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’.”
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
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.
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.
It ties in with the dichotomy's between Europe and America and how each dealt with truth.
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?