Comments on: Answers solicited

By: ahem

ahem — Mon, 08 Dec 2003 01:11:07 +0000

Orwell consistently opposed their influence and role in the anti-fascist movement, in the same way that antiwar opinion criticises US dominance in Iraq. Clearly, Orwell himself was objectively pro-fascist. Exactly. Which is why Christopher Hitchens’ decision to stand with the neocons against ‘Islamofascism’ suggests that he’s a bit slack on re-reading his hero.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:02:22 +0000

“People who use his earlier rejected phrase in order to claim Orwell for their side really do show themselves for what they are.” Stalinist, evidently. NB no, not “objectively pro-Stalinist.” The rivers of shit we have to wade through with these people.

By: jamie

jamie — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:30:43 +0000

Let’s apply the same “objectively pro-” logic to Orwell. The communists were the most powerful component in the anti-Fascist forces of Republican Spain, or at least they grew to be during the later stages of the civil war. Orwell consistently opposed their influence and role in the anti-fascist movement, in the same way that antiwar opinion criticises US dominance in Iraq. Clearly, Orwell himself was objectively pro-fascist. On a wider issue, does anyone really need to have the blessing of St George the Noble to validate their opinions?

By: ahem

ahem — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:00:23 +0000

You can’t find the words to describe Roger Simon? Well, perhaps that’s because you don’t actually know what you’re talking about, regarding Orwell? Fortunatly, zizka does. Unfortunately, you didn't. And the point of Newspeak was to remove nuance from the language ('ungood', for instance) in order to ensure that non-orthodox positions could only be spoken in terms that confirmed their heresy. As Orwell himself writes in Nineteen Eighty-Four, it would be physically possible to say 'Big Brother is ungood', but by that stage of the evolution (or regression) of the language, it would be an semantically incoherent sentence. Reducing opposition to this particular war, fought on these particular terms by this particular administration to the term 'pro-fascist' is basically the same process; it's the attempt to define the criticism coming from the left as 'Little Bush is ungood', and then say that it's incoherent. Orwell's apology (no, not a 'sort of' apology) conveys the embarrassment of someone realising that actual war (as in the Luftwaffe bombing your homes) can lead to harsh kneejerkery. Mr Simon might think well on that. And he might also want to read Homage to Catalonia, for an account of 'anti-fascism' actually entailed. What's amusing is that Simon appears to be much closer in sympathy to Franco: a man who, after all, took pride in depriving people the right to speak (and name themselves) in their own language. In Catalonia.

By: epist

epist — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:48 +0000

So let me get this straight, Sig, if you are against pedophilia, say, but not actually up in arms about it, not clamoring for the capture and punishment of pedophiles night and day, then it’s not ‘technically’ incorrect to call you ‘objectively-pro-pedophile’? Maybe we can make a list of things that you might be ‘objectively-pro-’ this way. When you recite that list, it sounds an awful lot like a string of insults. Maybe you see the problem now?

By: Randy Paul

Randy Paul — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 01:28:44 +0000

People who use his earlier rejected phrase in order to claim Orwell for their side really do show themselves for what they are. I think referring to them as dilettantes sums it up.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 01:22:30 +0000

Orwell explicitly apologized for it. Not only that, at the end of his life he became close friends with the two pacifists (Woodcock and Simon, IIRC) he had originally smeared. Orwell worked out his beliefs in the heat of battle. The “objectively pro-fascist” phrase came from the period when he was willing to act more or less like a Stalinist—that phrase is PURE Stalinist rhetoric . The Orwell we admire came from his later recantation. I have the details at my URL (in the context of earlier attempts to appropriate his name by using the “objectively anti-fascist” phrase he himself renounced). Orwell defined himself by rejecting his own 1942 language. People who use his earlier rejected phrase in order to claim Orwell for their side really do show themselves for what they are.

By: Jason McCullough

Jason McCullough — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:46:32 +0000

“…..in calling people who are “objectively pro-fascist” as such, nor unjustified in invoking Orwell in such a case, since Orwell explicitly did exactly the same thing in 1942….” He also more or less apologized for it, saying it’s dishonest, and the important thing is to figure out who’s honest and who’s not. http://home19.inet.tele.dk/w-mute/AIP48.htm “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.” Calling someone objectively pro-fascist is more or less “there’s no way that can be a valid way of thinking”; not a perfect match, but close. “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.”

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:48:26 +0000

Even if we exclude Sebastian's qualm (which is justified) he would not be using "Newspeak" in calling people who are "objectively pro-fascist" as such, nor unjustified in invoking Orwell in such a case, since Orwell explicitly did exactly the same thing in 1942, in the Partisan Review. Orwell did recant, sort of, a few years later, but it's still perfectly justified to claim Orwell as a supporting instance of such rhetoric, as long as you're willing to endure people complaining about the recantation and argue with them about it. What's the support and appropriately positive label for the practice of calling unpleasant-but-true speech "Newspeak"? Newspeak, if you'll recall from 1984, was a language designed to make it impossible to commit thoughtcrime in. Saying someone is objectively (not intentionally or sympathetically, but objectively, which term I imagine Henry might have some familiarity with) "pro-fascist" may make them angry. It may even be wrong (though I'd argue that in the strict sense it is not inaccurate, even if it makes them angry and some people confuse objectively- and intentionally-), but it is by no means the sort of inversion of truth normally associated with the use of "Newspeak". Someone may have perfectly honest anti-fascist feelings and still, through their actions be what Orwell himself called "objectively pro-fascist". You can't find the words to describe Roger Simon? Well, perhaps that's because you don't actually know what you're talking about, regarding Orwell?

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:12:41 +0000

Hey, Sebastian, welcome to the liberal cause. There are some people who want to do something about global poverty, and people who want to talk about doing something. I’ll expect your support for the inevitable tax increase as we start shipping our wealth abroad.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:06:09 +0000

“arguing that all opponents to the Iraq war were objectively ‘pro-fascist’” This would be a problem, but I don’t think he really argues that. He is arguing that there are people who want to do something about fascism and people who want to talk about doing something. He suggests that fascism will not be defeated mainly by words.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:06:08 +0000

He’s beginning with the verbal murder of his political opponents, which inevitably must be followed by the actual murder of his political opponents. So there you have it: Roger is a murderer. Wow, hyperbole works just a syllogism. You just have to replace “implication” with “tortured implication”.

By: Pug

Pug — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:44:56 +0000

The next day he starts using the term “idiotarian”. Whew! I guess you call him what he is: right-wing blogger. Except he has to give this big phony-ass “I’m so torn up to be a conservative” act. Hell, if you’re a conservative, just be a conservative. Ditch the Hamlet routine.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:39:22 +0000

Why do so many people grant these rantings consideration? They are not worthy of discussion…

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:04:05 +0000

Call him a dick? No, no, that won’t work ‘cause a dick does have a head. Call him confused? No, no, that won’t work ‘cause he claims such moral clarity. How about dumbass? Yeah, that’s the ticket!