In Defence of Orwell — And Against His Critics

 

George Orwell is dangerous. That is why his words still provoke rage decades after his death. When Orwell observed in 1984 that “it was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy,” he was not making a petty chauvinistic swipe. He was making a profound sociological observation about the machinery of tyranny. Yet today’s critics, steeped in the culture of grievance, rush to denounce him. They brand him misogynist, dismiss the insight, and sneer at the man who gave us the sharpest dissection of authoritarian power in modern literature.

What these critics reveal is not Orwell’s weakness, but their own.

The Critics Who Fear Truth

The attack on Orwell is almost always shallow. It is the language-policing academic, the gender-studies blogger, the social media pundit addicted to outrage. Their arguments rarely rise above the charge of “problematic.” Why? Because to seriously engage with Orwell’s point would be to admit something uncomfortable: that the maintenance of tyranny often relies not on jackboots and guns, but on the moral vanity of ordinary people.

This is what Orwell’s critics cannot bear. They would prefer literature that flatters them, that assures them oppression is always external, always “out there,” always the fault of some distant villain. Orwell smashes that illusion. He shows us that the enforcers of conformity are often the very same people who think themselves virtuous, the activists, the students, the busybodies who demand ideological purity in the name of “justice.”

Modern Confirmation of Orwell’s Words

And what do we see today? University campuses policed by mobs of young activists, disproportionately young women, who delight in reporting “microaggressions” to administrators. Social media echo chambers where denunciation is a sport and ideological impurity is punished with public shaming. Online inquisitions that thrive on slogans, hashtags, and the thrill of destroying reputations.

Orwell saw this in the Party’s young zealots. We see it now in cancel culture, identity politics, and the mob’s insatiable hunger for conformity. His words are not relics of 1949, they are prophecies fulfilled daily on our screens.

Cowardice Disguised as Progress

The charge of “misogyny” against Orwell is the cheapest of dodges. It allows critics to avoid the substance of his point while cloaking themselves in moral superiority. Instead of grappling with the reality that certain demographics are more easily captured by ideological zeal and that authoritarianism thrives on their zeal they simply cry “sexism” and walk away, satisfied at having silenced the discussion.

This is not intellectual critique. It is cowardice disguised as progress. And it proves Orwell more right than ever: slogans are easier to swallow than truths.

Why Orwell Must Be Defended

To defend Orwell is not to idolise him as flawless, but to insist on the integrity of truth-telling in literature and politics. The fact that one sentence from 1984 still provokes scandal shows how desperate our culture is to bury uncomfortable realities under the noise of moral outrage. Orwell must be defended because he reminds us that freedom requires honesty, and honesty requires the courage to say what is seen, not what is fashionable.

His critics, meanwhile, are not defenders of justice but gatekeepers of illusion. They would rather we lived in a sanitised world of comforting lies than confront the ways in which ordinary citizens, not only leaders, uphold tyranny. They are, in short, the very slogan-swallowers Orwell wrote about.

Orwell’s Words Still Cut

The mark of true literature is that it wounds. Orwell wounds because he forces us to admit the complicity of the masses in their own oppression. He forces us to confront the zeal of the young and the easily flattered. He exposes the petty tyrannies of neighbours, activists, and colleagues who act not from authority but from self-righteousness. His critics hate him precisely because he unmasks them.

So let us say it plainly: George Orwell was right. His critics are wrong. And if we allow their shallow moralism to erase his insights, we do the work of the Party for them.

To defend Orwell is to defend not just one sentence but the very principle of intellectual courage. His critics swallow slogans; he told the truth. That is why he endures, and why they deserve to be forgotten.

Moral Realism Manifest

 

Moral philosophy has long dressed itself in the finery of abstract ideals, principles untouched by the messy realities of scarcity, incentives, and human behavior. It teaches that certain actions are “immoral” because they violate some imagined standard of virtue. But reality does not respect ideals. Reality is measured in consequences, not intentions.

1. Scarcity Is the Ultimate Moral Constraint

Resources, rooms, food, medicine, time, are finite. Any moral framework that ignores scarcity is not just incomplete; it is dangerously misleading. Outrage over “price gouging” in a disaster, for example, betrays a willful blindness: raising prices rationed scarce rooms efficiently, potentially saving more people from harm. Morality divorced from limits is morality in a vacuum.

2. Consequences, Not Intentions, Are Moral Currency

Virtue signaling is easy. Producing better outcomes is hard. The moral worth of an action is determined not by the purity of motives but by the lives it saves, the suffering it prevents, the harm it mitigates. A hotel charging triple rates may look greedy, but if it distributes rooms to those who value them most and prevents chaos, it is morally superior to a platitudinous adherence to principle.

3. Incentives Are Reality’s Moral Compass

Humans respond to incentives. Ignore them, and good intentions backfire spectacularly. Allowing scarcity to persist artificially creates suffering. Align incentives with outcomes, and what looks “selfish” may be profoundly moral. Economics is not a villain; it is the architecture of morality in action.

4. Evidence Trumps Dogma

Abstract moral philosophy thrives on hypotheticals. Reality thrives on measurable outcomes. Vaccines save lives, interventions in poverty reduce suffering, even if some argue they infringe on autonomy or local sentiment. Numbers do not negotiate with ideology. Life, death, and human flourishing answer only to facts, not fancy.

5. Rules Are Tools, Not Absolutes

“Never exploit,” “never lie,” “never charge more”, rules are heuristics, not immutable laws. Applied rigidly, they produce perverse outcomes. Applied intelligently, with consequence in mind, they are instruments to achieve real-world good. Flexibility is not compromise; it is wisdom.

6. Measure Morality Quantitatively

Virtue is visible. But impact is measurable. The most moral act is the one that saves more lives, reduces more suffering, and allocates resources efficiently. If sentiment conflicts with results, results win. Always.

---

The Conclusion

Morality is not an exercise in self-congratulation. It is not the applause of peers or the satisfaction of adhering to abstract ideals. Morality is about making the world less cruel, more survivable, and more just in measurable terms. Scarcity, incentives, psychology, and physics are not optional, they are the framework within which morality operates.

To cling to philosophy while ignoring reality is to embrace moral theater over moral efficacy. Real-world morality, is uncomfortable, counterintuitive, and unforgiving, but it is truth over ideology. Always.

Why Smart People Don’t Argue (Especially on X) – Nietzsche’s Wisdom

 The modern world confuses argument with intelligence. The marketplace of X is its most grotesque proof. Here, one finds endless “debate”: sprawling threads, snappy “gotchas,” and digital mobs feasting on whichever victim has been chosen for the day’s ritual humiliation. It has the appearance of philosophy, yet it is little more than a carnival of vanity. As Nietzsche understood, argument of this kind is not the pursuit of truth, but the theatre of resentment.

The intellectual mistake of our age is the belief that every question must be “debated,” every opinion “engaged with.” But not all dialogue is worth the effort. Much of it is a trap. Nietzsche warned us long ago: the noble spirit does not descend into the swamp to wrestle with frogs. For the frogs delight in mud; they seek not clarity but chaos. He saw in ressentiment the psychological mechanism of the weak: the endless attempt to entangle the strong in petty disputes, to sap their energy, to degrade their stature. This is the daily sport of X. The Left’s Strategy: Exhaustion Masquerading as Victory Nowhere is this clearer than in the tactics of the modern Left. They do not argue to discover truth; they argue to drain, to confuse, to wear down. Their method is the shifting of definitions mid-sentence, the moving of goalposts, the appeal to synthetic moral outrage. Their goal is not to win but to exhaust. And when the conservative, the thinker, the builder finally grows tired and withdraws, the Left crows “victory.” This is not philosophy. It is parasitism. Nietzsche named it for what it is: the morality of slaves, the envious striking at their betters through manipulation and guilt. To engage such creatures in endless online dispute is to dignify their resentment. It is to throw pearls before swine. The noble does not bargain with the envious. He asserts. He creates. He builds truth into words and action, not into emojis and threads. Truth Is Not Voted Into Existence Smart people recognise that truth is not produced by polls, likes, or retweets. It is not manufactured by algorithms or conjured by the loudest voice in the feed. Truth is. It stands independent of applause or condemnation. Nietzsche makes this point brutally clear: the higher type of man does not need the herd’s recognition. He is himself the measure. To participate in the mob’s spectacle, to treat truth as if it were up for auction in the digital colosseum, is to debase it. This is why the wise do not waste their intellect in the brawls of X. They know that to reduce truth to the level of an argument among resentful mediocrities is to corrupt it. Better to write, to proclaim, to stand above, than to roll in the algorithm’s cage with hyenas. The Will to Power Is Not in Replies The will to power is the central insight of Nietzsche: strength proves itself in creation, not in reaction. The man who spends his hours replying, defending, endlessly justifying, is not demonstrating power but weakness. He reveals his dependence on the mob’s recognition. He craves likes as the addict craves a fix. Nietzsche would call this herd morality in digital dress. By contrast, the higher man does not argue; he speaks and moves forward. He asserts and creates values. He shapes culture not by begging the mob for recognition but by acting with the confidence of one who does not require its approval. The lion does not pause to explain himself to hyenas. He roars. He hunts. He rules. The Lesson for Our Age Thus the conclusion is clear: smart people do not argue on X because they understand the battlefield is false. It is a trap set by the resentful, a carnival for the mediocre. To enter is to be dragged down, to waste fire on wet kindling, to barter truth for dopamine. The task of the higher spirit is not to argue but to proclaim. Not to endlessly dispute but to build. To write clearly, to expose illusions, to destroy with precision, and to move forward without apology. This is Nietzsche’s wisdom for the digital age: never descend into the pit of ressentiment. Never waste your genius on the unworthy. Truth is not theirs to grant; it is yours to create. The future will not belong to those who won the most replies. It will belong to those who asserted, who conquered, who shaped the terms of thought itself. The rest can chatter in the cage of the algorithm. The higher man has better things to do. Notes & References Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–85) – on the higher type of man as creator of values. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (1886), Aphorism 212 – the great intellect commands rather than pleads; he does not stoop to dispute with the petty. Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals (1887) – on ressentiment as the weapon of the weak, seeking to entangle the strong in guilt and endless dispute. Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols (1889), “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man” – on debates as word-games detached from truth. Nietzsche, The Will to Power (posthumous notes) – on strength measured not by recognition but by creation, conquest, and the shaping of values.

Against Macron's Misguided Stance on Gaza!

Emmanuel Macron's recent rhetoric on the Gaza conflict is not just misguided; it is a dangerous capitulation to the forces of terror and a betrayal of France's historical alliance with Israel. By suggesting sanctions against Israel, Macron reveals a profound misunderstanding of the conflict's root causes and a willingness to appease radical elements at the expense of justice and security. Let's be clear: Hamas initiated this war with a barbaric terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, that resulted in the deaths of 1,195 innocent Israelis and the abduction of 251 hostages. This was not a spontaneous act of resistance but a premeditated assault designed to destabilize and terrorize. Yet, Macron's response is to punish Israel, the victim, rather than hold Hamas accountable. This is not statesmanship; it is moral cowardice. Macron's argument that human rights are not respected in Gaza is a selective and disingenuous half-truth. Yes, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, but who is primarily responsible? Hamas, which diverts resources meant for its people to fund its terrorist activities, including the construction of tunnels and the stockpiling of weapons. Hamas's governance is a reign of terror, where dissent is met with violence and where the population is used as human shields. Macron's failure to acknowledge this reality is not just an oversight; it is a deliberate distortion. Furthermore, Macron's call for a Palestinian state "today" is tantamount to recognizing a Hamas state, as Marine Le Pen astutely pointed out. This is not a step towards peace but a legitimization of terrorism. A Palestinian state under Hamas's control would be a launchpad for further attacks against Israel, ensuring continued instability in the region. Macron's policy is not about ending the conflict but perpetuating it. The hypocrisy of Macron's position is staggering. France, which prides itself on its commitment to human rights and international law, is now siding with a group that has repeatedly violated both. Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews, yet Macron seems more concerned with Israel's response to this existential threat than with the threat itself. This is not leadership; it is abdication. Macron's approach also ignores the broader geopolitical context. Israel is not just fighting for its survival; it is fighting for the values of democracy and security that France claims to uphold. By turning against Israel, Macron aligns France with regimes and groups that seek to undermine these values. This is a betrayal not just of Israel but of France's own principles. In conclusion, Macron's stance on Gaza is a shameful dereliction of duty. It rewards aggression, ignores the plight of hostages, and endangers regional stability. France deserves better than a leader who prioritizes political expediency over moral clarity. The path to peace lies not in sanctioning Israel but in defeating Hamas and ensuring that those who perpetrate terrorism face the full force of international condemnation. Macron's current course is a recipe for disaster, and it is time for France to demand a change.

Panic Without Proof

Claims that transgender Americans pose a public safety threat are among the most persistent myths in today’s culture wars. Scrutiny of the evidence reveals a very different reality: transgender individuals are not driving violent crime; they are among its most vulnerable targets. The numbers are clear: society’s duty is to protect them, not stigmatize them. 1. The Demographic Reality Approximately 1% of the U.S. population identifies as transgender, roughly 2.3–2.8 million people, including over 700,000 teenagers.¹ ² This small share of the population cannot plausibly be shaping national crime statistics, contrary to what fear-mongers claim. Understanding this scale is crucial to putting the so-called “trans threat” in perspective. 2. Crime Perpetration: The Numbers Do Not Add Up Data on violent crime contradicts the narrative of transgender danger: Out of thousands of U.S. mass shootings, fewer than 10 were committed by transgender individuals (~0.1%).³ In a dataset of 173 mass attacks, only 3 perpetrators (2%) were transgender.³ Newsweek reviewed more than 300 mass shootings since 2009 and found only four transgender or non-binary suspects (~1.3%).⁴ These figures make it evident: transgender Americans are almost entirely absent from violent crime statistics. 3. Crime Victimization: The Real Story Transgender Americans face violence at alarmingly elevated levels: LGBT individuals overall are five times more likely to experience violent victimization; transgender people face four to five times higher risk than other Americans.⁵ The National Crime Victimization Survey (2017–18) recorded 86 victimizations per 1,000 transgender individuals, compared with 21.7 per 1,000 non-trans individuals.⁶ From 2017 to 2023, at least 263 transgender Americans were murdered, with nearly 80% killed using firearms.⁷ Black transgender women are disproportionately affected, representing over 75% of homicides in 2022.⁸ These figures show that transgender Americans are victims of sustained, targeted violence. 4. The Missing Comparison: Where the Real Threat Lies By contrast, the real perpetrators of mass violence are overwhelmingly: Male: 97.7% of mass shooters are men.⁹ White men are overrepresented among mass shooters.¹⁰ Ideologically extremist: The ADL reported that all extremist-linked mass killings in 2022 were tied to white supremacist ideology.¹¹ Persistent domestic threats: DHS identifies racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists as the “most persistent and lethal threat” to the homeland.¹² From 2010–2022, white supremacist extremists were responsible for 55% of domestic terror incidents and the majority of related deaths.¹³ The evidence demonstrates that focusing on transgender individuals is a distraction from real threats. 5. The Politics of Fear Why does the myth persist? Scapegoating minorities has long been a political tool: Historical parallels: Irish, Jewish, Black, and gay communities have all been demonized similarly. Social media amplifies isolated anecdotes, creating the illusion of widespread danger. The narrative distracts from real, documented threats and justifies harmful policies against a vulnerable minority. 6. A Moral Imperative This is not merely a debate over numbers. Transgender Americans face a real epidemic of violence. Fabricating a “threat” compounds their vulnerability. The data are clear: Transgender people are 1% of the population. They commit virtually none of the nation’s mass shootings. They endure far higher rates of victimization and homicide. The dominant perpetrators of domestic extremist violence are young, male, and ideologically radicalized. The “trans threat” is a political invention. The real threat is ignored male and extremist violence. Society’s responsibility is to recognize facts and protect those most at risk. References / Footnotes Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law – Trans Adults in the United States (2025). The Guardian – “More than 2.8 m people in US identify as trans, including 724,000 youth” (Aug 2025). Reuters – Most mass school shootings are not carried out by transgender people (Sept 2024). Newsweek – How Many Mass Shootings Were Committed by Transgender People? (2023). Williams Institute – LGBT People Face Higher Rates of Violent Victimization (2020). RTI International – Gender Identity Disparities in Criminal Victimization (2017–18). Everytown for Gun Safety – Preventing Transgender Homicides (2023). Human Rights Campaign – An Epidemic of Violence (2022). National Institute of Justice / Violence Project: “Of 172 mass shooters, 97.7% were male.” Northeastern Global News: “White men dominate U.S. mass shooter demographics.” ADL (Anti-Defamation League) – Murder and Extremism in the United States (2022). U.S. DHS – 2020 Homeland Threat Assessment. Center for Strategic and International Studies – The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States (2020).

St. George, the English Flag, and the Left’s Hatred of England

 

The Left cannot leave England alone. Every time they see the Cross of St. George, they foam with rage, as though a red cross on a white background were a personal insult to their politics. They brand it “racist,” “fascist,” or “colonial,” as though the flag of England were nothing more than a crime scene. They loathe it because it is English, and their real enemy is England itself. So they go after its patron saint. The latest sneer is that St. George was “actually Turkish” or “Palestinian.” This is the sort of historical gibberish only the terminally dishonest could peddle. St. George lived in the 3rd century, as a Christian soldier of the Roman Empire. Turkey did not exist until a thousand years later. The idea of a “Palestinian nation” is a 20th-century political fabrication. To call St. George “Turkish” or “Palestinian” is not history, it is propaganda. It is a lie deliberately told to strip England of one of her oldest symbols. And notice the double standard. Nobody tells the Irish to give up St. Patrick because he was not Irish. Nobody lectures the Scots that St. Andrew never set foot in Scotland. Only England is expected to surrender her symbols, abandon her saints, and apologise for her history. Why? Because England, more than any other nation in these islands, is the one the Left cannot forgive. England is the nation that built, defended, and defined this country. To destroy England, they must first destroy her pride. But St. George was not chosen by accident. His legend, the slayer of dragons, the defender of the innocent, the martyr who defied tyranny, is the perfect emblem of the English spirit. That is why medieval knights, Crusaders, kings, and poets rallied under his cross. That is why Shakespeare gave Henry V the cry “God for Harry, England, and St. George!” His flag is not some “racist dog whistle.” It is the living emblem of England itself, flown for nearly a thousand years. This is what the Left hates: continuity, pride, rootedness. They want the English people stripped of memory, ashamed of their own heritage, reduced to consumers with no past and no flag. Their lies about Turkey and Palestine are not about accuracy, they are about humiliation. If they can make you believe your own saint is “foreign,” they can make you believe England is a fraud. The truth is simple: St. George is England’s patron saint because England made him so. His virtues were chosen, his legend embraced, his flag raised. The modern Left has no authority to rewrite that. They are not guardians of history; they are its vandals. Their shrieks about St. George are the death rattle of a movement that has nothing to offer but erasure. So let us be clear: the Cross of St. George is not theirs to slander. It is not Turkey’s, not Palestine’s, not the property of internationalist ideologues who despise nations. It is England’s flag. It belongs to every Englishman who still has the courage to stand beneath it. The dragon we face today is not myth. It is the ideology of shame, the gnawing hatred of our own country, the demand that we erase ourselves in the name of “progress.” St. George’s story is the answer: confront the dragon, and kill it. Fly the flag, loudly, proudly, and without apology. England does not need permission to exist. And her flag does not need an explanation.

Book Review: Why You Should Be a Socialist by Nathan J. Robinson

 

Nathan J. Robinson’s Why You Should Be a Socialist is not a book so much as a sanctimonious lullaby for the terminally naïve. It is the intellectual equivalent of a toddler’s crayon drawing, loud, messy, and insisting to be taken seriously despite offering nothing of substance. Robinson parades his half-baked arguments with the pomp of a man who believes moral preening is the same as political thought. His method is insultingly simple: capitalism bad, socialism good. That’s the depth of it. Everything from poverty to climate change is waved about as proof that we must burn the market system to the ground and build his dream utopia, though he never explains how. It is all outrage masquerading as logic. What makes the book almost comical is Robinson’s wilful blindness to history. The gulags, the breadlines, the surveillance states, the corpses stacked in the millions, none of this, apparently, was “real” socialism. He demands we take his fantasy socialism seriously while pretending every actual attempt at it was an unfortunate misunderstanding. By this logic, communism never fails; it just hasn’t been tried by people as whimsical and clever as Nathan J. Robinson. Stylistically, the book reeks of smugness. Robinson’s affected quirkiness and “isn’t this fun?” tone are meant to disarm you, but really they expose him as a man terrified of confronting reality. The prose is littered with cutesy asides, as if he knows his arguments collapse under scrutiny, so he distracts you with charm offensives. It’s politics written like a Buzzfeed listicle: shallow, self-indulgent, and designed to flatter an audience desperate to be told they are morally superior. At its core, Why You Should Be a Socialist is dishonest. It pretends to be a radical manifesto, but it is little more than therapy for guilt-ridden Westerners who sip lattes and fantasize about revolution while benefiting from the very capitalist system they claim to hate. Robinson offers no roadmap, no workable ideas, only the intoxicating narcotic of moral self-congratulation. This isn’t a book; it’s a recruitment pamphlet for people who mistake envy for justice and utopian delusion for political courage. It contributes nothing to debate, except as an example of how low intellectual standards have sunk in the modern Left. Verdict: An embarrassment to political thought, juvenile, dishonest, and better suited to the recycling bin than the bookshelf.