The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Colin Liddell Archive
Why Orwell Is Superior to Huxley
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_1118357321

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more correct or prescient, Orwell or Huxley.

In fact, as the only truly oppressed intellectual group, the Dissident Right are the only ones in a position to offer a valid opinion on this, as no other group of intellectuals suffers deplatforming, doxxing, and dismissal from jobs as much as we do. In the present day, it is only the Dissident Right that exists in the ‘tyrannical space’ explored in those two dystopian classics.

But, despite this, this debate exists not only on the Dissident Right but further afield. Believe it or not, even Left-wingers and Liberals debate this question, as if they too are under the heel of the oppressor’s jackboot. In fact, they feel so oppressed that some of them are even driven to discuss it in the pages of the New York Times at the despotically high rate of pay which that no doubt involves.

In both the Left and the Dissident Right, the consensus is that Huxley is far superior to Orwell, although, according to the New York Times article just alluded to, Orwell has caught up a lot since the election of Donald Trump. Have a look at this laughable, “I’m literally shaking” prose from New York Times writer Charles McGrath:

And yet [Huxley's] novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now, especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment, than does Orwell’s more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North Korea. Or it did until Donald Trump was inaugurated.

All of a sudden, as many commentators have pointed out, there were almost daily echoes of Orwell in the news…The most obvious connection to Orwell was the new president’s repeated insistence that even his most pointless and transparent lies were in fact true, and then his adviser Kellyanne Conway’s explanation that these statements were not really falsehoods but, rather, “alternative facts.” As any reader of “1984” knows, this is exactly Big Brother’s standard of truth: The facts are whatever the leader says they are.

…those endless wars in “1984,” during which the enemy keeps changing — now Eurasia, now Eastasia — no longer seem as far-fetched as they once did, and neither do the book’s organized hate rallies, in which the citizenry works itself into a frenzy against nameless foreigners.

The counter to this is that Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected President since Andrew Jackson and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of top-down tyranny.

But to return to the notion that Huxley is superior to Orwell, both on the Left and the Dissident Right, this is based on a common view that Huxley presents a much more subtle, nuanced, and sophisticated view of soft tyranny more in keeping with the appearance of our own age. Here’s McGrath summarizing this viewpoint, which could just as easily have come out of the mouth of an Alt-Righter, Alt-Liter, or Affirmative Righter:

Orwell didn’t really have much feel for the future, which to his mind was just another version of the present. His imagined London is merely a drabber, more joyless version of the city, still recovering from the Blitz, where he was living in the mid-1940s, just before beginning the novel. The main technological advancement there is the two-way telescreen, essentially an electronic peephole.

Huxley, on the other hand, writing almost two decades earlier than Orwell (his former Eton pupil, as it happened), foresaw a world that included space travel; private helicopters; genetically engineered test tube babies; enhanced birth control; an immensely popular drug that appears to combine the best features of Valium and Ecstasy; hormone-laced chewing gum that seems to work the way Viagra does; a full sensory entertainment system that outdoes IMAX; and maybe even breast implants. (The book is a little unclear on this point, but in “Brave New World” the highest compliment you can pay a woman is to call her “pneumatic.”)

Huxley was not entirely serious about this. He began “Brave New World” as a parody of H.G. Wells, whose writing he detested, and it remained a book that means to be as playful as it is prophetic. And yet his novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now, especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment, than does Orwell’s more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North Korea.

It is easy to see why some might see Huxley as more relevant to the reality around us than Orwell, because basically “Big Brother,” in the guise of the Soviet Union, lost the Cold War, or so it seems.

But while initially convincing, the case for Huxley’s superiority can be dismantled.

Most importantly, Huxley’s main insight, namely that control can be maintained more effectively through “entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies” is not actually absent in 1984.

In fact, exactly these kind of methods are used to control the Proles, on whom pornography is pushed and prostitution allowed. In fact porn is such an important means of social control that the IngSoc authorities even have a pornography section called “PornSec,” which mass produces porn for the Proles. One of the LOL moments in Michael Radford’s film version is when Mr. Charrington, the agent of the thought police who poses as a kindly pawnbroker to rent a room to Winston and Julia for their sexual trysts, informs them on their arrest that their surveillance film will be ‘repurposed’ as porn.

In fact, Orwell’s view of sex as a means of control is much more dialectical and sophisticated than Huxley’s, as the latter was, as mentioned above, essentially writing a parody of the naive “free love” notions of H.G.Wells.

While sex is used as a means to weaken the Proles, ‘anti-Sex’ is used to strengthen the hive-mind of Party members. Indeed, we see today how the most hysterical elements of the Left — and to a certain degree the Dissident Right — are the most undersexed.

ORDER IT NOW

Also addictive substances are not absent from Orwell’s dystopian vision. While Brave New World only has soma, 1984 has Victory Gin, Victory Wine, Victory Beer, Victory Coffee, and Victory Tobacco — all highly addictive substances that affect people’s moods and reconcile them to unpleasant realities. Winston himself is something of a cigarette junkie and gin fiend, as we see in this quote from the final chapter:

The Chestnut Tree was almost empty. A ray of sunlight slanting through a window fell on dusty table-tops. It was the lonely hour of fifteen. A tinny music trickled from the telescreens.

Winston sat in his usual corner, gazing into an empty glass. Now and again he glanced up at a vast face which eyed him from the opposite wall. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said. Unbidden, a waiter came and filled his glass up with Victory Gin, shaking into it a few drops from another bottle with a quill through the cork. It was saccharine flavoured with cloves, the speciality of the cafe…

In these days he could never fix his mind on any one subject for more than a few moments at a time. He picked up his glass and drained it at a gulp.

But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer needs policing.

But most brilliant of all is Orwell’s prescient description of how language is changed through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed “thought crime,” to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition of their “Newspeak” dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what they talk about in a comparatively short period of time.

Orwell’s insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley’s novel. The same can be said about Orwell’s treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings particularly true today.

In 1984 hate figures, like Emmanuel Goldstein, and fake enemies, like Eastasia and Eurasia, are used to unite, mobilise, and control certain groups. Orwell was well aware of the group-psychological dynamics of the tribe projected to the largest scale of a totalitarian empire. The concept of “three minutes hate” has so much resonance with our own age, where triggered Twitter-borne hordes of SJWs and others slosh around the news cycle like emotional zombies, railing against Trump or George Soros.

In Huxley’s book, there are different classes but this is not a source of conflict. Indeed they are so clearly defined — in fact biologically so — that there is no conflict between them, as each class carries out its predetermined role like harmonious orbit of Aristotlean spheres.

In short, Brave New World sees man as he likes to see himself — a rational actor, controlling his world and taking his pleasures. It is essentially the vision of a well-heeled member of the British upper classes.

Orwell’s book, by contrast, sees man as the tribal primitive, forced to live on a scale of social organisation far beyond his natural capacity, and thereby distorted into a mad and cruel creature. It is essentially the vision of a not-so-well-heeled member of the British middle classes in daily contact with the working class. But is all the richer and more profound for it.

Colin Liddell is one of the founders of the Alt-Right, which he now disavows, and currently blogs at Affirmative Right. He recently published a book “Interviews and Obituaries,” available on Amazon.

 
Hide 137 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Of course Orwell is far superior, and the point about the control of the proles by porn and cheap entertainment is one I gave myself made often. But as any genuine left wing person, which means not the “American left” (alias Big Business friendly corporate-right) can tell you, the Abruzzo left is as much at risk as the far right, perhaps more so. After all, I’m a far left person and I have to come to the foetid right wing racist swamp of unz to express my opinion because Twitter, the National Enquirer, and even Arcamax have banned me for saying what I think.

  2. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    No, Kafka. He got closest to the source maze of power both within and without.

    Huxley and Orwell are about the means of power. Kafka was about the mind of power.

  3. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Yes, the dissident is repressed, but let’s not kid ourselves.

    Look at Palestinians in Gaza. Look at criminalization of BDS.

    Look at the state of Yemen, Syria, Libya, and etc. Far worse than being deplatformed or denied Paypal service. Jewish power silences the dissident right but wholesale massacres the ‘muzzies’ who aren’t with the globo hegemony.

    Also, Alt Right could have done so much more without the nazi-larping crap. That filth seems to be the bane of the Other Right all the time. It’s like a disease that won’t go away.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    , @Wally
    , @fnn
  4. Yet Orwell wrote the following words in The Road to Wigan Pier:

    “there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.”

    And:

    “The ordinary man may not flinch from a dictatorship of the proletariat, if you offer it tactfully; offer him a dictatorship of the prigs, and he gets ready to fight.”

    In the first of these excerpts, we see a perfect delineation of today’s “Cultural Marxism,” and in the second, a perfect explanation of the support for Donald Trump. The “deplorables” are those who resent and fight the dictatorship of the prigs. I’m somewhat surprised that no one has written a history of the rise and advance of political correctness in American public life and entitled it “The Dictatorship of the Prigs.” I hope someone does.

    • Replies: @llloyd
    , @El Dato
  5. @Anon

    Also, Alt Right could have done so much more without the nazi-larping crap.

    Well, the Jews keep telling us about the Nazis and how we have to learn from history. Apparently it never occurred to them that they have done their job a little too well.

  6. I wouldn’t give a fig for either one of them. Orwell’s reputation is fantastically overblown and Huxley is a nonentity. Of course, the fact that they were both flaming Leftists and progressives ought to permanently exclude them from the paragon of Alt-Right heroes, but strangely it does not.

  7. Brave New World has had a funny way of growing more interesting with age. Lenina Crowne, the vacuous Future Woman, has leaped out of the pages of Huxley’s novel and into our real lives. Just give Lenina some tattoos and piercings, dye her hair an unnatural color and put a smart phone on her fashionable Malthusian belt, and she would fit right into our world.

    • LOL: Che Guava
    • Replies: @follyofwar
  8. Wally says:
    @Anon

    Please explain what you mean by “nazi-larping crap’.

    http://www.codoh.com

  9. I think the author a little unfair to Huxley when he criticises him for no sense of social “Class”. The issue here is that class, in BNW, has been hard wired into each grouping (ie deltas etc). Genetic engineering has predetermined all class AND individual desires & interests. The sophistications of language, mind control etc in Orwell are thus unnecessary & superseded.

  10. Straight-up prolefeed:

    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/10/blind-items-revealed-5_22.html

    The distinction between the inner party, outer party and proles does seem to be absolutely crucial to Orwell (at least in 1984) and is often neglected by people debating Orwell vs Huxley. Still, I tend to agree with those dissidents who have observed that there really is no inner party. It is outer party buffoons all the way up.

  11. ” In Huxley’s book, there are different classes but this is not a source of conflict. Indeed they are so clearly defined — in fact biologically so — that there is no conflict between them, as each class carries out its predetermined role like harmonious orbit of Aristotlean spheres ”

    What I miss is the speculation if the present race conflicts will end in the Brave New World society, with whites as the alphas.
    Who then will be the bètas, gammas and deltas ?
    Few people realise, I suppose, that the ideological race conflict began around 1900, with
    Houston Stewart Chamberlain, ‘Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts’, 1898- 1907, München
    The book is a justification, my idea, of ‘white superiority’.

  12. @advancedatheist

    What have jews learned from 2000 years of history ?

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    , @follyofwar
  13. RW says:

    George Orwell also beat his coolies “in moments of rage” as he put it in his autobiography. He had first-hand experience as a repressive British colonial police officer in Burma, 1922-1927. He knew the autocratic mindset well, because he had lived it.

  14. “…Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected President since Andrew Jackson and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of top-down tyranny”

    That was good for a laugh. What’s the difference between governed from the top by liberal slime career opportunist and governed from the top by the moron womanizer opportunist comparable to the governor played by Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles? The difference is top down slime versus top down idiocy.

    There is a misapprehension at the core of this article; Huxley wrote from a liberal ‘anything goes’ perspective of morality, comparable to today’s ‘it’s all about me’ MTV generation. A deeper understanding of Huxley’s profound distaste and preoccupation with this is afforded in his novel ‘Point, Counter Point.’ Orwell, on the other hand, aptly projects a future social conservatism that is better compared to the extremes of a cloistered and tightly policed ultra religious right.

    It’s not a matter of who was more ‘right.’ They are describing separate trajectories of human social phenomena we see playing out today. The two were peering down different avenues into the future.

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/10/09/liberals/

    ^ ‘the apes will rise’

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  15. Tyrion 2 says:

    Great article. As you point out, the class distinctions are key.

    #MeToo is for the Outer party (there is no inner party). Rotherham is for the proles.

    Veganism is for the Outer party. Opiates are for the proles. When I was younger I visited New York. I smoked on that kind of holiday at the time. It took me forever to find someone to borrow a lighter off. They turned out to be homeless.

    Etc.

  16. fnn says:
    @Anon

    It’s all the fault of Mel Brooks.

  17. Anonymous[295] • Disclaimer says:

    But, despite this, this debate exists not only on the Dissident Right but further afield. Believe it or not, even Left-wingers and Liberals debate this question, as if they too are under the heel of the oppressor’s jackboot.

    Some left-wingers are. Think of poor Julian Assange!

    ‘All of a sudden, as many commentators have pointed out, there were almost daily echoes of Orwell in the news…The most obvious connection to Orwell was the new president’s repeated insistence that even his most pointless and transparent lies were in fact true, and then his adviser Kellyanne Conway’s explanation that these statements were not really falsehoods but, rather, “alternative facts.”’

    The counter to this is that Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected President since Andrew Jackson and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of top-down tyranny.

    Exactly. In 1984, ‘Big Brother’ actually controlled the media; Trump clearly doesn’t, so he is not Big Brother. He is Emmanuel Goldstein: a leader of the resistance … but alas, probably not real.

  18. wayfarer says:

    “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

    source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

    Zionist zombies and global trust-fund busybodies, working overtime on self-fulfilling fairy-tales, as they dream of crushing humanity’s heart and soul, once and for all, in the name of their precious and coveted neo-Zionist order (a.k.a. “new world order”).

    Remember and “never forget,” free-will is a crime!

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  19. The problem with Orwell is that he makes Jews the oppressed, not the oppressors. His libertarian hero is Emmanuel Goldstein. So, his world is a kind of inverse of ours.
    “Emmanuel Goldstein is a fictional character in George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. He is the principal enemy of the state according to the Party of the totalitarian Oceania. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious (and possibly fictitious) dissident organization called “The Brotherhood” and as having written the book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism. He is only seen and heard on telescreen, and he may be a fabrication of the Ministry of Truth, the State’s propaganda department.” (from Wikipedia)

  20. Orwell was right in almost everything and Orwell had obviously read The Protocols of Zion because almost everything that Orwell wrote about is in the Protocols and I have no doubt that he used the Protocols as the template for his book 1984.

    If anyone doubts this, read The Protocols of Zion and read 1984 and compare the two, it is almost identical and the Protocols were written in 1897 and the Protocols fit with everything that is going on today in the U.S. and the world , thanks to the Zionist elites.

  21. Idahoan says:

    Oh dear no, big mistake—it’s Two Minutes Hate, not three as stated here. Orwell is superior by far, since he was serious and more humane in his understanding of the effects of totalitarianism on human psychology. But as a Morrissey song puts it, “I know you love one person, so why can’t you love two?”

  22. Anon[839] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Can we find you as The Delightful Water Lily on other swamps?

  23. @George F. Held

    Goldstein isn’t Orwell’s hero. There is nothing in the book to show that Goldstein even exists. All he could be is a propaganda construct (as I believe ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is in real life). And Goldstein’s Jewishness, apart from his name, is non-existent. When I read 1984 for the first time (in 1986, as it happens), I didn’t realise that he was even meant to be a Jew.

    Lots of Jews are against the racist apartheid colonial settler zionazi pseudostate in Occupied Palestine and its financial backers in New York, but we wouldn’t want to disturb you with facts, would we now.

    • Replies: @George F. Held
    , @c matt
  24. Durruti says:

    Yes:

    Orwell, who finished his 1984 shortly after the liquidation of Palestine in 1947, [1st printing was 1950], never saw the Elephant (Zionist Elephant). No one is perfect. Orwell, who during WW II, was an employee for Churchill’s Government, and labored in Churchill’s Propaganda Department (different official title), loyally reflected (most of) that propaganda.

    Few visionaries in 1947, understood or opposed the imperialist Oligarchs (financial banking power), who supported the establishment of a so-called Jewish Nation – in someone else’s Nation. (The Balfour Declaration was issued during WW I and the liquidation of one of the Peoples of the Middle East was in the planning stages). The Palestinians became the – final victims of World War II.

    The Palestinian General Strike (for independence) of 1936, followed by an insurrection was brutally suppressed by King George (the British Empire Oligarchs – who had long (at least since 1815), become the Minions of the Zionist Bankers.

    After WW II, Orwell, chose to ignore the crimes against the Palestinians, and possibly, to get his books published/circulated. Who controls Hollywood-and the Mainstream Media?

    For this anarchist, Orwell remains a visionary, a courageous soldier who served in army of the POUM (Partido Obrero Unida Marxista -Trotskyist), and was wounded while defending the same Spanish Republic as Durruti’s Anarchists. Orwell’s wife served as a Nurse in Spain.
    Recommend Orwell’s fine book, His HISTORY, “Homage to Catalonia.”

    Orwell had courage.
    We American Citizen Patriots must display the same courage – as we Restore Our Republic.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homage-to-Catalonia

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  25. Each writer in his own way was sufficiently prescient in anticipating modern day parallels which abound in descriptions by both writers. We may never know how the two would revisit their writings had they been alive today. The question is whether or not any of them foresaw – not only via the methods and language employed by those in power to control their unthinking flock, but control of the commoners by proxy. The overriding control by the Zionist puppeteers of the Western body politic and of those masquerading as elected leaders is scarcely a deniable fact. In fact, control by proxy seems to have generated a two-tiered control phenomenon where the leaders are the puppets of puppeteers of a Zionist entity. Thereafter they assume the roles of secondary puppeteers in ensuring that their subjects submit to prescribed controls by the higher Zionist Entity. The latter thus enjoys a sort of exculpation by putting distance between themselves and the proletariat that they direct the secondary puppeteers to manipulate and control. This form of control has now become a recalcitrant fact of political life in the US and the West.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  26. deehart says:

    Ayn Rand’s Anthem is superior to both metaphysically and epistemologically. You can not have a technological society enslaving the minds of men.

    • Replies: @Rev. Spooner
  27. Christo says:

    Oh gee, it is more like Huxley’s world if you are a middle class liberal maybe,
    but for everybody else, 1984.

  28. @Justsaying

    ” In fact, control by proxy seems to have generated a two-tiered control phenomenon where the leaders are the puppets of puppeteers of a Zionist entity. ”
    Indeed my idea: Morgenthau Wilson, Baruch FDR, Bilderberg conferences, Soros Brussels, Merkel, with whom exactly I do know, but it does not matter, Macron Rothschild, Tony Blair Murdoch.
    The catholic countries resist: Poland, Hungary, etc., maybe S Germany and Austria in this respect also can be seen as catholic.
    Trump, put your money where your mouth is, Soros, the Koch brothers, they did, but money seeems to have failed in the last USA elections.
    Must have been a shock, Solsjenytsyn writes that each jewish community in tsarist Russia always had money for bribes.

  29. @Durruti

    Palestine and the Balfour declaration was a bit more complicated, the British saw an opportunity to keep France, that had Syria and Lebanon, away from Egypt.
    Mandate of course was just a fig leaf for colonialism.

    • Replies: @Anon
  30. Christo says:

    Get wise. The natural opponent of PC Marxism and its base materialistic religion of greed was and still is National Socialism. Simply Good vs. Evil

  31. @Ronald Thomas West

    ” What’s the difference between governed from the top ”
    Possibly what is the theory of prof Laslo Maracs, UVA univrsity Amsterdam, that eight years Obama have driven China and Russia so together that Khazakstan now is the economic centre of the world, and that the present USA president understand this.
    Khazakstan has the land port for trains to and from St Petersburg Peking.
    Four days travel.
    Do not hope this railway will have the same effect as the Berlin Bagdad: WWI.

  32. Durruti says:

    “You can not have a technological society enslaving the minds of men.”

    Obviously, you can. Wasn’t that one of Rand’s major points?

    Would be highly interested in you finishing your point (of view) about Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  33. Tim too says:

    Surely literature has other offerings. Why the false dichotomy? Why not throw Burgess and others in for comparison? We’re seeing plenty of ultra-violence, and other ultra-nonsense these days. There are plenty of authors and literary works to discuss

    • Agree: Che Guava
  34. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    This isn’t a top-ten contest. The reality we find ourselves in seems to consist largely of billion-shades-of-grey continuums, not black-and-white absolutes. Full-frontal assault (Orwell’s state brutality) generally stimulates defensive action. Tangential, obtuse assault (Huxley’s anaesthetising hedonia) doesn’t alert the defensive posture, the immune response. Tipping points, inflection points, exist, but stealthy wolves in sheeps’ clothing, are more effective. The Venus fly trap, the carrion flower, convince prey to approach trustingly. Brave New World’s disguised depredation – the nanny/welfare state, etc. – paves the way for Orwell’s naked totalitarianism. It’s the friendly inmate offering the scared, lonely new prisoner a Snicker’s bar and a smoke.

  35. Why limit Orwell to “1984”? His “Animal Farm” is a great work, too. Although much shorter, it captured the essence of all totalitarian societies even better. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” expresses the “democratic” rule of the 1% better than anything.

  36. Truth says:

    Sail-Dog’s favorite movie, Idiocracy is pretty good prescient too; especially the part about president Camacho, who, by the way, and rather incredibly, most of you voted for two years ago.

    • Replies: @fish
  37. Orwell is new and improved Huxley that’s all folks.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @ChuckOrloski
  38. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Consider these excerpts:
    1.All the rest had by that time been exposed as traitors and counter-revolutionaries. Goldstein had fled and was hiding no one knew where, and of the others, a few had simply disappeared, while the majority had been executed after spectacular public trials at which they made confession of their crimes. Among the last survivors were three men named Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford. It must have been in 1965 that these three had been arrested.

    2. ‘It is called wine,’ said O’Brien with a faint smile. ‘You will have read about it in books, no doubt. Not much of it gets to the Outer Party, I am afraid.’ His face grew solemn again, and he raised his glass: ‘I think it is fitting that we should begin by drinking a health. To our Leader: To Emmanuel Goldstein.’
    Winston took up his glass with a certain eagerness. Wine was a thing he had read and dreamed about. . . . The truth was that after years of gin-drinking he could barely taste it. He set down the empty glass.
    ‘Then there is such a person as Goldstein?’ he said.
    ‘Yes, there is such a person, and he is alive. Where, I do not know.’
    ‘And the conspiracy — the organization? Is it real? It is not simply an invention of the Thought Police?’
    ‘No, it is real. The Brotherhood, we call it. You will never learn much more about the Brotherhood than that it exists and that you belong to it. I will come back to that presently.’

    Whether Goldstein exists is an issue raised in the novel itself, but that he (obviously Jewish like another member of the Brotherhood, Aaronson) is presented sympathetically as a libertarian enemy of the oppressive government is certain. Orwell’s novel presents Jews sympathetically as liberators of themselves and others.
    And that presentation is historically false: Jews throughout history are the oppressors, not the oppressed.

  39. Che Guava says:
    @Durruti

    Excuse me Durutti,

    I will give my own impressions of Rosenbaum. Have only read ‘Atlas Shrugged’, hovers between boring and evil.

    The only things that are really interesting about it are

    the retro-future details,

    and the realrstic portrayal of Hank’s wife.

    Then again, the latter, if compared with Rosenbdum (Ayn Randy) IRL, much the same.

    judging which is worse is difficult.

    Personaly? I prefer Homer.

  40. Che Guava says:

    Truly, for movies, the remake of 1984 and Terry Gilliam’s Brazil were near-contemporary.

    The lattter, except for the boring American woman truck driver, is vastly superior.

    • Replies: @ia
  41. anarchyst says:

    It is interesting to note that today’s voice activated computer interfaces (Alexa, etc.) are equivalent to Orwell’s “telescreens” that monitor all activity within a household. Add to that, the present push to implement “chipping”–the implantation of microchips into humans, ostensibly for “convenience” and identification that cannot be lost–the “mark of the beast” in biblical parlance.
    The sad part is that much of the population is openly embracing these technologies instead of being wary (and aware) that these are monitoring technologies which will lead to no good.

  42. ia says:
    @Che Guava

    The woman truck driver was the protagonist’s love object and inspired what little plot exists. He was supposed to save her, or so he thought. Everything else was window-dressing (albeit quite imaginative), possibly the product of his growing insanity.

  43. “One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more correct or prescient, Orwell or Huxley”.
    This is the first lie by this author trying to co-opt both these writers for his agenda.
    Orwell was an anti-imperialist and thats evident if you read ‘Down and out in Paris or London’ or the ‘Road to Wigan Pier’.
    Burgess’ politics and views can readily be known by reading ‘Clockwork Orange’ or ‘The brave New World’.
    The world today is topsy turvy and what was the left then is now the right but both were anti fascists.
    If the comment posted is wrong , it’s because the first paragraph was blatantly misleading and stopped me from going any further.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  44. Anne says:

    One thing that most people in America leave out of consideration is the reality and power of secret societies. Recently Freemasonry celebrated its 300th anniversary with a big bash in England. In Europe, the Catholics are aware of its power and effectiveness. Democracy is a total illusion anyway; oligarchs always rule.

    • Replies: @Anon
  45. @SporadicMyrmidon

    If I understand you correctly, I think both authors had no expectation from the right or the left.

  46. Brilliant article in which Colin is absolutely correct in his analysis..

  47. @deehart

    Define in non dictionary both terms “metaphysically” and “epistemologically” in your own words and don’t copy paste.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  48. Z-man says:

    From what I remember Brave New World was a very good read.

  49. ia says:

    Another good one was Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. It also has Alexa-type screens that allow the viewer to participate, feel like a “star” and acquire instant fame. Firemen start fires instead of putting them out. Books (good books anyway) cause people to discover and share another more meaningful world. Ergo, old books must be rooted out and destroyed. The war on whiteness and patriarchy in today’s parlance.

    • Replies: @Anon
  50. JLK says:

    Nineteen Eighty-Four should be required reading in high schools. One of the most creative and prophetic novels of all time.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
    , @S
  51. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    I agree that, as literature, 1984 blows away BRAVE NEW WORLD. Huxley wrote some excellent novels but they are less well-known: POINT COUNTER POINT, EYELESS IN GAZA, THOSE BARREN LEAVES, etc. But because of its socio-political themes, BNW became part of high school canon. In contrast, 1984 maybe Orwell’s greatest work. It’s like Anthony Burgess often said A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is the least of his works, but it’s his most famous novel because it was made into a classic movie and dealt with relevant social themes of crime and psychology.

    Still, even though 1984 has stuff about control of the populace through drugs and pornography, the vision of BNW is closer to our world in this sense. We live in a world of plenty than scarcity. So, whereas vice is allowed by the state in 1984 as an outlet for a bored and tired public, vice is at the center of life in BNW. The world of 1984 allows some kind of vice but is nevertheless essentially a puritanical, spartan, and moralistic state. Also, vice, even if legal and state-sanctioned, is to be enjoyed behind closed doors. In contrast, the world of BNW has vice of sex and drugs all over the place. Indeed, it is so pervasive that it’s not even regarded as vice but the New Virtue. And in this, our world is like BNW. Gambling was once a vice but now a virtue. We are told it is fun, it offers reparations to Indians, and creates jobs. And Las Vegas is like Disneyland for the entire family. Disney Corp has turned into a Brothel, but it’s still promoted as Family Entertainment. Trashy celebs who indulge in hedonism and market excessive behavior are held up as role models. Whether it’s Hillary with Miley Cyrus or Trump with Kanye, it seems Vice is the new Virtue. (I finally heard a Kanye album on youtube, and it began with a song along the lines of ‘suck my dic*’.)

    Orwell was insightful about the power of language, but he thought that the totalitarian state would simplify language to create conformity of mind. Such as ‘doubleplusgood’. It would be increasingly anti-intellectual and anti-poetic. But the PC manipulation of language works the other way. It keeps on creating fancy, pseudo-intellectual, or faux-sophisticated terms for what is total rot. So many people are fooled because they go to college and are fed fancy jargon as substitute for thought.

    Btw, as the 84 in 1984 was the reverse of 48, the year in which the book was written, many literary critics have said the book was not about the future but the present, esp. Stalinist Russia(though some elements were taken from Nazi Germany and even UK). As such, it was a testament and a warning than a prophecy. Besides, Orwell had pretty much laid out the logic of totalitarianism in ANIMAL FARM. Perhaps, the most distressing thing about 1984 is that the hero embodies the very logic that led to the Repressive System in the first place. When asked if he would commit any act of terror and violence to destroy the System, Winston Smith answers yes. It’s an indication that the System was long ago created by people just like him, idealists who felt they were so right that they could do ANYTHING to create a just order. But the result was totalitarianism.

    One area where the current order is like 1984. The hysterical screaming mobs and their endless minutes of hate. It’s like Rule by PMS.

  52. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Anne

    One thing that most people in America leave out of consideration is the reality and power of secret societies.

    One reason why BNW and 1984 fail as future-visions is they assume that the West will remain white. Both are about white tyranny, white systems, white everything. So, the tyranny is ideological, systemic, philosophical, and etc. It’s about the rulers and the ruled. It’s about systems and its minions. Same with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. As ugly as its future vision is, at least UK is still white in the novel and movie. But look at London today. It’s turning Third World. And white droogs and gangs are getting their ass whupped by black thugs.

    Something happened in the West after WWII. Jews gained supreme power and eventually aided homos to be their main allies. And Negroes gained supreme status as idols of song, sports, and sex. This has complicated matters. The group-personalities of Jews and whites are different. Jews are more aware and anxious; whites are more earnest and trusting. There is a huge difference between Chinese elites manipulating Chinese masses AND Jewish elites manipulating non-Jewish masses. Chinese elites think in terms of power. Jewish elites think in terms of power over the Other. There is bound to be far less trust in the latter case, therefore more need to twist logic in so many ways.
    As for Negroes, their attitudes are very different from that of whites. In some ways, blacks are the single most destructive force against order and civilization. Look at Detroit and Baltimore. Haiti and Africa. And yet, the rulers of the Current Order elevate blackness as the holiest icon of spiritual magic and coolest idol of mass thrills. This lead to the madonna-ization of white women. Whore-ship as worship. It leads to cucky-wuckeriness among white men. But if whites submit to blackness, their civilization will fall.
    But because Jewish power needs to suppress white pride and power with ‘white guilt’(over what was done to Negro slaves) and white thrill(for blacks in sports, song, and dance), it promotes blackness. So, on the one hand, Jewish Power is invested in maintaining the Order in which they have so much. But in order for Jews to remain on top, whites must be instilled with guilt and robbed of pride. And blackness is the most potent weapon in this. But in promoting blackness, the West will be junglized. The future of France looks dire with all those blacks coming to kick white male butt and hump white women. And when it all falls apart, Jews will lose out too, at least in Europe. US might be spared from total black destruction with brown-ization. Browns may not have stellar talent but they not crazy like the Negroes.

    1984 and BNW are about people lording over others. There isn’t much in the way of minority power. But today’s world is about Minority Rule, especially that of Jews and Homos. And it’s about minorities of blacks in the West taking the mantle of Manhood and Pride from white guys who are cucky-wucked.

    Now, the thing about BNW is that its vision has been fulfilled yet. While one can argue that Stalinism pretty much achieved the full extent of Orwellianism, humanity has yet to see the rise of clones and bio-engineering. So, to fully appreciate Huxley, it might take a 100 to 200 yrs. Maybe women will stop giving birth. Maybe the idea of ‘mother’ will seem funny. Maybe future beings will be cloned. And maybe different castes will be produced to do different jobs. That way, there will be happiness. Today, people are still born naturally, and each person wants to be ‘equal’. But what if certain people are bio-engineered to be submissive and happy to do menial work?

    Also, mass cloning may be the only way a nation like Japan can sustain itself as they are not breeding anymore.

  53. @jilles dykstra

    To be feared is better than to be popular.

  54. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Rev. Spooner

    The world today is topsy turvy and what was the left then is now the right but both were anti fascists.

    Orwell doesn’t seem anything at all like the anti-fascists we see today…I’d say my politics hover around where Orwell’s were but I get called a Nazi not infrequently.

    Truly “war is (now) peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”

    • Replies: @Anon
  55. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Rev. Spooner

    If he has read Rand, he should know what these mean. They are Philosophy 101 words and wrote all about them.

  56. nsa says:

    Most forget that the three great rats (snitches) of the 20th century were Eric Blair aka Orwell (his famous list of Stalinist media simps), Ron Reagan (Commie Hollywoodites) , and Tim Leary (Weathmen who broke him out of jail). Blair never imagined 99% of the population would willingly invite a telescreen into their homes, and even pay a monthly fee to be dumbed down and manipulated. He visualized the screen correctly to be just an advanced means of propaganda and enslavement. Maybe it is time for an updated version of 1984. Call it 2024. Big Jew (giant orange bloated comb over head on screen) could replace Big Brother, and say Spencer UnzSailer could replace the mythical Goldstein. Dershowitz could replace O’Brien and torment the hapless Winston Anglin and his tatted blowup doll, Julia.

  57. c matt says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    [re Palestine] Lots of Jews are against it, and lots of Jews are for it.

    Lesson: It is a Jewish question which we need not bother ourselves about, one way or the other. Therefore, no rules for or against BDS, no influence from AIPAC, no aid to Israel or Palestine, etc. etc. In other words, let’s learn from our Jewish friends for once, and play a game of “let’s you and him fight.”

  58. c matt says:

    If prognostication is the goal, Camp of the Saints has them both beat.

    • Replies: @A Bit Sandy
  59. @JLK

    It used to be. It was required reading in my sophomore English Lit. class. I have re-read it 2 times since and it rings truer every time.

  60. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @ia

    Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451

    1984 for juniors.

  61. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @George F. Held

    The problem with Orwell is that he makes Jews the oppressed, not the oppressors.

    Well, Stalin did win over Trotsky.

  62. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    Ilyana Rozumova wisely said: ‘Orwell is new and improved Huxley that’s all folks.”

    Agreed, Ilyana!

    Plus George Orwell’s “1984″ arrived on-the-dark scene without carrying the dark Aleister Crowley “baggage.”

  63. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Tyrion 2

    Orwell doesn’t seem anything at all like the anti-fascists we see today…I’d say my politics hover around where Orwell’s were but I get called a Nazi not infrequently.

    Oddly enough, what we have in the West is actually repression by sacro-ethno-corporatism.

    Jews are disproportionately immensely powerful. So, there is an ethnic angle to the current power.
    But if Jews were merely rich and powerful, they could be critiqued and challenged… like Wasps still are. But they are untouchable because of the sacro-element. As the Children of Shoah, opposition to Jewish Power is ‘antisemitic’ or ‘nazi’.

    Also, Globo-Shlomo-Homo Power owes to capitalism, not socialism or communism. Now, corporate tyranny can’t be as total as statist tyranny. Even with all the deplatforming and etc, the current power can’t do to dissidents what Stalin, Mao, and Hitler did. Still, considering that a handful corporations dominate so much and that so many Americans are either apathetic or rabid-with-PC, the current tyranny is formidable. After all, one doesn’t need to control EVERYTHING to keep the power. One only needs control of elite institutions, flow of information, main narratives & icons/idols, and majority support(as US has a winner-takes-all political system). As all such are concentrated in few institutions and industries, the elites own pretty much everything.
    With their power of media and academia, Jews have persuaded enough whites that it’s virtuous to be anti-white. And with mass-immigration-invasion, the combined votes of white cucks and non-white hordes tip the majority toward the Globo-Shlomo-Homo Party. Unless there is total collapse, this system can go on for a long long time.

    Also, corporate power pretty much determines state power since most politicians are whores of donors. And most people who serve in the Deep State were raised from cradle to idolize certain figures and symbols as sacrosanct. As toadies and servants of the Power, they’ve absorbed these lessons uncritically, and they are afraid to raise their kids with truly critical mindset because asking Big Questions will derail their chance of entering the corridors of privilege. Those in the Deep State bureaucracies are not necessarily corrupt. They may be hardworking and committed to their service to the state, but they are essentially flunkies since they never questioned the central shibboleths that govern today’s PC. I don’t think people like James Comey are corrupt in the conventional sense. They probably sincerely believe they are committed to the proper functioning of the state. But lacking in imagination and audacity to question beyond the Dominant Narrative and Dogma, they can only be lackeys no matter how smart or credentialed they are.

    US and Israel are both essentially fascist states, but the differences is Israel is an organic-fascist state whereas the US is an gangster-fascist state. If not for Israel’s Occupation of West Bank and bad behavior to its neighbors, its form of fascist-democratic nationalism would be sound. It is a majority Jewish nation where the Jewish elites have an organic bond with the majority of the people. Also, Jews have a ancestral and spiritual bond with the territory, the Holy Land. Also, there is a balance of capitalism and socialism, and the main theme is the preservation and defense of the homeland for Jews. So, identity/inheritance is served by ideology, not the other way around. As such, Israel is a pretty good model for other nations(though it could treat Palestinians somewhat better; but then, Arabs IN Israel have it pretty good.) Israel need not be a gangster-fascist state because there is natural, historical, and cultural bond between the rulers and the ruled.

    But in the US, there is no such bond between the Jewish elites and the masses of goyim. That being the case, it is most unnatural for the US to be Jewish-dominated. It’s one thing for Jews to be successful and disproportionately represented in US institutions and industries due to higher IQ and achievement. But the idea of the Jewish elites serving as the Dominant Ruling Elites in a nation where they are only 2% is ridiculous. It’s like Turkey has successful minority communities of Greeks, Armenians, and some Jews, but clearly the Turks are in control. But in the US, Jews have the top power, and furthermore, Jews want to keep the power and make all Americans suck up to Jewish power. But this can only work via gangster-fascism since there is no organic bond between Jews and non-Jews. If Jewish elites in Israel think and act in terms of “What can we do to empower all of us Jews as one united people?”, Jewish elites in the think in terms of “What can we do to bribe, browbeat, threaten, silence, blacklist, and/or brainwash the goy masses to make them do our bidding?” One if borne of love and trust, the other of contempt and fear.
    Whatever problems exist in Israel, I’m guessing there is genuine love between Jewish elites and Jewish masses. But there is a lot of hatred, fear, and anxiety among Jewish elites when it comes to the goyim. The result is outrageous policy like hoodwinking white Christian soldiers to smash ‘terrorist muzzie’ nations and then bringing over Muslims and embracing them as ‘refugees’ against ‘white supremacist bigots’.

    Another problem with globo-shlomo-homo(and-afro) world order is that it’s leading to Mono-everything. It’s leading to mono-financial rule by Wall Street. As Wall Street is so dominant, it is effectively taking over all financial markets. And as the US military is so dominant, the world is ending up with Mono-Militarism. The US continues to encircle China, Russia, and Iran. And it’s leading to Mono-Manhood. Prior to mass-migration-invasion, Europe was all white. So, even though white men tend to lose to blacks in world competition, every white nation had its white local-national hero. Its manhood was defined and represented by its own men. The world had poly-manhood, or plurality of manhood. Even if white men lost to blacks in world competition, they were the dominant men in their own nations. But with Negroes entering every white nation, the result is Mono-Manhood(that of the Negro) in every white nation. This is now spreading to Japan as well, as Japanese women now travel around the world to fill up their wombs with black babies. And of there is Mono-Media. The world communicates through English, but most English media are dominated by Jews. European nations may censor American Media, but it’s never the mainstream media. It’s always alternative media, and these censorship is done at the pressure of globalist Jewish groups. Jewish globalists pressure Europe to allow ONLY mainstream US media while banning much of alternative media that dares speak truth to power about Jewish power and race-ism(aka race realism).

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  64. S says:

    Why does the one have to be ‘superior’ to the other as they both make a lot of sense?

    Why not a combination of both?

    How about a society that controls people with a velvet glove by allowing for and promoting every Brave New Worldish (often fatuous) personal pleasure while simultaneously, should a person get out of line from the state’s dictates, maintaining in the background the iron fist of a full blown Orwellian police state?

    The present society, though not there yet, is not that far away from that now.

    Regarding 1984 I’ve always thought the Michael Radford film version starring Richard Burton, John Hurt, and the luscious Suzanna Hamilton, filmed in an around London from April – June, 1984, the exact time and setting of Orwell’s novel, to have been outstanding.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  65. Agent76 says:

    9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony

    Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee, on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect information about anti-war and “radical” groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance, and opening of mail.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?408953-1/tom-charles-huston-testimony-church-committee

    Documentary: On Company Business [1980] FULL

    Rare award winning CIA documentary, On Company Business painfully restored from VHS.

  66. S says:
    @JLK

    Nineteen Eighty-Four should be required reading in high schools.

    It has been in many high schools, though I could see how in the future it might be banned as ‘hate literature’ as it strikes too close to home.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  67. Kirt says:

    In my estimation, That Hideous Strength, the final novel of the science fiction trilogy of C. S. Lewis, is the best and most prescient dystopian novel written – largely because it is so much more than just a dystopian novel. It combines great characters, imaginative fantasy from modern to medieval, and is a truly creepy horror story as well – with a hilarious happy ending which illustrates God’s very own sense of humor.

    • Replies: @Excal
  68. Agent76 says:

    Jun 7, 2013 George Orwell 1984 Newspeak

    “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words…”

  69. peterAUS says:
    @S

    Agree.

    This, actually

    How about a society that controls people with a velvet glove by allowing for and promoting every Brave New Worldish (often fatuous) personal pleasure while simultaneously, should a person get out of line from the state’s dictates, maintaining in the background the iron fist of a full blown Orwellian police state?

    is close to what we have now, as you say

    The present society, though not there yet, is not that far away from that now.

    Close, not there yet but, that IS the future, save some miracle. Or MAD.

  70. The scalpel says: • Website
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Agree. How often does one hear the expression, “It’s 1984″ (often). Vs “It’s a Brave New World” (rarely if ever)

    • Replies: @Anon
  71. Anon[161] • Disclaimer says:

    In the present day, it is only the Dissident Right that exists in the ‘tyrannical space’ explored in those two dystopian classics.

    .

    Rather far from being the actual case.
    Truth-tellers who don’t espouse (or profess to) optimistic delusions are marginalized and negatively marked even within the “Dissident Right”.
    Sure, they do some truth telling there: but exceed the allowed threshold, and they’ll censor and cast out and dismiss while carefully avoiding debate to the point just like all normal people, and groups do.

    Groups can never be marginalized as fully as the individual can.

    Orwell was above Huxley as a writer and novelist.
    Huxley was a still subtler reader of mankind’s psyche though.

    Huxley stands higher than Orwell, where it is politics that is concerned.

  72. Anon[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @The scalpel

    Oh, yes, that’s how it is!

    More popularly quoted, and mainstream, material is that which is woven from the best fabrics.

    What else apart from the top of the crop would speak to the mind of People, and win their liking.

    • Replies: @The scalpel
  73. Anon[161] • Disclaimer says:

    In short, Brave New World sees man as he likes to see himself — a rational actor, controlling his world and taking his pleasures. It is essentially the vision of a well-heeled member of the British upper classes.

    .

    It does so, on the fore.
    You missed the background, I’m afraid.
    The book sees man seeing himself as he likes.
    If your reading of it were proper, it would be a light-hearted novel, not a bulk of nauseously gray hopelessness, which it is.

    Orwell lays out his topic in a more prosaic prose. Huxley leaves the background beneath his written speech, to be perceived by the reader. Subtler art relies more on the implicit indirect and implied.

    This is how I see it.
    (And by the way, it is good practice to self-doubt.
    So I may have misinterpreted your interpretation, and criticized it based on my misinterpretation of it).

    No doubt that, if one of the two should be used for proselytism and political activity, Orwell would be the right pick: but that’s exactly because he’s less subtle, or equally subtle but in a less artistic guise.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  74. @Che Guava

    How come you speak English. You not English and you are certainly not North American.Cuban maybe?

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  75. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    People can learn English, as you are finding out for yourself.

  76. llloyd says: • Website
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Orwell wrote later in that passage from The Road To Wigan Pier that the “cranks” originally were on the fringes of the British Liberal Party. With the destruction of the Liberal Party, they attached themselves to the “Independent Labour Party”. Orwell at the time was himself a member of the ILP. ILP was a break away from the now establishment Labour Party. The point I am trying to make is. The origins of these “crank” organisations is not Marxist and certainly not cultural as understood then. They got this label by guilt by association. They no more call themselves Cultural Marxists than white nationalists call themselves Neo Naxis. It is possible both groups might pick up on these names invented by their enemies as an ironical label.

    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
  77. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Anon

    People called John are disproportionately powerful. It is the most common name among billionaires. “Disproportionate” is as stupid a way of assuming some sort of oppression as the rest of your unreadable rant.

    • LOL: fnn
  78. Miro23 says:
    @SporadicMyrmidon

    The distinction between the inner party, outer party and proles does seem to be absolutely crucial to Orwell (at least in 1984) and is often neglected by people debating Orwell vs Huxley.

    Agreed. In Russia 1917 (after the Bolshevik Coup), the inner party were mostly Jewish activists, the outer party were mostly non-Jewish collaborators, and the proles were everybody else (majority ethnic Russians and Ukrainians).

    Similarly, in USA 2018, the inner party are mostly Jewish activists, the outer party mostly non-Jewish collaborators, and the proles are everybody else ( majority ethnic Anglos, Latinos, Blacks and Chinese).

    The difference, is that the US inner party doesn’t quite yet have absolute power – they tried for it on 9/11 and will no doubt try again later.

  79. When a writer is superior to another is something one can debate about for a long time.
    Orwell’s experiences in Birma and Spain Huxley did not have.
    Yet, in my opinion, Huxley as a highly educated aristocrat, is intellectually superior to Orwell.
    Books as ‘Of Heaven and Hell’, ‘The Doors of Perception’, ‘Beyond the Mexique Bay’, alas are not mentioned here.
    Huxley’s satire about ‘front pagers’, also about the stupid British aristocracy, excellent ‘After many a Summer dies the Swan’.
    And, what I stated before, will the present racist etc. debate end in disappearence of the European cultures, or in a Brave New World ?
    Alas cannot see any other outcome.
    Did superior civilisations disappear in the past ?
    The Veda vimana’s often made me wonder if the clumsy descriptions describe something that existed.
    What will be, in a thouand years, European cultures long gone, the description of a large passenger aircraft ?

  80. Orwell vs Huxley is a bit like Lionel Messi vs the left back who turned out twice for Torquay Utd Reserves in the 1972-3 season.

  81. Che Guava says:

    I disagree, except for your last point re. growing insanity, have a pet theory that Lowry becomes completely insane at some point in the film, his vision of the dykey-looking yank woman beckoning him from a luxurious bed seems most likely to me.

    That is my favoured point to pick at which he is shown to have gone insane, although one may pick two or three other points.

    You may not like the film, I think that it is brilliant. I saw it in the same time-frame as the remake of 1984, which is memorable as the last great performance of Richard Burton, as O’Brien of the inner party, Thanks to abandoning the idea of a disco soundtrack by the Eurythmics, it was very good … but Brazil was much better and more relevant to reality of then and now, and to the spirit, not the letter of 1984.

    I must see, at some time, the Brit. 1950s take on 1984, from stills that I have seen, it looks very interesting.

  82. Che Guava says:
    @Anon

    … and the reason that Huxley’s Brave New World has never been adapted into anything more than a bad TV miniseries, is that parts are so true.

  83. I haven’t heard anything about Orwell’s room 101 mentioned here. You cannot tell me the US, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, Israel, and every other nation on the face of the earth with an “Intelligence Agency” does not operate such rooms. Now days they are known as Black Sites. Does this sound like M.K. Ultra programming or what?

    “He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark mustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother“

    https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/02/07/room-101-the-torture-chamber-in-george-orwells-1984-was-named-after-a-conference-room-at-the-bbc-where-orwell-would-have-to-sit-through-tortuously-boring-meetings/

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  84. Che Guava says:

    I replied at to you, number 82, IIRC, while the software of this site is good in many ways, the time-out for connections is ludicrously brief, less than 5 min., it seems.

  85. S says:

    While not agreeing with much of his personal politics [I think had he had the internet as we do and the benefit of another almost seventy years since his passing that he may well have changed his views regarding certain matters - he seems too smart not to have done so.] it has to be said of George Orwell that besides having heart that he had a smashing (though subtle) sense of humor as well.

    Orwell on the intricacies of ‘duckspeak’ as described in the Appendix of 1984:

    ‘Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak, meaning ‘to quack like a duck’.’

    …Newspeak, indeed, differed from most all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak, meaning ‘to quack like a duck’. Like various other words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.

    http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app

  86. Che Guava says:

    OK mods, show me that any of my posts this evening retained the link to the person to whom I was replying. None did.

    Broken.

  87. @George F. Held

    Orwell may well have been reflecting the fact that Jews, while prominent early on in the Russian Revolution, were never dominant, and were by his own time largely sidelined and even persecuted to some degree.

    I wrote about this in some detail here:

    ALT-RIGHT LIES: RUSSIAN REVOLUTION NOT ACTUALLY DOMINATED BY JEWS

    and here:

    HOW JEWISH BOLSHEVIKS TRIED TO OPPOSE THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

    Goldstein is an obvious stand-in for Trotsky.

    • Replies: @ariadna
  88. @advancedatheist

    I re-read Brave New World recently. It really bothered me that John “The Savage” refused to submit to Lenina’s advances. She had never seen an Alpha Man (they had been bred out of existence), and she was begging for it. The Savage could have had his pick of any of the young women (they were all the same – much like today), yet he chose to become a recluse and whipped himself with chains until his back dripped with blood. He died a virgin – too much Shakespeare, apparently. Sad.

  89. @jilles dykstra

    They’ve learned that, if you stick together with your tribe, you will one day rule the world – even if you are only a tiny minority. Sadly, this is a lesson that whites never learned.

  90. Anon[627] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Orwell or Huxley? Or Bernays and Sunstein?

  91. The scalpel says: • Website
    @Anon

    The debate was about which author predicted a more accurate version of the future. I hold that a valid measue of that outcome is the degree to which people in that future can presently relate to the past prediction.

    If the prediction was one of the state of future society as a whole, then the measure of its success must be relative to that whole future society, not just its most intellectually snobbish elements.

  92. @advancedatheist

    “Leader of the Nazi Empire” LOL. They could have put a tiny bit of effort into making it sound authentic.

  93. @SporadicMyrmidon

    Hmm. I have observed a difference between the lumps intelligentsia enforcers of orthodoxy – bureaucrats, police – and the people who make the rules, academics and other intelligentsia. It is often much easier to hold a conversation with the latter.

  94. If we’re debating whether Orwell is superior to Huxley, I think it has to be acknowledged that Huxely’s work was pretty close to plagiarism. He never acknowledged in Brave New World Revisited or in his subsequent essays the extraordinary debt he owed to Plato’s Republic written 2400 years prior.

    Social Classes:
    Plato’s Republic: Gold, Silver, Iron, Bronze
    Brave New World: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon

    Eugenics:
    PR: Strict eugenic breeding
    BNW: Strict eugenic breeding via test-tubes

    Division of Labor & Class
    PR: Each labor type allocated to a purpose bred social class (Gold, Silver, Iron, Bronze)
    BNW: Each labor type allocated to purpose bred social class

    Family Unit:
    PR: Parents must not know which children are theirs, and raised in common by class
    BNW: Sperm & Egg donors, idea of parents is verbotten. Children raised by class

    Education in State Mythology as Necessity:
    PR: Plato’s “Noble Lie” and strict and rigorous censorship
    BNW: conditioning and hypnaopedia

    It goes on and on. I remember reading Plato’s Republic independently from a set of Encylopedia Britannica’s “Great Books” when I was a teenager. When I was assigned Brave New World in English class, I had a great chuckle. Huxely’s BNW was basically just an updated retelling of Plato’s Republic. Maybe Huxley took for granted that any man with even a meager education would have read Plato, so he had no reason to acknowledge the literary debt, but in my mind, Huxely was just updating a 2400 year old story. I give the nod to Orwell.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Durruti
  95. Anon[627] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Orwell or Huxley?

    Or Duck Soup?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @El Dato
  96. Anon[224] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Deep State logic is really like this but done with a straight face. Satire has become the logic and instrument of oppression. It’s like satiranny. The logic once used by satirists to mock the power is now the logic behind the power.

    Look at the resemblance:

    • Replies: @Miro23
  97. @llloyd

    The origins of these “crank” organisations is not Marxist and certainly not cultural as understood then. They got this label by guilt by association.

    Pre-Marxian socialism is as dead as the dodo, and all post-Marxian socialism (including the type portrayed by Orwell) is somehow derivative from Marx. I do not want to attempt to sort out what “true” Marxism is, that being an internecine argument between different Marxist splinter groups, to none of which I belong.

    Today’s SJWs appear to be offspring of the Frankfurt School, which held that the reason Marxism was rejected in Germany and Hungary, after a brief ascendancy during the chaos of the immediate post-WWI period, was that it concentrated too much on economic tactics such as expropriating the property of capitalists and vesting its ownership in the state, while ignoring the need to demolish traditional social institutions such as the patriarchal family, which were the foundation upon which private property and the rights of inheritance rested.

    Latterly the Frankfurt School relocated en masse to the U.S., where its prominent figures (e.g., Herbert Marcuse) provided the theoretical framework for feminists, homosexuals, and now the “transgendered,” in which these fringe groups of the professionally aggrieved replace the plain old working class as the putative victims of capitalism (and potential footsoldiers of the revolution against it). See for example Eros and Civilization.

    Of course, the original claim of Marxists to represent the working class was always a fraud. Marxism of all varieties appeals and always has appealed more to the intelligentsia than to anyone else, and has always derived its leadership from that class. There are probably more Marxists (cujuscunque generis) on American university faculties than in any other sector of our society.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  98. Great article, and true, I think… I can’t remember Brave New World, but re-read 1984 not many years ago and found it totally devastating.

    And who can forget the Prophet himself’s ‘Ultimate Revolution’ (as in ‘the last one that will ever be needed’, as they’re all started at the ‘top’) speech at Berkeley the year before he died (truly one of the most shocking things to hear from the horse’s mouth imaginable–truly, drugs are the answer!):

  99. Miro23 says:
    @Anon

    Agreed – Enjoy Duck Soup World. Satire morphs into elite tyranny.

  100. Miro23 says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Latterly the Frankfurt School relocated en masse to the U.S., where its prominent figures (e.g., Herbert Marcuse) provided the theoretical framework for feminists, homosexuals, and now the “transgendered,” in which these fringe groups of the professionally aggrieved replace the plain old working class as the putative victims of capitalism (and potential footsoldiers of the revolution against it). See for example Eros and Civilization.

    Agreed. Quite right.

  101. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @A Bit Sandy

    And perhaps Victor Klemperer (Language of the Third Reich) should be referenced in connection to Orwell and 1984.

    • Replies: @A Bit Sandy
  102. lavoisier says: • Website

    I would have to go with Orwell, but it was an interesting contrast of authors.

    Which author could best account for the human propensity to form collectives that are very willing to slaughter their fellow man in the name of advancing a utopian vision?

    • Replies: @El Dato
  103. Neil Postman on the differences between Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World:

    “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @El Dato
  104. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    You are as ignorant as durruti with his fatuous misunderstanding of how the British state works and worked, Words have meanings if they are to be useful in conveying correct information. Palestine was no British colony. Part of its empire yes, and intended to support British imperial interests but it is extremely unlikely that putting up a buffer to French interference in Egypt was a significant one.

    If your reference to the British purpose being colonialism was a reference to the settlement of Jews in Palestine that too is a bit hard to reconcile with the limitations that the British sought to uphold.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  105. @Anon

    And perhaps Victor Klemperer (Language of the Third Reich) should be referenced in connection to Orwell and 1984.

    What a wonderful book that is. If anyone wonders if the neo-cons have a linguistics manual, “The Language of the Third Reich” is surely it. Rumsfeld probably had it on his nightstand. Where better to find a ready-made euphemisms for torture like “enhanced interrogation” (Verschärfte Vernehmung). Klemperer couldn’t include the retronym “kinetic operation” as a euphemsim for “violent and indiscriminate butchery via explosives” but he surely would have approved. Interestingly, Klemperer was the son of a Rabbi who converted to Protestantism to advance his academic career in his 30′s, and spend the postwar period in the communist party.

    The irony of the neocons coopting much of the language of the Third Reich for their own media propaganda really is astonishing when you think about it.

    • Replies: @Anon
  106. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @A Bit Sandy

    Klemperer also pointed out in his book that the nazis introduced the phrase ‘ultimate victory’ when they failed to take Moscow, December 1941. The phrase was used unchanged through the rest of the war. He said he knew, as a philologist, that at that point the nazis knew they couldn’t win. The NLP crowd would know what he was talking about.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  107. Durruti says:
    @S

    “It has been in many high schools, though I could see how in the future it might be banned as ‘hate literature’ as it strikes too close to home.”

    Orwell’s 1984 was used during the cold-war years (1950-80s) as a tool to attack the Soviet Union (& by translation), to brainwash American students on the superiority of America’s capitalist system. The book was introduced in class – by the teacher saying that it was a criticism of Communism. The teacher was expected to channel the teen age students to understand Orwell (in a particular propagandistic way). The students were led down a cold-war path.

    After the disintegration of the Marxist socialist movement, Orwell’s critique of Totalitarian Systems became less useful, because, as you write “it strikes too close to home.” The Marxist Lemonists could no longer be utilized as a boogyman/threat. After 1990, the use of 1984, in America’s educational institutions was phased out.

    There is a parallel trajectory for the Zionist American Government’s patronizing support of Russian writer/philosopher, Solzhenitsyn. After 1990, Solzhenitsyn, and his books on the Gulag (the huge Russian prison system), were forgotten/suppressed by the Mainstream Media (as the largest Gulag on Planet Earth is that of the American Prison System – of 3 million forgotten, and often used as slave labor, humans). Solzhenitsyn’s moral lectures also ” strikes too close to home.” Russia’s great philosopher returned home, and made speeches warning his fellow Russians about the Imperialist Americans, and their lack of a Moral Compass.

    I was obliged to utilize these writers Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, Tolstoy, Locke, Jefferson, Twain, in my classes, as few of my students had read these books in High School.

    Restore Our Republic!

  108. peterAUS says:
    @MisesRevived

    “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”.

    Good quote. Looks like, from personal observation, we have a mix of, say, 20/80 of that. Actually, without Internet it would be pretty much almost other way around.
    I remember being able to get a book from a public library 40 years ago and now have hard time finding that same book even on the Internet.
    I guess TPTBs simply took the best from both authors and made it work.

  109. Durruti says:
    @A Bit Sandy

    Brilliant.

    Nothing like actually reading the books.

  110. @c matt

    If prognostication is the goal, Camp of the Saints has them both beat.

    I haven’t read Camp of the Saints, but I enjoyed both Brave New World and 1984 immensely, so I decided to Google it. I was interested to find that it was published in 1973 amid a bit of controversy, but made the a resurgence to the bestseller list in France in 2011.

    Strangely, when I went to Amazon to buy a copy to see what all the fuss is about, I found that although there is a Kindle edition, it is currently not for sale. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before. How can an epub version not be available for sale; did they run out of electrons? Ironically, It looks a bit like Amazon has banned a French dystopian novel, which strikes me as downright Orwellian!

    Now I guess I have no choice but to buy it out of curiosity, and just on principle.

  111. S says:

    It’s free online at the link below. It’s a good read.

    Wouldn’t be surprised to see it banned in the future along with titles such as Brave New World, 1984, and Farenheit 451, to use a newspeak like term, as ‘hatelit’…ie hate literature.

    So best read it as soon as you can. ;-)

    https://archive.org/stream/CampOfTheSaints_201510/Camp_of_the_Saints _djvu.txt

  112. Excal says:
    @Kirt

    Orwell reviewed That Hideous Strength for the Manchester Evening News in 1945: search for ‘lewisiana orwell’. He recommended it.

    1984 was published in 1949, so Orwell may well have been influenced by That Hideous Strength a bit.

    I disagree with Orwell’s opinion that the atmosphere is The Man Who Was Thursday, however. Lewis wrote That Hideous Strength after he — to Tolkein’s lasting disgust — had fallen under the spell of Charles Williams, and readers of Williams will easily recognise those distinctive elements. This is one reason it is so different in tone from the first two Space Trilogy novels.

  113. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Thanks Friendly NT, I fully support your wisdom here. The BS left definition abused by USA is just malicious and stupid and entirely self serving of the great lie. It is Orwell itself. Go well on your journey.

  114. El Dato says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    The best take I have ever read on the book:

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4668-the-60th-anniversary-of-orwell-s-1984

    As we shall see, 1984 is, in fact, not a vilification of the Soviet dictator Stalin. Nor was the title chosen by reversing the final two digits of the year in which the book was written. Rather, the book is satire of the highest order written against Fabian socialists. They are the breed of English socialists seeking to reform the British economic system, favoring public ownership of the means of production. They also favor state-controlled schools, nationalization of land ownership, and the welfare state. Their foreign policy is internationalist. Orwell wrote his powerful satire to show how Fabian socialism could reform the world until it resembled Stalin’s Soviet Union, even if it took 100 years. Moreover, Orwell’s scenario is chock full of “predictions” — 137 of them — that describe the daily life of citizens in Anglo-America living in a socialist state modeled after the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin.

    How legions of 1984 experts fail to decipher these basic truths remains a mystery even now, 60 years since Orwell’s masterpiece burst on the scene in Britain and America.

    Orwell foresaw how the coming generations of younger Fabians building on the precedent of universal healthcare would employ the emergent welfare state, then, bloated by obedient Left intellectuals intent on increasing governmental power, could become dictatorial. In 1984, instead of bringing the promised peace, truth, love, and plenty, new Fabians would construct enormous ministries devoted to war, deceit, and hatred. In secret, this future generation of Fabians would create shortages, and use fears engendered by the shortages to impose Draconian governmental controls.

    Totally predicting the rise of Blairism and the decay into anarcho-tyranny as it now exists.

  115. El Dato says:

    Someone from the New York times is cited:

    And yet [Huxley's] novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now, especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment, than does Orwell’s more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North Korea. Or it did until Donald Trump was inaugurated.

    There is no daylight between Clinton Morning Glory in America Part II, and the subsequent ascendance of Evil Orange.

    (Let’s say that things began to become very ominous when Red Fringe wanted to censor the Internet and Blue Fringe was talking about Clipper chips, at the times of the X Files. That’s an enormous amount of history to memoryhole, but Yes We Can!)

  116. El Dato says:
    @MisesRevived

    Fuck that, I have stuff on Netflix to watch.

  117. El Dato says:
    @Anon

    U.S. warns Iran will create a new ISIS, adding that “we have no better partner” than Saudi Arabia to stop it

    Krugman (a soi-disant economist) desiring Alien Invasion to implement more Keynesianism comes to mind.

    These people are toxic jokes and should be removed from premises.

    • Agree: Jett Rucker
  118. El Dato says:
    @lavoisier

    None of them.

    Both says that you need an elite, which can be quite small, to engineer a potentially stable society, either one based on chaos & acceptance (where what people believe is at odds of what they do, and see – but everyone sits tight in his little corner) or managed acceptance (where people are actually cogged into a working whole, although one that has no higher purpose except to exist).

    Orwell’s World is unstable and eating itself. Huxley’s world quite possibly not. It could be a society that runs itself, self-correcting, until an asteroid strikes. Maybe Chinese colleagues could say something about this?

    There is also Yevgeny Zamyatin’s “WE” which seems to have been forgotten:

    https://mises.org/library/totalitarianism-and-politics-sex

    Sterling notes that the author, who had been an ardent Bolshevik supporter, was crushed by Stalin; Zamyatin died poor and unheralded in 1937. Zamyatin’s book was the first to be banned by the newly created censorship board. We was never even published in Russia until near the fall of the wall, in 1988. The story of the “cruel descent of the Bolshevik rebellion into frozen dogma and totalitarian stasis” only made its rounds in his homeland as a tattered manuscript passed from hand to hand. The first publication in English in 1924 was the version that made its way into the imaginations of Rand, Orwell, and Huxley.

    Zamyatin would probably be amused to know that his codifications, supercharged brevity, and syllogisms have combined to make We the “second most studied Russian novel of the twentieth century among Western scholars.” But he would be downright enchanted to know that his own embrace of revolution and human action over entropy is uncannily relevant today.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  119. ariadna says:
    @Colin Liddell

    @Colin Liddell:
    “I wrote about this in some detail here:
    ALT-RIGHT LIES: RUSSIAN REVOLUTION NOT ACTUALLY DOMINATED BY JEWS”

    Someone who needs to have a joke explained has no sense of humor. Not my case. I thoroughly enjoyed your one-liner and did not click on the link, which would have spoiled the effect.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  120. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    I read both (pursuant to an assignment) while still a high-school student. Negative utopias.

    Sometime after attaining adulthood, I came to favor Orwell, though not in explicit comparison to Huxley. As I aged beyond puberty, I came to favor Orwell more and more.

    At the end of the day (we’re near the end of my days), I find Huxley, by comparison, entertaining.

    Orwell is so, so much more than entertaining. We live in his world, and evidently have most of the time at least since 1948.

  121. Both seem to have been influenced by Zamyatin’s ‘We’ and Orwell in particular by Koestler’s ‘Darkness at Noon’. Perhaps a more wide-ranging comparison would be in order.

  122. @Anon

    The turning point of WWII, for Germany, is generally seen as Stalingrad, where the German army capitulated around Januari 30 1943.
    The word Endsieg (here translated as ultimate victory), if it was just propaganda or indeed hope, difficult to judge.
    Hitler knew quite well that all war coalitions fall apart at some point in time.
    Had there not been a flying boat accident in Scotland in 1943 it is possible that war between Germany and Great Britain would have ended in 1943.
    Stalin was suspicious about Britain, or even Britain and the USA, concluding a separate peace with Germany.
    Then there was the Japanese promise to attack the USSR, IF Hitler took Moscow and was at the Volga: Stalingrad.
    There were the new weapons, the V2, the jet fighter or -bomber, and the hydrogen bomb.
    Far too late in the war Hitler realised the potential of the V2, even later, it seems, of the hydrogen bomb.
    About the allied coalition falling apart, tensions between Stalin and FDR, even more with Churchill, existed all during the war.
    The 1948 Berlin blockade was what Hitler had hoped for, but for him it was too late.
    About war production, USA production in fact just existed in 1943, 1944 was the year of the highest German war production.

    • Replies: @Anon
  123. @ariadna

    The Russian revolution was early in 1917, it brought a democratic government, Kerenski prime minister.
    What is commonly called Russian revolution was not a revolution, but a coup by Bolsjewists (translation: minority), led by Lenin, at the end of 1917.
    Lenin was brought by the Germans from Switzerland, through Germany, to Sweden, I think, from where he went to Petersburg.
    The German object was to end the war on the eastern front.
    Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, ‘Lenin’, 1998, 2001, New York
    John W Wheeler-Bennett, ‘Brest-Litovsk, The forgotten peace, March 1918’, 1938, 1963, London
    The coup was against the Mensjewiks (majority), of the communists.
    These Bolsjewists were mainly jews, I recently read somewhere, never saw it before, that Lenin also was a jew.
    So
    ALT-RIGHT LIES: RUSSIAN REVOLUTION NOT ACTUALLY DOMINATED BY JEWS, is correct in fact, not a lie.
    If Alt-Right meant it this way, I do not know.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  124. @Anon

    ” Palestine was no British colony. Part of its empire yes, and intended to support British imperial interests but it is extremely unlikely that putting up a buffer to French interference in Egypt was a significant one. ”
    No idea, it seems, about the struggle between France and GB over control of the Suez canal.
    It began with Napoleon
    Jean-Joël Brégon, ´L’Egypte de Bonaparte’, Paris, 1991, 2006
    Thankmar Freiherr von Münchhausen, ‘Mameluken, Paschas und Fellachen, Berichte aus dem Reich Mohammed Alis 1810 – 1849′, 1982, Tübingen
    How foreign diplomats tried to get influence in Egypt, and how Mohammed Alis understood quite well that the very existence of the Suez Canal would be the end of independent Egypt.
    Sykes and Picott in 1916 had divided the ME between France and GB, French influence until Egypt.
    The British loved jewish support to take Palestine away from France.
    France was the militarily threatened country in 1917, so France had to accept the Balfour declaration, and with this the GB mandate.
    GB never intended to create a jewish state in Palestine.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  125. @jilles dykstra

    You might have a point, but you spoiled it. Bolsheviks mean “majority”, whereas Menshevik meant “minority”. “Bolshe” means more in Russian, whereas “menshe” means less.

  126. lavoisier says: • Website
    @El Dato

    Interesting. Would love to read the book.

  127. fish says:
    @Truth

    Idiocracy is pretty good prescient too; especially the part about president Camacho, who, by the way, and rather incredibly, most of you voted for two years ago.

    Troofy, Troofy, Trophy…… Idiocracy is pretty good prescient too (nice sentence structure)…..it’s only mistake is not recognizing that President Camacho would really have to be based on Mrs. Obama. The arms…the arms…..burrito coverings…..and Gorbachev sings, Tractors, Turnips, Buttocks.

    • Replies: @Truth
  128. Anon[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Would you be so kind as to consider employing an editor who would spare your readers the anachronistic nonsense about hydrogen bombs or just a proof reader to fix up your garbled last sentence.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  129. Anonymous[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Presumably you clicked on the button for a Reply – but is there actually a point in that flow of verbal diarrhea? Your valiant effort to make Napoleon relevant falls a bit short.

  130. Tony M says:

    On the subject of censoring books, archive.org now appear to be censoring certain pdf ebooks by pre-prending a block consisting mainly of 00 nul bytes at their beginning. In the example below, the file should begin with %PDF-1.2. It is necessary to strip these additions off or the file type is not identified by software which uses file ‘magic’ to identify the type of file (rather than just the .pdf extension) and pdf readers/viewers will not open them. I’ve found this happening with books by Michael Collins Piper, Jurgen Graf and several others, so you can probably guess the subject matter affected. I can’t think of any other explanation than clumsy censorship.

    https://postimg.cc/3k253nPL

    Orwell wins hands down and it was contemporary late-1940s Britain he viewed in such a dim light, the Ministry of Truth was almost certainly the BBC where he had worked through WW2; then perhaps not so much but today the BBC News and Current Affairs output just provokes derision and laughter so dishonest and blatantly propangandist is its output.

    Orwell expected imminent nuclear armageddon and wrote the book 1984 in a remote cottage on the Island of Jura off the west coast of Scotland where he grew vegetables, planted fruit bushes and hoped to ride out the coming war, of course at that time the UK had not yet any nuclear weapons, but neither did the USSR though their penetration of the Manhattan project was so complete that it had to be considered they soon would have.

    This location (Jura) was an unwise choice as after London and the industrial midlands of England, nearby Glasgow with its heavy engineering and shipyards such as John Brown’s which had built the liners the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the D-Day Mulberry Harbours, was a prime target as it had been during WW2. In March 1941 heavy German raids on two consecutive nights by over 250 bombers each time largely missed their industrial targets and most bombs fell on the small densely populated working-class town of Clydebank; out of the the towns 12,000 dwellings 4300 were completely destroyed and only 7 did not suffer some damage. The death toll of 527 killed and 627 seriously injured in Clydebank alone (more than 1200 were killed across NW Glasgow those nights), exceeded that of Coventry a few months before. It was the worst bombing raid in all of Britain in all of ww2, all covered up by the Orwellian (but real) Ministry of Information, these events still being actively censored as late as 1971.

  131. Kingfelix says:

    There is no way to read Orwell as right-wing, though one can claim that his portrayal of being oppressed speaks to someone who feels oppressed, of whatever political persuasion. But all the things that make the alt-right the alt-right are completely at odds with Orwell’s principles, values, beliefs.

  132. @Anon

    If there is something too difficult for you please ask me to explain.
    But I must admit, if you’re referring to the Russian revolution sentence, careful reading is necesary.

    The German hydrogen bomb was almost operational in March or so 1945.
    In Prague two converted bombers were ready to fly the first one to the Ural hydro electric works in order to stop USSR tank production.
    The bomb was a sphere,about one metre in diametre.

    Rudel, Germany’s best pilot, famous for his destruction of scores of Russian tanks by a Stuka equipped with anti tank cannon, was to fly the bomb to the Ural.
    Rudel already mentions the bomb, he called it atomic bomb, in a book published in 1956.
    But, as anybody knew, there was no project as the USA Manhattan project, 30.000 people, in Germany.
    Western hydrogen bombs are primed by atomic fusion to attain the necessary high pressure and temperature for hydrogen fusion.

    Nobody considered it possible that these temperatures and pressures necessary for hydrogen fusion could be attained with conventional explosives, by a team of just three scientists, one of them a jew.
    Hitler desperately fought on until the last moment in the hope that the hydrogen bomb, delivered by the V2, could change the war at the last moment.
    If this was Hitler’s intention, I do not know, but I wonder what two hydrogen bombs on London, nearly as destructiveas the Hirosjima and Nagasaki bombs, would have had for effect.

    Rainer Karlsch, ‘Hitlers Bom, Hoe Nazi-Duitsland nucleaire wapens testte in een wanhopige poging om de oorlog te winnen, Tielt, 2005 (Hitlers Bombe, München)
    Walter Dornberger, Peenemünde, Die Geschichte der V-Waffen, Esslingen 1981, 2003
    Hans-Ulrich Rudel, ´Mein Kriegstagebuch, Aufzeichnungen eines Stukafliegers’, 1983, 2006 Dresden

  133. Truth says:
    @fish

    And Presidential behavior! Which is what we remember Camacho’s character for. Who does that remind you of?

    Oh wait, that makes too much sense. never mind.

  134. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Kafka, the true prophet. In contrast, Huxley and Orwell were satirists.

  135. Tony M says:

    I came across this brilliant review by a peer and confidante of Orwell (Isaac Deutscher) which powerfully makes the case that both Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984 have a common root in Evgenii Zamyatin’s We. Orwell himself is quoted commenting that Huxley’s work ‘must be partly derived’ from Zamyatin’s. The parallels in some plot and character elements in Orwell’s work, are so astonishing as to suggest plagiarism or homage.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/deutscher/1955/1984.htm

    Well worth a read.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.