[–] dulcima 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thanks for posting this.

[–] Bad-R0nald [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I really like the last 2 paragraphs:

As we approach the maelstrom of a US presidential election, we are certain to see a lot of what Orwell described as nationalistic thinking across the mainstream media, blogs, YouTube, and Twitter. It is very easy to find examples among those with whom we disagree. It is harder to find them among those with whom we agree. And it is hardest of all to find them within ourselves. But, to co-opt Paul’s letter to the Romans, we deceive ourselves if we think we are without sin when it comes to perfectly rational thinking. The challenge is to recognise that “nationalistic” prejudices are wired into our brains. They are efficient and comfortable and help us to fit in, but they can cloud our thinking by making us either hyper-critical or wilfully blind. As Orwell wrote, we must make allowance for the “inevitable bias.”

So the next time you invoke Nineteen Eighty-Four to accuse an opponent of doublethink, pause and consider if you’ve taken the advice of its author and examined and acknowledged your own nationalistic biases. It is, as Orwell said, an effort, but at least we can try.

[–] Sir_Ebral 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Orwell was a kikesucker who was informed by the jews of their plans so that he could write a book.

he attended meetings of the Communist Party and of Oswald Mosley ("his speech the usual claptrap—The blame for everything was put upon mysterious international gangs of Jews") where he saw the tactics of the Blackshirts ("...one is liable to get both a hammering and a fine for asking a question which Mosley finds it difficult to answer.").[62]

It's called predictive programming, and it follows the jewish "law" of always "warning" your enemies before you strike, even if they don't understand that warning.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Antisemitism_in_Britain_(1945)

there is no real Jewish “problem” in England. The Jews are not numerous or powerful enough, and it is only in what are loosely called “intellectual circles” that they have any noticeable influence.

above a certain intellectual level people are ashamed of being antisemitic and are careful to draw a distinction between “antisemitism” and “disliking Jews”

antisemitism is an irrational thing. The Jews are accused of specific offences (for instance, bad behaviour in food queues) which the person speaking feels strongly about, but it is obvious that these accusations merely rationalise some deep-rooted prejudice

A minority of the refugees behaved in an exceedingly tactless way, and the feeling against them necessarily had an antisemitic undercurrent, since they were largely Jews.

I have already indicated that I believe antisemitism to be essentially a neurosis, but of course it has its rationalisations, which are sincerely believed in and are partly true. The rationalisation put forward by the common man is that the Jew is an exploiter.

antisemitism is rationalised by saying that the Jew is a person who spreads disaffection and weakens national morale

Bonus quotes on Nationalism:

By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By "patriotism" I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception.

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.

However,

Orwell was a smart man, though misled in many ways. Here's a quote from him regarding misuse of language:

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable". The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.


And importantly, he said:

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.