Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes on Nationalism (1945)

orwellfoundation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#111

Post by prox »

tenpies wrote: post #99
nirui wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to common believes, that a fascist society must visually similar to what been portrayed in a WW2 movie, a real fascist society now days hides behind layers of outlooks that makes them look normal. People in a fascist society may work a well-paid job in a clean glassy high-rise, and their government and law might be structured like a normal one. The most obvious difference between a fascist society and a norm…

The Man in the High Castle adaption by Amazon was fantastic in this. The Nazi cities were beautiful . They were orderly, clean, everyone was well dressed and nice. Infrastructure was top notch and there were only very small hints that something was off. It was the type of NIMBY paradise that the rich Californians would kill for. What I have found to be a fantastic guiding principle for fascism in the West is the sayi…

Can you explain further? What are these rules and what is “The Game”? You mean the sanctions?

Those aren’t anything new afaik, and I don’t understand the connection to how the West will become more authoritarian because of that.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#112

Post by tnzk »

refurb wrote: post #77
mantas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at US - it’s already being replaced by political divide. I prefer Euro style ethnic tribalism to US style political tribalism much more. Former allows to keep it at sports, lame memes and kitchen. Yet find common ground on internal politics. Even if political narratives divide, there’s still something to unite people. Meanwhile political tribalism seem to be penetrating everything with little chance for somet…

I kinda get your point but which system produced fewer wars in the last 250 years?

Seems like they aren't simply mutually exclusive.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#113

Post by [deleted] »

systemvoltage wrote: post #94
CodeGlitch wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately in the West I think this might be identity politics. There is very much a "us Vs them" attitude with the whole thing. To give an example I see a lot of LGBT "allies" with pin badges, flags, etc. To label oneself as being part of that group. Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider.

I feel weird if I select the yellow emoji color since everyone on our internal slack is gung ho about their skin color. Same with pronouns, almost indirectly mandated at this point.

[deleted]

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#114

Post by prox »

cycomanic wrote: post #91
prox wrote: post #8

Starship Troopers (1997) is an interesting movie that is basically a “war propaganda” movie seen from the viewpoint of a fascistic government. The whole point of the movie is to make the enemy seem like “the other” , and in this case these are actual alien bugs in the movie. All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and everything on “our” side as we view it is shiny and “the good side” Paul Verhoeven al…

Thank you for reminding me again of starship troopers. It is a great movie and in my experience has quite a bad rap amongst the "intelligentsia", mostly I think because people just go off the trailer and dismiss it as a "stupid alien action movie". When I discussed the satire, images etc with people they often look at me like I'm crazy.

You’re welcome, I think the movie can be a great starting point for both debates and further study. The war on terror (after 9/11) and the war in the movie have great parallels.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#115

Post by saila »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #37
sjaak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something else will replace it. Tribalism is built in to our ‘firmware’.

Unfortunately in the West I think this might be identity politics. There is very much a "us Vs them" attitude with the whole thing. To give an example I see a lot of LGBT "allies" with pin badges, flags, etc. To label oneself as being part of that group. Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider.

Modern identity politics in the U.S. seems like the inevitable result of telling people they are "free" but then excluding certain identified groups from social life, jobs, etc.

Over time, people will bond around their exclusion to create a more powerful bloc to assert their rights. It seems to me that the dominant identitarians of the past have largely created the current situation by not following the creed of "live and let live."

Conservatives and the right engage in extreme identity politics, but "identity politics" is most often used as a pejorative against liberals and the left. I wonder why that is. Modern identities probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for historical identification/classification and discrimination.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#116

Post by progre »

quacked wrote: post #79
progre wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book (one of my favourites) is a little diffrent. There the perspective is that of the mobile infantist. The classic hero arc but in a fashist world. Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry. The movie is brilliant in a diffrent way. It's basically satire on all levels. Paul…

> Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry This is a very shallow interpretation of the book. When did you read it?

Shallow reading? It's a one sentence comparison with the movie not my fucking literary analysis.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#117

Post by oldcigarette »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #17
rramadass wrote: post #2

Given whats going on in the World now, Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" is a pertinent read. We must be careful that we don't get carried away by Propaganda and start demonizing "the other side" reflexively. Summary on Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_Nationalism

Totally agree but it's too late, it already happened. It took only about 4 days of intense propaganda, for people to start asking for racial sanctions. People started demonizing Dostoevsky. Russians have lost their jobs all over the world for not publicly taking a stance against their own people. Next step is going to be the burning of russian books. Trust me, at this rate, it will come soon.

"and then for no reason at all putin invaded ukraine"

The response has been absurdly hostile to the Russian people. The West's foreign policy is simple "escalate". Stay tuned for your daily programming.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#118

Post by steve76 »

rramadass wrote: post #2

Given whats going on in the World now, Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" is a pertinent read. We must be careful that we don't get carried away by Propaganda and start demonizing "the other side" reflexively. Summary on Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_Nationalism

No post body was provided.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#119

Post by prox »

donatj wrote: post #108
einpoklum wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book is brilliant, I would say, for being readable at the same time as an ode of support and admiration for the social order, and as a scathing critique of that order. IIANM Heinlein himself was more on the side of the first interpretation (correct me if I'm wrong) but was fair enough to offer solid footing for the opposite view; although one wonders how much of it was conscious and how much of it was his capabil…

My personal understanding of Heinlein is that he shifted from a very pro-government conservative to a far more laissez faire libertarian as he aged and as you follow his works throughout his life. Starship Troopers came far earlier in this progression.

Do you know where Stranger in a Strange Land sits in this spectrum?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#120

Post by donatj »

prox wrote: post #119
donatj wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal understanding of Heinlein is that he shifted from a very pro-government conservative to a far more laissez faire libertarian as he aged and as you follow his works throughout his life. Starship Troopers came far earlier in this progression.

Do you know where Stranger in a Strange Land sits in this spectrum?

I’ve personally only read Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, that said Stranger in a Strange Land came really early in his career.

My understanding in my comment comes almost entirely from the discussion in this episode of Alienating the Audience

https://alienating.libsyn.com/episode-5

Post reply on HN