Is the alt-right Orwellian?

[Kibbutz Unions]

Now, for a while now the alt-right red-pill anti-sjw anti-feminist sargonite crowd (I know, different labels but many of those people are the same and all of them suffer from the same issue that I will discuss) used quite extensively the term "Orwellian" to describe PC or basically any other ideology that they do not like, and the thing is that not only do they use the term in an incorrect manner but also they themselves do the same things that they claim the PC people do.
So first of all, I'll begin with the fact that they accuse the left-wing of being Orwellian- now, you can say many things about PC but I don't think that they fall under that definition at all, Orwell warned us from the removal of words and giving them multiple, often contradictory meanings to alter the people's mindset: such as: Ignorance is Strength. If, let's say, you can no longer use the word "Ignorance" and basically you will call people who are ignorant "strong" and you'll also refer to people who really are strong as "strong", you might begin to associate the two, thus it changes your mindset: Strength means Ignorance.
On the other hand, political correctness and sjw, although you may criticize them for their tactics and overall approach that lacks context but they do not do that- they in fact typically add new words to, for example, for new ways to people to describe themselves with greater nuance. It does not alter the mindset of people, it merely advises (Or rather, commands) people to use non-offensive language to describe people and even creates several words with the same meaning but with different connotation. So that's nearly the opposite of Orwellian.

But the alt crowd actually are Orwellian themselves, not in the fact that they use the term wrong but in many other ways.
Let's begin with "Cultural Marxism": So basically they take an ideology that supports equality, in this case Marxism- an ideology that is directly opposed to Capitalism and basically say that Marxism is actually Neoliberal Capitalism itself- it seeks to end capitalist hegemony but is actually the capitalist hegemony, in the Cold War, the West defeated the Marxists but the West is Marxist, they basically make the weird association that Marxism actually opposes equality and cultural Marxism is meant to also destroy the civilization that is well, controlled by the Marxists. Basically the Alt crowd says that all side are both Marxist and Neoliberal and Neocon at the same time.
They did the same with Feminism, they take people who speak for gender equality, they are feminists, it will then continue by spreading a conspiracy theory that the gender equality is actually gender inequality, it is a Matriarchy thus: Equality is inequality. And when they create the mindset that equality is actually inequality against them then the obvious choice would be: to oppose equality.

Another thing that they do is that they completely "oppose identity politics", so basically they continue by being all about identity politics, except for While Males. So they say that opposing identity politics is white identity politics.
Basically, they scramble the definitions so hard that they become devoid of any specific meaning and by now, many of those definitions hold contradictory meanings to them; everything can be twisted like that.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Marxism is Capitalism
Equality is Inequality

So what do you think? Do you agree that the alt crowd are basically Orwellian themselves? If not, why?

[Dumb Ideologies]

I enjoy setting light to a good strawman and merrily jigging around the burning barns for the rest of the evening as much as the next man, but christ this is a poor effort.

[Blakk Metal]

TIL using words to say what they actually mean is Orwellian.

[Phoenicaea]

monopoles and business center-right parties (Trump, Berlusconi, Putin), yes they are, whatever the marketing propaganda they adopt each few months, which changes whith elections and has nothing to do whith applied politics.
The orgy of private and bureaucratic (and military for istance) interest is their politic, and it prefers and requires such methods.
Then people rethoric is reactionnary, which is not Orwell regime, they substain it only when they vote such shame

[Kibbutz Unions]

I enjoy setting light to a good strawman and merrily jigging around the burning barns for the rest of the evening as much as the next man, but christ this is a poor effort.

Would you care to elaborate why this is a strawman or would you like to intentionally remain that vague?

[Dumb Ideologies]

I enjoy setting light to a good strawman and merrily jigging around the burning barns for the rest of the evening as much as the next man, but christ this is a poor effort.

Would you care to elaborate why this is a strawman or would you like to intentionally remain that vague?

Cultural Marxism as theorised by the right is not the same as orthodox economic Marxism. It's an argument that Frankfurt-school Marxists infiltrated key cultural institutions and deliberately set about undermining the traditional cultural and social values of the capitalist system - the superstructure, rather than the economic base, if you will, with the intention of "bringing down the system" in an alternative way. Meaning that social liberalism as developed since the 60s is essentially a Marxian plot. In my opinion it's not a good theory, but you've misunderstood it and misrepresented it in mythical fashion.

Feminism as an activist movement pushes to improve the situation for women not for equality - the institutional dominance of feminism has meant that not enough resources have been placed on issues such as rape against men, poor educational performance of boys, and the high male suicide rate. Critics of feminism are often not arguing that equality is inequality, they're arguing that currently ignored inequalities are also inequality. Dried grass bale no.2.

The "alt-right red-pill anti-sjw anti-feminist sargonite crowd" "completely oppose identity politics"? All of them? I suspect the identitarians don't. Clue's in the name. Many in this huge community you've lumped together inside the sack next to your blowtorch are very aware that they're a movement based on identity politics and speak of themselves this way. Strike three you're out!

All your premises are false and shall be seized for ownership by the workers' state.

[Ifreann]

I've never read 1984, so stand back while I explain to you all just who is and isn't Orwellian.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I've never read 1984, so stand back while I explain to you all just who is and isn't Orwellian.

Pretty much.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Would you care to elaborate why this is a strawman or would you like to intentionally remain that vague?

Cultural Marxism as theorised by the right is not the same as orthodox economic Marxism. It's an argument that Frankfurt-school Marxists infiltrated key cultural institutions and deliberately set about undermining the traditional cultural and social values of the capitalist system - the superstructure, rather than the economic base, if you will, with the intention of "bringing down the system" in an alternative way. Meaning that social liberalism as developed since the 60s is essentially a Marxian plot. In my opinion it's not a good theory, but you've misunderstood it and misrepresented it in mythical fashion.

Feminism as an activist movement pushes to improve the situation for women not for equality - the institutional dominance of feminism has meant that not enough resources have been placed on issues such as rape against men, poor educational performance of boys, and the high male suicide rate. Critics of feminism are often not arguing that equality is inequality, they're arguing that currently ignored inequalities are also inequality. Dried grass bale no.2.

The "alt-right red-pill anti-sjw anti-feminist sargonite crowd" "completely oppose identity politics"? All of them? I suspect the identitarians don't. Clue's in the name. Many in this huge community you've lumped together inside the sack next to your blowtorch are very aware that they're a movement based on identity politics and speak of themselves this way. Strike three you're out!

All your premises are false and shall be seized for ownership by the workers' state.

I don't usually step into this particular argument, but I have to agree with this part. It's pretty telling when there are several movies made recently in which rape of men is treated as comic fodder. There's even a (critically praised) game in which ruining a guy's dream of being a priest by helping a woman basically date rape him is treated as a morally upright and even praiseworthy thing to do. I mean, if the rape scene in the movie This is the End had used a woman as the rape victim, the movie would have been so criticized it may not have even been released; instead, it's treated as one of the funniest scenes in the movie, and, if you saw it in theaters, you would have heard lots of laughs during it.

[Northwestern Scenario]

Is this that Pantuxia person? Similar theme, just with more effort this time.

[Italios]

Would you care to elaborate why this is a strawman or would you like to intentionally remain that vague?

Cultural Marxism as theorised by the right is not the same as orthodox economic Marxism. It's an argument that Frankfurt-school Marxists infiltrated key cultural institutions and deliberately set about undermining the traditional cultural and social values of the capitalist system - the superstructure, rather than the economic base, if you will, with the intention of "bringing down the system" in an alternative way. Meaning that social liberalism as developed since the 60s is essentially a Marxian plot. In my opinion it's not a good theory, but you've misunderstood it and misrepresented it in mythical fashion.

I think the alt-right's use of the Frankfurt School as an example of the massive Jewish cultural Marxist plot that works to undermine Western culture and values is a pretty fair comparison to the intellectual dishonesty and manipulation used by the Oceanian government. It literally takes a few seconds of googling to figure out the Frankfurt School opposed capitalism because they viewed it, and its consumerism, as detrimental to Western culture. What sets it apart from 1984, however, is that it doesn't operate on nearly a large enough scale, and size is essential in being "Orwellian" in nature. So the comparison pretty much falls to pieces in that sense.

[Italios]

Is this that Pantuxia person? Similar theme, just with more effort this time.

It might be and if I so I think he proved, ironically enough, the sort of intellectual dishonesty that the alt-right is willing to engage in to push their agenda. Which is funny, and extremely sad and pathetic, at the same time.

[Northwestern Scenario]

.

[Pepsi Co]

You're just jealous of us capitalists because you're don't work hard enough to earn as much as we do so you play along with the Left's communist, anti-American plot. Shame on you.

[USS Monitor]

On the other hand, political correctness and sjw, although you may criticize them for their tactics and overall approach that lacks context but they do not do that- they in fact typically add new words to, for example, for new ways to people to describe themselves with greater nuance. It does not alter the mindset of people, it merely advises (Or rather, commands) people to use non-offensive language to describe people and even creates several words with the same meaning but with different connotation. So that's nearly the opposite of Orwellian.

Um, no. They invent new words with the purpose of trying to alter people's mindset. Mandating non-offensive language to try to discourage offensive attitudes is trying to change the way people think. Even if you consider it a positive change, it's still trying to force a change by controlling the language.

There's no actual reason why we needed to stop using words like "negro" or "Chinaman," since those words were not inherently offensive in their original usage. They were originally used by racists and non-racists alike, and they had no special connotations until those connotations were assigned by the PC crowd. The idea was if you made people change their language, then it would break them out of their old habits and you could get them to also change their thinking.

But the alt crowd actually are Orwellian themselves, not in the fact that they use the term wrong but in many other ways.
Let's begin with "Cultural Marxism": So basically they take an ideology that supports equality, in this case Marxism- an ideology that is directly opposed to Capitalism and basically say that Marxism is actually Neoliberal Capitalism itself- it seeks to end capitalist hegemony but is actually the capitalist hegemony, in the Cold War, the West defeated the Marxists but the West is Marxist, they basically make the weird association that Marxism actually opposes equality and cultural Marxism is meant to also destroy the civilization that is well, controlled by the Marxists. Basically the Alt crowd says that all side are both Marxist and Neoliberal and Neocon at the same time.
They did the same with Feminism, they take people who speak for gender equality, they are feminists, it will then continue by spreading a conspiracy theory that the gender equality is actually gender inequality, it is a Matriarchy thus: Equality is inequality. And when they create the mindset that equality is actually inequality against them then the obvious choice would be: to oppose equality.

Another thing that they do is that they completely "oppose identity politics", so basically they continue by being all about identity politics, except for While Males. So they say that opposing identity politics is white identity politics.
Basically, they scramble the definitions so hard that they become devoid of any specific meaning and by now, many of those definitions hold contradictory meanings to them; everything can be twisted like that.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Marxism is Capitalism
Equality is Inequality

So what do you think? Do you agree that the alt crowd are basically Orwellian themselves? If not, why?

Yeah, people on the right have their own ways of abusing language and propagandizing.

[Izirag]

Now, for a while now the alt-right red-pill anti-sjw anti-feminist sargonite crowd (I know, different labels but many of those people are the same and all of them suffer from the same issue that I will discuss) used quite extensively the term "Orwellian" to describe PC or basically any other ideology that they do not like, and the thing is that not only do they use the term in an incorrect manner but also they themselves do the same things that they claim the PC people do.
So first of all, I'll begin with the fact that they accuse the left-wing of being Orwellian- now, you can say many things about PC but I don't think that they fall under that definition at all, Orwell warned us from the removal of words and giving them multiple, often contradictory meanings to alter the people's mindset: such as: Ignorance is Strength. If, let's say, you can no longer use the word "Ignorance" and basically you will call people who are ignorant "strong" and you'll also refer to people who really are strong as "strong", you might begin to associate the two, thus it changes your mindset: Strength means Ignorance.
On the other hand, political correctness and sjw, although you may criticize them for their tactics and overall approach that lacks context but they do not do that- they in fact typically add new words to, for example, for new ways to people to describe themselves with greater nuance. It does not alter the mindset of people, it merely advises (Or rather, commands) people to use non-offensive language to describe people and even creates several words with the same meaning but with different connotation. So that's nearly the opposite of Orwellian.

But the alt crowd actually are Orwellian themselves, not in the fact that they use the term wrong but in many other ways.
Let's begin with "Cultural Marxism": So basically they take an ideology that supports equality, in this case Marxism- an ideology that is directly opposed to Capitalism and basically say that Marxism is actually Neoliberal Capitalism itself- it seeks to end capitalist hegemony but is actually the capitalist hegemony, in the Cold War, the West defeated the Marxists but the West is Marxist, they basically make the weird association that Marxism actually opposes equality and cultural Marxism is meant to also destroy the civilization that is well, controlled by the Marxists. Basically the Alt crowd says that all side are both Marxist and Neoliberal and Neocon at the same time.
They did the same with Feminism, they take people who speak for gender equality, they are feminists, it will then continue by spreading a conspiracy theory that the gender equality is actually gender inequality, it is a Matriarchy thus: Equality is inequality. And when they create the mindset that equality is actually inequality against them then the obvious choice would be: to oppose equality.

Another thing that they do is that they completely "oppose identity politics", so basically they continue by being all about identity politics, except for While Males. So they say that opposing identity politics is white identity politics.
Basically, they scramble the definitions so hard that they become devoid of any specific meaning and by now, many of those definitions hold contradictory meanings to them; everything can be twisted like that.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Marxism is Capitalism
Equality is Inequality

So what do you think? Do you agree that the alt crowd are basically Orwellian themselves? If not, why?

First off, I want sources and examples of these "new words and expressive nuance" pioneered by these SJW types. On the contrary, their rhetoric is extremely repetitive and limited; examples: "racist, xenophobic, hateful, homophobic, diversity". They literally have slogans. As for the rest, you're clearly trying to throw an all encompassing blanket over and intentionally misrepresenting their ideas to support your argument. I have seen no evidence from you to support your claim other than a bunch of bumbling claptrap trying make them seem they are contradicting themselves, example: you say they associate "Marxism" with opposing equality when no such claim is being made by any side. They are not fighting for "equality". The same applies to the rest of your claims, your failure to understand and disseminate your opponents ideas has led you to putting words in their mouths that are plainly not there.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Would you care to elaborate why this is a strawman or would you like to intentionally remain that vague?

Cultural Marxism as theorised by the right is not the same as orthodox economic Marxism. It's an argument that Frankfurt-school Marxists infiltrated key cultural institutions and deliberately set about undermining the traditional cultural and social values of the capitalist system - the superstructure, rather than the economic base, if you will, with the intention of "bringing down the system" in an alternative way. Meaning that social liberalism as developed since the 60s is essentially a Marxian plot. In my opinion it's not a good theory, but you've misunderstood it and misrepresented it in mythical fashion.

Feminism as an activist movement pushes to improve the situation for women not for equality - the institutional dominance of feminism has meant that not enough resources have been placed on issues such as rape against men, poor educational performance of boys, and the high male suicide rate. Critics of feminism are often not arguing that equality is inequality, they're arguing that currently ignored inequalities are also inequality. Dried grass bale no.2.

The "alt-right red-pill anti-sjw anti-feminist sargonite crowd" "completely oppose identity politics"? All of them? I suspect the identitarians don't. Clue's in the name. Many in this huge community you've lumped together inside the sack next to your blowtorch are very aware that they're a movement based on identity politics and speak of themselves this way. Strike three you're out!

All your premises are false and shall be seized for ownership by the workers' state.

I'm completely aware of the Frankfurt school conspiracy, it is part of the same problem: Basically the Frankfurt school wanted to preserve Western culture and to defend it from Capitalist commodity-culture that appeals to the lowest instincts. The conspiracy theorists then say that somehow this is actually a plot against western culture and for Capitalism? This is basically proving what I said, they put absolute opposites in the same term and this confusing mess is comparable to what Orwell predicted.

Feminism is PRIMARILY a movement for Women's rights because guess what- they are more likely to be the ones to be discriminated against. But it is basically ignorance to dismiss Feminism by saying it opposes men. I'm sure that if you'll ask actual Feminists they'll support more severe measures against displaying rape against men as something funny or legitimate, in fact, it is traditional roles that puts men in this anxious and miserable situation, it is because of traditional gender roles (Which feminism opposes overall) that men-rape is considered "funny", you are basically attacking the wrong people here.
And "institutional dominance of feminism"?? Are you shitting me? The only place where feminism is institutional is in sociology courses in universities.

I mentioned that I lumped them together because this criticism applies to all of those groups and not because they are all the same, I just pointed to their tendency of misinterpreting definitions of words and doing exactly what they despise, and sure, identitarians are well- about identity but the majority is, at least in theory, opposed to that but in reality is playing with the same rules of left-wing identity politics except that they don't even appear to notice it or are hypocritical enough to just not care.

[USS Monitor]

Is this that Pantuxia person? Similar theme, just with more effort this time.

At a glance, it does not look that way.

[Republic of the Cristo]

No, and your reasoning is flawed because:

Your entire argument is based around the meaning of words... that is not the basis of being Orwellian.

Most people in the Alt-right acknowledge that the west is not Marxist, but rather that it has significant Marxist influences in terms of social policies.

The SJW crowd removes words they find offensive and creates new words better to suit their world view and then commands people to use them as such... that sounds about in line with INSOC, but this one similarity does not mean they are entirely the same.

[Kibbutz Unions]

On the other hand, political correctness and sjw, although you may criticize them for their tactics and overall approach that lacks context but they do not do that- they in fact typically add new words to, for example, for new ways to people to describe themselves with greater nuance. It does not alter the mindset of people, it merely advises (Or rather, commands) people to use non-offensive language to describe people and even creates several words with the same meaning but with different connotation. So that's nearly the opposite of Orwellian.

Um, no. They invent new words with the purpose of trying to alter people's mindset. Mandating non-offensive language to try to discourage offensive attitudes is trying to change the way people think. Even if you consider it a positive change, it's still trying to force a change by controlling the language.

There's no actual reason why we needed to stop using words like "negro" or "Chinaman," since those words were not inherently offensive in their original usage. They were originally used by racists and non-racists alike, and they had no special connotations until those connotations were assigned by the PC crowd. The idea was if you made people change their language, then it would break them out of their old habits and you could get them to also change their thinking.

But the alt crowd actually are Orwellian themselves, not in the fact that they use the term wrong but in many other ways.
Let's begin with "Cultural Marxism": So basically they take an ideology that supports equality, in this case Marxism- an ideology that is directly opposed to Capitalism and basically say that Marxism is actually Neoliberal Capitalism itself- it seeks to end capitalist hegemony but is actually the capitalist hegemony, in the Cold War, the West defeated the Marxists but the West is Marxist, they basically make the weird association that Marxism actually opposes equality and cultural Marxism is meant to also destroy the civilization that is well, controlled by the Marxists. Basically the Alt crowd says that all side are both Marxist and Neoliberal and Neocon at the same time.
They did the same with Feminism, they take people who speak for gender equality, they are feminists, it will then continue by spreading a conspiracy theory that the gender equality is actually gender inequality, it is a Matriarchy thus: Equality is inequality. And when they create the mindset that equality is actually inequality against them then the obvious choice would be: to oppose equality.

Another thing that they do is that they completely "oppose identity politics", so basically they continue by being all about identity politics, except for While Males. So they say that opposing identity politics is white identity politics.
Basically, they scramble the definitions so hard that they become devoid of any specific meaning and by now, many of those definitions hold contradictory meanings to them; everything can be twisted like that.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Marxism is Capitalism
Equality is Inequality

So what do you think? Do you agree that the alt crowd are basically Orwellian themselves? If not, why?

Yeah, people on the right have their own ways of abusing language and propagandizing.

I get what you are saying- it is obvious that the sjw clearly WANT to change the way people think but their methods are overall counterproductive to their own cause, they basically tell other people what is right and wrong to say but it's very clear what each concept means: thus it doesn't fall under linguistic relativity and is merely a change in the popularity of words (And, well, languages change all the time in that manner).

[Infected Mushroom]

Orwellian?

I don't think its a useful term or categorisation. Its just thrown around to randomly disparage one side with no real concrete or useful definition.

[Kibbutz Unions]

No, and your reasoning is flawed because:

Your entire argument is based around the meaning of words... that is not the basis of being Orwellian.

Most people in the Alt-right acknowledge that the west is not Marxist, but rather that it has significant Marxist influences in terms of social policies.

The SJW crowd removes words they find offensive and creates new words better to suit their world view and then commands people to use them as such... that sounds about in line with INSOC, but this one similarity does not mean they are entirely the same.

Ummmmmm.... Yeah sure Orwellianism isn't ONLY about that, he talked about a much more varied societal behaviour but I'm clearly pointing at the concept of controlling through doublespeak here:

"Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing[1]), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language.[2][3]" (Doublespeak, Wikipedia)

The West has a "significant Marxist influences in terms of social policies"? Come one, do you even know what Marxism is?? Have you read about historical materialism and the Marxian dialectics? Did you learn about class struggle and commodity fetishism? What are those "social policies" in the West that are Marxist? I mean actually Marxist, not a vague "equality is good".

The SJW, even if they want to, they do not, and can not remove words. It is impossible to stop people from knowing certain words but what you can do, and what I believe the alt crowd does is making the definitions so confusing that they become devoid of any real meaning and can be used as vague attacks on a vague enemy.

[Kibbutz Unions]

You're just jealous of us capitalists because you're don't work hard enough to earn as much as we do so you play along with the Left's communist, anti-American plot. Shame on you.

Well, at least I work unlike the capitalist leeches who own everything regardless of merit or virtue.

[USS Monitor]

Um, no. They invent new words with the purpose of trying to alter people's mindset. Mandating non-offensive language to try to discourage offensive attitudes is trying to change the way people think. Even if you consider it a positive change, it's still trying to force a change by controlling the language.

There's no actual reason why we needed to stop using words like "negro" or "Chinaman," since those words were not inherently offensive in their original usage. They were originally used by racists and non-racists alike, and they had no special connotations until those connotations were assigned by the PC crowd. The idea was if you made people change their language, then it would break them out of their old habits and you could get them to also change their thinking.



Yeah, people on the right have their own ways of abusing language and propagandizing.

I get what you are saying- it is obvious that the sjw clearly WANT to change the way people think but their methods are overall counterproductive to their own cause, they basically tell other people what is right and wrong to say but it's very clear what each concept means: thus it doesn't fall under linguistic relativity and is merely a change in the popularity of words (And, well, languages change all the time in that manner).

They have plenty of nebulous concepts like "patriarchy" and "white privilege" that are widely used, but not clearly defined. And assigning meanings to words like "negro" and "Chinaman" that those words never had before is not just a change in the popularity of words or natural linguistic drift. It is purposeful politically-motivated manipulation.

It also has undertones of generational chauvinism, trying to prove how modern people are morally superior because they don't use that old "racist" language.

[Kibbutz Unions]

There's no actual reason why we needed to stop using words like "negro" or "Chinaman," since those words were not inherently offensive in their original usage. They were originally used by racists and non-racists alike, and they had no special connotations until those connotations were assigned by the PC crowd. The idea was if you made people change their language, then it would break them out of their old habits and you could get them to also change their thinking.

Just noting about that: Sure, it was a very neutral term but I think context is important- in what circumstances NOW do people use "negro" or "chinaman" and for what purpose? Is it to refer merely, or is it to demean?