Easy mode: If Orwell was writing today - what would he focus on?

That is not /pol/ at all. There are many independent voters and liberals a like to are trying to delve into how it happened, my self included. Everyone, even conservatives though Hillary would win. Pennsylvania went red for Christ sakes! Pennsylvania!

It's not a mystery, it's just the rise of populism; it's been happening everywhere and it was bound to come to the USA. If Nietzsche were around 50 years ago, he would have predicted it.

It really isn't that mysterious though, Hillary's campaign was atrocious.

>it's just the rise of populism
It isn't just populism, the left have completely failed to ride the populist wave despite running their best candidates in decades with populist manifestos, conservatism has become the new counter-culture after the left's failed projects materialized.

dude, it was obvious hillary was going to lose for a few reasons (Although the liberal media tricked a lot of us into thinking she was still going to win) let me cover the big ones:

democrats went for an "electable" candidate...is no one old enough to remember john kerry vs dubya? howard dean was like the sanders of those primaries, but all the democrats thought he wasn't electable so they went with kerry, and what happened? the electable kerry was not elected. that was the first warning sign.

second warning sign: calling all of your opponents supports denigrating names. remember mitt romney and the "makers vs. takers"? when a candidate publicly insults half the country they are getting frustrated, and going to lose.

finally, and i didn't notice this until recently, and apparently no one else did either including a lot of "real serious people" with expensive degrees and nice suits...if americans wanted the clinton agenda they would have elected al gore! does no one remember that? al gore lost! because people were sick of clintonism! sure "it was close" but if people were really as in love with the clintons as the democrats think it wouldn't have been a squeaker coming down to a couple hanging chads in florida, ok.

i don't get all how these "experts" and "professionals" couldn't see this

Middle-aged, working-class people didn't vote for Trump to be transgressive

Orwell would have been pro-Brexit and Nietzsche would have favored Trump even before the primaries.

It isn't like Sanders was electable either, there's literally a crate in Trumps office for 2020 of the crazy shit Sanders has done and said, none of it used in 2016.

>hillary clinton
>best candidate in decades

come on dude, the people at the nytimes get paid a lot of money to write stupid shit like that, but that doesn't mean you should do it for free

>crates of dirt

there were crates of dirt on trump too, but that didn't stop him from steamrolling the bush family and every other bitch ass hack who tried to step to him

Trump is built of teflon, Sanders campaign couldn't even shake a single BLM incident.

>Orwell would have been pro-Brexit

I think this is actually true. British socialism has a weird anti-Europe streak running through it. See all the rumors that Corbyn voted Leave.

yeah, but see that was the clinton/soros machine attacking sanders from the left, they never tried that with trump! the dnc fucked up by painting trump as the furthest right candidate ever because it left no room for a divide and conquer attack from the right to split his base, short of running a neonazi or something, but then it would only work to make trump look moderate! oh man, trump is honestly a fucking genius, he played them all

>Sanders runs in 2020
>Trump walkers on stage
>reads his "women fantasize about being gang raped" essay out loud
>"Which one should I read next, the age of consent laws are a social construct essay or police report of him stealing and failing to pay child support?"
The Republicans admitted they have 4 secret videos they never used against him.

>The Republicans admitted they have 4 secret videos they never used against him.

yeah, sure, just like trump made it sound like he taped comey to fuck up his testimony, there's no proof there's any damning tapes of sanders, if there were the clintons would have used them to dispatch him early...i think the republicans are scared of sanders and they are trying to make people think he's "unelectable" like you're doing now

>if there were the clintons would have used them to dispatch him early...
>The Republicans have secret videos
>clintons would have used them
I don't even

>i think the republicans are scared of sanders
You didn't fucking pay attention during the election did you?

you think the dnc couldn't get their hands on the same videos as the rnc?

and again, the polls showed sanders beating trump so yes they were scared of him, which is why they say they "would rather" run against him, which is bullshit

this last election cycle has proved to me that the majority of people are just fucking stupid as shit, especially the people who think they are smart about these things

wtf I love sanders now

I didn't say it is a mystery but it was a shock at first. Is what I mean. Obviously we have figured out ideas to explain it but it was still unexpected.

zero understanding of Nietzsche

I didn't mean it is still a mystery. I mean it was just unexpected at first. there are plenty of explainations now.
The DNC not choosing Bernie was a shit show for sure. I will not deny that. And having the same people she ran against and talked shit Bout and intern talked shit about her, suddenly endorse her is pretty ridiculous (Bernie, OBAMA). We are all (including acid Bernie supporters supposed to sit there and take it seriously.
Even so, it was the belief that this country had become so liberal over Tha last 8 years over Obama that there was no way a republican could win again...so the media thought anyway.

people voted for obama because the clintonite media was calling him a socialist through the primaries, and then the republicans started calling him a socialist in the general, so people voted for him hoping to get a socialist, of course he was no such thing, just like everyone called trump a national socialist and people were like ok let's give it a try, if people wanted more clintons back in the white house they would have elected al gore in 2000, and that was before we saw how horrific nafta was for jobs or how terroristic repealing glass steagal was etc.

Orwell would be a nominally 'left wing' liberal shill with pro interventionist neocon tendencies. He would bemoan 'political polarisation', would talk about the radical left (vague threath comprising jeremy corbyn, sjws and 'bernie bros') being a mirror image of the alt right.

Orwell would try to convince you to vote for a blairite while secretly voting for Rees-Mogg

>Orwell
Lol

>Nietzsche
We already have icycalm.

>Thread about Orwell and Nietzsche
>Orwell is British and Nietzsche is German
>Americans talk about Trump
>???

Since its founding, America has fascinated European intellectuals. I believe Nietzsche actually wrote more than a little about America.

Most users here are American. Deal with it faggot.

He was a Socialist and fought in POUM, etc.

The sad thing is half the Europhiles here are also American and get really upset when you remind them of the state of Europe's academia.

Maybe, but that time has mostly passed now that the entire world is pretty similar politically.
And i mean politically as in government institutions. There isn't much to talk about American culture and civic society nowadays.

So what? Talking about Trump in thread about Orwell and Nietzsche is self indulgent and stupid. Like Americans i suppose.

I've always thought it hilarious when Socialists attempt to claim Orwell, he was the worst socialist ever and straight up betrayed other socialists to the government on a dime.

>Maybe, but that time has mostly passed now that the entire world is pretty similar politically.

It really, really isn't. It's especially funny that you try to say this and use America as an example. American politics are like some bizarre fever dream, they're nothing like European politics.

If Orwell was alive today, he would definitely write for the Guardian.

Euro here, how the fuck aren't our politics a "bizarre fever dream"? they're straight up out of a kafka nightmare, I'll only cover the nightmare that is Italy

>still hasn't recovered from the financial meltdown despite being constantly injected with liquid cash on a regular basis so the banks don't explode and take half of Germany with it
>Productivity is falling, which is so fucking confusing to economists they've coined multiple paradoxes just explain how fucked up it is over there
>We fucking celebrated a 35.2 percent unemployment rate because it was so low
>Our national airline would rather shoot itself in the face with a double barrelled shotgun than job cuts

>American politics are like some bizarre fever dream, they're nothing like European politics
Just because journalists, and "political "experts" " talk a lot about America, doesn't mean they are the focal point of academic discussion.
Shit like American elections, although fun to watch, isn't particularly ground breaking politically. It's a horserace shit show, with authoritarian ideologies and corruption sprinkled in.
So basically nothing has changed in America for the last 100 years.

Also it isn't the most prosperous nation in the world anymore, so the utopian politics have moved on to modeling Scandinavia, or Switzerland. Trying to figure out what worked so well there, and if it can be transplanted to other nations.
From a civic society standpoint, Asia as a whole is more interesting to study academically. Things like rapid change, globalization, economy, etc.

I forgot
>economy so depressed The Sicilian mafia is packing up and moving their entire operation to Germany
>South Italy looks is literally a 3rd world country, the difference between the regional divides is worse than east and west Germany in the 90's

>So basically nothing has changed in America for the last 100 years.
Try 300 years, the elections are actually more polite and kinder than ever, back in the end it was completely normal to call your opponent products of incest and bestiality.

N boy would be writing about Silicon Valley, China, and AI. The first two being examples of the aristocratic will to power (just wait till california pulls a coup de etat on Washington in the next 20 years). AI being an example of the emerging overman, which will view us humans as we view primates, or sea slugs, or bacteria.

Orwell would be writing about the stuff going on in this thread.

>just wait till california pulls a coup de etat on Washington in the next 20 years

with the help of mexico i bet, they will spread out agents among the undocumented proletarians to organize support backing the ruling class usurpers. sort of like germany helping lenin take power in russia, but different.

did u watch the new aliens movie? it was p rad how the two robots are fags who are superior to normies, it partially reminded me of ascetic priests who don't fuck n shit doing philosophical and create works, but even more so as alt-gay homosexual creatives who say death to normies...off topic but the aliens movies are still good after all these years, meanwhile i stopped watching star wars like two films ago

Nietzsche would have ridiculed Hitchens

Yeah, this is probably true, he'd have seen through Hitchens' act and pegged him for the sophist he is.

Nietzsche would be a radical Kaczynskite of some sort, advocating for the destruction of capitalist civilisation. He would look down on Land and Elon Musk as a pathetic bugmen

Orwell was a socialist, but only in economic terms..Culturally he was very favorable of traditional values. Look at what he wrote in his essay "The Lion and the Unicorn"

>Also, one must admit that the divisions between nation and nation are founded on real differences of outlook. Till recently it was thought proper to pretend that all human beings are very much alike, but in fact anyone able to use his eyes knows that the average of human behaviour differs enormously from country to country. Things that could happen in one country could not happen in another.

I think the modern day leftist thought of praising multiculturalism and immigration would terrify him. Modern day "nationalism", in his day, was taken for granted as "centrism". These days being "centrist" means being pro mass-immigration

Sanders would have won the rust belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania over Trump. This is undeniable.

I doubt he would have been anti-capitalist in any meaningful sense, and he definitely wouldn't have been a Kaczynskite (read what he says in Zarathustra about "firebugs"). You're dead on about the second part, though.

It's hard to imagine his specific opinions on these issues, but being as he prided himself on being "anti-political", most likely, he wouldn't be deeply concerned about technology or the prospect of human extinction. In other words, if it happens, it happens. It's highly possible that it's inevitable that human beings will supplant themselves with AI or upload their consciousness and live their lives as a 24/7 porno in VR, but après nous, le déluge. Best to tend one's garden.

Nietzsche would just be doing the same thing he liked to do, proving everyone but him is retarded
Just imagine how hard he would btfo Zizek

This really represents our famous selfish and American narsicist attitude, thank you for remarking it

Never read memestache but Orwell would be writing a Peter Hitchens style column on how England is dead forever or have killed himself by now.

Do you think either of them would have an active Youtube channel?

>he'd have seen through Hitchens' act and pegged him for the sophist he is.

Please explain how Hitchens is a sophist. I see nothing in his work which can be considered a false argument.

>weird

What people never understand is that British socialism has Methodist not Marxist roots. It was always opposed to social liberalism and internationalism. Orwell despised left wing Marxist intellectuals and he would probably deride today's Blairite consensus as another 'smelly little orthodoxy'.

People ITT should read the Lion and the Unicorn.

This.

Orwell would be a combination of Noam Chomsky, Peter Hitchens, and Glenn Greenwald, focusing on the dealings and demise of the corporate media while also lamenting the soul-crushing rise of social media. What Orwell cared about was political dialectics, political thinking, and the ability for power to subvert them through language. He would end up filling a niche that combines elements from the 3 mentioned figures but without the partisanship, since he's too much of an Aspergers-type to refrain from punching his own side when they are stupid or malevolent.

newspaper columns more likely.
Nietzsche would probably lecture.

What would happen if you sat down Dostoevsky in front of Google?

If my aunt had a dick she would be my uncle. This is undeniable.

hindsight: the post

>it's just the rise of populism

>Hillary's campaign was atrocious.

Nope. Trump won in Wisconsin and Michigan, too -- just as shocking if not more so than PA.

Why? Because the good jobs have been being shipped out of the country for the past two decades, and either replaced with nada or shit-tier service jobs. So the middle class has gotten squished/destroyed by economic globalism ("the giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US, as Ross Perot accurately described it some 20 years ago), while the top fat cats are getting rich beyond the dreams of avarice from the same dynamic, and a thin layer of the technocratic/administrative/managerial class is doing quite well, thank you, as are federal workers and the federal contractor class (resulting in the absolutely unprecedented fact that the area around DC is now one of the wealthiest in the country -- which Trump pointed out many times).

Trump promised to turn this around (see his Detroit speech, in particular), and that's what got him those votes in the "rust belt" states. Michael Moore actually had a rather eloquent speech about this, before the election, where he spoke of the pro-Trump rumblings he was hearing in the rust belt.

youtube.com/watch?v=wxDRqeuLNag

The powers-that-be in the Democratic Party *still* don't get this, or they DO get it but don't give a shit, because they've got a super-comfy spot in the new millionaire class.

Just like Moore said, the voters in PA, WI and MI had their reasons and proceeded to deliver the biggest FUCK YOU to the powers-that-be in human history.

But those voters were uneducated, the jobs aren't coming back due to automation. You can't turn back the clock.

>Orwell
SJWs
>Nietzsche
Gamergate

>Comparing Nietzsche to Sargon of Akkad

Nietzsche would be Maddox. In fact, Nietzsche IS Maddox.

You're a fucking idiot

Why does it make sense to import uneducated mexican illegals into america, then?

From an outside perspective here, who is going to be convinced? Outside of women who would have gone for Trump anyways, what women are going to say "eh this Sanders guy seems too anti-women for me, imma side with Donald J. Trump instead". At best it'd create a rise in third party voting and whatnot, but it would make a tighter bid for the Rust Belt.

He probably sounded like him too, all nasal and faggy.

Whoever says that Sargon of Akkad shouldn't be taken seriously is a pseud.
As of now there hasn't been a single refutation of all his countless detailed analyses. You can't even blame him for being pretentious.

>Sargon of Akkad

Anybody who supports Sanders and Trump simultaneously is not the sharpest crayon in the box.

Orwell never imagined that most socialists would come to embrace extreme multiculturalism and immigration. I think he would turn his back on the whole thing.

If you're opposed to corporate globalism and dislike the Democratic and Republican establishment, then both choices are reasonable.

Fuck off, Carl

youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU

Give me one of his analyses and I'll refute him right now

>hnumalergay
Post a non-virgin (ie person) refuting based Sargon you fucking sjw

Because they do the jobs that normal Americans won't do. Immigrants are a net benefit to the economy.

youtube.com/watch?v=Cp0uq-QafYQ

Orwell would be writing about "alternative facts"

Orwell would probably focus on subjects Michéa focuses on : neoliberalism, the corruption of the left and its ideology of progress.
Nietzsche would be an an-cap.

>alternative facts

Conway was merely saying "you're wrong, we have the right numbers". But she was flustered and said "alternative facts" and the left has been jumping on it forever. It's just as stupid as the Republicans flipping out about Obama's "guns and religion" comment for 8 years.

>Because they do the jobs that normal Americans won't do at starvation wages.
I've corrected the record.

You've got it.

Populist Explosion is a good source for more analysis of the issue.

Orwell would focus on the rise in the popularity of Communism among the youth in the West and certainly the politics of manipulating the masses with the left and rightwing - globalists and nationalists - all wanting to hold control of government to enforce their ideals. Nietzche would probably go after the same as well, noting how the ubermensch has become rare, and how most activist groups/political organizations on either side have gained a collective mentality and how they relate to slave/master morality. He'd also have a hayday with Islam, considering its rise in influence in the west.

lizards

Nietzsche favouring Trump is fucking laughable, Trump is like the opposite of Nietzsche's conception of the higher man.

>Nietzsche would rather have ubermensch Jeb

I feel like debates around socialism and capitalism are becoming increasingly irrelevant, with 1) the rise of automation, 2) the fact that most Western nations get a ton of their manufacturing done from de-facto slave labor in the third world and 3) the clear bullshit of fiat currency and how it's manipulated by governments.

If most of the "means of production" are actually in the middle east and asia, then what debates about "ownership of the means of production" can you really have?

Nietzsche's superman wasn't a nazi aryan or something - he could be fat. The superman was more about making your own moral structure and sticking to it - which is exactly what trump did.

Is Nietzches "Superman" a bit of a sociopath?
Willing to lie cheat and steal to progress his own cause, outside of contemporary moral preoccupations?