When did you realize that Orwell was basically the male equivalent of a rich hippie girl...

When did you realize that Orwell was basically the male equivalent of a rich hippie girl, going to shitholes to "experience the common wealth" and write about it for attention?

Too obvious.

When did you realize all your "opinions" come from popular jewtube channels?

what? are you projecting?

Orwell was literally one of the first people to recognize the hippie phenomenon. He described it in the late 1930s already, when it was only brewing under the surface of society and hadn't yet been given a name.

He wrote in 1937 "there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."

yet he hated the people who weren't sexually open and called them sexually repressed. Orwell is a prime example of someone projecting.

Rich hippie girls don't get shot.

no, they get raped and dumped in the dumpster somewhere of in the ocean

Where the hell did that observation come from? This some gimmick to undermine orwell now? If so man we are fucked

He wasn't projecting. He wrote that he himself was sexually repressed, and assigned responsibility to his education. I don't recall him hating sexually repressed people; I think he was pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

He was a poor working-class prole who was fortunate enough to get an education. He took a job as policeman in Burma because he needed to eat, not because he wanted the hippie experience.

So? You can disapprove of both extreme Puritanism and hippies

>He wasn't projecting. He wrote that he himself was sexually repressed, and assigned responsibility to his education
that's the definition of projecting you cuck.

>Down and out in Paris and London

...

>Paris is commonwealth

Going to shitholes is completely reasonable: if Orwell intends to write convincingly about poverty, of course he wants background research.

Your first language isn't English so I forgive you. When a person is projecting he does not do it consciously; often he does not even realise he has the attribute he is projecting.

Orwell is consciously trying to draw a generalisation on the English upper and middle classes by using his own experience. That is entirely matter entirely

...a different matter entirely. Sorry. Typing on mobile is hard.

He was a socialist who fought for a communist revolution in spain in 1937. He was also one of those first people who made that claim that soviet union wasn't real communism

No it isn't. Protecting is referring to projecting your problems on someone else as if they have them.

The Spanish republic was not a communist revolution, and Orwell fought for the anarchists, not the communists.

I'm not sure he claimed the USSR was not real communism. From what I remember of his works Orwell was consistently hostile against communism, and considered himself a 'democratic socialist'.

yes, he was doing that to british intellectuals

>British intellectuals aren't sexually repressed.

Name me a single British author who thinks British intellectuals aren't sexually repressed.

You can't, because they are. And in fact they were quite proud of their sexual repression. It's a 'no-sex-please-we're-British' thing that's still around, though to a lesser extent, today.

he was projecting nonetheless

Those anarchists were commies/socialists except they're "tru socialism." You'd know this if you ever hung around insufferable ancom degenerates (wouldn't recommend it.)

If you think Afghan refugees are subhuman scum who cannot control their sexual lusts, are you projecting?

>I'm not sure he claimed the USSR was not real communism. From what I remember of his works Orwell was consistently hostile against communism, and considered himself a 'democratic socialist'.
communism and anarcho-syndicalism has a lot of ideological overlap, namely the abolition of capitalism and worker run and managed factories

orwell was anti-totalitarianism and claimed that USSR was not real communism.

any socialist would also claim that their for democracy (as in democratically managed means of production, as opposed to capitalism where private owners manage the means of production)

that's not the same unless you yourself are an afghan refugee.

>british intellectual accuses other intellectuals of the same fault that he himself has

I detest anarchists, communists and socialists. But Orwell did not, to the best of my knowledge, ever say the USSR wasn't real communism. And, if you are fair, you'll admit that Orwell doesn't know what socialism will eventually lead to today.

Orwell naively thinks socialism is about taking care of economic well-being the working class. Today it revolves around fat pink-haired SJW college women, which I am fairly certain Orwell would find repulsive.

Everyone accuses British intellectuals of the fault of sexual repression. That's because it is obviously true.

Yes, Orwell was anti-totalitarian as well as socialist. No, I am still unconvinced he said the USSR was not real communism. Can you find a source for that claim, please?

>Everyone accuses British intellectuals of the fault of sexual repression
so Orwell was just a bandwagon jumper?

>so Orwell was just a bandwagon jumper?

Heh.

>Criticizes Stalin
>Into the trash he goes
Orwell is a protocuck. The beginning of a long line of political thought that is afraid and disgusted by wielding power. They love losing more than winning because when you lose you aren't responsible for anything.

I'm not sure if I can find a direct quote where Orwell said that Soviet style communism wasn't real communism but I think it's sort of implied in his satirical work "Animal Farm." I'll admit I'm ignorant on this subject but I wouldn't be surprised that Orwell would have agreed with, say, Chomsky who claims the Soviet Union was state capitalism. Animal Farm would make sense in that context.

Reminder: Orwell hated homos. He was the first Sup Forumstard.

everyone hated homos until recently.

He criticised people being massively sexually repressed.
He wasn't in favour of 'free love' and he despised homosexuals.

Orwell was from an era where almost everyone hated homosexuals. Hell, I was a kid in the 80s and homosexuals were considered scum.

>THE GOYIM ARE ONTO US, DISCREDIT THE INTERLOPER

>he despised homosexuals.
it's like saying he drank water. this is nothing out of the ordinary for the time.

>The beginning of a long line of political thought that is afraid and disgusted by wielding power.
He totally wasn't though. He's not against strong democratic institutions or defending those with military force. He railed against bourgeois pacifists during WW2 the entire time, calling them Anglophobes, crypto-fascists, secret admirers of totalitarianism and successful cruelty.

He wrote during WW2: "Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy."

The big problem with Orwell (at least in the US) is that his two major works are presented but his general background is left missing. As a result a naive reader can think that he is critiquing Marxism-Leninism from the perspective of a supporter of liberal democracy. But that's really not the case. Supporters of liberal democracy don't go to Spain to fight for the anarchist cause.


The converse of this is that the left can admire his background to such a degree that they fail to realize that his major works serve to greatly undermine his political leanings. It's like if Ayn Rand had been so caught up in an aspect of libertarianism (let's say being against monopolies) that she accidently wrote The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

>and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain.

There's a good reason for reluctance to believe those things. The BBC had a tendency to exaggerate British successes. Their exaggerations were mild compared to the Soviet, German, or Japanese media but they still weren't quite honest. And Orwell should know this as he worked at the BBC at the time.

>fruit juice drinker
Fuck man, I can't enjoy juice without being a commie?

u r so cool and see through it all xd!

OYYYY VEEY OOYYYYY JEWS BTFOOO!!!!111 SHUT IT DOWN

Well since his animal farm book is (((required reading))) at many public schools, it's pretty much a given that he's some sort of propagandist. I don't know about a "rich hippie girl", but he definitely wrote some bullshit pro-capitalist nonsense for the kikes.

>bullshit pro-capitalist nonsense for the kikes.
like?

All art is propaganda.