Me too! But not while in school. These books aren’t part of the curriculum where I live. But as a music teacher I had my students see videos of both novels. Why? To prove how musical lyrics can be used as propaganda to influence others without them even knowing it. And to show them the power music and artists have in order to make people think or “unthink” (thought manipulation).
I read 1984 back in High School. I did a lot of skimming and it didn't really take ahold of me. I read it again last year and I can only describe it as.....anxiety....it felt like anxiety....from beginning to end.
@häh Parsons, in particular, made me feel anxious. Parsons is everywhere in our society. The desperation to show allegiance and be an insider becomes an obsession to his children. He can't guide or direct them. He can't discipline them. He can't do anything but watch them be enveloped by it, for fear of being a thought criminal. Not only can he not stop them, but he has to cheer them on. In the end, despite his displays of allegiance, his children turn him in anyway. It was inevitable. His response was to drop to his knees and do the only thing he knew how to do. Beg and show allegiance. Anything to avoid room 101 (Our deepest fears). It reminds me of a song quote. "Crawl with me into tomorrow Or I'll drag you to your grave I'm deep inside your children They'll betray you in my name" -Sleep Now In The Fire, RATM
It happens all the time since the printing machine was invented. We can only try to reconstruct a very incomplete story bc we can’t objectively know what really happened. That’s why the best thing you can do is either not get information at all or get your information from many different conflicting sources and piece together a more nuanced narrative
'Writers might follow profit incentives and say what people want to hear rather than saying what they think is true". I have seen this happen with media in the US. Orwell was so prophetic.
George Orwell saw the writing on the wall about totalitarianism. He tried to warn us but as usual we were too busy enjoying petty comforts to take notice. So much has changed since then, except that we are still too busy enjoying petty comforts to take notice.
@@patthewoodboy ...same here though a couple Are awake thanks to altMedia via internet -- truth: ther Are more of us than 'elites' but Most are too asleep,fearful, etc. Even so, come,Lord Jesus !! Rev.22:20
1984 is a book that has haunted me since it was a set book (ie "forced" read) in English Literature class at my school in the early 1960's. Whilst I loved reading since I was 4 years old, I absolutely hated Eng Lit classes in school, the teacher trying to get us into the minds of authors was boring....until this book! I needed to understand what was going on in Orwell's head. I discovered Animal Farm a few years later and then I finally began to understand as the Cuban Missile Crisis was unfolding. I am neither English, American, Russian, European nor Chinese yet right now 1984 should be brought back to all of these countries, most especially the USA (as the so called most powerful) which is descending so fast into totalitarianism.
Certainly has been toying with, and teetering on the cliff-edge of totalitarianism. In days, the pointer has shifted from one Florida man (“Loser is a hard word for me to say”), to one with less baggage, to be the New Great Leader of Cult-45.
@@Allan-mf1he As a Person who was colonized by 3 Major colonizers mainly Spain, USA and Japan. I am inclined to say that i view colonialism poorly, in short i hate it. Yes i do acknowledge there was some sort of benefits here and there but in totality it wasn't worth being buttfucked by colonizers. Mostly those who benefited were the colonizers and their descendants while the native populace carried the labor and did suffer a lot. The deaths and exploitation were just too much and certain cultures were wiped out because the colonizers thought it was inferior. Certain colonial mindset were also applied mainly by both Spain and America. The belief that eurocentric values and beauty were superior and i admit it is still found in our current societies.
I would even argue Orwell was even somewhat of a philosopher. The part that I love most in 1984 is when O'Brien gives his speech to Winston about Power, I feel like a lot of Orwells actions and mindset came together and made since after that moment. The character of O'Brien arguing that the problem is Power, it has always been Power and it will always be Power. As long as humanity exists, there will be humans who seek Power over other humans in whatever form they can. Power takes many forms, such as money or guns, religions or political movements, and it will always be a part of human society. He criticizes the Nazis and the Soviets, saying that they spoke lies about "Utopias", and while the Party of Ingsoc/Big Brother does the same, it does not believe in its own lies. That the Nazis and Soviets believed that they were going to build a Utopia once the blood was finally spilled, they could not accept that what they truly wanted was Power. O'Brien argued that Big Brother is more successful than those "Totalitarians of the past", as the Party is capable of accepting that it wants Power. It doesn't want a Utopia, it doesn't dream of saving humanity, it just wants to bend humanity to its will. All this to say, Orwell is very obviously commenting on one of Humanities greatest problems that has been with us since our inception, and will likely follow us into our grave. There will always be people in Power, animals using more complicated toys to force other animals to do as they desire. The desire for Power will grow increasingly more subtle as we evolve. For me in that moment, 1984 ceased to be a political commentary and evolved into a commentary on human nature.
If you're going to boil all the problems and tensions down to one thing: 'power' hence you've reduced all the world's complexities down to a single word or concept, then you're always going to be very very confused about what is going on around you.
@@willnitschke I agree, and in the end the word becomes meaningless, as all words will without context or descriptions themselves of what is meant by the word used. The Power to decieve beats Power to inform anyway.
Perhaps you are referring to political or social orthodoxy as opposed to objective truth. It was objective truth that ,Orwell lamented, was missing from history
Orwell believed in an Objective truth, but that governement and party loyalty led us to accept a subjective truth if the obective truth contradicted our desires.
That's the absolute opposite of the case against objective truth. The leotarded "there is no truth" propagators would make you believe every subjective truth is as valid as the next one, so you'll end up believing in propaganda that way. Objective truth is such a fundamental and obvious thing that it pains me to even imagine how you leotards think. You were probably always bad at math, that's my conclusion.
The greatest importance of his work is in applying it's truths (or falsehoods) to what is happening today, and acting upon that. I read '1984' for the second time in 2019, and I then watched as 2020 and 2021 played out similar to that '1984' Orwellian dystopia. '1984' was a warning which few appear to have understood, and even fewer are willing to resist, but resist we must.
1984 was an instruction manual ... didn't you know that? /sarc off ;-) Pardon the joke, John, but I've found that quoting Orwell to a dipstick has as much effect as telling the DMV you're in a hurry ...
George Orwell's book 1984 was a warning to all of us the government was fully aware of how history can repeat itself the government made history repeat itself by censoring history not teaching about Stalin and Hitler and the Civil War in Elementary and high school is done a disservice to All American citizens and all citizens of the world
If you look at how the book of Jasher portrays the Tower of Babel, there were to be three kings to rule the world, but then finally, one. It was only when the totalitarianism was nearly complete that people found the bravery to do anything about it.
I had a very specific view of George Orwell because of the uses people put his work to (defending capitalism and rebuking anything remotely communist or socialist) but this video really changed my view on him and kind of showed me that I need to do my own research before coming to conclusions about people.
@@Gallic_Gabagool Depends on your definitions of those words. "Communist" is often meant to mean "Revolutionary Socialist" and places like the Soviet Union saw themselves as Socialist implying that Communism will naturally come in the future. But because in the west the word "Socialist" largely means "Democratic Socialism" people see them as different things.
"Open Societies and Its Enemies" by Popper is a more explicit argument against what I think Orwell was concerned with. There are parts of it which will probably sound too extreme/unfair if you're a modern leftist, but just remember it is giving one side of an argument which was very active at the time. Also related, in my mind, is the origin of the three arrows symbol. Look it up if you're unfamiliar. Anyways... The fight wasn't left vs right, it was liberalism vs authoritarianism. Thinking of it in left vs right terms misses the much more important (IMO) point. That point is also sadly highly relevant today. ETA: Authoritarian personality (followers) is also something well worth learning about. I liked Bob Altemeyers book "The Authoritarians", which is helpfully free online. Orwell definitely understood parts of it, but serious sociological work on it didn't really get going until the 50s and 60s. Totalitarianism arising from an authoritarian movement doesn't require the sort of intentional heavy hand Orwell appeared to think it does... The followers do most of the work of persuading themselves and the 'leaders' mostly just give the followers what they want (often authoritarian leaders are, or at least start as, amoral social manipulators more like an mega-chuch preacher or con-man than a true believer).
It would have been hard to understand, if you didn't look at the examples of history and didn't understand basic human nature. People have not really changed in 45 thousand years, so same kind of stimuli is going to produce same kind of effects and our drives and imperatives are the same. I started my life in soviet union and when that craptastic monstrocity fell apart, I hoped to at least live out the rest of my days without the authoritarians getting back in charge, but I guess the damn technological advancements made their rise even faster this time. At least it's much more visible to everyone who cares to pay attention, thanx to the internet. Without it, we would still only get the same fluff pieces and fiction from the news media as in Orwell's time.
In my opinion, there is simply no true understanding of Orwell’s work without reading Homage to Catalonia and, I would argue Down and Out in Paris and London. He was, at the heart, a humanist and his bitter experiences at th hands of those who consider others to be fodder for their own uses so defined his work. Like many of my generation, I read both 1984 and Animal Farm in High School. It wasn’t until a growing interest int eh Spanish Civil War that I read Homage to Catalonia. It catalyzed my feelings about socialism and its almost ruin at the hands of the Bolsheviks. From there, I went on to read every one of Orwell’s books. His earlier works were not overtly political, but his sense of what was wrong was clear, a good example of which in Burmese Days. To me, the truest thing he ever wrote was his observation (from Down and Out) that poverty was profitable as “it is easier to take pennies from the poor than pounds from the rich”. My own work experiences in finance have only reinforced my belief in this truth. I consider Orwell to be, perhaps, the most important writer of the 20th century.
Interesting comment. My dad made me read Burmese Days but I have not read Down and Out yet. Now I think I should read it because my dad was always going on about it. As for " it is easier to take pennies from the poor than pounds from the rich” - it seems so true. The poor are the targets of usury which is a word that seems to be absent in modern English, just like covet. I remember Voltaire said “The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.” Voltaire was something else my dad often quoted to me. I miss my dad! Take care Peter.
@@NorthernGate777 Yes, the Capitalist countries have always "exploited the poor" but so has Communist Russia. Those Communist leaders, and their Oligarch suck-ups live in palaces and have ridiculously expensive yachts, are exploiting the masses, themselves.* Look at Nasty Pelosi and many of those Democraps in the US Congress, who have power to determine where our tax money is spent, who, themselves, have greatly benefited financially resulting from the expenditures they vote for. Those US communist leaders in BLM and other leftist organizations are living high on the hog from donations from deluded idiots! *Did you see a photo of that grossly obese Russian general that Putin sent to the Donbass? That sucker ate meals five times a day and lived in a huge estate house! These POSes never send their own kids to fight in Ukraine...they have to trick and threaten other Russian citizen's kids to "die for their Country (PUTIN and the Oligarchs)! I've listened to many telephone calls between Russian soldiers in the Donbass talking to loved ones back in Russia and it shows how much these soldiers, and their families, hate Putin for waging war in Ukraine! There are many UA-cam videos that provide these conversations (translated to English).
well , Peter , sure he is , together with some others like Aldous Huxley - " Brave New World " , ,,, so much in many ways like our existence(es) here in the cities of Western Europe and all the rest of the 'Western' World ... - "How much longer for "Elon Tyrell" to 'shape-or-shorten' our well programmed 'lives' ???
I definitely agree that people should read his autobiographical novels to really get a feel for what kind of person he was. What really comes through in these books specifically is Orwell's almost obsessive objectivity, to the point that he constantly point out his own ignorance, incompetence, pettiness, cowardice etc. in various situations. Hell, he even helpfully tells the reader when he suspects that his own opinions may be biased for personal reasons. I can't imagine that many people who read Homage to Catalonia come away truly feeling that Orwell tries spin anything, no matter how much they might disagree with him politically.
It's truly criminal that you only have a few thousand subscribers. There's not many people whose videos I really look forward to this much. Always insightful, my dude.
@@JoeMun people won't accept even honest criticism now. The biggest problem I see in areas of social sciences is that their arguments are usually based on very simplistic premises which you're expected to accept, or refutations for which they provide no evidence. Eg Gender theory, just because something is a construct doesn't make it arbitrary and the reification of gender is insane.
@@painpeace3619 The real advantage of being able to discern truth from falsehood is the ability to interact with the world far more efficiently and effectively. How that happens to align with a simian pecking order is quite irrelevant.
Thank you for compiling all of these quotes together with the sources. I remember a good deal of them and have cited them when Orwell inevitably comes up in discussions about politics these days, but I had completely forgotten which pieces, outside of his novels, they were from.
Orwell totally describes the Western world we live in today...bending truth/reality to fit a political agenda. Thank you, Ryan. You have a great talent for summarizing.
I love Orwell but I think the one who deserves credit for predicting our modern society was a man way ahead of his time but far less known, Aldous Huxley. In "Brave New World," he described a world where overabundance of information and freedom enslaved the people rather than totalitarian restrictions. Orwell, witnessing what he did in the 20th Century, was completely right in assuming the trajectory we appeared to be taking (and many places took it). Huxley described the 21st Century though, well before its time.
@@craigpoer Ironic that the conservatives claim Orwell was on their side when in this video you clearly see his origins as a socialist. The left is not the side claiming some narcissistic, orange debauched playboy is some Christlike 'man of the people' when he openly rants like Saddam Hussein about killing political opponents.
@@craigpoer i might be misunderstanding you but did you mot watch the video? Orwell was in support of democratic socialism. The far right loath with distain for anything not perfectly in line with their ideologies
Catching up on your catalog now that I've "discovered" you. Your knack for piecing together a narration that is (by necessity) truncated while also being (through talent) surprisingly comprehensive, is admirable.
Thank you for this. I was feeling hopeless today when I looked around today and felt how divided we've all become, how inhuman all of this feels. Thanks for this.
Orwell was one of the most insightful and profound authors of the last few centuries. It is simply astounding how much of his insights can be seen in modern societies and countries around the world. Truly scary.
We are living in an inhuman society administered and created by inhuman elements. You are correct to feel this way. The truth really is perceived as lie and deception portrayed as truth.
‘As I Please’ ~George Orwell “SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality. Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me. As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it? Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either. My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets. Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth. If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter. It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”
1984 is probably the greatest work of fiction I've ever come across in my life. That book hits HARD! The scariest thing about it is that even though it was meant to be a warning, some people seem to think it's an instruction manual.
... and I'm not so sure it is fiction. It might have been originally, but looking around today, it's actually a plausible reality for the not-too-distant future.
I hated having to read 1984 in English class when I was in secondary school. You just gave me a whole new understanding and appreciation for the book and its author.😁
I think the BBC found some archive radio recordings more recently they certainly did a Radio 4 series featuring his life and work.. The fact that he experienced harsh conditions like those in The road to Wigan Pier and ended his writing days in a damp house in The Hebrides dying of TB.. typically of his time despite being shot in the throat he was a life long smoker.
What about listening to the 101ers? Joe Strummers pre Clash band. As for animal farm" I actually read 1984 voluntarily. All of his novels in effect.. The only novelist I had the stomach for. While Im fixated on ' A christmas carol'( especially Rich Littles) Dickens, by contrast, is a tough read. I sympathize there. Particularly David Copperfield. Even getting threw the talking book was an accomplishment. Im considering the pickwick papers next- the cartoon. Why not? Next to Alister Sims, Mr. McGoo made the best scrooge.
The Nobel committee is comprised of hard-left socialists; that is, people who lean toward totalitarianism. Hence, Al Gore's Nobel Prize (for having accomplished nothing), Barak Obama's Nobel Prize (for having accomplished nothing good), and Donald Trump being snubbed (though he brought the greatest peace to the Middle East that has ever been). Orwell was a socialist, but he was not the "right kind" of socialist.
The Nobel Prize is overrated but anyhow it's not given to dead people ever. And Orwell's masterpiece "1984" was only published months before his death.
1984 was required reading when I went to high school and it was beneficial. How much better and more informative the experience would have been if we had been able to watch this video first! Thanks for producing it. Wonderful stuff, Ryan. 👍
In 1974, my Dad was a serving soldier in the Intelligence Corps of the British Army. He was a Turkish speaker and was serving in Cyprus at the time Turkey invaded the island to protect the Turkish minority who were living there. One day he and his mates walked into a bar in Larnaca, a town on the south coast of the island. Also in the bar was a BBC news team, hammering the booze. After a while, the news reporter on the team peeled away from the bar and set up his recording equipment to record a "live" piece to tape which would be sent back to the UK on the next flight back. To my Dad's amazement the "reporter" started describing a non-existent street battle in Nicosia, which was then the capital. More pertinently, it was 35 miles and several hours on poor roads away on the central plain. The report was very descriptive and completely fictitious. When he had finished his fairy tale, the reporter returned to the bar and resumed his drinking. My Dad never believed a word from the BBC after that and nor have I. Nothing has changed.
@@cabbey31 Not sure what you mean by "Haha". As a family, we were there prior to '74, my Dad was there throughout '74 and we returned as a family in '75. First tour, my Dad worked out of Episkopi (island-wide brief but nominally based in Episkopi) and we lived in a hiring in some suburb of Limassol. I was an infant and then a primary school kid so don't know exactly where we lived. I briefly attended both Berengaria Infants and Curium school. In our second tour, we lived in 44 Belmont Village, Dhekelia. Edit : 23rd. May 2023 : cabbey31 seems to have deleted his (?) disparaging comment so this response no longer makes sense.
Wow! The totalitarianism that you speak of, people voluntarily censoring themselves and voluntarily conforming their beliefs to what their party tells them, sounds like today's plight. What's worse though, is government, social media, the news and press censoring people as well. It's truly scary. Thanks again for all of this informative content and you being non-biased. Which is a rarity today! I've been binging your channel the last couple of days.
Having read 1984 on my bus ride to college, I became the view that each of us had to take care of our own interests. How prophetic that Orwell saw this so graphically!!
Another wonderful piece of content. Your specific focus and wonderful use of Orwell’s writings to provide a chain of evidence in this lecture are outstanding. Please do not stop. There are many of us who greatly appreciate you wonderful contributions. E Pluribus Unum
1984 and Animal Farm being two of my all time favorite novels, I would give almost anything to have met and known Eric Blair/George Orwell. He sounds like a Human Being after my own heart, only supremely more talented and eloquent.
@@favesongslist ....but a lot less prophetic than Orwell's book. To me _Brave New World_ was really an attack on utilitarianism...on the idea that morals, legislation, or society should be built around increasing human happiness. It's like reading a modern-day Stoic satirizing the Epicureans for all he's worth, by imagining their Utopia and pointing out how awful it is. Orwell's books by contrast were portraying things he'd really seen, in pursuit of causes he'd believed in, and so it's depressing but not surprising that we meet more of his visions in reality. A less-remembered book in the same category is Henry Hazlitt's _Time Will Run Back_ . It's set in "Wonworld," a united earth after a Communist victory, and details a rediscovery of capitalism. Hazlitt was primarily an economic writer -- he's the author of _Economics in One Lesson_ -- and what he was really doing was turning Ludwig von Mises' _Socialism_ into a very readable story. (In the intro Hazlitt notes that he was writing independently of Orwell at about the same time, and that the parallels between them were caused by the logic of what they were portraying. For example, in Wonworld the old languages have been replaced by "Marxanto," with some of the features of Newspeak.)
Orwell's novel, 1984, is perhaps what I find to be an important book for everyone to read because he foresaw what was to come in technology in how societies would use telecommunication to deceive the persons of society.
Yeah, but he got one very crucial thing wrong: he thought it would require an apocalyptic event to give rise to Big Brother when all it took was capitalism and vanity.
@@DG-iw3yw My major at uni was in environmentalism. I’ve been surfing for over 40 years. I do beach cleanups regularly. You’re preaching to the choir. We’re f-ed.
It would be so interesting to see what George Orwell would think if he were alive today, immediately post covid, and so much of what he predicted (or warned against) coming true.
Um he lived through a pandemic. Spanish (started in the US) Flu. What you fail to realize is that the problems and issues are the same as 100-200-300-400-500 years ago. The only difference is technology.
I'd argue the opposite, it is the playable characters that are without mind as all their actions are based on the input of an external actor (the player), meanwhile N.P.C.'s are Autonomous and see themselves as actual beings. If you can think then you're the N.P.C.
That completely misses the point of the analogy though. NPC is used because, in video games, characters that aren’t controlled by the player follow a script that is much simpler that the human mind that controls the player character’s actions.
I know this is a bit old but two things bear noting/correcting. 1) There is a surviving film record of Orwell from an interview with him shortly before he died while he was bedridden. I’ve seen it used in other UA-cam documentaries about him. 2) A great deal of the influence on 1984 comes from James Burnham’s book The Managerial Revolution, which Orwell wrote a “debunking” review on and which is included by publishers of the book in current editions. The Managerial Revolution and the Professional Managerial State described within bears far more resemblance to the Oceania of 1984 than either fascist or communist governments, and is critical to understanding the work fully.
I have heard/read many commentators refer to Burnham's Managerial Revolution as the single best book for understanding economy, politics, and our world today. True?
Chomsky (very credible source, this is his area) on youtube says that the original introduction by Orwell had it that the book was intended as a crisiticsm of the Briish class system and the control of it by elite private school products. The publishers forced Orwell not to have it and change it to the one we know.
Read it again as an adult. I guarantee you that there is plenty that you have missed. 1984 was written in 1948. It was written during the second red scare. Orwell was at this time surveilled for being a potential communist sympathizer. His neighbors gossiped about him. Do you see any similarities yet?
Like what? Hardly any socialists [actually none] I know believe North Korea or China are some kinds of workers paradise. He is obviously right about the subtle totalitarian take over of North American & European semi-democracies (I say "semi" as they were never full democracies, in a full democracy the population would vote on economic matters as well as political ones).
The phrase "history repeating itself" comes to mind. I am off the opinion that we are in for a horrible time and possibly another world war, which could well be the end of homo sapien.
@@TheSilmarillian meh. Im sure it varies, but theres for sure a good number of what you'd call "elites" who have either layed out the blueprints or are participating in, knowingly or unknowingly. For example the Clintons definitely know what theyre doing and the role they play. However the Trump's are so fuckin stupid, they have no idea what they are involved in.
i seriously recommend watching/reading a critique of him and his work. his arguments are… questionable at best. this video itself glorifies him far too much
@@John-qe6xx Like all of us Orwell has a lot of contradictions. Don't forget he was of a certain age when the British Empire was obviously on the way out. Today we have a load of intellectuals saying we should apologise and give compensation to all parts of the Empire. To me he is the greatest writer explaining why socialism is wrong when it is put into practice. no matter that he believed that it could somehow be made perfect.
I think Alice Miller is the most important writer... she explains why the fascist or totalitarian mindset develops in the first place... and does so in a highly emotionally intelligent way that allows each person to connect and recognize truths about their own childhood and their own functioning, and, if they allow themselves, to feel their pain and to heal. There are a lot of great writers, sure, and Orwell is very key in our century... but Miller is super relevant for all time. After all, this totalitarianism is just a deepening of the way we already live, and have lived for as long as civilization has existed - as civilization is an inherently fascistic, controlling, traumatized, and traumatizing way of life. (If you don’t think so, read Dr. Peter Gray’s article in Psychology Today, “How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained Their Egalitarian Ways,” for contrast. Register the difference between civilizations, which are always violent and hierarchical, and the “peaceful, egalitarian” inherent nature of hunter-gatherer groups. We denigrate them because they don’t use much technology - but don’t they have what truly matters?)
@@roginkWell this is just categorically wrong. There are plenty of socialist and communist countries which have succeeded, DESPITE major interventionist measures by capitalist countries and their allies. Whether or not you believe in capitalism or socialism, George Orwell didn’t explicitly say or imply that socialism doesn’t work when put in practice. He was anti-authoritarian for both right and left wing parties.
If anyone is wondering, most of the essay in this video is taken from the 1400-page collection of Orwell’s essays published by Everyman’s Library. I recommend everyone here to pick up a copy of that book. EDIT: Read also Christopher Hitchens’s book “Why Orwell Matters”, it’s a great assessment of Orwell’s entire body of work.
George Orwell is a clear answer why the modern society turns to today status: absurdity. Many intellectuals turned to socialism for answer while it is capital that made wealthy, made the world wealthy. Their grand father Adam Smith would be ashamed.
Christopher Hitchens' thoughts were so overshadowed by his hatred for God so as to make them utterly worthless. He was consumed by a hatred for someone he didn't even believe existed. Today, he knows otherwise. Today Christopher Hitchens, when he is not thinking about the burning and the thirst and the consuming worms and the screaming and the utter darkness, can think about the utter foolishness of his previous earthly thoughts. It sucks to be him.
I've read Orwell's fiction, but never his non-fiction. I found your video very compelling, and came away feeling the need to track down his non-fiction and add it to my reading list. Many thanks!
I hope you do, John. There are several good collections of Orwell's essays, and just about any one you pick up will contain many examples of his memorable, stimulating prose. IMO, Orwell's novels were uneven in quality, but his essays are packed with astute observations of human nature, politics, education and culture. The world he wrote about is different from what we see around us today; many of the social conventions he took for granted have crumbled. But what he had to say about the underlying nature of human greed, hatred, power and ignorance are timeless.
‘As I Please’ ~George Orwell “SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality. Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me. As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it? Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either. My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets. Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth. If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter. It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”
Don't know what brought me to this, but I am so glad I viewed it. Definitely re-reading 1984. And definitely sharing this on my social media. Thinking people should listen and absorb what Orwell tried to convey.
Thank you for the bio-history lesson. I remember reading Animal Farm in the fifth grade and 1984 as a high school freshman. Their lessons have stayed with me. I see it today.
@@screenarts The teacher you have makes a difference. Each student writing a Character Analysis, then having an open discussion in the classroom was helpful to students in middle school by teaching the students about independent thoughts, observations and perspective without dismissing their opinions.
Years ago I was a fan of a chanel called concordance, who's content centered around scientific literacy and explanation for laymen. I feel you are doing the same thing for political theory. Keep it up. 💯
My personal avenue to Orwell began with Down and Out in Paris and London which began a 40 year admiration of his work. Orwell will always be synonymous with exposing the worst traits of humanity. The BBC4 documentary of his life is well worth watching.
@@geoffpoole483TS BS TERMINOLOGY TO JUSTIFY UNJUSTIFIABLE ACTS WITHR DIFFUSION OF THE BLAME. Jews dont have a universal definition of what they are. Semites do most of the dying and other suffering caused by Jewish, US UK GERMAN SPANISH COLONIAL CORPORATE TOTALITARIAN LEANING FASCISTS. What a low brow cheap shot. No doubt you enjoy the fruits of such colonial criminals. No substance. No argument. No moral high ground. Bullies!
That was an excellent video!! The narration and delivery was superb!! And the analysis of George Orwell's writings was awesome 👌!! Thank you for your insight!! Very well done 👏!!
The frightening thing is that much of what Orwell said about the 'State' and people's willingness to follow it, continues to this day and has repeated many times throughput history!
What do you think about George Orwell working for the state as a colonial police officer then later in working for the real-world British version of the Ministry of Truth before finally ratting out fellow socialists to the British government in his infamous "list" for such egregious crimes as being "anti-white" or "possibly homosexual"?
@@SUPERTRANS2024-iy3qh He didn't rat out fellow socialists, he gave a shortlist of 38 people he thought unsuitable to have anything to do with the Labour government's anti-Soviet efforts in the IRD. It was a different time to now: one of the men who rejected 1984 for publication turned out to be a Soviet spy and went to prison for it, and the Queen's advisor, Anthony Blunt, admited he was a spy for Stalin. At the time, homosexuality was unlawful, and it was weaponised by the KGB (any spy agency, in fact) to blackmail people into giving them information. Many were concerned about harmful Stalinist interference in the post-war Labour government. It's likely Orwell didn't even know what the true function of the IRD was, because he certainly believed there should be no bans on communist party members. It's no secret he was a colonial police officer, nor is it a secret that the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War changed his views on democratic socialism which he became a staunch supporter of, thereafter. The reason he had to escape that war was because he was tipped off by his wife, when he returned from convalescence, that Stalin's goons were looking for him and he was on a list, so he had good reason to distrust Stalin's sympathisers.
Excellent piece - I would just add that the turning point in his life, as I understand it, was described in his essay "Shooting the Elephant" - the moment of his disillusionment as a young colonial police officer in Burma. "The white man ... becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventional figure of a sahib ... he wears a mask and his face grows to fit it." It was this experience, I think, that led him to leave his commission, return to England, and change his name.
It's one of those moments that made him disillusioned with British colonialism and the idea of an Empire. A good second story on this is also "A Hanging" also set in Burma during his officer days.
I have always admired him and astonished as how his work, particular in 1984 and Animal House, remains touchable and witnessed by many of us in today's world. Your overview, gives an excellent summary of his beliefs and political standing, which again remains valid and solid. Appreciate it.
Absolutely fascinating and worth the watch, thank you for creating this. As I'm reading 1984 currently, this has given me a clearer understanding of Orwell's themes and the message behind the book. Glad I stumbled on your channel- excellent work and thank you for sharing!
‘As I Please’ ~George Orwell “SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality. Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me. As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it? Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either. My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets. Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth. If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter. It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”
3:19 political ignorance - boxer 3:48 group thinking - political predilection 4:25 actual quote 4:27 propaganda 5:15 objective truth missing 5:26 abandoning the truth 5:557:568:13 no single truth in totalitarianism 6:17 define totalitarianism 6:36 1984 7:09 unofficial political orthodoxy 7:28 gramophone minds - volunteer orthodoxy 8:43 language - Newspeak 9:07 2 safeguards 9:25 define liberty 9:35 intellectual liberty 9:49 freedom 2+2=4 9:56 anti (economic) liberal anticapitalism 10:29 democratic socialism
the avatar of totalitarianism today is Rupert Murdock and his Fox Noise Network, and its spin offs and all but one of his children. It is worse now, more than ever.
I always loved and appreciated Animal Farm and 1984 since I was young. But hearing his views on politics and humans in general, we would have been friends.
We need a George Orwell now! We also need to be able to find a way to know he speaks the truth. You can't trust any media today, maybe we never could. I'm old and as I grew up with no social media, I listened to the radio, read news papers, and when television came along watched that. I assumed I was hearing the truth but probably not. I only knew what they told me and now realize it may have been extremely distorted. How do we make good decisions when we don't have the truth to base them on.
You have to disseminate the truth from as many different sources as you can. When you find a source lying or hiding the truth their credibility goes down.
UA-cam is the place to find the truth BUT you do need to be wary and exercise critical judgement. That said, I fear AI will soon destroy and ability to discern what is true from what is made up and we will all become confused, lost and easy prey for populists.
I read recently that the last four words of 1984 are considered the saddest ending to any novel ever written, declaring, "He loved Big Brother." Absolute indoctrination. Chilling.
But it's important to keep in mind that those words are only the end to Winston's story, not the novel. The book ends with a glimmer of hope, as the guide to Newspeak refers to the language and the nation that created it in the past tense.
Well. My interpretation of those words are "He Loved The BBC". He did work for them and they are not known for their honesty. Where is his criticism of the English Feudal system or the British Empire. There is no mention that when he lived on an island in Scotland where he wrote 1984 he was working as a spy for the British Government, spying on Scottish nationalists. He was right about capitalism and it's corrupting effect on the human condition. No political structure can save us now. Only veganism can possibly save us.🌱
@@berniv7375 Veganism? Lmao, veganism isn't going to stop billions of tons of CO2 from being released by fossil fuels. Only 10% of that is from meat. In a perfect world where no one eats meat (good luck, I couldn't stop if I wanted to and most of the population is likely just as attached) it would make a dent, but the issue would still be there. Not to mention how agriculture also causes pollution, and the rise in demand for vegetables would certainly reduce the impact of veganism on carbon emissions.
🙄 ‘As I Please’ ~George Orwell “SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality. Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me. As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it? Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either. My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets. Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth. If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter. It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”
@@resir9807 it's literally one of the most boring ass books I've ever read, and I've read a book on compiler architecture, for a CPU that doesn't exist IRL!
What a writer! Extremely prescient as it now turns out. I have most of Orwell's work, some of which I've read several times. 1984 is to me the one book which reveals his true genius. Should be required reading for everyone....
1984 was a shameless rip-off of a novel called "We". He was a disgusting antisemite and a hypocrite. He compiled a dossier of people he regarded as threats to national security for Special Branch. Orwell is the most overrated writer in the English language. He made many predictions and most of them were wrong. His novels were rubbish and his essays are no better. His early death is what saved his reputation. If only that Spanish sniper had killed him.
Alas, it often is required reading, but many people who teach it--and most who read it--can't seem to apply it to current situations. Oh, sure, they do so mechanically, but the problem is that the book starts at the end point of totalitarianism rather than describing the slow buildup to it in which the totalitarians conceal what they're up to, and the way they do it. Student readers dismiss the book as too extreme. They don't get it that the processes getting to the extreme are well on their way, and that they aren't some Nazi jackbooted militarists but capitalist media manipulators and the slimeballs like Trump who learn how to use that media. Worst of all, it is the extremes on BOTH sides--the Trumps/DeSantises AND the progressive "cancellers"--who are trying to drag things into varied forms of totalitarianism, so the situation is more complex than in Nazy Germany or the Soviet Union. BOTH of them believe that "there is no objective truth"--only "perspectives" and "lived experiences," or "all the media are equally bad liars"--and they use this position to break down the existing structure and insert their own forms of domination.
Like Rob, just want to say thank you for a thought provoking effort. PS an american reading Orwell in the 60s, I thought he wrote about our form of government/economics; later I discovered it was originally aimed at our then cold War enemies. But it looked identifiably familiar.
Listen i am HALF RUS HALF UKRAINIAN and watching this war from both sides and angles the way his words mirror today's reality in this war is just sureal and unbelievable...sickening but accurate to a frightening degree..
@evanamavrin5308 The worst thing is the so called "truth movement" started fabricating a new non existent version of have you seen that shit??? Like "ukraine is not a democracy russia is" Or "there are many ethnic Russians in Ukraine so that gives Russia right to invade and annex any teŕritory it wants" Or in general making Ukraine look like a dictatorship and putin a fairly elected leader and Russia a typical democracy These are the "anti government" people. Seriusly did you notice?
@Evan A Mavrin your childhood experiences gave you great insight for life. Unfortunately the majority have little critical thinking ability...they accept the enemy they are given and the enemy becomes REAL because the government is their IMAGINED friend. Then they send their children to fight that battle because they cannot help but repeat the battle cry when prompted. The voice of PEACE is the only voice that will save life...this is why the MEDIA never mentions peace.
I meant to add to the above comment, ' one of the best books describing the negative impact of imperialism on colonized population - I say 'best' because this fictional story describes so vividly the way it impacts and what happens to an indigenous population - 90 yrs later we are seeing 'live' how that works out when a false sense of nationalism replaces 'imperialism', by one group of the population and replaces the elite colonial power and oppressors it's own people! Look at Myanmar, (Burma), look at India, look at Sri Lanka, Look at most African states ....
Just discovered your channel and subscribed. I like your approach of addressing things informatively and not with a biased intention. Keep up the good work!
Anyone who truly payed attention to this clip or who knows Orwell's work will recognize many of the things he referred to when looking at the U.S. political landscape today. He warned us of this and we'd better take heed. If you can imagine what the state of our world would be if Germany had had the kind of power that the U.S. has today then it should become clear to everyone how much danger we are all in at this very moment!
@@erictjones no he was warning about human nature and recognizes the dangers of the extreme right and extreme left and extreme capitalism where freedom is controlled. The CNN town hall is a perfect example. I am sure that Orwell would castigate most of what goes on in most countries as manipulation and deception.
I've always been a fan of George Orwell's writing, but this video was even more enlightening about the author himself. The things that he wrote back then we're almost prescient. They apply just as well today as they did when he first put pen to paper.
‘As I Please’ ~George Orwell “SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality. Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me. As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it? Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either. My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets. Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth. If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter. It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”
Great presentation: Eric Blair is one of my favorite authors; he did live in perilous times, and saw reality through a prophet’s eyes. I had not heard before (or forgot) about his participation in the Spanish Civil War or his injury. I re-read 1984 (my father told me it had originally been titled ‘1948,’ but the publishers thought it too controversial); just as gripping as when I first read it at age 14 required reading as a freshman in High School.
I wonder whether it is still recommended reading in schools today. I would be very suprised if it is. but the powers are very arrogant and think they can rub it in our faces and we won't notice.
I might not be an expert on Orwell but I poured a lot months into his works since his time spent in Spain had been the subject of my BA thesis. I just wanted to also add that Orwell throughout his life struggled with his own identity as a true working class defender. He was not born into the working class and went to Eton, one of the prestigious public schools. Furthermore, throughout his life he tried really hard to fight his upper-class upbringing bias by going as far as becoming homeless and traveling throughout England and even spent some time in France working hard jobs in Paris. I recommend his Down and Out in Paris, it's a very entertaining and illuminating little novel about life journey. There's another great story called Keep the Aspidistra Flying which is a semi-autobiographical fictional novel about a young writer who works as book clerk and tries to resist temptations of capitalism to keep himself artistically pure. Things become really difficult for him once he receives his first royalty check for his own work. It's a very relatable story. A lot of his work reflects his struggles with being someone who wasn't born into the prototypical working class socialist ideals but embraced them, fought for them, and believed in them yet could never come to terms with his upbringing to feel like, try as he might, represented them. This aspect of the man is as important to his writing as his criticism of the Soviet regimes, in my opinion.
Maybe he saw that the only way-the only way to implement socialism is by fiat and force. It will always create a revolutionary backlash and it will always require that the backlash be suppressed.
Imagine how Orwell would feel today, with all the political issues he took having had the benefit of many decades to cement themselves in the hearts, minds and cultures of the west to such a degree as to tell a lie is regarded as merely speaking ones own truth. For all his insights, Orwell could never have imagined the extent of nightmarish dystopia we inhabit today. A world were the average man is not only fooled, he merrily is thankful to be.
@@averyavenue I fear popular fiction has not aptly manifested the true scale of the nightmare we reside in. It is far too diabolical a thing for an author in the past to imagine for his future kin. Yet it remains far too complex; and at any rate we suffer under its spell to such an extent that it's true nature remains a mystery even as we live through it. In fiction there is but a single big bad entity that caused the problem and which must be overcome to save the day. For Orwell that was government. For Wall-E that was consumerism. These are but the very tip of the iceberg that is sinking our civilisation. Importantly unlike in fiction where the causal force is conscious of and intending the outcomes created, in our reality there is not only many varied sources of this dystopia all at play on one another, but they remain under each other's spell. At once we are all victims and perpetrators of our own demise. We, at war with ourselves; are our own big brother. There is no single, nor duo of fiction to point to that describes our reality. It is the fears of all that weigh upon us. In truth even if we could glimpse it's true nature, it would remain too complicated a discussion to visualise in a 90 minute film or an 800 page novel. That is what makes this dystopia so sinister, it's nature remains so elusive and it's workings appear too convoluted to communicate. Consider, in terminator the AI sent nukes to rule us. In our reality the AI only needs to send a constant stream of pretty pictures and videos, whilst elevating some above others ensuring a constant supply of content on this dopamine train. Of course there a several such platforms with the same workings and outcome to give the illusion of choice for those whom prove more difficult to acquire. Consider the film Idiocracy and how much of it is apt to the world around you. We live in a world where individuals can appear as anonymous armies, and bend others to their will through blackmail or harassment with impunity. Where doublespeak is part of daily discourse and no one blinks an eye. Where identity and immutable traits have been weaponised into ideological distraction. A world were mental illness, genetic deformity and both grotesque extremes of body dysmorphia run at epidemic proportions. Where we are ever denying our own nature, and the tactile reality that comes with it such as to fall into fanciful, escapist, sensory overloads. We have become a civilisation of half-witted, self-righteous and socially awkward addicts with poor impulse control and no memory. Fiction could never have dreamt this horror for us. For if it were possible for the imaginations of men to conceive of such a thing in advance I have great doubt we would have arrived here.
Dear god. Like over half of the most popular comments are about how 1984 came true. This is unironically insane people think we’re anywhere remotely near the situation in that book in any way. You don’t see anybody who escaped North Korea or Russia for the United States whining about how truth is dead.
@@pezvonpez this ^. If I had to take a demographic guess, most of the people typing "1984 wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual" are most likely on the alt-right fash pipeline who think that "wokeness" and "cancel culture" is the downfall of western society, and most likely didn't watch until the end of the video.
Ryan, I am curious about your background. There is nothing in, "About". Forgive me if this seems nosey. I was just wondering where you are from and how you wound up where you are now (intellectually/productively)? Thank you for your work. I think your channel will do very well over time. I will happily pass it on.✌
When I was at School Animal farm was one of the book's we read and discussed, Orwell rewrote it for the British Government. I personally think that Animal farm was more important than 1984 . 1984 is a symptom of Animal farm.
@@ketmaniac I never said he wrote Animal Farm for the British Government, I said he rewrote Animal farm with anti Russian leaning, because the British and US Government's had a fear that the World would be taken over by Comonisam,
Ryan Chapman does an extraordinary job at at explaining the subject matter. He does not oversimplify and delves into enough detail as to evoke a desire for greater research on the part of the viewer. Excellent videos, I can't believe I have just discovered this channel.
They came out of different corners, but became one in the perception, that herd animals (unreflected humans) hate individual and reflected humans. Modern day prophets.🍷🎃
I've been a big fan of Orwell from a young age, having read as much of him as I possibly can. To this day he is my favourite writer and it is specifically because of his views on Democratic Socialism that I care so much for his writings to have a proper interpretation. I definitely don't agree with the idea of objective truth because these terms as of late have become warped from the meaning I'm sure he intended, but the original meaning I can get behind. We live in a time where important political terminology and ideology has been changed entirely from its original meanings and definitions much like the time he lived through, like the lies of the Soviet Union sullying terms like socialism or communism or workers republic, same with China and the German National "Socialists" now in modern parlance we describe socialism as basically just "when the government does stuff" and due to this we have people fighting for the wrong causes, not looking into and double checking the "facts" they are being told about politics around them and world events, misleading the conversation. I implore anyone reading this that they must read Orwell, all of what he has written is still relevant today as it was back when he wrote it if not more so.
siomn: Orwell's critiques certainly would have included all of thyose Leninist sates, but would not have been limited to them. He certainly would have picked up on phrases used in the USA by our government spokespersons, such as "Alternative facts."
I think Orwell would agree that the objective truth is that all humans deserve a life of dignity and the freedom to explore their own truths. Maybe I'm just transposing my ideas though... haha
@@johnharbour2631 yeah I don't disagree with you, but even then I don't see that as an objective truth just more as a thing we as humans should do, which I agree with it's a good axiomatic value, but postmodernism wasn't even a thing back then or even much if a thing haha, I don't know how attached to that view he was. I like his approach and I like his thought pattern more then anything, the way he arrived at his conclusions to me are what he should be most praised for, because one could say the Nazi party was trying to achieve well being and peacefulness for all mankind (which I don't even believe they did in their own minds mind you, It's just for the sake of argument). But if they were in good faith trying to achieve that goal, their methods on achieving that goal and the thought patterns were things I believe to be detestable. For one in that definition of well being for all humans, they probably wouldn't consider non-aryans as humans which counts them out. Everyone can agree on conclusions, it's the methods and ideas behind those conclusions that are important and I believe that's what Orwell understood better then anyone else.
You know the biggest mindscrew fact that I learned about George Orwell and _1984_ that changed how I viewed the book? Tom Nicholas has a fantastic video called "Jordan Peterson Doesn't Understand George Orwell At All", in which Tom Nicholas explores deeper into the history behind the publication of 1984 and revealed something stunning. A common interpretation that has arisen is that Orwell's Big Brother surveillance state in 1984 was based upon the Soviet Union's surveillance state. But in fact, George Orwell never stepped one foot in Russia in his entire life. What he wrote was simply a very educated and mostly accurate guess of the Soviet surveillance state. Instead, Winston (Orwell's sort of insert character) and his job at the Ministry of Truth was based on Orwell's own experiences working for the BBC during WWII. That was what he based Winston, the Ministry of Truth, Big Brother, etc. on. That really flips your perspective on things, doesnt it?
@@ajiththomas2465 I know, it’s fucking Wild haha. He was a post modernist before it even caught on haha. He was able to dissect the panopticon system to it’s most extreme and basically realized that in a way we all live in oppressive institutions every day that we live, figuring this out decades before Foucault did. If any book gets to the core of what humanity really is, it’s gotta be 1984, cause Winston is as human as human gets.
We live today in an era where incorrect thoughts and speech are berated. Certain subjects are off limits unless you conform. We have the notion of 'true facts', where politicians ever more so, expound today's truths, even when they directly contradict yesterday's facts. We are everyday sleep walking into a draconian / fascist / extremist world, where people regurgitation the latest truth, without passing through the analytical part of their brains, if indeed it was ever put into operation. Orwell is as relevant today as ever and perhaps more so.
Can you name an era when this wasn't the case? It's amazing how people just memoryhole the past.....What is now called "cancel culture" was always the norm. The only difference is what is being "canceled". Rightwing thought was once the majority opinion and anything progressive was condemned to the margins. Livelihoods were destroyed. People even went to prison. Today rightwing ideas like homophobia, sexism and racism are what is marginalized.
Ryan - I am reading the 4 vol. collected essays and letters of Orwell. Your summary here is masterful and even-handed. Thanks you. PS- there is a biopic film/video with audio of Orwell on UA-cam (I think it’s a bbc production) about an hour in length. Includes long passages of Orwell speaking and commenting on his major themes, as well as smoking cigarettes fairly fiendishly. Really good and worthwhile. Thanks again.
Reading '1984' before 'Down And Out In Paris And London' and then on to 'Homage To Catalonia' really didn't do me any favours but has made me think a lot in hindsight on how '1984' was a fantasy/slight reality biography almost of Orwell's actual real life existence, thoughts and actions. Still extremely intrigued, have read no other of his writings as yet but certainly shall and probably always revert back to their content for ideas and pathways in life. RIP George.
I feel like 'Homage to Catalonia' and 'Looking Back on the Spanish War' are my two favorites of his, and a much better place to start than '1984', which is just bleak and a bit depressing. In my opinion! Though I only say that as someone who started with '1984' and then missed out on the joy of his writing for many years.
Great video, thanks very much, Ryan Chapman. I like your style of narration and I really enjoyed being able to read Orwell's words as you were quoting them. Thanks also to all the commenters, and to the UA-cam algorithm 🤗
It appears Orwell was unknowingly writing about modern day China in the 30’s!?! Sooo much of his writing is sooo current ... and sooo many young people think they’re dreaming up something that has never been thought of, or tried, before!! He had a magical way of focusing on the consequences, not just the actions!! Thanks for putting this gem together!!!
Thanks, that was insightful. You just failed to mention Orwell's list, which I believe is paramount to understanding "what Orwell actually believed", especially towards his last years.
Ehh, whenever people mention what someone has done in the twilight years of their life, I don't think it's ever a real view as to who they used to be. I've seen grandparents that were renowned scientists and researchers become outright delusional. Nobody is immune from the inevitable loss of faculties from age.
@@DudesterGX Yeah, but whoever took 5 minutes to learn about Eric Blair's biography knows that he died very young. Unless you believe people in their forties have already lost their mental faculties from old age, but I doubt you do.
It's interesting that he described being shot as a 'painless shock' -- that was my experience of being in a really bad car crash, as well. There was some pain in my case, but far less than I'd expect. I honestly think a badly-placed paper cut may have hurt worse, at first. The surgery afterwards left me in far more pain than the accident!
This is part of why is is unwise to argue that morality is about reducing pain, because a lot of bad things already do not cause pain. Objective morality needs to consider other aims, like preserving life and virtuous behaviour, as more important than minimising pain,which can only be one objective among others.
Well done. Thanks for using his own words to define his position. Truly respectful. Regrettably, Orwell failed to realize that autonomy can be just as deceiving as slavery if divorced from salvation. In our culture, autonomy is a powerful idol.
His words rang true in 1948, when it was written. Funny how similar 1948 is to 1984, don't you think? This all took place during the second red scare. Winston Smith was George Orwell.
It’s is fascinating, comforting, and horrifying that this man wrote thoughts that I thought were my own unique ideas or, at least, only applicable to our time
There is always war between truth and lies, right and wrong, good and evil, so even when people were merely describing things as they were happening in the distant past, we see many similarities because the basic struggles remain almost the same.
don't forget "one of the most common human trait's is to think you know something that has passed everybody by" l believe it was bertland russell who said it
I read 1984 at school. It motivated me to read its 'partner' book, Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley. Both books came to my mind in 2020.
Me too! But not while in school. These books aren’t part of the curriculum where I live. But as a music teacher I had my students see videos of both novels. Why? To prove how musical lyrics can be used as propaganda to influence others without them even knowing it. And to show them the power music and artists have in order to make people think or “unthink” (thought manipulation).
I read 1984 back in High School. I did a lot of skimming and it didn't really take ahold of me. I read it again last year and I can only describe it as.....anxiety....it felt like anxiety....from beginning to end.
Exactly the same for myself High School in Wales 1973-78.
@@hah-vj7hc No, I fear it now. The far left thought police and one party elites in America are turning us into the USSA.
@häh Parsons, in particular, made me feel anxious. Parsons is everywhere in our society. The desperation to show allegiance and be an insider becomes an obsession to his children. He can't guide or direct them. He can't discipline them. He can't do anything but watch them be enveloped by it, for fear of being a thought criminal. Not only can he not stop them, but he has to cheer them on. In the end, despite his displays of allegiance, his children turn him in anyway. It was inevitable.
His response was to drop to his knees and do the only thing he knew how to do. Beg and show allegiance. Anything to avoid room 101 (Our deepest fears). It reminds me of a song quote.
"Crawl with me into tomorrow
Or I'll drag you to your grave
I'm deep inside your children
They'll betray you in my name"
-Sleep Now In The Fire, RATM
I don't have much of anything to contribute here, I'd just like to say that I very much appreciate your work, Ryan. Thank you.
Rob, thanks for your appreciation of his work! The world needs more gratitude. It is good in and of itself.
Here here!
I agree.
Came down to say almost the same thing, word for word.
I felt that it was pretty sus how much socialists hates fascists. Turns out they were butthurt that fascists copied and twisted their ideology
The same thing is happening now, here in the US and around the world. Lies have become truth. Last time this happened 60 million people died.
Welcome to OZ
Well Faucci made a decent dent with the China virus and “vaccines”
It happens all the time since the printing machine was invented. We can only try to reconstruct a very incomplete story bc we can’t objectively know what really happened. That’s why the best thing you can do is either not get information at all or get your information from many different conflicting sources and piece together a more nuanced narrative
80 million
What you were led to believe what happened 60 years ago, was all a lie. J O O O s were not the victims.
'Writers might follow profit incentives and say what people want to hear rather than saying what they think is true". I have seen this happen with media in the US. Orwell was so prophetic.
He also talked abt his experience in bbc he said that I was creating propaganda and I think this why he made Winston in 1984 a history rewriter
A dynamic that affects almost everything almsot everywhere.
George Orwell saw the writing on the wall about totalitarianism. He tried to warn us but as usual we were too busy enjoying petty comforts to take notice. So much has changed since then, except that we are still too busy enjoying petty comforts to take notice.
I have been banging my head on a wall trying to warn my friends , but they dont seem to care.
Then things are the same.
@@patthewoodboy ...same here though a couple Are awake thanks to altMedia via internet -- truth: ther Are more of us than 'elites' but Most are too asleep,fearful, etc. Even so, come,Lord Jesus !! Rev.22:20
And what do you do when you do take notice? You see the absurdity of other slave societies but not your own.
@@isokabooks3758 You stand up to the marxists and the facists and don't let them take another step.
1984 is a book that has haunted me since it was a set book (ie "forced" read) in English Literature class at my school in the early 1960's. Whilst I loved reading since I was 4 years old, I absolutely hated Eng Lit classes in school, the teacher trying to get us into the minds of authors was boring....until this book! I needed to understand what was going on in Orwell's head. I discovered Animal Farm a few years later and then I finally began to understand as the Cuban Missile Crisis was unfolding.
I am neither English, American, Russian, European nor Chinese yet right now 1984 should be brought back to all of these countries, most especially the USA (as the so called most powerful) which is descending so fast into totalitarianism.
i wonder what was orwell's view on colonialism.
@@jmgonzales7701 The Age of Discovery would play over and over again if you to go back in time. Good question. What is your view on it?
@@jmgonzales7701 Hasn’t Western colonialism always been a series of capitalistic ventures?
Certainly has been toying with, and teetering on the cliff-edge of totalitarianism.
In days, the pointer has shifted from one Florida man (“Loser is a hard word for me to say”), to one with less baggage, to be the New Great Leader of Cult-45.
@@Allan-mf1he As a Person who was colonized by 3 Major colonizers mainly Spain, USA and Japan. I am inclined to say that i view colonialism poorly, in short i hate it. Yes i do acknowledge there was some sort of benefits here and there but in totality it wasn't worth being buttfucked by colonizers. Mostly those who benefited were the colonizers and their descendants while the native populace carried the labor and did suffer a lot. The deaths and exploitation were just too much and certain cultures were wiped out because the colonizers thought it was inferior. Certain colonial mindset were also applied mainly by both Spain and America. The belief that eurocentric values and beauty were superior and i admit it is still found in our current societies.
I would even argue Orwell was even somewhat of a philosopher. The part that I love most in 1984 is when O'Brien gives his speech to Winston about Power, I feel like a lot of Orwells actions and mindset came together and made since after that moment. The character of O'Brien arguing that the problem is Power, it has always been Power and it will always be Power. As long as humanity exists, there will be humans who seek Power over other humans in whatever form they can. Power takes many forms, such as money or guns, religions or political movements, and it will always be a part of human society.
He criticizes the Nazis and the Soviets, saying that they spoke lies about "Utopias", and while the Party of Ingsoc/Big Brother does the same, it does not believe in its own lies. That the Nazis and Soviets believed that they were going to build a Utopia once the blood was finally spilled, they could not accept that what they truly wanted was Power. O'Brien argued that Big Brother is more successful than those "Totalitarians of the past", as the Party is capable of accepting that it wants Power. It doesn't want a Utopia, it doesn't dream of saving humanity, it just wants to bend humanity to its will.
All this to say, Orwell is very obviously commenting on one of Humanities greatest problems that has been with us since our inception, and will likely follow us into our grave. There will always be people in Power, animals using more complicated toys to force other animals to do as they desire. The desire for Power will grow increasingly more subtle as we evolve. For me in that moment, 1984 ceased to be a political commentary and evolved into a commentary on human nature.
Well put.
Very well said. Power corrupts and to judge a man's character, give him power.
If you're going to boil all the problems and tensions down to one thing: 'power' hence you've reduced all the world's complexities down to a single word or concept, then you're always going to be very very confused about what is going on around you.
Well, I say B****R Xi Zhing Ping!
@@willnitschke I agree, and in the end the word becomes meaningless, as all words will without context or descriptions themselves of what is meant by the word used.
The Power to decieve beats Power to inform anyway.
Reading 1984 was one of the first times I had actually questioned objective truth in the eyes of “if everyone says it true it is”
Perhaps you are referring to political or social orthodoxy as opposed to objective truth. It was objective truth that ,Orwell lamented, was missing from history
Orwell believed in an Objective truth, but that governement and party loyalty led us to accept a subjective truth if the obective truth contradicted our desires.
That's the absolute opposite of the case against objective truth.
The leotarded "there is no truth" propagators would make you believe every subjective truth is as valid as the next one, so you'll end up believing in propaganda that way.
Objective truth is such a fundamental and obvious thing that it pains me to even imagine how you leotards think.
You were probably always bad at math, that's my conclusion.
@@terryhogard1090I’d say it is rather it was in respect to 2015-2024. In other words right now!
The greatest importance of his work is in applying it's truths (or falsehoods) to what is happening today, and acting upon that.
I read '1984' for the second time in 2019, and I then watched as 2020 and 2021 played out similar to that '1984' Orwellian dystopia. '1984' was a warning which few appear to have understood, and even fewer are willing to resist, but resist we must.
...Es wiederholt sich...
Mitläufer!!!
...und dann?!!!
Wir haben nichts davon gewusst....
1984 was an instruction manual ... didn't you know that? /sarc off ;-)
Pardon the joke, John, but I've found that quoting Orwell to a dipstick has as much effect as telling the DMV you're in a hurry ...
@@yarrlegap6940 couldn't have said it better
George Orwell's book 1984 was a warning to all of us the government was fully aware of how history can repeat itself the government made history repeat itself by censoring history not teaching about Stalin and Hitler and the Civil War in Elementary and high school is done a disservice to All American citizens and all citizens of the world
If you look at how the book of Jasher portrays the Tower of Babel, there were to be three kings to rule the world, but then finally, one. It was only when the totalitarianism was nearly complete that people found the bravery to do anything about it.
I had a very specific view of George Orwell because of the uses people put his work to (defending capitalism and rebuking anything remotely communist or socialist) but this video really changed my view on him and kind of showed me that I need to do my own research before coming to conclusions about people.
@Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus Simply because socialism and communism arent the same thing
@@Gallic_Gabagool Depends on your definitions of those words. "Communist" is often meant to mean "Revolutionary Socialist" and places like the Soviet Union saw themselves as Socialist implying that Communism will naturally come in the future. But because in the west the word "Socialist" largely means "Democratic Socialism" people see them as different things.
Good observation.
Well stated.
Ryan's got our backs, it seems.
"Open Societies and Its Enemies" by Popper is a more explicit argument against what I think Orwell was concerned with. There are parts of it which will probably sound too extreme/unfair if you're a modern leftist, but just remember it is giving one side of an argument which was very active at the time.
Also related, in my mind, is the origin of the three arrows symbol. Look it up if you're unfamiliar.
Anyways... The fight wasn't left vs right, it was liberalism vs authoritarianism. Thinking of it in left vs right terms misses the much more important (IMO) point. That point is also sadly highly relevant today.
ETA: Authoritarian personality (followers) is also something well worth learning about. I liked Bob Altemeyers book "The Authoritarians", which is helpfully free online.
Orwell definitely understood parts of it, but serious sociological work on it didn't really get going until the 50s and 60s. Totalitarianism arising from an authoritarian movement doesn't require the sort of intentional heavy hand Orwell appeared to think it does... The followers do most of the work of persuading themselves and the 'leaders' mostly just give the followers what they want (often authoritarian leaders are, or at least start as, amoral social manipulators more like an mega-chuch preacher or con-man than a true believer).
Funny how exposure to the truth is all it takes to break your conditioning. A little sunshine is the best disinfectant.
These videos are like a warm cup of tea.
Rather a nice, bracing shot of Bourbon.
?
@@Glicksman1 ?
@@oldnatty61 Yes? What is your question?
When I read Orwell 15 years ago, it was hard to understand how a society could let this stuff happen. Now it feels like a description of Canada.
It would have been hard to understand, if you didn't look at the examples of history and didn't understand basic human nature. People have not really changed in 45 thousand years, so same kind of stimuli is going to produce same kind of effects and our drives and imperatives are the same. I started my life in soviet union and when that craptastic monstrocity fell apart, I hoped to at least live out the rest of my days without the authoritarians getting back in charge, but I guess the damn technological advancements made their rise even faster this time. At least it's much more visible to everyone who cares to pay attention, thanx to the internet. Without it, we would still only get the same fluff pieces and fiction from the news media as in Orwell's time.
The USA is just a step behind you, Canada! We seem to be running to “catch up”!
What is happening in Canada that could resemble the societies described in Orwell's books in any way?
@@seb0rn739 Keep on working and doing what they're telling you my brave Boxer
@@hinmatow What is that supposed to mean?
In my opinion, there is simply no true understanding of Orwell’s work without reading Homage to Catalonia and, I would argue Down and Out in Paris and London. He was, at the heart, a humanist and his bitter experiences at th hands of those who consider others to be fodder for their own uses so defined his work.
Like many of my generation, I read both 1984 and Animal Farm in High School. It wasn’t until a growing interest int eh Spanish Civil War that I read Homage to Catalonia. It catalyzed my feelings about socialism and its almost ruin at the hands of the Bolsheviks.
From there, I went on to read every one of Orwell’s books. His earlier works were not overtly political, but his sense of what was wrong was clear, a good example of which in Burmese Days.
To me, the truest thing he ever wrote was his observation (from Down and Out) that poverty was profitable as “it is easier to take pennies from the poor than pounds from the rich”.
My own work experiences in finance have only reinforced my belief in this truth.
I consider Orwell to be, perhaps, the most important writer of the 20th century.
Interesting comment. My dad made me read Burmese Days but I have not read Down and Out yet. Now I think I should read it because my dad was always going on about it.
As for " it is easier to take pennies from the poor than pounds from the rich” - it seems so true. The poor are the targets of usury which is a word that seems to be absent in modern English, just like covet. I remember Voltaire said “The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.” Voltaire was something else my dad often quoted to me. I miss my dad! Take care Peter.
@@NorthernGate777 Yes, the Capitalist countries have always "exploited the poor" but so has Communist Russia. Those Communist leaders, and their Oligarch suck-ups live in palaces and have ridiculously expensive yachts, are exploiting the masses, themselves.* Look at Nasty Pelosi and many of those Democraps in the US Congress, who have power to determine where our tax money is spent, who, themselves, have greatly benefited financially resulting from the expenditures they vote for. Those US communist leaders in BLM and other leftist organizations are living high on the hog from donations from deluded idiots! *Did you see a photo of that grossly obese Russian general that Putin sent to the Donbass? That sucker ate meals five times a day and lived in a huge estate house! These POSes never send their own kids to fight in Ukraine...they have to trick and threaten other Russian citizen's kids to "die for their Country (PUTIN and the Oligarchs)! I've listened to many telephone calls between Russian soldiers in the Donbass talking to loved ones back in Russia and it shows how much these soldiers, and their families, hate Putin for waging war in Ukraine! There are many UA-cam videos that provide these conversations (translated to English).
well , Peter , sure he is , together with some others like Aldous Huxley - " Brave New World " , ,,, so much in many ways like our existence(es) here in the cities of Western Europe and all the rest of the 'Western' World ...
- "How much longer for "Elon Tyrell" to 'shape-or-shorten' our well programmed 'lives' ???
I definitely agree that people should read his autobiographical novels to really get a feel for what kind of person he was. What really comes through in these books specifically is Orwell's almost obsessive objectivity, to the point that he constantly point out his own ignorance, incompetence, pettiness, cowardice etc. in various situations. Hell, he even helpfully tells the reader when he suspects that his own opinions may be biased for personal reasons. I can't imagine that many people who read Homage to Catalonia come away truly feeling that Orwell tries spin anything, no matter how much they might disagree with him politically.
@@magnusengeseth5060 - That;s a great observation and is one of the major reasons why I hold him in such high regard.
It's truly criminal that you only have a few thousand subscribers. There's not many people whose videos I really look forward to this much. Always insightful, my dude.
Unfortunately when you absolutely destroy the logic behind CRT and Marxism in other videos, it doesn’t make you very popular.
Knowledge is always great when few people knows it...it makes us to feel superior...
@@JoeMun people won't accept even honest criticism now. The biggest problem I see in areas of social sciences is that their arguments are usually based on very simplistic premises which you're expected to accept, or refutations for which they provide no evidence. Eg Gender theory, just because something is a construct doesn't make it arbitrary and the reification of gender is insane.
@@painpeace3619 The real advantage of being able to discern truth from falsehood is the ability to interact with the world far more efficiently and effectively. How that happens to align with a simian pecking order is quite irrelevant.
these days you could probably get more views than him just by making reaction videos to all the videos and posting them on tiktok
Thank you for compiling all of these quotes together with the sources. I remember a good deal of them and have cited them when Orwell inevitably comes up in discussions about politics these days, but I had completely forgotten which pieces, outside of his novels, they were from.
Orwell totally describes the Western world we live in today...bending truth/reality to fit a political agenda. Thank you, Ryan. You have a great talent for summarizing.
At least we have his books to warn us. When does the left go to far
I love Orwell but I think the one who deserves credit for predicting our modern society was a man way ahead of his time but far less known, Aldous Huxley. In "Brave New World," he described a world where overabundance of information and freedom enslaved the people rather than totalitarian restrictions. Orwell, witnessing what he did in the 20th Century, was completely right in assuming the trajectory we appeared to be taking (and many places took it). Huxley described the 21st Century though, well before its time.
@@craigpoer Ironic that the conservatives claim Orwell was on their side when in this video you clearly see his origins as a socialist. The left is not the side claiming some narcissistic, orange debauched playboy is some Christlike 'man of the people' when he openly rants like Saddam Hussein about killing political opponents.
@@craigpoer i might be misunderstanding you but did you mot watch the video? Orwell was in support of democratic socialism. The far right loath with distain for anything not perfectly in line with their ideologies
@@craigpoerdid u even read and listen to him? Social democracy is the way to go
Catching up on your catalog now that I've "discovered" you. Your knack for piecing together a narration that is (by necessity) truncated while also being (through talent) surprisingly comprehensive, is admirable.
Thank you for this. I was feeling hopeless today when I looked around today and felt how divided we've all become, how inhuman all of this feels. Thanks for this.
Please know you are not alone, there are elements that want us to feel that way when in reality most of us are on the same wavelength.
Orwell was one of the most insightful and profound authors of the last few centuries. It is simply astounding how much of his insights can be seen in modern societies and countries around the world. Truly scary.
Although we feel divided, us in the comment section are not, we are all still part of humanity
We are living in an inhuman society administered and created by inhuman elements. You are correct to feel this way. The truth really is perceived as lie and deception portrayed as truth.
When I was younger, and free of family responsibilities, I read voraciously. Orwell was one of those writers that had real intellectual punch.
‘As I Please’ ~George Orwell
“SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality.
Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me.
As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it?
Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either.
My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets.
Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth.
If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter.
It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”
1984 is probably the greatest work of fiction I've ever come across in my life. That book hits HARD!
The scariest thing about it is that even though it was meant to be a warning, some people seem to think it's an instruction manual.
... and I'm not so sure it is fiction. It might have been originally, but looking around today, it's actually a plausible reality for the not-too-distant future.
@@ChristLink-Channeldystopian!
Evil peoples manual for control
The owners appreciated its ideas
Brave New World is a lot more accurate I think.
I hated having to read 1984 in English class when I was in secondary school.
You just gave me a whole new understanding and appreciation for the book and its author.😁
I think the BBC found some archive radio recordings more recently they certainly did a Radio 4 series featuring his life and work.. The fact that he experienced harsh conditions like those in The road to Wigan Pier and ended his writing days in a damp house in The Hebrides dying of TB.. typically of his time despite being shot in the throat he was a life long smoker.
Fair play. You should try Animal Farm in that case, it's much shorter and easier to read.
@@johnmichel4865
Its also available as an audio book.
What about listening to the 101ers? Joe Strummers pre Clash band. As for animal farm" I actually read 1984 voluntarily. All of his novels in effect.. The only novelist I had the stomach for. While Im fixated on ' A christmas carol'( especially Rich Littles) Dickens, by contrast, is a tough read. I sympathize there. Particularly David Copperfield. Even getting threw the talking book was an accomplishment. Im considering the pickwick papers next- the cartoon. Why not? Next to Alister Sims, Mr. McGoo made the best scrooge.
The only set book I read fully. Interesting how we develop. Now I'm an avid reader.
How could Orwell not be awarded a Nobel prize for literature is beyond comprehension.
The Nobel committee is comprised of hard-left socialists; that is, people who lean toward totalitarianism. Hence, Al Gore's Nobel Prize (for having accomplished nothing), Barak Obama's Nobel Prize (for having accomplished nothing good), and Donald Trump being snubbed (though he brought the greatest peace to the Middle East that has ever been).
Orwell was a socialist, but he was not the "right kind" of socialist.
Not so much when you really take the time to understand the implications of what he wrote. The Nobel prize is not apolitical, it just pretends
Because it wasn't very good writing, that's why.
I've encountered sledgehammers which are more subtle than Orwell's pen.
The Nobel Prize is overrated but anyhow it's not given to dead people ever. And Orwell's masterpiece "1984" was only published months before his death.
@@jessl1934 subtlety should not be used when shouting a warning
1984 was required reading when I went to high school and it was beneficial. How much better and more informative the experience would have been if we had been able to watch this video first! Thanks for producing it. Wonderful stuff, Ryan. 👍
And it is not required reading now - or even mentioned. Consider that.
@@rossriver75yukon27
Of course they don't mention it. An educated public is more difficult to manipulate.
@@rossriver75yukon27 Thank fuck for that. It's crap.
@@geoffpoole483 In my top 5 books ever read. Why didn’t you like it?
I remembe falling asleep during that required reading.
In 1974, my Dad was a serving soldier in the Intelligence Corps of the British Army.
He was a Turkish speaker and was serving in Cyprus at the time Turkey invaded the island to protect the Turkish minority who were living there.
One day he and his mates walked into a bar in Larnaca, a town on the south coast of the island. Also in the bar was a BBC news team, hammering the booze. After a while, the news reporter on the team peeled away from the bar and set up his recording equipment to record a "live" piece to tape which would be sent back to the UK on the next flight back.
To my Dad's amazement the "reporter" started describing a non-existent street battle in Nicosia, which was then the capital.
More pertinently, it was 35 miles and several hours on poor roads away on the central plain.
The report was very descriptive and completely fictitious. When he had finished his fairy tale, the reporter returned to the bar and resumed his drinking.
My Dad never believed a word from the BBC after that and nor have I.
Nothing has changed.
Presstitutes
That’s disturbing
@@cabbey31 Not sure what you mean by "Haha".
As a family, we were there prior to '74, my Dad was there throughout '74 and we returned as a family in '75.
First tour, my Dad worked out of Episkopi (island-wide brief but nominally based in Episkopi) and we lived in a hiring in some suburb of Limassol. I was an infant and then a primary school kid so don't know exactly where we lived. I briefly attended both Berengaria Infants and Curium school.
In our second tour, we lived in 44 Belmont Village, Dhekelia.
Edit : 23rd. May 2023 : cabbey31 seems to have deleted his (?) disparaging comment so this response no longer makes sense.
The Ukraine war comes to mind. But not one person will question it. Hey it is on you tube and tic tock. So must be true.
@@dolandlydia Absolutely. It is "settled news" so beyond question!
Wow! The totalitarianism that you speak of, people voluntarily censoring themselves and voluntarily conforming their beliefs to what their party tells them, sounds like today's plight. What's worse though, is government, social media, the news and press censoring people as well. It's truly scary. Thanks again for all of this informative content and you being non-biased. Which is a rarity today! I've been binging your channel the last couple of days.
Agreed. Paradoxically the more free speech there is, the more censorship will attempt to stifle it.
Having read 1984 on my bus ride to college, I became the view that each of us had to take care of our own interests. How prophetic that Orwell saw this so graphically!!
Another wonderful piece of content. Your specific focus and wonderful use of Orwell’s writings to provide a chain of evidence in this lecture are outstanding. Please do not stop. There are many of us who greatly appreciate you wonderful contributions.
E Pluribus Unum
1984 and Animal Farm being two of my all time favorite novels, I would give almost anything to have met and known Eric Blair/George Orwell. He sounds like a Human Being after my own heart, only supremely more talented and eloquent.
I found 'Brave new world' was also an interesting read.
@@favesongslist ....but a lot less prophetic than Orwell's book. To me _Brave New World_ was really an attack on utilitarianism...on the idea that morals, legislation, or society should be built around increasing human happiness. It's like reading a modern-day Stoic satirizing the Epicureans for all he's worth, by imagining their Utopia and pointing out how awful it is. Orwell's books by contrast were portraying things he'd really seen, in pursuit of causes he'd believed in, and so it's depressing but not surprising that we meet more of his visions in reality.
A less-remembered book in the same category is Henry Hazlitt's _Time Will Run Back_ . It's set in "Wonworld," a united earth after a Communist victory, and details a rediscovery of capitalism. Hazlitt was primarily an economic writer -- he's the author of _Economics in One Lesson_ -- and what he was really doing was turning Ludwig von Mises' _Socialism_ into a very readable story. (In the intro Hazlitt notes that he was writing independently of Orwell at about the same time, and that the parallels between them were caused by the logic of what they were portraying. For example, in Wonworld the old languages have been replaced by "Marxanto," with some of the features of Newspeak.)
@@josephw.1463 TY I will check Time Will Run Back out.
Have a good day.
A Handmaid’s Tale and The Giver are two other classics besides Brave New World aforementioned above you’d enjoy if you’re into dystopian novels!
You may enjoy Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
Orwell's novel, 1984, is perhaps what I find to be an important book for everyone to read because he foresaw what was to come in technology in how societies would use telecommunication to deceive the persons of society.
Yeah, but he got one very crucial thing wrong: he thought it would require an apocalyptic event to give rise to Big Brother when all it took was capitalism and vanity.
@@shacktime apocalypse just means unveiling..
@@clayspigeon Don’t even start with that bullshit.
@@clayspigeon True, but you knew what s/he meant by using it with today's connotations
@@DG-iw3yw My major at uni was in environmentalism. I’ve been surfing for over 40 years. I do beach cleanups regularly. You’re preaching to the choir. We’re f-ed.
It would be so interesting to see what George Orwell would think if he were alive today, immediately post covid, and so much of what he predicted (or warned against) coming true.
If he WERE alive. Honor him by observing the rules of Latin and English, which he learned at Eton.
@@MitchHawkes
🙄
Perhaps his comments on the happenings throughout the United States of Europe as he had great hopes of it succeeding.
Um he lived through a pandemic. Spanish (started in the US) Flu. What you fail to realize is that the problems and issues are the same as 100-200-300-400-500 years ago. The only difference is technology.
I agree with Orwell and the Global elite trying to DESTROY AMERICANS LIVES
Funny how Orwell wrote about NPCs before there even were NPCs...
Gramophone Mind is the perfect analogy for the pre PC-Gaming era.
Ghaye
I'd argue the opposite, it is the playable characters that are without mind as all their actions are based on the input of an external actor (the player), meanwhile N.P.C.'s are Autonomous and see themselves as actual beings.
If you can think then you're the N.P.C.
@@-haclong2366
...no...
NPCs act and react solely on the basis of their programing.
They don't "think".
That completely misses the point of the analogy though.
NPC is used because, in video games, characters that aren’t controlled by the player follow a script that is much simpler that the human mind that controls the player character’s actions.
The player character is an NPC too during cutscenes, unless the game lets you move you own character during cutscenes
I know this is a bit old but two things bear noting/correcting.
1) There is a surviving film record of Orwell from an interview with him shortly before he died while he was bedridden. I’ve seen it used in other UA-cam documentaries about him.
2) A great deal of the influence on 1984 comes from James Burnham’s book The Managerial Revolution, which Orwell wrote a “debunking” review on and which is included by publishers of the book in current editions. The Managerial Revolution and the Professional Managerial State described within bears far more resemblance to the Oceania of 1984 than either fascist or communist governments, and is critical to understanding the work fully.
I have heard/read many commentators refer to Burnham's Managerial Revolution as the single best book for understanding economy, politics, and our world today. True?
Chomsky (very credible source, this is his area) on youtube says that the original introduction by Orwell had it that the book was intended as a crisiticsm of the Briish class system and the control of it by elite private school products. The publishers forced Orwell not to have it and change it to the one we know.
@@briancrowther3272 What does Orwell say?
I read 1984 when I was fifteen. Perhaps a little young considering some parts of the story. But it changed my life forever.
Read it again as an adult. I guarantee you that there is plenty that you have missed.
1984 was written in 1948. It was written during the second red scare. Orwell was at this time surveilled for being a potential communist sympathizer. His neighbors gossiped about him. Do you see any similarities yet?
I am amazed at how much of "1984" actually came true.
Memory holes, bugmen, all types of "ministries" lol, list goes on
1984 was an allegory of events that had already taken place. But it's taking place again, yes.
yes, modern day America really is like big brother.
Like what? Hardly any socialists [actually none] I know believe North Korea or China are some kinds of workers paradise. He is obviously right about the subtle totalitarian take over of North American & European semi-democracies (I say "semi" as they were never full democracies, in a full democracy the population would vote on economic matters as well as political ones).
The phrase "history repeating itself" comes to mind. I am off the opinion that we are in for a horrible time and possibly another world war, which could well be the end of homo sapien.
Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, not as a blueprint!
I always think this, especially now that they have the Boston Dynamics robot dogs- as if they took Fahrenheit 451 as an instructional.
There be truth in that
I think theres a number of nations that would disagree
@@JimBob-jr5up Bet the elites dont though :)
@@TheSilmarillian meh.
Im sure it varies, but theres for sure a good number of what you'd call "elites" who have either layed out the blueprints or are participating in, knowingly or unknowingly.
For example the Clintons definitely know what theyre doing and the role they play.
However the Trump's are so fuckin stupid, they have no idea what they are involved in.
The single most important writer ……especially now ❤
i seriously recommend watching/reading a critique of him and his work. his arguments are… questionable at best. this video itself glorifies him far too much
@@John-qe6xx Like all of us Orwell has a lot of contradictions. Don't forget he was of a certain age when the British Empire was obviously on the way out. Today we have a load of intellectuals saying we should apologise and give compensation to all parts of the Empire.
To me he is the greatest writer explaining why socialism is wrong when it is put into practice. no matter that he believed that it could somehow be made perfect.
I think Alice Miller is the most important writer... she explains why the fascist or totalitarian mindset develops in the first place... and does so in a highly emotionally intelligent way that allows each person to connect and recognize truths about their own childhood and their own functioning, and, if they allow themselves, to feel their pain and to heal.
There are a lot of great writers, sure, and Orwell is very key in our century... but Miller is super relevant for all time. After all, this totalitarianism is just a deepening of the way we already live, and have lived for as long as civilization has existed - as civilization is an inherently fascistic, controlling, traumatized, and traumatizing way of life. (If you don’t think so, read Dr. Peter Gray’s article in Psychology Today, “How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained Their Egalitarian Ways,” for contrast. Register the difference between civilizations, which are always violent and hierarchical, and the “peaceful, egalitarian” inherent nature of hunter-gatherer groups. We denigrate them because they don’t use much technology - but don’t they have what truly matters?)
@@John-qe6xx agreed, also Franco was based
@@roginkWell this is just categorically wrong. There are plenty of socialist and communist countries which have succeeded, DESPITE major interventionist measures by capitalist countries and their allies.
Whether or not you believe in capitalism or socialism, George Orwell didn’t explicitly say or imply that socialism doesn’t work when put in practice. He was anti-authoritarian for both right and left wing parties.
Reading Animal Farm caused me to Leave the Mormon religion. I had gone on a two year mission and was an overachiever in every regard. I was Boxer.
If anyone is wondering, most of the essay in this video is taken from the 1400-page collection of Orwell’s essays published by Everyman’s Library. I recommend everyone here to pick up a copy of that book.
EDIT: Read also Christopher Hitchens’s book “Why Orwell Matters”, it’s a great assessment of Orwell’s entire body of work.
George Orwell is a clear answer why the modern society turns to today status: absurdity. Many intellectuals turned to socialism for answer while it is capital that made wealthy, made the world wealthy. Their grand father Adam Smith would be ashamed.
Ordering them both now.
We need to keep a few copies in a safe place just in case future generations need them, if we lose the fight that is coming they will need them.
Christopher Hitchens' thoughts were so overshadowed by his hatred for God so as to make them utterly worthless. He was consumed by a hatred for someone he didn't even believe existed. Today, he knows otherwise. Today Christopher Hitchens, when he is not thinking about the burning and the thirst and the consuming worms and the screaming and the utter darkness, can think about the utter foolishness of his previous earthly thoughts. It sucks to be him.
Based on my hastened research I identify w/ the first group of anyone's and I'm not wondering.
I've read Orwell's fiction, but never his non-fiction. I found your video very compelling, and came away feeling the need to track down his non-fiction and add it to my reading list. Many thanks!
I hope you do, John. There are several good collections of Orwell's essays, and just about any one you pick up will contain many examples of his memorable, stimulating prose. IMO, Orwell's novels were uneven in quality, but his essays are packed with astute observations of human nature, politics, education and culture. The world he wrote about is different from what we see around us today; many of the social conventions he took for granted have crumbled. But what he had to say about the underlying nature of human greed, hatred, power and ignorance are timeless.
‘As I Please’ ~George Orwell
“SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality.
Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me.
As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it?
Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either.
My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets.
Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth.
If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter.
It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”
This does a wonderful job of summarizing Orwells thoughts while keeping their complexity.
Don't know what brought me to this, but I am so glad I viewed it. Definitely re-reading 1984. And definitely sharing this on my social media. Thinking people should listen and absorb what Orwell tried to convey.
It was the algorithms that brought you here 😊
Thank you for the bio-history lesson. I remember reading Animal Farm in the fifth grade and 1984 as a high school freshman. Their lessons have stayed with me. I see it today.
Yes it's everywhere. Almost prophetic levels and it's sad. We need to vote Trump to let him take on the powers at be before it is too late.
We read them too young, without reference. Should be read later when we have reference to actually see it in action.
69 likes
@@SamtheIrishexan you can't be serious lol
@@screenarts
The teacher you have makes a
difference.
Each student writing a Character
Analysis, then having an open discussion in the classroom
was helpful to students in
middle school by teaching the
students about independent
thoughts, observations and
perspective without dismissing
their opinions.
Years ago I was a fan of a chanel called concordance, who's content centered around scientific literacy and explanation for laymen. I feel you are doing the same thing for political theory. Keep it up. 💯
what happened to him?
@@PoliticalWeekly He's making dad jokes on twitter
My personal avenue to Orwell began with Down and Out in Paris and London which began a 40 year admiration of his work. Orwell will always be synonymous with exposing the worst traits of humanity.
The BBC4 documentary of his life is well worth watching.
Did you admire the antisemitism in Down and Out......?
@@geoffpoole483 Do you admire the ADL, I bet you do.
@@geoffpoole483TS BS TERMINOLOGY TO JUSTIFY UNJUSTIFIABLE ACTS WITHR DIFFUSION OF THE BLAME.
Jews dont have a universal definition of what they are.
Semites do most of the dying and other suffering caused by Jewish, US UK GERMAN SPANISH COLONIAL CORPORATE TOTALITARIAN LEANING FASCISTS.
What a low brow cheap shot.
No doubt you enjoy the fruits of such colonial criminals. No substance. No argument. No moral high ground.
Bullies!
Down and Out in Paris and London--what always stayed with me was the "chef"...who blew his nose in the soup
@@geoffpoole483I don't remember that part.
That was an excellent video!! The narration and delivery was superb!! And the analysis of George Orwell's writings was awesome 👌!! Thank you for your insight!! Very well done 👏!!
The frightening thing is that much of what Orwell said about the 'State' and people's willingness to follow it, continues to this day and has repeated many times throughput history!
What do you think about George Orwell working for the state as a colonial police officer then later in working for the real-world British version of the Ministry of Truth before finally ratting out fellow socialists to the British government in his infamous "list" for such egregious crimes as being "anti-white" or "possibly homosexual"?
@@SUPERTRANS2024-iy3qh He didn't rat out fellow socialists, he gave a shortlist of 38 people he thought unsuitable to have anything to do with the Labour government's anti-Soviet efforts in the IRD. It was a different time to now: one of the men who rejected 1984 for publication turned out to be a Soviet spy and went to prison for it, and the Queen's advisor, Anthony Blunt, admited he was a spy for Stalin. At the time, homosexuality was unlawful, and it was weaponised by the KGB (any spy agency, in fact) to blackmail people into giving them information. Many were concerned about harmful Stalinist interference in the post-war Labour government. It's likely Orwell didn't even know what the true function of the IRD was, because he certainly believed there should be no bans on communist party members. It's no secret he was a colonial police officer, nor is it a secret that the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War changed his views on democratic socialism which he became a staunch supporter of, thereafter. The reason he had to escape that war was because he was tipped off by his wife, when he returned from convalescence, that Stalin's goons were looking for him and he was on a list, so he had good reason to distrust Stalin's sympathisers.
And why did it repeat? Because it dies as well as it rises again.
It's a mental virus that spreads.
How do people follow the state?
Excellent piece - I would just add that the turning point in his life, as I understand it, was described in his essay "Shooting the Elephant" - the moment of his disillusionment as a young colonial police officer in Burma. "The white man ... becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventional figure of a sahib ... he wears a mask and his face grows to fit it." It was this experience, I think, that led him to leave his commission, return to England, and change his name.
It's one of those moments that made him disillusioned with British colonialism and the idea of an Empire. A good second story on this is also "A Hanging" also set in Burma during his officer days.
I have always admired him and astonished as how his work, particular in 1984 and Animal House, remains touchable and witnessed by many of us in today's world. Your overview, gives an excellent summary of his beliefs and political standing, which again remains valid and solid. Appreciate it.
Definitely. Orwell's cameo role (CGI'd in of course) next to Belushi was epoch, dude!! lol
i LOVE the Animal House slip. “see if you can guess what i am now…a dystopia! get it?”
Awfully touchable.
Animal Farm. Freudian slip.
Thanks!
Absolutely fascinating and worth the watch, thank you for creating this. As I'm reading 1984 currently, this has given me a clearer understanding of Orwell's themes and the message behind the book. Glad I stumbled on your channel- excellent work and thank you for sharing!
‘As I Please’ ~George Orwell
“SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality.
Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me.
As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it?
Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either.
My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets.
Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth.
If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter.
It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”
3:19 political ignorance - boxer
3:48 group thinking - political predilection
4:25 actual quote
4:27 propaganda
5:15 objective truth missing
5:26 abandoning the truth
5:55 7:56 8:13 no single truth in totalitarianism
6:17 define totalitarianism
6:36 1984
7:09 unofficial political orthodoxy
7:28 gramophone minds - volunteer orthodoxy
8:43 language - Newspeak
9:07 2 safeguards
9:25 define liberty
9:35 intellectual liberty
9:49 freedom 2+2=4
9:56 anti (economic) liberal anticapitalism
10:29 democratic socialism
@ryanchapman Hey can you pin this comment!?!?
I appreciate the effort that goes into timestamping, Cryptic. THX!
Superb addition to Ryan's chapters. Thank you!
the avatar of totalitarianism today is Rupert Murdock and his Fox Noise Network, and its spin offs and all but one of his children. It is worse now, more than ever.
thank you taking the time to make, produce, and upload these types of videos. you do amazing work!
I always loved and appreciated Animal Farm and 1984 since I was young. But hearing his views on politics and humans in general, we would have been friends.
We need a George Orwell now! We also need to be able to find a way to know he speaks the truth. You can't trust any media today, maybe we never could. I'm old and as I grew up with no social media, I listened to the radio, read news papers, and when television came along watched that. I assumed I was hearing the truth but probably not. I only knew what they told me and now realize it may have been extremely distorted. How do we make good decisions when we don't have the truth to base them on.
In the current political age we live in He'd be smeared, his character assassinated and cancelled with weeks
You have to disseminate the truth from as many different sources as you can. When you find a source lying or hiding the truth their credibility goes down.
@cushy glen He's out right banned most places already
UA-cam is the place to find the truth BUT you do need to be wary and exercise critical judgement. That said, I fear AI will soon destroy and ability to discern what is true from what is made up and we will all become confused, lost and easy prey for populists.
This is priceless content and I hope your reach blows up soon. May you ignite a beacon of truth in an age of lies.
First, everything is priceless, and yet worthless. Second, no-thing is getting ignited on youtube. It's just a big high tech ant trap.
Hear hear!!
I read recently that the last four words of 1984 are considered the saddest ending to any novel ever written, declaring, "He loved Big Brother." Absolute indoctrination. Chilling.
But it's important to keep in mind that those words are only the end to Winston's story, not the novel. The book ends with a glimmer of hope, as the guide to Newspeak refers to the language and the nation that created it in the past tense.
Well. My interpretation of those words are "He Loved The BBC". He did work for them and they are not known for their honesty. Where is his criticism of the English Feudal system or the British Empire. There is no mention that when he lived on an island in Scotland where he wrote 1984 he was working as a spy for the British Government, spying on Scottish nationalists. He was right about capitalism and it's corrupting effect on the human condition. No political structure can save us now. Only veganism can possibly save us.🌱
@@berniv7375 Veganism? Lmao, veganism isn't going to stop billions of tons of CO2 from being released by fossil fuels. Only 10% of that is from meat. In a perfect world where no one eats meat (good luck, I couldn't stop if I wanted to and most of the population is likely just as attached) it would make a dent, but the issue would still be there. Not to mention how agriculture also causes pollution, and the rise in demand for vegetables would certainly reduce the impact of veganism on carbon emissions.
Think of the MAGA Shaman "He loved Donald Trump". I wonder if he still does?
🙄
‘As I Please’ ~George Orwell
“SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality.
Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me.
As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it?
Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either.
My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets.
Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth.
If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter.
It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”
Orwell is the most under rated author. His down and out in Paris and London is both funny and heart breaking.
Yep! I expected 1984 to be this long and dry classic, instead it was written full of wit and easy to read
Are you kidding? He's the most overrated writer of the 20th century
@@gabrielethier2046 and you are the best writer in 20th century indeed 🙌
He is a rapist
@@resir9807 it's literally one of the most boring ass books I've ever read, and I've read a book on compiler architecture, for a CPU that doesn't exist IRL!
Your videos are the best on the Internet.
What a writer! Extremely prescient as it now turns out. I have most of Orwell's work, some of which I've read several times. 1984 is to me the one book which reveals his true genius. Should be required reading for everyone....
Prescient was a perfect choice.
Agreed .... Orwell was one of the genius writers in english literature.
1984 was a shameless rip-off of a novel called "We". He was a disgusting antisemite and a hypocrite. He compiled a dossier of people he regarded as threats to national security for Special Branch. Orwell is the most overrated writer in the English language. He made many predictions and most of them were wrong. His novels were rubbish and his essays are no better. His early death is what saved his reputation. If only that Spanish sniper had killed him.
You don't have his work. You have his WORKS.
Orwell would smile from heaven if you would learn that one.
Alas, it often is required reading, but many people who teach it--and most who read it--can't seem to apply it to current situations. Oh, sure, they do so mechanically, but the problem is that the book starts at the end point of totalitarianism rather than describing the slow buildup to it in which the totalitarians conceal what they're up to, and the way they do it. Student readers dismiss the book as too extreme. They don't get it that the processes getting to the extreme are well on their way, and that they aren't some Nazi jackbooted militarists but capitalist media manipulators and the slimeballs like Trump who learn how to use that media. Worst of all, it is the extremes on BOTH sides--the Trumps/DeSantises AND the progressive "cancellers"--who are trying to drag things into varied forms of totalitarianism, so the situation is more complex than in Nazy Germany or the Soviet Union. BOTH of them believe that "there is no objective truth"--only "perspectives" and "lived experiences," or "all the media are equally bad liars"--and they use this position to break down the existing structure and insert their own forms of domination.
I love Orwell and his love of truth! Great video. Thanks for making this!
I'm happy I found your channel. You produce some good stuff. Orwell denied being a Trotskyist. However, some have called him a literary Trotskyist.
Favorite writer + one of my favorite you tubers = heaven.
Orwell's words are just as relevant today more than 70 years after his death.
If he only could have guessed at
the slow creep of authoritarianism encroaching upon the West.
Truth resonates. This debate will continue for generations.
Like Rob, just want to say thank you for a thought provoking effort.
PS an american reading Orwell in the 60s, I thought he wrote about our form of government/economics; later I discovered it was originally aimed at our then cold War enemies. But it looked identifiably familiar.
Listen i am HALF RUS HALF UKRAINIAN and watching this war from both sides and angles the way his words mirror today's reality in this war is just sureal and unbelievable...sickening but accurate to a frightening degree..
Now imagine both sides are controlled by the same elite...yet this is never realised by either side...
@@paintingholidayitaly The line leading to this truth is way to thin to see....
@@vitalybilo it is exactly what Orwell was expressing...the ultimate tyranny? If you expect the line to be visible then you expect too much.
@evanamavrin5308 The worst thing is the so called "truth movement" started fabricating a new non existent version of have you seen that shit???
Like "ukraine is not a democracy russia is"
Or "there are many ethnic Russians in Ukraine so that gives Russia right to invade and annex any teŕritory it wants"
Or in general making Ukraine look like a dictatorship and putin a fairly elected leader and Russia a typical democracy
These are the "anti government" people.
Seriusly did you notice?
@Evan A Mavrin your childhood experiences gave you great insight for life. Unfortunately the majority have little critical thinking ability...they accept the enemy they are given and the enemy becomes REAL because the government is their IMAGINED friend. Then they send their children to fight that battle because they cannot help but repeat the battle cry when prompted.
The voice of PEACE is the only voice that will save life...this is why the MEDIA never mentions peace.
Orwell's first novel 'Burmese days' is one of the best books on the impact of 'Imperialism'
I meant to add to the above comment, ' one of the best books describing the negative impact of imperialism on colonized population - I say 'best' because this fictional story describes so vividly the way it impacts and what happens to an indigenous population - 90 yrs later we are seeing 'live' how that works out when a false sense of nationalism replaces 'imperialism', by one group of the population and replaces the elite colonial power and oppressors it's own people! Look at Myanmar, (Burma), look at India, look at Sri Lanka, Look at most African states ....
Fully concur.
Plus: its simply a great read.
@@kjr2868 the Guinean indigenous are suffering from Indonesian Muslim colonialism today.
Just discovered your channel and subscribed. I like your approach of addressing things informatively and not with a biased intention. Keep up the good work!
Anyone who truly payed attention to this clip or who knows Orwell's work will recognize many of the things he referred to when looking at the U.S. political landscape today. He warned us of this and we'd better take heed. If you can imagine what the state of our world would be if Germany had had the kind of power that the U.S. has today then it should become clear to everyone how much danger we are all in at this very moment!
He wasn't warning us, he was warning his contemporaries, our parents/grandparents.
Germany persecuted the people who run the US, big difference
@@erictjones no he was warning about human nature and recognizes the dangers of the extreme right and extreme left and extreme capitalism where freedom is controlled. The CNN town hall is a perfect example. I am sure that Orwell would castigate most of what goes on in most countries as manipulation and deception.
What a brilliant and insightful man. His visions were current and futuristic.
Wonderful figure, for people interested in more Orwell backstory - I thoroughly enjoyed "Why Orwell Matters" by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens was a drunken chickenhawk republican hack.
I've always been a fan of George Orwell's writing, but this video was even more enlightening about the author himself. The things that he wrote back then we're almost prescient. They apply just as well today as they did when he first put pen to paper.
"Almost prescient," you say. How about "eerily prescient."
That's the consensus of the Lit Crits, and has been so for decades.
‘As I Please’ ~George Orwell
“SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality.
Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me.
As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it?
Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either.
My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets.
Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth.
If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter.
It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”
a rocking beautiful soul. 🍷❤️🔥
That’s what I’m sensing right now. That the confusion has made people’s minds schizophrenic but they don’t know it. Thanks for posting.....
Brilliant Work here with excellent citations from Orwell's writing... Thanks very much for making this video!
What a fascinating life. You encaptured it so well. Hope to see more content that you're inspired by!
So happy i found your channel. So refreshing to get an informed lecture on history. Thanks ❤
A truly great brief summary of Orwell’s thought, thanks.
Great presentation: Eric Blair is one of my favorite authors; he did live in perilous times, and saw reality through a prophet’s eyes. I had not heard before (or forgot) about his participation in the Spanish Civil War or his injury. I re-read 1984 (my father told me it had originally been titled ‘1948,’ but the publishers thought it too controversial); just as gripping as when I first read it at age 14 required reading as a freshman in High School.
Unfortunately the children of today will not be allowed to read his books in school as we were able to.
I wonder whether it is still recommended reading in schools today. I would be very suprised if it is. but the powers are very arrogant and think they can rub it in our faces and we won't notice.
I might not be an expert on Orwell but I poured a lot months into his works since his time spent in Spain had been the subject of my BA thesis. I just wanted to also add that Orwell throughout his life struggled with his own identity as a true working class defender. He was not born into the working class and went to Eton, one of the prestigious public schools. Furthermore, throughout his life he tried really hard to fight his upper-class upbringing bias by going as far as becoming homeless and traveling throughout England and even spent some time in France working hard jobs in Paris. I recommend his Down and Out in Paris, it's a very entertaining and illuminating little novel about life journey. There's another great story called Keep the Aspidistra Flying which is a semi-autobiographical fictional novel about a young writer who works as book clerk and tries to resist temptations of capitalism to keep himself artistically pure. Things become really difficult for him once he receives his first royalty check for his own work. It's a very relatable story.
A lot of his work reflects his struggles with being someone who wasn't born into the prototypical working class socialist ideals but embraced them, fought for them, and believed in them yet could never come to terms with his upbringing to feel like, try as he might, represented them. This aspect of the man is as important to his writing as his criticism of the Soviet regimes, in my opinion.
Maybe he saw that the only way-the only way to implement socialism is by fiat and force. It will always create a revolutionary backlash and it will always require that the backlash be suppressed.
Imagine how Orwell would feel today, with all the political issues he took having had the benefit of many decades to cement themselves in the hearts, minds and cultures of the west to such a degree as to tell a lie is regarded as merely speaking ones own truth.
For all his insights, Orwell could never have imagined the extent of nightmarish dystopia we inhabit today. A world were the average man is not only fooled, he merrily is thankful to be.
That last sentence is why I feel that our current world is a blend between 1984 & Huxley's B.N.W.
@@averyavenue I fear popular fiction has not aptly manifested the true scale of the nightmare we reside in. It is far too diabolical a thing for an author in the past to imagine for his future kin. Yet it remains far too complex; and at any rate we suffer under its spell to such an extent that it's true nature remains a mystery even as we live through it.
In fiction there is but a single big bad entity that caused the problem and which must be overcome to save the day. For Orwell that was government. For Wall-E that was consumerism. These are but the very tip of the iceberg that is sinking our civilisation. Importantly unlike in fiction where the causal force is conscious of and intending the outcomes created, in our reality there is not only many varied sources of this dystopia all at play on one another, but they remain under each other's spell. At once we are all victims and perpetrators of our own demise.
We, at war with ourselves; are our own big brother. There is no single, nor duo of fiction to point to that describes our reality. It is the fears of all that weigh upon us.
In truth even if we could glimpse it's true nature, it would remain too complicated a discussion to visualise in a 90 minute film or an 800 page novel. That is what makes this dystopia so sinister, it's nature remains so elusive and it's workings appear too convoluted to communicate.
Consider, in terminator the AI sent nukes to rule us. In our reality the AI only needs to send a constant stream of pretty pictures and videos, whilst elevating some above others ensuring a constant supply of content on this dopamine train. Of course there a several such platforms with the same workings and outcome to give the illusion of choice for those whom prove more difficult to acquire.
Consider the film Idiocracy and how much of it is apt to the world around you.
We live in a world where individuals can appear as anonymous armies, and bend others to their will through blackmail or harassment with impunity. Where doublespeak is part of daily discourse and no one blinks an eye. Where identity and immutable traits have been weaponised into ideological distraction. A world were mental illness, genetic deformity and both grotesque extremes of body dysmorphia run at epidemic proportions. Where we are ever denying our own nature, and the tactile reality that comes with it such as to fall into fanciful, escapist, sensory overloads. We have become a civilisation of half-witted, self-righteous and socially awkward addicts with poor impulse control and no memory.
Fiction could never have dreamt this horror for us. For if it were possible for the imaginations of men to conceive of such a thing in advance I have great doubt we would have arrived here.
Lmao
Unless he was a member of the “club”
As long as people still read Orwell there is hope for us.
but in Florida it's consider a woke book....so not on the shelve anymore...
Dear god. Like over half of the most popular comments are about how 1984 came true. This is unironically insane people think we’re anywhere remotely near the situation in that book in any way. You don’t see anybody who escaped North Korea or Russia for the United States whining about how truth is dead.
"I can't say the N word, literally 1984"
If you don't agree with me, then you are insane....YOU Are 1984
@@pezvonpez this ^. If I had to take a demographic guess, most of the people typing "1984 wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual" are most likely on the alt-right fash pipeline who think that "wokeness" and "cancel culture" is the downfall of western society, and most likely didn't watch until the end of the video.
Orwell wrote like no other author I have ever read. Truly he was one of Britain's greatest writers.
And the world
No he wasn't.
Ryan, I am curious about your background. There is nothing in, "About". Forgive me if this seems nosey. I was just wondering where you are from and how you wound up where you are now (intellectually/productively)?
Thank you for your work. I think your channel will do very well over time. I will happily pass it on.✌
When I was at School Animal farm was one of the book's we read and discussed, Orwell rewrote it for the British Government.
I personally think that Animal farm was more important than 1984 .
1984 is a symptom of Animal farm.
I like what you wrote there
Where did you get the idea he wrote Animal Farm for the British government? They had nothing to do with it.
@@ketmaniac when he wrote "for" I think he was refering to it as a warning for the british government
@@ketmaniac I never said he wrote Animal Farm for the British Government, I said he rewrote Animal farm with anti Russian leaning, because the British and US Government's had a fear that the World would be taken over by Comonisam,
@@patthewoodboy No he Rewrote for the British Government.
Ryan Chapman does an extraordinary job at at explaining the subject matter. He does not oversimplify and delves into enough detail as to evoke a desire for greater research on the part of the viewer. Excellent videos, I can't believe I have just discovered this channel.
Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World are all you need to understand today's world .
They came out of different corners, but became one in the perception, that herd animals (unreflected humans) hate individual and reflected humans. Modern day prophets.🍷🎃
I would add Kafka's The Castle to that list
Kurt Vonnegut's _Harrison Bergeron_ is another good one.
I've been a big fan of Orwell from a young age, having read as much of him as I possibly can. To this day he is my favourite writer and it is specifically because of his views on Democratic Socialism that I care so much for his writings to have a proper interpretation. I definitely don't agree with the idea of objective truth because these terms as of late have become warped from the meaning I'm sure he intended, but the original meaning I can get behind. We live in a time where important political terminology and ideology has been changed entirely from its original meanings and definitions much like the time he lived through, like the lies of the Soviet Union sullying terms like socialism or communism or workers republic, same with China and the German National "Socialists" now in modern parlance we describe socialism as basically just "when the government does stuff" and due to this we have people fighting for the wrong causes, not looking into and double checking the "facts" they are being told about politics around them and world events, misleading the conversation. I implore anyone reading this that they must read Orwell, all of what he has written is still relevant today as it was back when he wrote it if not more so.
siomn: Orwell's critiques certainly would have included all of thyose Leninist sates, but would not have been limited to them. He certainly would have picked up on phrases used in the USA by our government spokespersons, such as "Alternative facts."
I think Orwell would agree that the objective truth is that all humans deserve a life of dignity and the freedom to explore their own truths. Maybe I'm just transposing my ideas though... haha
@@johnharbour2631 yeah I don't disagree with you, but even then I don't see that as an objective truth just more as a thing we as humans should do, which I agree with it's a good axiomatic value, but postmodernism wasn't even a thing back then or even much if a thing haha, I don't know how attached to that view he was.
I like his approach and I like his thought pattern more then anything, the way he arrived at his conclusions to me are what he should be most praised for, because one could say the Nazi party was trying to achieve well being and peacefulness for all mankind (which I don't even believe they did in their own minds mind you, It's just for the sake of argument). But if they were in good faith trying to achieve that goal, their methods on achieving that goal and the thought patterns were things I believe to be detestable.
For one in that definition of well being for all humans, they probably wouldn't consider non-aryans as humans which counts them out. Everyone can agree on conclusions, it's the methods and ideas behind those conclusions that are important and I believe that's what Orwell understood better then anyone else.
You know the biggest mindscrew fact that I learned about George Orwell and _1984_ that changed how I viewed the book? Tom Nicholas has a fantastic video called "Jordan Peterson Doesn't Understand George Orwell At All", in which Tom Nicholas explores deeper into the history behind the publication of 1984 and revealed something stunning. A common interpretation that has arisen is that Orwell's Big Brother surveillance state in 1984 was based upon the Soviet Union's surveillance state. But in fact, George Orwell never stepped one foot in Russia in his entire life. What he wrote was simply a very educated and mostly accurate guess of the Soviet surveillance state. Instead, Winston (Orwell's sort of insert character) and his job at the Ministry of Truth was based on Orwell's own experiences working for the BBC during WWII. That was what he based Winston, the Ministry of Truth, Big Brother, etc. on. That really flips your perspective on things, doesnt it?
@@ajiththomas2465 I know, it’s fucking Wild haha. He was a post modernist before it even caught on haha. He was able to dissect the panopticon system to it’s most extreme and basically realized that in a way we all live in oppressive institutions every day that we live, figuring this out decades before Foucault did. If any book gets to the core of what humanity really is, it’s gotta be 1984, cause Winston is as human as human gets.
We live today in an era where incorrect thoughts and speech are berated.
Certain subjects are off limits unless you conform. We have the notion of 'true facts', where politicians ever more so, expound today's truths, even when they directly contradict yesterday's facts.
We are everyday sleep walking into a draconian / fascist / extremist world, where people regurgitation the latest truth, without passing through the analytical part of their brains, if indeed it was ever put into operation.
Orwell is as relevant today as ever and perhaps more so.
Can you name an era when this wasn't the case? It's amazing how people just memoryhole the past.....What is now called "cancel culture" was always the norm. The only difference is what is being "canceled". Rightwing thought was once the majority opinion and anything progressive was condemned to the margins. Livelihoods were destroyed. People even went to prison. Today rightwing ideas like homophobia, sexism and racism are what is marginalized.
Ryan - I am reading the 4 vol. collected essays and letters of Orwell. Your summary here is masterful and even-handed. Thanks you. PS- there is a biopic film/video with audio of Orwell on UA-cam (I think it’s a bbc production) about an hour in length. Includes long passages of Orwell speaking and commenting on his major themes, as well as smoking cigarettes fairly fiendishly. Really good and worthwhile. Thanks again.
That was great. That said, 90 percent of modern Americans think the government lies to them all the time but this knowledge does not change anything.
I mean its more like 50 the other half believe the lies
from the outward changes nothing, but from the inward glows fluid iron. 🍷🎃
Another fantastic piece Ryan. Thanks for sharing!
Reading '1984' before 'Down And Out In Paris And London' and then on to 'Homage To Catalonia' really didn't do me any favours but has made me think a lot in hindsight on how '1984' was a fantasy/slight reality biography almost of Orwell's actual real life existence, thoughts and actions. Still extremely intrigued, have read no other of his writings as yet but certainly shall and probably always revert back to their content for ideas and pathways in life. RIP George.
I feel like 'Homage to Catalonia' and 'Looking Back on the Spanish War' are my two favorites of his, and a much better place to start than '1984', which is just bleak and a bit depressing. In my opinion! Though I only say that as someone who started with '1984' and then missed out on the joy of his writing for many years.
Great video, thanks very much, Ryan Chapman. I like your style of narration and I really enjoyed being able to read Orwell's words as you were quoting them.
Thanks also to all the commenters, and to the UA-cam algorithm 🤗
It appears Orwell was unknowingly writing about modern day China in the 30’s!?! Sooo much of his writing is sooo current ... and sooo many young people think they’re dreaming up something that has never been thought of, or tried, before!! He had a magical way of focusing on the consequences, not just the actions!! Thanks for putting this gem together!!!
America and China are not as different as you think.
Thanks, that was insightful. You just failed to mention Orwell's list, which I believe is paramount to understanding "what Orwell actually believed", especially towards his last years.
Ehh, whenever people mention what someone has done in the twilight years of their life, I don't think it's ever a real view as to who they used to be. I've seen grandparents that were renowned scientists and researchers become outright delusional. Nobody is immune from the inevitable loss of faculties from age.
@@DudesterGX Yeah, but whoever took 5 minutes to learn about Eric Blair's biography knows that he died very young. Unless you believe people in their forties have already lost their mental faculties from old age, but I doubt you do.
It's interesting that he described being shot as a 'painless shock' -- that was my experience of being in a really bad car crash, as well. There was some pain in my case, but far less than I'd expect. I honestly think a badly-placed paper cut may have hurt worse, at first. The surgery afterwards left me in far more pain than the accident!
This is part of why is is unwise to argue that morality is about reducing pain, because a lot of bad things already do not cause pain. Objective morality needs to consider other aims, like preserving life and virtuous behaviour, as more important than minimising pain,which can only be one objective among others.
Well done. Thanks for using his own words to define his position. Truly respectful. Regrettably, Orwell failed to realize that autonomy can be just as deceiving as slavery if divorced from salvation. In our culture, autonomy is a powerful idol.
His words ring true in today's world. Thanks for sharing.
His words rang true in 1948, when it was written. Funny how similar 1948 is to 1984, don't you think?
This all took place during the second red scare. Winston Smith was George Orwell.
It’s is fascinating, comforting, and horrifying that this man wrote thoughts that I thought were my own unique ideas or, at least, only applicable to our time
If you think these are unique ideas I urge you to read a bit more. You might like what you find.
@@XMysticHerox Or get even more depressed.. lolololol
There is always war between truth and lies, right and wrong, good and evil, so even when people were merely describing things as they were happening in the distant past, we see many similarities because the basic struggles remain almost the same.
don't forget "one of the most common human trait's is to think you know something that has passed everybody by" l believe it was bertland russell who said it
"Why Orwell Matters" by Christopher Hitchens, is an amazing biography of Orwell, for anyone interested