Yes, before anyone pitches in with that observation, M.M. would surely quote the above with some glee. I’m confident that he’d refrain from posting the essay’s ending, though:
Mr Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World was a good caricature of the hedonistic Utopia, the kind of thing that seemed possible and even imminent before Hitler appeared, but it had no relation to the actual future. [1] What we are moving towards at this moment is something more like the Spanish Inquisition, and probably far worse, thanks to the radio and the secret police. There is very little chance of escaping it unless we can reinstate the belief in human brotherhood without the need for a ‘next world’ to give it meaning. It is this that leads innocent people like the Dean of Canterbury to imagine that they have discovered true Christianity in Soviet Russia. No doubt they are only the dupes of propaganda, but what makes them so willing to be deceived is their knowledge that the Kingdom of Heaven has somehow got to be brought on to the surface of the earth. We have not to be the children of God, even though the God of the Prayer Book no longer exists.
The very people who have dynamited our civilization have sometimes been aware of this, Marx’s famous saying that ‘religion is the opium of the people’ is habitually wrenched out of its context and given a meaning subtly but appreciably different from the one he gave it. Marx did not say, at any rate in that place, that religion is merely a dope handed out from above; he said that it is something the people create for themselves to supply a need that he recognized to be a real one. ‘Religion is the sigh of the soul in a soulless world. Religion is the opium of the people.’ What is he saying except that man does not live by bread alone, that hatred is not enough, that a world worth living in cannot be founded on ‘realism’ and machine-guns? If he had foreseen how great his intellectual influence would be, perhaps he would have said it more often and more loudly.
[1] Okay, that’s the one bit Orwell got wrong… maybe. Industrial murder did mark everything forever, though.
Yes, before anyone pitches in with that observation, M.M. would surely quote the above with some glee. I’m confident that he’d refrain from posting the essay’s ending, though:
Why? My mental model of M.M., admittedly based on the very few things of his that I’ve read, has him not disagreeing with the above section significantly.
He’s very firmly against all past and future attempts to bring forth the aforementioned Kingdom of Heaven (except, needless to say, his own—which has the elimination of hypocrisy as one of its points). He sneers—I have no other word—at patriotic feeling, and wages a one-man crusade against ideological/religious feeling. He might dislike hatred, but he certainly believes that greed and self-interest are “enough”—are the most useful, safe motives one could have. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
He sneers—I have no other word—at patriotic feeling, and wages a one-man crusade against ideological/religious feeling.
Orwell wasn’t exactly a supporter of patriotism or religion either. In fact, in paragraphs you quoted you can see Orwell sneering at religion even as he admits that it can serve a useful purpose. My understanding of Moldbug’s position on religion is that its pretty similar, i.e., he recognizes the important role religion played in Western Civilization including the development of science even if he doesn’t like what it’s currently evolved into.
Orwell wasn’t exactly a supporter of patriotism or religion either.
No offence, but I think you need to read a dozen of his post-1939 essays before we even talk about that. He was a fervent British patriot, occasionally waxing nostalgic about the better points of the old-time Empire—even as he was talking about the necessity of a socialist state! - and a devout Anglican for his entire life (which was somewhat obscured by his contempt for bourgeois priesthood). You’re simply going off the one-dimensional recycled image of Orwell: the cardboard democratic socialist whose every opinion was clear, liberal and ethically spotless. The truth is far more complicated; I’d certainly say he was more of a totalitarian than the hypocritical leftist intellectuals he was bashing! (I hardly think less of him due to that, mind.)
Yes, before anyone pitches in with that observation, M.M. would surely quote the above with some glee. I’m confident that he’d refrain from posting the essay’s ending, though:
[1] Okay, that’s the one bit Orwell got wrong… maybe. Industrial murder did mark everything forever, though.
Why? My mental model of M.M., admittedly based on the very few things of his that I’ve read, has him not disagreeing with the above section significantly.
He’s very firmly against all past and future attempts to bring forth the aforementioned Kingdom of Heaven (except, needless to say, his own—which has the elimination of hypocrisy as one of its points). He sneers—I have no other word—at patriotic feeling, and wages a one-man crusade against ideological/religious feeling. He might dislike hatred, but he certainly believes that greed and self-interest are “enough”—are the most useful, safe motives one could have. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Orwell wasn’t exactly a supporter of patriotism or religion either. In fact, in paragraphs you quoted you can see Orwell sneering at religion even as he admits that it can serve a useful purpose. My understanding of Moldbug’s position on religion is that its pretty similar, i.e., he recognizes the important role religion played in Western Civilization including the development of science even if he doesn’t like what it’s currently evolved into.
No offence, but I think you need to read a dozen of his post-1939 essays before we even talk about that. He was a fervent British patriot, occasionally waxing nostalgic about the better points of the old-time Empire—even as he was talking about the necessity of a socialist state! - and a devout Anglican for his entire life (which was somewhat obscured by his contempt for bourgeois priesthood).
You’re simply going off the one-dimensional recycled image of Orwell: the cardboard democratic socialist whose every opinion was clear, liberal and ethically spotless. The truth is far more complicated; I’d certainly say he was more of a totalitarian than the hypocritical leftist intellectuals he was bashing! (I hardly think less of him due to that, mind.)