Orwell: ‘History Stopped in 1936’ (and Everything Since Is Propaganda)
Those that revise and confound, prevent man from expressing his full nature. They refuse to believe that anyone in history be heroic, be honest or sincere in their intents and convictions of self evident truths because they themselves are none of those things.
Besides, if you knew the truth, you would not listen to their dribble.
So as Orwell observed history revised after it happened, we now, in this time can observed history being revised "as" it happens.
Here is what Orwell said in an interview:
“I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, ‘History stopped in 1936’, at which he nodded in immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more particularly of the Spanish civil war. Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.”
Besides, if you knew the truth, you would not listen to their dribble.
So as Orwell observed history revised after it happened, we now, in this time can observed history being revised "as" it happens.
Here is what Orwell said in an interview:
“I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, ‘History stopped in 1936’, at which he nodded in immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more particularly of the Spanish civil war. Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...
Now that's what I would call: Original Source Material.
The deeper I get into history across thousands of years, I appreciate those that felt a need to tell those stories in their time so that we could know the truth as it happened.
In the future, those stories might well be non existent.
I was just reading a decipher of Egyptian Hieroglyphics detailing a story of a war with the "Sea People" the Hittites. It will ultimately show us that the Philistines had no country, state nor land.
Maybe we should relay the truth of our times in stone?
BTW, the Sea People were not (necessarily) Philistines. The name was given to all manner of invaders. Philistines were Semitic. Hittites were Indo-European. We know of the Philistines from the Book of Judges in the Bible. They had their own kingdom(s). And our IE ancestors were stateless wanderers for about 3500 years until "states" were actually invented.
I'd like to learn about it, do you have the stones location or "name"?
Carl
http://www.newsweek.com/mystery-lost-...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mystery-lo...
http://fresh-hope.com/thread/3789/yea...
It is interesting to note the use of the word "propaganda." It is a Medieval Latin word, early modern Italian if you prefer, to mean propagating the Faith. Propaganda was a Catholic invention, as the author, Dan Lattier, should know.
(The point was made to me, cogently, at a museum conference where I spoke on the coinage of Alexander the Great. In a round-table discussion, I said that those issues showing him as Herakles were Macedonian propaganda. A classicist from Glasgow said, "That's very well, Mr. Marotta, but the word 'propaganda' lay 1500 years in Alexander's future.")
Anyway, I agree with the thesis. That we have come to a time not just when there are only different points of view and bald lies, but the denial of objective fact -- at least among some people. It is important to identify the inherent weakness in falsehoods and the intrinsic power of truth.
I intuitively would expect better media technology to result in less propaganda. Not long ago my access to news was from two news papers and handful of radio and TV stations, meany of them owned by a few companies. On a wire strung to a tree my parents' back yard I could pick up other countries and weird religious groups. If I went to the library, I could get newspapers of the cities of the world, only a few days delayed.
I remember someone saying when you give bad service to radio operators, it's bad because they all talk on the radio and a handful of their friends might hear their complaint. The same was probably true for religious groups and other societies that held informal meetings.
Now anyone can put her ideas out on a blog, or twitter, or whatever. You think it would be increasingly hard for propagandists to do their thing. They can't just make a deal with a handful of media leaders and relegate discussion of topics to private meetings, BBS message boards, and amateur radio. So why has propaganda increased? Why do we apparently see more denial of objective fact?
In the past there were lectures on post modernism, uneducated people spreading stories about stuff the "gov't don't want'cha t'know", and angry people ranting about how their problems are caused by everyone but themselves; but now they have an easy platform. I remember one of them handed me a sheet of paper at a demonstration. It said if you mailed them a dollar bill, they'd send you a little pamphlet with secrets the rich and powerful don't want you to know. It was like a step down from the tabloids. Is the problem now that the new generation of these people now have a fancy website that looks not that different from the New York Times?
I think it's more than that. In the 90s, when I heard people say, "Lies, all lies" it was ironic, a joke. If you were making a serious point, it was more like "Who are their unnamed sources with close ties...?" It's very odd to me today that there is more denying the existence of fact. I don't know if it's increased or if technology lets me overhear conversations that would stayed in the trailer park or professors' office?
1. Our kids have been raised going to schools that teach memes and not facts
2. Many knowingly promulgate propaganda because it serves their purpose of their leftist agenda, which is to destroy the US.
3. There are masses of uneducated people in America who believe anything the leftists and the media say, because the leftists and the media are “on their side”.
4. The uneducated masses feel empowered to spread propaganda because the Left, Democrats, and the media tell them they are victims.
5. Our politically correct culture, created by Soros and the Left, makes facts irrelevant - it’s the memes that matter, true or not.
These days, people with little to no conscience or brains are paid to promote bull crap, to confuse the issues or to debunk those that promote the truth of things.
It is unfortunate that those whom seek to find the truth and do so accurately get mixed in with all the other nonsense.
It increasingly takes time, energy. scrutiny and honesty together with time tested sources to discern the truth of things these days.
We actually get too much information which causes people to chose a version that suits their comfort zones.
Yes. I think if you read it, it actually creates new areas of discomfort, such that reading about something like monetary policy that would otherwise be dry and arcane triggers the nutty response: "Oh no. This is part of President Trump or Obama's plan to destroy the country!!" I think people are paid to promote bull crap, as you say, and people read it not realizing they're reading something lower than a tabloid.
In other words, they live off the values created by others.
It ties in with the dichotomy's between Europe and America and how each dealt with truth.