What's really amazing is that you can open 1984 to nearly any page and find insights just as deep and crisply described as this one. It's a dangerous book to open, just because you end up wanting to read through it one more time.

Analogy is, of course, a form of abstraction, and wingnuts have a real problem with abstraction. It is why they are pretty much devoid of sympathy (which requires an abstraction), but can sometimes empathize with another person, if the exact same thing has happened to them (e.g. their spouse has Alzheimer's disease and stem cells cannot be used to research a cure). It is why conservatives are not very funny, at least not intentionally. Comedy requires abstraction. It also explains their tendency towards literalism, in religion as well as other areas.

Thus, the basis of conservatism lies in a mental deficiency. I wonder if stem cells can be used to cure it. Doh!

Shargash has it right. I'm always amazed by the way right wingers proudly flaunt their selfishness and lack of empathy. A very common response to a critique of government policy is for a right winger to say: "So tell me how, exactly, you yourself have been harmed by this?" They don't seem to understand that where any American has rights violated, every American ought to feel the loss.

I think you want to think about this a little more. Human nature does evolve. The right wing nuts want to stop it. You play into that when you say that human nature is immutable.

Think about it. Their whole goal is to stop us from evolving. It explains so much.

So, let's see if I can follow the logic here.

A pseudonymous military correspondent for The New Republic, recommended by a TNR staffer who is his wife, and who turns out to have enlisted in the Army so he can write about war and advance his literary career, pens a bunch of dispatches that advance the tiresome anti-war trope that war de-sensitizes and de-humanizes participants. The dispatches are supposed to be journalism. . . you know, true.

However, it turns out that the aforementioned dispatches -- whose purpose is clearly to portray our military in an unfavorable light -- contain at least one patently false fact. And, it appears, many if not all of the other "shocking" anecdotes -- Bradleys purposely running over dogs, soldiers wearing skull fragments as yarmulkes -- are also false.

And the exposure of these extremely misleading, and most probably false, writings...falsity being something George Orwell found repugnant...is equivalent to the braindead sensibility of the characters in Orwell's 1984?

Really?

I am sorry, you can't even call this a "logical" leap, because, frankly, there is zero logic behind it.

So, let's see if I can follow the logic here.

Truly there's only thing missing from 1984 that would make it completely prophetic: O'Brien earnestly explaining that if only Orwell were alive, he would love Big Brother.

I'm still trying to understand the Beauchamp thing.

You don't pull in trolls too often but any comment section on the most obscure blog in the world will drag one in. They are really, really, big on this, and I haven't figured out why. I don't know anyone who has a subscription to TNR and has read the thing, I'd have never been aware of it if they didn't have this freak out party, I wasn't impressed one way another by it once I was aware of it. They are pointedly disinterested in say the Nation piece that came out at the same time which was chock full of murder and pretending to eat the brains out of Iraqi civilians for pictures while their family watched them. That sort of trumps running over dogs and being a dick to a mutilated contractor.

Theory #1
They are so disenchanted and beat up and mugged by their fairy world going tits up and sliding off into nightmareland in Iraq year after year that this is a straw floating by that they are compelled to grasp on to no matter how foolish it looks from the shore.

Theory #2
They think TNR is low hanging fruit and can be mau-maued for deviating from their previous party loyalty concerning Iraq.

Theory #3
They view it as some sort of Ancient Liberal Enemy and they tilt their lances at it like it's the reincarnation of the little red schoolhouse TNR come back to menace them.

Theory #4
They are aware of the Nation piece and killing, humiliating, raping, Iraqi's is of little importance but if they ran over dogs and made fun of American women that would be a scandal.

Any other ideas?

"At first it seems amazing that Orwell could have precisely described today's right-wing blurgh world sixty years ago."

Well, Orwell probably did, somewhere. But here? Why would Orwell's description of the mindset required of a Party member in a one-party state yield insight into the mindset of the "right-wing blurgh" of today?

Consider what Orwell is saying, re "dangerous thought" and "protective stupidity." How exactly are the RW blurgh expressing this mindset in their analysis of the Beauchamp affair? What is the danger to them of thinking the wrong thoughts? What is their stupidity protecting themselves against? A loss of position or status? The Truth? Being deposited into a heretofore unknown RW Gulag? You don't specify.

Are you sure you don't really want to accuse them of a different, more mundane sort of stupidity?

"....the consistency with which such people are unable to understand analogies.)"

Yet in fact, isn't your point not to show that Orwell "precisely described" anything, but to make an extended sort of analogy of your own? I.e. from the mental state of Orwell's survival-oriented Party members to the (supposed) mental state of today's [?]-oriented right-wing blurgh.

This passage from 1984 and DailyKo$ are different...how?

Wow! Two trolls in a single comment thread. At least KK was coherent, albeit wrong.

Thanks, RobW, for bringing up the Nation story.

And here's an exercise for the rest of you:

Count up the number of right-wing blogs ranting about l'affaire Beauchamp, then count the number of lefty blogs promoting the absolutely true, undisputed and powerfully convincing reporting done by the Nation.

Compare and discuss.

YES, but do they PAY TAXES? If so, then they are TAXPAYERS much like----well, YOU AND ME.

That is a great quote, Jon, but for me, it was Randolph Bourne who provided the best description of the right-wing blurghosphere. For Orwell, things like the Two Minutes Hate were tools of coercion, ways of keeping the proles in line. Bourne thought that kind of thing is actually aimed at what he called the "significant classes," and that they positively enjoy it, as a sort of escape from freedom.

A guy like James Lileks, say, does not have a "bare, unsatisfying life," no matter how mysterious the appeal of old matchbooks may be to the rest of us. He's very comfortable. He doesn't have any real power himself, but he understands pretty well how power works, is comfortable with it, and is probably far enough up the ladder to be within sight of it. By making himself an amateur agent of the State, as Bourne puts it, he gets to make a leap upward. He'll never be part of the ruling class, but he at least gets to feel like he's sharing in their power and enjoying their protection.

The whole essay is still amazingly relevant, despite being almost 90 years old. I'll try not to quote too much of it:

When war is declared, "a vast sense of rejuvenescence pervades the significant classes, a sense of new importance in the world. Old national ideals are taken out, re-adapted to the purpose and used as universal touchstones, or molds into which all thought is poured. Every individual citizen who in peacetimes had no function to perform by which he could imagine himself an expression or living fragment of the State becomes an active amateur agent of the Government in reporting spies and disloyalists, in raising Government funds, or in propagating such measures as are considered necessary by officialdom. Minority opinion, which in times of peace was only irritating and could not be dealt with by law unless it was conjoined with actual crime, becomes, with the outbreak of war, a case for outlawry.

"War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.

"At war, the individual becomes almost identical with his society. He achieves a superb self-assurance, an intuition of the rightness of all his ideas and emotions, so that in the suppression of opponents or heretics he is invincibly strong; he feels behind him all the power of the collective community."

That's the right-wing blurghosphere to a T, I think - they're never happier than when hunting heretics, they claim to be fighting external enemies but really hate their internal enemies more, and they measure their effectiveness in terms of scalps captured. (Sadly for them, they'll probably never better Rather. They brought down a bison once, but normally they have to dine on rabbits.)

"For Orwell, things like the Two Minutes Hate were tools of coercion, ways of keeping the proles in line."

Isn't this point directly contradicted in the Orwell quote above? It's been a long time since I read 1984, but I don't remember the Party members and the proles being one and the same.

For Orwell, things like the Two Minutes Hate were tools of coercion, ways of keeping the proles in line.

No, the Two Minute Hate is explained in 1984 as being for members of the Outer Party -- ie, someone like James Lileks. (Remember that Winston Smith and Julia, both Outer Party members, see each other at a Two Minute Hate.)

I agree that's a great Bourne essay, but I think Orwell and Bourne were saying pretty much the same thing.

UNLESS Bourne or Orwell mention "Right Wingnut Blurghosphere" I doubt they were describing them. Your comparison is in YOUR mind. If you reread this article and comments one sees the LEFT as a mirror of the RIGHT. Such quotes or allusions as "They are ALL like that" is strickly prejudicial and closed minded. (and kinda gossipy)(The rightwing is on the SAME highway to hell as WE ALL ARE, its they are hanging out the window yelling and waveing and WE are in the backseat CRYING AND AFRAID TO TAKE THE WHEEL.)

If only it was just right-wingers he was foreseeing. Step back a bit, though - it's anyone more devoted to a Party than to the Truth. Truth and justice are bigger ideals than a political Party. Democrats can be just as frenzied (and I'm nominally one of them) when it comes to electoral politics.

Argh. Clearly, it's been too long since I've actually read 1984. It must be past time to dust off my old high school copy. I'm glad I could provide you with some blurgh fodder, though, Jon. Not that you need it - it amazes me how many obscure but really telling nuggets you're able to dredge up on a regular basis. Thank you for doing this.

Ted: That comments thread at the Economist's View is great. I especially love this line from our new friend Karl K. He quotes a statement from the Army, which investigated the charges and - surprise! - exonerated itself. Karl proudly concludes:

"There you have it. While The New Republic relies on anonymous sources, the Army is willing to talk on the record."

Boy, that sure is a sign of bad reporting. Just like during Watergate - those clowns Woodward & Bernstein relied on anonymous sources, but Ron Ziegler was willing to talk on the record!

"War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.

"At war, the individual becomes almost identical with his society. He achieves a superb self-assurance, an intuition of the rightness of all his ideas and emotions, so that in the suppression of opponents or heretics he is invincibly strong; he feels behind him all the power of the collective community."

This is also how most corporations operate today ... seeking alignment with vision and mission, all employees rowing together in alignment in search of growth and returns to the shareholders (mainly the senior management with relatively large tranches of share holdings .. aka managerial capitalism).

Breeds the same kinds of mindsets and behaviours, held in place through fear of losing employment ...

I'm amused to see that most of the "disputing" of The Nation piece over at 'The Shield of Achilles' (that'll be quite enough sniggering at the back, thank you!) consists of variations of "Hey, war is hell, dude."

We're getting the war WE'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR IN BLOOD AND TREASURE. Why cry about the wingnuts, since BOTH sides jumped at the chance to kill somebody, and WE have. The Dems now have an eye on Pakistan and the GOP wants Iran, and, of course, WE are willing to pay for either one or both. (my guess is we will get both)If you are paying for it then you support it, it is yours.