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.

[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.

[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

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

[maxume]

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

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.

Yes, but...

[SilentBob0727]

How good will he be about responding to comments?

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.