George Orwell Blogs From the Grave

flaming error writes to tell us the Orwell Prize organization will, starting today, post George Orwell's diary entries online exactly 70 years after they were written. NPR discussed the blog and shared excerpts from the diary. We talked about a similar undertaking several years ago, when a diary from 1660 was put online. According to the blog's creators, it will allow you to "follow Orwell's recuperation in Morocco, his return to the UK, and his opinions on the descent of Europe into war in real time. The diaries end in 1942, three years into the conflict."

Comments

Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Animats]

If all you've read is "1984", you don't realize what a great commentator he was.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Red Samurai]

Very true. His essays and political commentary are some of the best I've ever read, and still hold great relevance today. I recommend them to anyone who isn't already familiar. That said, I'm looking forward to reading these diary entries.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Hal_Porter]

You can read some of them here

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/index_en

This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

(v) Pacifism. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[gregbot9000]

Best one: Politics and the English language, should be required reading for all English classes.

These journals as blogs are neat, but I hate it when the people posting it in the present step in with a post of their own every few days, really breaks the illusion. On the whole, these are great ways to read journals I'd never pickup as a solid book. Theres another one that follows a WW1 soldier but it sucks.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[shma]

If all you've read is "1984", you don't realize what a great commentator he was.

But there's nothing stopping you from finding out.

I personally recommend his Notes on Nationalism

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

His name is Eric Blair. Let's stop perpetuating the wrong name shall we?

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[pha7boy]

I always found Orwell to be a visionary. Not like Nostradamus, but in a specific way - of attracting attention to the possible undercurrents of events and their consequences. I look forward to seeing what he recorded as his personal thoughts.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, he wanted to be known by that name, moron.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Boronx]

This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read

Why?

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

George Orwell was his pen name just as Mark Twain was the pen name of Samuel Clemens. The nom de plume has a long history. Try and keep up.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[ArcherB]

This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read

Why?

I thought that was perfectly clear when he quoted:

...Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States...

How many times a day to read on /. someone saying something like, "Iran has a right to the bomb" or "US invades countries. Hitler invaded countries. Coincidence?" or my favorite, "Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!". That moral equivalency bullshit is exactly what Orwell is calling out here.

Any time the US gov't does things that /.'ers don't like, they start screaming Big Brother. Orwell wrote 1984 (where the Big Brother references come from). I think the GP used this quote to explain how Orwell feels about pacifists or the blame America first crowd.

What's not to understand?

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Myrddin Wyllt]

And while we're at it, everybody get a magic marker and 'correct' your record collection to read

• Vincent Furnier
• Declan McManus
• Marc Feld
• Robert Zimmerman
• Marvin Lee Aday

They're not 'wrong' names, they're noms de plume, there is a difference.
(Free virtual coconut to anyone who gets them all without looking them up)

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[sharperguy]

Actually, all IÂread was Animal Farm. I'll heed the advice though.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[ArcherB]

This is something a lot of slashdotters really need to read

Why?

Maybe this one will help explain it better:

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.

Now, apply that to today. If you haven't figured it out yet replace "fascist" with "terrorist", "Germany and Japan" with "Al Qaeda and Iran" and "freedom station" with "ANSWER", "MoveOn.org", "Code Pink" or "CAIR". Also, pay close attention to "he that is not with me is against me". Where have I heard that before? (and don't say 'Revenge of the Sith"!)

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Boronx]

How many times a day to read on /. someone saying something like, "Iran has a right to the bomb" or "US invades countries. Hitler invaded countries. Coincidence?" or my favorite, "Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!". That moral equivalency bullshit is exactly what Orwell is calling out here.

In the passage quoted, he is calling out fascist sympathizers feigning pacifism as a means to an end of selling their country. He does elsewhere callout true pacifists as "objectively pro fascist", but later renounced that thinking as Stalinist, which it is.

British pacifists were clearly misguided IMHO, but were German pacifists in '38 and '40, not to mention '14? Their views were suppressed too, should we applaud that?

"Terrorists kill civilians. So does the US!".

What else makes a terrorist evil? I suppose torture and kidnapping, but the US does that too.

If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort. Bush and bin-Laden are both mass murdering war criminals that should be brought to justice, using force if necessary, and tried for their crimes.

You'll note there is no moral dimension to Orwell's argument, he's point is about patriotism and putting your country before your ideals or your political fantasies. In this situation, where the US is not faced by an existential by a superior military force bent on its destruction, but is instead waging an unprovoked war of aggression, it's the closet fascists in the pro-Iraq war faction that have (this time successfully) betrayed their country.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Boronx]

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.

Orwell later wrote his regrets about that bit.

If you haven't figured it out yet replace "fascist" with "terrorist", "Germany and Japan" with "Al Qaeda and Iran"

Why would anyone do something so ridiculous? This is exactly the kind of muddled thinking of which Orwell correctly accused pacifists in his day.

There were German pacifists in 1914 and 1939. Should we applaud their suppression the same as we do the British pacifists?

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[zullnero]

Replacing one word with another without taking into account the differences in definition between the two is completely ignorant.

What I'm gathering you're trying to say, however, is that in the US, the attempt to repress the struggle between two sides by way of the so called "War on Terror" is Orwell's definition of pacifism. Therefore, you are likening Bush to Hitler as a result of his stating on numerous occasions that if "you're not with me, you're against me".

As far as "moveon.org" goes, it's a freaking social club for Democrats. That's all it is. They have bake sales to raise money to put ads defending their candidates on the TV. The Republicans have lots of those organizations too. One of them is called "Freedom's Watch". Now THOSE are some creepy dudes, and their name sounds like it was taken directly from another certain black arm band wearing militia. Code Pink has a dramatic name, but their reasoning is that they believe the Iraq War to be an illegal and Unconstitutional occupation that is causing the deaths of US soldiers for entirely unclear, vague reasons. And they have plenty of evidence to back up that claim that the Bush Administration cannot refute. ANSWER? CAIR? All more of the above.

Oh yeah, and Orwell was an admitted Socialist as well. Check out Road to Wigan Pier. Ayn Rand hated him, you know. And the Bushies LOVE their Ayn Rand.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Funny how easy it is to mischaracterize your opponent's position, find an Orwell quote that condemns it, and believe yourself to be an intellectual.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Skreems]

The problem is, the interpretation of that passage out of context seems to lead to the logical fallacy that opposition to one cause automatically equates to support of ANY cause which opposes the same thing. However, it's entirely possible to be both anti-Britain and anti-Germany, to use an example from the quote. It's tantamount to claiming that there are only two possible sides to any conflict, which is obviously false as any reasonably intelligent person can always construct a new viewpoint that stands in support or opposition of both sides.

Besides which, the man's other writing clearly displayed a realization of the consequences of this kind of "with us or against us" thinking, and it was not a bright world that he saw emerging from that sentiment.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[ArcherB]

Thank you! That is one of the finest examples of the moral equivalence bullshit arguments I was talking about.

What else makes a terrorist evil? I suppose torture and kidnapping, but the US does that too.

So, you equate the capture and interrogation of combatants to the kidnapping, torture and beheading of civilians, journalists and aid workers?
How many captured terrorists have been executed by the US? How many by the terrorists (I can list two by NAME!)? Like I said, perfect example.

If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort. Bush and bin-Laden are both mass murdering war criminals that should be brought to justice, using force if necessary, and tried for their crimes.

What you fail to consider is the target and the reaction. Bin Laden targeted civilians. He wanted to kill men, women and babies and the more, the better. When he killed 3000+, there was dancing in the streets in the Arab world.
The US, on the other hand, targets military targets exclusively. The US military actually goes out of its way to avoid civilians and even misses some targets because of it. When civilians die as a result of a US action, the US is quick to apologize.

But, I guess it's all the same to you. Intent makes no difference and the US Soldier is the same as Mohamed Atta in your eyes.

You'll note there is no moral dimension to Orwell's argument, he's point is about patriotism and putting your country before your ideals or your political fantasies. In this situation, where the US is not faced by an existential by a superior military force bent on its destruction, but is instead waging an unprovoked war of aggression, it's the closet fascists in the pro-Iraq war faction that have (this time successfully) betrayed their country.

Uh, yeah. Because the US was never attacked on 9-11. Iraq did not violate 17 UN resolutions, fire on US and NATO forces and attempt to murder a former US president. The USS Cole was never attacked and no one shot down BlackHawk helicopters that were there trying to feed the starving.

Like I said, a perfect example of the moral equivalence bullshit argument and you are exactly the type of batshit-crazy pacifists that Orwell was talking about.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, post 9/11, I wandered around muttering 'George Orwell, where are you?' - as I listened to language and reporting so slanted as to make me doubt my own sense of reality. Even regular doses of "Politics and the English Language" weren't enough to remove the sense of falling through the looking glass - but they helped.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[ArcherB]

As far as "moveon.org" goes, it's a freaking social club for Democrats. That's all it is. They have bake sales to raise money to put ads defending their candidates on the TV. The Republicans have lots of those organizations too. One of them is called "Freedom's Watch". Now THOSE are some creepy dudes, and their name sounds like it was taken directly from another certain black arm band wearing militia. Code Pink has a dramatic name, but their reasoning is that they believe the Iraq War to be an illegal and Unconstitutional occupation that is causing the deaths of US soldiers for entirely unclear, vague reasons. And they have plenty of evidence to back up that claim that the Bush Administration cannot refute. ANSWER? CAIR? All more of the above.

Of course! MoveOn and Code Pink are just active in the community holding bake sales while any equivalent group on the right are just brownshirts. Nice, open mind you have there.

What I'm gathering you're trying to say, however, is that in the US, the attempt to repress the struggle between two sides by way of the so called "War on Terror" is Orwell's definition of pacifism. Therefore, you are likening Bush to Hitler as a result of his stating on numerous occasions that if "you're not with me, you're against me".

I think his point was to berate those Americans that do things like block military supplies from entering a port. Who do you think that helps? How is blocking the supplies different from, say, sinking the ship that was carrying them in reference to the conflict?
And I'm sorry, but you have to be a complete fucking moron to not understand what he means when he says:

If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.

Sure, you can try to spin it however you want, but you are either being dishonest of just downright stupid if you think he means something he didn't say.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[KDR_11k]

All that sums up to for me is "totalitarianism is more effective at suppressing dissent (which pacifism is one form of) than democracy". Well, yeah, that's the point. Sure, dissent weakens the resolve of a nation but suppressing dissent in order to remain strong is the wrong approach. What's the point of fighting the enemy when, in order to defeat him, you become like him? What do I care if my government is seated in Berlin or Washington if it has become totalitarian in order to win the war over my country? Yes, democracy (and freedom) is a weakness but we fight* to preserve that weakness because it is only a weakness to the government and nation, not the people in it.

*=or more accurately sit in our basements writing furious posts on Slashdot about it :P

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[mvdwege]

Ah yes. The famous anti-pacifism rant Orwell published at the beginning of World War II. The one that keeps making the rounds on conservative blogs, being posted by idiots like you who have not read a letter of Orwell's other work. By posting this, you give yourself away as yet another stupid parrot.

To reiterate what someone else already posted: Orwell retracted that position. Which you would have known, if you had actually read his collected essays.

It really pains me to see how reactionary scum like you try to hide behind one of the most honest men the twentieth century gave us, without giving his memory even the respect to actually read his work. Then again, I take solace in the fact that Orwell also gives plenty of tools to identify blackshirt-supporting, Daily Mail-reading closet fascists like you.

Mart

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Matimus]

And the Bushies LOVE their Ayn Rand.

Except for the part where she was a staunch atheist. Or the part where she supported the expansion of social freedoms. Or the part where she wanted to reduce the size of the government.

You seem to be confusing Libertarians with Republicans. Not even all Libertarians are Objectivists. Most Republicans are just as likely to dislike Ayn Rand as much as most Democrats, though it may be for different reasons. It is far from love anyway.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

If this george bloke had read 1984, then I bet he would not have let people put his private diary on line.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[pnewhook]

It's not the wrong name, it's a pseudonym chosen by him.

But there are truly several wrong names in the history books, like Christopher Columbus. This is an anglicized name because Americans didn't like the idea of an Italian discovering 'their' country. His real name is Cristoforo Colombo.

And George W Bush. His real name is George Shouldabeenimpeached Bush.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Johnny Chinpo]

How can you not see the actions of the "terrorists" and the USA as morally equivalent?

The US, on the other hand, targets military targets exclusively. The US military actually goes out of its way to avoid civilians and even misses some targets because of it. When civilians die as a result of a US action, the US is quick to apologize.

Just like in the My Lai massacre? And gee, it is really big of them to apologise, as if that lets them off any moral hooks. I'm sure the wrongly killed people are up in heaven saying "gee America, that's OK that you blew me and my family to kingdom come, because you're sorry about it". I mean, as an analogy Microsoft will break the law if they gain more than they lose, likewise the US military doesn't give a shit who they target so long as all they have to do is *appear* remorseful afterwards

Now before you go getting your panties in a wad, I am not a pacifist and believe that violence can be a means to an end, but in the words of General Smedley Butler, "the only 2 things worth fighting for are our homes and the Bill of Rights". The USA military's current endeavours are nothing more than acting as enforcers for powerful financial interests. To quote the most retarded president of the USA ever "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists", well GW, I think you're BOTH insane and will fight to the death to protect myself and my family from both groups.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[ArcherB]

likewise the US military doesn't give a shit who they target so long as all they have to do is *appear* remorseful afterwards

You're knowledge of the US military appears as if it comes from Al Jazeera. As a veteran, I can tell you that you're wrong. I've seen us let targets go because civilians were present. Don't believe me? Look at how many mosques are still standing in Iraq. How many schools that were packed with ammo and AAA were not blown apart. I can honestly say that you are full of shit. You are a politically motivated, partisan hack who will say or do anything to justify your hatred of all those that think differently.

Now before you go getting your panties in a wad

Too late. I don't deal with liars well.

I am not a pacifist and believe that violence can be a means to an end, but in the words of General Smedley Butler, "the only 2 things worth fighting for are our homes and the Bill of Rights". The USA military's current endeavours are nothing more than acting as enforcers for powerful financial interests.

Yeah, we're making so money from Iraq right now that I don't have to pay taxes. And the money we're squeezing out of Afghanistan is amazing! Don't even get me started on the coin we are making from Germany and Japan! Didn't you know that Mercedes and Toyota are wholly owned by the US Govt!

To quote the most retarded president of the USA ever "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"...

And to bring this back on topic, that "retarded" president was loosely quoting Orwell. You'd know that if you were keeping up with this thread. So, was Orwell retarded too?

...well GW, I think you're BOTH insane and will fight to the death to protect myself and my family from both groups.

First, you won't need to fight to the death from GWB. However, that is the goal of the terrorists. The US Servicemen and women will, however, fight to the death to protect you. Nothing is more important to the US Serviceman or the President than protecting the lives of Americans. Second is their freedoms. Third is the lives and freedoms of innocent people around the world. It makes me sad to think that so many are so willing to bite the hands that protect them. Don't worry, if you don't want the protection, that's fine. I hear Mexico is nice this time of year. Rest assured that the second you get past Laredo, you are free from the tyranny of GWB. I'm not saying "love it or leave it", but as long as you are within these borders, you are protected, want it or not. Your only escape is to leave the country. Good luck.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[VocationalZero]

Good god. I was with you until

If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort.

So basically, you think that deliberate slaughter of civilians is somehow morally equivalent to accidentally slaughtering civilians. So it fallows that you think manslaughter is just as bad as premeditated murder?

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Boronx]

Either the attack on Iraq was accidental, the US strategy to conquer Iraq had a good chance of not killing anyone, or the civilian deaths were not accidental.

Also, the Iraqi soldiers, most of them just conscripts who weren't trying to wage war on the US, were quite deliberately targeted.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Boronx]

So, you equate the capture and interrogation of combatants to the kidnapping, torture and beheading of civilians, journalists and aid workers?

How many captured terrorists have been executed by the US? How many by the terrorists (I can list two by NAME!)? Like I said, perfect example.

Many "illegal combatants" have been murdered in US custody, all with out a fair trial to see whether they were actually guilty of the crimes for which they often weren't even accused.

The US, on the other hand, targets military targets exclusively.

That's right, the US doesn't want to kill civilians, the president merely orders actions with long range hi powered weapons that will inevitably kill thousands of men women and children.

Osama could have "regretted the loss of life, it was necessary to take out these buildings as symbols of western power" (similar reasoning was used in our Shock and Awe campaign that killed many civilians). It wouldn't have made him one bit less an evil terrorist.

But, I guess it's all the same to you. Intent makes no difference and the US Soldier is the same as Mohamed Atta in your eyes.

I saw a picture of a bomb destined for Iraq: it had "9/11 payback" scrawled on it. Such people shouldn't have this burden of decision. It's what we hired the president for.

Because the US was never attacked on 9-11.

Not by Iraq, and not by anybody who threatened US existence.

Iraq did not violate 17 UN resolutions,

Country ignores UN, stop the presses.

fire on US and NATO forces

you mean they fired on warplanes in Iraqi airspace.

and attempt to murder a former US president.

The only charge that has any merit, but all out war is probably not an appropriate retaliation.

The USS Cole was never attacked

See 9/11, same guys. This was a band of terrorists, not the wehrmacht.

and no one shot down BlackHawk helicopters that were there trying to feed the starving. These helicopters were shot down by the forces of the man the helicopters were sent to capture.

Hey, the Reichstag really burned. Archduke Ferdinand was really killed by a terrorist. Unlike the present situation, in 1914 the offending terrorists were backed by a great power, and in both 1914 and 1939, Germany was surrounded on all sides by ancient enemies with huge armies capable of wiping them out. And yet I say to you, the pacifists in Germany, though they had zero political power, were right.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Zarluk]

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning!"

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're knowledge of the US military appears as if it comes from Al Jazeera.

Oh, you mean one of the fairest, most independent and accurate news sources on the planet? Well, he must have a pretty good idea then! Probably nothing like a "serviceperson" whose single trip to a foreign country makes him the expert on what his leaders were telling him to do.

You are a politically motivated, partisan hack who will say or do anything to justify your hatred of all those that think differently.

I heard a story about a pot and a kettle, but I think it'd suit you better to just google "projection" (hint: first result, wikipedia page, psychological) and have a gander. It might open your eyes. Then again, as tightly shut as you seem to have them, you'll probably just get angry and call it bullshit.

Yeah, we're making so money from Iraq right now that I don't have to pay taxes. And the money we're squeezing out of Afghanistan is amazing!

I think it's a fair bet to say that if you were in the military, on the ground in Iraq, you probably are far from rich, and probably have nothing invested in oil or arms. Thus, you're seeing absolutely nothing of the profit from our mideast endeavors, and are being fleeced by taxes, so it obviously can't be about money. But, once again, the truth is what you see, now how it really is, right?

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Hal_Porter]

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.

Orwell later wrote his regrets about that bit.

Did he really? The nearest I can find is this

http://idiocentrism.com/orwell.htm

We are told that it is only people's objective actions that matter, and their subjective feelings are of no importance. Thus pacifists, by obstructing the war effort, are 'objectively' aiding the Nazis; and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to Fascism is irrelevant. I have been guilty of saying this myself more than once. The same argument is applied to Trotskyism. Trotskyists are often credited, at any rate by Communists, with being active and conscious agents of Hitler; but when you point out the many and obvious reasons why this is unlikely to be true, the 'objectively' line of talk is brought forward again. To criticize the Soviet Union helps Hitler: therefore 'Trotskyism is Fascism'. And when this has been established, the accusation of conscious treachery is usually repeated.

This is not only dishonest; it also carries a severe penalty with it. If you disregard people's motives, it becomes much harder to foresee their actions. For there are occasions when even the most misguided person can see the results of what he is doing. Here is a crude but quite possible illustration. A pacifist is working in some job which gives him access to important military information, and is approached by a German secret agent. In those circumstances his subjective feelings do make a difference. If he is subjectively pro-Nazi he will sell his country, and if he isn't, he won't. And situations essentially similar though less dramatic are constantly arising.

In my opinion a few pacifists are inwardly pro-Nazi, and extremist left-wing parties will inevitably contain Fascist spies. The important thing is to discover which individuals are honest and which are not, and the usual blanket accusation merely makes this more difficult. The atmosphere of hatred in which controversy is conducted blinds people to considerations of this kind. To admit that an opponent might be both honest and intelligent is felt to be intolerable. It is more immediately satisfying to shout that he is a fool or a scoundrel, or both, than to find out what he is really like. It is this habit of mind, among other things, that has made political prediction in our time so remarkably unsuccessful.

Vol. III, p. 292 ("As I Please", Tribune, Dec. 8, 1944)

He regretted the use of the word "Objectively". I can see why, it's out of character for him. That doesn't detract from the fact tha WWII English Pacifists were harming the war effort against the Nazis, whatever their subjective feelings.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Hal_Porter]

Ah yes. The famous anti-pacifism rant Orwell published at the beginning of World War II. The one that keeps making the rounds on conservative blogs, being posted by idiots like you who have not read a letter of Orwell's other work. By posting this, you give yourself away as yet another stupid parrot.

To reiterate what someone else already posted: Orwell retracted that position. Which you would have known, if you had actually read his collected essays.

It really pains me to see how reactionary scum like you try to hide behind one of the most honest men the twentieth century gave us, without giving his memory even the respect to actually read his work. Then again, I take solace in the fact that Orwell also gives plenty of tools to identify blackshirt-supporting, Daily Mail-reading closet fascists like you.

Mart

Right, because Orwell would love people who call their opponents "blackshirt-supporting, Daily Mail-reading closet fascists like you"

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are quite right, it is perfectly clear. The interesting (and very telling) thing is that you told the truth and then were called a "troll" by the Slashdot moderators. How perfectly fitting it is that this happened all while we are discussing Orwell.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[rdebath]

"echo -e 'global _start \n _start: \n mov eax, 2 \n int 80h \n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a

Now that's mean. (no I didn't run it)

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[mvdwege]

Orwell did plenty of insulting himself. Which you would have known, if you had read anything beyond the out of context quotes that make the rounds in the reactionary echo chamber.

Mart

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[mvdwege]

You cannot read. Orwell specifically mentions in the passage you quote that blanket condemnations should be avoided, and yet you apply his words to all English pacifists.

Does becoming a reactionary require a lobotomy?

Mart

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[TheRaven64]

What he said made sense in the second world war. Britain was under threat by a military force that had already conquered the rest of Europe. They only narrowly failed to invade Britain, and that was largely due to distance - Luftwaffe fighters only had enough fuel to spend a few minutes over the air of Britain while RAF fighters could spend a lot longer (and refuel and be back up in the fight quickly), and both sides only had enough ammunition for around 16 seconds of sustained fire (but, again, the RAF could land and reload). The military didn't have the resources it needed to play a defensive part well (as you can see even now by all of the buildings that were replaced after the bombings), and certainly didn't have the ability to fight back effectively.

A pacifist at that time was someone who confused peace with surrender. It is not respect for life when you refuse to fight someone who intends to kill millions more people. If Britain had surrendered to Germany then most of our infrastructure would have survived, but a lot of our population would not. Turing would probably have been sent of to the camps for homosexuality and we wouldn't be having this debate on Slashdot now.

People who argue against the war in Iraq do so because Iraq was not a threat to the US and was likely not a significant threat to anyone else. They do so because the invasion has cost a lot of lives (many of them civilian), has almost bankrupted the US economy and placed it even more under the control of a country that really is a threat - China.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

SUCH AS THE PRESENT ONE.

You really are a humungous fucking idiot if you think WW2 is even remotely comparable to the war on terrorism, or even the occupation of Iraq. Chances are, though, you're just a great big troll. In which case, well done! Your finely crafted stupidities have provoked me into replying.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[WGFCrafty]

There were German pacifists in 1914 and 1939. Should we applaud their suppression the same as we do the British pacifists?

It depends on what you believe:

I appeal for cessation of hostilities ... because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans. The only difference is that perhaps yours are not as thorough as the Germans ... I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way, worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or ... with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them ... I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty's Government, should they consider them of any practical use in advancing the object of my appeal.

* "To Every Briton" (1940)

-Mohandas K. Gandhi

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[VocationalZero]

Perhaps not accidental, but definitely unintentional. Nice try, though.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[kalirion]

So basically, you think that deliberate slaughter of civilians is somehow morally equivalent to accidentally slaughtering civilians. So it fallows that you think manslaughter is just as bad as premeditated murder?

Let me know next time the FBI decides to bomb a Los Angeles apartment complex because they heard a mafia boss might be using one of the rooms as a hideout.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[VocationalZero]

See: criminally negligent homicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminally_negligent
And attempted murder for trying to kill the boss.What they did is inexcusable, and should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but its not like the courts in ANY country are perfect. So, did you lose someone, or are you just a sensationalist attention addict, a bleeding heart, or a troll?

tldr: Arguing that the laws are broken in concept is stupid (in this case), argue against corrupt judges and defense lawyers.

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're knowledge of the US military

"Your".

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

His name is Eric Blair

"was".

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[kalirion]

Ok then you agree that while the terrorists are guilty of premeditated murder, the air force is guilty of criminally negligent homicide and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law whenever they bomb a suspected terrorist gathering spot in a residential area?

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[VocationalZero]

Are you serious? Are you just doing this for the attention? Your arguments are getting less and less logical.

There's a difference between collateral damage and negligent homicide. It's called reason.

Too complicated? Let me break it down for you:
Acting on intelligence, using precision-guided bombs to eliminate (perceived) terrorist threat: OK.
Bombing an apartment building where a suspected mafia boss is, without evacuating residents: NOT OK.
What set you off anyways?

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[kalirion]

All right then, lets make things more "even" for you. If the "perceived" terrorist threat was in a Manhattan apartment complex, would it be OK to use precision-guided bombs to eliminate it?

Re:Great! Orwell is always worth reading.

[VocationalZero]

Wow. Apparently "reason" and "acting on intelligence" are beyond your comprehension. That you bring up bombing apartments also demonstrates how little you actually know about the subject.
Official US policy dictates that civilian occupied apartments are subject to ground-based raids, not aerial bombardment. Same goes for hospitals, schools, etc etc. In fact, they pretty much wont bomb anything without seemingly viable intelligence that the target is hostile.

What makes you think that bombing civilian occupied apartment complexes ANYWHERE is OK?

Anne Frank?

[dotancohen]

I'd really like to see this done with Anne Frank as well. I've actually suspected that this would be done with a nice round number of years since the events, such as 100 years later.

Re:Anne Frank?

[vrmlguy]

I've actually suspected that this would be done with a nice round number of years since the events, such as 100 years later.

Actually, you's probably want a multiple of 28 years, so that the days of the week line up. For a short period of time, a multiple of 7 is probably OK, but if you pass over any leap years, they'll throw things off.

Re:Anne Frank?

[__aailrp9629]

Actually, you's probably want a multiple of 28 years, so that the days of the week line up. For a short period of time, a multiple of 7 is probably OK, but if you pass over any leap years, they'll throw things off.

That works fine for 28/56/84 year "anniversaries" but once you cross 100 things start getting wonky, especially once you cross 1582 (the year).

Re:Anne Frank?

[LordOfTheNoobs]

So, assuming I repost her diaries, I should think again before casually time traveling to before 1582 and ignorantly expecting the days to line up appropriately?

Re:Anne Frank?

[Myrddin Wyllt]

That works fine for 28/56/84 year "anniversaries" but once you cross 100 things start getting wonky, especially once you cross 1582 (the year).

You early adopters can get off my lawn. I (and the *nix 'cal' program) didn't go Gregorian until September 1752.

Re:Anne Frank?

[dotancohen]

Actually, you's probably want a multiple of 28 years, so that the days of the week line up. For a short period of time, a multiple of 7 is probably OK, but if you pass over any leap years, they'll throw things off.

That works fine for 28/56/84 year "anniversaries" but once you cross 100 things start getting wonky, especially once you cross 1582 (the year).

So we were lucky that 2000 was a leap year? (happens once every 400 years).

Re:Anne Frank?

[__aailrp9629]

Sure 2000 was, but 1900 wasn't, and that's 112 years ago.

Re:Anne Frank?

[tehcyder]

I (and the *nix 'cal' program) didn't go Gregorian until September 1752

I had no idea Unix was 250 years old.

Excerpt from diary from grave

[Anonymous Coward]

August 9th

Dear diary,
Braaaaaaaaiiins!

George.

long diary

[Aggrav8d]

Wait, the diary was from 1660, but ends in 1942? Tell me we've sequenced his DNA and found out how he lived that long. I don't think I'm going to get through the whole thing if I read just one entry a day.

Re:long diary

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFS - Read the Fucking Summary!

Re:long diary

[maxume]

Are you sure you would get anything out of reading any of the entries?

Re:long diary

[dyefade]

Troll? Please mod parent up, made me laugh after reading Aggrav8d's comment and feeling annoyed.

Re:long diary

[pha7boy]

That's not a troll; that's funny :)

Headline

[Godji]

This is good news, reported in a good story, but the headline must be the single dubmest headline. Ever. Not only on Slashdot, mind you. Ever.

Re:Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm just going to point out the irony of the dubmest now and kill the suspense.

I agree that calling it blogging from beyond the grave was rather....foxnews/msnbc however.

Re:Headline

[ari_j]

You seem to be pretty new here. The standard for "dumbest headline ever" is very, very high.

Re:Headline

[Godji]

Dare to suggest a dumber headline then?

Re:Headline

[unfunnyguy]

God sues Apple.

Richard Stallman shaves.

Twitter found murdered by M$ agents.

Duke Nukem Forever released.

Slashdot named dating site of the year.

Bill Gates reveals he is the Goatse guy.

Re:Headline

[legirons]

Dare to suggest a dumber headline then?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/01/virgin_goes_down_on_clients/

Re: headline

[Anonymous Coward]

*No, he doesn't.*

Re:Headline

[Johnny Chinpo]

he said "dubmest", not "dumbest". There is a difference.

Re:Headline

[Johnny Chinpo]

those aren't dumb, just highly unlikely.

Re:Headline

[TheRaven64]

Slashdot named dating site of the year.

Since April the first, I've found Slashdot to be regularly advertising some Russian dating site. It took me a month to realise that it wasn't an April Fools joke that someone had forgotten to take down.

Re:Headline

[tehcyder]

This is good news, reported in a good story, but the headline must be the single dubmest headline. Ever. Not only on Slashdot, mind you. Ever.

Good work on misspelling "dumbest" there!

Really?

[aerthling]

I think most people would prefer to have the entire diary available to download in one lump sum rather than having bits and pieces rationed out at intervals. I know I certainly would.

I think it's wonderful that they're publishing them, but imho the format is idiotic.

Yes, but...

[SilentBob0727]

How good will he be about responding to comments?

Re:Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very.

one paragraph only for today. next one tomorrow.

[A_Lost_Frenchman]

George Orwell was a very good writer but honestly the whole "real time" idea feels weak.
Reading the story one paragraph a day for four years doesn't make it more interesting...or does it ?
__
just passing through

2012 anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't know if you've noticed, but those entries end in the middle of the second world war, 1942, probably at it's worst point. now, 70 years later would be somewhere in 2012. there's a lot of doomsday theories about that year, and it's interesting that stories from a time of death and misery would be told... in a time of, supposedly, death and misery.

Tuesday

[Ghubi]

In 1938 (year the diary starts) August 9th was a Tuesday.

Re:Tuesday

[ColaMan]

Of course,Tuesday. I could never get the hang of Tuesdays.

Pretty Good, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty good but his writing isn't what it used to be.

See comment #24538039
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=641075&cid=24538039

You know, Dude, I myself dabbled in pacifism once.

[notdotcom.com]

"You know, Dude, I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Not in 'Nam of course." -Walter Sobchak, The Big Lebowski

There's a film available

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a film of Anne Frank's Diary on Youtube.

Re:one paragraph only for today. next one tomorrow

[damburger]

It is a good idea, by reporting the events at the pace they really happened you get a more immersive experience. You can breeze through a comprehensive history of WW2 in a couple of hours, but this takes you through it like a person who lived it.

Re:That's Jew thinking

[pxlmusic]

fail.

Orwell vs. the Ministry of Information

[Animats]

Blair worked for the British Ministry of Information during WWII. Many of his memos are preserved in "Orwell - the Lost Writings", which turned up in the BBC archived a few years ago. This is where much of the detail of "1984" came from. "Big Brother" is actually some manager called "B.B." at the MoI. "Newspeak" comes from the BBC's effort to broadcast to the colonies in Basic English. One of Blair's jobs was translating material into Basic English, which, he discovered, is a political act. You have to detail the meaning of any idioms and metaphors when grinding down text into Basic English. Political ambiguity does not translate unless made specific.

Incidentally, Blair refused to write as George Orwell for the MoI; he took the position that they had hired Eric Blair, not George Orwell, and weren't entitled to use his professional reputation.

To get a sense of what the Ministry of Information turned out as propaganda, see this WWII MoI video.

Cool quote, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

GODWIN'S LAW!!!1

Easier way?

[Tubal-Cain]

Is there a page that I can subscribe to the daily entries as they're posted?

Re:Easier way?

[PassiveAggressive]

Actually there is: Look for a small, orange, RSS icon (hint - right side of the page) and subscribe to the feed.

personal favorites?

[wilec]

My personal favorite novels were "Animal Farm" and "Coming up for air".

And this rather nice instructive rant on English language usage by this master thinker and word smith;

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

wabi-sabi
matthew

1942 - Three years into the conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, WWII didn't start till Dec. 7, 1941.

Prior to that, it was Europeans being Europeans.

MOD Parent down TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps Mega-Troll

Can it be? Christopher Hitchens?

[aqk]

Anyone interested in Orwell should read the definitive critique:
"Why Orwell Matters" by Christopher Hitchens.

Lessee now... is it a right-wing diatribe? Or a left-wing one?
YOU decide!

.