WTF!!!! Just found out that the German minister for economics & upcoming desaster ROBERT HABECK (green party) WROTE THE PREFACE FOR A NEW EDITION OF 1984 BY GEORGE ORWELL !!!
(media.communities.win)
🤢 These people are sick! 🤮
Comments (15)
sorted by:
IGNORE RESEARCH REQUEST - I got it all in another comment, check the thread, ignore this unless you want my crazy notes
Can any Germananons help hunting down the preface / Foreword text (is it really deface text)?
More details on the book hunt:
2021 new edition
ISBN-10 3-423-28232-0 / 3423282320
ISBN-13 978-3-423-28232-1 / 9783423282321
Translated page i could find for the book so far: https://translated.turbopages.org/proxy_u/de-en.en.e4ef6ed1-62e6a85a-370f3b94-74722d776562/https/www.lehmanns.ch/shop/literatur/52942681-9783423282321-1984
Amazon link: https://www.amazon.de/1984-Roman-George-Orwell/dp/3423282320 <---- it's here. Page 5-16 in the book preview.. but it's german and it looks like it's an image that isn't selectable. still looking, may type it out to translate. Can a native german typist type this up and run it through https://translate.yandex.com/ ?
First sentence in German:
Ansichten ube Wahrheit
Vorwot von Robert Habeck
George Orwell is der Analytiker des Totalitarismus. Bis 1989 und dem Ende des real existierenden Sozialismus blieben seine Romane >1984< und >Farm der Tiere< die viellicht jeweils aktullsten Bucher ihrer Zeit.
In english:
Views ube truth
Foreword by Robert Habeck
George Orwell is the analyst of totalitarianism. Until 1989 and the end of real socialism, his novels >1984< and >Farm der Tiere< remained the most up-to-date books of their time.
Looks like he plans to assault it
I got the first 2 pages:
Views on truth
Foreword by Robert Habeck
George Orwell is the analyst of totalitarianism. Until 1989 and the end of real socialism, his novels "1984< and >Farm of Animals< remained perhaps the most current books of their time. With the collapse of the Soviet Republic and the conjured victory of global capitalist liberalism, they seemed to have become historical. But today, thirty years later, they are relevant again, perhaps more relevant than ever. Not only are authoritarian regimes gaining popularity on a global scale, but also states that may believe that they are the former torchbearers of freedom and democracy are being shaken by authoritarian populism. In this respect, we are not just experiencing a new division of the world into liberal and illiberal democracies, authoritarian rule against a liberal, liberal order. We are witnessing how the poison of totalitarian thinking is also seeping into the foundation of democracy and threatening to hollow it out from within. New alliances are emerging between governments with very different ideological orientations, all of which, however, are united by a rejection of civil liberties, freedom of the press and the separation of powers. For all those who want to understand the instruments of the authoritarian, the totalitarian, rereading George Orwell is a must.
This development and system competition between authoritarian and liberal states is threatening, because the former, unlike in the past, may also have an economic advantage due to the mass tapping of data. While it was considered clear in the analogue world that competition, freedom and creativity and a market economy are superior to planned economies, managed processes, oligopolies and cartels at least in the long term, because they produce knowledge and innovations more efficiently and faster, this is far from certain in the digital economy. China, for example, with its large, centrally collected data on behaviors, clinical pictures, personal preferences, knows much more about society than the European states. The state has a huge information advantage over decentralized economic systems. Especially when artificial intelligence comes into play and evaluates the amount of data. For democracy and civil rights, this state control is unacceptable. However, the power advantage over a free society that does not spy on and exploit the private lives of its citizens is immense. Whether or not the liberal democracies will survive this new system confrontation depends very much on the question of whether they will succeed in proving themselves capable of acting in the face of the great challenges of our time.
For today's generations, who voluntarily share their most private affairs on the Internet and who are used to the fact that Google always knows where we are at the moment, surveillance by the technique that Orwell points out in "1984" may seem downright old-fashioned. It is overlooked how up-to-date the associated warning is. Cynically, the corona crisis in particular provides examples en masse of what technical monitoring can now do in...
Yep the piece of shit looks like he's trying to project it on to right, and make the left the darling
I agree with you, and extremely self-serving piece.
i posted the foreword in full elsewhere in this thread.
I tried, but found nothing today. But very good idea!
i posted the foreword in full elsewhere in this thread.
An article reporting about it, unfortunately only in German, and I couldn't find the preface text.
https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1148283.george-orwell-der-schaumschlaeger.html
yandex translated to english:
https://translated.turbopages.org/proxy_u/de-en.en.9b261e17-62e6a662-f89a1a36-74722d776562/https/www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1148283.george-orwell-der-schaumschlaeger.html
Thank you, fren! Great!!!
Very tight knit cub.!
Because they know the drill.
How i got the foreword:
1: I went to https://www.amazon.de/1984-Roman-George-Orwell/dp/3423282320
2: i viewed the preview
3: i took a snapshot of all the forewood pages.
4: i ran each image through https://www.prepostseo.com/image-to-text
5: i ran the german text through https://translate.yandex.com/ German to english:
6: then i spaced it out like the foreword showed:
Views on truth
Foreword by Robert Habeck
George Orwell is the analyst of totalitarianism. Until 1989 and the end of real socialism, his novels "1984< and >Farm of Animals< remained perhaps the most current books of their time. With the collapse of the Soviet Republic and the conjured victory of global capitalist liberalism, they seemed to have become historical. But today, thirty years later, they are relevant again, perhaps more relevant than ever. Not only are authoritarian regimes gaining popularity on a global scale, but also states that may believe that they are the former torchbearers of freedom and democracy are being shaken by authoritarian populism. In this respect, we are not just experiencing a new division of the world into liberal and illiberal democracies, authoritarian rule against a liberal, liberal order. We are witnessing how the poison of totalitarian thinking is also seeping into the foundation of democracy and threatening to hollow it out from within. New alliances are emerging between governments with very different ideological orientations, all of which, however, are united by a rejection of civil liberties, freedom of the press and the separation of powers. For all those who want to understand the instruments of the authoritarian, the totalitarian, rereading George Orwell is a must.
This development and system competition between authoritarian and liberal states is threatening, because the former, unlike in the past, may also have an economic advantage due to the mass tapping of data. While it was considered clear in the analogue world that competition, freedom and creativity and a market economy are superior to planned economies, managed processes, oligopolies and cartels at least in the long term, because they produce knowledge and innovations more efficiently and faster, this is far from certain in the digital economy. China, for example, with its large, centrally collected data on behaviors, clinical pictures, personal preferences, knows much more about society than the European states. The state has a huge information advantage over decentralized economic systems. Especially when artificial intelligence comes into play and evaluates the amount of data. For democracy and civil rights, this state control is unacceptable. However, the power advantage over a free society that does not spy on and exploit the private lives of its citizens is immense. Whether or not the liberal democracies will survive this new system confrontation depends very much on the question of whether they will succeed in proving themselves capable of acting in the face of the great challenges of our time.
For today's generations, who voluntarily share their most private affairs on the Internet and who are used to the fact that Google always knows where we are at the moment, surveillance by the technique that Orwell points out in "1984" may seem downright old-fashioned. It is overlooked how up-to-date the associated warning is. Cynically, the corona crisis in particular provides examples en masse of what technical monitoring is now able to do. And the authoritarian rulers around the world radically exploited the threat to life from the virus. Parliamentary co-determination, separation of powers and the rule of law have been restricted. China, in particular, made full use of its technical-totalitarian complex during the corona period and used its "social scoring" system to isolate people with corona infection, for example by preventing them from using trains, buses or trains or shopping. Third parties were able to identify where corona infected people were using their smartphones. A preliminary diagnosis could be made via the face recognition of the mobile phone and the temperature measurement of the finger on the touchscreen. The Chinese state exercised total surveillance and controlled the behavior of its citizens down to the last detail. China created the transparent subject through "social scoring". If one was already used to the fact that crossing roads was filmed and stored without permission, the extension of social control to people's health data is another dimension on the way to social manipulation. The Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari pointed out in a guest article in the Financial Times on March 20, 2020 that emotions are measurable biological phenomena like symptoms of illness. If a technique is used on mobile phones or in bracelets that can detect colds and infections, it is also able to detect laughter or rejection - and could use this knowledge to influence opinions. This marks the boundary between surveillance and manipulation. And it is precisely this border that Orwell made visible already in 1984. As bad as it is to live in a state in which the right to free speech has been taken away, it is worse to live in a country that manipulates people so that they no longer think of contradicting them at all, or their language is taken away from them. Here, too, recent history provides striking examples of exactly such attempts being made again and again, including in Germany. After the state elections in Thuringia in 2019, AfD officials could be watched for an evening as they claimed that their election success was a victory over hatred and incitement. Those who push and cross all the boundaries of what can be said complain that there are language bans in Germany. Those who lack decency and morality call themselves bourgeois. Those who completely transform democracy into a people's rule denounce it as a dictatorship and a facade democracy. We are experiencing an Orwellian newspeak par excellence in these times. A lie becomes truth and a lie becomes truth.
1984 re-reading had a peculiar effect on me. When I first read the book, while still at school, it was for me a metaphor for the totalitarian regimes of the darkest years of the twentieth century, Stalinism and Nazism. It demonstrated how people are broken and manipulated, how fascism works, how reality becomes a single manipulation. It is not known whether the war that Eurasia is waging against Oceania and East Asia in the novel is actually taking place, or whether the rocket attacks are not being blamed on their own governments to justify their violence, just as, for example, the Reichstag fire in Berlin in 1933 was set by the Nazis to imprison Communists and Social Democrats. And at the end of the day, a big victory is announced, as in the newsreel of the Nazis. It is also not known whether Emmanuel Goldstein, the opponent of the system, and the underground movement of the "brotherhood" even exist. Supposed friends turn out to be spies, the thought police not only track down betrayal, but implement the thought of betrayal in their heads, only to then knock them off. And in the end, the main characters who love each other, Winston Smith and Julia, also betray each other. There remains only shame and broken individuality. Nothing good remains. There is no hope left.
1984 used to be for me the literary intensification of what I knew from history books and news programs. It was an illustration of what the generation of my grandparents must have experienced under National Socialism and my uncles and aunts in the GDR. It was a convincing representation of how it must feel when the intimate sphere is illuminated. "His eyes were constantly watching you, his voice was constantly surrounding you. When sleeping and waking, at work and eating, at home and on the street, in the bath and in bed - there was no escape. Nothing belonged to yourself, except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull.<<
But it had nothing to do with my reality at the time. And I also found all the campaigns of the last few years, which relied on "Orwellian surveillance", against data retention, data leaks, censuses, video surveillance, warning about Amazon's Alexa, etc., ultimately pulled by the hair. Reducing the Orwellian surveillance state to the screen reduces the novel to the listing of technical instruments. After all, we live in a free democracy, that has always been my firm conviction. And the trust in it has made the Orwell reading a mirror of the past for me. Insistent, yes. Basically, absolutely. After all, >1984< is one of the few novels in world literature, elements of which have made it into our linguistic common knowledge – "Big Brother is watching you". But to call this novel, moreover, present? Somehow this interpretation seemed to me a little exaggerated, a little too dystopian.
When I read it again, it was completely different for me. To be honest, I didn't think about 1933-1945 or the GDR or Soviet Russia at all. I was just thinking about our time, our immediate present. And this is due to Orwell's razor-sharp analysis of how language can be manipulated. How history can be reinterpreted. How society is deprived of a solid foundation of values, so that in the end only fear and total submission remain.
First of all, there is the main person Winston, who with her work in the "Ministry of Truth" herself contributes to rewriting history in such a way that it fits into the current prevailing doctrine. In a certain sense, politics always interprets the past in their favor. But Orwell shows that the past is not only interpreted in a certain way, but is actually changed. This is something completely different. It makes a difference whether you argue about what constitutes German history, or whether you claim that the "Wehrmacht" of the Nazis stands in a humanistic tradition, or the Holocaust has been a "bird shit in 1,000 years of successful German history", as politicians of the AfD have done in recent years. In his dystopian novel, Orwell demonstrates this reinterpretation of the truth and, as a result, its loss. And then there is above all >Newspeak". A language that is purified, that has"eradicated harmful concepts" and thus is no longer just propaganda, but creates its own reality, one in which there is no longer any truth, but only views on truth, where then "ignorance" is "strength", "war" >>peace", "freedom" is "slavery". Thus, "doublethink" is formed, a logic according to which, of two contradictory beliefs, both are correct. Today this is called "alternative facts" or "fake news". But the mechanism is the same. The truth as the basis of a shared and interpreted reality is destroyed. Newspeak and doublethink, both are celebrating happy premieres today - both are needed as a political means. The manipulation through lies and fake quotes, the dissection of public space into loud groups and groups, often supported by social media. "The party said that one should not trust one's eyes and ears. That was their decisive, ultimate commandment," it says in 1984. And this is exactly how populists act worldwide. Perhaps the most radical is the US president, who claimed, for example, that pictures of his inauguration, in which it can be seen that significantly fewer people were present than with Barack Obama, were manipulated by the media. What does not correspond to his worldview cannot be true and is "fake news" or in German Pegida jargon "lying press".
In 1984," it is said, after the images of evidence were manipulated: "You believed that you had seen irrefutable evidence that their confessions were false. There was a photo that caused hallucinations in you. You even believed that you had it in your hand.«
...
This is GREAT, fren!
Full projection and gaslighting of this big liar. Probably he reads 1984 every night to be prepared for the next day moving Germany closer and closer to desaster. Pure evil.
...
These forms of political communication are not about lying becoming an instrument of politics. Because lying presupposes an awareness of truth. The novel's urgency and urgency is that it shows how it is no longer possible to distinguish between lies and truth. And if that happens, then democracy is at an end. Because there is no longer a common ground on which and from which to argue. Or as it says in the "Appendix: The Foundations of Newspeak": "The purpose of newspeak was not only to be a means of expression for the worldview and attitude of mind [...], but in making every other way of thinking a priori impossible. As soon as newspeak was accepted once and for all and oldspeak was forgotten, every heretical [...] Thought can be literally unthinkable, at least as far as it was based on words. The vocabulary was constructed in such a way that it allowed the party members to correctly and often very subtly express everything necessary, while it made the expression of any other views (even indirectly) impossible from the very beginning.<<
The destruction of memory is another goal of newspeak and doublethink. And we also meet them today. If, for example, the time of National Socialism in Germany is described as "bird shit" and the Holocaust memorial as a "monument of shame", as AfD politicians do, then the common memory on which our liberal legal order is built is to be destroyed. In its Articles 1 and 3, our Basic Law is largely based on the experience that human dignity can be attacked, that people can be excluded, exterminated because of their faith, religion, origin or name. And according to this party, this historical consciousness is to be destroyed so that the present can be reinterpreted and reinterpreted. "He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past." By manipulating, distorting facts or the meaning of events, erasing memory.
Winston and Julia fight back against this with their own means. They conduct conversations on installments". They are trying to be amoral. To have sex, against the exerted listlessness. She had done it many a dozen times, and he wished it had been a hundred or a thousand times. Everything that indicated depravity always filled him with wild hope. Who knows? Maybe the party was completely rotten under the surface and the cult of self-denial was really just a delusion, behind which a devil was hiding?" Deception is the key word here. Because while Winston still indulges in a hope for another life in other circumstances, he has long been the subject of surveillance.
In 1984, there is no longer the one shared reality, but different universes of deception. This can also be observed today. The journalism researcher Gerret von Nordheim analyzed 80,000 tweets after the Munich rampage in July 2016, in which nine people were shot dead in a shopping center. There were two core tweets that determined the communication and formed clusters. The one cluster was determined by the Twitter communication of the people of Munich. The major media such as Tagesschau or Spiegel Online referred to their communication. The other cluster was a network of right-wing organizations and AfD politicians. The tweet with the largest reach in this cluster was: "Germany in the sights of Islamist terror! Now the German people must bleed for the mistakes of the Merkel government!" Both clusters had almost no connection with each other. There were closed, parallel worlds of interpretation.
This phenomenon is not new. And it existed long before the Internet. Even in our everyday life, we surround ourselves with people who tick like us. The friends we have usually have opinions and attitudes similar to ours. The reason is simple and easy to understand. It is simply exhausting to be constantly questioned or to have to apologize all the time. Thus, the taz is a newspaper of the left-liberal milieu, and most Greens read it. The >FAZ< is a bourgeois newspaper, and only a few Greens read it, let alone the > BILD<. But whatever newspaper - once printed, it does not answer. Even if you read a newspaper that is politically close to you, it will always have articles and aspects that are new to you, that challenge you. The Internet and social media are not only faster, but also more individual, even more customizable. And that makes the decisive difference. Through answers and retweets, users constantly confirm themselves, both in their judgments and in their prejudices. One's own worldview becomes an echo chamber, "a self-supporting parallel network that suffices for itself". The digital world is fragmenting society into user groups of high homogeneity. Within these groups, people are constantly confirming themselves in their judgments and prejudices. As a result, increasingly homogeneous milieus, different perceptions of reality are emerging. And a policy based on contradiction, which is authoritarian and illiberal, can make very clever use of this. In terms of structure, social media - Twitter and Facebook - do not tend to analytical debate, but to populist polemics, to the friend-enemy scheme. And because modern social media have such emotional power, because they appeal to the feelings in us and grab us especially with our negative feelings, with envy, hatred, jealousy, they are tools of manipulation. Although they are "social" in the sense that we can find, date and understand each other better through them, they are also socially selective. And the more firmly and firmly attached the worldview is in its own filter bubble and Twitter cloud, the more the social division is reinforced by social selection. As was well observed with the emergence of conspiracy theories during the corona crisis, there was only their own truth for the people who lived exclusively in their Internet worlds. And for such a socially selected society, there is no longer any place from which truth can be established. This is the Orwellian nightmare. Not the dispute about the right truth, not even the suppression of the dispute by state control, but that there is simply no awareness of dissenting opinions anymore. That you unconsciously "paint something in the dust on the table: 2 + 2 = 5".
...
...
" Newspeak was designed to reduce the range of thinking, " says the "Appendix" of >1984". "All ambiguities and nuances of meaning had been eliminated. [...] A critical attitude [...] was helpless, if only because she had to remain speechless and indefinite." This is expressed, for example, in the thinking of Katharine, Winston's first wife. "She had no thought in her head that was not a slogan, and there was no idiocy that she would not have participated in as long as she came from the party. He had christened the human record in his mind." Even sex becomes a linguistically denounced object. "She reminded him of it in the morning. It was a duty that had to be done in the evening and in no case could not be forgotten. She had two names for it. One was making his baby and the other our commitment to the party"." All other interpretations and feelings, love, romance, desire, tenderness are overtrained.
Translations are also always relative. They are always shaped by the experiences and horizons of their respective times. Therefore it is good that there is a new translation of > 1984<. The update of >1984< fits well with the new topicality of Orwell and >1984< against the background of the political and media shifts of our time, the systemic struggle of a new authoritarianism, even digital totalitarianism against liberal, liberal democracy. Language creates reality for you. And especially in politics. Freedom - including that of language and speech - and responsibility belong together. Democracy is based on that. This is the core of our liberal democratic basic order. And with all the injustices and all the tasks that have to be done - we live in the best democracy that has ever existed in Germany, we live in the freest society that we have ever had - and the enemies of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, they aim to destroy the freedom of speech and society through targeted irresponsibility. How this can happen, shows >1984<. That it remains fiction and does not become reality is our task.
END FOREWORD