What is Digg?142 Comments
- notque, on 12/31/2007, -1/+92Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves. - Bertrand Russell
- atdigg, on 12/31/2007, -0/+65"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
- Vigrant, on 12/31/2007, -2/+56All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
- Rotzooi, on 12/31/2007, -1/+46I like maxims that don't encourage behavior modification. - Calvin of Hobbes
- moxley, on 12/31/2007, -5/+31The most relevant line in the article that should be bannered all over the US until the sheeple understand:
"These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you" - tomboy501, on 12/31/2007, -1/+20The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
- mclewell, on 12/31/2007, -0/+18"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." - Orwell
- Godel, on 12/31/2007, -4/+22What are you talking about? Socialism had its hay-day while Orwell was still alive. Wisconsin was electing socialist governors and mayors, Eugene Debs was at the height of his popularity, the socialists banded together with the royalists to fight off the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, Orwell himself fought for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Many more people listened to what he had to say then than would now.
- c0ldfusi0n, on 12/31/2007, -2/+18Interesting. Was a pretty good book, wish this preface would've been included. And here's my own little maxim contribution...
In America, through pressure of conformity, there is freedom of choice, but nothing to choose from. - notque, on 12/31/2007, -1/+15The essay was written as a preface to the first edition of Animal Farm but was not included in the published book and only discovered in the author's original typescript some years later. It is now a favourite citation for critics of our supposedly free press, as an illustration of how the media can work to suppress uncomfortable truths without this necessitating some vast conspiracy. It is "ironic" that the particular example of self-censorship Orwell referred to in the essay was the refusal of the left-wing and liberal press of the time to publish criticism of the Soviet Union - not a major feature of Western media orthodoxy in later years. Indeed, the subsequent popularity of Animal Farm and 1984 had much to do with their usefulness in attacking the USSR and "International Communism" (more usually, of course, these attacks were simply on anyone, left-leaning or otherwise, the attacker was anxious to demonise). Even now, Orwell is better known for these two books, apparently intended as critiques of socialism, than for the many works he wrote espousing socialism. Using Orwell's works to make generalised attacks on the left is problematic, even for the two novels championed thus - while Animal Farm is very clearly a deserved satire on the Soviet Union, its greatest criticism of the Russian leaders is that they sold out socialist principle to accommodate themselves with capitalist countries ("The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."); 1984, meanwhile, is less an attack on the left than a satiric extrapolation drawn from the argument of James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution, which predicted the replacement of left/right ideology with a new ruling class of technocrats and social scientists. (This sixty year old idea is much favoured by post-modern intellectuals of the Fukuyama ilk - the difference being that they seem to approve.)
- ICSU, on 12/31/2007, -0/+14Actually, it was even worse back then. Fascism, communism, Nazism were mainstream.
- nedev, on 12/31/2007, -4/+17That preface is not suppressed at all. It's a great read, but don't make it sound like some kind of forbidden conspiracy thing.
For one thing it's in my own copy of Animal Farm. Not very well suppressed at all. - inactive, on 12/31/2007, -0/+13I've never seen black text on a white background before!
- inactive, on 12/31/2007, -2/+14"The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics." And the ownership of the U.S. media has become similarly consolidated in the last half century.
- StormyAaron, on 12/31/2007, -1/+12I read Animal Farm in 10th grade, before I really got in to politics, before I learned fully about the Patriot Act (forgive me I was in 7th grade when 9/11 happened). I loved the book. Sure it was about the Russian Revolution yet it points out many factors about government editing agreements between the government and the people much like what is happening with the US Constitution. Orwell was by no means a fearmonger he was just recording history in a story fashion showing the danger of what government can do. To say Orwell was a fearmonger is like to say that the Ruby Guilinie(sp?) does not campaign off of 9/11, it would be like saying Ron Paul is campaign platform contradicts the US Constitution. It is the complete opposite. Look at his book 1984, and how much it is reflecting life today, in the US and even more so in the UK. He saw what could happen and warned us in these books. Even if he meant them just to be stories (which he did not) these warnings should be taken to heart. Ray Bradbury the author of Fahrenheit 451 correctly depicted life today over 50 years ago, iPods, they had seashell type things to put in their ears, the The banning of books because it "They remind us what asses and fools we were" political correctness (and Newspeak from 1984). These books are a warning if nothing else. They are not from an extreme lack of imagination, they had insight of human nature, they wrote books which were to become some of the most conversational books of all time, controversy brings change and open debate up to the table, open debate today is so badly needed in today's world with all the blind sheep who think Universalize Health care is a bigger issue then the collapse of the U.S. Constitution, which is the foundation for the USA, much like a house you need to fix the foundation before you can add on to the house. For far too long have Presidents, Congress, Supreme Court (to a lesser degree to my knowledge) spat on it. Today is a time to call for change on these figures, instead of apathy hold these people accountable to their oath to "Protect and preserve the Constitution" Ron Paul alone can not make this change, he is a stepping stone to this. The price of freedom is not just dead citizens standing up to serve the country, but the price of freedom is the populist praticing eternal vigilance on the government to make sure our freedoms are not violated. This sir is what Animal Farm is about, "All animals are created equal" then at the end it was changed to "All animals are created equal, some are more equal then others" No once noticed, nor asked why it was changed. This sir is what Animal Farm is about.
- jmpeagle, on 12/31/2007, -2/+13I like how this comes froma Russian website
- zephyr42, on 12/31/2007, -6/+17George Orwell was born too early for his time, no one was ready for what he had to say...
It has to be said none-the-less. - positron, on 12/31/2007, -0/+9If liberty means anything at all it also means the right to stick your fingers in your ears and hum Mary Had a Little Lamb while walking away. Not saying I don't agree with the message here, just saying that the right to speak freely in dissent doesn't also include a right to force people to listen to you against their will.
- michaelz92, on 12/31/2007, -1/+10fantastic novel
- zephyr42, on 12/31/2007, -1/+10I think I would argue to say that it's not worse then but the same, Fascism (mostly) has been creeping up slowly rather than quickly like it was back then.
- Galizur, on 12/31/2007, -0/+9Of particular note:
One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought. This argument was used, for instance, to justify the Russian purges. The most ardent Russophile hardly believed that all of the victims were guilty of all the things they were accused of: but by holding heretical opinions they ‘objectively’ harmed the régime, and therefore it was quite right not only to massacre them but to discredit them by false accusations. The same argument was used to justify the quite conscious lying that went on in the leftwing press about the Trotskyists and other Republican minorities in the Spanish civil war. And it was used again as a reason for yelping against habeas corpus when Mosley was released in 1943. - terrordome, on 12/31/2007, -0/+9"Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."
-- Rosa Luxemburg - epmc, on 12/31/2007, -0/+8Actually Orwell fought with the POUM (Worker's Party of Marxist Unification), and not with the Lincolns. "Homage to Catalonia" is a good autobiographical account of his experiences in Spain.
- Demq, on 12/31/2007, -1/+9No wonder this book/cartoon was banned in the soviet union. I saw the cartoon at the age of 20...while i should have seen it when i was a kid like most of you did.
- Ninnux, on 12/31/2007, -0/+8I showed this to my grad school adviser whom is a Baby Boomer. This was his reply:
According to Penguin, it was was included in the first edition for lack of pages. I know nothing of the publishing business, so I have no idea if this is a legitimate reason for excluding it.
On the other hand, it really is an essay on the extent to which the liberal British intelligentsia had, at that time, uncritically embraced the Soviet revolution. There is abundant historical evidence in support of Orwell's claims that otherwise intelligent people turned a blind eye to Stalin's reign of terror. G.B. Shaw was among the most influential of this set. But the point is, does an essay on this topic really comprise an appropriate preface for a book like Animal Farm? I don't know the answer to this question, but I think is may be a point upon which people of good will might disagree.
I was listening to an inteview with Tom Brokaw, who has emerged as the historian of the Boomers. He commented that during the 60's congressmen of different political positions were still able to talk to each other about their differences, whereas today, the camps are more sharply divided by 'litmus' issues which admit of no debate. That is not so different from the notion that if you like Marx, you have to like Stalin, too. - topace3000, on 12/31/2007, -4/+11Every time someone says 'sheeple" in a serious tone, I die a little more inside.
- chsbrgr, on 12/31/2007, -0/+7“Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.” -John Quincy Adams
- banmaster, on 12/31/2007, -0/+7Even though a poster above you linked the the mirror 35 minutes before you wrote your own post?!
- ussoldier, on 12/31/2007, -4/+10When I first read Animal Farm in high school, 20 years ago, I thought he was talking about the United States, or governments in general. I had no idea he was writing it about the Soviet Union / Fascists.
- Rheic, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6The world would be a worse place today if he wasn't around back then.
- epmc, on 12/31/2007, -1/+7To clarify, Orwell meant liberals as in people who supported liberal democracy and capitalism, not liberals as in liberals vs. conservatives (i.e. democrats, etc.). Not saying you didn't know this, just clarifying.
- azbmr, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6You want impressive? Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America. Dude nailed it 170 years ago.
- StormyAaron, on 12/31/2007, -2/+8In regards to your previous comment, I am not in high school, nor am I an "intellectually stunted man-children". Nor do I fully go with the police state thing. Read Plato's Republic he outline governments much like the USSR and the Party in 1984. I never said that Orwell's words are true just that they provide a warning to what COULD happen and how it is falling along in lines today. I am majoring in Political Science, and hope to get a PhD in Political Science, the more I learn and understand government and history the more I can relate to 1984 and Animal Farm. Sir, Thomas Jefferson (a founding father) said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" along with "When people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." I can not see how you can discredit founding fathers, and how our leaders should be upholding their oaths of office. That is our duty as citizens.
- MellerTime, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6Check out the 'Customers also bought...' section on Amazon for Democracy in America - a ton of great stuff. Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, the list goes on... A lot more of this stuff should be required reading these days.
- jtbuck, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5I for one am glad to see there is one page left with black text on a white background.
- boflaade, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5Wow kid! If you wrote this yourself you are going places. I just don't understand why you would bother with the "Digg" reader though. I don't know anything about Ron Paul and the comment on this politician. It's almost a contradiction to mention a politician, when you refer to rebuilding the foundation of your country. I quote your words: "..the price of freedom is not just dead citizens standing up to serve the country, but the price of freedom is the populist practicing eternal vigilance on the government to make sure our freedoms are not violated.".
- fyre2012, on 12/31/2007, -3/+8server = crushed
http://www.duggmirror.com - inactive, on 12/31/2007, -4/+8Aww, he gets it. Isn't that cute?
- boflaade, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4I think you should read less into it. The fall of democracy is in the west. Something that existed once. The Middle East hasn't changed from Orwell's era, even when under British rule.
- Crusader1145, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4Nope, nothing to learn from those dead white male Europeans. Nope, nothing at all. No science, no art, no philosophy, no medicine. All we really need is mindless drivel like Sweet Valley High and X-Men comics. Ah, sweet utopia.
I find it amusing, in a pathetic, semi-literate, anti-intellectual, way, that you would call someone "doltish" for suggesting people learn something about the foundations of their societies and cultures. Perhaps if you took your nose out of Sweet Valley High and learned something you might understand. - notque, on 12/31/2007, -1/+5Second "Homage to Catalonia" as an excellent book, probably his best work in my opinion.
- ferrofluid, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4rather funny in a British way, actually.
- inactive, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:prCKI0HsezQJ: ...
- Rotzooi, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4reads better than "Calvin of 'Calvin and Hobbes'", doesn't it?
- Nougat, on 12/31/2007, -4/+8... Slow clap.
- inactive, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3It's called grammar, not worship. I guess once the Eighteenth Amendment was passed prohibiting alcohol you would have claimed that repealing it with the Twenty First Amendment was unconstitutional. If you follow your logic through, then all the amendments are "unconstitutional" because they were not originally in the document that the States ratified. They are not unconstitutional, because Article V of the Constitution conveniently gives us two ways to amend the document and this clause was in the original document ratified. You don't have to worship the document, but you should at least read it before discussing it.
- terrordome, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4I read the book years ago, I never had it personally, though. However after reading this I had to order it.
- Rheic, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4It's not Orwell's fault. He was writing about a specific fascist government (Animal Farm) or fascist governments in general (1984). He had his issues with the British and American governments but he would never have called them fascist because he was living in a time when real fascism provided a stark contrast. The fascist governments he would have been writing about today are mostly in the middle east.
- zabzany, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3just read it in school its a great book.
- StormyAaron, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Amiches, My professors know I can't write well, what I lack in writing skill I make up for in verbal debate skills. It is not so much authoritarian dictatorship aspect of it then the principal of the violation of the U.S. Constitution. I am more on principal when it comes to the violation of such things. I'd rather be safe then sorry (some what ironic if you ask me ;) )
Boflaade yes I wrote that my self, when I have the passion in it to me is when I will speak, even if it is on digg and not to masses of people at a street corner. The eternal vigilance of the government means holding politicians responsible for their actions, such as not following the Constitution when they are sworn to protect it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is