And speaking of Conman I see that he, Captain Mutha ****n Clown shoes himself, has decide to join the debate.
Welcome!
&
Fuck your Mother
Ya goon-ass twink
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
I_shit_in_your_mouth — 3 years ago(April 28, 2022 04:42 PM)
You're using the term ‘Orwellian’ wrong. Here’s what George Orwell was actually writing about
Add Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn to the list of American politicians who need a George Orwell refresher.
The first-term congressman said in an oddly worded tweet on Tuesday "1984 is a great fiction novel to read but it seems like it is becoming the reality we are currently living under more and more each day," referencing the author’s oft-cited dystopian classic “1984.” Cawthorn was met with criticism in both citing the book as a "fiction novel," all novels are fiction, and questioning if the 25-year-old congressman has ever read the book.
Just last month Republican Reb. Lauren Boebert, the QAnon-friendly conservative firebrand and vocal gun-rights advocate trended on Twitter after invoking the English author. “The only thing Orwell got wrong was the year,” she wrote.
Chances are, you’ve seen Orwell’s name thrown around a lot in the past year on social media, either by conservatives invoking his name with sincerity or by liberals poking fun at conservatives for its misuse.
In January,when Twitter permanently suspended then-President Donald Trump’s Twitter account following the Capitol Hill riot, his son Donald Trump Jr. was quick to invoke Orwell. “We are living Orwell’s 1984,” he tweeted. “Free-speech no longer exists in America. It died with big tech and what’s left is only there for a chosen few.”
When Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., lost his book deal with Simon & Schuster due to his his widely perceived role in helping incite the riot, he had some words for what he called the “woke mob” at his would-be publisher. “This could not be more Orwellian,” he tweeted in a statement.
Cheeky Twitter users have been quick to criticize the invocation of Orwell from people who, like many of us, probably haven’t dusted off a copy of “1984” since high school.
"Tell me you didn't read Nineteen Eighty-Four without telling me you haven't read Nineteen Eighty-Four," replied @lord_files to Boeber's tweet.
“As we all remember, Orwell's ‘1984’ is about an old man who gets banned from a bird-themed social media site after regularly encouraging violence,” tweeted the progressive think tank Gravel Institute.
“My son just described having to clean his room as positively ‘Chorewellian,’” tweeted TV writer Gennefer Gross.
Shortly after Hawley's tweet, “1984” rose to the top of Amazon’s top-selling book list, reaching the No. 1 spot. Not bad for a book published in 1949.
The term “Orwellian” has become lazy shorthand for exercises of authority with which one disagrees. When a publisher drops your book because your brand has become toxic, it’s Orwellian. When an internet platform enforces its terms of service and kicks you off, it’s Orwellian. When a store has you removed from the premises for refusing to wear a mask during a pandemic, it’s Orwellian.
More: Sen. Josh Hawley’s book dropped by Simon & Schuster following Capitol Hill riot
“It tends to be a kind of catch-all for repression,” says David Ulin, associate professor of English at the University of Southern California and former book editor of the Los Angeles Times. He has read and studied Orwell’s works extensively, and he finds Hawley’s and Trump’s Orwell name-checking not just inaccurate but ironic.
“There’s a real irony in the fact that someone who paid such attention to clarity in language – Orwell’s whole thing was about transparency in language, that language needed to be absolutely clear like a pane of glass – that a writer like that becomes a rhetorical tool for the people who would have been at the point of his lance,” Ulin says.
“It’s actually almost counter-Orwellian,” says Pallavi Yetur, a practicing psychotherapist with a master's degree in creative writing whose critical thesis was on Orwell and how his life experiences formed the way he thought about government. “In fact, Donald Trump Jr.’s tweet is Orwellian because he is using language as a way to control people’s opinions about something that’s happening in his favor, and that’s propaganda.”
“Orwellian” is probably the most widely used adjective derived from the name of a writer (Kafkaesque might come close), yet so many are using it wrong. It helps, first, to understand who Orwell was and the deeply held political convictions that fueled his writing.
Orwell hated fascists so much he went to war with them
“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it,” Orwell wrote in his 1946 essay handily titled “Why I Write.” That was the year Orwell joined a leftist militia to fight in the Spanish Civil War against fascist Francisco Franco’s military uprising in Spain.
Eric Arthur Blair (Orwell was his pen name) was born to British civil servants in India, a member of what he called the “lower-upper-middle class.” A deeply moral thinker and writer, Orwell didn’t sit comfortably in his privilege but was a -
I_shit_in_your_mouth — 3 years ago(April 28, 2022 04:45 PM)
So what’s ‘1984’ actually about, and what makes a thing ‘Orwellian’?
Newspeak. Doublethink. Thoughtcrime. Big Brother.
“1984” is often reduced to its base components, the catchphrases and slogans of the fictional government in Orwell’s dystopian allegory for Soviet totalitarianism. The takeaway is often: Oppression bad, liberty good.
But Orwell’s book is much more sophisticated. Orwell was interested not just in communicating the badness of totalitarian regimes but also dissecting how they succeed through the manipulation of language.
“He was really most concerned with language and how language was used in a propaganda type of way or as a means of control,” Yetur says.
Orwell observed that totalitarian governments, whatever their ideologies, cannot simply impose their wills; they must indoctrinate. Their success requires complicity. “He’s really sharp on the ways in which people get indoctrinated,” Ulin says.
Which brings us to the term “Orwellian.” If Hawley’s book deal getting canceled and Trump getting booted from Twitter aren’t Orwellian, what is?
“'Orwellian,’ in the most orthodox way, is about language as a means of control,” Yetur says. “A Nazi propagandist like Leni Riefenstahl, that would be very Orwellian, because that’s somebody who’s using words to invoke feelings, to invoke allegiances, to discredit enemies."
“Orwellian” is not just applicable to the fascists and communists of Orwell’s era, though. Ulin believes “1984” is relevant to a recent political moment. “There are aspects of the novel that are quite reminiscent, interestingly enough, of Trumpism, even though (Trump’s) right-wing,” Ulin says. “Things like the dissemination of false information, the use of information to obfuscate rather than illuminate.”
He also sees shades of “1984” in social media. In the book, Orwell invents “Two Minutes Hate,” a daily event in which video of the enemy is publicly screened and the audience is encouraged to stir itself up into a froth of rage. “That kinds of reminds me of what we see in terms of social media mob mentality, and this extreme QAnon type of conspiracy theorists,” Ulin says, “working on people’s most negative and virulent emotions and using that as a way to control them but also to make them feel as if they are being heard.”
'First Friends' review: New book explores presidential BFFs who helped shape history
What else you should read by Orwell
“1984” and “Animal Farm” are Orwell’s greatest hits and certainly worth revisiting (or reading for the first time; we won’t judge). But Orwell was also a prolific essayist, literary critic, journalist and columnist, and much of his best work is in his less flashy nonfiction. If you want to expand your understanding of Orwell and better appreciate the philosophy of one of our most enduring modern political writers, these works are good starting points.
• “Homage to Catalonia”: Published in 1938, this personal account of Orwell’s experiences fighting in the Spanish Civil War is essential to understanding every work that followed. “If you had asked me why I had joined the militia I should have answered: ‘To Fight against Fascism,’” Orwell wrote, “and if you had asked me what I was fighting for, I should have answered: ‘Common decency.’”
• “Down and Out in Paris and London”: Orwell lived in purposeful poverty for a time in Paris and London, two of the world’s wealthiest cities, and wrote about his experiences in this 1933 memoir. “He made the choice to go to Paris and London and work low-end jobs and live that life, to immerse in it, because that’s where his sympathies were,” says Ulin.
• “Politics and the English Language”: This 1946 essay is a short and essential read on the importance of clarity of language. It was central to both Orwell’s writing and politics, because he saw the two inextricably linked. Corrupt language, Orwell wrote, can also corrupt thought. “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, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” -
I_shit_in_your_mouth — 3 years ago(April 28, 2022 05:07 PM)
WHY THE RIGHT ARE WRONG ABOUT ORWELL
Peregrine Worsthorne dissents from the latest his fellow Tories are saying about the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four
NO SENTENCE in modern British litera- ture is more often held up for obloquy than E.M. Forster's — that if he ever had to choose between betraying his friend or his country, he hoped he would have the courage to betray his country. His reputa- tion as a writer will probably never recover from uttering such a heresy, not recover at any rate in the eyes of the Right. For in the eyes of the Right this sentence has come to seem almost tantamount to trea- son itself.
We all know, of course, why this sen- tence came to assume such dreadful con- notations: because it was blamed for encouraging and excusing a postwar British Establishment's reluctance to expose the Cambridge spies — Burgess, Maclean, Philby and Blunt — all of whom had friends in high places. These powerful friends knew that the four might be securi- ty risks but, under Forster's malign influ- ence, chose to put the obligations of friendship before the duties of patriotism. Furthermore, because the cause for which the spies betrayed their country was Soviet communism, the Establishment's cover-up inevitably came to be seen as a left-wing conspiracy. Thus it was that for subsequent generations of Conservatives, right up to the present day, it became a matter of principle, an article of faith, to turn Forster's precept on its head. If they had to choose between betraying their country or their friends, they hoped — nay, they boasted — that they would not hesitate to betray their friends.
All this by way of trying to explain why right-wing commentators unanimously, without a single exception, like so many Pavlovian dogs, leapt to George Orwell's defence when it was revealed a week or two ago that back in 1949 he had voluntar- ily and eagerly informed the authorities about which of his erstwhile socialist fellow writers and journalists were unsound and soft on communism, and therefore could not be trusted to fight the Cold War Poutrance. Any true patriot, they argued, would have done nothing less. Now, while it is obviously right that any true patriot would have had a duty to shop any of his old comrades suspected of being a spy, it is
by no means obvious that he should have felt a comparable duty to shop anyone a bit less militant about the Cold War than he was himself. Indeed, when approached by the authorities later in the Cold War to do something similar about colleagues in Fleet Street, I politely but firmly declined. Only in very exceptional cases is it justified for one professional to sneak to the pow- ers that be on another, and while spies clearly qualified for such dishonourable treatment, unenthusiastic Cold War war- riors, in my view, did not.
In Orwell's case, the authorities had not even asked him to give them the names of such faint-hearts. All they had asked was for the names of former left-wing writers and journalists who agreed with Orwell. It was Orwell, quite unprompted, who wrote offering, as a kind of bonus, to add to the list those who did not. Possibly there were special reasons for Orwell to give the authorities more dirt than they had dared to hope for, let alone to ask for. If so, the right-wing apologists do not cite them. They simply seem to take it for granted that because the Left had once given the authorities too little co-operation about their friends and associates, it was hence- forth the patriotic duty of the Right to give them too much.
One can see how Orwell, at the height of the Cold War, might have seen nothing wrong in allowing the pendulum to swing from one dangerous extreme to the other. He worried that totalitarian communism was such a terminal threat to civilisation that all the old nuances of honourable conduct must needs be overridden. But it is less easy to excuse today's Conserva- tives, who can now see that totalitarianism I can't get to sleep for worrying about sheep.' was never as total as Orwell feared, for continuing to show the same moral obtuse- ness.
To some extent the fault lies with party politics. Since the first person the media got to comment on the Orwell revelation was Michael Foot, who expressed himself amazed and shocked, it was almost inevitable that right-wing newspapers should express themselves unamazed and unshocked. It was quite enough for the Left to condemn for the Right to feel com- pelled to condone. But there was more to it than that. So far as the Right is concerned Orwell can do no wrong. His judgment in these matters is trusted absolutely. So if he thought the Cold War made it justifiable for one writer to be positively eager to shop another, then that is that. End of argument. But it shouldn't be the end of argument. A dishonourable act does not become honourable just because it was committed by George Orwell.
Let us imagine what the reaction of the Right would have been if it had been revealed that in the 1930s some icon -
Soul_Venom — 3 years ago(April 28, 2022 06:43 PM)
Still dont matter.
You cant win this one Conman. The only way to win is to not play and you cant stand not having the last word. Bump the post you spastic little monkey. Go ahead. I dare you.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins!