The Left’s favorite historian, Mike Stuchbery, who is unqualified to teach a remedial history course at a junior college, has again flexed his intellectual muscles. This time it was because Paul Joseph Watson said that George Orwell would be rolling over in his grave due to Antifa, and Stuchbery responded in a fashion one would expect of a professional historian…

Orwell volunteered to fight fascists in Spain. Essentially, Orwell is as ‘Antifa’ as it gets. You dumb motherf—er… In an attempt to support the Republicans, communist organizations from all over the world formed ‘international brigades’ to fight. There was a British Battalion in the Spanish Civil War comprising volunteers who wanted to support the fight against fascism. One of those volunteers was Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell. Orwell fought fascists on the frontline until he was shot through the throat. He then returned to England. So, if Orwell was here, he’d be looking at these Nazi f—ers on parade and reaching for his rifle. Stalinism terrified Orwell, this is true, but what enraged him was fascism. He was ready to die to oppose it. So, you can take you bulls–t Antifa ravings and shove them. You have no knowledge, no credibility, selling hate to the pig-ignorant.”

As is to be expected with a Stuchbery Tall Tale, much is left to be desired with his telling of history. For example, he implies that Orwell was a member of the International Brigades, but Orwell had made his own way to Spain and rather joined the militia associated with the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification, or Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista [POUM], albeit he would later tell a friend that he probably should have joined the anarchists, saying, “whoever tries to turn the civil war into a social revolution is playing into the hands of the fascists and is in effect, if not in intention, a traitor.” This is rather important considering that the “existence, constitution, and even military comportment of the International Brigades” were controlled by Comintern and “thus depended on decisions taken in the Kremlin.”

Ultimately, the Communists denounced the POUM “claiming that they had instigated the May [1937] uprising as part of a fascist plot,” and Orwell also found that “according to the Communist press he was a fascist.” “Thousands of POUM members were executed or tortured to death in Spanish Communist prisons, and… both Orwell and [his wife] Eileen… had to flee for their lives.” Stuchbery glosses over these events by simply saying, “He then returned to England.” As poet and novelist John Wain would say, “Up to 1937, Orwell saw the world struggle as between Left and Right, with the good will and the good arguments on the side of the Left… After 1937 he saw it in terms of democracy versus totalitarianism, and he no longer cared whether the totalitarianism called itself Left or Right.” Stuchbery tries to subvert this reality by limiting Orwell’s criticism to “Stalinism” and then saying fascism was what Orwell would die opposing, but the Spanish Civil War fundamentally altered Orwell’s thinking, which is rather obvious.

For example, in a 1944 essay, Orwell wrote that fascism, as a label, “is almost entirely meaningless” because even then it was applied by and to conservatives, socialists, communists, Trotskyists, Catholics, war resisters, supporters of the war, and nationalists. To paraphrase a line from that same essay, everyone is called a fascist but not by the same people. In a letter that same year, he wrote, “Hitler, no doubt, will soon disappear, but only at the expense of strengthening (a) Stalin, (b) the Anglo-American millionaires and (c) all sorts of petty fuhrers of the type of de Gaulle. All the national movements everywhere… seem to take non-democratic forms, to group themselves round some superhuman fuhrer (Hitler, Stalin, Salazar, Franco, Gandhi, De Valera are all varying examples) and to adopt the theory that the end justifies the means… Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible.”

Based on some of the leftist responses to both Stuchbery and Watson, it is safe to assume that they do not understand the totality of Orwell’s political evolution or the nature of his fears. For example, a common response to Watson is along the lines of, “Orwell was literally in Antifa.” Aside from the fact that Antifa was an armed wing of the German Communist Party while Orwell was in Spain, or that Orwell was not himself a communist, would he really associate himself with groups such as Antifa who beat defenseless elderly people (as seen above) or engage in mob violence (as seen below)? Did he not warn us about the criminalizing of thoughts, the redefining of words, and so on, all activities engaged in by the modern Left? Did his other great work, Animal Farm, not warn us about those who say, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”? Is that not precisely what the Communists are saying every time they argue that free speech is for them and not their enemies, as K-Sue Park did in The New York Times? Would Orwell, as Stuchbery claims, be reaching for a rifle to violently suppress people who are peacefully marching and advocating for their positions, or would he rather take up arms against violent communists?

The reality is that Stuchbery, like most leftists, misrepresents Orwell because he has to so as to neutralize Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, which detail precisely what is wrong with their ideology. Leftists try to pretend that Orwell’s works are grand critiques of right-wing politics, but which side of the political spectrum has started arguing that speech in itself is violence? Which side claims that the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech”? Who attempts to hunt down law-abiding citizens so as to destroy their lives for thinking differently? Who has engaged in violent riots just to prevent others from speaking? Who has sought to redefine such basic elements of our existence such as race, gender, sexuality, &c.? Who engages in doublespeak claiming science is sacrosanct with “climate change” yet denies race even though it is discernible genetically with ~100% accuracy and matches self-identified race ~100% of the time, denies sexual dimorphism even though study after study shows men and women are wired differently and obviously dimorphic physically, and denies that “LGBT” is abnormal despite much higher rates of suicide, correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality, and “community-associated” diseases such as AIDS and MRSA USA300—in other words, reality is whatever they demand it to be.

One could easily say that not only do leftists misunderstand Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, but they seem to have thought they were Orwell’s how-to guides to being a political leftist. They took all of the warnings to heart, but they accepted them as Orwell’s encouraging words rather than warnings. They seek a world in which only they have free speech, only they have access to work, only they have political power, and so on. If you disagree with any part of the Left’s ideological platform, you are a “fascist” just as the Communists labeled Orwell a fascist in 1937. That label alone justifies whatever means they use to harass, harm, or destroy you because you are a subhuman monster in their eyes. Stuchbery is not the first leftist to misrepresent Orwell’s thoughts, and he will certainly not be the last. And make no mistake, Stuchbery is the same sort of communist that Orwell despised (as seen below).