13 ms·

Notes on Nationalism (1945)

210 points by rramadass 5y ago

rramadass 5y ago
Given whats going on in the World now, Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" is a pertinent read. We must be careful that we don't get carried away by Propaganda and start demonizing "the other side" reflexively. Summary on Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_Nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_Nationalism
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  Just got finished watching The Great Hack* on Netflix. Demonizing "the other side", exactly as you've said, causes the polarisation that prevents even the consideration of compromise, resulting in political unproductivity that in turn erodes trust and forces us simple humans back into the basic pigeon holes that remain as the only effective politics, primarily: fear. The rational centre, however, is unprofitable, and will remain un-catered-to until its profitability increases. * The 5-minute mini-rundown of the Trinidad and Tobago election strategy in 2010, at about 1hr and 1-minute into the doco, is a phenomenal eye-opener.
  - grujicd 5y ago
    OMG, that Trinidad and Tobago part is so eye opening, even for middle aged cynic who thought he saw it all.
    - dleslie 5y ago
      Now ask yourself what grass roots campaigns you supported were likely created by agencies like this.
      - grujicd 5y ago
        Yup. There was an Otpor (resistance) movement in Serbia which helped overturn Milosevic at the end of 90-ties. It was later found out it was assisted by several US agencies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otpor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otpor Its goal was the oposite from the Trinidad and Tobago one, to motivate as many people to take a vote. At the time noone knew they got outside help, but in retrospect, such help was very needed to overthrow a dictator.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      My cynicism is running the other way. I have been burned too many times by “factual” documentaries that leave our context and information that run counter to what the documentary is selling. Especially all the Netflix garbage which is designed to just increase the number of hours of content they have. The audio seems to be from a sales pitch, so Cambridge Analytica has incentive to lie that they did something. The “Do So” movement seems to have started due to someone not allowing the incumbent, extremely unpopular prime minister onto their property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Villafana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Villafana I have not found any good evidence that Cambridge Analytica orchestrated anything. At best, I am guessing they acted as an advertising firm and used an organically growing movement against an already extremely unpopular leader. But the Netflix documentary attempts to make it seem like Cambridge Analytica started the movement and succeeded in swaying an outcome that would not have gone the way it did without Cambridge Analytica. Maybe it did, maybe it did not, but a sales rep from Cambridge Analytica trying to sell their services is certainly no proof of anything.
  - harryvederci 5y ago
    Youtube (ugh[0]) link of the fragment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0 [0] Youtube is designed to suck you in and force feed you advertisements. Sorry, I couldn't find the fragment somewhere else.
    - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
      Because I was too lazy to find the clip myself, I'll instead contribute by linking to the less user-hostile, but questionably legal (isn't that few words just indicative of the state of society we find ourselves in) Invidious clip: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - sifar 5y ago
    >> The rational centre, however, is unprofitable, and will remain un-catered-to until its profitability increases. To play devils advocate, this exploitation of our irrational (as in not involving reason) behaviours is a pretty rational process.
- gexla 5y ago
  I feel the deeper thing that's going on is that you're objectifying the other side. By turning them into an object, you strip others of their humanity. You then setup a relationship in which you can rationalize doing all sorts of bad things. Not sure that "objectifying" is the right word here though.
  - donatj 5y ago
    I think dehumanizing is the more common word for what you’re expressing, but objectifying works here too.
- pastacacioepepe 5y ago
  Totally agree but it's too late, it already happened. It took only about 4 days of intense propaganda, for people to start asking for racial sanctions. People started demonizing Dostoevsky. Russians have lost their jobs all over the world for not publicly taking a stance against their own people. Next step is going to be the burning of russian books. Trust me, at this rate, it will come soon.
  - j4yav 5y ago
    If you think it’s upsetting that people are being called cowards or complicit for not protesting, which I agree is unfair, wait until you find out what the propaganda being used to justify the war is saying about Ukrainians.
    - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
      I've seen a lot of russian propaganda and none of it takes the racial angle on Ukrainians. Russian consider Ukrainians part of their culture so it wouldn't make much sense. Any source?
      - enkid 5y ago
        Russia saying Ukrainian culture is the same as Russian culture could be considered racist. It's similar to claims that African Americans don't have a unique culture. The result is people justifying suppression of that culture because it "doesn't exist" independently.
        car_analogy 5y ago
        Are there really semi-common claims that African Americans don't have a unique culture? Opinion: There is no 'White culture' - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/opinions/american-culture-and-race-ford/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/opinions/american-culture-and... White culture steals because it has no soul of its own. White people are fleeing Whiteness because they do not have a way to exist apart from their history of oppression. - https://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/how_can_white_americans_be_free/ https://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/how_can_white_americans_be_...
- steve76 5y ago
- cheschire 5y ago
  Getting carried away is an open and public action. Not getting carried away must be done privately. It's tough to know how many people around are not getting carried away because they are afraid of being lashed out at for not being extreme enough. This slowly shifts the window. It seems inevitable.
  - christophilus 5y ago
    Two people close to me think that a hot war between the US and Russia is inevitable and that we may as well go ahead and get it over with. One is a Republican; the other is a Democrat. To me, that anecdote indicates the window has already shifted a whole lot. Getting into a hot war with Russia over Ukraine seems like an obviously bad idea to me. Funding and supplying the Ukrainians? Sure. War? No.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > We must be careful that we don't get carried away by Propaganda and start demonizing "the other side" reflexively. While that is inarguable truth, we also must be careful not to assume all sides are equally good or credible - that is, we should both not assume that and not demonize (or objectify). The answer is to think critically, using all our skills; no algorithm will save us.
fontenot-jon 5y ago
fontenot-jon 5y ago
kcorbitt 5y ago
> In the same way, there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation – that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, against something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty. After reading the first few pages of the essay I think Orwell is describing what I've heard others call "tribalism", for example in https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... There are certainly good things that come from this, but overall it sure seems like an aspect of human nature that can do a lot of damage in what should be a positive-sum world.
- dash2 5y ago
  But note, he distinguishes between nationalism and patriotism, and even blames the decline of patriotism for the rise of nationalism. It’s quite a subtle essay. He was also ahead of his time in knowing about – or rather, being aware of – both things like the concentration camps, and (to my surprise) the Bengal famine.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
prox 5y ago
Starship Troopers (1997) is an interesting movie that is basically a “war propaganda” movie seen from the viewpoint of a fascistic government. The whole point of the movie is to make the enemy seem like “the other” , and in this case these are actual alien bugs in the movie. All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and everything on “our” side as we view it is shiny and “the good side” Paul Verhoeven also deliberately made the first scene shot for shot similar to a german Nazi propaganda film. The whole movie is to make you root for “our side” and demonize the other. I personally didn’t realize this fully when I watched it, which makes the process so insidious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  Most people I've talked to who watched Starship Troopers didn't think it was satire. To be fair, the enemy is literally not human which does make it harder to pick up on.
  - musha68k 5y ago
    I remember watching it as a teenager back in 1997. I was the only one laughing in the cinema, it was just hilarious. It immediately dawned on me after though: why was no one else laughing, really? In Austria of all places. Hadn’t anyone else paid attention during history classes - at all? Continuously chilling yet I’ve never been really surprised by the creeping normalcy of fascist thought since the 90s - in part because of Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers.
    - technothrasher 5y ago
      I had a similar reaction. It was so over the top as to seem obviously satirical, and indeed a poke in the eye to Heinlein's dangerously serious take on the subject matter. I forgave people for not having read the original Heinlein, but I couldn't understand how people didn't see the satire.
    - XorNot 5y ago
      I think that's the mark of effective satire though - or it can be, I'd say there's a spectrum. Some satire needs to call itself out to the audience - make it clear what it is going after, and why. Others is the latter half of it - and Starship Troopers is definitely in this category - play it so straight that you do have to actually key in to it, and it might not hit right away. I was early teens when I watched it, so while the "do you want to know more?" definitely hit as a "okay this is kind of absurd" we were definitely there for action and bugs exploding. But it certainly hit different when I revisited it and you realize just how effective a satire it is at pretty much every level. And I think that's the important part: you can totally miss the point of the movie, and that's basically critical to it's message: it is written and structured as fascist propaganda, and the fact that that can seem reasonable if you accept it uncritically is the message - it's a whole movie which very subtly is pointing out that fascism and its death cult heroism worship is exactly that, but because we dressed it up to look pretty while making what's happening abundantly clear on screen (you die horrifically in a pointless war), you're almost thinking this is reasonable.
avodonosov 5y ago
I heard an opinion that identification of oneself with a group based on some principle (ethnicity / religion / class, etc) is a mechanism produced by evolution, allowing humans to form lager groups than the number of individuals one can personally know. In contrast, for example, to apes. Chimpanzees can only form group up to 150 members. BTW, on wars between chimpanzees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
- sorokod 5y ago
  Evolution based or not, quck and cheap IFF ( identification friend or foe) is an obvious low resolution optimisation. One should be aware that this is an optimization and in fact the entire dichotomy of friend or foe is an optimization in itself.
- jdrc 5y ago
  wish we go back to forming groups of 150, each of them equipped with a nuclear head and some servers.
- wpietri 5y ago
  I'd say "form larger groups" is burying the lead. Evolution is about differential survival, and humans, as eusocial animals, are at an extreme end of the spectrum. What caused such rapid evolution? My money would be on a whole lot of murder by people who clubbed together based on more tenuous identity markers than you see used in our nearest relatives, the other great apes. Take, for example, how frequent and widespread violent ethnic cleansing is.
  - avodonosov 5y ago
    Yes, large groups to compete and fight with others, that what I meant. Although, I do not know whether humans really had groups or unions significantly larger than 150 before the Neolithic age. If not, maybe this property developed in the last 10 000 years. Or maybe this whole idea is not true - I am not really competent to be sure.
dragonsh 5y ago
There is a very good work done by Rabindra Nath Tagore [0] on nationalism before the WWII. It's still relevant today. [0] https://archive.org/details/nationalism00tagorich/page/12/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/nationalism00tagorich/page/12/mo...
janmarsal 5y ago
Very Orwellian definition of nationalism, I must say. I always considered nationalism as the antithesis of imperialism. A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people. Not by foreigners from a far far away land. Almost makes you think Orwell was some kind of an imperialist (a reformist, but still) who tried to vilify nationalism in order to keep the British empire together. Good think that failed. I hope Putin fails as well.
- 3np 5y ago
  Isn't it the same thing, just with a larger geographic area? Blair supposedly changed his views of the British Empire and started hating imperialism after spending time in Burma and seeing the oppression of the locals. That transpired years before he started writing under the pseudonym George Orwell.
- int_19h 5y ago
  The problem is defining what "nation" is. Are Bretons a nation, or are they a part of the French nation? Are Catalonians a nation, or are they the part of a Spanish nation? Some answers to those questions lead to contradictions, in a sense that both groups adopt your "nation should be ruled from its own land by its own people" formula, but lay claim to the same land and/or people.
  - janmarsal 5y ago
    I admit the definition of a nation can be a bit vague sometimes, however, the examples you gave are quite straightforward and I see no problem whatsoever. A Breton nationalist wants Brittany to be ruled by Bretons from Brittany rather than by the French from Paris. A Catalan nationalist wants Catalonia to be ruled by Catalans from Barcelona rather than by Castilians from Madrid. Who decides what a nation is can be a bit tricky from time to time. Who do NOT decide is much easier to answer. In both of your examples, it is clear without a doubt that the people who inhabit the said geographical regions are the ones to decide. Not the Frenchmen from Paris or the Castiians from Madrid. If the people of Brittany decides that they want Brittany to remain as part of France then it simply means that they do not support Breton nationalism. From a nationalist moral point of view, it is up to the people of Brittany to decide. If a French nationalist wants to keep Brittany as part of France against their will then someone must tell that "nationalist" that he is practicing imperialism rather than nationalism. If a Breton "nationalist" wants to annex all of France to bring it under Breton rule then he is an imperialist rather than a nationalist.
supercucklchaim 5y ago
The world needs to be rid of Nationalism sooner rather than later. The narrative is changing slowly but surely. Our ability to use the internet, aside from obvious propaganda, has made the world smaller yet more interconnected than ever.
- sjaak 5y ago
  Something else will replace it. Tribalism is built in to our ‘firmware’.
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    Unfortunately in the West I think this might be identity politics. There is very much a "us Vs them" attitude with the whole thing. To give an example I see a lot of LGBT "allies" with pin badges, flags, etc. To label oneself as being part of that group. Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider.
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      > Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider. Not my sense at all.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      I feel weird if I select the yellow emoji color since everyone on our internal slack is gung ho about their skin color. Same with pronouns, almost indirectly mandated at this point.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - saila 5y ago
      Modern identity politics in the U.S. seems like the inevitable result of telling people they are "free" but then excluding certain identified groups from social life, jobs, etc. Over time, people will bond around their exclusion to create a more powerful bloc to assert their rights. It seems to me that the dominant identitarians of the past have largely created the current situation by not following the creed of "live and let live." Conservatives and the right engage in extreme identity politics, but "identity politics" is most often used as a pejorative against liberals and the left. I wonder why that is. Modern identities probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for historical identification/classification and discrimination.
eklavya 5y ago
It frustrates me to no end when people confuse patriotism with nationalism, some even cite this essay! They say despicable things (in my view) like "patriotism is the root of all evil" while enjoying the lifestyle/security provided by the altruistic patriotism of many others.
- mantas 5y ago
  Even more frustrating is confusing nationalism with chauvinism, nacism and fascism. Nationalism as nations’ right to self determination and self rule is great. And that’s what brought down the old empires. While now empires are rebuilt under anti-nationalist slogans and we are sliding back to multinational behemoths. Good case why healthy dose of patriotism-nationalism is necessary is Ukraine war.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    There's nothing particularly great about nationalism, because "nation" itself is an abstract concept that's inherently malleable. And thus we get those nebulous "national interests" or "national security", which seemingly justifies everything if you can get people hysterical enough about it.
    - mantas 5y ago
      Any tribalism gradation is abstract. If we agree that humans naturally go for some sort of tribalism, then we can discuss which sort of tribalism is most efficient. Tribe-as-extended-family tribalism is brutal. Pan-* tribalism (as USA) seems to start splitting into smaller tribes because it's hard to find common ground for people living in wide variety of historically caused socio-economic conditions (e.g. rust belt vs socal). Nation seems to be bring a good common narrative (historical experiences, usually language) and usually spans small enough territory to not have too much ongoing situation variation. Even the usual urban/countryside variation is usually not too much in close-by cities and their surrounding countryside because of population exchange both ways. As for „national interests“ and „national security“, you get the same with tribalism.
plasticisbad 5y ago
Let's just hope one nation doesn't get too powerful, lest they abuse their power and invade other nations to "protect" their sovereignty. Its happened before and is likely to happen again.
bendbro 5y ago
> During the last twenty years or so of his life, his entire output was in reality an endless repetition of the same thing Ha. This is a hilarious read.
Aidevah 5y ago
Insightful and relevant as ever, Orwell is always worth reading (and rereading). Sometimes I feel that his fictional works have unjustly overshadowed his enormous production of essays, so it's good to see these pop up on the front page once in a while. Also for those who might be mislead by the title, Orwell is discussing something much broader here: >But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one’s own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.
- mrjangles 5y ago
  I think what happens here is that Orwell is having a big stab at the intelligencia, and the intelligencia at the time (as now) hated nationalism. He is trying to point out all the ways their behavior is just like that of overzealous nationalists at the time, so he redefines the word so as the label all the intelligencia as the thing they hate. It makes for effective rhetoric. I think anyone reading this should keep in mind that he seems to have good things to say about what he defines as "patriotism", which is what we would mean by the word nationalism today. In other words, he would absolutely not agree with the anti-nationalists of today who hate their country. In fact, he goes out of his way in this essay to label those people as prime examples of "nationalists".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ImaCake 5y ago
  I didn’t enjoy 1984. If you have been exposed to those ideas elsewhere the book just doesn’t work. I did however love his memoir of his time fighting as a socialist volunteer in the Spanish civil war [1]. Very insightful read and clearly shows where his thinking was going when he later wrote animal farm and 1984. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia
mananaysiempre 5y ago
The original Lego Movie (2014) has a wonderful, cheerful, catchy, and quite literally and deliberately fascist theme song (Everything is Awesome). You could say the entire (surprisingly good) film is an explanation of why it’s not as good a thing as it seems to be. (Yes, that’s all kinds of ironic for what is at the same time essentially a feature-length commercial.)
- flycaliguy 5y ago
  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Spice World paired with Josie and the Pussycats is a good time and a great thesis.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  >” The original Lego Movie (2014) has a wonderful, cheerful, catchy, and quite literally and deliberately fascist theme song (Everything is Awesome)” I’m sorry, what? I know the label “fascist” gets thrown around with reckless abandon these days, but in what way is the everting is awesome song fascistic? To me it’s just a catchy children's song.
  - mananaysiempre 5y ago
    I mean, I might be wrong, but—in the literal one? As in it preaches conformity and finding your purpose in following the group whatever the group is doing? A glance at the lyrics makes me think my memory might have made this stronger than it actually is, but when I watched the movie about five years ago I remember thinking those lyrics were the first sign something was supposed to be off, and indeed I seem to remember that when the protagonist broke away from the prescribed routine he looked on with longing at the others “working in harmony” while the song is playing in the background. It might have been cheery Soviet plays from the 1930s making me paranoid, but that song was the strongest impression the film left on me.
    - foobarian 5y ago
      I don't find the literal interpretation helpful. That pretty much describes any group activity anywhere in the world. Find me one major Western company that does not preach "better together" or "teamwork" or whatever. Then you have the Eastern ideas of "all under Heaven." The Communist "brotherhood and unity." Etc. Not that I have an answer. It's complicated but interesting. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
fkfkno 5y ago
So he was a patriot after all? All jokes aside, in that book there is the quote: "All art is propaganda; on the other hand, not all propaganda is art." History judges which is which by virtue of whether or not it succeeds in its objective(s). But history is itself another form of propaganda, so alas, we are all once again stuck here in this mess we call "today".
genericacct 5y ago
A bit is either 1 or 0, tertium non datur
donatj 5y ago
How Orwell defines Nationalism is in my experience what you hear getting called "statism" in libertarian circles.
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  Sure, it's worship of the state in the final analysis.
Thorentis 5y ago
I can't help but think the extreme reaction to Russia (sanctions on anything even remotely related to Russia) is "revenge" for what some of the elite might still be convinced was Russian involvement in the 2016 election (despite evidence to the contrary).
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  A concerted attempt to manipulate the election is a matter of fact. The impact is often exaggerated, but that they tried to is not really in dispute.
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
Forgive this, for it is only the beginnings of an idea: Can the trend of fluid gender identity and increasingly fractured sexual identity be a somewhat 'equal and opposite' force to that of nationalism? Nationalism, as defined in Orwell's notes, is a grouping of people under a single banner, whether positive or negative. The new classifications and terms that have sprung from the Gender and Sexual identity movement (ironically, that's a classification in itself) are brought about by the lack of existing nomenclature adequately describing the group of people considered to be under that banner; "Don't categorise me". That is individualism, that is anti-nationalism. Is that what 'the West' should be supporting and embracing if it truly values individual freedoms? Is the difficulty of acceptance of this gender and sexual individualism by society at large a result of the fact that it's challenging to humanity's baser instincts of "us and them" that we tend to revert to in times of instability and stress? (described in detail by Orwell). (admittedly, I find it hard to process the gender and sexual identity 'stuff' because I happily sit in existing boxes and have only recently put enough thought into the implications of myself being "mis-classified")
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  As a white American who identifies non-binary, no. It can potentially help you understand overlapping concepts, but it’s a fundamentally different experience to be ‘unusual’ in a cultural context you mostly share than to be an outsider in the cultural experience you inhabit. Even though I prefer they/them pronouns I can conveniently be male, with my beard and my masculine presentation, for any situation that warrants it. Even if I couldn’t I’m being evaluated as a member of the same community. I’m only othered in situ. The only reason other nationalists (in Orwell’s usage) would care to take notice is to exploit divisions in situ or divisions between how their “nation” regards my gender expression and how ours does, for whatever value of “ours”. Edit: I wrote this kind of in a rush and I feel remiss that I didn’t address “overlapping concepts” more: this is at the root of intersectionalism. Some of the experience of every marginalized group is similar to the experience of other groups. Recognizing those similarities is really valuable especially among people marginalized in different ways. I don’t mean to dismiss your recognition either, because this is a good instinct to have. My point is it’s different, even though it’s similar. But its similarity does matter as you’ve recognized.

210 points by rramadass 5y ago

Given whats going on in the World now, Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" is a pertinent read. We must be careful that we don't get carried away by Propaganda and start demonizing "the other side" reflexively. Summary on Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_Nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_Nationalism

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
Just got finished watching The Great Hack* on Netflix. Demonizing "the other side", exactly as you've said, causes the polarisation that prevents even the consideration of compromise, resulting in political unproductivity that in turn erodes trust and forces us simple humans back into the basic pigeon holes that remain as the only effective politics, primarily: fear. The rational centre, however, is unprofitable, and will remain un-catered-to until its profitability increases. * The 5-minute mini-rundown of the Trinidad and Tobago election strategy in 2010, at about 1hr and 1-minute into the doco, is a phenomenal eye-opener.
- grujicd 5y ago
  OMG, that Trinidad and Tobago part is so eye opening, even for middle aged cynic who thought he saw it all.
  - dleslie 5y ago
    Now ask yourself what grass roots campaigns you supported were likely created by agencies like this.
    - grujicd 5y ago
      Yup. There was an Otpor (resistance) movement in Serbia which helped overturn Milosevic at the end of 90-ties. It was later found out it was assisted by several US agencies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otpor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otpor Its goal was the oposite from the Trinidad and Tobago one, to motivate as many people to take a vote. At the time noone knew they got outside help, but in retrospect, such help was very needed to overthrow a dictator.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    My cynicism is running the other way. I have been burned too many times by “factual” documentaries that leave our context and information that run counter to what the documentary is selling. Especially all the Netflix garbage which is designed to just increase the number of hours of content they have. The audio seems to be from a sales pitch, so Cambridge Analytica has incentive to lie that they did something. The “Do So” movement seems to have started due to someone not allowing the incumbent, extremely unpopular prime minister onto their property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Villafana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Villafana I have not found any good evidence that Cambridge Analytica orchestrated anything. At best, I am guessing they acted as an advertising firm and used an organically growing movement against an already extremely unpopular leader. But the Netflix documentary attempts to make it seem like Cambridge Analytica started the movement and succeeded in swaying an outcome that would not have gone the way it did without Cambridge Analytica. Maybe it did, maybe it did not, but a sales rep from Cambridge Analytica trying to sell their services is certainly no proof of anything.
- harryvederci 5y ago
  Youtube (ugh[0]) link of the fragment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0 [0] Youtube is designed to suck you in and force feed you advertisements. Sorry, I couldn't find the fragment somewhere else.
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    Because I was too lazy to find the clip myself, I'll instead contribute by linking to the less user-hostile, but questionably legal (isn't that few words just indicative of the state of society we find ourselves in) Invidious clip: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- sifar 5y ago
  >> The rational centre, however, is unprofitable, and will remain un-catered-to until its profitability increases. To play devils advocate, this exploitation of our irrational (as in not involving reason) behaviours is a pretty rational process.
gexla 5y ago
I feel the deeper thing that's going on is that you're objectifying the other side. By turning them into an object, you strip others of their humanity. You then setup a relationship in which you can rationalize doing all sorts of bad things. Not sure that "objectifying" is the right word here though.
- donatj 5y ago
  I think dehumanizing is the more common word for what you’re expressing, but objectifying works here too.
pastacacioepepe 5y ago
Totally agree but it's too late, it already happened. It took only about 4 days of intense propaganda, for people to start asking for racial sanctions. People started demonizing Dostoevsky. Russians have lost their jobs all over the world for not publicly taking a stance against their own people. Next step is going to be the burning of russian books. Trust me, at this rate, it will come soon.
- j4yav 5y ago
  If you think it’s upsetting that people are being called cowards or complicit for not protesting, which I agree is unfair, wait until you find out what the propaganda being used to justify the war is saying about Ukrainians.
  - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
    I've seen a lot of russian propaganda and none of it takes the racial angle on Ukrainians. Russian consider Ukrainians part of their culture so it wouldn't make much sense. Any source?
    - enkid 5y ago
      Russia saying Ukrainian culture is the same as Russian culture could be considered racist. It's similar to claims that African Americans don't have a unique culture. The result is people justifying suppression of that culture because it "doesn't exist" independently.
      - car_analogy 5y ago
        Are there really semi-common claims that African Americans don't have a unique culture? Opinion: There is no 'White culture' - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/opinions/american-culture-and-race-ford/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/opinions/american-culture-and... White culture steals because it has no soul of its own. White people are fleeing Whiteness because they do not have a way to exist apart from their history of oppression. - https://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/how_can_white_americans_be_free/ https://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/how_can_white_americans_be_...
steve76 5y ago
cheschire 5y ago
Getting carried away is an open and public action. Not getting carried away must be done privately. It's tough to know how many people around are not getting carried away because they are afraid of being lashed out at for not being extreme enough. This slowly shifts the window. It seems inevitable.
- christophilus 5y ago
  Two people close to me think that a hot war between the US and Russia is inevitable and that we may as well go ahead and get it over with. One is a Republican; the other is a Democrat. To me, that anecdote indicates the window has already shifted a whole lot. Getting into a hot war with Russia over Ukraine seems like an obviously bad idea to me. Funding and supplying the Ukrainians? Sure. War? No.
wolverine876 5y ago
> We must be careful that we don't get carried away by Propaganda and start demonizing "the other side" reflexively. While that is inarguable truth, we also must be careful not to assume all sides are equally good or credible - that is, we should both not assume that and not demonize (or objectify). The answer is to think critically, using all our skills; no algorithm will save us.

fontenot-jon 5y ago

kcorbitt 5y ago

> In the same way, there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation – that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, against something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty. After reading the first few pages of the essay I think Orwell is describing what I've heard others call "tribalism", for example in https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... There are certainly good things that come from this, but overall it sure seems like an aspect of human nature that can do a lot of damage in what should be a positive-sum world.

dash2 5y ago
But note, he distinguishes between nationalism and patriotism, and even blames the decline of patriotism for the rise of nationalism. It’s quite a subtle essay. He was also ahead of his time in knowing about – or rather, being aware of – both things like the concentration camps, and (to my surprise) the Bengal famine.
- bobthechef 5y ago

prox 5y ago

Starship Troopers (1997) is an interesting movie that is basically a “war propaganda” movie seen from the viewpoint of a fascistic government. The whole point of the movie is to make the enemy seem like “the other” , and in this case these are actual alien bugs in the movie. All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and everything on “our” side as we view it is shiny and “the good side” Paul Verhoeven also deliberately made the first scene shot for shot similar to a german Nazi propaganda film. The whole movie is to make you root for “our side” and demonize the other. I personally didn’t realize this fully when I watched it, which makes the process so insidious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

bigDinosaur 5y ago
Most people I've talked to who watched Starship Troopers didn't think it was satire. To be fair, the enemy is literally not human which does make it harder to pick up on.
- musha68k 5y ago
  I remember watching it as a teenager back in 1997. I was the only one laughing in the cinema, it was just hilarious. It immediately dawned on me after though: why was no one else laughing, really? In Austria of all places. Hadn’t anyone else paid attention during history classes - at all? Continuously chilling yet I’ve never been really surprised by the creeping normalcy of fascist thought since the 90s - in part because of Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    I had a similar reaction. It was so over the top as to seem obviously satirical, and indeed a poke in the eye to Heinlein's dangerously serious take on the subject matter. I forgave people for not having read the original Heinlein, but I couldn't understand how people didn't see the satire.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    I think that's the mark of effective satire though - or it can be, I'd say there's a spectrum. Some satire needs to call itself out to the audience - make it clear what it is going after, and why. Others is the latter half of it - and Starship Troopers is definitely in this category - play it so straight that you do have to actually key in to it, and it might not hit right away. I was early teens when I watched it, so while the "do you want to know more?" definitely hit as a "okay this is kind of absurd" we were definitely there for action and bugs exploding. But it certainly hit different when I revisited it and you realize just how effective a satire it is at pretty much every level. And I think that's the important part: you can totally miss the point of the movie, and that's basically critical to it's message: it is written and structured as fascist propaganda, and the fact that that can seem reasonable if you accept it uncritically is the message - it's a whole movie which very subtly is pointing out that fascism and its death cult heroism worship is exactly that, but because we dressed it up to look pretty while making what's happening abundantly clear on screen (you die horrifically in a pointless war), you're almost thinking this is reasonable.

avodonosov 5y ago

I heard an opinion that identification of oneself with a group based on some principle (ethnicity / religion / class, etc) is a mechanism produced by evolution, allowing humans to form lager groups than the number of individuals one can personally know. In contrast, for example, to apes. Chimpanzees can only form group up to 150 members. BTW, on wars between chimpanzees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

sorokod 5y ago
Evolution based or not, quck and cheap IFF ( identification friend or foe) is an obvious low resolution optimisation. One should be aware that this is an optimization and in fact the entire dichotomy of friend or foe is an optimization in itself.
jdrc 5y ago
wish we go back to forming groups of 150, each of them equipped with a nuclear head and some servers.
wpietri 5y ago
I'd say "form larger groups" is burying the lead. Evolution is about differential survival, and humans, as eusocial animals, are at an extreme end of the spectrum. What caused such rapid evolution? My money would be on a whole lot of murder by people who clubbed together based on more tenuous identity markers than you see used in our nearest relatives, the other great apes. Take, for example, how frequent and widespread violent ethnic cleansing is.
- avodonosov 5y ago
  Yes, large groups to compete and fight with others, that what I meant. Although, I do not know whether humans really had groups or unions significantly larger than 150 before the Neolithic age. If not, maybe this property developed in the last 10 000 years. Or maybe this whole idea is not true - I am not really competent to be sure.

dragonsh 5y ago

There is a very good work done by Rabindra Nath Tagore [0] on nationalism before the WWII. It's still relevant today. [0] https://archive.org/details/nationalism00tagorich/page/12/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/nationalism00tagorich/page/12/mo...

janmarsal 5y ago

Very Orwellian definition of nationalism, I must say. I always considered nationalism as the antithesis of imperialism. A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people. Not by foreigners from a far far away land. Almost makes you think Orwell was some kind of an imperialist (a reformist, but still) who tried to vilify nationalism in order to keep the British empire together. Good think that failed. I hope Putin fails as well.

3np 5y ago
Isn't it the same thing, just with a larger geographic area? Blair supposedly changed his views of the British Empire and started hating imperialism after spending time in Burma and seeing the oppression of the locals. That transpired years before he started writing under the pseudonym George Orwell.
int_19h 5y ago
The problem is defining what "nation" is. Are Bretons a nation, or are they a part of the French nation? Are Catalonians a nation, or are they the part of a Spanish nation? Some answers to those questions lead to contradictions, in a sense that both groups adopt your "nation should be ruled from its own land by its own people" formula, but lay claim to the same land and/or people.
- janmarsal 5y ago
  I admit the definition of a nation can be a bit vague sometimes, however, the examples you gave are quite straightforward and I see no problem whatsoever. A Breton nationalist wants Brittany to be ruled by Bretons from Brittany rather than by the French from Paris. A Catalan nationalist wants Catalonia to be ruled by Catalans from Barcelona rather than by Castilians from Madrid. Who decides what a nation is can be a bit tricky from time to time. Who do NOT decide is much easier to answer. In both of your examples, it is clear without a doubt that the people who inhabit the said geographical regions are the ones to decide. Not the Frenchmen from Paris or the Castiians from Madrid. If the people of Brittany decides that they want Brittany to remain as part of France then it simply means that they do not support Breton nationalism. From a nationalist moral point of view, it is up to the people of Brittany to decide. If a French nationalist wants to keep Brittany as part of France against their will then someone must tell that "nationalist" that he is practicing imperialism rather than nationalism. If a Breton "nationalist" wants to annex all of France to bring it under Breton rule then he is an imperialist rather than a nationalist.

supercucklchaim 5y ago

The world needs to be rid of Nationalism sooner rather than later. The narrative is changing slowly but surely. Our ability to use the internet, aside from obvious propaganda, has made the world smaller yet more interconnected than ever.

sjaak 5y ago
Something else will replace it. Tribalism is built in to our ‘firmware’.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  Unfortunately in the West I think this might be identity politics. There is very much a "us Vs them" attitude with the whole thing. To give an example I see a lot of LGBT "allies" with pin badges, flags, etc. To label oneself as being part of that group. Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    > Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider. Not my sense at all.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    I feel weird if I select the yellow emoji color since everyone on our internal slack is gung ho about their skin color. Same with pronouns, almost indirectly mandated at this point.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - saila 5y ago
    Modern identity politics in the U.S. seems like the inevitable result of telling people they are "free" but then excluding certain identified groups from social life, jobs, etc. Over time, people will bond around their exclusion to create a more powerful bloc to assert their rights. It seems to me that the dominant identitarians of the past have largely created the current situation by not following the creed of "live and let live." Conservatives and the right engage in extreme identity politics, but "identity politics" is most often used as a pejorative against liberals and the left. I wonder why that is. Modern identities probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for historical identification/classification and discrimination.

eklavya 5y ago

It frustrates me to no end when people confuse patriotism with nationalism, some even cite this essay! They say despicable things (in my view) like "patriotism is the root of all evil" while enjoying the lifestyle/security provided by the altruistic patriotism of many others.

mantas 5y ago
Even more frustrating is confusing nationalism with chauvinism, nacism and fascism. Nationalism as nations’ right to self determination and self rule is great. And that’s what brought down the old empires. While now empires are rebuilt under anti-nationalist slogans and we are sliding back to multinational behemoths. Good case why healthy dose of patriotism-nationalism is necessary is Ukraine war.
- int_19h 5y ago
  There's nothing particularly great about nationalism, because "nation" itself is an abstract concept that's inherently malleable. And thus we get those nebulous "national interests" or "national security", which seemingly justifies everything if you can get people hysterical enough about it.
  - mantas 5y ago
    Any tribalism gradation is abstract. If we agree that humans naturally go for some sort of tribalism, then we can discuss which sort of tribalism is most efficient. Tribe-as-extended-family tribalism is brutal. Pan-* tribalism (as USA) seems to start splitting into smaller tribes because it's hard to find common ground for people living in wide variety of historically caused socio-economic conditions (e.g. rust belt vs socal). Nation seems to be bring a good common narrative (historical experiences, usually language) and usually spans small enough territory to not have too much ongoing situation variation. Even the usual urban/countryside variation is usually not too much in close-by cities and their surrounding countryside because of population exchange both ways. As for „national interests“ and „national security“, you get the same with tribalism.

plasticisbad 5y ago

Let's just hope one nation doesn't get too powerful, lest they abuse their power and invade other nations to "protect" their sovereignty. Its happened before and is likely to happen again.

bendbro 5y ago

> During the last twenty years or so of his life, his entire output was in reality an endless repetition of the same thing Ha. This is a hilarious read.

Aidevah 5y ago

Insightful and relevant as ever, Orwell is always worth reading (and rereading). Sometimes I feel that his fictional works have unjustly overshadowed his enormous production of essays, so it's good to see these pop up on the front page once in a while. Also for those who might be mislead by the title, Orwell is discussing something much broader here: >But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one’s own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.

mrjangles 5y ago
I think what happens here is that Orwell is having a big stab at the intelligencia, and the intelligencia at the time (as now) hated nationalism. He is trying to point out all the ways their behavior is just like that of overzealous nationalists at the time, so he redefines the word so as the label all the intelligencia as the thing they hate. It makes for effective rhetoric. I think anyone reading this should keep in mind that he seems to have good things to say about what he defines as "patriotism", which is what we would mean by the word nationalism today. In other words, he would absolutely not agree with the anti-nationalists of today who hate their country. In fact, he goes out of his way in this essay to label those people as prime examples of "nationalists".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ImaCake 5y ago
I didn’t enjoy 1984. If you have been exposed to those ideas elsewhere the book just doesn’t work. I did however love his memoir of his time fighting as a socialist volunteer in the Spanish civil war [1]. Very insightful read and clearly shows where his thinking was going when he later wrote animal farm and 1984. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia

mananaysiempre 5y ago

The original Lego Movie (2014) has a wonderful, cheerful, catchy, and quite literally and deliberately fascist theme song (Everything is Awesome). You could say the entire (surprisingly good) film is an explanation of why it’s not as good a thing as it seems to be. (Yes, that’s all kinds of ironic for what is at the same time essentially a feature-length commercial.)

flycaliguy 5y ago
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Spice World paired with Josie and the Pussycats is a good time and a great thesis.
BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
>” The original Lego Movie (2014) has a wonderful, cheerful, catchy, and quite literally and deliberately fascist theme song (Everything is Awesome)” I’m sorry, what? I know the label “fascist” gets thrown around with reckless abandon these days, but in what way is the everting is awesome song fascistic? To me it’s just a catchy children's song.
- mananaysiempre 5y ago
  I mean, I might be wrong, but—in the literal one? As in it preaches conformity and finding your purpose in following the group whatever the group is doing? A glance at the lyrics makes me think my memory might have made this stronger than it actually is, but when I watched the movie about five years ago I remember thinking those lyrics were the first sign something was supposed to be off, and indeed I seem to remember that when the protagonist broke away from the prescribed routine he looked on with longing at the others “working in harmony” while the song is playing in the background. It might have been cheery Soviet plays from the 1930s making me paranoid, but that song was the strongest impression the film left on me.
  - foobarian 5y ago
    I don't find the literal interpretation helpful. That pretty much describes any group activity anywhere in the world. Find me one major Western company that does not preach "better together" or "teamwork" or whatever. Then you have the Eastern ideas of "all under Heaven." The Communist "brotherhood and unity." Etc. Not that I have an answer. It's complicated but interesting. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

fkfkno 5y ago

So he was a patriot after all? All jokes aside, in that book there is the quote: "All art is propaganda; on the other hand, not all propaganda is art." History judges which is which by virtue of whether or not it succeeds in its objective(s). But history is itself another form of propaganda, so alas, we are all once again stuck here in this mess we call "today".

genericacct 5y ago

A bit is either 1 or 0, tertium non datur

donatj 5y ago

How Orwell defines Nationalism is in my experience what you hear getting called "statism" in libertarian circles.

Synaesthesia 5y ago
Sure, it's worship of the state in the final analysis.

Thorentis 5y ago

I can't help but think the extreme reaction to Russia (sanctions on anything even remotely related to Russia) is "revenge" for what some of the elite might still be convinced was Russian involvement in the 2016 election (despite evidence to the contrary).

kspacewalk2 5y ago
A concerted attempt to manipulate the election is a matter of fact. The impact is often exaggerated, but that they tried to is not really in dispute.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

Forgive this, for it is only the beginnings of an idea: Can the trend of fluid gender identity and increasingly fractured sexual identity be a somewhat 'equal and opposite' force to that of nationalism? Nationalism, as defined in Orwell's notes, is a grouping of people under a single banner, whether positive or negative. The new classifications and terms that have sprung from the Gender and Sexual identity movement (ironically, that's a classification in itself) are brought about by the lack of existing nomenclature adequately describing the group of people considered to be under that banner; "Don't categorise me". That is individualism, that is anti-nationalism. Is that what 'the West' should be supporting and embracing if it truly values individual freedoms? Is the difficulty of acceptance of this gender and sexual individualism by society at large a result of the fact that it's challenging to humanity's baser instincts of "us and them" that we tend to revert to in times of instability and stress? (described in detail by Orwell). (admittedly, I find it hard to process the gender and sexual identity 'stuff' because I happily sit in existing boxes and have only recently put enough thought into the implications of myself being "mis-classified")

eyelidlessness 5y ago
As a white American who identifies non-binary, no. It can potentially help you understand overlapping concepts, but it’s a fundamentally different experience to be ‘unusual’ in a cultural context you mostly share than to be an outsider in the cultural experience you inhabit. Even though I prefer they/them pronouns I can conveniently be male, with my beard and my masculine presentation, for any situation that warrants it. Even if I couldn’t I’m being evaluated as a member of the same community. I’m only othered in situ. The only reason other nationalists (in Orwell’s usage) would care to take notice is to exploit divisions in situ or divisions between how their “nation” regards my gender expression and how ours does, for whatever value of “ours”. Edit: I wrote this kind of in a rush and I feel remiss that I didn’t address “overlapping concepts” more: this is at the root of intersectionalism. Some of the experience of every marginalized group is similar to the experience of other groups. Recognizing those similarities is really valuable especially among people marginalized in different ways. I don’t mean to dismiss your recognition either, because this is a good instinct to have. My point is it’s different, even though it’s similar. But its similarity does matter as you’ve recognized.