Hitchen's Orwell quote...how to refute?

[Carson]

Several of my warmonger friends have brought this quote to my attention.

I'd like to hear some comments on how to counter.

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

[JHBowden]

1. I'm not a pacifist

so I really can't comment.

[hiphopnation]

2. spot on

I'd say. Look at the damage imposed on the entire world as a result of Britain's and the U.S.'s quest for global dominance. Sure there are a few good things that have come from it, but, on a whole, I'd have to agree whole-heartedly with the statement.

Why do you want to refute it?

[hiphopnation]

5. except to say

that just because I have a certain contempt the actions of the west does not mean that I automatically respect totalitarianism. One does not prove the other. What's that logical thought process called?

[Nevernose]

3. Someone in Slate's reply section refuted it thusly:

Paraphrasing: "That quote was written several years before 1984, Animal farm, and others; clearly Orwell's opinions had changed after he wrote that."

Besides, whoever said Michael Moore was a pacifist? He was all set to get Bin Laden -- just didn't think napalming Iraqi peasants was the best way of getting him.

[rinsd]

23. Animal Farm was written in 1945.

1984 came 4 years later.

The quote is taken from Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" written in May 1945. It's even after his ant-war piece "Homage to Catalonia"(1938). So its roughly the same timeframe.

I found a copy, http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/nationalism.html

The whole quote is this:

5. PACIFISM The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.

[hiphopnation]

25. I guess I would be of this stripe:

humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point

Thanks for the link.

[RandomKoolzip]

4. Hitchens quoting Orwell? Ha.

That's about as absurd as David Duke quoting Chaim Potok.

[Fenris]

7. His book "Why Orwell Matters" isn't bad.

But now he's constantly using Orwell to justify his own bizarre theoretical foreign policy.

[librechik]

17. Hitchens has been corrupted by power

absolutely

[RandomKoolzip]

19. I know, Hitchens used to have a brain.

Now he's too busy taking RW cock down his throat to say anything logical or intelligent. And he looks like shit.

[Fenris]

20. He drinks way too much.

He was eloquent once. Now he speaks like a drunk. Come to think of it, he looks like a drunk as well. Shabby suit, open collar, greasy hair. Get poor Chris to AA.

[RandomKoolzip]

21. I just can't see how Hitch can't see the similarities between

Kissinger and Cheney. His documentary on Kissinger was so great, and yet he JUST CAN'T SEE how the same shit is continuing to happen in this administration.


On second thought, maybe he's getting paid not to see it. Is it big tobacco paying you off, Chris? Or Seagram's?

It sure did make the right look legit for a little while when Chrissy defected from the Nation...but those days are over, too.

[Fenris]

22. Seagram's and Philip Morris, I suspect.

It is quite perplexing that he is blind to the evil being committed by this administration. Evil fighting evil. There's no good guy in this battle. Not to Hitchens though.

Strange.

[rinsd]

24. Oh c'mon....some of the best writers are drunks....

Not to defend Hitchens specifically but to cast aside the drunk writer is a bit silly. Hemingway comes to mind.

And what of Hunter S. Thompson?

[Fenris]

30. Yes, but in their cases alcohol improved them

[rinsd]

34. LOL (nt)

[patdem]

6. Does he NAME any of the 'younger intellectual pacifists'?

or the the only 'one' who looks closely is Hitchins and he gets to decide for you?

Do you allow others to read for you and then tell you what they said, and what you should think about something you have never seen???? :shrug:

What an idiot Hitchins is!!!

[rumguy]

8. Look - there is something to what he says at the end

There is a certain part of the extreme left that thinks that Al Queda isn't even real, that it's all the big bad CIA.

Hitchens is drawing out a relatively small number of individuals. I think it's Hitchens who is avoiding the larger reality.

[fdr_hst_fan]

9. I'm not a pacifist;

but if you look at the two world wars that were fought in the last century, what were the reasons? World War I-the Kaiser's stupid pomposity; World War II-both Germany and Japan wanted the wealth of their neighbors, and they weren't too particular about the means of acquiring it! A combination of these reasons are the basis for out being in Iraq now: Shrub's stupid "Bring 'em on" pomposity, and Halliburton's greed; only difference is, Iraq is NOT our neighbor-unlike Germany and Japan, we didn't go next door; we went halfway around the world to satisfy OUR greed!

[cprise]

10. Why can't he say...

..."Imperialism?"

Is he embarrassed that his hawk friends are actively resurrecting a system of international opression and looting that goes back to Victorian era?

[roper]

11. First shot:

Wrong citation. Ask for the source. You don't believe Orwell really wrote that.

After all, Orwell depicts war as a marketing instrument for the ruling class.

[Cat Atomic]

12. Orwell believed so strongly in Socialism that he fought for it

in Spain.

I'd tell them I'm not surprised to read such a strong statement from a man who felt passionately about taking power from despots. If he were alive today, I expect he'd have similarly fiery words against George Bush and our American plutocracy.

I'm not sure why anyone would cite such a quote. Are they equating leftist politics with pacifism? The two aren't related.

[Fenris]

14. Having read "Homage to Catalonia" I feel I can say

With some justification that Orwell was not particularly fond of warfare.

[Vickers]

13. How many of your "warmonger friends" are in the military?

Just curious.

FTR, Orwell distrusted both Liberals and Conservatives.

[Fenris]

15. Orwell was not in the military, but fought on the side of the Marxists

During the Spanish Civil War.

[Vickers]

16. Yeah, I was deleting that while you posted

He served in the Spanish militia and was slightly wounded, and also served in the Home Guard.

[Fenris]

18. Yup. And as a policeman in Hong Kong, if I remember correctly.

[Book Lover]

37. Burma

In "Shooting an Elephant" he describes his position as having elevated him to a place where he was important enough to be hated by many people.

[pschoeb]

26. It's from Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" from 1945

Personally I think too many people worship Orwell uncritically. This essay, like many Orwell essays, seems fairly contrived and meaningless, as Orwell sets up his own bizarre defenitions and strawmen. It seems pretty obvious that Orwell, mostly read english language pacifist wrting, and pacifists are concerned mostly with what their own country is doing, as that obviously effects them more. Why would British pacifists fixate on say Russia, when their chance of having any influence is nil, and it is not being done in thier name?

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

he lists Pacifism as a "Transferred Nationalsim", don't ask it really makes no sense.

"5. PACIFISM The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered."

later in the essay he goes on to say

"In the classification I have attempted above, it will seem that I have often exaggerated, oversimplified, made unwarranted assumptions and have left out of account the existence of ordinarily decent motives. This was inevitable, because in this essay I am trying to isolate and identify tendencies which exist in all our minds and pervert our thinking, without necessarily occurring in a pure state or operating continuously. It is important at this point to correct the over-simplified picture which I have been obliged to make. To begin with, one has no right to assume that everyone, or even every intellectual, is infected by nationalism. Secondly, nationalism can be intermittent and limited. An intelligent man may half-succumb to a belief which he knows to be absurd, and he may keep it out of his mind for long periods, only reverting to it in moments of anger or sentimentality, or when he is certain that no important issues are involved. Thirdly, a nationalistic creed may be adopted in good faith from non-nationalistic motives. Fourthly, several kinds of nationalism, even kinds that cancel out, can co-exist in the same person."

[hiphopnation]

27. I agree.

It appears to be fairly specious and hard to follow in some places.

Also, I would like to know to whom he is referring who in this line: "Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty."

[indigobusiness]

28. I AM a pacisifist...

not because of political ideology, but because war and killing are fundamentally subhuman.

[HFishbine]

29. Jesus

is my guide. I don't know where Hitchen's would put me, but at least I'm not a hypcrite.

[Jim__]

31. I'd like to seesome documentation of the allegation

but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

Ummmmmm, for instance ...

And, an instance hardly constitutes writing of the younger intellectual pacifists. It's a broad statement that would be difficult to demonstrate as being generally true. Does he even provide a couple of examples?

But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism.

Same criticism as above.

Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other

First of all, "pacifist propaganda" - is this a reference to pacifist writing in general, or to some unspecified subset. I don't claim to have a broad knowlege of pacifist writing; but, based on what I have read, it is generally that fighting will lead to our obliteration. We must overcome our tendency toward violence. The "side" it takes is against violence, even when "right" is on your side; because fighting, or more specifically, violence, is wrong.

My experience of Hitchens is that he lives on extremely broad generalities. This quote from Orwell seems to fall into the same category.

[pschoeb]

35. He is qouting Orwell, so this is 1945 pacifists

This is not Hitchens own writing, but Orwell. The essay is fairly bad in my opinion see my post above, later Orwell goes on to say

"In the classification I have attempted above, it will seem that I have often exaggerated, oversimplified, made unwarranted assumptions and have left out of account the existence of ordinarily decent motives. This was inevitable, because in this essay I am trying to isolate and identify tendencies which exist in all our minds and pervert our thinking, without necessarily occurring in a pure state or operating continuously. It is important at this point to correct the over-simplified picture which I have been obliged to make. To begin with, one has no right to assume that everyone, or even every intellectual, is infected by nationalism. Secondly, nationalism can be intermittent and limited. An intelligent man may half-succumb to a belief which he knows to be absurd, and he may keep it out of his mind for long periods, only reverting to it in moments of anger or sentimentality, or when he is certain that no important issues are involved. Thirdly, a nationalistic creed may be adopted in good faith from non-nationalistic motives. Fourthly, several kinds of nationalism, even kinds that cancel out, can co-exist in the same person."

[robertpaulsen]

32. Context, baby, context.

Does Hitchens use this quote to castigate the protest movement against the fascist Bush Doctrine? This is not the same "pacifist propoganda" element that Orwell was concerned with. Orwell, himself a socialist, hated Stalinism because of its totalitarian nature. It is the Stalinist minority posing as pacifists that Orwell spoke against, if this is indeed a real quote, I've never read it myself.

But obviously, considering the extreme evolution geopolitics has undergone in the 50+ years in which this quote was supposedly made, Hitchens is merely quoting Orwell out of context to suit his own Bush-deified political agenda. Tell that to your friends and for your own info, Hitchens is a drunken fool who doesn't have the braincells to realize that what Bush did in Haiti is just as underhanded as the tactics Hitchens rails against Nixon/Kissinger using in Chile. The only difference is if Bush was as smart as Nixon, he would have had Aristide silenced like Kissinger silenced Allende.

[Bridget Burke]

33. Reading the quotation in context would help.

I'm not sure that "refutation" is called for. It was Orwell's opinion at that time.

What I question is how this applies to Michael Moore. He is not a pacifist--he just objects to starting wars. Starting an aggressive war was, of course, the first crime for which the major Nazis were tried at Nuremberg; war crimes & crimes against humanity came next. The smaller fish were the ones who discovered "just following orders" was not a good excuse.

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

36. Reply with more Orwell

Like this - http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

A sample -


Notes on Nationalism

May, 1945

Somewhere or other Byron makes use of the French word longeur, and remarks in passing that though in England we happen not to have the word, we have the thing in considerable profusion. 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.

By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." But secondly -- and this is much more important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By "patriotism" I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. 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 movments and tendencies as Communism, political Catholocism, 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.

[pschoeb]

38. The best refutation is actually later in the essay

Where Orwell essentially admits he has gone over the top with his classifications of "nationalisms", one of which he says is pacifism.

"In the classification I have attempted above, it will seem that I have often exaggerated, oversimplified, made unwarranted assumptions and have left out of account the existence of ordinarily decent motives. This was inevitable, because in this essay I am trying to isolate and identify tendencies which exist in all our minds and pervert our thinking, without necessarily occurring in a pure state or operating continuously. It is important at this point to correct the over-simplified picture which I have been obliged to make. To begin with, one has no right to assume that everyone, or even every intellectual, is infected by nationalism. Secondly, nationalism can be intermittent and limited. An intelligent man may half-succumb to a belief which he knows to be absurd, and he may keep it out of his mind for long periods, only reverting to it in moments of anger or sentimentality, or when he is certain that no important issues are involved. Thirdly, a nationalistic creed may be adopted in good faith from non-nationalistic motives. Fourthly, several kinds of nationalism, even kinds that cancel out, can co-exist in the same person."

[Zorra]

39. "......there is a minority of intellectual pacifists..."

Written in 1945. There probably were such pacifists at the time, although Orwell is only expressing an opinion about their apparent motives. There was a substantial radical communist "intelligentsia" at this time which existed, and had existed for a number of years, in many European countries, and to a much lesser extent in the US, and I can see Orwell's point in making this observation at the time.

The quote is not really relevant in contemporary context, and your war mongering friends are probably somewhat ignorant of history as well as current affairs. (Hitchens should know better, but may have a reason for using the quote. It appears that he may be employed to write rhetorical propaganda.)

(As an example of quoting out of context, here is a quote from Christopher Hitchens: "...."fact-checking" is beside the point.")

The democratic "pacifists" of today almost universally despise totalitarianism in any form, and do not believe in pre-emptive wars conducted against sovereign nations for imperialistic purposes, whether these wars are conducted by a western democracy or a totalitarianist state.

For example, IMO, the democratic "pacifists" of today would understand the justification for going to war against an aggressive, fascist, totalitarian, imperialistic dictator like Hitler, who had a powerful military and used it to pre-emptively invade sovereign nations.

The overwhelming majority of the "pacifists" of today would be against, for example, a powerful imperialistic country like China going to war with a little country like Taiwan, which does not have the capability to be a military or other type of threat to China. (Unless, of course, Taiwan decided to start bombing China, which is pretty unlikely)

I assume that your freeper(?) friends took this Orwell quote from Hitchens' article about Michael Moore and Farenheit 9/11. That article was essentially devoid of fact, and was, IMO, rhetorical, POS journalism.