George Orwell Was A Traitor To The Human Race.

Originally posted by GaiusMarius

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

I will ask again, when did the CIA buy the rights for Orwell's books? If they funded the writing of the books then I will give you more credit but at this point you get 0.

You are right. It was after. Why were they published. What was the appeal? Capitalists needed propaganda to combat the rise of communism after WW2. Pretty confusing time for the masses. They needed to tell them what to think.

CIA used Orwell as a tool in the war on Communism that took place after WW2. After the capitalists didnt need Russia.

Sorry, but I found the string to unravel your thread.

The CIA has never owned the rights to George Orwell's books. They bought the movie rights and funded the film in 1954 and rewrote the ending to give it a Pro-American spin.

Not only that, but Animal Farm was a criticism of both Communism and Capitalism (Orwell was a staunch Socialist).

It sounds like you are getting your facts mixed up.

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog

Originally posted by GaiusMarius

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

I will ask again, when did the CIA buy the rights for Orwell's books? If they funded the writing of the books then I will give you more credit but at this point you get 0.

You are right. It was after. Why were they published. What was the appeal? Capitalists needed propaganda to combat the rise of communism after WW2. Pretty confusing time for the masses. They needed to tell them what to think.

CIA used Orwell as a tool in the war on Communism that took place after WW2. After the capitalists didnt need Russia.

Sorry, but I found the string to unravel your thread.

The CIA has never owned the rights to George Orwell's books. They bought the movie rights and funded the film in 1954 and rewrote the ending to give it a Pro-American spin.

Not only that, but Animal Farm was a criticism of both Communism and Capitalism (Orwell was a staunch Socialist).

It sounds like you are getting your facts mixed up.

Orwell didnt even know what Socialism was. Was Hitler a 'socialist' too.

Orwell was pro-supercapitalsim.

And the CIA used both books for Propaganda. Being pedantic doesnt change that. They knew what he was up to and they were up to the same thing.

edit- Any socialist knows what Orwell was. A socialist. HA!

Originally posted by GaiusMarius

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by GaiusMarius

Originally posted by jude11
Yup, new member looking to make some stars and flags. Happens every day around here.

Never mind that every day we are experiencing was foretold in 1984. Nope, not good enough.

I believe the real traitors are the ones that try to make Orwell look like anything but the person who warned us of today. Big Corp. and Govt. will love this thread.

Have you even read anything by Orwell or are you just cherry picking something you picked up from the lurker sidelines and decided to make it your debut?

Pathetic.

Not only have I read and reread them. I have also looked into Orwells traitor life.

Big Corp and Government love Communism/Socialism now do they?

You arent even pathetic.

edit on 1-11-2012 by GaiusMarius because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-11-2012 by GaiusMarius because: (no reason given)

Thanks for proving my point.

Now I don`t have to waste my time

If you want to make a point I would invest more time. Not less.

Are you calling me a commie or something? A red under the bed? Ha!

Did I say Commie?..Nope. Did I say RED?...Nope

I guess I should have made myself more clear but your tactics have just shown you for your true self.

Troll.

And the fact that trolls are very effectively torn to shreds on these boards makes me a very happy camper and you...just a bad memory.

You just made your intro...Live with it.

Go ahead and reply. I'm already done with you.

But you'll try...It's your nature.

reply to post by jude11


I would love to know what point I proved for you then.

Seeya.

Originally posted by GaiusMarius

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog

Originally posted by GaiusMarius

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

I will ask again, when did the CIA buy the rights for Orwell's books? If they funded the writing of the books then I will give you more credit but at this point you get 0.

You are right. It was after. Why were they published. What was the appeal? Capitalists needed propaganda to combat the rise of communism after WW2. Pretty confusing time for the masses. They needed to tell them what to think.

CIA used Orwell as a tool in the war on Communism that took place after WW2. After the capitalists didnt need Russia.

Sorry, but I found the string to unravel your thread.

The CIA has never owned the rights to George Orwell's books. They bought the movie rights and funded the film in 1954 and rewrote the ending to give it a Pro-American spin.

Not only that, but Animal Farm was a criticism of both Communism and Capitalism (Orwell was a staunch Socialist).

It sounds like you are getting your facts mixed up.

Orwell didnt even know what Socialism was. Was Hitler a 'socialist' too.

Orwell was pro-supercapitalsim.

And the CIA used both books for Propaganda. Being pedantic doesnt change that. They knew what he was up to and they were up to the same thing.

edit- Any socialist knows what Orwell was. A socialist. HA!

edit on 1-11-2012 by GaiusMarius because: (no reason given)

I'm pretty sure Orwell knew what Socialism was.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism irrespective of the solutions to those problems. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative system based on some form of social ownership.

His books make it pretty clear about what he thinks about Capitalism and Communism.

Why is getting the facts right (movie rights over book rights) pedantic to you? It's HUGELY important if you want to claim that Orwell was helping with enslaving the masses to government and capitalism. I could buy the movie rights to a film and turn it into propaganda without the author's consent.

You keep making claims about how evil, traitorous and conniving Orwell was, how about you post up some links or excerpts from where you are getting your facts? The rest of us have the source... the books he wrote.

reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog


The book is the source. Books.

He also wrote essays.

But there are many socialist alot more articulte than I am that have tried to explain this. Would you believe them? I doubt it.

And I think for myself. I came to my conclusion without the help of others. When I figure something out I look to see if anyone else is as smart as I am. Not the other way around. I was pleased to find that many have drawn the same conclusions.

reply to post by GaiusMarius


I'm a Socialist and that was before I read Orwell's books and they reinforced my believes not contradict them.

Oh, and I should probably mention, Orwell was dead 4 years before the CIA bought the movie rights to Animal Farm. He must be a really powerful ghost/apparition/spirit if he can influence and create propaganda even after his death.

reply to post by GaiusMarius


I really like George Orwell..
We had to read A Clergy Mans Daughter & Animal Farm in school. I thoroughly enjoyed both.
My fathers favorite by him is 1984.
My father actually quotes him a lot.. usually,

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
& my favorite..
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."

I'm sorry you feel that way about him, that he's a traitor, but I will have to say for the sake of debate, I just don't agree with you at all.

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

I'm a Socialist and that was before I read Orwell's books and they reinforced my believes not contradict them.

Oh, and I should probably mention, Orwell was dead 4 years before the CIA bought the movie rights to Animal Farm. He must be a really powerful ghost/apparition/spirit if he can influence and create propaganda even after his death.

Hey man. I hurt my finger scolling my history for this.

Political Bias In Education Many study guides have been written with the intention of showing students exactly what it is they are supposed to think about the story, and consequently how to write model answers in their exams. These guides are far more candid than Orwell himself was about the anti-communist content of his work.

www.stalinsociety.org.uk...

The guy that wrote this article is sharp.

Originally posted by Katharos62191
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

I really like George Orwell..

We had to read A Clergy Mans Daughter & Animal Farm in school. I thoroughly enjoyed both.
My fathers favorite by him is 1984.
My father actually quotes him a lot.. usually,

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
& my favorite..
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."

I'm sorry you feel that way about him, that he's a traitor, but I will have to say for the sake of debate, I just don't agree with you at all.

I actually quote the book myself. It is clear doublespeak/doublethink to me though.

The StalinSociety thing might change your mind.

Since the publication of Animal Farm in 1945, the work of George Orwell has had a permanent place on the school curriculum. He has been much praised as a literary genius, as one who combines talent with principles and continues the great ironic tradition of Swift and others. This is belied, however, by the boredom felt by students who come to a work like Animal Farm with no idea about the events it purports to be based on. Although it is much vaunted as a great work of art; a story that stands on its own as a fable about totalitarianism in general, examination questions all refer to the events of the Russian Revolution, and “an ability to regurgitate the equations of a Cold War wisdom is taken for granted in most exams.”

www.stalinsociety.org.uk...

reply to post by GaiusMarius


Orwell's problem with Communism was that the Soviet's were trying to frame it in a way that made it look like Socialism.

I didn't read 1984 in school. We did Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Flies. I read it on my own and came to my own conclusions about it.

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

Orwell's problem with Communism was that the Soviet's were trying to frame it in a way that made it look like Socialism.

I didn't read 1984 in school. We did Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Flies. I read it on my own and came to my own conclusions about it.

I dont think many people understand communism. Only what Capitalists have told them about it.

Catcher In The Rye rules. Franny And Zooey is better though.

The whole point of Animal farm was to demonstrate that power held by anyone less than a saint instills misery on those who are subject to that power.
History has proven this true ad nausuem.'
1984 is about...ultimate evil.
That which denys Human free will.
Nothing is more sacred than that.
Yet so many had it taken away under Stalin.
The Jackboot grinding your face forever.
Was the reality for the decades of so many millions who suffered post ww2 Stalinist occupation in Eastern europe.
To make this an intellectual argument borders on sociopathic.
Read the accounts of Stalinism on those who witnessed and were victims of communism.
Big brother is code for genocide.

reply to post by GaiusMarius


He was an author and simply reflected the ideology of its time. There is a film about the literary work that was produced by the CIA in it there may be some creative liberty to accentuate some aspects of the written work and it focus specifically in the Stalinist system (or even on Mao's system). If you look to China the pigs are indeed in power (the expected boom and normalization that we all require, and is indeed destabilizing our democratic societies is in large part being delayed by the artificial delay the weight of the Chinese state on the economy and the perturbations it causes in the economy of the nation and then in the world).

In the movie there is a clear feeling of rightness about the revolt and even the consequences what most of the viewers dislike is to see the pigs win... The first steps could reflect communism but the conclusion does not.

Originally posted by Dr Expired
The whole point of Animal farm was to demonstrate that power held by anyone less than a saint instills misery on those who are subject to that power.
History has proven this true ad nausuem.'
1984 is about...ultimate evil.
That which denys Human free will.
Nothing is more sacred than that.
Yet so many had it taken away under Stalin.
The Jackboot grinding your face forever.
Was the reality for the decades of so many millions who suffered post ww2 Stalinist occupation in Eastern europe.
To make this an intellectual argument borders on sociopathic.
Read the accounts of Stalinism on those who witnessed and were victims of communism.
Big brother is code for genocide.

Orwell's lack of understanding of politics, combined with his rabid anti-communism, meant that he was trying to get Animal Farm published in 1943, just as the future of humanity was being decided and the USSR was sacrificing all at Stalingrad. Publisher after publisher rejected it, until the war ended and the book's usefulness as a tool in the coming Cold War was recognised. Writing in The Guardian in August 1995, Stuart Jeffries says that although “many of those who read the book were right-wingers eager for a novel which appeared to show an ex-socialist recanting his beliefs. . . the book was chiefly aimed at the faithful, those who believed that the Soviet Union was the way and the truth”.

www.stalinsociety.org.uk...

I suspect you know little about Stalin. Little about communism.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

He was an author and simply reflected the ideology of its time. There is a film about the literary work that was produced by the CIA in it there may be some creative liberty to accentuate some aspects of the written work and it focus specifically in the Stalinist system (or even on Mao's system). If you look to China the pigs are indeed in power (the expected boom and normalization that we all require, and is indeed destabilizing our democratic societies is in large part being delayed by the artificial delay the weight of the Chinese state on the economy and the perturbations it causes in the economy of the nation and then in the world).

In the movie there is a clear feeling of rightness about the revolt and even the consequences what most of the viewers dislike is to see the pigs win... The first steps could reflect communism but the conclusion does not.

The 'pigs' in China seem far more capable of running an economy and improving the lives of its people than the pigs of America. Thats for sure.

edit- Communism didnt fall with the wall. The world has been going through the proccess of 'stageism'. The Stalinist Two Stage Revolution is nearing completion. This is late capitalism.

reply to post by GaiusMarius


Communism and Capitalism are both political systems reliant on a concentration of power and wealth at the very top for very few.

Socialism is a revival of the egalitarian societies that civilization was founded in. The only purpose/job of a "leader" or "chief" in a Socialist system is to redistribute the wealth equally amongst the people centering the power on the people.

Orwell definitely seems to emphasize or sympathize more with the latter than the former.

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by GaiusMarius

 

Communism and Capitalism are both political systems reliant on a concentration of power and wealth at the very top for very few.

Socialism is a revival of the egalitarian societies that civilization was founded in. The only purpose/job of a "leader" or "chief" in a Socialist system is to redistribute the wealth equally amongst the people centering the power on the people.

Orwell definitely seems to emphasize or sympathize more with the latter than the former.

He does "seem" to. I agree.

Workers controlling the means of production... There is a great deal of difference between Lenin. Trotsky and Stalin.....

Not all Communists agreed with the Communist Manifesto either.....

Communism is not as mind numbingly simple as capitalists would have us believe.

Reading Homage to Catalonia gives a great understanding of how Orwell was given first hand insight into the genuine concerns of the Soviet Union which had already betrayed the flower of it's Revolution. From a recent post:

... a quick peek at history (increasing political control of the Soviets after the Russian revolution, the insidious build up of state (U.S.S.R.) sponsored favouritism against and aggression toward the Anarchists fighters during the Spanish Revolution both of which led to bloody silencing) offers great examples of why is advisable to pay attention to trends and ideas before someone actually arrives at your door.

Orwell saw Spain was offered no help from democratic Western countries which left the door wide open for the Soviet Union to step in and take control of the Spanish Revolution as far as antifascist efforts were concerned. From that position of power the Stalin showed where the concerns really lay - the revolution was utterly betrayed even to the extent of fighters from Anarchist parties (CNT/FAI) being arrested when arriving on leave directly from the front lines.

Orwell saw a desire for control so desperate that even while the Spanish Revolution raged on ruthless focus was placed upon gaining complete control of the revolutionary movement and suppressing dissent at the expense of fighting the fascists. Just as happened in the Soviet Revolution, Anarchist fighters (who were, ironically, responsible for the majority of success against the fascists up to this point), were betrayed and the idea of genuine libertarian revolution was betrayed and deformed into a tool for state control and suppression.

Seeing the flowers of both revolutions trampled so, even at the expense of success against fascism in Spain, is it any wonder Orwell saw flaws where he did? Western governments gave Spain no support (an issue which Orwell recognised and think bears great consideration when we see what happened in Europe shortly after) but the Soviet Union took that Spanish idealism, all that hope and blood, and betrayed it for it's own ends.

I think that reading someone's concerns about one thing is interpreted as their unequivocal support of another and I don't think that's the case at all. Orwell had seen and documented the fate of the lower classes under capitalism. Down and Out in Paris and Wigan Pier are hardly ringing endorsements of the Capitalist system.

Orwell went out and documented the plight of the working class under capitalism, took up arms against fascists (where he noted and bemoaned the lack of support from Western capitalist countries) and wrote to expose the duplicity and betrayal of the Soviet Union under the guise of advocating revolution for the proletariat.

Again, blithely stating that Orwell's anti X stance means he was unequivocally pro Y is lazy, simplistic thinking. Again, take a peek at Down and Out in Paris and Wigan Pier.

Originally posted by JAK
Reading Homage to Catalonia gives a great understanding of how Orwell was given first hand insight into the genuine concerns of the Soviet Union which had already betrayed the flower of it's Revolution. From a recent post:

... a quick peek at history (increasing political control of the Soviets after the Russian revolution, the insidious build up of state (U.S.S.R.) sponsored favouritism against and aggression toward the Anarchists fighters during the Spanish Revolution both of which led to bloody silencing) offers great examples of why is advisable to pay attention to trends and ideas before someone actually arrives at your door.

Orwell saw Spain was offered no help from democratic Western countries which left the door wide open for the Soviet Union to step in and take control of the Spanish Revolution as far as antifascist efforts were concerned. From that position of power the Stalin showed where the concerns really lay - the revolution was utterly betrayed even to the extent of fighters from Anarchist parties (CNT/FAI) being arrested when arriving on leave directly from the front lines.

Orwell saw a desire for control so desperate that even while the Spanish Revolution raged on ruthless focus was placed upon gaining complete control of the revolutionary movement and suppressing dissent at the expense of fighting the fascists. Just as happened in the Soviet Revolution, Anarchist fighters (who were, ironically, responsible for the majority of success against the fascists up to this point), were betrayed and the idea of genuine libertarian revolution was betrayed and deformed into a tool for state control and suppression.

Seeing the flowers of both revolutions trampled so, even at the expense of success against fascism in Spain, is it any wonder Orwell saw flaws where he did? Western governments gave Spain no support (an issue which Orwell recognised and think bears great consideration when we see what happened in Europe shortly after) but the Soviet Union took that Spanish idealism, all that hope and blood, and betrayed it for it's own ends.

I think that reading someone's concerns about one thing is interpreted as their unequivocal support of another and I don't think that's the case at all. Orwell had seen and documented the fate of the lower classes under capitalism. Down and Out in Paris and Wigan Pier are hardly ringing endorsements of the Capitalist system.

Orwell went out and documented the plight of the working class under capitalism, took up arms against fascists (where he noted and bemoaned the lack of support from Western capitalist countries) and wrote to expose the duplicity and betrayal of the Soviet Union under the guise of advocating revolution for the proletariat.

Again, blithely stating that Orwell's anti X stance means he was unequivocally pro Y is lazy, simplistic thinking. Again, take a peek at Down and Out in Paris and Wigan Pier.

Wow. Actual debate

Orwell is a counter to Jack London. 1984 was written to counter The Iron Heel. London really was a socialist. London believed in revolution. Orwell did not. He is all about making it seem impossible and unthinkable.

Orwell just took what London wrote and twisted it. He was weak. Jack London was strong. Smashing strong.

edit- Western Governments would not force children to read 'The Iron Heel'. That is for sure.