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

201–210 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#201

Post by pastacacioepepe »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #184
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of russian propaganda and none of it takes the racial angle on Ukrainians. Russian consider Ukrainians part of their culture so it wouldn't make much sense. Any source?

No one's taking a "racial angle" against Russians. There's are plenty of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians outside of Russia, and nothing whatsoever is directed at them. This is about the country of Russia and its citizens (regardless if ethnicity), so whatever beef you might have with how they're treated, there's no "racial" or "ethnic" angle.

Please be honest and recognize that discrimination on the basis of Citizenship is exactly the same as racial discrimination. The same way as nobody chooses their "race", nobody chooses the country they are born into.

> There's are plenty of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians outside of Russia

Yes and across the west there have been several movements to censor the voices of Russians in every field, from sport to art. In Italy we even attempted to censor an academic course on Dostoyevsky. Luckily after many complaints from all over the country the decision was reverted. But this is the current political sentiment, you can't just ignore it.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#202

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

antifa wrote: post #199
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Character counts: 3, 4. "Red pill".

Ok, still ambiguous, are we talking about becoming women or hating women?

Non sequitur.

1. The article is Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism".

2. A parent post implies that "normal" society has actually become Fascist without us realizing it, and starts talking about how you can't go outside the Overton Window.

3. Post to which I replied says you can probably be perfectly happy in such a society, until you come to understand your situation, at which point you are "red pilled" (though refused to spell out, as that is unsayable).

Nowhere in the above is there any discussion of gender, women, trans issues, or feminism, except maybe very indirectly, insofar as "Notes on Nationalism" comes from an era with (and is partly a discussion of) Fascism, and Fascism is often said to be misogynistic.

Anyway, let's take a step back. This whole thread was saying, basically, that mainstream "liberal" society/politics is "the real fascism" and that people need to get "red pilled". I'm spelling out what's going on in the thread, not supporting it.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#203

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

bilbo0s wrote: post #155
systemvoltage wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HR training now and learn about the wonders of diversity That's kind of ironic because true diversity of thought is not tolerated.

Shared values and culture necessitate limited tolerance for diversity of thought. That's just reality. You can't share values if you tolerate people thinking other values are better. Culturally also. In the US, back when everyone ate chicken, spoke English, and went to some form of Christian church on Sundays, there was very little cultural diversity tolerated. Chicken, English, and Church was the culture.

What? Chicken is pretty new. It used to be a luxury. Industrial chicken farms didn't exist.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#204

Post by bilbo0s »

saila wrote: post #170
bilbo0s wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identity politics would always exist. We just called it "tribalism" in our distant past. It can never go away. It isn't specific to the US either, it's a part of us as humans. That's the real reason there are no "free" countries. I guarantee, you look closely enough, you'll find the group in that country that is not "free". People just knock the US all the time because the group in our nation that is not "free" is pr…

Your reply here comes across as reactionary and rather condescending but really doesn't address anything I said. Nowhere did I say the U.S. is worse than anywhere else nor did I imply perfection exists or even could exist. I was responding to someone talking about "the west," and I have a U.S.-centric perspective because that's where I'm from. It's quite obvious that tribalism will always be a thing (to some extent),…

What is modern identity politics but a big word that academics and élites dreamed up for tribalism?

You may believe they are different because your ideology needs for you to believe they are different. But at heart, there is no difference. Using terms like "modern identity politics" just allows you to discuss the topic in academia and polite society. On the streets, when the tiki torches, rifles, and baseball bats come out, it really is just tribalism. Different tribes going at each other precisely because they are each the "other".

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#205

Post by kspacewalk2 »

rixed wrote: post #190
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one's taking a "racial angle" against Russians. There's are plenty of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians outside of Russia, and nothing whatsoever is directed at them. This is about the country of Russia and its citizens (regardless if ethnicity), so whatever beef you might have with how they're treated, there's no "racial" or "ethnic" angle.

You know one does not choose citizenship, right? I'm currently spending some time and money helping friends that happen to be Russian citizens despite not having been in Russia for years (I'm also going to spend time and money trying to help unknown Ukrainians). Let's not spread the same hatred in Europe than was done in the Middle East. edit: fixed the emotional phrasing

> You know one does not choose citizenship, right?

But one does choose whether to condemn the war of aggression their country is waging. 99% of all the supposed "racial sanctions" "Russians losing their jobs all over the world" and so on are about pressing well-known Russian citizens in the public sphere to either condemn the war of aggression waged in their name or fuck off. It's harsh but I fail to see how it's unfair.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#206

Post by kspacewalk2 »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #201
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one's taking a "racial angle" against Russians. There's are plenty of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians outside of Russia, and nothing whatsoever is directed at them. This is about the country of Russia and its citizens (regardless if ethnicity), so whatever beef you might have with how they're treated, there's no "racial" or "ethnic" angle.

Please be honest and recognize that discrimination on the basis of Citizenship is exactly the same as racial discrimination. The same way as nobody chooses their "race", nobody chooses the country they are born into. > There's are plenty of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians outside of Russia Yes and across the west there have been several movements to censor the voices of Russians in every field, from sport to art…

>Please be honest and recognize that discrimination on the basis of Citizenship is exactly the same as racial discrimination.

It's nothing of the kind, and furthermore those Russian citizens who condemn this criminal war of aggression in no uncertain terms are going to be just fine.

>censor the voices of Russians in every field, from sport to art.

If your country is currently murdering civilians and committing genocide in an unprovoked war of aggression, you don't get to participate in sporting events under your country's flag. This is not about censoring you, it's about condemning your country. (Which, by the way, if you don't condemn yourself, then you yourself are complicit, particularly if you live outside of Russia).

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#207

Post by antifa »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #202
antifa wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, still ambiguous, are we talking about becoming women or hating women?

Non sequitur. 1. The article is Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism". 2. A parent post implies that "normal" society has actually become Fascist without us realizing it, and starts talking about how you can't go outside the Overton Window. 3. Post to which I replied says you can probably be perfectly happy in such a society, until you come to understand your situation, at which point you are "red pilled" (though refused t…

The term red pill comes from The Matrix where the non-subtle metaphor is "want to know the truth? Take the red pill". There was no need to censor the term if that was the meaning.

A group of people, often considered misogynists or anti-feminists, who think they have a secret truth about dating women, also use the term.

There is also the subtle metaphor of The Matrix, that the redpill actual refers to transitioning into women. The color was choosen because in the 90s estrogen hormone therapy were literally red pills in the 90s.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#208

Post by chernevik »

watwut wrote: post #101
quacked wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I have seen the book quoted in defense of near fascists ideas (like that soldiers should have more say in politics and more voting rights then civilians). In full seriousness. I have never seen it quoted to support anything else.

The book is very clear that everyone, regardless of ability, has a right to perform the term of service necessary for the franchise, and that all have complete freedom of speech.

There are many sloppy criticisms of the book, none of which have bothered to actually understand it.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#209

Post by chernevik »

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…

The best response to "Starship Troopers" is "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman, which gives a great account of the use of propaganda to manufacture a war.

The movie is a terribly stupid take on a very good (and widely, perhaps deliberately, misunderstood) book.

It says a lot about Heinlein that he wrote Haldeman to praise his take on the subject.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#210

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

antifa wrote: post #207
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non sequitur. 1. The article is Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism". 2. A parent post implies that "normal" society has actually become Fascist without us realizing it, and starts talking about how you can't go outside the Overton Window. 3. Post to which I replied says you can probably be perfectly happy in such a society, until you come to understand your situation, at which point you are "red pilled" (though refused t…

The term red pill comes from The Matrix where the non-subtle metaphor is "want to know the truth? Take the red pill". There was no need to censor the term if that was the meaning. A group of people, often considered misogynists or anti-feminists, who think they have a secret truth about dating women, also use the term. There is also the subtle metaphor of The Matrix, that the redpill actual refers to transitioning in…

Oh, I see. I hear "red pill" and think politics. As in, "converted to the Trump side".

It's all Gnostic stuff. Hiding pieces of the mystery religion maybe even makes it more appealing to converts.

Post reply on HN