61–70 of 252 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The annotated version is legal, the unannotated version is illegal.
What's the difference between the two editions? I can't imagine what these added annotations are about that make the book legal. Is it the occasional "Editor's note: genocide is very naughty"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm continually astonished at the ultraconservative meme that Hitler was left-wing (which seems to originate with a book called 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg, although it has doubtless been floating around for much longer). Point out that one of the very first things that Hitler did on attaining power was have all the trade unionists arrested, and you might as well be talking to the air.
It's almost as though "left" and "right" are meaningless terms that are just use to split the people into two camps for battle against each other.
This is a great reminder that at one time Hitler was not the caricature of pure evil that he is now. He was real and nobody knew what the future held. Amazing snapshot into that time.
Bearing in mind that this "caricature of pure evil" image is basically result of propaganda of the winning side of WW2 it's only natural that it wasn't the case before he lost his war. Far more interesting about this article is the fact how much it was known about what the future held. Sure, Orwell might be somewhat above average in questions of history and politics, but still I'd say it is pretty surprising that he…
I'm not sure that any propaganda is necessary to convince 99.9% of people that the instigator of the largest genocide in human history is, in fact, a "caricature of pure evil."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm continually astonished at the ultraconservative meme that Hitler was left-wing (which seems to originate with a book called 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg, although it has doubtless been floating around for much longer). Point out that one of the very first things that Hitler did on attaining power was have all the trade unionists arrested, and you might as well be talking to the air.
It's almost as though "left" and "right" are meaningless terms that are just use to split the people into two camps for battle against each other.
EDIT: I can only attribute this silly parrallel between Hitler and Napoleon to Orwell's origins. Being a British writer, he was probably educated throughout his life to loathe Napoleon, presented as the ultimate Evil causing trouble in Europe.
Has anyone here actually read Mein Kampf? Doing so is probably banned in Germany and I am not sure what there is other than kiddie porn or some al-qaeda training manual that you totally would not want in your browsing history. There could come a time when no living person has read Mein Kampf and nobody would know first hand why it is wrong.
Yes, I have (yay protection of free speech!) and it is dreadfully boring. It is amazing though how it pretty much spells out exactly what he would end up doing once he took power, in all the horrid detail, and yet some politicians of the time believed that simple appeasement would work... As someone else here said, the lesson is that crazy people sometimes mean what they say, even when it sounds totally crazy.
Yeah, the challenge is to figure out which crazy people are actually crazy and mean what they say, and which ones say crazy things simply to gain votes.
If you guys know a lot about the period, I just transcribed it on Genius and I'd appreciate some help annotating it: http://history.genius.com/George-orwell-review-of-mein-kampf... (full disclosure I work at Genius.)
Unrelated to the matter but since you work at genius, can you talk to the geniuses (sic) who thought that hijacking text highlight was a good idea? A lot of us speed readers use text highlight to read along. It is easier on the eyes and the brain. So please don't hijack it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bearing in mind that this "caricature of pure evil" image is basically result of propaganda of the winning side of WW2 it's only natural that it wasn't the case before he lost his war. Far more interesting about this article is the fact how much it was known about what the future held. Sure, Orwell might be somewhat above average in questions of history and politics, but still I'd say it is pretty surprising that he…
> "Bearing in mind that this "caricature of pure evil" image is basically result of propaganda of the winning side of WW2" I'm not sure that any propaganda is necessary to convince 99.9% of people that the instigator of the largest genocide in human history is, in fact, a "caricature of pure evil."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Bearing in mind that this "caricature of pure evil" image is basically result of propaganda of the winning side of WW2" I'm not sure that any propaganda is necessary to convince 99.9% of people that the instigator of the largest genocide in human history is, in fact, a "caricature of pure evil."
Stalin's genocide was larger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll Mao Zedong is believed to be responsible for 34,300,000–63,784,000 deaths and Joseph Stalin for 23,000,000–60,000,000.
If you guys know a lot about the period, I just transcribed it on Genius and I'd appreciate some help annotating it: http://history.genius.com/George-orwell-review-of-mein-kampf... (full disclosure I work at Genius.)
Unrelated to the matter but since you work at genius, can you talk to the geniuses (sic) who thought that hijacking text highlight was a good idea? A lot of us speed readers use text highlight to read along. It is easier on the eyes and the brain. So please don't hijack it.
For philosophical reasons: genius is about annotating text, and as a result, about close reading. We'd rather optimize for a close read than a speed read.