I see you fags quoting that Tolstoyevsky pamphlet all the ti

Who you gonna trust, /lit/?

Glorious Russian Christian philanthropist?
Or Eternal Anglo socialist loser?

>>10025496
Admit it OP, this shitpost was just a vehicle for that terrific image.

>>10025525
>terrific

File: KILL ALL ARYANS.jpg (116KB, 637x572px)

116KB, 637x572px

How can continentals even compete?

>Best poets
>Best playwrights
>Best novelists
>Best philosophers
>Best inventors
>Best scientists
>Invented industrial capitalism
>English spans the entire planet
>History's first superpower
>Winner of literally every pan-European war
>Future hegemon of Eurabia

>>10025528
I am so glad that Anglos rule the world, I will never ever have to learn another language when all the languages are eventually translated to mine!

>>10025513
Leo Tolstoy, a "Glorious Russian Christian philanthropist?" I think he's more like King Lear as Orwell says in the essay. Just an old fool.

Also Orwell wasn't exactly a socialist. I think he was undecided and began to lean conservative in later life. He was pro-gun ownership and he gave a secret list of subversive English communists and fellow travelers to the British government during World War II.

After all, Orwell went to Eton.

>>10025544
>Not exactly a socialist
>Literally went to Spain to fight for socialism

>He was pro-gun ownership
And? So was Karl Marx.

>>10025544
> I think he's more like King Lear as Orwell says in the essay. Just an old fool.
Tolstoy wrote some of the best novels of all time.
Orwell wrote hamfisted satire that's chiefly read by schoolchildren.

>>10025545
You clearly haven't read Orwell. One's views can change over time. It wasn't unusual for Marxists and socialists of his generation to change from far left to right. Most made the switch after World War II.

Animal Farm in particular is sufficient proof that he was no longer a "man of the left."

Also, Marx wanted gun ownership simply as a means to his revolutionary ends. Orwell did not want anything of the sort in England. He simply thought gun rights would insure liberty for democracy.

>>10025528
tyrrific?

>>10025550
>Tolstoy wrote some of the best novels of all time.
This is true.
>Orwell wrote hamfisted satire that's chiefly read by schoolchildren.
This is not true, though I like that adjective.

How on earth does that serve as a rebuttal to what I wrote?

>>10025541
I'm so glad anglos rule the world but everyone thinks it's the Jews so I will never have to be suspected until all the lesser races whipe each other out and I see nothing but lily white faces forever.

File: ice pop.jpg (57KB, 736x577px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 736x577px

>>10025555
Nice quadroons and pun.

>>10025544
English men are duplicitous by nature. You never know what they are. They have more secret alliances than they have teeth.

>>10025554
>Animal Farm in particular is sufficient proof that he was no longer a "man of the left."
Have you read any Orwell besides Animal Farm and possibly 1984? Because he was consistently critical of Marxist-Leninists and the USSR throughout his career. Not to mention the sympathetic portrayal of certain characters even in Animal Farm from the original animal-uprising, like Boxer, like Old Major.

You're an idiot without equal if you think Animal-Farm is pro right-wing. For the very simple reason that what it illustrates is that under Napoleon the farm went back to the exact same way it always was, only with the pigs at the top instead of the humans, or in other words it went back to capitalism. If you actually read the book and somehow missed out on this detail you do not belong on this board.

>He simply thought gun rights would insure liberty for democracy.
Here's the thing, to both of them liberty and democracy meant socialism.

>>10025575
I agree. That's why I've always liked Churchill's analogy with Britain and America to Greece and Rome. They're all like Odysseus over there.

>>10025579
Woah, woah, buddy. I'm not sure why you're getting so pent up over Orwell. Yes, I've read Homage to Catalonia and Down and Out in Paris and London and some other lesser known essays and books that I can't recall for your little inquisition. Are you all right?

>>10025589
When people try to read Animal Farm and 1984 in right-wing ways it's really annoying, and tired given people have been doing it since they were published. At this point anyone on /lit/ should know better.

>>10025611
Your argument is literally

>2017
>not knowing Orwell was not a secret conservative

>>10025652
Yes, because Orwell wasn't a secret conservative.

>>10025657
Not really.

File: gradually i began to hate them.jpg (84KB, 1280x521px)

84KB, 1280x521px

>>10025667
>You: Orwell's clearly not left-wing because he wrote Animal Farm
>Me: The criticism in Animal Farm is that under Napoleon the farm is capitalism
>You: uhhh, I'm not going to address your argument at all and just make empty "no u" posts in an ill-advised attempt to get the last word.

Arguing with right-wing people on 4chan ironically reminds me of this Hitler quote about Jews. This exact tactic gets pulled all the time, their argument gets utterly demolished and they just play dumb.

>>10025681

>The criticism in Animal Farm is that under Napoleon the farm is capitalism

Not him, but I think this is a tenuous claim. Care to substantiate it?

>>10025687
I articulated this in another post but the very criticism Orwell is making about Napoleon's rule (and by extension the USSR) is that it is exactly the same as it was under Mr. Jones. Only with the pigs lording over the animals and using them as livestock to be abused freely instead of humans. This is very explicitly illustrated in the part of the novel where the pigs start trading with the local human farmers, and generally there's a strong theme of the pigs gradually becoming more anthropomorphic doing things like walking on two feet, wearing clothes, sleeping in beds and drinking alcohol. The allegory being that the pigs (or Stalin and his cohorts) have developed into a new kind bourgeoisie, indistinguishable in any meaningful way from the farmers (the Czar and the rest of the Russian ruling class). It doesn't depict Napoleon's rule as being something new and even more horrible than the previous system, it makes the criticism that it is more of the same and that this is bad for the animals just as it was bad for the animals when humans were in charge. No matter if it's pigs or men at the top there is still no equality and the ideals of the revolution (which are very positively depicted) have been totally betrayed.

It's literally the "USSR is not real socialism" argument that conservatives hate so much in allegory form.

>>10025681
>>10025706
Sorry, my butthurt commie friend, I'm back. I was having a roast beef sandwich.

As for Hitler and the Jews, no, I'm not a socialist of any kind. You're building a straw man.

With regard to the commies, maybe Orwell was just jaded enough to see that socialism won't ever work? Call it Stalinism, Leninism, socialism, whatever you want. After it happens, an order reappears quickly resembling the previous one, Capitalist, Bourgeoisie, whatever. How on Earth does one get that he is a socialist out of that?

File: 1487215492718.jpg (318KB, 1076x1280px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1076x1280px

>>10025706

It's been over a decade since I've read it, but weren't the animals depicted as being very naive? Especially the horse, cheerfully going off to the knacker's yard.

Many, many, people who were communists/socialists in their youth or young adulthood became disillusioned later in life, and I've always taken Orwell as a textbook example of that. I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the Czardom was morally equivalent to the USSR, because for one thing it killed fewer people and for another it did not expect anything more than obedience.

>>10025762
That's a more eloquent version of what I would have said to that commie you're replying to had he not ruffled my feathers so much with his mean name-calling. Why are SJWs such bullies?

>>10025751
I'm not saying you're a Nazi or a Jew. I'm saying the tactics Hitler identified are relevant.

>, maybe Orwell was just jaded enough to see that socialism won't ever work?
That's possible, I think he once said something to the effect that the future is trending more towards the reinstitution of slavery than anything else. But that doesn't make him a non-socialist, it just means he's a pessimistic socialist (which there are many). There's lots of people in every ideology that are convinced the future is dark and that the world will never get better but they still believe what they believe because that's what they think is just.

Consider the depiction of Boxer. Boxer fundamentally represents the working class as a whole in how he's good natured and hard-working if naïve and abused. It's largely because of Boxer's strength that they were able to beat the farmers to begin with and its because of his strength that Napoleon is afraid of him and has him killed even though he's largely loyal. The allegorical message being that as long as the working class are righteous people there's the hope (or in the pigs/humans/bourgeoisie's case the fear) that things could be made better because they hold immense strength whether or not they're willing to use it. With that included in the novel it can't really be said to be saying the revolution is a totally lost cause, as they rose up against the farmers once, they could do it again.

You might say they could do it a million times and each time a new bourgeoisie would just emerge. But is that true? There was a time when the bourgeoisie would repeatedly gain their independence from the nobility yet each time the new ruling class would solidify and not be much different to their aristocratic neighbours. But eventually that changed, eventually capitalism did totally annihilate feudalism and come to spread across the planet. We might just be in act 1 of 3000, but the future is uncertain.

>. How on Earth does one get that he is a socialist out of that?
I dunno. How would someone get "he is a socialist" out of a book about how capitalism and inequality are bad while the ideals of the revolution are good? Total mystery.

>>10025762
> I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the Czardom was morally equivalent to the USSR
Possibly. But that's exactly what Orwell is doing in Animal Farm. If you think the comparison it draws up between Manor Farm/Animal Farm AKA Russia/USSR is inaccurate then that's all well and good. But that's what the book says.

>>10025762
It's amazing that Lewis said that quite yet found no cognitive dissonance when applying it to Christianity

>>10025906
*tips fedora*

>>10025943
*tips kippa*

>>10025540
>>Best poets
No
>>Best playwrights
No
>>Best novelists
No
>>Best philosophers
No
>>Best inventors
No
>>Best scientists
No
>>Invented industrial capitalism
>implying that is something to be proud of
>>English spans the entire planet
>implying being a temporary lingua franca is unique to anglos
>>History's first superpower
No
>>Winner of literally every pan-European war
By being opportunistic hacks that barely do anything
>>Future hegemon of Eurabia
>implying being a minority in your own capital and getting counter colonized by pakis and poo-in-the-loos is a good thing

>>10026095
>being this buttblasted

Let me guess, you're a butthurt spic?

>>10026095
>implying [industrial capitalism] is something to be proud of
You're making this argument whilst actively benefitting from the fruits of those industrial developments. Stop with the edgy faux-environmentalist nonsense.
>implying being a temporary lingua franca is unique to anglos
English's ubiquity as a language is at an unprecedented level now because of the internet. This isn't just the equivalent of French in the 17th Century, as English is now beyond even coming from any one single entity such as Britain or America and it won't stop with the decline of the latter. A lingua franca isn't even an accurate term for English anymore, its international use is now at another level.
>By being opportunistic hacks that barely do anything
This is based on nothing, but you just desperately wanted to disagree with it didn't you?
>implying being a minority in your own capital and getting counter colonized by pakis and poo-in-the-loos is a good thing
You're really implying that this is in any way an anglo-specific concern? Try going to the beloved continent once in a while and seeing the exact same thing there.
If you're actually this bitter about 'muh anglos' then just stop browsing an American website. No need to start bullshitting, though.

>>10026297
>has no rebuttal to assblasting, resorts to racial slurs
ah, yes, the disposition of the eternal anglo never fails to amuse

>>10026317
>the disposition of the eternal anglo never fails to amuse
Is that the real reason why you waste your life on an anglo website? Or is it really because you have nothing better to do whilst in your own 'vastly superior' society?

File: ETERNAL.jpg (22KB, 490x313px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 490x313px

>>10026317
The Eternal Anglo does not need to justify himself to lesser peoples.

The language we speak does the talking.

>>10026095
>No no no no no no no no noooo stop it daddy make them stop I don't like it!

File: 1492547934468.png (357KB, 800x2048px)

357KB, 800x2048px

>>10026315
>You're making this argument whilst actively benefitting from the fruits of those industrial developments. Stop with the edgy faux-environmentalist nonsense.
those same developments that have destroyed the human spirit, are exhausting our planet of its natural resources, are causing tens of millions of death yearly, have created the culture of consumerism and hedonism, and will finally prove to be the bane of human existance
>English's ubiquity as a language is at an unprecedented level now because of the internet. This isn't just the equivalent of French in the 17th Century, as English is now beyond even coming from any one single entity such as Britain or America and it won't stop with the decline of the latter. A lingua franca isn't even an accurate term for English anymore, its international use is now at another level.
Temporarily. It's at a larger scale, but it doesn't mean it will last forever. Greek was once the lingua franca of the known world, French was once the lingua franca of the world, now English is. This will change with the inevitable fall of Western society.
>This is based on nothing, but you just desperately wanted to disagree with it didn't you?
Sure, the "barely do anything" part was overblown, but you are opportunistic hacks that can't think 10 years ahead (pic related)
>You're really implying that this is in any way an anglo-specific concern? Try going to the beloved continent once in a while and seeing the exact same thing there.
No, but you implied you will be in a better situation than the continent
>If you're actually this bitter about 'muh anglos' then just stop browsing an American website. No need to start bullshitting, though.
Not bitter at all, your Islamization is the perfect punishment for fucking up the globe

Reminder that the anglo is a jew on the inside.

File: 157933064d41d1e326bdada90cb8f82e--george-orwell-gun-rights.jpg (94KB, 729x729px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 729x729px

>>10025554
>You clearly haven't read Orwell

Says the anon who clearly hasn't read Orwell. And, no, pic doesn't count.

>>10026349
I'm not >>10025540 btw.
Your reply is absolute nonsense, though. The new industrial world did begin in Britain and the benefits ultimately come from there but don't pretend that the rest of the world didn't take to these developments like pigs in shit. No one forced Germany or France or China to accept these new technologies and yet they did and are now some of the worst polluters on the planet. Global warming is not an anglo problem its ultimately a European one. British inventors, along with the rest of the world, had no idea of the negative impact their new works were to have on the environment, all they did was improve what it was in their own interest to improve. So drop the 'evil anglo boogeyman' narrative please, because its ridiculous.
>Temporarily. It's at a larger scale, but it doesn't mean it will last forever.
I didn't say it would, but you seemed to believe that English was just another step in the lingua franca cycle whereas I said that you need to acknowledge that this is of a whole other level to those languages that came before.
>but you are opportunistic hacks that can't think 10 years ahead
That's world politics, matey. I doubt you could find me one country that was on Britain's level of influence that didn't also make that many missteps or changes of heart. But I could easily show you the list of achievements and powers that came from those decisions if you'd like.
> the perfect punishment for fucking up the globe
Just stop this. Europe as a culture is to blame, if anything, it isn't the evil anglos corrupting the pure and otherwise 'completely sustainable' continent and you know it.