How does one best describe someone who engages in a blatant exercise in Newspeak (viz. arguing that all opponents to the Iraq war were objectively ‘pro-fascist’), and then invokes Orwell’s blessing on his project? Me, I can’t find the words.
Update: goof (Newspeech for Newspeak) fixed.
Update 2: In the spirit of Mr. Simon’s interesting and helpful contribution to our public discourse, we might press for the relabelling of the “Best Liberal Blog” and “Best Conservative Blog” awards as the “Best Pro-Fascist Blog” and “Best Anti-Fascist Blog” respectively. Just to clarify matters.
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!
Why do so many people grant these rantings consideration? They are not worthy of discussion…
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.
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”.
“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.
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.
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?
“…..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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
“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.
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review