Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950),[1] who used the pen name George Orwell, was an
English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. George Orwell know something about propaganda. He
participated in Spanish Civil War and during the Second World war worked at BBC. That's why 1984
despite viewed typically as a depiction of the USSR and similar communist regimes is actually much deeper
and is a novel that researched ultimate limits of propaganda (aka brainwashing). Orwell's work continues
to influence popular and political culture, and The adjective Orwellian connotes an attitude
and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation
of the past.
Many of his neologisms, such as cold war, Big Brother, Thought Police,Room
101, memory hole, doublethink, and thoughtcrime became common English words.
Newspeak is a simplified
and obfuscatory language designed to make independent thought impossible. Doublethink means holding
two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. The Thought Police
are those who suppress all dissenting opinion. Prolefeed is homogenised,
manufactured superficial literature, film and music, used to control and indoctrinate the populace through
docility.
Big Brother is a supreme dictator who watches everyone. Orwell may have been the first to use
the term cold
war, in his essay, "You and the Atom Bomb", published in Tribune, 19 October 1945. He
wrote:
We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires
of antiquity. James Burnham's
theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications;—
this is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably
prevail in a State which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of 'cold war' with its
neighbours.[122]
As a yong man George Orwell has first hand experience with the security apparatus of British empire
and its intelligence agencies. Working as an imperial policeman In Birma gave him considerable
responsibility while most of his contemporaries were still at university in England. When he was posted
farther east in the Delta to Twante
as a sub-divisional officer, he was responsible for the security of some 200,000 people. At the end
of 1924, he was promoted to Assistant District Superintendent and posted to Syriam, closer to Rangoon.
A colleague, Roger Beadon, recalled (in a 1969 recording for the BBC) that Blair was fast to learn the
language and that before he left Burma, "was able to speak fluently with Burmese priests in 'very high-flown
Burmese.'"[27] Later, he wrote that he felt guilty about his role in the work of empire
and he "began to look more closely at his own country and saw that England also had its oppressed ..."
In imitation of Jack London, whose writing he admired (particularly The People of the Abyss), Blair
started to explore the poorer parts of London.
In 1927 he resigned from the Indian Imperial Police to become a writer. He drew on his experiences
in the Burma police for the novel Burmese Days (1934) and the essays "A Hanging" (1931) and "Shooting
an Elephant" (1936). At the outbreak of the
Second World War, Orwell's
wife Eileen started working in the Censorship Department of the
Ministry
of Information in central London, staying during the week with her family in
Greenwich. In August 1941, Orwell
obtained "war work" when he was taken on full-time by the BBC's Eastern Service. He supervised cultural
broadcasts to India to counter propaganda from Nazi Germany designed to undermine Imperial links.
In September 1943, Orwell resigned from the BBC post that he had occupied for two years. In November
1943, Orwell was appointed literary editor at Tribune, where his assistant was his old friend
Jon Kimche. Orwell was on staff
until early 1945, writing over 80 book reviews[81]
and on 3 December 1943 started his regular personal column, "As
I Please", usually addressing three or four subjects in each. Animal Farm: A Fairy Story
was published in Britain on 17 August 1945, and a year later in the US, on 26 August 1946. In March
1949, while in sanatorium due to deteriorating health, he was visited by Celia Kirwan. Kirwan had just
started working for a Foreign
Office unit, the
Information
Research Department, set up by the
Labour government to publish
anti-communist propaganda, and Orwell gave her a list of people he considered to be unsuitable as IRD
authors because of their pro-communist leanings.
Orwell's list, not published
until 2003, consisted mainly of writers but also included actors and Labour MPs.[95]
In sanatorium Orwell received more streptomycin treatment and improved slightly. In June 1949 Nineteen
Eighty-Four was published to immediate critical and popular acclaim. Early on the morning of 21
January 1950, an artery burst in Orwell's lungs, killing him at age 46.[97]
As he wrote in the conclusion to his 1940 essay on
Charles Dickens,
When one reads any strongly individual piece of writing, one has the impression of seeing a face
somewhere behind the page. It is not necessarily the actual face of the writer. I feel this very
strongly with Swift, with
Defoe, with
Fielding,
Stendhal,
Thackeray,
Flaubert, though in
several cases I do not know what these people looked like and do not want to know. What one sees
is the face that the writer ought to have. Well, in the case of Dickens I see a face that is not
quite the face of Dickens's photographs, though it resembles it. It is the face of a man of about
forty, with a small beard and a high colour. He is laughing, with a touch of anger in his laughter,
but no triumph, no malignity. It is the face of a man who is always fighting against something, but
who fights in the open and is not frightened, the face of a man who is generously angry—in other
words, of a nineteenth-century liberal, a free intelligence, a type hated with equal hatred by all
the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls.
George Woodcock suggested
that the last two sentences characterised Orwell as much as his subject.[106]
Orwell's writing pierced intellectual hypocrisy wherever he found it
Nineteen Eighty-Four is a the second classic dystopian novel by George Orwell (the first was Animal
Farm). It was published in 1949 several month before his death. Orwell managed to predict two
negative development after WWII: the emergence of the National
Security State and stratification of the society into several "parallel" strata with low upward
mobility. With the upper strata ( top 0.01% ) possessing almost absolute power over the rest of society
by controlling the governing party. He predicted 24x7
total survellance (see Snowden revelations)
long before technical capabilities for this were available and only first steps toward it made in Nazi
Germany, Stalinist Russia and wartime Britain. He essentially predicted the situation "Privacy
is Dead – Get Over It" that exists today.
His second major achievement is that he predicted emergence of the states, where
the truth didn't exist as such, but is replaced by "artificial reality" created by propaganda picture
and systemic, all encompassing brainwashing. The total control of the global mass media has made
it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.
Truth is what the "Big Brother" said. Rewriting of history is systematic and all-encompassing, to
fit the current political needs. Much like in most modern states. The state depicted is a totalitarian
one and reminds more Nazi dictatorship, Latin American Junta with death squads, Stalinist Russia or
Maoist China then modern Western states, as Orwell did not live to experience
Inverted
Totalitarism.
But the ideology of inverted totalitarism and its attempt to control the discourse via controlling
the language and creation of artificial reality including artificial history was predicted brilliantly.
The book was written near the author death, and that probably partially explains the uncompromising
stance that the author demonstrated in the book. Orwell wrote most of it in rather short period of time
on the Scottish island of Jura, from 1947 to 1948.
The Last Man in Europe was one of the original titles for the novel, but in a letter dated 22 October
1948 to his publisher Fredric Warburg, eight months before publication, Orwell wrote about hesitating
between The Last Man in Europe and Nineteen Forty-Eight.[11] Warburg suggested changing the main title
to a more commercial one. Throughout its publication history, Nineteen Eighty-Four has been either
banned or legally challenged as subversive or ideologically corrupting, like Aldous Huxley's Brave
New World (1932); We (1924), by Yevgeny Zamyatin; Kallocain (1940), by Karin Boye; and Fahrenheit 451
(1951), by Ray Bradbury.
It was published on 8 June 1949, six months before the author death (21 January 1950).
By 1989, it had been translated into sixty-five languages, more than any other novel written in English
at the time.
In 2005 the novel was chosen by TIME magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from
1923 to 2005. It was awarded a place on both lists of Modern Library 100 Best Novels, reaching number
13 on the editor's list, and 6 on the reader's list.[5] In 2003, the novel was listed at number 8 on
the BBC's survey The Big Read. Literary scholars consider the Russian dystopian novel We, by Zamyatin,
to have strongly influenced Nineteen Eighty-Four.[16][17]
The novel demonstrates stark predictions in several aspects. In the novel England is now the
province of Oceania called Airstrip One. Oceania with the center in the former USA is in perpetual
war with other two global states and its alliances are constantly shifting.
The title of the novel, its themes, the Newspeak language, and the author's surname are often invoked
as a warning against excessive control and intrusion by the state, made possible by modern technical
means and computers.
The adjective Orwellian describes a totalitarian dystopia characterized by total surveillance that
crashes any resistance, compete government control and subjugation of the 99% of the people in the interest
of the top 1% (the elite).
In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government
has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through
the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or
potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned
around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability
to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no
place to hide.
If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the
technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to
impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort
to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within
the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there
to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess
this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that
abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.[11]
Surviving population is suffering from omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control,
dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (Ingsoc) which is run under the
control of a privileged Inner Party elite (the term which instantly reminds me the term
nomenclatura) that persecutes
all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes.
With NSA washing our every step we can say that modern technology exceed the dystopian picture provided
by the book. Surveillance in modern societies is really omnipresent due to the fact that most communications
are now electronic. As for social system the only replacement that reality made to the book is that
this new political system is called
neoliberalism. See
Henry Giroux On the Rise of Neoliberalism As a Political Ideology . Other then we can state that
omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control rules the day.
After Prism program was revealed in June 2013,
Nineteen Eighty-Four became a bestseller on Amazon. As of June 15, 2013 it was #87 in Fiction. As
one Amazon reviewer put it:"Note to US Congress and house of representatives: This is a fictional
book, not an instruction manual..."
In November 2011, the United States government argued before the US Supreme Court that it wants to
continue utilizing GPS tracking of individuals without first seeking a warrant. In response, Justice
Stephen Breyer questioned what this means for a democratic society by referencing Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Justice Breyer asked
"If you win this case, then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from
monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States. So if you win,
you suddenly produce what sounds like 1984...."[59]
The tyranny described in the book is headed by Big Brother, the quasi-divine Party leader
who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. Much like modern heads of states,
who are essentially placeholders, actors hired for the ruling financial oligarchy clans. Big Brother
and the Party justify their rule in the name of a supposed greater good. We can say
in the name
of democracy ;-).
In this respect too the reality provided to be amazingly close to the fiction. Obama is often described
as " a pawn of the moneyed interests before he even took office. He didn't sell out;
he was a well engineered product with a well targeted brand, selected and groomed for it. " Actually
it is interesting to compare the picture of political system in the book with the picture of the political
system provided in the post
Why The Democrats Got Their Clocks Cleaned (Jesse's
Café Américain, Nov 09, 2014)
The Democrats failed to make the most of a great moment in history because there was no Democrat
brave enough, independent enough, to energize their party around the mandate for reform given
to them overwhelmingly by the people in 2008.
Remember when everyone thought that the Republican party was dead, completely and utterly repudiated
in 2008? And how they have risen from the dead!
Obama was a pawn of the moneyed interests before he even took office. He didn't sell
out; he was a well engineered product with a well targeted brand, selected and groomed for
it.
Less a politician than a thoroughly modern manager, Obama's primary objectives are to please
his shareholders, whomever those may be. And they were certainly not the people who
voted for him. He is not any kind of progressive or reformer once one scratches the
surface.
That became clear in his first 100 days with his appointments. And in his defense,
the Democrats on the whole have been throwing their constituents under the bus for the sake of
Wall Street money since 1992. So Obama was not so much a betrayer as a fake, a member
of the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party. He is always fumbling, and making excuses,
but at the end of the day, he did as he was told.
The Democratic leadership has tried to bridge a gap between representing the people and fattening
their wallets, and have ended up pleasing few. They won't become the party of the moneyed
interests because they cannot sell out more deeply than their counterparts. And as for their
traditional constituency in the working class, the only rejoinder is, 'the other guys are worse.'
And the other guys say the same thing to their base about them. And no one is getting served,
except the one percent.
I think that the 'other guys' are going to be worse, and people are just
going to have to see how bad things can get, again, before they can get any better.
From an FDR 1936 campaign speech in Madison Square Garden:
"For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs
has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation,
reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their
own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government
by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate
as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.
I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness
and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration
that in it these forces met their master."
The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party who works for the Ministry
of Truth (Minitrue), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to re-write
past newspaper articles so that the historical record always supports the current party line. Smith
is a diligent and skillful worker, but he secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big
Brother. His daily task is revising historical records to make the past conform to the ever-changing
party line and deleting references to unpersons, people who have been "vaporised", i.e. not
only killed by the state, but denied existence even in history or memory.
The smokescreen of propaganda is so think that it is impossible for common people of discern the
reality.
They live in artificial reality.
Orwell's invented language, Newspeak, satirizes hypocrisy and evasion by the state. For example the
names of the the ministries became classic and nicely illustrate the concept:
Ministry of Love (Miniluv) oversees torture and brainwashing
Ministry of Plenty (Miniplenty) oversees shortage and famine
Ministry of Peace (Minipax) oversees war and atrocity,
Ministry of Truth (Minitrue) oversees propaganda and historical revisionism.
Many of its terms and concepts became common words in English and other languages. The effect of
Nineteen Eighty-Four on the English language is so profound that there is a large set of works that
were derived directly from the novel, but now entered common usage.
Among them the concepts of Big Brother, Room 101, the Thought Police, thoughtcrime, unperson, memory
hole (oblivion), doublethink (simultaneously holding and believing contradictory beliefs) and Newspeak
(ideological language) have become common phrases for denoting totalitarian authority. Doublespeak and
groupthink are both deliberate elaborations of doublethink, while the adjective "Orwellian" denotes
totalitarian state with omnipresent propaganda machine engaged in not stop brainwashing of citizens.
It became apt depiction of official deception, secret surveillance, and manipulation of the past by
a modern neoliberal state with the "Oceiania" as the most prominent of them. The practice of ending
words with "-speak" (e.g. corporate-speak) is also stems from the novel. For example
Doublespeak.
In describing the future social system George Orwell was strongly influence by the book The Managerial
Revolution. This book written in 1941 book in former Trotskyite
James Burnham described
World War II as the first in a series of conflicts between managerial powers for control over three
great industrial regions of the world—North America, Europe, and East Asia. The geographic scheme and
condition of perpetual war are reflected in Orwell’s novel by the ceaseless struggles between Oceania
(America with its Atlantic and Pacific outposts), Eurasia (Russian-dominated Europe), and Eastasia (the
Orient). The Managerial Revolution itself appears in 1984 as Emmanuel Goldstein’s forbidden
book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.
The Managerial Revolution, attempted to theorize about the future of world capitalism based upon
observations of its development in the interwar period. Burnham argued that capitalism was a temporary
form of organization currently being transformed into some non-socialist but Totalitarian rule, strongly
influenced by national socialism.
The events depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four are set in Oceania, one of three inter-continental super-states
that divided the world among themselves after a global war. Most of the action takes place in London,
the "chief city of Airstrip One", the Oceanic province that "had once been called England or Britain".
Posters of the Party leader, Big Brother, bearing the caption "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU", dominate
the city, while the ubiquitous telescreen (transceiving television set) monitors the private and public
lives of the populace.
The social system of Oceania consists of three classes:
the upper-class Inner Party, the elite (which we now call the top 0.1%)
the middle-class Outer Party, an intellectuals and skilled labor
the lower-class Proles (from proletariat), who make up 85% of the population and represent the
uneducated working class.
As the government, the Party controls the population with four ministries: the Ministry of Peace
(Minipax), which wages wars, the Ministry of Plenty (Miniplenty), which deals with economic affairs
(rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love (Miniluv), which deals with law and order (torture),
the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue), which deals with propaganda (news, entertainment, education and art)
The story of Winston Smith begins on 4 April 1984:
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen"; yet he is uncertain of
the true date, given the régime’s continual rewriting and manipulation of history. His memories and
his reading of the proscribed book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, by
Emmanuel Goldstein, reveal that after the Second World War, the United Kingdom fell to civil war and
then was absorbed into Oceania. Simultaneously, the USSR conquered mainland Europe and established the
second superstate of Eurasia. The third superstate, Eastasia, comprises the regions of East Asia and
Southeast Asia. The three superstates wage perpetual war for the remaining unconquered lands of
the world, forming and breaking alliances as is convenient.
From his childhood (1949–53), Winston remembers the Atomic Wars fought in Europe, western Russia,
and North America. It is unclear to him what occurred first: the Party's victory in the civil war, the
US annexation of the British Empire, or the war in which Colchester was bombed. However, his strengthening
memories and the story of his family's dissolution suggest that the atomic bombings occurred first (the
Smiths took refuge in a tube station), followed by civil war featuring "confused street fighting in
London itself", and the societal postwar reorganisation, which the Party retrospectively calls "the
Revolution".
Oceanian society: Big Brother atop, the Party in middle, the Proles at bottom, in 1984. The story
of Winston Smith presents the world in the year 1984, after a global atomic war, via his perception
of life in Airstrip One (England or Britain), a province of Oceania, one of the world's three superstates;
his intellectual rebellion against the Party and illicit romance with Julia; and his consequent imprisonment,
interrogation, torture, and re-education by the Thinkpol in the Miniluv.
Principal characters in the book are inston Smith—the protagonist, is a phlegmatic everyman. Julia—Winston's
lover, is a covert "rebel from the waist downwards" who publicly espouses Party doctrine as a member
of the fanatical Junior Anti-Sex League. Big Brother—the dark-eyed, mustachioed embodiment of the Party
who rule Oceania. O'Brien—a member of the Inner Party who poses as a member of The Brotherhood, the
counter-revolutionary resistance, in order to deceive, trap, and capture Winston and Julia. Emmanuel
Goldstein—a former leader of the Party, the counter-revolutionary author of The Book, The Theory and
Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, and leader of the Brotherhood. He is the symbolic Enemy of the
State—the national nemesis who ideologically unites the people of Oceania with the Party, especially
during the Two Minutes Hate, and other fearmongering by the Inner Party. It is unknown whether he is
real or a fabrication of the Party itself for the purpose of propaganda.
Winston Smith is an intellectual, a member of the Outer Party (middle class), who lives in the ruins
of London, and who grew up in some long post-World War II England, during the revolution and the civil
war after which the Party assumed power. At some point his parents and sister disappeared, and he was
placed in an orphanage for training and subsequent employment as an Outer Party civil servant. He lives
an austere existence in a one-room flat on a subsistence diet of black bread and synthetic meals washed
down with Victory-brand gin. He keeps a journal of negative thoughts and opinions about the Party and
Big Brother, which, if uncovered by the Thought Police, would warrant death. The flat has an alcove,
beside the telescreen, where he apparently cannot be seen, and thus believes he has some privacy, while
writing in his journal: "Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death." The telescreens
(in every public area, and the quarters of the Party's members), have hidden microphones and cameras.
These devices, alongside informers, permit the Thought Police to spy upon everyone and so identify anyone
who might endanger the Party's régime; children, most of all, are indoctrinated to spy and inform on
suspected thought-criminals – especially their parents.
At the Minitrue, Winston is an editor responsible for historical revisionism, concording the past
to the Party's ever-changing official version of the past; thus making the government of Oceania seem
omniscient. As such, he perpetually rewrites records and alters photographs, rendering the deleted people
as "unpersons"; the original documents are incinerated in a "memory hole." Despite enjoying the intellectual
challenges of historical revisionism, he becomes increasingly fascinated by the true past and tries
to learn more about it.
One day, at the Minitrue, as Winston assists a woman who has fallen down, she surreptitiously hands
him a folded paper note; later, at his desk he covertly reads the message: I LOVE YOU. The woman is
"Julia," a young dark haired mechanic who repairs the Minitrue novel-writing machines. Before that occasion,
Winston had loathed the sight of her, since women tended to be the most fanatical supporters of Ingsoc.
He particularly loathed her because of her membership in the fanatical Junior Anti-Sex League. Winston
fantasises about making love to her but he would want to kill her at the moment of climax. Additionally,
Julia was the type of woman he believed he could not attract: young and puritanical. Nonetheless, his
hostility towards her vanishes upon reading the message. As it turns out, Julia is a thoughtcriminal
too, and hates the Party as much as he does.
Cautiously, Winston and Julia begin a love affair, at first meeting in the country, at a clearing
in the woods, then at the belfry of a ruined church, and afterwards in a rented room atop an antiques
shop in a proletarian neighbourhood of London. There, they think themselves safe and unobserved, because
the rented bedroom has no apparent telescreen, but, unknown to Winston and Julia, the Thought Police
were aware of their love affair.
Later, when the Inner Party member O'Brien approaches him, Winston believes he is an agent of the
Brotherhood, a secret, counter-revolutionary organisation meant to destroy the Party. The approach opens
a secret communication between them; and, on pretext of giving him a copy of the latest edition of the
Dictionary of Newspeak, O'Brien gives Winston the Book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism,
by Emmanuel Goldstein, the infamous and publicly reviled leader of the Brotherhood. The Book explains
the concept of perpetual war, the true meanings of the slogans WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and how the régime of the Party can be overthrown by means of the political awareness
of the Proles.
The Thought Police capture Winston and Julia in their bedroom and deliver them to the Ministry of
Love for interrogation. Charrington, the shop keeper who rented the room to them, reveals himself as
an officer of the Thought Police. O'Brien also reveals himself to be a Thought Police leader, and admits
to luring Winston and Julia into a trap used by the Thought Police to root out suspected thoughtcriminals.
After a prolonged regimen of systematic beatings and psychologically draining interrogation, O'Brien,
now Smith's interrogator, tortures Winston with electroshock, showing him how, through controlled manipulation
of perception (e.g. seeing whatever number of fingers held up that the Party demands one should see,
whatever the apparent reality, i.e. 2+2=5), Winston can "cure" himself of his "insanity" – his manifest
hatred for the Party. In long, complex conversations, he explains the Inner Party's motivation: complete
and absolute power, mocking Winston's assumption that it was somehow altruistic and "for the greater
good." Asked if the Brotherhood exists, O'Brien replies that this is something Winston will never know;
it will remain an unsolvable quandary in his mind. During a torture session, his imprisonment in the
Ministry of Love is explained: "There are three stages in your reintegration... There is learning, there
is understanding, and there is acceptance," i.e. of the Party's assertion of reality.
In the first stage of political re-education, Winston Smith admits to and confesses to crimes he
did and did not commit, implicating anyone and everyone, including Julia. In the second stage, O'Brien
makes Winston understand that he is rotting away; by this time he is little more than skin and bones.
Winston counters that: "I have not betrayed Julia"; O'Brien agrees, Winston had not betrayed Julia because
he "had not stopped loving her; his feelings toward her had remained the same." One night, in his cell,
Winston awakens, screaming: "Julia! Julia! Julia, my love! Julia!" O'Brien rushes into the cell and
sends him to Room 101, the most feared room in the Ministry of Love, where resides each prisoner's worst
fear, which is forced upon him or her. In Room 101 is Acceptance, the final stage of the political re-education
of Winston Smith, whose primal fear of rats is invoked when a wire cage holding hungry rats is fitted
onto his face. As the rats are about to reach Winston’s face, he shouts: "Do it to Julia!" thus betraying
her, and relinquishing his love for her. At torture’s end, upon accepting the doctrine of the Party,
Winston now loves Big Brother and is reintegrated into Oceania society.
Some time after being restored to orthodox thought, Winston encounters Julia in a park. It turns
out that Julia has endured a similar ordeal to Winston, and has also been purged of rebellion. Each
admits betraying the other:
"I betrayed you," she said baldly. "I betrayed you," he said. She gave him another quick look of
dislike. "Sometimes," she said, "they threaten you with something – something you can't stand up to,
can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.'
And perhaps you might pretend, afterwards, that it was only a trick and that you just said it to make
them stop and didn't really mean it. But that isn't true. At the time when it happens you do mean it.
You think there's no other way of saving yourself and you're quite ready to save yourself that way.
You want it to happen to the other person. You don't give a damn what they suffer. All you care about
is yourself." "All you care about is yourself," he echoed. "And after that, you don't feel the same
toward the other person any longer." "No," he said, "you don't feel the same."
Throughout, a song recurs in Winston's mind: Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you
sold me— The lyrics are an adaptation of ‘Go no more a-rushing’, a popular English campfire song from
the 1920s, that was a popular success for Glenn Miller in 1939.
An alcoholic Winston sits by himself in the Chestnut Tree Cafe, still troubled by false memories
which he is convinced are indeed false. He tries to put them out of his mind when suddenly a news bulletin
announces Oceania's decisive victory over Eurasia for control of Africa. A raucous celebration begins
outside, and Winston imagines himself a part of it. As he looks up in admiration at a portrait of Big
Brother, Winston realises that "the final, indispensable, healing change" within his own mind had only
been completed at just that moment. He engages in a "blissful dream" in which he offers a full, public
confession of his crimes and is executed. He feels that all is well now that he has at last achieved
a victory over himself, ending his previous "stubborn, self-willed exile" from the love of Big Brother
— a love Winston now happily returns.
Aaronson, Jones, and Rutherford—Former members of the Inner Party whom Winston vaguely remembers
as among the original leaders of the Revolution, long before he had heard of Big Brother. They confessed
to treasonable conspiracies with foreign powers and were then executed in the political purges of the
1960s. In between their confessions and executions, Winston saw them drinking in the Chestnut Tree Café
— with broken noses, suggesting that their confessions had been obtained by torture. Later, in the course
of his editorial work, Winston sees newspaper evidence contradicting their confessions, but drops it
into the waste disposal pipe. Eleven years later, he is confronted with the same photograph during his
interrogation. Ampleforth—Winston's one-time Records Department colleague who was imprisoned for leaving
the word "God" in a Kipling poem; Winston encounters him at the Miniluv. Ampleforth is a dreamer and
an intellectual who takes pleasure in his work, and respects poetry and language, which traits and qualities
cause him disfavour with the Party. Charrington—An officer of the Thought Police posing as a sympathetic
antiques-shop keeper. Katharine—The emotionally indifferent wife whom Winston "can't get rid of". Despite
disliking sexual intercourse, Katharine continued with Winston because it was their "duty to the Party".
Although she was a "goodthinkful" ideologue, they separated because she could not bear children. Parsons—Winston's
naïve neighbour, and an ideal member of the Outer Party: an uneducated, suggestible man who is utterly
loyal to the Party, and fully believes in its perfect image. He is socially active and participates
in the Party activities for his social class. Although friendly towards Smith, and despite his political
conformity, he punishes his bully-boy son for firing a catapult at Winston. Later, as a prisoner, Winston
sees Parsons is in the Ministry of Love, because his daughter had reported him to the Thought Police
after overhearing him speak against the Party whilst he slept. Mrs. Parsons—Parsons's wife is a wan
and hapless woman who is intimidated by her own children, who are members of the Party Youth League
and represent the new generation of Oceanian citizens, without memory of life before Big Brother, and
without family ties or emotional sentiment; the model society moulded by the Inner Party. Syme—Winston's
colleague at the Ministry of Truth, whom the Party "vaporised" because he remained a lucidly thinking
intellectual. He was a lexicographer who developed the language and the dictionary of Newspeak, in the
course of which he enjoyed destroying words, and wholeheartedly believed that Newspeak would replace
Oldspeak (Standard English) by the year 2050. Although Syme's politically orthodox opinions aligned
with Party doctrine, Winston noted that "He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly".
After noting that Syme's name was deleted from the members list of the Chess Club, Winston infers he
became an unperson who never had existed. Goldstein's book says that "Between the two branches of the
Party there is a certain amount of interchange, but only so much as will ensure that weaklings are excluded
from the Inner Party and that ambitious members of the Outer Party are made harmless by allowing them
to rise." It is unknown whether Syme has been killed or promoted in the Inner Party in another province.
Ingsoc
(English Socialism), is the regnant ideology and pseudo-philosophy of Oceania, and Newspeak
is its official language, of official documents.
Ministries of Oceania
In London, the Airstrip One capital city, Oceania's four government ministries are in pyramids (300
metres high), the façades of which display the Party's three slogans. The ministries' names are antonymous
doublethink to their true functions: "The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of
Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation". (Part
II, Chapter IX — The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism) Ministry of Peace (Newspeak:
Minipax) Minipax supports Oceania's perpetual war.
The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is
simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up
the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the
nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent
in industrial society. At present, when few human beings even have enough to eat, this problem is obviously
not urgent, and it might not have become so, even if no artificial processes of destruction had been
at work. Ministry of Plenty (Newspeak: Miniplenty) The Ministry of Plenty rations and controls food,
goods, and domestic production; every fiscal quarter, the Miniplenty publishes false claims of having
raised the standard of living, when it has, in fact, reduced rations, availability, and production.
The Minitrue substantiates the Miniplenty claims by revising historical records to report numbers supporting
the current, "increased rations". Ministry of Truth (Newspeak: Minitrue) The Ministry of Truth controls
information: news, entertainment, education, and the arts. Winston Smith works in the Minitrue RecDep
(Records Department), "rectifying" historical records to concord with Big Brother's current pronouncements,
thus everything the Party says is true. Ministry of Love (Newspeak: Miniluv) The Ministry of Love identifies,
monitors, arrests, and converts real and imagined dissidents. In Winston's experience, the dissident
is beaten and tortured, then, when near-broken, is sent to Room 101 to face "the worst thing in the
world" — until love for Big Brother and the Party replaces dissension.
The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory
meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in
contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that
black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black
is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.
This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really
embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power
of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
— Part II, Chapter IX — The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism
Perpetual War: The news report Oceania has captured Africa, 1984. Three perpetually warring totalitarian
super-states control the world:[30] Oceania (ideology: Ingsoc, i.e., English Socialism); its core territories
are the Western Hemisphere, the British Isles, Australasia and Southern Africa. Eurasia (ideology: Neo-Bolshevism);
its core territories are Continental Europe and Russia, including Siberia. Eastasia (ideology: Obliteration
of the Self, i.e., "Death worship"); its core territories are China, Japan, Korea, and Indochina.
The perpetual war is fought for control of the "disputed area" lying "between the frontiers of the
super-states", it forms "a rough parallelogram with its corners at Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin and
Hong Kong",[30] thus Northern Africa, the Middle East, India and Indonesia are where the super-states
capture and utilise slave-labour. Fighting also takes place between Eurasia and Eastasia in Manchuria,
Mongolia and Central Asia, and all three powers battle one another over various Atlantic and Pacific
islands.
Goldstein's book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, explains that the super-states'
ideologies are alike and that the public's ignorance of this fact is imperative so that they might continue
believing in the detestability of the opposing ideologies. The only references to the exterior world
for the Oceanian citizenry (the Outer Party and the Proles), are Minitrue maps and propaganda ensuring
their belief in "the war".
The Revolution
Winston Smith's memory and Emmanuel Goldstein's book communicate some of the history that precipitated
the Revolution; Eurasia was established after World War II (1939–45), when US and Imperial soldiers
withdrew from continental Europe, thus the USSR conquered Europe against slight opposition. Eurasia
does not include the British Empire because the US annexed it, as well as Latin America, southern Africa,
Australasia, and Canada, thus establishing Oceania and gaining control over a quarter of the planet.
The annexation of Britain was part of the Atomic Wars that provoked civil war; per the Party, it was
not a revolution but a coup d'état that installed a ruling élite derived from the native intelligentsia.
Eastasia, the last superstate established, comprises the Asian lands conquered by China and Japan. Although
Eurasia prevented Eastasia from matching it in size, its larger populace compensate for that handicap.
Precise chronology is unclear, but most of that global reorganisation occurred between 1945 and the
1960s.
The War
See also: Perpetual war
In 1984, there is a perpetual war among Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, the super-states which emerged
from the atomic global war. "The book", The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel
Goldstein, explains that each state is so strong it cannot be defeated, even with the combined forces
of two super-states—despite changing alliances. To hide such contradictions, history is re-written to
explain that the (new) alliance always was so; the populaces accustomed to doublethink accept it. The
war is not fought in Oceanian, Eurasian or Eastasian territory but in the arctic wastes and a disputed
zone comprising the sea and land from Tangiers (northern Africa) to Darwin (Australia). At the start,
Oceania and Eastasia are allies combatting Eurasia in northern Africa and the Malabar Coast.
That alliance ends and Oceania allied with Eurasia fights Eastasia, a change which occurred during
the Hate Week dedicated to creating patriotic fervour for the Party's perpetual war. The public are
blind to the change; in mid-sentence an orator changes the name of the enemy from "Eurasia" to "Eastasia"
without pause. When the public are enraged at noticing that the wrong flags and posters are displayed
they tear them down—thus the origin of the idiom "We've always been at war with Eastasia"; later the
Party claims to have captured Africa.
"The book" explains that the purpose of the unwinnable, perpetual war is to consume human labour
and commodities, hence the economy of a super-state cannot support economic equality (a high standard
of life) for every citizen. Goldstein also details an Oceanian strategy of attacking enemy cities with
atomic rockets before invasion, yet dismisses it as unfeasible and contrary to the war's purpose; despite
the atomic bombing of cities in the 1950s the super-states stopped such warfare lest it imbalance the
powers. The military technology in 1984 differs little from that of World War II, yet strategic bomber
aeroplanes were replaced with Rocket Bombs, helicopters were heavily used as weapons of war (while they
didn't figure in WW2 in any form but prototypes) and surface combat units have been all but replaced
by immense and unsinkable Floating Fortresses, island-like contraptions concentrating the firepower
of a whole naval task force in a single, semi-mobile platform (in the novel one is said to have been
anchored between Iceland and the Faroe Islands, suggesting a preference for sea lane interdiction and
denial).
Living standards
In 1984, the society of Airstrip One lives in poverty; hunger, disease and filth are the norms and
ruined cities and towns the consequence of the civil war, the atomic wars and purported enemy (but quite
possibly self-serving Oceanian) rockets. Social decay and wrecked buildings surround Winston; aside
from the ministerial pyramids, little of London was rebuilt. The standard of living of the populace
is low; almost everything, especially consumer goods, is scarce and available goods are of low quality;
half of the Oceanian populace go barefoot – despite the Party reporting increased boot production. The
Party claims that this poverty is a necessary sacrifice for the war effort; "the book" reports that
this is partially correct, because the purpose of perpetual war is consuming surplus industrial production.
The Inner Party upper class of Oceanian society enjoy the highest standard of living. O'Brien resides
in a clean and comfortable apartment, with a pantry well-stocked with quality foodstuffs (wine, coffee,
sugar, etc.), denied to the general populace, the Outer Party and the Proles, who consume synthetic
foodstuffs; "Victory" gin and "Victory" cigarettes are of low quality.[31] The brand "Victory" is taken
from the low-quality "Victory" cigarettes (also known as Vs), made in India, that were widely smoked
in Britain and by British soldiers during World War II when American cigarettes could not easily be
imported across the U-boat-infested waters of the North Atlantic. Winston is astonished that the lifts
in O'Brien's building function and that the telescreens can be switched off. The Inner Party are attended
to by slaves captured in the disputed zone. O'Brien has an Asian manservant, Martin.
The proles live in poverty and are kept sedated with alcohol, pornography and a national lottery,
yet the proles are freer and less intimidated than the middle class Outer Party, and jeer at the telescreens.
"The Book" reports that the state of things derives from the observation that the middle class, not
the lower class, traditionally started revolutions, therefore tight control of the middle class penetrates
their minds in determining their quotidian lives, and potential rebels are politically neutralised via
promotion to the Inner Party or "reintegration" by Miniluv; nonetheless Winston believed that "the future
belonged to the proles".[32]
Nineteen Eighty-Four expands upon the subjects summarised in the essay Notes on Nationalism (1945)
about the lack of vocabulary needed to explain the unrecognised phenomena behind certain political forces.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Party's artificial, minimalist language 'Newspeak' addresses the matter.
Positive nationalism: Oceanians' perpetual love for Big Brother; Neo-Toryism, Celtic nationalism
and British Israelism are (as Orwell argues) defined by love. Negative nationalism: Oceanians' perpetual
hatred for Emmanuel Goldstein; Stalinism, Anglophobia and antisemitism are (as Orwell argues) defined
by hatred.
Transferred nationalism: In mid-sentence an orator changes the enemy of Oceania; the crowd instantly
transfers their hatred to the new enemy. Transferred nationalism swiftly redirects emotions from one
power unit to another (e.g., Communism, Pacifism, Colour Feeling and Class Feeling). This happened during
a Party Rally against the original enemy Eurasia, when the orator suddenly switches enemy in midsentence,
the crowd goes wild and destroys the posters that are now against their new friend (Eurasia) and many
say that this must be the act of an agent of their new enemy (and former friend) Eastasia, even though
many of the crowd must have put up the posters before the rally. The enemy has always been Eastasia.
O'Brien concludes: "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The
object of power is power."
Futurology
In the book, Inner Party member O'Brien describes the Party's vision of the future:
There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be
destroyed. But always-do not forget this, Winston-always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly
increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory,
the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine
a boot stamping on a human face-forever.
-Part III, Chapter III, Nineteen Eighty-Four
This contrasts the essay "England Your England" (1941) with the essay "The Lion and the Unicorn:
Socialism and the English Genius" (1941):
The intellectuals who hope to see it Russianised or Germanised will be disappointed. The gentleness,
the hypocrisy, the thoughtlessness, the reverence for law and the hatred of uniforms will remain, along
with the suet puddings and the misty skies. It needs some very great disaster, such as prolonged subjugation
by a foreign enemy, to destroy a national culture. The Stock Exchange will be pulled down, the horse
plough will give way to the tractor, the country houses will be turned into children's holiday camps,
the Eton and Harrow match will be forgotten, but England will still be England, an everlasting animal
stretching into the future and the past, and, like all living things, having the power to change out
of recognition and yet remain the same.
The geopolitical climate of Nineteen Eighty-Four resembles the précis of James Burnham's ideas in
the essay "James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution"[34] (1946):
These people will eliminate the old capitalist class, crush the working class, and so organize society
that all power and economic privilege remain in their own hands. Private property rights will be abolished,
but common ownership will not be established. The new 'managerial' societies will not consist of a patchwork
of small, independent states, but of great super-states grouped round the main industrial centres in
Europe, Asia, and America. These super-states will fight among themselves for possession of the remaining
uncaptured portions of the earth, but will probably be unable to conquer one another completely. Internally,
each society will be hierarchical, with an aristocracy of talent at the top and a mass of semi-slaves
at the bottom.
Censorship
A major theme of Nineteen Eighty-Four is censorship, especially in the Ministry of Truth, where photographs
are doctored and public archives rewritten to rid them of "unpersons" (i.e. persons who have been arrested,
whom the Party has decided to erase from history). On the telescreens figures for all types of production
are grossly exaggerated (or simply invented) to indicate an ever-growing economy, when the reality is
the opposite. One small example of the endless censorship is when Winston is charged with the task of
eliminating reference to an unperson in a newspaper article. He proceeds to write an article about Comrade
Ogilvy, a fictional party member, who displayed great heroism by leaping into the sea from a helicopter
so that the dispatches he was carrying would not fall into enemy hands.
Surveillance
The inhabitants of Oceania, particularly the Outer Party members, have no real privacy. Many of them
live in apartments equipped with two-way telescreens, so that they may be watched or listened to at
any time. Similar telescreens are found at workstations and in public places, along with hidden microphones.
Written correspondence is routinely opened and read by the government before it is delivered. The Thought
Police employ undercover agents, who pose as normal citizens and report any person with subversive tendencies.
Children are encouraged to report suspicious persons to the government, and some even denounce their
own parents.
This surveillance allows for effective control of the citizenry. The smallest sign of rebellion,
even something so small as a facial expression, can result in immediate arrest and imprisonment. Thus,
citizens (and particularly party members) are compelled to absolute obedience at all times.
"The Principles of Newspeak" is an academic essay appended to the novel. It describes the development
of Newspeak, the Party's minimalist artificial language meant to ideologically align thought and action
with the principles of Ingsoc by making "all other modes of thought impossible". (For linguistic theories
about how language may direct thought, see the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.)[35] Note also the possible influence
of the German book LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii, published in 1947, which details how the Nazis controlled
society by controlling language.
Whether or not the Newspeak appendix implies a hopeful end to Nineteen Eighty-Four remains a critical
debate, as it is in Standard English and refers to Newspeak, Ingsoc, the Party, et cetera, in the past
tense (i.e., "Relative to our own, the Newspeak vocabulary was tiny, and new ways of reducing it were
constantly being devised", p. 422); in this vein, some critics (Atwood,[36] Benstead,[37] Pynchon[38])
claim that, for the essay's author, Newspeak and the totalitarian government are past. The countervailing
view is that since the novel has no frame story, Orwell wrote the essay in the same past tense as the
novel, with "our" denoting his and the reader's contemporaneous reality.
Some sources for literary motifs
Nineteen Eighty-Four uses themes from life in the Soviet Union and wartime life in Great Britain
as sources for many of its motifs.
The statement "2 + 2 = 5", used to torment Winston Smith during his interrogation, was a Communist
party slogan from the second five-year plan, which encouraged fulfilment of the five-year plan in four
years. The slogan was seen in electric lights on Moscow house-fronts, billboards, etc.[39]
The switch of Oceania's allegiance from Eastasia to Eurasia is evocative of the Soviet Union's changing
relations with Nazi Germany, who were open adversaries until the signing of the Treaty of Non-Aggression.
Thereafter, and continuing until the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, no criticism of Germany was
allowed in the Soviet press, and all references to prior party lines stopped.
The description of Emmanuel Goldstein, with a goatee beard, evokes the image of Leon Trotsky. The
film of Goldstein during the two-minutes hate is described as showing him being transformed into a bleating
goat. This image was used in a propaganda film during the Kino-eye period of Soviet film, which showed
Trotsky transforming into a goat.[40] Goldstein's book is redolent of Trotsky's highly critical analysis
of the USSR "The Revolution Betrayed", published in 1936.
The omnipresent images of Big Brother, described as having a mustache, evokes the cult of personality
built up around Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler.
The news in Oceania emphasised production figures, just as it did in the Soviet Union, where record-setting
in factories (by "Heroes of Socialist Labor") was especially glorified. The best known of these was
Alexey Stakhanov, who purportedly set a record for coal mining in 1935.
The tortures of the Ministry of Love evoke the procedures used Gestapo and NKVD in their interrogations,
including the use of rubber truncheons, being forbidden to put your hands in your pockets, remaining
in brightly lit rooms for days, and the victim being shown a mirror after their physical collapse.
Orwell's "Spies", a youth organization taught to look for enemies of the state, appears to be based
on the Hitler Youth
A poster showing young Pioneers as future Komsomol members. The "Junior Anti-Sex league" was based
on the Young Communists; the komsomol and Bund Deutscher Mädel
(the League of German Girls).
The random bombing of Airstrip One is based on the Buzz bombs, which struck England at random in
1944-1945.
The Thought Crime motif is drawn from Kempeitai, the Japanese wartime secret police, who arrested
people for "unpatriotic" thoughts.
The confessions of the "Thought Criminals" Rutherford, Aaronson and Jones are based on the show trials
of the 1930s, which included fabricated confessions by prominent Bolsheviks Nikolai Bukharin, Grigory
Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev to the effect that they were being paid by the Nazi government to undermine
the Soviet regime under Leon Trotsky's direction.
The song "Under the Spreading Chestnut Tree" ("Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you, and
you sold me") was based on Glenn Miller's 1939 song of the same name ("Under the spreading chestnut
tree, Where I knelt upon my knee, We were as happy as could be, 'Neath the spreading chestnut tree.")
The song has its origins in the 1920s, when it was a camp song, sung with corresponding movements (like
touching your chest when you sing "chest", and touching your head when you sing "nut"). The original
title was 'Go no more a-rushing'. Under these lyrics, the song was published as early as 1891.
The "Hates" (two-minutes hate and hate week) were inspired by the constant rallies sponsored by party
organs both in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
The contractions of words, in which "Ministry of Truth" was shortened to "Minitrue" and "English
Socialism" to "Ingsoc" was inspired by the Soviet habit of combining words. Smert Shpionam ("death to
spies", a sub-division of the NKVD) was shortened to "Smersh". Dialectical Materialism was similarly
shortened to "DiaMat", and The Communist International was referred to as the Comintern.
"Vaporising" criminals (a metaphor for execution) is based on the Soviet word "liquidation" a vague
term that usually meant execution or "Internal Exile" to the gulag labour camps. Nikolai Yezhov, walking
with Stalin in the top photo from the 1930s. Following his execution, Yezhov was edited out of the photo
by Soviet censors.[44] Yezhov became an "unperson".
Winston Smith's job, "revising history" (and the "unperson" motif) are based on the Stalinist habit
of airbrushing images of 'fallen' people from group photographs and removing references to them in books
and newspapers. In one well-known example, the Soviet encyclopaedia had an article about Lavrentiy Beria.
When he fell in 1953, and was subsequently executed, institutes that had the encyclopaedia were sent
an article about the Bering Strait, with instructions to paste it over the article about Beria.[46]
Big Brother's "Orders of the Day" were inspired by Stalin's regular wartime orders, called by the
same name. A small collection of the more political of these have been published (together with his
wartime speeches) in English as "On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union" By Joseph Stalin. Like
Big Brother's Orders of the day, Stalin's frequently lauded heroic individuals,[49] like Comrade Ogilvy,
the fictitious hero Winston Smith invented to 'rectify' (fabricate) a Big Brother Order of the day.
The Ingsoc slogan "Our new, happy life", repeated from telescreens, evokes Stalin's 1935 statement,
which became a CPSU slogan, "Life has become better, Comrades; life has become more cheerful.
During World War II (1939–1945) Orwell believed that British democracy as it existed before 1939
would not survive the war, the question being "Would it end via Fascist coup d'état (from above) or
via Socialist revolution (from below). Later he admitted that events proved him wrong: "What really
matters is that I fell into the trap of assuming that 'the war and the revolution are inseparable'".
Thematically Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and Animal Farm (1945) share the betrayed revolution; the
person's subordination to the collective; rigorously enforced class distinctions (Inner Party, Outer
Party, Proles); the cult of personality; concentration camps; Thought Police; compulsory regimented
daily exercise and youth leagues. Oceania resulted from the US annexation of the British Empire to counter
the Asian peril to Australia and New Zealand. It is a naval power whose militarism venerates the sailors
of the floating fortresses, from which battle is given to recapturing India, the "Jewel in the Crown"
of the British Empire.
Much of Oceanic society is based upon the propaganda strategies that emerged after WWI and fully
florished during WWII. A similar thing also happened during the French Revolution in which many of the
original leaders of the Revolution were later put to death, for example Danton who was put to death
by Robespierre, and then later Robespierre himself met the same fate.
In his 1946 essay Why I Write, Orwell explains that the serious works he wrote since the Spanish
Civil War (1936–39) were "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic
socialism".
Nineteen Eighty-Four is a cautionary tale about revolution betrayed by totalitarian defenders previously
proposed in Homage to Catalonia (1938) and Animal Farm (1945), while Coming Up for Air (1939) celebrates
the personal and political freedoms lost in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Biographer Michael Shelden
notes Orwell's Edwardian childhood at Henley-on-Thames as the golden country; being bullied at St Cyprian's
School as his empathy with victims; his life in the Indian Burma Police – the techniques of violence
and censorship in the BBC - capricious authority.
Other influences include Darkness at Noon (1940) and The Yogi and the Commissar (1945) by Arthur
Koestler; The Iron Heel (1908) by Jack London; 1920: Dips into the Near Future[53] by John A. Hobson;
Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley; We (1921) by Yevgeny Zamyatin which he reviewed in 1946;[54]
and The Managerial Revolution (1940) by James Burnham predicting perpetual war among three totalitarian
superstates. Orwell told Jacintha Buddicom that he would write a novel stylistically like A Modern Utopia
(1905) by H. G. Wells.
Extrapolating from World War II, the novel's pastiche parallels the politics and rhetoric at war's
end-the changed alliances at the "Cold War's" (1945–91) beginning; the Ministry of Truth derives from
the BBC's overseas service, controlled by the Ministry of Information; Room 101 derives from a conference
room at BBC Broadcasting House; the Senate House of the University of London, containing the Ministry
of Information is the architectural inspiration for the Minitrue; the post-war decrepitude derives from
the socio-political life of the UK and the USA, i.e. the impoverished Britain of 1948 losing its Empire
despite newspaper-reported imperial triumph; and war ally but peace-time foe, Soviet Russia became Eurasia.
The term "English Socialism" has precedents in his wartime writings; in the essay "The Lion and the
Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius" (1941), he said that "the war and the revolution are inseparable...
the fact that we are at war has turned Socialism from a textbook word into a realisable policy" - because
Britain's superannuated social class system hindered the war effort and only a socialist economy would
defeat Adolf Hitler. Given the middle class's grasping this, they too would abide socialist revolution
and that only reactionary Britons would oppose it, thus limiting the force revolutionaries would need
to take power. An English Socialism would come about which "... will never lose touch with the tradition
of compromise and the belief in a law that is above the State. It will shoot traitors, but it will give
them a solemn trial beforehand and occasionally it will acquit them. It will crush any open revolt promptly
and cruelly, but it will interfere very little with the spoken and written word".
The key part of the book is near the end where O'Brien is brainwashing Winston and explaining how
the system works.
The Party's main problem is to keep the middle and lower classes hungry and
fearful, and to make sure that the products of automation don't supply them with comfort and leisure.
The only way to do this is through eternal war, so that all excess production goes to weapons
that are blown up or sunk in the ocean. It doesn't even matter if the war is real or not - the
obsolete weapons are scrapped anyway. The important thing is to keep people poor so the class structure
survives with the party on top.
The other key is to keep the population in a constant state of screaming enraged hatred. Anyone
that looks "foreign" will get rounded up and executed. The country is saturated in phony "patriotism"
over a war that probably doesn't even exist.
The government also pushes a national Puritanical drive to stamp out sex. And of course they use
torture on a massive scale, and they apply it more or less randomly to get false confessions.
The only thing that make the book more anti-communist than anti-Fascist is that the Christian
churches have been closed. The Nazis did not close churches, only synagogues.
Orwell was a life-long socialist but not a pacifist.
The History Lesson You Wish you Had, March 3, 1998
George Orwell's final novel,
1984, was written amidst the anti-communist hysteria of the cold war. But unlike Orwell's other famous
political satire, Animal Farm, this novel is filled with bleak cynicism and grim pessimism about
the human race. When it was written, 1984 stood as a warning against the dangerous probabilities
of communism. And now today, after communism has crumbled with the Berlin Wall; 1984 has come back
to tell us a tale of mass media, data mining, and their harrowing consequences.
It's 1984 in London, a city in the new überstate of Oceania, which contains what was once England,
Western Europe and North America. Our hero, Winston Smith works in the Ministry of Truth altering
documents that contradict current government statements and opinions. Winston begins to remember
the past that he has worked so hard to destroy, and turns against The Party. Even Winston's quiet,
practically undetectable form of anarchism is dangerous in a world filled with thought police and
the omnipresent two-way telescreen. He fears his inevitable capture and punishment, but feels no
compulsion to change his ways.
Winston's dismal observations about human nature are accompanied by the hope that good will triumph
over evil; a hope that Orwell does not appear to share. The people of Oceania are in the process
of stripping down the English language to its bones. Creating Newspeak, which Orwell uses only for
examples and ideas which exist only in the novel. The integration of Newspeak into the conversation
of the book. One of the new words created is doublethink, the act of believing that two conflicting
realities exist. Such as when Winston sees a photograph of a non-person, but must reason that that
person does not, nor ever has, existed.
The inspiration for Winston's work, may have come from Russia. Where Stalin's right-hand man,
Trotzky was erased from all tangible records after his dissention from the party. And the fear of
telescreens harks back to the days when Stasi bugs were hooked to every bedpost, phone line and light
bulb in Eastern Europe.
His reference to Hitler Youth, the Junior Spies, which trains children to keep an eye out for
thought criminals -- even if they are their parents; provides evidence for Orwell's continuing presence
in pop culture. "Where men can't walk, or freely talk, And sons turn their fathers in." is a line
from U2's 1993 song titled "The Wanderer".
Orwell assumes that we will pick up on these political allusions. But the average grade 11 student
will probably only have a vague understanding of these due to lack of knowledge. It is even less
likely that they will pick up on the universality of these happenings, like the fact that people
still "disappear" without a trace every day in Latin America.
Overall, however, the book could not have been better written. Orwell has created characters and
events that are scarily realistic. Winston's narration brings the reader inside his head, and sympathetic
with the cause of the would-be-rebels. There are no clear answers in the book, and it's often the
reader who has to decide what to believe. But despite a slightly unresolved plot, the book serves
its purpose. Orwell wrote this book to raise questions; and the sort of questions he raised have
no easy answer. This aspect can make the novel somewhat of a disappointment for someone in search
of a light read. But anyone prepared to not just read, but think about a novel, will get a lot out
of 1984.
1984, is not a novel for the faint of heart, it is a gruesome, saddening portrait of humanity,
with it's pitfalls garishly highlighted. Its historic importance has never been underestimated; and
it's reemergence as a political warning for the 21st century makes it deserving of a second look.
Winston's world of paranoia and inconsistent realities is an eloquently worded account of a future
we thought we buried in our past; but in truth may be waiting just around the corner.
1984 is the most "contemporary" book around - read it now!, November 2, 1999
Having just re-read 1984 it struck me that, whilst the quality of the writing is "timeless," (Orwell
constructs a better sentence than most "literary artists"), the book's themes get more and more frightening
as Western culture decays toward the millennium. My first school reading was in the days when 1984
was literally "the future," (even though Orwell had always intended it as a satire on contemporary
Britain, with "1948" the originally intended title); in England today the resonances are especially
profound, and what looked "old-fashioned" to `sixties and `seventies sci-fi readers has gained a
new and bleaker realism. We're beginning to catch up with the US when it comes to presidential-style
"leadership" and "spin," whilst the rewriting of history - with its horrible parallels with the politically
correct mythologies espoused in transatlantic universities and the like - is already being implemented,
with particular regard to the guilty denial of the achievements of the British Empire, (whilst the
Roman and Greek civilisations still manage to escape trendy censure).
The worst shock comes with the realisation that everything 1984 says about the manipulation and
reduction of thought by language-control, (Doublethink and Newspeak, respectively), is demonstrably
happening right now. Things you can't say become thoughts you can't think, and an attempted conversation
with most contemporary English youths on the street will reveal how hard it has become for our ill-educated
masses actually to formulate rationale thought: what you get is a monotonic patois recitation of
received simplistic opinion - or a boot stamping on your face, followed by a law-suit for your assault
on them! One recent encounter left me with the reflection that we are so far from Shakespeare one
could weep; then I read 1984 again, where Orwell has Winston wake up one morning with the name on
his lips, a fleeting memory of a better past. The book is brilliantly written, shockingly painful
and horribly, horribly relevant! (It's also fantastically entertaining and often very funny). Read
it, read it again, and read it to your children!
Orwell wrote 1984 at a miserable juncture in history. The Second World War had just ended, the Europe
of his memory was in ruins, the full horror of the holocaust had been laid bare and the victorious
powers seemed bent on completing the destruction the planet. The best of optimists would have quailed,
and Orwell was no optimist. Surrounded by this stark despairing landscape, he wrote a stark despairing
speculation. It was his damning indictment of the dark places of our souls.
It has been called
a masterpiece; one of the twentieth century's greatest prophecies; a visionary dystopia that will
speak for all time.
I beg to differ.
I do not question the brilliance of Orwell's writing. It exactly conveys the utter dejection and
despair that he felt in the aftermath of the war. It is an incredibly taut development of character,
theme, setting, and plot that strikes our psyche like a fist to the stomach. It attains exactly the
right balance between storytelling and polemic.
It is also all wrong. It felt wrong thirty years ago when I first read it. It feels just as wrong
today.
If we ever manage to create hell, it won't be Orwellian. Humans are far more amenable to seduction
than oppression. Why spy into every household when one can be persuaded to spy on oneself? Why use
techniques as inefficient as torture when far more can be accomplished by appealing to our basest
pleasures? Why need doublethink be forced when we will freely embrace it where it is invested with
enough allure? And why would the denizens of a misbegotten future bother to listen to voices of discord
when their every waking hour can be filled to excess with titillation, shallow ecstasy, and unending
bombardment of the senses? The dystopia of the future will not be one of oppression, but of gluttony.
An observant person, looking at the here and now, might conclude that hell has already arrived.
But it has arrived via Huxley, not Orwell. We already have the Brave New World of test tube babies,
mass pacification, casual sex, and broadcasted voyeurism. The key to keeping a society docile is
to make docility so pleasant, so seductive, that we will freely and willingly embrace it over the
rigours of a well-examined life. The road to hell is paved with syrup, not vinegar.
Orwell was a brilliant thinker and writer, not just of fiction, but of social and personal commentary.
His essays are probably the finest since Montaigne's, and his powers of human observation and his
sheer intellect are overwhelming in their stature. This is what makes 1984 so difficult to understand.
Such a keen mind should have arrived at very different conclusions from those exposited in this book.
In a really hellish future, there will be no need to destroy malcontents; they will simply be
irrelevant.
Control language; control the world, December 8, 1999
So much has been written by others on this classic text that I will limit my comments to that aspect
of the book I feel is still the most important - the manipulation of language to control behavior.
Orwell understood how crucial meaning and communication is to social and political behavior. The
Bolsheviks first and then the Nazis both went to great lengths to manipulate meaning, creating an
acceptable vocabulary of politically positive words and images and an equally negative vocabulary
for that which was to be vilified and destroyed. Attempting to channel behavior into patterns predefined
by these limited modes of expression represents the greatest part of the state propogandist's art.
Orwell reduced the complexity of this enterprise to something that could be seen for the con game
it is. His invention of 'newspeak' demonstrates the reducto ad absurdum of such verbal restrictiveness.
In our day, whether Big Brother is really watching or not, we suffer from some of the same contraints
of limited language and, in term, limited behavioral options. On the one hand we suffer from a language
of polictical correctness that strives to offend no one, but makes speech clumsy and artificial.
On the other extreme we suffer from the limited categories that the professional news media use -
the narrow meanings available to them for understanding and communicating what is considered 'news'.
Since politicians contribute to this limited vocabulary and play off of it, it saves them from facing
much real in depth analysis and critique and limits the public to shallow expositions that distort
reality and make meaningful political choice impossible.
So 1984 has come and gone and we haven't fallen into the dramatic pit that Orwell pictured, but
the language we use to deal with social and political issues has been so attenuated that we are in
danger of becoming slaves to a limited set of possibilities because we cannot even articulate any
alternatives.
WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, September 16, 2005
This novel by George Orwell (whose real name was Eric Arthur Blair, 1903 to 1950) is about the
effects of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a characteristic of a government or state in which
one political party maintains complete control under a dictatorship and bans all others.
This story, which takes place in London in 1984, follows one man (named Winston Smith) and his
love interest (Julia) as they struggle against this totalitarian party ("The Party") whose leader
(actually dictator) is "Big Brother." The Party political orthodoxy rules the giant country of "Oceania"
(in which London is located).
At the heart of this party's political orthodoxy is the process of controlling thought through
the manipulation of language and information by the use of "Newspeak" which utilizes what is called
"doublethink."
Newspeak is the official language of Oceania (but is not the only language spoken). It is a language
that eliminates unnecessary words and is designed to diminish rather than help expressive thought.
For example, Newspeak states that there is no good and bad but only good and "ungood." Doublethink
is the ability to simultaneously hold two opposing ideas in one's mind and believe in them both.
The three Party slogans that title this review are examples of doublethink. Another good example
is that (2+ 2 =4) and (2 + 2 = 5).
The Party keeps everybody in line through Newspeak and doublethink. But they also have other methods.
For example, they have the "Thought Police" that investigate "thoughtcrimes." These are "crimes"
of just having negative thoughts about The Party. Another example are telescreens that watch your
every move even in bathroom stalls. Thus, "Big Brother is watching you" at all times.
Winston and Julia are discovered to be guilty of thoughtcrimes by O'Brien (who is the personification
of The Party). O'Brien also represents those leaders who use cruelty and torture as their primary
method of control (like Hitler and Stalin did). He makes them pay for their "crimes."
This novel clearly shows how totalitarianism negatively affects the human spirit and how it's
impossible to remain freethinking under such circumstances.
This novel also contains an appendix written by Orwell. Here he explains various aspects of Newspeak
and to my surprise he states that by the year 2050, Newspeak will be the only language that anyone
will understand. Why does he state this? He wanted to keep the fear of totalitarianism alive in his
readers well past the year 1984. (Thus, this novel is still quite relevant for today!)
This novel is in a word fascinating! It is well written and is filled with symbolism and imagination.
It begins slow but gradually picks up speed. And the story is very interesting.
Finally, after reading this book, I recommend watching the 1984 movie "1984" starring John Hurt
and Richard Burton (his last movie role).
In conclusion, this novel is a masterpiece of political speculation that serves as a warning to
us all. Read it for yourself to see why it brought Orwell world-wide fame!!
(first published 1949; 3 parts or 24 chapters; 325 pages)
Among the Literary Greats for Reason, September 14, 2005
It seemed so innocuous, just sitting there wedged between two other books on the shelf, collecting
dust with the others on my "yet to read" list. I may have passed it by altogether had it not been
for the fact that I needed to complete my three hundred pages for the second quarter of my junior
year. Besides, I'd read this author's work before and knew that I enjoyed his writing fairly well.
So, without realizing what I was plunging into, I picked up George Orwell's 1984; the most unceremonious
beginning for a most extraordinary event.
As I unconsciously flipped the pages, not realizing that
I was still me and not Winston Smith, the story's protagonist, barely cognizant, in fact, that this
was a book and not reality, I was dimly aware that this was something special; something far beyond
what I had been expecting. If Animal Farm was a slightly humorous, if morbid, look at communism,
then 1984 was a ghastly, apocalyptic vision of a demented future. After reading the first twenty
pages, I determined that this was the single most quotable book of all time.
The infamous Party slogans:
"War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," "Ignorance is Strength."
"Thoughtcrime does not entail death; thoughtcrime IS death."
"I understand HOW: I do not understand WHY."
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Chilling words from what could have been, from an averted catastrophe in which the human race
subjugates itself through ignorance. Yet who's to say this could never come to pass? None can honestly
look another straight in the eye and say, "That is not the future." To presume so is vanity manifest.
The one enemy man need truly fear is himself. The notorious Big Brother, the faceless autocrat
in charge of Orwell's nightmare world (incidentally, it is never established whether Big Brother
is a single man or a surreptitious group superciliously dealing justice to the masses), mercilessly
dominates life on Oceania, one of three nations in existence. These countries, Oceania, Eurasia,
and Eastasia, are continually in a state of war with each other, in which Oceania and one of the
others are allied against the last. Big Brother's control over his people is absolute, executed through
a methodical censorship that keeps the façade of truth as a contorted mask. Big Brother has the power
to efface any record of an event or person - to rewrite the past as he sees fit.
Perhaps less relevant as a prophecy today (1984 has come and gone and no dictatorship has arisen
to consolidate the Americas and the United Kingdom into a single communist entity), 1984 remains
a very real piece of culture, with its own voice in the way it challenges one's preconceived notions
and ideals. My English teacher perhaps said it best, when comparing 1984 to Animal Farm: "Animal
Farm hits you with gloves on; 1984 just smacks you bare-fisted." And it's no slap, no half-hearted
jab; it is an in-your-face, force of a moving train blow to the jaw from which the reader reels for
weeks, even months after. It is an illustration, as well, of the need of consolidation and the hopelessness
that such a government can be beaten: Winston, after waging a personal crusade for his secret freedom,
winds up a brainwashed pawn of Big Brother.
In the end, Orwell proves that, if the government so wills it, two and two really make five, not
four, and no amount of protest is going to change that. This book was a life-changer for me in many
ways, but mostly because it made me see a broader view of the world and made me appreciate life as
I know it just that much more.
"He gazed up at that enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was
hidden beneath the dark mustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile
from the loving breast. Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was alright,
everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved
Big Brother."
Quotes taken from George Orwell, 1984, copyright 1949 by Harcourt Brace Javonovich, Inc.
A masterpiece, misunderstood by many., July 1, 2004
A lot of readers seem to miss the point of this novel (especially the people who gave it 1 star,
that's just weak). It's not about Orwell guessing what the world would be like in 1984 or really
even a poke at communism.
Orwell presents an exaggerated and seemingly impossible not-so-distant future to the reader and
supports it magnificently with parallelisms to religion and ideology. He addresses whether freedom
of the mind is intrinsic to the human conscience and whether or not free thought is necessary for
human happiness. It also questions what is real or true. Does 2+2=5? If you believe it and everyone
else believes it, than why in the hell wouldn't it be so. The novel left me more afraid of the masses
and the susceptibility of the human mind than the government. The people can take back control at
the drop of a hat and they are the ones who allow it to get out of control in the first place.
This is the most depressing tale I have
ever read. Though I know it to be fiction, I still can't take myself out of its ending. Although
you KNOW for certain how the story will end, one could even imagine writing the plot exactly as it
is only half way through the book, you could still not imagine the profoundness in which it was written
and the mood it puts you in. It is also one of the most mentally exhausting reads. Taking you from
logical absurdities to the haziness of dream worlds to metaphysical discussions.
Ok, so why am I giving it 5 stars despite all this?
Because in doing it the way it is, Orwell has succeeded in transferring to you his absolute HATRED
of mental bondage, and of absolute unchecked human authority, and anything and everything that can
lead to them. The rate at which the story is advanced towards the darkness and viciousness, the way
he never for a moment leaves a prickle of hope in you heart or your mind about the final outcome
of the protagonists or the world in which he lives, all reflect in no uncertain terms this hatred.
Sometimes you think to yourself reading this "ok, I get it, why all this darkness"? Then, you realize
what he was doing. He is shouting with the top of his lungs to all of us to NEVER EVER let things
even approach the conditions of "Airstrip one".
What I have found most amazing in the novel towards the end is his resolution of a question that
kept lingering in the protagonist's mind throughout the story; the "why?", why would the "Party"
or the people in it do that? I have seen few reviewers allude to it. His answer was as simple and
unexpected to me as it was to Winston - the protagonist, yet was perfectly inline with the extreme
world Orwell built. There is no "why", there is no logic to explain it. Power is an end, not a means.
In the words of the party members: "GOD is power". There is no reason for such attrocities but a
sheer animalistic lust for power. Again, he is in a way saying: "don't ever try to rationalize it
to yourself or others".
What sets "1984" apart from its famous sibling "Animal Farm", which by the way was also very depressing,
is that it is not tailored to the history of the Communists. You could see, in a sense, the development
of Orwell's thought while writing these two pieces. He started with the first to document one of
the worst forms of collectivism that he witnessed, then - seeing at that time no sign of it being
defeated or abated - took it to its extreme form. Such a form was sufficiently general to cover all
types of mind slavery, to the extent that it can be applicable everywhere. I belive he might have
even hinted at that in the part where he recounts the "history of the world" that he imagined from
the his time to 1984. In this history, ALL of the globe, is ruled the same way albeit with different
names and insignificant changes in ideology.
It is impossible to read 1984 without drawing parallels between contemporary events and something
that is taking place in the novel. Indeed, one might never find a place where this kind of world
exists. Yet, there is always something to draw parallels upon. Here, in the States, when you here
the words "spin masters", you can't help but think of the principle of "doublethink"; in which one
can not only muster the ability to consciously think of something and its opposite at the same time,
yet somehow be able to believe both of them. You hear the word "alternate reality" in which people
hear, read, and see the facts yet still are able to fit them into their worldview. A view in which
internment is justified, the poor are robbing the rich, dissent is treason, torture is patriotism,
failures are successes, and everything you think is true is a lie fabricated by the an enemy called
"the main stream media". Then, you can't help but think of the "Ministry of truth" and the "Ministry
of love".
Orwell is a champion of freedom at all levels, but most importantly in "1984", he is a champion
of common sense.
"Freedom is the ability to say that two plus two equals four".
A great year for the defense industry, June 18, 2001
George Orwell's "1984," published in 1949, projects a parallel world 35 years into the future in
which all nations have been combined into three major superpowers in an eternal state of unrest.
London still exists, but it is now a part of Oceania, governed by an entity called the Party, headed
by a sovereign figure known only as Big Brother. The Party's one goal is power -- power over everybody
and everything in Oceania. Surveillance is administered constantly; devices called telescreens are
placed in people's homes to monitor thoughts and actions and broadcast Party propaganda continuously,
with no way for the resident to turn his off or change the channel. Free thinkers are not tolerated,
and roving bands of "Thought Police" are sent to sniff out transgressors. The Party is developing
an official language called Newspeak, whose goal is to simplify language by eliminating as many extraneous
words as possible and reducing vocabulary to a small number of basic words, thus narrowing the scope
of thought.
But there's always a rebel. The protagonist is a man named Winston Smith who works at the Ministry
of Truth as a sort of professional history revisionist. His job is to revise newspaper articles and
documents in which Big Brother made predictions or statements that did not agree with the actual
outcome of events; in other words, to maintain the public illusion that the Party is infallible and
omniscient. Unhappy with his state of being, Winston would like to overthrow the Party but is powerless
to do so. Teaming up with his love interest Julia, another Party worker, he colludes with a high-ranking
Party official named O'Brien, who reveals himself as a secret member of a society called the Brotherhood
who are planning to destroy the Party. O'Brien gives Winston a subversive book explaining the ideals
and motivations of the Party: The upper classes (the highest Party members) need to retain their
economic status, so it is important to control the minds and bodies of the lower classes, and wars
are waged constantly only so that capital will be spent on the production of war machinery instead
of being converted into wealth which could be distributed to the lower classes.
Winston knows that if he is caught as a dissident, he's dead. The Thought Police are everywhere,
and can he trust Julia, O'Brien, and the friendly old shopkeeper Mr. Charrington to be who they say
they really are? Predictably, he is apprehended, but the Party's plans involve not killing but reprogramming
him, which unfortunately for poor Winston could be a fate worse than death.
"1984" is not strictly an anti-communist rant. (For that, see Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon.")
Rather, it attacks the complacency of all people and nations who would let a small number of idealists
have their way and take command over the rest of the population. Semantics aside, Communism and Fascism,
as practiced by certain Twentieth Century world powers, are essentially the same thing: the individual
loses all his importance for the benefit of the nation, which really means the ruling Party. If democracy
requires eternal vigilance, "1984" illustrates the consequences of apathy.
_Nineteen Eighty Four_, first published in 1949 by George Orwell (pen name of Eric Blair), is a horrifying
dystopian novel of a world in which the individual human being has been completely degraded and deprived
of his fundamental humanity that reflects the totalitarianisms of the day, particularly communism
and Stalinism. George Orwell (1903 - 1950) was the pen name of the British author Eric Blair, who
developed an early enmity towards those in power and their abuses of power. Orwell was a socialist
but came to witness the horrors of the Soviet state and the betrayal of his ideals by Stalinists.
As such, Orwell came to loathe totalitarianism in general and wrote novels showing the degrading
effects such societies had on people. Throughout this book, one can witness the underlying hatred
of Orwell and those imprisoned by the system for the totalitarian state and bureaucracy which completely
controls their lives and existences. This book in particular shows that rage in the main character
of Winston Smith, a mere pawn in a totalitarian society. Orwell's books are indeed prophetic and
show us a world in which the very life-force has been sapped out of mankind by those in power. Orwell
imagines a highly efficient totalitarian state, capable of enforcing political correctness at the
highest levels, tampering with the memories of men, and maintaining a total disregard for the truth.
Orwell shows how under such regimes the very notion of truth becomes suspect and the individual can
no longer distinguish between fact and state propaganda. This particularly applies to the Soviet
Union under Josef Stalin, which is the primary setting for Orwell's stories.
However, Orwell's books are also applicable to the West of today, where the constant menace of
totalitarian ideology exists.
1984 gives us a whole slew of new terminology to describe the situation as it exists in
a totalitarian state in which political correctness is enforced. The book introduces such terms as
thought police, thought crime (and thought criminal), doublethink, memory hole, Ingsoc, and Newspeak.
Such terms reflect the complete disregard of the totalitarian state for the truth and the active
promotion of propaganda within society. They have also largely entered into our culture as expressions
to describe the enforcement of political correctness.
1984 focuses on the main character Winston Smith, a member of the Outer Party who lives
in England and works for the Ministry of Truth. As it turns out, the Ministry of Truth ironically
is responsible for spreading propaganda, and as all ministries mentioned by Orwell has a purpose
exactly opposite to its stated purpose. The world of 1984 is a very bleak one indeed, run by a single
party and its ruling leader "Big Brother", in which all individuals are subject to surveillance by
the state should they commit a "thought crime". All expressions of individuality in 1984 have been
wiped out and the human being is totally degraded living a pathetic existence of total subservience
to the party. Sexuality has been suppressed as part of the "Anti-sex League" as well as religion.
Truth itself is highly malleable and memory is constantly distorted, reflected in such ironical and
oxymoronic sayings of the party as "War Is Peace", "Freedom Is Slavery", and "Ignorance Is Strength".
Further, the nation of Oceania is constantly at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia, varying from
day to day and reflected in the official propaganda of the state bureaucracy.
All party members revere their leader "Big Brother" (perhaps reminiscent of Josef Stalin or other
totalitarian dictators) and despise the rebellious "Goldstein" (perhaps reminiscent of the Soviet
hatred for Leon Trotsky). Further, the party exists in a caste system in which the "proles" (the
proletariat) live underneath the party members (who are divided into the Inner and Outer Party).
Winston Smith works for the Ministry of Truth but begins to keep a diary (which is strictly forbidden
to party members) in which he reflects his hatred for "Big Brother". His work involves developing
propaganda for the party. At work he meets up with Julia, who he initially believes is a strict orthodox
member of the party. However, eventually he comes to realize that Julia is in love with him and they
have a secret encounter in the countryside. Eventually Julia expresses to Winston her complete loathing
for the party, though she publicly maintains a persona of utter obeisance and orthodoxy and belongs
to the "Anti-sex League". Together they find a new hiding place in a shop in a part of the city where
the "proles" live and attempt to re-discover the past of England. Throughout this period, however,
the two live in constant fear of the thought police, should they catch onto their affair.
Eventually, Winston meets up with O'Brien at work, a man who he believes is a member of
the Resistance, and is given a copy of Goldstein's book which explains the rise of the party and
the need for perpetual war. Orwell quotes extensively from Goldstein's book which reflects much of
the social thinking of the time, in particular the theory of managerial elites. However, Winston
and Julia are captured by the party and it turns out that O'Brien is in fact a member of the party.
While taken captive, both are tortured and made to recant their original beliefs about the party.
In a particularly disgusting scene, Winston is taken to Room 101 where he must face his worst fear.
There he ultimately betrays Julia (as she has already betrayed him) to save himself from being tortured
by rats (the worst torture that he can imagine).
Eventually, Winston is completely re-educated and made to love "Big Brother" while his relationship
with Julia is forever changed after their mutual betrayals of each other. Thus, ends in the most
horrifying of manners Orwell's classic novel. Orwell concludes with an appendix on "The Principles
of Newspeak" which effectively shows how even the language itself can be put to the purposes of propaganda
within a totalitarian state.
1984 remains a classic dystopia reflecting the darker side of human existence within the
Twentieth Century as it played out in the totalitarian dictatorships of the age. Throughout this
novel, the very notion of truth remains problematic, as the party re-defines history to reflect its
own agenda and thus even memory itself becomes distorted. Orwell shows the sheer degradation that
the human being undergoes within such a surveillance society, to the eventual point where a man can
be tortured by the powers that be to such an extent that he will eventually even renounce his love
and embrace the figure he hates the most. While the novel is made to reflect Soviet society and Stalinism
in particular, it also reflects the modern world in general, in which large-scale and efficient bureaucratic
structures rob man of his humanity. Orwell's novels prove particularly prescient warnings to mankind
to avoid the dangers of totalitarianism. As such, they should be read by all thinking individuals
who seek to understand the horrors that can be inflicted upon the human being through totalistic
societies.
A Customer
reality then v reality now, January 9, 2004
You've probably already read the other reviews on this site, so i'll just concentrate on my opinion
on the relevance of this book in our contemporary society 1984 is a stark warning against totalitarianism.
Written in 1948, Orwell's depiction of a government-controlled society seemed absurd when published,
contrasting the innumerable amount of people that've said how real it seems now than it did then
in western society
One interesting factor is the geography of the planet. We are told very little and all we're told
is that there're three 'super-states', Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia. Oceania is constantly at war
with a vague and distant enemy, and is always switching between being allies and enemies with Eurasia
and Eastasia. Comparing it to today, just what is this 'war on terrorism, and how threatened do you
really feel about it (disregarding media opinion)?. America and Britian, both independantly throughout
the years and in allegiance with each other recently, are constantly at war with an enemy. WWI, WWII,
Cold war, Korean war, Vietnam war, Falklands War, Gulf war I and more recently Gulf war II.
Societal opinions + perceptions are influenced by media, but who are we at war with? The "War
on Terror" clearly highlights the fact that there is no tangible enemy anymore. Explained more
clearly in Goldstein's passage in the book, we are constantly at war because it keeps us united,
and stops us fighting one another, stops us fighting the government.
Another interesting factor in book is the issue of government surveillance. 'Telescreen' in
homes, Cameras everywhere you walk, Microphones even in the countryside to detect rebellious behaviour.
Although key issues stated in the book aren't as extreme, the power the government now has to keep
tabs on people and spy on them has reached limits it has never reached before. The 'Party' explain
that this surveillance is for the benefit of the people (note: animal farm) and they constantly reassure
the citizens, or 'comrades', that life was worst off before they came along. Similarly, our governments
are constantly re-assuring us how much better our lives are because of them. I.D cards are being
proposed under the pretence that they will 'eliminate terrorism and benefit fraud', which are something
the people are 'persuaded they want' because they media tells them they do.
The third, conclusively and i think most importantly, is the way this book challenges the fact
we (society in 1948) take our freedom for granted. One passage in the book which sticks out in my
mind specifically is when the main charactor walks through a lower-class area, and is terrified that
the police patrols might stop him and ask him questions; 'what are you doing in this part of town?
is this your usual way home'? etc. Similarly, if someone was walking down the street at 2am in a
dangerous part of town for no particular reason, it would be deemed socially strange, thus encouraging
this person not to do so, and do what everyone else does. If someone dresses in clothes that you
do not usually see, he/she would be regarded as a weirdo, a social outcast".My point is, how free
do we really think we are as a society these days? How easily are we opinionated by the media?
Our society is edging closer and closer to the reality that is 1984, and i recommend that you
read it, it will change the way you perceive news articles, and you'll question all these erosions
of civil liberties that have been happening.
By the way, Orwell didn't intend for this vision to be reality in the year 1984. He wrote it in
1948, so he just switched the last 2 letters around.
This excellent book is about life which was deprived of all meaning, whose primary goal was a
constantly increasing productivity motivated by an ingeniously designed social system that advocated
"love and peace."
I was born in the Soviet Republic of Ukraine. I recall the anxiety that tormented my family during
the preceding months that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I was seven and lived in my own
universe, but I was sort of aware that the Soviet Empire was seeing its last days. Karl Marx must
have been doing somersaults in his grave.
I don't remember much about living under communism - except that daily life was "by the book"
- but I've talked plenty about it to my parents and grandparents. When Stalin went six feet under,
it became a bit more tolerable, but it remained totalitarianism nonetheless. Orwell did an exceptional
job at depicting the essential aspects of that kind of state, more precisely Soviet regime.
The detail that he told is fascinating; as if Stalin or Beria had let him in on the juicy stuff.
Some of it he exaggerated, some he understated, but fundamentally he was accurate. Also, it is imperative
that the reader keeps in mind that it was published in 1949. A vast majority of people in Russia
and Europe were isolated from this kind of knowledge - the government made sure of that through an
intricate system of secret police - so this book was a revelation. Of course we now know that, aside
from the fictitious names, he essentially portrayed reality. The indoctrination that is described
in the book still lingered when I attended school in Ukraine in the `80s. Soviet propaganda machine
was thorough indeed.
The history of totalitarian states is complex and enormous amount of time and literature has been
dedicated to it. This book, however, is a good substitute if one cannot wrestle with a lengthy 700-page
tome. It won't make you a political scholar, but it'll educate you on what Soviet Russia was. It's
written in a lucid manner; however, one has to read it as nonfiction to truly appreciate the author's
vision. George Orwell is a genius and his "1984" will be read for a long time.
No amount of positive reviewing will do justice to the importance and beauty of this book - you
have to read if for yourself. What I really want to review are the reviews of some reviewers from
Wstern countries. They like the book, but their reviews are of the kind 'This is a book about a hypothetical
totalitarian dictatorshp, ..., etc.' What is wrong, is the word 'hypothetical' This book could have
been titled 'Bits of the History of the Communist World (albeit a little allegorical)'
I don't know what people born in the West understand in this book. Not much perhaps. The very
fact that Orwell is the ONLY Westerner I know of to have written an accurate description (though
a bit allegorical) of communism in practice, suggests that most Westerners couldn't understand what
was happening in the communist world. I suggest that they read it for what it is: History cast into
an allegorical novel.
Now an example or two. There was a famous picture in history textbooks in communist countries.
Lenin in a podium holding a speech, his hand streched to the masses listening. On his left you could
see Stalin. Everyone of my age has seen this picture. What most people haven't seen, though,
is an older version of it: Lenin holding a speech, and on his left, Trotsky. (Winston's job right)
Now my country (Albania) was great friends with USSR, until 1961, that is. Albania broke up with
USSR (considering USSR a traitor of real socialism), to advance real socialism together with China.
Not for ever of course - in 1978 China became a traitor of real socialism, too, having in fact never
been really socialist. There was a famous picture in Albanian history textbooks. The Albanian B.B.
(Enver Hoxha) was denouncing the betrayal of real socialism by the Soviet leadership. I have seen
all three versions of this painting: In the first one, Enver Hoxha had Chou EnLai on one side and
Mehmet Shehu (Albanian Prime Minister) on the other. This was valid between 1961 and 1978. When China
betrayed socialism in 1978, Chou Enlai disappeared from the painting, and someone else took his stead.
This second version lasted until 1981. That's because in 1981 Mehmet Shehu became a traitor, and
'was suicided'. So he disappeared from the painting, too. This is the last version of it. By the
way, the painting stood in the Albanian National Art Gallery. Many people must have seen all three
versions of it in original.
I could wrie a book longer than 1984, describing how accurate 1984 is.
Read 1984 as a history of the communist world; it is valid even for the four decades after Orwell's
death.
Through a dark mirrior, George Orwell's world of 1984, December 7, 2003
There are many different types of books out there: fiction, non-fiction, science fiction, fantasy,
horror, history, and biography. But only a few of them have the same impact that George Orwell achieves
in his book 1984. It seems part paranoid fantasy, part tribute to the malleability of the human psyche,
and part historical allegory.
The issues, even presented in the outdated means that they are, still ring true for our modern
society. The line between patriotism and nationalism is a thin one, and one that Americans look
at each day. But in Orwell's world that line was crossed, and the result was a totalitarian government
beyond anything most of us can imagine. With the government controlling all jobs, information, deeds,
and actions, even to the smallest thought of their peoples, his world is stark and horrible to those
of us used to a freedom. But the steps into that world are not that far away from our modern media
control. In his world of 1984 the media serves the purpose of brainwashing the populace at large,
and an ongoing war keeps the pressure on. And while some may claim that the media in our own country
has the same control over us, in his world, the media is the government, and has no other agenda
than that which the government sets forth.
The strange part is that all of this occurs to us, through the eyes of the main character, Winston
Smith, as he falls in love with a young woman named Julia. In Oceania, the nation-state in which
Smith lives, love is not allowed, and not tolerated. Winston Smith is, in essence, an insurgent
in his own nation. He sleeps each night knowing that something is wrong, but not being able to say
exactly what. As a reader we can see exactly the horrors to which he is made to endure, and
though they might make us scream and shout, he is unmoved. But love draws him out of that sheltered
reality, and into open insurgency against his own nation.
This is the beginning of the end for Wilson, as the romance, and the pleasures, are short lived.
Like a terrible wave the police of the world he inhabits come crashing down upon him to break his
spirit. The way they torture him is gruesome, and should offend anyone who values our human rights.
But in the end, Wilson himself comes to love "Big Brother" the face of the state of Oceania. He forgets
his insurgency, through a conscious adaptation of his logic processes. He has to know that whatever
the nation does is right, even when it contradicts what he has experienced in the recent past. In
Orwell's words, Doublethink.
These are just the surface issues that come across in Orwell's vision world the deeper issues are
buried. As in, how could such a world come to exist? Well, he explains that after World War 2, there
came a mighty nuclear war that wiped out most of the population centers of the world. And that out
of the nuclear ash arose a political methodology that swept the nations, a kind of socialism that
blended into totalitarianism. This totalitarian regime took hold and great purges, on the scope of
the great purges in the early communist USSR, ran across the world as we know it. 3 stable nations
were born: Oceania (The Americas, the Pacific Islands, Australia, and England), Eastasia (China,
Mongolia, The Indonesian Peninsula, and Japan), and Eurasia (All of Europe save England, and all
of the Former USSR). The rest of the world was in a constant state of conquest by one of these 3
super-nations, with the captured populations used as slaves. The constant state of war between the
nations served to keep control over the people within the nations.
This is a world devoid of hope. Indeed, devoid of any emotions except hatred, fanatical delight
in the war effort, and the obedience to the governments of the nations. This is the worst vision
of what the Nazis in Germany hoped to accomplish in their conquests. A world without any laws, but
what the government states to be true at that moment. A world where people disappear, but no one
notices, or even cares, a world of total devotion to the state as a whole, without regard to creed,
race, or social status.
It isn't often that the characters in a book become common usage in the world at large, but the
phrase "Big Brother is watching you" has become synonymous with the government watching over its
citizens. It shows up today in almost everyday speech. Especially when people are talking right to
privacy issues. This seems apt, as privacy is one of the things that Wilson Smith never had, and
will never have. Big Brother (the government) watched his every move of his life, recorded his every
word, and rifled through his belongings at their leisure. This book is the origin of that phrase.
Orwell gives us a black and white view of the virtues of that world, and its drawbacks. The astounding
thing is that it isn't still more talked about. We have, most of us, read this book. But how many
too the time to understand the social and political ramifications it speaks of? I will from now on,
that is for sure.
What More Can You Say: An Abiding Classic That Demands To Be Read, September 21, 2012
It's nearly impossible to reduce what George Orwell achieved with "1984", but here are some good
examples: First, that of the nearly 1,800 reviews of this book, it's likely nobody managed to say
anything really different than anyone else; yet Orwell managed to do it throughout an entire novel
-- and he did it nearly 70 years ago.
Further, Orwell was incredibly prescient and insightful. Take his "telescreen" for instance, which
closely mirrors our giant-screen TVs today and soon-to-be two-way viewing technology that we enjoy
with our computers. The little helicopters buzzing around spying on everyone could just as easily
be drones and satellites today.
And take the ever-changing alliances between the United States, Russia and China -- which could
easily be called Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania. There's always a war somewhere and when you turn
on what passes for news today and it's all double-talk spin -- not so much concrete reality than
it is flip-flop opinion. The world has yet to degenerate to thought control or "thoughtcrime", but
the increasing constraints of political correctness has us edging that way.
And when it comes to our economic system, Orwell nailed that too -- "oligarchical collectivism,"
a system made by the few for the few. The Orwellian lexicon lives on: "Big Brother."
In the end, it boils down to the book itself. In short, it's a once-in-a-lifetime novel that begs
to be read. An enduring classic. It's a book you can read time and again -- I know I have. One man
resisting authority. The quest for freedom of thought and speech and liberty.
And I've said nothing no one else hasn't said already. You may as well quit reading what people
have to say about this great classic and find out for yourself.
I attended parochial school as a teen and this book was a huge "no-no." I read it anyway and understood
why those who seek control over others are very uncomfortable with this book. Personally, I think
it should be required reading as it helps to define manipulative behaviors. It's a great book about
a lousy world where thought is actively curtailed and the powers that be are only satisfied when
the soul is utterly destroyed.
Once science fiction, now daily reality: constant war, newspeak, doublethink, surveillance by
hidden cameras (and now satellites), TV sets humming 24/7 in many homes, political cover-ups, repression,
restriction of language and the concomitant impoverishment of thought, manipulation on many levels.
If you only read this in high school, read it again.
As a person who lived at socialism and now at capitalism in Russia and outside Russia I can say...
'1984' is still actual, regardless of a political system. UNFORTUNATELY.
A lot of mind controlling methods, may be not as cruel as in '1984' described, but still same
unhuman, are applied all over the world.... I strongly recommend to read this book to younger generation
and don't think that it is about gone away Stalin's Russia... IT IS ABOUT OUR TODAY...In Russia and
elsewhere. It is not too easy to read it, but when you MUST THINK it is always not easy....
A Description of the West from 1948 to the Present, March 27, 2006
George Orwell (1903-1950) wrote 1984 in the late 1940s,and the novel was published in 1949. This
book was a description of a negative utopia,and served as a warning to the West of not only future
events but events that had already occured in Western Europe and the United States. In fact, the
original title of 1984 was 1948, but Orwell's publishers thought a futuristic title would increase
sales of the book. There are three basic warnings in this book.
One is that the status of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" was a permanent feature.
Secondly, Orwell was clear about the corruption of language and thought that could be
used to manipulate the masses (the proles as described in the book).
The third warning was the use of war to maintain unity and the illusion of full employment.
The shifting of political alliances in 1984 has an all to familiar ring. Note that during
the first had of the decade of the 1940s that the Soviets, Chinese, etc. were gallant allies. On
the other had, the Japanese, Germans, and the Italians were the forces of evil beyond redemption.
Yet, by 1948, or 1946, the scene dramatically changes. All of a sudden, the Soviets were the evil
"Gremlins in the Kremlin." The Chinese suddenly became wicked. The previously defined wicked
Germans, Japanese, and Italians were now suddently "good guys." One should also that those who
clearly wrote about this in any honest context were badly smeared or condemned for being honest.
Another part of 1984 which should be closely examined is the corruption of language. The politically
approved words such as democracy, world peace, etc., are part of the media's cowardly effort to avoid
truth. Political hacks use these approval words in a flimsy attempt to pose as experts assigned to
explain the changes of "allies" and power shifts. Orwell was always aware of the corruption
of language and, in turn, the corruption of thought. The examples Orwell uses in 1984 should attract
the attention of thoughtful men.
Orwell was one of the few who saw the connection between war and economics. He was one of the
first who saw war production as an economic engine to maintain something close to full employment.
He lived through the Great Depression and realized that wars are started not so much to defeat the
enemy as to maintain political unity and full employment on "the home front." If a "war" can be prolonged,
the better attempt to maintain war production and full employment. While living standards were not
good, workers have the illusion that they are reasonable well off and are busy with important work.
Orwell's 1984 should be required reading for any teenager. The political lessons derived from
this book are important, and, as some have mentioned, one can learn good prose. Reading 1984 can
help explain the shifting of alliances since the start of the Cold War and can help explain phony
international tensions from the end of W.W. II to the present. One should reflect how many "enemies"
and allies the Americans have had during this time as well as reflect on how enemies quickly become
allies and vice versa. This reviewer would not recommend 1984 to anyone who is immune to reason.
Too often people summarily dismiss anything with the word 'classic' on the outside of it as something
that is either too deep to understand or too tame to be interesting. 1984 defies the second mold
and blows away the first, roaring off its pages as an untamable black-hearted novel about society.
That's where the ability to define the novel stops. Undoubtedly, when the reader finishes 1984, the
last four words are going to draw a line for them; that line will be the one that demarcates whether
the reader is a socialist (that the power of production in society lies in the hands of the state)
or a capitalist (that the power of production in society should lie in individuals). The brief bio
at the beginning of the novel states that Orwell himself was a socialist...this is a strange thing
to have to hear because you get the feeling that the novel is not pulling for that side, nor the
other.
Because that is the strange greatness that is this novel -- it pulls for nothing, gives no
easy answers, and least of all holds back on the literary punch that it delivers. Some novels
put forth a question then attempt to answer it (Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot' is one such attempt) and
they are great for their own pattern. 1984 is of the other milieu, giving us only a large, unanswered
question which is bound to divide us as much as it helps us to see the problems which we all face.
I've not talked much about the plot of the book, nor the characters to this point. To this I must
simply say: why should I? The plot and characters, the whole course of the book...they are all contained
in what I've already said. This is not a book, it is a problem, a deep philosophical/sociological
one which cannot be pinned down. The novel uses its characters and their situations to stake out
the nature of its presentation, and then leaves the reader to wade through it on their own once it
is finished. It is a disturbance in the mind, one that is significant more so today than ever before-
What is the nature of government and its intrusion into life (the NSA situation)? What controls should
be placed on the individual (abortion, censorship, euthanasia)? What form should punishment take
(torture in the US run detention camps)?
By the time you finish the book, you're going to be thinking about these questions and several
more. Hopefully you will want to find answers, though doing so is no easy task; these are intentionally
hard questions, aimed at all strata of society, ones that will stick with you the older you get,
facing you every time you look at your pay stub and think about where your effort goes.
And again, the cultural significance of this novel cannot be understated. It has already pervaded
our daily lives in such a way that we might take for granted; from the lyrics in songs (who controls
the past now, controls the future), to the shows on television (Big Brother), one cannot help but
to see 1984 all around us, so ingrained into our lives that we might overlook the impact it has made.
Bottom line: this is required reading in many schools for a reason. Every person should be made
to read this book.
Oceania, with the British Isles, the America's and other lands, and London as its capital is a
totalitarian state. Winston Smith works on changing past newspapers and other documents to make them
doctrinally consistent with the short term needs of the party running Oceania, INGSOC. Thus documents
are changed to make it seem that Oceania has always been at war with one of the two other nations
of the world, Eurasia and in an alliance with EastAsia, the other nation; similarly is the construction
when Oceania goes to war with EastaAsia. Similarly documents will be changed that have some INGSOC
official uttering an inaccurate prediction about economic performance so that the official will have
originally made an accurate prediction.. Documents are changed to eliminate mention of former favored
party members after they fall out of favor and are sent to a forced labor camp or are "vaporized."
Winston and other bureaucrats throw doctrinally inaccurate documents into the "memory hole", a chute,
attached to his cubicle where they are sent down to the inner recesses of the government building
to be burned.
Party members have in their homes and offices "telescreens" where they receive propaganda, are
led in mandatory morning exercises but through which are also watched by officials for suspicious
facial expressions, or any activity that might indicate independence of mind or feelings of love,
enthusiasm or any other human emotion that are not directed at Big Brother, the possibly non-existent
ruler of Oceania. People who exhibit such tendencies towards "thought crimes" are immediately arrested,
executed or released back into society brainwashed and then rearrested and shot or sometimes sent
to a forced labor camp.
INGSOC indoctrination ensures that its party members will not be able to not think logically and
instead be completely subordinated to their emotions, which are completely engrossed in worshipping
Big Brother. "Doublethink" is what is called the ability of the INGSOC party member to somewhat recognize
the logical fallacies and outright falsehoods the party propagates as truth. At the same time such
fallacies and falsehoods are accepted as the truth because one's emotions are trained to accept the
party's pronouncements as truth whatever common sense says. Thus, it is easy to accept that two plus
two equals five when logic says two plus two equals four. Or to not see anything wrong in the Ministry
of Torture being officially called "The Ministry of Love," The ministry of truth management/propaganda,
etc, where Winston works, as "The Ministry of Truth, and so on. Or to have the party denounce the
original ideals of socialism while declaring itself to be a repository of socialist purity. Logic
seems to be only tolerated when examining the crimes of official enemies of Oceania.
The bigger one's vocabulary is, of course, the more one can utilize it to articulate opposition
to the party; so INGSOC wants to keep Newspeak-the language it is developing--and the remaining use
of "Oldspeak"-old standard English-- as small as possible. In Newspeak there is no bad to good. Instead
bad is called "ungood," "very good" in oldspeak is called "doubleplusgood." INGSOC indoctrination
and throwing old documents and dictionaries down the "memory hole" has made "freedom" have no political
connotations but only is defined as in the sentence "She was now free from the illness." Most documents
before 1960 are sent down the memory hole or like the Declaration of Independence, altered to express
doctrines of INGSOC.
Orwell is not just talking about Stalinism in this book. He sort of touches on elements of our
own society. The bottom eighty five percent of Oceanic society, the non-party members are called
"Proles", for Proletarian. The Proles are far less constrained by party discipline than INGSOC members
produces for them and encourages them to consume dumb popular songs, pornography, trashy novels,
play lotteries.. They are encouraged to jingoist frenzies where they attack foreigners and watch
parades where they can jeer at foreign POW's and so on. All this distracts them from organizing to
seize economic and political justice for themselves. They are still economically enslaved as they
were under capitalism.
The sort of Trotsky of the story, Goldstein, notes that Oceania's rulers want to keep throwing
resources into war-making so as not to have to divert them to making an equitable standard of living
for the masses. \
Erich Fromm notes in his 1961 Afterward notes a few examples of how we in the U.S. practice "doublethink."
He gives the example of the person who works for Corporation A and defends its products and everything
about it as perfect regardless of what one's common sense might say. However the person will attack
his employer's rival corporation B, trying logically to look for flaws in the latter's products and
so on. Then the person might switch to employment in corporation B., thus switching loyalty to the
latter, and attack the flaws of Corporation A., its former employer. Fromm also notes how American
propagandists described U.S. allies as part of the Free World even though it contained viscous Latin
American military dictatorships, apartheid South Africa, Salazar's Portugal, Franco's Spain, and
so on.
As a piece of literature, this book is excellent. The structure, the parts of the story, are well
put together and flow together well. Winston's struggle to maintain his intelligence and impendence
is very realistic and well told. I liked the views of life among the Proles as seen by Winston.
How Winston and Julia make contact and their first meeting where they end up fornicating are all
a little unreal.. But despite this the Winston-Julia love story is very charming, full of real feeling.
Winston's experiences in the last part of the book are described vividly, if being slightly incredible.
George Orwell's final novel, 1984, was written amidst
the anti-communist hysteria of the cold war. But unlike Orwell's other famous political satire,
Animal Farm, this novel is filled with bleak cynicism and grim pessimism about the human race.
When it was written, 1984 stood as a warning against the dangerous probabilities of communism.
And now today, after communism has crumbled with the Berlin Wall; 1984 has come back to tell
us a tale of mass media, data mining, and their harrowing consequences.
It's 1984 in London, a city in the new überstate of Oceania, which contains what was once England,
Western Europe and North America. Our hero, Winston Smith works in the Ministry of Truth altering
documents that contradict current government statements and opinions. Winston begins to remember
the past that he has worked so hard to destroy, and turns against The Party. Even Winston's quiet,
practically undetectable form of anarchism is dangerous in a world filled with thought police
and the omnipresent two-way telescreen. He fears his inevitable capture and punishment, but
feels no compulsion to change his ways.
Winston's dismal observations about human nature are accompanied by the hope that good will
triumph over evil; a hope that Orwell does not appear to share. The people of Oceania are in the
process of stripping down the English language to its bones. Creating Newspeak, which Orwell uses
only for examples and ideas which exist only in the novel. The integration of Newspeak into the
conversation of the book. One of the new words created is doublethink, the act of believing
that two conflicting realities exist. Such as when Winston sees a photograph of a non-person,
but must reason that that person does not, nor ever has, existed.
The inspiration for Winston's work, may have come from Russia. Where Stalin's right-hand man,
Trotzky was erased from all tangible records after his dissention from the party. And the fear
of telescreens harks back to the days when Stasi bugs were hooked to every bedpost, phone line
and light bulb in Eastern Europe.
His reference to Hitler Youth, the Junior Spies, which trains children to keep an eye out
for thought criminals- even if they are their parents; provides evidence for Orwell's continuing
presence in pop culture. "Where men can't walk, or freely talk, And sons turn their fathers in."
is a line from U2's 1993 song titled "The Wanderer".
Orwell assumes that we will pick up on these political allusions. But the average grade 11
student will probably only have a vague understanding of these due to lack of knowledge. It is
even less likely that they will pick up on the universality of these happenings, like the fact
that people still "disappear" without a trace every day in Latin America.
Overall, however, the book could not have been better written. Orwell has created characters
and events that are scarily realistic. Winston's narration brings the reader inside his head,
and sympathetic with the cause of the would-be-rebels. There are no clear answers in the book,
and it's often the reader who has to decide what to believe. But despite a slightly unresolved
plot, the book serves its purpose. Orwell wrote this book to raise questions; and the sort of
questions he raised have no easy answer. This aspect can make the novel somewhat of a disappointment
for someone in search of a light read. But anyone prepared to not just read, but think about a
novel, will get a lot out of 1984.
1984, is not a novel for the faint of heart, it is a gruesome, saddening portrait of humanity,
with it's pitfalls garishly highlighted. Its historic importance has never been underestimated;
and it's reemergence as a political warning for the 21st century makes it deserving of a second
look. Winston's world of paranoia and inconsistent realities is an eloquently worded account of
a future we thought we buried in our past; but in truth may be waiting just around the corner.
Geekier than thou TOP 1000 REVIEWERVINE VOICE on May 25, 2000
Big Brother is watching you - read this book and see how!
George Orwell's classic was incredibly visionary. It is hardly fathomable that this book was
written in 1948. Things that we take for granted today - cameras everywhere we go, phones
being tapped, bodies being scanned for weapons remotely - all of these things were described in
graphic detail in Orwell's book.
Now that we have the Internet and people spying on other people w/ webcams and people purposely
setting up their own webcams to let others "anonymously" watch them, you can see how this culture
can develop into the Orwellian future described in "1984."
If you've heard such phrases as "Big Brother," "Newspeak," and "thought crime" and wondered
where these phrases came from, they came from this incredible, vivid and disturbing book.
Winston Smith, the main character of the book is a vibrant, thinking man hiding within the
plain mindless behavior he has to go through each day to not be considered a thought criminal.
Everything is politically correct, children defy their parents (and are encouraged by the government
to do so) and everyone pays constant allegiance to "Big Brother" - the government that watches
everyone and knows what everyone is doing at all times - watching you shower, watching you having
sex, watching you eat, watching you go to the bathroom and ultimately watching you die.
Elizabeth became increasing bold in stating her religious opinions openly -- as well as her
anti-slavery views and support for abolitionist John Brown.
So in 1860 her husband exercised his legal right to have her committed to an insane
asylum.
Elizabeth spent three years in the asylum before being deemed incurable. She was released
back to the custody of her husband, who locked her in a room and nailed the windows shut.
But with the help of a friend, Elizabeth managed to take her husband to court over the
confinement. A jury took only seven minutes to decide that she was healthy, sane, and deserved
her freedom.
Sadly, her case was not unique.
The records from one mental asylum from the era still survive, and they show vast amounts of
cases in which women were diagnosed as insane because they did not accept the prevailing views
of society, or of their husbands.
A common diagnosis was to rule a woman "insane by religious fantasy." In other words, she
did not believe in the exact same religious principles as her neighbors and family members.
Behaving and thinking independently was more than enough to deem a woman crazy and totally
ruin her life.
And everyone in her social circle -- friends, neighbors, family members, and even her own
husband -- was able to rat them out to the authorities for their dangerous, aberrant
behavior.
You'd think this sort of custom would have gone out of style long ago.
But thanks to a new program being developed by the White House, you too can soon report your
'insane' friends and family members who don't express approved social views.
And this new strategy includes programs for people to "seek help" from the government on
behalf of anyone they "perceive to be radicalizing".
Their objective here is to prevent violence and domestic terrorism. That sounds noble
enough.
But even basic truths about violence are completely tainted by ideology and politics.
Angry, menacing rioters rampaging through the streets, torching cars, looting stores, and
destroying property? They're "mostly peaceful", hence this White House program doesn't apply to
them.
But the man who grabs a weapon to defend his family against those angry, menacing rioters?
He's a violent radical who should be reported.
Then there's Dr. Aruna Khilanani, who earlier this month lectured at Yale University about
her fantasies of killing white people.
Again, though, she's neither considered radical nor potentially violent so she doesn't fit
into this new White House program.
Saying, however, that "a man cannot get pregnant," which was enough for
Twitter to ban a Spanish politician recently, is absolutely considered radical.
The rules are terribly confusing. Fortunately the US government will be bringing in the Big
Tech companies to monitor our behavior and keep us all in check.
It's also notable that the federal government is spending boatloads of taxpayer dollars
teaching US government employees about Critical Race Theory, which asserts that everyone is
racist and that you are either a victim or an oppressor based on your skin color.
I say this is notable because they don't spend those same taxpayer dollars on the principles
taught by Martin Luther King, i.e. that we should strive for a society where people are judged
by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.
But MLK's view is now considered outdated by the woke progressives in charge.
And they even have 'science' to back up their assertions.
For example, the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association
published an article last month explaining that whiteness is "a malignant, parasitic-like
condition".
And as we've all been told, you gotta trust the science!
This is rapidly becoming the accepted social view, and any departure from this thesis is
considered 'radical'.
It's ironic that most of the bureaucrats and politicians mandating this training don't have
the first clue what they're talking about.
Recently General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that
teaching Critical Race Theory and "white rage" to military cadets at West Point (my alma mater)
was important.
Yet he simultaneously acknowledged that he doesn't know the first thing about Critical Race
Theory, referring to it as "whatever the theory is. . ."
And that pretty much sums up institutional leadership these days in the Land of the
Free.
Politicians in government, business executives, and now even military generals, are only
concerned about appearances, not substance.
They know nothing about Critical Race Theory. They just want to give the appearance that
they're doing something especially when everyone else is doing the same thing.
Just about every big company and organization, from Coca Cola to Disney to Major League
Baseball to the Central Intelligence Agency, has jumped on board the Woke train and embraced
these idiotic principles.
Hardly a single so-called 'leader' has stood up to say 'I agree there are problems to solve,
but this approach is totally absurd and I'm not going along with it.'
These executives have too much to lose -- power, prestige, paychecks so they fall in line
and do what everyone else is doing.
Standing apart from the crowd, risking your reputation, and raising a voice of dissent takes
courage -- something that is sorely lacking in political and corporate leadership.
This weak, pitiful leadership is the reason why the entire woke movement has snowballed out
of control: no one with any real power is willing to stand against it anymore.
It's also the reason why looting Nike stores and rioting in the streets is seen as 'mostly
peaceful'.
Yet anyone with conservative views is considered "radical", worthy of being committed to
modern-day digital insane asylum (i.e. censored by the Big Tech platforms).
Frankly, if history is any guide, this trend is most likely going to become much worse. But
one day it will subside.
It may take years. But the woke Twitter mob will eventually run out of people to hate and
start feeding on its own fanatics. It's like the Soviet Union: sooner or later the entire
idiotic ideology will collapse on itself.
y_arrow 1
Greed is King 18 hours ago
The Hitler Youth were encouraged to "snitch", and they did, on their parents, their
teachers, everybody. The NAZI Concentration Camps killed Aryans as well as ****.
Welcome to the Elite`s brave new world.
_Conax_ 15 hours ago
Insane, huh.
The soviet communist party used their mental hospitals to silence and punish their
critics. I never trusted shrinks because their profession is based on the hack theories of
bearded hare brains. Everyone either hates their father or want to boink their moms
according to those quacks.
The treatment involves zombie pills.
Are our leftists so weak they can't face the free thinking in the war of ideas?
Absolutely horrifying. And that was in the 20th century, not the 15th!
indus creed 14 hours ago (Edited)
One NY judge tried to commit Dinesh D'Souza to a mental hospital during his campaign
finance hearing. They are gonna declare all old school thinking as insane.
jakevee 18 hours ago
Sounds like North Korea.
Dr Phuckit 12 hours ago
Snitching was a major part of 1984, you got rewarded with a few bread crumbs.
Baby steps until one day you realize ....
Obamanism666 7 hours ago
Bring me the person, we will find a crime
JustSayNo 5 hours ago (Edited)
Sometime this weekend, I'm going to have to find the time to post a little write up I'd
found on the persecution of the Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland in the late 1600's- early
1700's. This included crucifixion of their Presbyterian ministers, tossing their babies
alive into pots of boiling water, hunting the men down and murdering as in the style of an
English fox hunt. This occurred at the hands of the English, and though just one example of
the atrocities spurred by the English aristocracy and bankers of the times, the fate of the
Ulster Scots was probably the worst of it. The Ulster Scots migrated to the US in droves at
the time. They tended to push out into the American wilderness, getting as far away from
the systems of English rule and governance in the American cities as possible. Justifiably,
they hated the English. It seems, that the English aristocracy and bankers are still after
the descendants of the Ulster Scots today- labeling them "domestic terrorists", blaming
them for slavery (which was really to the profit of the English banking system and
investors in trade of the times, and was not of benefit to the average American ). To the
Ulster Scots and others who had suffered in Europe, and some other parts of the world, at
the hands of the English, slavery probably seemed rather tame, and pushing out to the
wilderness and frontiers the way that the Scots did, slavery of Africans was likely not
much a part of their universe . What the Ulster Scots cared about, was freedom from the
rule and governance of the despicable English aristocracy. And with good reason. They also
tended not to talk about what had happened to them, as our Irish-American ancestors tended
not to talk about what had really happened at the hands of the English. Its time to start
talking about the Ulster Scots. Much of the our ideas about freedom, about our relationship
to government, property. about the second amendment and the importance an ability of the
people to protect itself from government, come from the Scots. We need a reminder as to why
the Scots felt this way, based on experiences. Their experience of exactly what government
will do to a people when that people is unable to defend itself, and that government is
controlled by Khazarian and other bankers.
ebear 8 hours ago
"It's like the Soviet Union: sooner or later the entire idiotic ideology will collapse
on itself."
Ozarkian 2 hours ago
The media narratives no longer work. The movers and shakers are losing control and it
should scare the hell out of them. They might actually have to work for a living.
Aireannpure 14 hours ago
Do not comment on social dogma, rhetoric and platitudes dudes.
You need to drink a lot of "woke coke" and wearing exclusively "woke Nike" to digest those
recommendations without laughing.
History repeats, first as tragedy, second as farce. White Guard rebels during Russian civil
War called Bolsheviks "Tovatitcshi"(Comrades) as they prohibited to say Sir to the officers.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I
choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make
words mean so many different things."
As George Orwell has taught us, language manipulation is at the frontline (yes, I have just
broken one of the cardinal rules of his "
Politics and the English Language ," but not his final injunction to "break any of these
rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous") of politicised mind-bending. The sort of
language we are permitted to use circumscribes the thinking that we shall be allowed to engage
in. The assault on language is, therefore, an integral component of the unrelenting warfare
being waged for the conquest and control of the mind. Word elimination and reassignment of
meaning, as Orwell also presciently noted, are essential elements of the campaign to reformat
the mind and eventually to subjugate it.
A breath-taking example of how this process works was recently unveiled by the thoroughly
brain-washed students of the once prestigious Brandeis University who, this time without
prompting from their faculty elders and betters, voted to ban from their campus such odious
words and phrases as "picnic" and "you guys," for being "oppressive". "Picnic" is prohibited
because it allegedly evokes the lynching of Blacks.
The precocious young intellectuals took pains to produce an entire list of objectionable
words and phrases, shocking award-winning novelist Joyce Carol Oates who tweeted in
bewilderment: "What sort of punishment is doled out for a faculty member who utters the word
'picnic' at Brandeis? Or the phrase [also proscribed – S.K.] 'trigger warning'? Loss of
tenure, public flogging, self-flagellation?"
Oppressive Language
Possible Alternatives
Explanation
Killing it
Great job!
If someone is doing well, we
don't need to equate that to
Awesome!
murder!
Take a shot at
Give it a go
These expressions needlessly use
imagery of hurting someone or
Take a stab at
Try
something.
Trigger warning
Content note
The word "trigger" has
connections to guns for many
Drop-in
people; we can give the same
head's up using language less
connected to violence.
Rule of thumb
General rule
This expression comes from an
old British law allowing men to
beat their wives with sticks no
wider than their thumb.
Pknk
Outdoor eating
Tlie term picnic is often
associated with lynchings of
Black people in the United
States, during which white
spectators were said to have
watched while eating, referring
to them as picnics or other terms
involving racial slurs against
Black people.
Go off tlte reservation
Disagree with tlie group, defect
This phrase has a harmful
from the group
history rooted in the violent
removal of indigenous people
from their land and the Itorrible
consequences for someone that
left the reservation.
_arrow
Not Your Father's ZH 8 hours ago (Edited)
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and
to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. " ― George Orwell
The constant reconstruction of language is a highly effective tool when employed against
weak minds... as most folks have only a loose association with the words in their
heads...
As meanings of words are changed the ideas associated with those words change...
consequently a society can be transformed into a different society without ever answering a
single argument...
1748 (in Chesterfield's "Letters"), but the thing itself apparently was rare before c.
1800 as an English institution [OED]; it originally meant "a fashionable social affair (not
necessarily out of doors) in which every partaker contributed something to the general
table;" from French piquenique (1690s), perhaps a reduplication of piquer "to pick, peck,"
from Old French (see pike
(n.1)), or the second element may be nique "worthless thing," from a Germanic source.
As in many other riming names, the elements are used without precision, but the lit.
sense is appar. 'a picking or nibbling of bits,' a snatch, snack .... [Century
Dictionary]
The word also turns up 18c. in German, Danish, Swedish. Later "pleasure party the
members of which carry provisions with them on an excursion, as to some place in the
country." Figurative sense of "something easy" is from 1886. Picnic basket is by 1857.
Picnic table is by 1858, originally a folding table used for outdoor dining.
Meanwhile the top Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Indian etc. schools concentrating on STEM
are laughing their asses off.
John Grady 6 hours ago
Activism is now a career path so to differentiate yourself as an activist you have to
have an angle so you look busy. Endless bickering about minutia makes it look like they're
doing something.
Little wonder that here and there sanity nostalgia is gripping the Western world, at least
those isolated portions of it that are not internalising the sinister "new normal." But it is
seemingly to no avail. All commanding positions are firmly in the hands of lunatics, who are
determined to turn a once great and exemplary civilisation into an asylum.
As George Orwell has taught us, language manipulation is at the frontline (yes, I have just
broken one of the cardinal rules of his "
Politics and the English Language ," but not his final injunction to "break any of these
rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous") of politicised mind-bending. The sort of
language we are permitted to use circumscribes the thinking that we shall be allowed to engage
in. The assault on language is, therefore, an integral component of the unrelenting warfare
being waged for the conquest and control of the mind. Word elimination and reassignment of
meaning, as Orwell also presciently noted, are essential elements of the campaign to reformat
the mind and eventually to subjugate it.
A breath-taking example of how this process works was recently unveiled by the thoroughly
brain-washed students of the once prestigious Brandeis University who, this time without
prompting from their faculty elders and betters, voted to ban from their campus such odious
words and phrases as "picnic" and "you guys," for being "oppressive". "Picnic" is prohibited
because it allegedly evokes the lynching of Blacks.
The precocious young intellectuals took pains to produce an entire list of objectionable
words and phrases, shocking award-winning novelist Joyce Carol Oates who tweeted in
bewilderment: "What sort of punishment is doled out for a faculty member who utters the word
'picnic' at Brandeis? Or the phrase [also proscribed – S.K.] 'trigger warning'? Loss of
tenure, public flogging, self-flagellation?"
All three punishments will probably be applied to reactionary professors who go afoul of the
list's rigorous linguistic requirements.
Not to be outdone by the progressive kids on the East Coast, avant-garde
California legislators have passed a law to remove the pronoun "he" from state legal texts.
The momentous reform was initiated by California's new attorney general, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan,
who after looking up the job requirements made the shocking discovery that the law assumed that
the attorney general would be a man.
Upon review, it turned out that the state code and other legal documents were enabling
unacceptable concepts by using pronouns "he," "him" and "his" when referring to the attorney
general and other state-wide elected officials. Appalled, Ms. Bauer-Kahan denounced these
linguistic lapses for not representing "where California is and where California is going." She
inarguably was right on that score at least, which has perhaps also something to do with the
massive exodus of California residents to less complicated parts of the country.
When lawmakers of a state which is rapidly turning into a North American Calcutta have no
concerns more pressing than to revise the use of pronouns in official documents, that sends a
clear message where that state is going, exactly as the smart and thoroughly up-to-date woman
said.
But as a Pakistani
immigrant father in Seattle, state of Washington, discovered to his chagrin, the linguistic
clowning can have very serious personal and political consequences. After checking in his
16-year-old autistic son for treatment in what he thought was a medical facility, Ahmed was
shocked to receive a telephone call where a social worker explained to him that the child he
had originally entrusted to the medical authorities as a son was actually transgender and must
henceforth, under legal penalty of removal, be referred to and treated as a "daughter."
Coming from a traditional society still governed by tyrannical precepts of common sense and
not accustomed to the ways of the asylum where in search of a better life he and his family
inadvertently ended up, the father (a title that like mother, now officially "number one
parent," is also
on the way out ) was able to conceive his tragic predicament only by weaving a complex
conspiracy theory:
"They were trying to create a customer for their gender clinic . . . and they seemed to
absolutely want to push us in that direction. We had calls with counsellors and therapists in
the establishment, telling us how important it is for him to change his gender, because
that's the only way he's going to be better out of this suicidal depressive state."
Since in the equally looney state of Washington the age when minors can request a
gender-change surgery without parental consent is 13, the Pakistani parents saw clearly the
writing on the wall and, bless them, they came up with a clever stratagem to outwit their
callous ideological tormentors. Ahmed "assured Seattle Children's Hospital that he would take
his son to a gender clinic and commence his son's transition. Instead, he collected his son,
quit his job, and moved his family of four out of Washington."
Perhaps feeling the heat from the linguistic Gestapo even in his celebrity kitchen, iconic
chef Jamie Oliver has come on board. Absurdly, Jamie vowed
fealty to the ascendant normal by dropping the term "Kaffir lime leaves" from his recipes ,
in fear that the alleged "historically racist slur" would offend South Africans. No evidence at
all has been furnished or demanded of complaints from South Africa in that regard. But it
speaks volumes that someone of Jamie's influence and visibility should nevertheless deem it
prudent to anticipate such criticism even though, should it have materialised, it of course
would not originate from South Africa but from white Western political correctness
commissars.
Jamie is now busy, but not just cooking. He is going over his previously published recipes
in order to expunge all offensive references to kefir leaves. Orwell aficionados will recall
this precious passage from 1984 : "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book
rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed,
every date has been altered." And now every recipe as well. The dystopia fits, does it not, to
a tee even something as seemingly trivial as a cooking show?
But it is not just recipes. Children's fairy tales are also fair game for 1984 revision.
Hollywood actress Natalie Portman ( Star Wars , The Professional , Thor ), inspired
apparently by the new cultural normal, has taken it upon herself not to write, but to re-write,
several classic fairy tales to make them "gender-neutral," so "children can defy gender
stereotypes." Predictably, pronouns were again a major target:
"I found myself changing the pronouns in many of their books because so many of them had
overwhelmingly male characters, disproportionate to reality," quoth Natalie as she put her
linguistic scalpel to such old favourites as The Tortoise and the Hare , Country Mouse and
City Mouse and The Three Little Pigs .
Need we go on, or does the sharp reader already get the general drift? How about
State University of New York student Owen Stevens , who was suspended and censured for
pointing out on his Instagram the ascertainable biological fact that "A man is a man, a woman
is a woman. A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man." (Owen was snitched on by fellow
students, readers from the former Eastern bloc will be amused to learn.) Or the Nebraska
university basketball coach who was suspended for using in a motivational speech the
mysteriously offensive word "plantation"? Or the hip $57,000-a-year NYC school that
banned students from saying "mom" and "dad" , from asking where classmates went on vacation
or wishing anyone "Merry Christmas" or even "Happy Holidays"? Or
female university student Lisa Keogh in Scotland who said in class "women have vaginas"
(who would be better informed than she on that subject?) and are "not as strong as men", who is
facing disciplinary action by the university after fellow classmates complained about her
"offensive and discriminatory" comments? Or
Spanish politician Francisco José Contreras whose Twitter account was blocked as a
warning for 12 hours after he tweeted what some would regard as the self-evident truth that
"men cannot get pregnant" because they have "no uterus or eggs"?
As
Peter Hitchens noted recently "the most bitterly funny story of the week is that a defector
from North Korea thinks that even her homeland is 'not as nuts' as the indoctrination now
forced on Western students."
One of Yeonmi Park's initial shocks upon starting classes at Colombia University was to be
met with a frown after revealing to a staff member that she enjoyed reading Jane Austen. "Did
you know," Ms. Park was sternly admonished, "that those writers had a colonial mind-set? They
were racists and bigots and are subconsciously brainwashing you."
But after encountering the new requirement for the use of gender-neutral pronouns, Yeonmi
concluded: "Even North Korea is not this nuts North Korea was pretty crazy, but not this
crazy." Devastatingly honest, but not exactly a compliment to what once might have been the
land of her dreams.
Sadly, Hitchens reports that her previous experience served Yeonmi well to adapt to her new
situation: "She came to fear that making a fuss would affect her grades and her degree.
Eventually, she learned to keep quiet, as people do when they try to live under intolerant
regimes, and let the drivel wash over her."
Eastern European readers will unfailingly understand what it is that Hitchens meant to
say.
ay_arrow
Plus Size Model 9 hours ago
No worries! We're talking about two different things. You explicitly mentioned meanings
of words in your initial post. Now you're also alluding to what a psyop officer would
describe as manipulating the cognitive environment of a target group. Cognitive
manipulation is a much larger toolbox and involves things like perception management,
information management, memory retrieval, what old timers refer to as symbol manipulation,
etc.
In psychological warfare literature, symbols are somewhat of a mental bookmark. You can
really mess people up by altering the bookmarks slightly or changing around the files they
reference in a prolonged campaign.
The Nazi swastika is probably the most successful symbol manipulation campaign ever. It
means different things to different people and these meanings have evolved substantially
over time. Each new generation and is indoctrinated with different presentations of the
swastika. The wide latitude of interpretation and extreme views associated with it have
consistently created huge social flash points over the past 90 years.
Lorenz Feedback 9 hours ago
I think somethings are being overlooked on this point, Semantic prosody concerns itself
with the way unusual combinations of words can create intertextual 'resonance' and can
suggest speaker/writer attitude and opinion. Consider the difference with using very
powerful versus utterly compelling when presenting an argument. Some words shape narratives
better than others and trigger a response well known to advertisers and propagandists...and
help shape public opinion.
Yes... changing the context of words has a huge impact...
ie the word white is now seen in the context of numerous pejoratives...
Cautiously Pessimistic 10 hours ago
I fit in here in America less and less with each passing year. I feel like a stranger in
my own country at times. I am sure that is by design.
Max Power 9 hours ago
On the other hand, as soon as people encounter real problems like hunger, bankruptcy, or
homelessness, all this ivy league brainwashing evaporates in an instance. Just a stupid
game played by wealthy white libtards believing in fairytales.
As for Apple, let's start with the statement that most Apple product are overrated and
overpriced. Despite price, they are more of a fashion statement then technology marvels. Owning
Apple is a lot like using Chanel por Dolche and Gabbana perfume. This is a statement that you are
special.
Now by adopting "woke bolshevism" Apple will inevitably slide deeper into mediocrity.
I'm biased, because I know Antonio Garcia-Martinez and something like the same thing once
happened to me, but the decision by Apple to bend to a posse of internal complainers and
fire him
over a passage in a five-year-old book is ridiculous hypocrisy. Hypocrisy by the complainers,
and defamatory cowardice by the bosses -- about right for the Invasion of the Body Snatchers
-style era of timorous conformity and duncecap monoculture the woke mobs at these places are
trying to build as their new Jerusalem.
Garcia-Martinez is a brilliant, funny, multi-talented Cuban-American whose confessional
memoir Chaos Monkeys
is to big tech what Michael Lewis's Liar's Poker was to finance. A onetime high-level Facebook
executive -- he ran Facebook Ads -- Antonio's book shows the House of Zuckerberg to be a cult
full of on-the-spectrum zealots who talked like justice activists while possessing the business
ethics of Vlad the Impaler:
Facebook is full of true believers who really, really, really are not doing it for the
money, and really, really will not stop until every man, woman, and child on earth is staring
into a blue-framed window with a Facebook logo.
When I read Chaos Monkeys the first time I was annoyed, because this was Antonio's third
career at least -- he'd also worked at Goldman, Sachs -- and he tossed off a memorable
bestseller like it was nothing. Nearly all autobiographies fail because the genre requires
total honesty, and not only do few writers have the stomach for turning the razor on
themselves, most still have one eye on future job offers or circles of friends, and so keep the
bulk of their interesting thoughts sidelined -- you're usually reading a résumé,
not a book .
Chaos Monkeys is not that. Garcia-Martinez is an immediately relatable narrator because in
one breath he tells you exactly what he thinks of former colleagues ("A week before my last
day, I had lunch with the only senior person at Goldman Sachs who was not an inveterate
asshole") and in the next explains, but does not excuse, the psychic quirks that have him
chasing rings in some of the world's most rapacious corporations. "Whenever membership in some
exclusive club is up for grabs, I viciously fight to win it, even if only to reject membership
when offered," he wrote. "After all, echoing the eminent philosopher G. Marx: How good can a
club be if it's willing to have lowly me as a member?"
... ... ...
At one point, as a means of comparing the broad-shouldered British DIY expert favorably to
other women he'd known, he wrote this:
Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of
worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism,
and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or
foreign invasion, they'd become precisely the sort of useless baggage you'd trade for a box
of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.
Out of context, you could, I guess, read this as bloviating from a would-be macho man
beating his chest about how modern "entitlement feminism" would be unmasked as a chattering
fraud in a Mad Max scenario. In context, he's obviously not much of a shotgun-wielder himself
and is actually explaining why he fell for a strong woman, as the next passage reveals:
British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who would end up a useful ally in
that postapocalypse, doing whatever work -- be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a shotgun
blast to someone's back -- required doing.
Again, this is not a passage about women working in tech. It's a throwaway line in a comedic
recount of a romance that juxtaposes the woman he loves with the inadequate set of all others,
a literary convention as old as writing itself. The only way to turn this into a commentary on
the ability of women to work in Silicon Valley is if you do what Twitter naturally does and
did, i.e. isolate the quote and surround it with mounds of James Damore references. More on
this in a moment.
After trying the writer's life, Antonio went back to work for Apple. When he entered the
change on his LinkedIn page, Business Insider did a short, uncontroversial
writeup . Then a little site called 9to5Mac picked up on
the story and did the kind of thing that passes for journalism these days, poring through
someone's life in search of objectionable passages and calling for immediate disappearance of
said person down a cultural salt mine. Writer Zac Hall quoted from Apple's Inclusion and
Diversity page:
Across Apple, we've strengthened our long-standing commitment to making our company more
inclusive and the world more just. Where every great idea can be heard. And everybody
belongs.
Hall then added, plaintively, "This isn't just PR speak for Apple. The company releases
annual
updates on its efforts to hire diversely, and it puts its money where its mouth is with
programs
intended to give voice to women and people of color in technology. So why is Apple giving
Garcia Martinez a great big pass?"
From there the usual press pile-on took place, with heroes at places like The Verge sticking
to the playbook. "Silicon Valley has consistently had a white, male workforce," they wrote,
apparently not bothered by Antonio's not-whiteness. "There are some in the Valley, such as
notorious ex-Googler James Damore, who suggest this is because women and people of color
lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech ."
Needless to say, Antonio never wrote anything like that, but the next step in the drama was
similarly predictable: a group letter by Apple employees claiming, in seriousness, to fear for
their safety. "Given Mr. García Martínez's history of publishing overtly racist
and sexist remarks," the letter read, "we are concerned that his presence at Apple will
contribute to an unsafe working environment for our colleagues who are at risk of public
harassment and private bullying." All of this without even a hint that there's ever been
anything like such a problem at any of his workplaces.
Within about a nanosecond, the same people at Apple who hired Antonio, clearly having read
his book, now fired him, issuing the following statement:
At Apple, we have always strived to create an inclusive, welcoming workplace where
everyone is respected and accepted. Behavior that demeans or discriminates against people for
who they are has no place here.
The Verge triumphantly reported on Apple's move using the
headline , "'Misogynistic' Apple hire is out hours after employees call for investigation."
Other companies followed suit with the same formulation. CNN : "Apple
parts ways with newly hired ex-Facebook employee after workers cite 'misogynistic' writing."
CNET : "Apple reportedly cuts ties with employee amid uproar over misogynistic
writing."
Apple by this point not only issued a statement declaring that Antonio's "behavior" was
demeaning and discriminatory, but by essentially endorsing the complaints of their
letter-writing employees, poured jet fuel on headline descriptions of him as a misogynist. It's
cowardly, defamatory, and probably renders him unhirable in the industry, but this is far from
the most absurd aspect of the story.
I'm a fan of Dr. Dre's music and have been since the N.W.A. days. It's not any of my
business if he wants to make $3 billion
selling Beats by Dre to Apple , earning himself a place on the board in the process. But if
2,000 Apple employees are going to insist that they feel literally unsafe working alongside a
man who wrote a love letter to a woman who towers over him in heels, I'd like to hear their
take on serving under, and massively profiting from, partnership with the author of such
classics as "Bitches Ain't Shit" and "Lyrical Gangbang," who is also the subject of such
articles
as "Here's What's Missing from Straight Outta Compton: Me and the Other Women Dr. Dre Beat
Up."
It's easy to get someone like Antonio Garcia Martinez fired. Going after a board member
who's reportedly
sitting on hundreds of millions in Apple stock is a different matter. A letter making such
a demand is likely to be returned to sender, and the writer of it will likely spend every
evaluation period looking over his or her shoulder. Why? Because going after Dre would mean
forcing the company to denounce one of its more profitable investments -- Beats and Beats Music
were big factors in helping Apple turn
music streaming into a major profit center . The firm made $4.1 billion in that
area last year alone.
Speaking of profits: selling iPhones is a pretty good business. It
made Apple $47.9 billion last year, good for 53% of the company's total revenue. Part of
what makes the iPhone such a delightfully profitable product is its low production cost, which
reportedly comes from Apple's use of a smorgasbord of suppliers with a penchant for forced
labor -- Uighurs said to be shipped in by the thousand to help make
iPhone glass (Apple denies this), temporary "dispatch workers" sent in above
legal limits , workers in "iPhone city"
clocking excessive overtime to meet launch dates, etc. Apple also has a storied history of
tax avoidance, offshoring over a hundred billion in revenues, using Ireland as a corporate
address despite no physical presence there, and so on.
Maybe the signatories to the Apple letter can have a Chaos Monkeys book-burning outside the
Chinese facility where iPhone glass is made -- keep those Uighur workers warm! Or they can have
one in Dublin, to celebrate the €13bn tax bill a court recently ruled Apple didn't have to pay.
It's all a sham. The would-be progressives denouncing Garcia-Martinez don't seem to mind
working for a company that a Democrat-led congressional committee ripped for using " monopoly
power " to extract rents via a host of atrocious anti-competitive practices. Whacking an
author is just a form of performative "activism" that doesn't hurt their bottom lines or their
careers.
Meanwhile, the bosses who give in to their demands are all too happy to look like they're
steeped in social concern, especially if they can con some virtue-signaling dink at a trade
website into saying Apple's mechanically platitudinous "Shared Values" page "isn't just PR
speak." You'd fire a couple of valuable employees to get that sort of P.R.
When I was caught up in my own cancelation episode, I was devastated, above all to see the
effect it had on my family. Unlike Garcia-Martinez, I had past writings genuinely worth being
embarrassed by, and I felt that it was important, morally and for my own mental health, to
apologize in public. I didn't fight for my career and reputation, and threw myself on the mercy
of the court of public opinion.
I now know this is a mistake. The people who launch campaigns like this don't believe in
concepts like redemption or growth. An apology is just another thing they'd like to get, like
the removal of competition for advancement. These people aren't idealists. They're just
ordinary greedy Americans trying to get ahead, using the tactics available to them, and it's
time to stop thinking of stories like this through any other lens.
nobaloney 4 hours ago
[neo]Liberal white women are the worst. The death of America.
Nicholi_Hel 2 hours ago remove link
The main thing that " is on it's way out" are all of your "smart" schizophrenic liberal
hags. They are fleeing the big cities (especially CA) in droves because their psychopathic
politics turned their states into crime ridden, dangerous ****holes with costs of living they
can no longer afford.
Unfortunately they are flooding into red states like Texas bringing with them stale
Marxism, tired feminism, couched slogans, sad cliches and of course their anti depressants
and genital herpes.
gregga777 4 hours ago
Au contraire, mon ami! Look at how wondrously successful they've made US corporations like
General Motors and The Boeing Company! /obviously sarcasm
SummerSausage PREMIUM 3 hours ago
Let's not forget the wonderous leadership of Carly Fiorina (HP), Elizabeth Holmes
(Theranos) and Marissa Mayer (Yahoo)
McGantic 4 hours ago (Edited)
I completely disagree.
I find liberal women of certain other races to be far more offensive.
Nothing is worse than loud, uncouth jogger women with their in-your-face screaming and
howling.
The definition of unsophisticated and to be avoided at all costs.
These liberal white women at least have some semblance of manners and intelligence.
espirit 3 hours ago
Just different tribes of howler monkeys...
rawhedgehog 4 hours ago
precisely the sort of useless baggage you'd trade for a box of shotgun shells
I think that covers about 90% of the surface population currently, not just Bay Area
fems.
Agent Smith 3 hours ago
Not sure how many you'd get in exchange for an obese whining vaccine damaged genetic
mutant. Maybe you could tout them as self propelled food?
Fool's Gold 3 hours ago
Made me laugh 😅
Notenoughtoys 4 hours ago
Matt Taibbi is brilliant - Wish all the ZH articles were as well written as this !
Seriously_confused 3 hours ago
Taibbi is half and half. He wants to tell the truth, but he wants to keep his woke friends
so he often whimps and whiffs. He can write, but he has his head up his behind in much of his
thinking. Every once in a while he comes up for air and writes something like this. The rest
is wankerific
rawhedgehog 4 hours ago (Edited)
The company releases annual updates on its
efforts to hire diversely
Yet where is their annual report on their use of slave labor in China and how that makes
for a more inclusive and bright world. **** THIS CULTURE OF MORONS AND THOUGHT PUPPETS!
Matt, I enjoyed this article of yours but you need to make more noise exposing how slavery
and the commoditization of human lives is the bedrock of modern tech.
"They're just ordinary greedy Americans trying to get ahead, using the tactics available
to them, and it's time to stop thinking of stories like these through any other lens."
That about sums it up.
Calculus99 3 hours ago
What a miserable place Apple must be to work in, always having to watch yourself for fear
of the mob (even if you're part of that mob).
The internal moral in these giant corps must be shot to pieces.
skippy dinner 2 hours ago
Lots of other corporations sell cool gear. There is no need to buy Apple stuff.
It's only because of conformist acquiescence to peer-group pressures that people buy
it.
The problem is the ahoLes who buy sht from that fing company - AppleFaceBookGoogle.
It is so easy to dump thEm - it is literally no effort.
Problems is there are a lot of people who dont care - about anything.
Nicholi_Hel 3 hours ago
I have no sympathy for the peter puffers that worked or work for Goldman Sachs, Facebook
and or Apple.
This pickle smoocher worked for all three, now we are supposed to break out the tissues
and violins because a group of vicious, screeching Bolsheviks ankle bit one of their own.
Actor and Grammy Award winning musician Donald Glover says that television shows and movies
are becoming increasingly boring because "people are afraid of getting cancelled."
ZeroHedge
The Who legend Roger Daltrey says the 'woke' generation is creating a miserable world that
serves to stifle the kind of creative freedom he enjoyed in the 60s.
The iconic frontman made the comments during a recent appearance on Zane Lowe's Apple Music
1 podcast.
"I don't know, we might get somewhere because it's becoming so absurd now with AI, all the
tricks it can do, and the woke generation," said Daltrey.
"It's terrifying, the miserable world they're going to create for themselves. I mean, anyone
who's lived a life and you see what they're doing, you just know that it's a route to nowhere,"
he added.
The singer noted how he was lucky to have lived through an era where freedom of speech was
encouraged, not silenced.
"Especially when you've lived through the periods of a life that we've had the privilege to.
I mean, we've had the golden era. There's no doubt about that," he said.
The phenomenon of "cancel culture" is a toxic one metastasizing into a woke revolution war
empowered by Big Tech and Big Business. Those unfamiliar with being canceled involve publicly
shaming others and boycotting celebrities and companies. However, the art of canceling has
progressed well beyond canceling public figures and is now used to garget average folks. The
result can be devastating for ordinary people who may face the consequences of losing their
jobs, losing friends and family, or having their social media accounts terminated.
Comedian Dave Chappelle partook in a video interview with Joe Rogan on "The Joe Rogan
Experience" podcast about cancel culture. He told Rogan that he recognizes the change people
are attempting to bring through activism and accountability for prominent folks but denounced
cancel culture:
"I'm very lucky to be able to see people who are great at things up close," Chappelle said.
"Even on this podcast ... it's one of the joys of my life getting to know these people and
knowing and seeing them be human."
Chappelle said, "I hope we all survive it," while referring to the cancel culture storm
gripping society. "That's why that cancel culture shit bothers me. I'm not even opposed to the
ideas behind some of these cancelations. I get it."
Rogan said, "the inclination, all of it, is to make the world a better place." He said
social media and public shaming have "gotten abused and misused by the wrong people and bad
actors, but at the end of the day, the thing they think they're trying to do is eliminate bad
aspects of our culture."
Last year, Chappelle criticized cancel culture, saying audiences have become "too brittle,"
adding that "everything you say upsets somebody."
Chappelle hasn't been the only well-known person to speak out against cancel culture, Curtis
Jackson, known as "50 Cent," recently said cancel culture is "
unfair " and "targeting straight men" who "don't have any organizations to back them
up."
Jackson said he wouldn't get canceled because "hip-hop culture loves things that are
damaged. It loves people who are already broken from experience."
A study by a top education think tank, Civitas,
found that free speech at the world's leading universities is being eroded at a rapid rate
due to "cancel culture."
Cancel culture may have had good intentions to hold people accountable for things they did
or say. Instead, it has backfired and produced a toxic environment that limits freedom of
speech and alienates anyone with opposing views. Society can't move forward if liberals cancel
anyone they don't like - there needs to be an open forum where all voices are heard.
Huxley and Orwell's protagonists could only dream of what Bezos and Gates do. The latter
overthrew the US President and installed one they prefer, and for good reason.
The combined net
worth of the top 100 ultra-rich people in the US has skyrocketed by $195 billion since Biden
took office, according to Bloomberg's calculations .
These giants control the minds of billions.
Nations hock their lands and industries to purchase
their patent medicines. These giants know our faces, our names, all about us, even the cells we
are made of, down to the last protein. Gods have been defeated, gentle Christ and mighty Sabaoth, not to mention angry Allah. Is that a thing of which it is said, 'See, this is new'?
(Eccl 1:10)
No, my jaundiced ancestor was right -- it has already been done in the ages before
us.
"... This sort of thing makes me think about what it will take to preserve important cultural memories. The digitalization of knowledge is, in this regard, actually an incredibly grave threat due to the way that digital records can easily be found and altered, essentially instantly. ..."
Listen to the clip. She talks about how her ancestors were enslaved, and how she grew up under segregation (also true: she was
born in 1952, and grew up in a northern suburb of Baton Rouge). But she goes from that awful true history to the "1619 Project" slander.
This is important stuff. If white supremacy really is "weaved into our founding documents and principles," then the US founding is
fatally compromised. You may have been under the impression that slavery and Jim Crow were failures of the US to live up to the promises
of liberty in the founding documents -- and you would have been right! We fought a civil war over this. The Civil Rights Movement
was launched as a great moral crusade to make those promises real for black Americans.
Now, though, history is being rewritten before our eyes by the Left.
In January 2020, the Socialist government of Spain, led by Pedro Sánchez, proposed a bill of profound cultural and political
significance: a "Law of Historical and Democratic Memory." If adopted, this law will bring to completion a twenty-year effort
on the part of the Spanish left to limit speech and reshape civic life. It would establish a national "Council of Memory," an
organ of state comprising public officials as well as professional "experts" and representatives of nongovernmental but politically
reliable organizations. It would elaborate a comprehensive state policy to promote a left view of Spain's early and mid-twentieth
century. The bill mandates a search for the remains of a number of the "disappeared" on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil
War of 1936–39 and the creation of a "National DNA Bank" to help identify them. It prescribes the placement of "memory plaques"
throughout the country to identify sites and personalities associated with "democratic memory" -- the memory of radical opponents
of the Franco regime, comparatively few of whom favored democracy. The "Law of Historical and Democratic Memory" calls on the
Spanish government to identify and honor alleged "victims," without regard to the fact that many were likely involved in mass
killings and extra-judicial executions.
The proposed law is highly punitive. Symbols, meetings, or statements judged to approve of the Franco regime and the victors
in the civil war are deemed infractions against "historical and democratic memory." Proposed penalties include an elaborate schedule
of fines ranging from two hundred to a hundred thousand euros, the closing for a period of six months to two years of any entity
found in violation, and the confiscation of the means or goods involved in any such activities. That this law will dramatically
restrict freedom of expression and thus violate the Spanish Constitution is apparently irrelevant to the Sánchez government.
The Law of Historical and Democratic Memory is the most dramatic, arbitrary, and punitive proposal concerning discussions of
history anywhere in the Western world. Yet the attitude it reflects is fairly common on the left, which increasingly uses governmental
or nongovernmental means to restrict and punish speech that defends rightwing views, movements, and figures past or present. Politicized
interpretations of history are, of course, not new. But Spain's proposed law is a stark sign of the way the contemporary left
seeks to weaponize history to achieve its goals and silence all dissent.
If you think some version of this is not coming here, you are dreaming. We may not have a law -- which would violate the First
Amendment -- but the complete hegemony the Left enjoys within the academy, publishing, and media will create a situation within a
decade, perhaps less, in which historical opinions that run contrary to the 1619 Project claim will be seen as "problematic," and
suppressed. More Payne:
The proposed law in Spain, however, marks a new tendency to weaponize history on behalf of demonstrably distorted and falsified
interpretations that are politically useful rather than intellectually credible. This tendency is the product not of ignorance
but of intense partisanship. It reflects a millenarian mentality that seeks to purge society of influences and attitudes stemming
from the past in order to achieve a kind of purified utopia. Fundamental to this quest is the unrecognized search for a substitute
to religious faith. This new political faith seeks to build a world of perfect equality and harmonized values. It imagines that
progress can be made toward this immaculate world by presenting politically correct figures as martyrs who died for the coming
utopia. This requires, in turn, scapegoating and driving out their supposed victimizers, who are alleged to be authors of the
evils that assail society in its present, unredeemed state.
The tendency to weaponize history has always been strong in ultranationalist movements and is prominent as well among neo-traditional
forces in the non-Western world. In the past, it has been employed by revolutionary movements of diverse stripes. Only recently
has it been adopted by important sectors of major Western political parties -- a sign of their radicalization and their turn toward
repressive measures of social control, even mind control.
The pandemic has stalled further consideration of the "Law of Historical and Democratic Memory." Spain has suffered proportionately
the greatest devastation of any Western country, due in part to the incompetence and irresponsibility of its government. For the
moment, the extreme left seems more fixated on delegitimizing the parliamentary monarchy established by the 1978 constitution,
hoping to replace it with a Latin-American-style radical republic. The proposal to institutionalize "democratic memory" nonetheless
remains. It is the most elaborate project in the Western world for the systematic weaponization of history. It confirms the penchant
of the Spanish left, first expressed two centuries ago, for adopting the most extreme versions of leftwing ideas. It is a sign
of where leftwing movements across the developed world will head if they are allowed to advance unopposed.
Establishing control of the historical narrative -- as opposed to allowing various competing narratives to flourish -- is a hallmark
of a totalitarian regime. From
Live Not By Lies
:
No culture, and no person, can remember everything. A culture's memory is the result of its collective sifting of facts to
produce a story -- a story that society tells itself to remember who it is. Without collective memory, you have no culture, and
without a culture, you have no identity.
The more totalitarian a regime's nature, the more it will try to force people to forget their cultural memories. In Nineteen
Eighty-Four, the role of Winston Smith within the Ministry of Information is to erase all newspaper records of past events to
reflect the current political priorities of the Party. This, said the ex-communist Polish intellectual Leszek Kołakowski, reflects
"the great ambition of totalitarianism -- the total possession and control of human memory."
"Let us consider what happens when the ideal has been effectively achieved," says Kołakowski. "People remember only what they
are taught to remember today and the content of their memory changes overnight, if needed."
We know from the history of communist totalitarianism how this can be achieved through a total state monopoly on information,
including ideological control of education and media. Laura Nicolae's experience at Harvard, where the next generation of American
and global elites are trained, suggests how this can be accomplished even in free countries: by teaching those who aspire to leadership
positions what it is important for them to remember, and what does not matter.
Again, a law like the one proposed in Spain is not really possible in the US, because of our Constitution. But the unwritten law
of the culture, and the gatekeepers of culture, can achieve much the same thing. Dan-el Padilla Peralta, a black professor of Classics
at Princeton and a leading revolutionary voice in the discipline,
has called for considering
"the demolition of the discipline itself" to achieve "reparative intellectual justice." You do not have to have a single law passed
by any legislature for the radical Left to achieve the capture of cultural memory.
Oprah Winfrey and Lionsgate studios optioned the 1619 Project for film and television projects. Get used to the narrative that
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield puts forth in her address to Al Sharpton's group. It's going to become standard soon enough. Still,
I would like to know if the President agrees with his UN Ambassador that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution
are embodiments of white supremacy.
This sort of thing makes me think about what it will take to preserve important cultural memories. The digitalization of knowledge
is, in this regard, actually an incredibly grave threat due to the way that digital records can easily be found and altered, essentially
instantly.
We won't need a hundred thousand Winstons, sorting through physical records and altering (or destroying) them.
All
we will need is AI. Winston's role is already well within our technical capabilities to design and implement. All that is needed,
essentially, is the agreement and active connivance of academia, social media, news media, and the major publishing companies
to open up their digital databases to centralized access and editorial control. This does not seem like such a high hurdle, especially
given recent examples such as Amazon's delisting of gender-critical titles and the apparent efforts by hundreds of CEO's to coordinate
political action, etc. All it would take is a few such organizations getting together and agreeing that some sort of technologically
centralized political censorship regime is desirable, and then collaborating to set up an umbrella organization that can be expanded
over time to make it happen. No need for government involvement at all.
In the face of such things, what can dissidents do? Well, it's fairly essential to collect and archive as many physical copies
as possible of important work, and even of things like daily newspapers. Digital editions can be manipulated at will; not so with
print versions. But I think it is also important to wage digital guerilla warfare, given our likely inability to reproduce physical
editions in anything approaching volume. It should be taken as given that the corporate-controlled infrastructure of the internet
will not be available to help (and will, in fact, be in active opposition), which means resorting to means such as peer to peer
networks to distribute tracts containing thought crime. Dark websites accessible only via the TOR browser can be set up to distribute
news and information while making it difficult to trace traffic to and from them. These sorts of things are the 21st century equivalent
of the sorts of things communist dissidents did with their underground printing presses.
It's frankly amazing to be thinking about such things.
"... "Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience." ..."
"... all those responsible for this plandemic are guilty of crimes against humanity. ..."
"Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience."
Indeed. Dr. Fauxi is a quack and the medical establishment has lost all credibility.
GoodyGumdrops 15 hours ago
Fauci is an evil psychopath and all those responsible for this plandemic are guilty of
crimes against humanity.
This is starting to look really like staging of "Brave new world..." Today's society is
closer to Huxley's "Brave New World" than to Orwell's "1984". But there are clear elements of
both. If you will, the worst of both worlds has come true today.
In 1949, sometime after the publication of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four , Aldous
Huxley, the author of Brave New World (1931), who was then living in California, wrote to
Orwell. Huxley had briefly taught French to Orwell as a student in high school at Eton.
Huxley generally praises Orwell's novel, which to many seemed very similar to Brave New
World in its dystopian view of a possible future. Huxley politely voices his opinion that his
own version of what might come to pass would be truer than Orwell's. Huxley observed that the
philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is sadism, whereas his own version is
more likely, that controlling an ignorant and unsuspecting public would be less arduous, less
wasteful by other means. Huxley's masses are seduced by a mind-numbing drug, Orwell's with
sadism and fear.
The most powerful quote In Huxley's letter to Orwell is this:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Aldous Huxley.
Could Huxley have more prescient? What do we see around us?
Masses of people dependent upon drugs, legal and illegal. The majority of advertisements
that air on television seem to be for prescription drugs, some of them miraculous but most of
them unnecessary. Then comes COVID, a quite possibly weaponized virus from the
Fauci-funded-with-taxpayer-dollars lab in Wuhan, China. The powers that be tragically deferred
to the malevolent Fauci who had long been hoping for just such an opportunity. Suddenly, there
was an opportunity to test the mRNA vaccines that had been in the works for nearly twenty
years. They could be authorized as an emergency measure but were still highly experimental.
These jabs are not really vaccines at all, but a form of gene therapy . There
are potential
disastrous consequences down the road. Government experiments on the public are
nothing new .
Since there have been no actual, long-term trials, no one who contributed to this massive
drug experiment knows what the long-term consequences might be. There have been countless
adverse injuries and deaths already for which the government-funded vaccine producers will
suffer no liability. With each passing day, new side-effects have begun to appear: blood clots,
seizures, heart failure.
As new adverse reactions become known despite the censorship employed by most media outlets,
the more the Biden administration is pushing the vaccine, urging private corporations to make
it mandatory for all employees. Colleges are making them mandatory for all students returning
to campus.
The leftmedia are advocating the "shunning" of the unvaccinated. The self-appointed
virtue-signaling Democrats are furious at anyone and everyone who declines the jab. Why? If
they are protected, why do they care? That is the question. Same goes for the ridiculous mask
requirements . They protect no one but for those in operating rooms with their insides
exposed, yet even the vaccinated are supposed to wear them!
Months ago, herd immunity was near. Now Fauci and the CDC say it will never be achieved? Now
the Pfizer shot will necessitate yearly booster shots. Pfizer
expects to make $21B this year from its COVID vaccine! Anyone who thinks this isn't about
money is a fool. It is all about money, which is why Fauci, Gates, et al. were so determined to
convince the public that HCQ and ivermectin, both of which are effective, prophylactically and
as treatment, were not only useless, but dangerous. Both of those drugs are tried, true, and
inexpensive. Many of those thousands of N.Y. nursing home fatalities might have been prevented
with the use of one or both of those drugs. Those deaths are on the hands of Cuomo and his
like-minded tyrants drunk on power.
Months ago, Fauci, et al. agreed that children were at little or no risk of getting COVID,
of transmitting it, least of all dying from it. Now Fauci is demanding that all teens be
vaccinated by the end of the year! Why? They are no more in danger of contracting it now than
they were a year ago. Why are parents around this country not standing up to prevent their kids
from being guinea pigs in this monstrous medical experiment? And now they are " experimenting
" on infants. Needless to say, some have died. There is no reason on Earth for teens, children,
and infants to be vaccinated. Not one.
Huxley also wrote this:
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they
will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be
able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height
of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats ."
Perhaps this explains the left's hysterical impulse to force these untested shots on those
of us who have made the decision to go without it. If they've decided that it is the thing to
do, then all of us must submit to their whims. If we decide otherwise, it gives them the
righteous right to smear all of us whom they already deplore.
As C.J. Hopkins has
written , the left means to criminalize dissent. Those of us who are vaccine-resistant are
soon to be outcasts, deprived of jobs and entry into everyday businesses. This kind of
discrimination should remind everyone of ...oh, Germany three quarters of a century ago. Huxley
also wrote, "The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other
sets of people are human." That is precisely what the left is up to, what BLM is planning, what
Critical Race Theory is all about.
Tal Zaks, Moderna's chief medical officer, said these new vaccines are "hacking the
software of life." Vaccine-promoters claim he never said this, but he did. Bill Gates called
the vaccines " an operating
system " to the horror of those promoting it, a Kinsley gaffe. Whether it is or isn't
hardly matters at this point, but these statements by those behind the vaccines are a clue to
what they have in mind.
There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love
their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears , so to speak, producing a kind of
painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their
liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.
This is exactly what the left is working so hard to effect: a pharmacologically compromised
population happy to be taken care of by a massive state machine. And while millions of people
around the world have surrendered to the vaccine and mask hysteria, millions more, about 1.3
billion, want no part of this government vaccine mania.
In his letter to Orwell, Huxley ended with the quote cited above and again here because it
is so profound:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Huxley nailed the left more than seventy years ago, perhaps because leftists have never
changed throughout the ages. 61,497 173
Fat Beaver 14 hours ago (Edited)
If i am to be treated as an outcast or an undesirable because i refuse the vax, i will
immediately become someone that has zero reverence for the law, and i can only imagine 10's
of millions will be right there with me.
strych10 14 hours ago
Welcome to the club.
We have coffee in the corner and occasional meetings at various bars.
Dr. Chihuahua-González 13 hours ago
I'm a doctor, you could contact me anytime and receive your injection.
Fat Beaver 13 hours ago (Edited)
I've gotta feeling the normie world you think you live in is about to change drastically
for the worse...
sparky139 PREMIUM 10 hours ago
You mean you'll sign papers that you injected us *wink *wink? And toss it away?
bothneither 2 hours ago
Oh geez how uncommon, another useless doctor with no Scruples who sold out to big Pharma.
Please have my Gates sponsored secret sauce.
Unknown 6 hours ago (Edited)
Both Huxley and Orwell are wrong. Neoliberalism (the use of once office for personal
gains) is by far the most powerful force that subjugates the inept population. Neoliberalism
demolished the mighty USSR, now destroying the USA, and will do the same to China. And this
poison dribbles from the top to bottom creating self-centered population that is unable to
unite, much less resist.
Deathrips 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Tylers.
You gonna cover Tucker Carlsons show earlier today on FOX news about vaxxx deaths? almost 4k
reported so far this year.
Is the population of india up in arms or is the MSM?
Nelbev 10 hours ago
Facebook just flagged/censored it, must sign into see vid, Tuck also failed to mention
mRNA and adenovirus vaxes were experimental and not FDA approved nor gone through stage III
trials. Beside deaths, have blood clot issues. Good he mentioned how naturally immune if get
covid and recovered, better than vaccine, but not covered for bogus passports. Me personally,
I would rather catch covid and get natural immunity than be vaccinated with an untested
experimental vaccine.
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
His making of the gamma and delta workforce was quite prescient. We are seeing it play out
now, we all know gammas and delta. There was a really good ABC tv movie made in 1980 Brave
New World. Excellent show, it shows the Alphas and names them Rothchild and so on. Shows what
these people specifically want to do to the world. I wonder if the ruling psychopaths
actually wait for science fiction authors to plan the future and then follow their
script.
Mineshaft Gap 10 hours ago
If Huxley were starting out today no major publisher would touch him.
They'd tell him Brave New World doesn't have a diverse enough of cast. Even the mostly
likable totalitarian guy named Mustapha turns out to be white! A white Mustapha. It's soooo
triggering. Also, what's wrong with a little electronic fun and drug taking, anyway? Lighten
up , Aldous.
Meanwhile his portrait of shrieking medieval Catholic nuns who think they're possessed in
The Devils of Loudun might remind the leftist editors too uncomfortably of their own recent
bleating performances at "White Fragility" struggle sessions.
The people tearing down statues and being "woke" at every little thing seem to wander
about and flop around in a state of perpetual confusion. They have no guiding principles or
the hand of righteousness to steady them. They are hollow ! Every waking hour of their lives
is consumed with all this nonsense.
They want to smash everything without really knowing why. They are happiest when all is
ruin and then look around in dismay at what they have done and what they will now have to
live with. This fills their emptiness because there is nothing else to do so. Folks like this
burn out either destroyed by others, frequently destroying themselves, first the soul, then
the body. What kind of a jackass torches his own neighbourhood, in effect shits in his soup
bowl ?
The woke and cancel culture do ! It must be fun for them but after the laughter comes
those tears.
The NYT is simply a propaganda organ of the corporate oligarchy. Whenever the US does
something bad, it is always "alleged". When opponents of US hegemony are accused of doing
something bad, it is never "alleged" - for example, you won't read about the "alleged Douma
chemical attack" in the NYT.
Just a small point about English grammar: "alleged burglar", "alleged miracle" and
"alleged conspiracy" are all correct, because "alleged" is being used here as an adjective.
"Alleged antique vase", on the other hand, is incorrect because what is being alleged is not
that the object is a vase; what is being alleged is that the vase is antique. Because it is
being used to describe an adjective (antique), it is being used adverbially: therefore the
correct usage is "allegedly antique vase".
This reminds me of John Michael Greer's formulation: the "allegedly smart phone". I use it
all the time, to imply that intensive users of mobile devices may not be quite as intelligent
as is generally believed. Note that what is being is alleged is not that it's a phone, but
that it's smart!
NYT does use "alleged" correctly. In the land of truth, one need merely state one's
statement. In the land of lies, one must insert "alleged", so that others know the statement
is truth.
An advanced society functions by creating a series of institutions, telling them what it
wants them to do, and funding them to do it. Institutions like the police, fire departments,
courts and schools do the jobs society creates them to do. But one American institution --
higher education -- has decided to repurpose itself. It has set aside the job given to it by
society and substituted a different one.
Higher education had a cluster of related purposes in society. Everyone benefited from the
new knowledge it developed and the well-informed, thoughtful citizenry it produced. Individual
students benefited from the preparation they received for careers in a developed economy. Yet
these days, academia has decided that its primary purpose is the promotion of a radical
political ideology, to which it gives the sunny label "social justice."
That's an enormous detour from the institutional mission granted to higher education by
society -- and a problem of grave consequence. For the purpose that academia has now given
itself happens to be the only one that the founding documents of virtually all colleges and
universities take care to forbid pre-emptively. The framers of those documents understood that
using the campuses to promote political ideologies would destroy their institutions, because
ideologies would always be rigid enough to prevent the exploration of new ideas and the free
exercise of thought. They knew that the two purposes -- academic and political -- aren't simply
different, but polar opposites. They can't coexist because the one erases the other.
The current political uniformity of college faculty illustrates the point. It meets the
needs of the substitute purpose very well, but only by annihilating the authorized one.
Analytical thinking requires exploring a range of alternatives, but political crusades require
the opposite: exclusive belief and commitment. That's how far off course academia has gone in
its capricious self-repurposing.
Though most Americans aren't happy about this, academia has no qualms. No matter how many
times the lack of intellectual diversity on politicized, one-party campuses is decried as
unhealthy and educationally ruinous, the campuses won't listen. There was once internal debate
about higher education's direction between traditional academic scholars and radical political
activists, but that debate is long over. The activists, now firmly in control, have no interest
in what the dwindling ranks of scholars have to say.
Menthol cigarettes are racist. Regular flavored cigarettes don't kill as many black people
as menthol cigarettes and will henceforth be canceled. Because black people will ever only
smoke menthol cigarettes and never smoke regular flavored cigarettes, right?
On menthol, African American health groups and researchers say it is clear that Blacks
have been disproportionately hurt by the cigarettes, which studies show are more addictive
and
harder to stop using than non-menthol cigarettes.
In the 1950s, only about 10 percent of Black smokers used menthol cigarettes. Today, that
proportion is more than 85 percent, three times the rate for White smokers . African
Americans die of tobacco-related illnesses, including cancer and heart disease, at higher
rates than other groups, according to studies.
I smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day most of my adult life and I can tell you without
hesitation or qualification that anyone who believes canceling one kind of cigarettes will get
people to stop smoking should be fired for rank stupidity.
GodEmperor0fMankind 1 hour ago
He cant even get his son to stop smokin crack
ted41776 47 minutes ago
while naked in bed with underage relatives? allegedly
Hedgehog77 1 hour ago
But smoking meth and ****ting on the sidewalk is just fine.
onasip123 1 hour ago
When Menthol cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have Menthol cigarettes.
dukeofthefoothills 1 hour ago
Biden: "If you smoke regular cigarettes, you're not Black, man."
Nature_Boy_Wooooo 1 hour ago
This is so awesome.
awake283 1 hour ago
When I smoked, I really only smoked menthols. Does that mean I was appropriating black
culture?
-- ALIEN -- 1 hour ago
Reparations need to be made!
Gentleman Bastard 1 hour ago
Looks like a black market opportunity for menthol cigarettes just opened up.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 1 hour ago
Yep great minds think alike.
Lord Raglan 39 minutes ago (Edited)
Oregon legalized cocaine but they've outlawed straws.
Must be frustrating.
There's classic liberal logic for you.
holmes 1 hour ago
Blacks like menthol cigs better. So these cigs are racist. So does that make fried chicken
racist also?
the6thBook PREMIUM 1 hour ago
Shouldn't blacks be upset that they are banning their cigarettes? Trying to make blacks
smoke white cigarettes?
cowdiddly 37 minutes ago
Well, Obama did warn you that this Dotard was dumb as a rock.
"History Does Not Repeat Itself, But It Rhymes" -- Mark Twain (attributed). This is a naked
fight for political power using very questionable means.
Marxist ideology revolving around class and special role of "proletariat" as the oppressed
class which strives for liberation and overthow "oppressors" in order to build more a just
society, is more or less replaced by race. In woke movement, blacks are the new proletariat.
Corporations, especially those headquartered in Georgia, have come out against the
legislation signed by Governor Kemp. Republicans describe the bill as one that addresses
election integrity while Democrats call it a voter suppression law – "Jim Crow 2.0".
Coca-Cola and Delta were among
the first to make a point to virtue-signal after the governor signed the bill, only to be
exposed as taking part in the process and giving input into the legislation. Both were fine
with the law until the governor signed it and grievance activists did their thing. Coke soon
discovered that not all of its consumers think that companies should be making policy –
that 's the job of lawmakers- and now it is trying to clean up the mess it made for itself.
Churches have increasingly played a part in American politics and this is an escalation of
that trend. Evangelical churches have shown support for conservative and Republican candidates
while black churches get out the vote for Democrats. This threat of bringing a large-scale
boycott over state legislation is a hostile action against the corporation. It's political
theatre. Groups like Black Voters Matter, the New Georgia Project Action Fund (Stacey Abrams),
and the Georgia NAACP are pressuring companies to publicly voice their opposition and the
religious leaders are doing the bidding of these politically active groups.
When SB 241 and HB 531 were working through the legislative process, the groups put pressure
on Republican lawmakers and the governor to abandon the voting reform legislation. They also
demanded that donations to any lawmakers supporting the legislation be stopped. The Georgia
Chamber of Commerce tried to remain bipartisan while still voicing support for voting rights
but then caved and expressed "concern and opposition" to some provisions . At the time,
several large Georgia companies were targeted by activists, including Aflac, Coca-Cola,
Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Southern Company and UPS.
The Georgia Chamber of Commerce previously reiterated the importance of voting rights
without voicing opposition against any specific legislation. In a new statement to CNBC, the
Georgia Chamber said it has "expressed concern and opposition to provisions found in both HB
531 and SB 241 that restrict or diminish voter access" and "continues to engage in a
bipartisan manner with leaders of the General Assembly on bills that would impact voting
rights in our state."
Office Depot came out at the time and supported the Chamber's statement. The Election
Integrity Act of 2021, originally known as Georgia Senate Bill 202, is a Georgia law
overhauling elections in the state that was signed into effect by the governor and we know what
happened. Office Depot has not delivered for the activists as they demand so now the company
faces boycott drama. The
religious leaders are taking up where the activist groups left off.
African Methodist Episcopal Bishop Reginald Jackson said the company has remained "silent
and indifferent" to his efforts to rally opposition to the new state law pushed by
Republicans, as well as to similar efforts elsewhere.
" We just don't think we ought to let their indifference stand ," Jackson said.
The leader of all his denomination's churches in Georgia, Jackson had a meeting last week
with other Georgia-based executives to urge them to oppose the voting law, but said he's had
no contact with Home Depot, despite repeated efforts to reach the company.
Faith leaders at first were hesitant to jump into the boycott game. Now the political
atmosphere has changed and they are being vocal. Jackson focused on pressuring Coca-Cola first.
After that company went along to get along, before it realized its error, Jackson moved his
focus onto other companies.
"We believe that corporations have a corporate responsibility to their customers, who are
Black, white and brown, on the issue of voting ," Jackson said. "It doesn't make any sense at
all to keep giving dollars and buying products from people that do not support you."
He said faith leaders may call for boycotts of other companies in the future.
So, here we are with Home Depot in the spotlight. There are
four specific demands leveled at Home Depot in order to avoid further action from the
activists.
Rev. Lee May, the lead pastor of Transforming Faith Church, said the coalition is "fluid
in this boycott" but has four specifics requests of Home Depot: To speak out publicly and
specifically against SB 202; to speak out against any other restrictive voting provisions
under consideration in other states; to support federal legislation that expands voter access
and "also restricts the ability to suppress the vote;" and to support any efforts, including
investing in litigation, to stop SB 202 and other bills like it.
" Home Depot, we're calling on you. I'm speaking to you right now. We're ready to have a
conversation with you. You haven't been ready up to now, but our arms are wide open. We are
people of faith. People of grace, and we're ready to have this conversation, but we're very
clear those four things that we want to see accomplished ," May said.
The Rev. Timothy McDonald III, senior pastor of the First Iconium Baptist Church, warned
this was just the beginning.
"It's up to you whether or not, Home Depot, this boycott escalates to phase two, phase
three, phase four," McDonald said. "We're not on your property -- today. We're not blocking
your driveways -- today. We're not inside your store protesting -- today. This is just phase
one."
That sounds a lot like incitement, doesn't it? Governor Kemp is speaking out, he has had
enough. He held
a press conference to deliver his comments.
"First, the left came for baseball, and now they are coming for Georgia jobs," Kemp said,
referring to MLB's decision to move this year's All-Star Game from Atlanta over the new laws.
"This boycott of Home Depot – one of Georgia's largest employers – puts partisan
politics ahead of people's paychecks."
"The Georgians hardest hit by this destructive decision are the hourly workers just trying
to make ends meet during a global pandemic. I stand with Home Depot, and I stand with nearly
30,000 Georgians who work at the 90 Home Depot stores and 15 distribution centers across the
Peach State. I will not apologize for supporting both Georgia jobs and election integrity,"
he added.
"This insanity needs to stop. The people that are pushing this, that are profiting off of
it, like Stacey Abrams and others, are now trying to have it both ways," Kemp said. "There is
a political agenda here, and it all leads back to Washington, D.C."
The governor is right. The activists are in it to federalize elections, not to look out for
Georgians, who will lose jobs over these partisan actions. The law signed by Kemp increases
voting rights, it doesn't limit them .
Written by Steven Lee Myers, the NYT 's bureau chief in Beijing, the piece is
full of false and unsupported assertions. It changes explicit Chinese statements in support
of democracy and human rights into the opposite. It is also untruthful about the sources of
its quotes:
China hopes to position itself as the main challenger to an international order, led by the
United States, that is generally guided by principles of democracy, respect for human
rights and adherence to rule of law.
Such a system "does not represent the will of the international community," China's
foreign minister, Wang Yi, told Russia's, Sergey V. Lavrov, when they met in the southern
Chinese city of Guilin.
In a joint statement, they accused the United States of bullying
and interference and urged it to "reflect on the damage it has done to global peace and
development in recent years."
There is no evidence and no quote in the piece to support the assertion that the
unilateral "international order, led by the United States" is in fact "guided by principles
of democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law." The wars the U.S. and
its allies have waged and wage in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and other countries are, in fact,
not in adherence to the rule of international law nor are they executed with respect for
human rights or the principles of democracy.
The Wang Yi quote in the second paragraph is taken completely out of context. By placing
it after his false assertions the author insinuates that Wang Yi rejected the "principles of
democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law."
Wang Yi did not do that at all. He did in fact the opposite.
Here is the original
quote from the report of Wang Yi's meeting with Russia's foreign minister Sergei
Lavrov:
Wang Yi said, the so-called "rules-based international order" by a few countries is not
clear in its meaning , as it reflects the rules of a few countries and does not represent
the will of the international community . We should uphold the universally recognized
international law.
The there is the
Joint Statement from the Lavrov-Wang Yi meeting which contradicts the New York
Times insinuation:
The world has entered a period of high turbulence and rapid change. In this context, we
call on the international community to put aside any differences and strengthen mutual
understanding and build up cooperation in the interests of global security and geopolitical
stability, to contribute to the establishment of a fairer, more democratic and rational
multipolar world order.
All human rights are universal, indivisible and interrelated. ...
Democracy is one of the achievements of humanity. ...
International law is an important condition for the further development of humanity.
...
In promoting multilateral cooperation, the international community must adhere to
principles such as openness and equality, and a non-ideological approach. ...
The Chinese Foreign Ministry report
about the issuance of the above Four Point Statement quotes Wang Yi as saying:
Today, we will issue a joint statement on several issues of current global governance,
expounding the essence of major concepts such as human rights, democracy, international
order, and multilateralism, reflecting the collective demands of the international
community, especially developing countries. We call on all countries to participate in and
improve global governance in the spirit of openness, inclusiveness and equality, abandon
zero-sum mentality and ideological prejudice, stop interfering in the internal affairs of
any country, enhance the well-being of people of all countries through dialogue and
cooperation, and jointly build a community with a shared future for mankind.
In no way has China rejected human rights, democracy or the rule of law. The New York
Times author simply construed that.
The third NYT paragraph quoted above is likewise false. The
Joint Statement did not urge the U.S. to "reflect on the damage it has done to global
peace and development in recent years." There is nothing in there that could be construed as
such. The U.S. is not even mentioned in the Joint Statement.
The quote the NYT author uses is not from the official Joint Statement, as
falsely claimed, but from a Chinese State TV's summarization of a
press conference :
Both foreign ministers said that the international community believes that the United
States should reflect on the damage it has done to global peace and development in recent
years , stop unilateral bullying, stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs,
and stop pulling "small circles" to engage in group confrontation.
Unsupported assertions about the motives of the "U.S. led" order, out of context quotes
that turn the actual statements by the Chinese foreign minister into their opposite and
missattribution of a news summary as a diplomatic statement is something that one would not
expect from a news outlet but from a propaganda organ.
That is then, obviously, what the Times has become.
Thanks b, for bringing this to light.
Without your posts, most of us - even those of us that try to dig into things more than
most people - would not be aware of these things.
Western mainstream media will, of course, never inform the public of those important
excerpts from the Lavrov-Wang Joint Statement and the Chinese Foreign Ministry that you
brought to our attention.
In our so-called "democracies", the electorates are not just deliberately kept in the
dark, but in fact shaped, not into informed voters, but disinformed voters.
-
Again to translate from the Orwellianism/Newspeak of our Western establishment news media,
when they say "international order" what they really mean is the "Western
deep-state-run order" or "Western neocon-run order."
"Generally guided by principles of democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to
rule of law" can be translated to "generally guided by hypocrisy, Orwellianism, special
interests, gangsterism, treachery, and mockery of rule of law."
fallacia non causae ut causae
Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten / Arthur Schopenhauer 1831
[The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument]
Steven Lee Myers, the NYT's bureau
chief in Beijing just use a really classical and poor way to manipulate.
"an international order, led by the United States, that is generally guided by principles of
democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law."
International order is not international law. LED by USA not by law. Generally (... No
comment), principe of... (again)
Yes. Really pure Propagandastaffel.
But a good news. Why is NYT in a need to manipulate?
...On a different note, i believe Steven Myers is just milling for a free ticket home and
a promotion which he'll surely get once he's expelled from China for fabricating fake
news.
Even during the worst of the cold war there were some respect and integrity on reporting
facts. MSM of today is fully weaponized and had gone full goebbels.
"that is generally guided by principles of democracy, respect for human rights and
adherence to rule of law"...
I haven't decided yet to either cry about the existence of such idiocies and such
propaganda driven Idiots and what it says about the human condition or scream because the
hypocrisy displayed continuously without shame and any twinge of self-awareness' becomes
unbearable.
Okay, then what can we infer from this lie-filed screed? I suggest that the NY Times and
its manipulators are against all the highlighted portions of this point b highlighted from
the 4 Point Joint Statement:
"Today, we will issue a joint statement on several issues of current global governance,
expounding the essence of major concepts such as human rights, democracy, international
order, and multilateralism, reflecting the collective demands of the international community,
especially developing countries . We call on all countries to participate in and
improve global governance in the spirit of openness, inclusiveness and equality, abandon
zero-sum mentality and ideological prejudice, stop interfering in the internal affairs of any
country, enhance the well-being of people of all countries through dialogue and cooperation,
and jointly build a community with a shared future for mankind ."
All the bolded text is what the Outlaw US Empire, its vassals and its propaganda organs
are against, as in opposed in a very proactive manner up to and including physical war waged
on nations that try to promote any of those bolded items. The one main feature the Outlaw US
Empire is dead set against occurring is the construction of a global community aimed at
promoting a shared, equitable future for humanity for that's a Win-Win outcome, not a
Zero-sum last man standing, winner take all outcome Neoliberalism demands. In other words,
the NY Times is serving as a sort of American Pravda by detailing what its actual
policies are without actually declaring them to be policies.
Ever notice that within US culture there's not one sport or game that has a shared outcome
between several different participants, that there's only one winner (team or individual) and
that its entire political-economy is modeled on that concept? That equality of outcomes is
always subsumed by equality of participation? That if there's not going to be any equality
overseas then there won't be any equality at home? And I can list many more. That all such
arrangements are promoting a domineering authoritarian ethos never seems to dawn on far too
many--I'm the head of the household so you must do as I say. We don't care if 80% of the
public demand universal single payer health insurance, an end to forever wars, clean water
for our communities, clean air to breathe, freedom from mass shootings, freedom from police
riots, and so forth and so on. The NY Times and its controllers don't want anything of the
sort for the US public or for anyone else on the planet. And that's the message it delivers
every time it publishes an article filled with lies, falsehoods, innuendo, fabrications,
etc., which is daily.
The NY Times ought to be called The Projector and sold with the tabloids.
Thanks b, when you wrote: "The New York Times author simply construed that."
I would change to: "The New York Times author maliciously construed that."
The "Five Eyes" countries, who just happen to all be Spawn of Perfidious Albion, seem to
be more and more infected with the virus of Orwellianism (itself an idea of Anglo culture).
Perhaps parallel to the out-of-control "Five Eyes" apparatus, or as a subset of it, there is
an unspoken out-of-control "Five Mouths" apparatus, of which the NYT is a key outlet ...
Let's hope other countries do everything they can keep that virus out of their systems,
and inoculate themselves and their populations well.
Steven Lee Myers used to work as a NYT correspondent in Moscow and Baghdad. He is the
author of the tome "The New Tsar: the Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin", the title of which
alerts you to the tone of the garbage that wasted an entire plantation of pine trees.
"Our Nairobi chief has a tremendous opportunity to dive into news and opportunity
across a wide range of countries, from the deserts of Sudan to the pirate seas of Somalia,
down through the forests of the Congo and the shores of Tanzania. It is an enormous patch of
vibrant, intense and strategically important territory with many vital story lines, including
terrorism, the scramble for resources, the global contest with China and the constant
push-and-pull of democracy versus authoritarianism.
The ideal candidate should enjoy jumping on news, be willing to cover conflict, and
also be drawn to investigative stories. There is also the chance to delight our readers with
stories of hope and the changing rhythms of life in a rapidly evolving region."
Myers certainly knows how to jump on propaganda often and hard enough to turn into
something faintly resembling ... news.
"... Steve moved to Beijing in 2016 and quickly built a portfolio that was as powerful as
it was eclectic. His old world combined with his new one when he explored Russia's fury
over China's hunger for timber. He detailed Beijing's spreading crackdown on Islam,
analyzed China's exploration of the far side of the moon and reported on Hengdian World
Studios, an outdoor movie and television lot scattered over 2,500 acres in eastern China.
He also landed a rare interview with the Chinese actress Fan Bingbing after she was
embroiled in a tax scandal.
At each stop along his journey, he has taken to heart the advice of the former executive
editor Joe Lelyveld, devouring the local literature of his new home, not just the books by
foreign correspondents. Lately, he has been reading Yan Lianke, the author of "The Day the
Sun Died," and "Lenin's Kisses." He has an equally voracious appetite for Chinese cuisine,
which he is offsetting by training for his eighth marathon ..."
And here's our own Chris Buckley who joined Myers on his arduous tour of duty in
Beijing:
"... Chris [Buckley] is our resident China expert, having spent the past 20 years reporting
on the country. He went into journalism essentially as an excuse to hang around China.
Born in Australia, he decided to abandon a law degree and went to Beijing to study
Communist Party history at the People's University of China. After a half-hearted attempt
to start an academic career, his odd jobs in teaching and translating turned into
occasional fixer work for journalists, eventually in our own Beijing bureau.
He worked for Erik Eckholm and Elisabeth Rosenthal covering corruption scandals,
political infighting, the SARS crisis and the outbreak of an AIDS epidemic in rural China.
When they left, he worked for a while under a couple of obscure correspondents, Joe Kahn
and Jim Yardley.
After a seven-year stint as a correspondent at Reuters, he returned to The Times in
2012. He spent the first three years waiting in Hong Kong for a visa, camping out at the
Harbour Plaza Hotel for reasons that are unknown. From that perch, he wrote about the rise
of Xi Jinping, his corruption campaign, his directive declaring war on liberal values, as
well as the Umbrella Revolution. Since returning to the mainland, he has been a force
behind our coverage of the crackdown on the Uighurs in Xinjiang and the country's shift
toward authoritarianism, while also taking on a more personal quest about Sichuan
food."
Do you get the impression that these fellows jumped onto these cushy jobs for the food
junkets?
"... international order, led by the United States, that is generally guided by principles of
democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law.
Such a system "does not represent the will of the international community," according to the
Chinese.
We throw this statement into spectroscope to check if there is any weasel content, phrases
that sound nice but are capacious enough to cover not so nice meaning. Would it be even
better if the much tutted "international order" was not BASED on principles, rather than
GUIDED BY principles, and even weaker, GENERALLY GUIDED? Going further on that path we can be
INSPIRED by principles, GENERALLY INSPIRED, and then we can make a bold step to VAGELY
INSPIRED. Going further, OCCASIONALLY VAGUELY INSPIRED.
The "England never lost control of its American Colonies" is a very long running theme.
Yet, does it really matter which is the King of the Outlaw Nations? Certainly there are many
shared attributes beyond language, elite conception of exceptionalism being a major trait.
Neoliberalism certainly arose in England first and was exported here. And there are clearly
linkages in the development of WW1 propaganda to get the USA to enter the war along with the
post-war Anti-Communist Crusade that became the Cold War. But it was the CIA/NSA that
developed the 5-Eyes, but prior to that there was Echelon and many other programs that went
against the UK's interest. And as Orwell foresaw, Airstrip-1 will always be allied with
Oceania. It serves the same purpose next to Europe that Japan does next to Asia. The UK's
occupied, but few ever note that anymore. As sinners and murderers, both are pretty equal,
but they aren't Siamese Twins either where one will die if separated from the other. As
things now stand, both should hang together.
The "Five Eyes" countries, who just happen to all be Spawn of Perfidious Albion, seem to
be more and more infected with the virus of Orwellianism (itself an idea of Anglo culture).
Perhaps parallel to the out-of-control "Five Eyes" apparatus, or as a subset of it, there is
an unspoken out-of-control "Five Mouths" apparatus, of which the NYT is a key outlet ...
Let's hope other countries do everything they can keep that virus out of their systems,
and inoculate themselves and their populations well.
@canadian cents Orwellian is not an english invention. Actually Orwell translated the book
from the russian original We by Jewgeni Semjatin. Written 1920 in St. Petersburg. Maybe its
the best translation in history of literature. He translated not by word or even plot points.
He managed to translate culturally.
He took more than 15 years for that and expressed his admiration for the book before by
saying, he wishes the book will get the best translator in the world. Booth books are
brilliant. I really recommend to read the original. You will understand very clear, where
Orwell see the differences between anglo and russian.
For the rest, i am very agree with you. I can see fractals of the book now everyday and
everywhere.
The industry needs some good PR right now. After all, its refusal to share its vaccine
technology could end up costing millions of lives in the developing world. In addition, it
could mean trillions of dollars of lost output as countries need to shut down large segments
of their economy. But the NYT is there to help. It ran a lengthy article about the issue,
which contains much useful information, but it maintains a framing favorable to the
pharmaceutical industry. At the end of the piece, after giving the argument for broader
sharing of technology and over-riding the industry's government-granted patent monopolies,
the piece tells readers: "But governments cannot afford to sabotage companies that need
profit to survive."
If the reporters/editors had read their piece, they would know that the companies in
question had already made large profits, through being paid directly for their research and
building manufacturing facilities, as was the case with Moderna and BioNtech (Pfizer's German
partner), or with advance purchase agreements. No one is suggesting that these companies
should not make a profit, so it is not clear on what planet this assertion originated.
It is possible to make profits directly on government contracts, as major military
contractors like Lockheed and Boeing could explain to the New York Times. The advantage of
having direct contracts for biomedical research is that a requirement of the contract could
be that all findings are fully open-source so that researchers all over the world can benefit
from them. (I discuss a mechanism for direct funding in chapter 5 of Rigged [it's free].)
... ... ...
It is probably worth mentioning inequality in this piece. The NYT, like most intellectual
types, has done considerable hand-wringing over inequality in recent years, both overall and
racial inequality. It is a safe bet that giving more money to pharmaceutical companies will
mean more inequality and certainly benefit whites far more than Blacks. It might be useful if
the paper paid a little attention to the policies that create
inequality instead of just bemoaning it as an unfortunate feature of the economy.
Yes, the NYT is really good at covering the impact of policies that increase inequality
and perpetuate structural racism but avoids drawing any lines to the policies themselves --
and the politics that create these policies -- by treating the status quo as a kind of
state of nature.
Innovation in vaccine design comes from advances in fundamental science, which is funded
not by companies, but by NIH and NSF (predominantly). Pharma employs scientists trained
using federal funds, freely uses federally funded resources, open access publications and
open source software paid for through federal funds, buys up commercializable technologies
in form of startups that grow out of federal science and funded by SBIR and STTR grants,
kills most of them and overcharges taxpayers for the product. That's rarely mentioned. As
is the fact that pharma actually sucks at the only thing that they are supposed to be good
at - manufacturing. Quality problems have been plaguing AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna -
something that is discussed in trade publications and FDA meetings but doesn't make it to
the NYT or TV news.
If you are using Fakebook you are part of the problem. I am pretty tired of people who use
these antisocial media platforms complaining when these platforms do what they do by their very
nature.
Notable quotes:
"... The "reality police" have infiltrated down to the lowest levels now to look for "new normal" violators anywhere. ..."
"... I am pretty tired of people who use these antisocial media platforms complaining when these platforms do what they do by their very nature. ..."
"... Remember when Eric Schmidt got his panties in a twist because some enterprising soul had done some digital digging into his private life? ..."
"... All social media Big Tech platforms are SARPA surveillance programs that added some cool logo, a young captured jew type as Boss and some marketing to morons and lemmings. ..."
"... The sheer narcissism and desperation on these platforms is disgusting and disturbing. Big data and pedophiles love Facebook. ..."
Last week I did a web search for a quote by Goebbels concerning truth and found one
regarding TheState and TheBigLie on TheJewishVirtualLibrary. After posting it to Fakebook, I
was notified that the quote violated "community standards" and wouldn't be seen by anyone
else (except the FBI, or local LEOs perhaps).
Being who I am, I posted the same quote with a link to where I found it
[TheJewishVirtualLibrary] and was notified no one would see any of my posts for a week.
Again, being who I am, I posted a video from TheBabylonBee that illustrated the danger of
likening everything to Nazis, and was notified of a month-long ban.
I then downloaded my data in two formats and deleted the account.
Living life stupid might be inclusive and entertaining, but there's too many options
available to make ignorance enjoyable.
...It is partially Brave New World with a dash of 1984 and a healthy helping of Mordor,
all of which is brightened and made more alluring and addicting with Sexual Revolution.
The "reality police" have infiltrated down to the lowest levels now to look for "new
normal" violators anywhere. If CJ thinks he's a nobody, then I am a sub-sub-sub-nobody, yet I
have had my user account suspended twice now at an obscure news aggregation website,
Fark.com , for making comments that
apparently constitute "Covid misinformation."
Once was when I commented on a story that
stated that there is a need to vaccinate even those that have recovered from actually having
Covid. I said something like, "Why would you need to vaccinate someone whose immune system is
functioning properly and already did the job naturally?" Apparently, even mentioning that
humans have an immune system is now verboten, and thus my comment was deleted and my account
was suspended for 24 hours. The next time I was suspended was just over this past weekend
when I commented on a story about someone ignoring covid rules.
I stated something to the
effect that we should ALL be ignoring the public health "experts" who are petty tyrants.
Well, they have now suspended my account for 72 hours again for "covid misinformation."
Despite being amused that my opinions are somehow "misinformation," it's certainly
enraging that speaking plain common truth is becoming more and more difficult.
I am pretty tired of people who use these antisocial media platforms complaining when
these platforms do what they do by their very nature. They weren't set up to help us they
were set up to enslave us. Get a clue, Farcebook and Twatter et al are not your friends!
All social media Big Tech platforms are SARPA surveillance programs that added some cool
logo, a young captured jew type as Boss and some marketing to morons and lemmings. Absolute
joke. The sheer narcissism and desperation on these platforms is disgusting and disturbing.
Big data and pedophiles love Facebook.
Given that we no longer trust the intentions of most public and private institutions,
i am looking for signs of a new phenomenon, which i call "Fear of new developments in
science or technology". ...due to the belief that said developments will only be used
against us, either by the state or oligarchy. Anyone have thoughts on this?
When I read "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley I considered it an improbable fantasy. But
it certainly does seem now that something of the kind is in our future, if the "best people"
have their way. Another good treatment of the subject is the short story "Welcome to the
Monkey House" by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
"Digital giants have been playing an increasingly
significant role in wider society... how well does this monopolism correlate with the public interest?,"
Russian
President Vladimir Putin
said
on
January 27, 2021.
"Where is the distinction between successful global businesses, sought-after services and big data consolidation on the
one hand, and the efforts to rule society[...] by substituting legitimate democratic institutions, by restricting the
natural right for people to decide how to live and what view to express freely on the other hand?"
Was Mr. Putin defending democracy? Hardly.
What apparently worries him is that the
Big Tech might gain the power to control society at the expense of his government.
What must be a nightmare for him -- as for many Americans -- is that
the Tech giants
were able to censor news favorable to Trump and then censor Trump himself
. How could the U.S. do this to the
president of a great and free country?
Putin made these comments at the Davos World Economic Forum, in which he and Chinese President Xi Jinping, sped on by the
"Great Reset" of a fourth industrial revolution, used
enlightened
phrases
to mask dark plans for nation states in a globalist New World Order. Thus did Xi caution attendees "to adapt to
and guide globalization, cushion its negative impact, and deliver its benefits to all countries and all nations."
In March 2019, Putin signed a
law
"imposing
penalties for Russian internet users caught spread 'fake news' and information that presents 'clear disrespect for society,
government, state symbols the constitution and government institutions.'" Punishments got even heavier with new laws in
December.
Meanwhile, opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been sentenced to prison for more than three years (with a year off for
time served), in part because he revealed photos of a lavish Russian palace allegedly belonging to Putin on the coast of
the Black Sea. Its accouterments supposedly
include
an $824 toilet brush
. Many of the thousands of people protesting Navalny's imprisonment have since been protesting
Putin by waving gold-painted toilet brushes.
How nice that American Big Tech companies is
pushing
democracy in Russia
-- even while it is denying it at home.
Do you notice how many leaders in Europe have
risen to condemn censorship in America even though many in Europe are censoring their citizens as well, and are not exactly
fans of the person who was being censored, former President Donald J. Trump? Like Putin, they probably do not want Big Tech
competing with their governments, either.
The power-sharing of the U.S. Federal government with Big Tech appears a recipe for
unharnessed power and corruption.
Navalny
caught
on
right away, saying:
"This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time
when they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter.'"
What watchdog, if any, is now restraining Big Tech in America?
It has
become quite clear that Big Tech's censorship may well have cost Trump the election, even if one ultimately finds that
election fraud did not.
Big Tech took it upon itself to censor an exposé -- published by the
New
York Post
on October 24, 2020, as well as
follow-up
exposés
-- reporting that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, had sold his influence to China and Ukraine, and had raked in
millions for the family.
The Media Research Center (MRC)
found
that
"One of every six Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the
facts about one or more of these news stories". That information might well have changed the outcome in all six of the
swing states Biden reportedly won.
Last August, Twitter also undertook
censoring
the trailer
of an explosive documentary entitled "
The
Plot Against the President.
" The film, narrated by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) with commentary by leading members of the
Republican Party, exposes leading members of the Democratic Party and their deep state allies, many of whom
knowingly
used
phony evidence to frame President Trump and some in his circle to try convince Americans that he and his campaign had
colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election.
The film claims, using with recently declassified information, that President
Barack
Obama,
as well
Hillary
Clinton
, were involved in an almost four-year attempted coup incomparably more undemocratic than any riot at the
Capital Building on January 6.
Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee,
claimed
in
August 2020 that Biden also knew of the ongoing efforts to unseat Trump. Nevertheless, Trump did not target them, perhaps
to avoid dividing the country even further.
According to the
Washington Times
, the Twitter account of the movie, which debuted
in October 2020,
attracted
30,000 followers
. Twitter blacklisted it for a day, but after a public uproar, put the popular documentary back. Our
question is: How many blacklistings did Twitter not put back?
The January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol was a pivotal event for Trump and the Republican Party. Prior to January 6,
President Trump had offered to deploy 10,000 troops to the capitol, according to his former Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows.
The Pentagon and the Department of Justice had also offered help but were also reportedly
turned
down
by the US Capitol Police The problem, apparently, was "
optics"
--
about a Capitol now surrounded by barbed wire and thousands of troops, which the current Administration now seems to
like
.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for further details about the event were also rejected -- it is not clear by
whom. It is ridiculous, therefore, for anyone to frame the riots, ugly as they were, as a seditious "insurrection,"
particularly in light of what appears to be a massive security failure that could have averted the violence. One thing is
certain: the timing of the event could not have been more perfect for opposition groups, which is probably why it had been
planned for weeks before January 6.
What these efforts and the media did achieve was an end to all attempts to ascertain election fraud at a time when Vice
President Mike Pence was counting Electoral College ballots, and allowing speeches from those supporting that claim. Some
politicians even
called
for
the resignation of Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, and referred them to the
ethics
committee
for even suggesting an election audit of battleground states, despite
questions
having
been asked -- with no objections -- concerning the results of the 2000, 2004 and 2016 presidential elections.
Ultimately, the result of the latest "witch hunt" against President Trump, as it has
been
called
,
was a contrived impeachment attempt to bar Trump from a future presidential bid -- a kangaroo court devoid of due process,
hearings, witnesses, and evidence. The prosecution, however, was undeniably eloquent in evoking "democracy" for a totally
undemocratic procedure that justly resulted in Trump's acquittal.
Meanwhile, Facebook and Twitter banned Trump and some of his supporters from their cyber domains. An alternative social
media platform, Parler, was banned from the
Apple
and Google
app stores, and then completely
closed
down by Amazon
.
Meanwhile, mainstream social media platforms were
reportedly
used
to rally and organize carry out
riots
in American cities
last year. No one was penalized.
Do not, however, expect such slackness now.
According
to
Fox News:
"People like Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., have made various public
statements labeling Republicans as extremists -- with Ocasio-Cortez claiming the GOP has 'white supremacist
sympathizers' within its ranks, and Brennan claiming 'domestic violent extremists' in the form of far-right supporters
of President Trump are more dangerous than Al Qaeda."
Columnist and radio host Jeffrey Kuhner
warns
that
a new bill, H.R. 350, "is the liberals' equivalent of the Patriot Act redux. This time, however, it is not aimed at Islamic
jihadists. Rather, it directly targets Trump patriots." Kuhner writes that the bill "has the full backing of the Democratic
congressional leadership, the Biden administration... Big Media and Big Tech."
"The bill empowers the Deep State to monitor, surveil and spy on American citizens' social media accounts, phone calls,
political meetings and even infiltrate pro-Trump or 'Stop the Steal' rallies.
"Conservatives who are deemed potentially 'seditious' or 'treasonous' can be arrested and jailed, fined and/or lose
their employment. The goal is simple: to crush all dissent to the Biden regime."
Moreover, last month the new Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin,
ordered
a
"stand down "of the entire military for 60 days, "so each service, each command and each unit can have a deeper
conversation about this issue [extremism]." Normally stand downs last only a few hours or days and do not involve the
entire military. Austin, in addition, has pledged to "rid our ranks of racists and extremists."
These are words that can be applied to anyone dreamed up, including Trump supporters, and based, of course, on nothing but
propaganda.
Austin's plan is therefore needless, divisive and dangerous, considering the foreign dangers now circling their prey. This
punishment of the regime's "foes" makes one wonder what is next. Are we already marching in lockstep with Russia and China?
The way to unite and strengthen the United States is not through suppression and punishment but through political power
with checks and balances, a free press and closer adherence to the Constitution.
But here, again, there seems to be. a problem. The Federalist
wrote
in
July:
"According to a new Quillette survey
released
last
month, 70 percent of self-identifying liberals want to rewrite the U.S. Constitution 'to a new Americans constitution
that better reflects our diversity as a people.'"
Oh, so that is what we lack: diversity!
What can Americans Do? We are presently at a tipping point in America. Communist China is working hard and is focused on
global domination; we are just messing around. In an increasingly digital world, the war against infringements on our
freedoms most probably needs to be fought largely in the digital and cyber-space. That is why ending censorship in both the
traditional and social media is such an important priority. First, break up the Big Tech companies. Let them become the
utilities they originally claimed to be, or else be liable to lawsuits as other publishers are.
We do take some comfort that whereas dictatorships in authoritarian countries such as China and Russia is vertical -- from
the top down -- in America, the central government shares power with the states from the bottom up, and with powers
separated: the executive, the judiciary and the legislative.
Fortunately, governors
such as Ron DeSantis in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas and Kevin Stitt in Oklahoma are now moving
legislatively
to
counter federal laws that may have adverse effects on freedom of speech, jobs, election integrity, the energy industry, the
first or second amendments and general constitutional rights.
This does not speak, however, to the major issue here -- that
democracy cannot
survive in a country where a few technocrats and oligarchs can choose to deny access to information or platforms to
candidates running for office
. It is simply unacceptable that they alone -- unelected, unappointed, untransparent
and unaccountable -- can deem what is "harmful" to society.
The job now for all of
us is to prevent the United States from slowly becoming a full-blown tyranny.
holdbuysell
21 hours ago
The
irony of Apple and the '1984' commercial they ran couldn't be more resounding.
Max21c
12 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
The
power-sharing
of
the U.S. Federal government with Big Tech appears a
recipe
for unharnessed power and corruption
...
This is nothing new. It's just wider spread and they're
more blatant and open about their secret police criminality, war crimes against civilians and oppression.
The
terrorists and tyrants in the CIA, FBI, military secret police have always created & abused secret police powers
to rule over America, rob & cheat people, take other people's property & intellectual works & intellectual
property, sick the secret police on innocent American civilians, engage in political persecution of innocent
American civilians, engage in economic warfare & industrial espionage, enrich & empower themselves and their kind,
and essentially wage a war of persecution & oppression & thievery against targeted American civilians.
BDB
20 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
We
never had a democracy.
When elections are a media processes and presidents are appointed by central bankers and not elected?
Using the ideology of democracy( " rule by the people") is another way govt belittles us.
The
democracy dogma is another mind control meme for power over others.
Big
Tech (Corporations) and Big Brother (Government) are joined by a revolving door of jobs and corruption
already. There is no becomes. It has already became. Like since before I was born.
Ranger4564
15 hours ago
There is no separation, and there really is no door, it's the same damn organization, just different
outfits and an alias to hide the identity.
Think of it as the subsidiary of a subsidiary of a holding company that is owned by a venture capitalist,
that is controlled by the cabal.
In
fact, most companies people think are independent corporations are actually owned by the cabal in such a
structure. I don't even need to fabricate this.
JohnGaltsChild
12 hours ago
remove
link
Big
tech + Banks = Slavery
OldNewB
13 hours ago
Game over for freedom. When corporations take over and have more power than your own elected government,
greed and power wins out over freedom. America sold itself to the highest bidder.
Max21c
12 hours ago
That's because the crazy people from the intelligence community and secret police community have
basically completely taken over after 911 with the willing collaboration of the puppet press, puppet
journalists, and puppet judges & puppet political class... and they've established what is openly &
blatantly a puppet government.
Also note that they lost in Hong Kong and got beat badly by a Bus Driver in Venezuela. And they're
being routed and defeated and outclassed and out maneuvered all over the globe.
Now let's move to another oracle, a self-described expert of what in the Beltway is known as
the "Greater Middle East": Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, certified warmongering neo-con,
and one-half of the famous Kaganate of Nulands – as the joke went across Eurasia –
side by side with his wife, notorious Maidan cookie distributor Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland,
who's about to re-enter government as part of the Biden-Harris administration.
Kagan is back pontificating in – where else – Foreign Affairs, which published
his latest superpower
manifesto . That's where we find this absolute pearl:
That Americans refer to the relatively low-cost military involvements in Afghanistan and
Iraq as "forever wars" is just the latest example of their intolerance for the messy and
unending business of preserving a general peace and acting to forestall threats. In both
cases, Americans had one foot out the door the moment they entered, which hampered their
ability to gain control of difficult situations.
So let's get this straight. The multi-trillion dollar Forever Wars are "relatively
low-cost"; tell that to the multitudes suffering the Via Crucis of US crumbling infrastructure
and appalling standards in health and education. If you don't support the Forever Wars –
absolutely necessary to preserve the "liberal world order" – you are "intolerant".
"Preserving a general peace" does not even qualify as a joke, coming from someone absolutely
clueless about realities on the ground. As for what the Beltway defines as "vibrant civil
society" in Afghanistan, that in reality revolves around millennia-old tribal custom codes: it
has nothing to do with some neocon/woke crossover. Moreover, Afghanistan's GDP – after so
much American "help" – remains even lower than Saudi-bombed Yemen's.
Exceptionalistan will not leave Afghanistan. A deadline of May 1st was negotiated in Doha
last year for the US/NATO to remove all troops. That's not gonna happen.
The spin is already turbocharged: the Deep State handlers of Joe "Crash Test Dummy" Biden
will not respect the deadline. Everyone familiar with the New Great Game on steroids across
Eurasia knows why: a strategic lily pad must be maintained at the intersection of Central and
South Asia to help closely monitor – what else – Brzezinski's worst nightmare: the
Russia-China strategic partnership.
As it stands we have 2,500 Pentagon + 7,000 NATO troops + a whole lot of "contractors" in
Afghanistan. The spin is that they can't leave because the Taliban – which de facto
control from 52% to as much as 70% of the whole tribal territory – will take over.
To see, in detail, how this whole sorry saga started, non-oracle skeptics could do worse
than check Volume 3 of my Asia Times archives: Forever Wars:
Afghanistan-Iraq, part 1 (2001-2004) . Part 2 will be out soon. Here they will find how the
multi-trillion dollar Forever Wars – so essential to "preserve the peace" –
actually developed on the ground, in total contrast to the official imperial narrative
influenced, and defended, by Kagan.
With oracles like these, the US definitely does not need enemies.
The multi-trillion dollar Forever Wars are "relatively low-cost"; tell that to the
multitudes suffering the Via Crucis of US crumbling infrastructure and appalling standards
in health and education
Spot on. It's amazing that anyone gives voice to Kagan's lack of credibility whatsoever.
That Foreign Affairs does says more about its own unreliability as a source of
valuable opinion. But apparently the "Forever Wars" depiction is bothering the neo-con
Zionists, so we can expect a lot more propaganda from them or worse, false flag attacks to
revive their awful agenda.
This was predictable given the ever decreasing returns for the Empires as they get
hollowed out by their parasitic financial systems. Somehow, I doubt Orwell would be at all
surprised.
Who needs outright censorship when you can just willy-nilly change a words meaning? Or, is
that just another form of censorship?
Yes, I am sure you have read 1984 where the Ministry of Truth took great pride in constantly
issuion new revision of the official dictionary, each issue thinner than the previous one.
This is what is going on now, in addition to change the meaning of words asyou rightly point
out. In my country they have also changed the names of provinces and eliminated counties just
to make people disorientated and confused, thus easy to control.
Undermining faith in the North American Terrorist Organization (NATO) is a Thought Crime
of the highest order!
The punishment for this crime is being forced to watch a conga line of Anglo-American
media mouthpieces blather about whatever is their Moral Outrage of the Month--Clockwork
Orange style.
"So settling on this penny-ante, trivial bullshit -- tattling, hall monitoring,
speech policing: all in the most anti-intellectual, adolescent and primitive ways -- is all
they have. It's all they are. It's why they have fully earned the contempt and distrust in
which the public holds them."
It's also why the institutions they and those who think like them control won't last.
With social institutions come problems, with problems comes problem-solving, with
problem-solving comes a set of skills that these child-people do not have. Unfortunately,
neither do a lot of people who complain about them. They're all deposits of Dunning-Kruger
Nation.
Not to underestimate the damage they can do, especially since it seems to be the only
thing they're capable of, but the fact is, the best they'll ever manage is a Pyrrhic Victory.
So, let's call this The Pyrrhic Victory of Dunning-Kruger Nation .
I am continually amazed that Americans miss the obvious. The answer to bigotry is satire
of that same bigotry. From Shakespeare onwards satire was the weapon that most angered and
frightened the bigots. George Carlin and today Jimmy Dore were and are satirists.
Many people feel like this speech police apparatus has been implemented overnight. They
feel that we went from being a relatively free society, to a society where people are
jailed for memes and hunted down by journalists in private chat rooms for saying banned
words.
On a larger scale, this substitution is taking place via a process of moving from
"constraints A" to "constraints B", with an intermediate period of loosening of constraints.
A temporary "near total freedom", which peaked circa 2000 – 2010 mostly, before going
into decline.
As was with race. At first, one was supposed to view people as individuals, and view them
in a color-blind manner. Today, viewing people as individuals in a color-blind manner is
already defined as "racist" by GloboHomo, and we're back to mandatory viewing of people
through a racial group filter, but not the old "filter A", but a new "filter B".
Race used to be a "social construct", as did gender, but now both are again being
presented as manifestations of a transcendental reality, only a redefined one.
Like with sexuality. Everybody screwing everybody turned out to be a temporary transition
from "fascism A" to "fascism B", and now this transition is over and there are even more
rules and traps in the mating ritual, than back in the 19th century.
And gender and fetish-wise, people are now "born this way", sometimes "into the wrong
body", as society has regressed all the way to bronze-age metaphysics. But use modern tech to
enforce them.
Same with censorship. For a number of decades there was less and less censorship, in the
west, then this temporary period of freedom peaked, and now it's also all regressing back to
19th century levels of censorship, but through a new filter, applied by the new hidden
elites.
Another excellent gas-lighting misdirection by GloboHomo -- those normal liberals who want
back the political and lifestyle freedoms of the 1990s are "the fascists". Bravo. Just like
every time urban blacks with illegal pistols chimpout, this means it's all the fault of white
peasants with legal rifles.
The autogenophylia mental-beakdown-promoting sissy hypno porn of today also works like
this. First it promises "infinite pleasure and freedom" by deconstructing the vulnerable
user's current personality, and then after this transitional freedom from restrictions and
resulting waves of dopamine, starts building up forcefully new structures, even more rigid
than the initial ones, thus producing a new artificial personality. Thus a mostly functional
depressed autist is first dismantled, and then reconstructed by a computer program into a
psycho who maintains a permanent manic phase through relentless use of drugs and dildo
riding, and if during the inevitable depressive crash he off himself -- then this is simply
proof how fascist this cruel world is. Kek.
**
The larger misdirection: who are the elites and what is the system? Apparently the
institutional, corporate, creative, academic, and media components of the system are all
constantly fighting the system. Neither Harvard, nor Google, nor Parliament, nor ministers,
nor governors, nor CNN, nor NYT, nor CNBC, nor the mayor, nor the chief of FBI are "the
system, no, they are all in fact "fighting the system". Who is them this mysterious system?
Why, it's the white provincial. He is "the system" somehow, and everything is his fault. And
after you finally put this filthy kulak in his place (or "deprogram" him from his fascism),
then the injustices and inefficiencies of life will evaporate.
The larger transitional freedom phase: In a sense WWI was the culmination of the
dismantling of the old "king-and-aristocracy" based world order. This was followed by a
period in which "all sane people" promoted democracy based on transparency of institutions,
rotation of elites through fair elections, freedom of speech, all that jazz. Now, however, a
new layer of unelected elites has taken the place of the old pre-WWI unelected elites, with
all that entails. The 20th century was to a large extent a larger transitional phase of
temporary freedom from "rigidity A" to "rigidity B", with many smaller cycles taking places,
especially after WWII.
**
Everyone is on constant alert already, and speaking out against these people just draws
their attention. They are soulless monsters, fixated on power. People who have accomplished
nothing in their lives, these failed novelists, failed poets, failed comedians, failed
whatevers are, via this tattletale mercenary work, able to exercise the power to destroy
the lives of people who have accomplished things.
Back in Soviet times if one is a dissident this is impossible, thus one is either a)
clinically insane, or b) a foreign agent, or c) a domestic terrorist. At certain times it was
more fashionable to label people foreign agents, in others -- insane psychos.
To this day people get lost in the cloud of bullshit how "private censorship" is OK and
"state censorship" isn't (although in places like the UK and Canada the distinction is
already mostly imaginary). Like with any cloud of bullshit, you just take a step back and
look at the facts, and do not allow GloboHomo to change definitions and descriptions.
You take a step back, and from outside the cloud of bullshit you ask: "Can a person tell
off-color jokes and state their political or religious values in this country without being
censored and punished? Yes or no? No but no if. Yes or no?" If the answer is yes, then this
is a free society. If the answer is no, then this is not a free society, and it doesn't
matter in the least what mechanisms the system uses to achieve this
un-freedom–"private" institutions or "state" institutions, "hired bullies", or
"activist volunteers".
Lesson 1: private companies above a certain size become political actors. They
should be treated as such. Possibly defined by a mix of variable including annual profits,
budget, reach, direct and indirect employee number. Those definitions should be anchored by
the state and reviewed say once a decade. Lesson 2: private companies have the right to enforce dress, speech, and behavior
codes inside their offices, within reason. They cannot have the right to enforce the same
when their workers are not at work, and certainly can't be allowed to punish workers for how
they dressed or talked when not at work. Lesson 2a: private companies should have the state-protected right to refuse service
in non-essentials (who to bake a cake for), but not have the right to refuse essentials
(staple foods, electricity, water, banking). What is essential and non-essential should be
decided via public debate and anchored to specific rules about once a decade. Lesson 3: the right to freely expressing political opinion must be recognized as a
basic human right protected by national and international law. It is not a privilege, it is a
right. If it is not a right, then this is not a democracy, or even a modern civilization, but
actual neo-feudalism.
**
Jesters like Trump and Farage, God bless them, forced the new system to stop with the
pretense, and shift from the slow boil to high speed, so that every sane person could finally
also stop pretending and accept what is taking place.
Now the new elites-not elites finally stopped also pretending that the masses are
"citizens" and began treating them for real like "dumb filthy serfs".
Did you really think you can just simply vote any way you want to?
Did you really think you can just simply say what you want to say?
Did you really think you can just simply have freedom of faith and morals?
Did you really think you can just simply protest in front of Parliament?
Did you really think that constitutional mechanisms will simply remain functional?
Did you really think the media will just simply be neutral and truthful?
Did you really think you can just simply tell any joke you want?
Did you really think you can just simply remain middle class with normal incomes and private
property?
Did you really think the police will just simply protect you from looters and arsonists?
Did you really think you can just simply defend yourself if the police doesn't interfere?
Did you really think you can just simply decide what is democratic and what isn't and what
state institutions can and can't do?
Did you really think you can just simply decide what is and what isn't a monopoly, and what
corporations can and can't do?
Did you really think you can just simply get to have a say in how much money we'll print and
which businesses get to be propped up?
Did you really think you can just simply have a say in what gets taught in schools?
Did you really think you can just simply have your kids not snitch on you to the
authorities?
Did you really think you can just simply decide which medications to take and which not to
take?
**
They're going big time now. This is no longer just political censorship. Now, you can be
censored for "disinformation," which means "disagreeing with the media at all."
This moving of goalposts and renaming things is a very important part of GloboHomo's
instrumentarium.
Moving goalposts : (especially in terms of various "minorities") from "we are
totally like you let us have equal rights" to "you're the pathological ones, now we get to
control your life". Changing names and meanings : especially terms like "fascism", "racism", "terrorism",
"hate", "radical", "rape", "abuse" and such, and constant fluidity of what these terms mean
is not harmless, far from it.
Because once the branders brand you as one of those, the system reacts as a whole to
punish you. Once definitions are not anchored, but constantly reinterpreted by the modern
equivalent of self-appointed "Old Testament judges", you've just lost your civilization.
They'll even define what is a political opinion or religious belief and what is "unhinged
hate", and the system will react to you according to their definition.
Lesson: any sane society must have a) anchored major goalposts that can only
be changed through referendum; b) must have language purity rules and laws that do not
allow definitions to be changed willy-nilly, and those who do are shamed and fined. Any
change in definition must be debated and approved by some body such as a national academy of
science.
The agenda is to somehow silence half of the population of the United States. They
obviously can't single them all out for humiliation, professional destruction and prison,
so they are going to freeze targets, personalize them, and make examples of them. This is
called "a chilling effect," and it is the current core plan of the ruling class to maintain
control over a population that views them as illegitimate masters.
Hopefully this produces the effect of them being increasingly seen as just "a dangerous
part of life", a permanent external irritant that exists on the spectrum from "annoying" to
"lethal". Thus in turn means a total loss of any moral authority they may have wielded even
just 5 years ago, so that's go.
Let's hope they have not succeeded in poisoning culture to the extent of the inevitable
reaction backlash actually being fashy.
These journalists are not simply tools of the ruling elite, enforcers of a bizarre set
of ever-shifting rules about what you are allowed to think, and they are not simply
anti-intellectual witch-hunters lashing out at things they can't hope to understand. It is
deeper than that. These odious fiends are fundamentally destroyers of creativity. They seek
to smash the imaginative spiritual energy inside of men, that piece of God that was
breathed into us.
This is also why you matter, Mr. Wang Lin. Your stuff is so real it instantly becomes
alive, and becomes part of the noosphere. Whereas they are servant of death and cannot
create. On a wider scale, this is why every institution they touch collapses. They cannot
create their own institutions -- they can merely infiltrate existing ones and kill them from
the inside.
On a more narrow scale, this is what they do with the media environment as well.
Which is also why the new dopamine freedoms they promote come at the expense of older
traditional liberties. Again, it's a cannibalizing effect. They are not creating additional
stuff. They simply substituting stuff, narrowing choice and freedoms, while pretending to be
expanding them.
Lesson 1:Freedoms -- when you promote certain freedoms, do they expand the
existing pool or liberties, or do they come at the price of extinguishing older liberties. If
the new freedoms you promote expand the overall pool of liberties, you are helping the
traditional democratic socium survive and evolve. If the new freedoms you promote come at the
price of extinguishing older liberties, then you are a destroyer who pretends to be a
creator.
Lesson 2:Institutions -- if when promoting new rights, freedoms, and
identities, you are capable of building new institutions for them, and these institutions
mesh in a positive manner with the pre-existing institutions of your society -- you are a
builder and a force for good. If, however, you an only infiltrate and overtake already
existing institutions in order to promote your new rights, freedoms, and identities, or your
attempts to build new institutions come into conflict with preexisting ones -- you are a
destroyer.
Do you add, or do you subtract? Did life become more free or less free because of your
actions? Do you build or do you destroy? Are you a dopamine-addicted slave of chaos, or are
you capable of enjoying the pleasures of life while also being a builder?
**
Anyway, thank you for doing what you do, Mr. Wang Lin.
Back when in the days of your high-octane performance art persona that attempted to
counteract through shock-humor the overtone window hijacking by GloboHomo, the humorless
malignant drama whores couldn't tell when you're serious and when not, or perhaps they
pretended to not being able to tell.
Today, with the outrageous clownish persona toned down into mildly edgy deadpan mode, the
saner adults start not being able to tell what's what.
If you go back and look at manufacturing consent, Chomsky and Ed Herman's great work on the
press, you see that the old paradigm no longer functions, that in the digital age where there
are a multiplicity of sources, the media has essentially siloed itself. It doesn't seek with
the old monopolies. Remember we used to have just one major network that the power of the New
York Times and I know because I worked for The Times for 15 years, was not the readership, the
readership wasn't ever that big, the subscription base was rarely much over a million, but it
was the power to set the agenda so that when I was overseas, all of the networks, now these
were the big kind of media stars that appeared on CBS or NBC, would actually come and knock on
my hotel room at night and ask me what it was I was filing the next morning because they knew
their editors would then send them out to do a story based on what I had reported.
That was the power of the New York Times. All of that's gone and it's been replaced by
partisan divides and it has transformed publications like The New York Times into partisan
outlets. The Pew Research Center did a poll last summer where they polled readers and viewers
so 91% of the people who read The New York Times identify as supporters of the Democratic
party, that's 87% for national public radio, 94, 95%, I can't remember, for MSNBC. Then you
have the other side of the divide where 95% of the people who watch Fox news, I hate combining
Fox with the word news, identify as supporters of the Republican party. That has been
commercially successful and even politically successful because on all of the major issues,
trade deals, endless war, wholesale surveillance, austerity programs.
"... The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy. They are deliberate exercises in doublethink. ..."
"... What the self-styled newspaper of record calls "misguided beliefs" are indisputable facts important for everyone to know. ..."
"... A real "national reality crisis" exists because of Big Government in cahoots with Big Media – like the Times -- serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of most others. ..."
"... "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it (…) To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality“ - George Orwell ..."
The New York Times never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity for truth-telling as
it should be.
It's a notion long ago abandoned in deference to providing press agent services for powerful
interests.
At the same time, the Times finds new ways to disgrace itself.
Calling for a US Ministry of Truth headed by a "reality czar" sounds ominously like what
Orwell described in his dystopian 1984 novel
that's no longer fiction, saying:
The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the
Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from from ordinary
hypocrisy. They are deliberate exercises in doublethink.
Along with Big Brother mass surveillance and newspeak, Orwell's Ministry of Truth was all
about controlling the message, eliminating whatever conflicts with it, memory holes used for
this purpose. The Times and other US major media operate this way now -- a collective ministry of truth as
described above. Featuring the official narrative exclusively, alternative views are filtered out and
suppressed, free and open expression banned in their reports.
In 1984 , unnwanted material went down memory holes to "be whirled away (in) enormous
furnaces devoured by the flames," said Orwell, adding:
"(T)here were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the
lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved,
that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence."
In the US and West, no Orwell-style memory hole is needed, no furnaces, no ceremonial
book-burnings. Big Media in cahoots with diabolical government officials censor and eliminate truth-telling
on what's vital for everyone to know. What Times fake news called a US "reality crisis" amounts to urging greater state-sponsored
censorship than already.
What it called "the scourge of hoaxes, lies and delusions" are hard truths about US imperial
wars, hazardous covid vaccines to be shunned, stolen Election 2020, unelected/cognitively
impaired Biden unable to serve in any public capacity, the anti-Trump Jan. 6 Capitol Hill false
flag, and other cutting-edge issues. What the self-styled newspaper of record calls "misguided beliefs" are indisputable facts
important for everyone to know.
A real "national reality crisis" exists because of Big Government in cahoots with Big Media
– like the Times -- serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of most
others.
It's because of US police state totalitarian rule on a fast track toward full-blown
tyranny.
It's because the US no longer is open, free, and fair.
It's because hardline government is the mortal enemy of ordinary people -- their health,
well-being, safety, and fundamental freedoms being eliminated in real time.
It's because of US war OF terrorism, not on it, rages against ordinary people, wanting them
exploited to serve privileged interests.
It's because America is no longer safe and fit to live in for most of its people.
It's because of the largely ignored greatest ever US Main Street Great Depression while
wealth, power, and privileged interests never had things better.
It's because media like the Times suppress what's crucial for everyone to know.
What the Times called "violent extremism" is state-sponsored.
What it calls a "truth commission" reflects shades of 1984 .
What it calls "domestic terrorists" are FBI, CIA, DHS, local police, and other elements of
oppression to cow ordinary people into submission to a diabolical higher power in
Washington.
Truth-telling as it should be is polar opposite how the Times and other establishment media
operate.
As a collective lying machine, truth-telling is their moral enemy, what they're hellbent for
eliminating in whatever form it shows up. In today's America, Big Brother mass surveillance, police state control, and ministry of
truth Big Lies are part of the national fabric. That's the ugly reality suppressed by the Times and other Big Media. The nation I grew up in long ago no longer exists. Growing tyranny heading toward becoming full-blown replaced it. That's the ugly reality establishment media like the Times suppress - to their
disgrace.
Plus Size Model 1 hour ago (Edited)
Representative Gillett, commenting on the Creel Bureau (WWI propaganda Committee
responsible for selling the war to the public):
That is the great danger of such a bureau as this, because we must all admit that if any
administration has in its power a Bureau of Public Information, as it is called, but really
an advertising bureau, a propaganda bureau, a bureau of publicity, to exploit the various
acts and desperations of the Government, it is a very dangerous thing in a Republic; because,
if used in a partisan spirit or for partisan advantage of the administration ,it has
tremendous power, and in ordinary peace-time I do not think any party or any administration
would justify or approve it.
U.S. Congressional Record 65th Congress, 2nd Session, P. 7915
Umh
There was a time, long ago when I considered myself a liberal. I don't think I changed very much, a bit of real
world experience perhaps. Then the leftists changed the meaning of liberal. These people don't even have a clue what they are
setting up.
JoePesci
I am a liberal too. An SF burning man attending acid loving atheist, drive my gf to PP, South America backpacking
peace loving hippie and i hate these fvcking people. They are fascists and not in the slight bit liberal. They
are the same warmongering, corporatist, racist, hypocrites that were neocons under george bush. The very same, just
switched parties
balz
If you enjoyed 1984, try reading We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, which was written in 1920 (first book banned by the USSR!) and
which Orwell reviewed a couple of years before writing 1984. The book also inspired Ayn Rand.
SilverCoinLover
Agreed! A fantastic book, written even before Huxley's Brave New World.
I remember reading it in high school in the 1970s, still have a copy.
Im4truth4all
It takes no genius to see the parallels between George Orwell's "1984" and the democrat/marxists and its agents. Their
philosophy was so accurately described by George Orwell and is as follows:
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold
simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic
against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it (…) To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them,
to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for
just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality“ - George Orwell
"... In the book, the Ministry of Truth decides what is "truth" in Oceania no matter what the actual truth may be, and exercises this monopoly over reality by falsifying the nature of historical events. ..."
"... "truth" becomes whatever the government-approved version of events is in that moment. ..."
"... What the "experts" cited by the New York Times are calling far and what Orwell portrayed in his book are so similar, even Kevin Roose admits, "It sounds a little dystopian." ..."
"... the most harmful "conspiracy theories," – such as Saddam Hussein's non-existent WMD's and supporting "freedom fighters" who were actually jihadists in Libya and Syria – are always exclusively peddled by the mainstream media. ..."
"... The corporate press pushing these two whoppers created the consensus for war that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and an international migrant crisis. ..."
"... New limited edition merch now available! Click here . In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here . Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here . ..."
"... "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" - George Orwell ..."
"... they can't sell what they're peddling so they have to control the narrative so they can push out propaganda to terrorize the citizens. ..."
"... JFK: For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. ..."
The New York Times has amplified claims by "experts" who are calling for Joe Biden to
appoint a "reality czar," prompting critics to compare the idea to the Ministry of Truth in
George Orwell's 1984.
In an article entitled 'How the Biden Administration Can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis', the
NYT's Kevin Roose cites "experts" who are calling on "the Biden administration put together a
cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by
something like a "reality czar."
The job of this "reality czar" would be to head up "a centralized task force could
coordinate a single, strategic response" to things like COVID-related and election fraud
"conspiracy theories."
"This task force could also meet regularly with tech platforms, and push for structural
changes that could help those companies tackle their own extremism and misinformation
problems. (For example, it could formulate "safe harbor" exemptions that would allow
platforms to share data about QAnon and other conspiracy theory communities with researchers
and government agencies without running afoul of privacy laws.) And it could become the tip
of the spear for the federal government's response to the reality crisis," states the
article.
"Ah, the Ministry of Truth. I've been waiting for this one," responded Raheem Kassam.
While the Orwell comparison has become something of a cliché, in this instance its
the best available. In the book, the Ministry of Truth decides what is "truth" in Oceania no matter what the
actual truth may be, and exercises this monopoly over reality by falsifying the nature of
historical events.
The Ministry of Truth also uses this power monopoly to redefine the very word "truth" under
the rubric of Newspeak, so "truth" becomes whatever the government-approved version of events
is in that moment.
What the "experts" cited by the New York Times are calling far and what Orwell portrayed in
his book are so similar, even Kevin Roose admits, "It sounds a little dystopian."
But if "conspiracy theories" really do pose a deadly threat to society, who is responsible
for pushing the most egregious disinformation?
As we have exhaustively documented – the most harmful "conspiracy theories," –
such as Saddam Hussein's non-existent WMD's and supporting "freedom fighters" who were actually
jihadists in Libya and Syria – are always exclusively peddled by the mainstream
media.
The corporate press pushing these two whoppers created the consensus for war that led to the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and an international migrant crisis.
The New York Times was one of the most prominent outlets that amplified both these damaging
deceptions and yet they faced no consequences whatsoever. Such lies are also far more harmful
to society because mainstream media networks have the biggest platforms, they are amplified by
rigged social media platforms, and they share a common consensus narrative with each other,
meaning there is almost no room for questioning or debate.
If there really was a truly independent "reality czar," the media would be big trouble
because its entire raison d'être is predicated around distorting reality.
* * *
New limited
edition merch now available! Click here . In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It
is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here . Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean
energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here .
StuffyourVAXX 49 minutes ago (Edited)
How the eff did I become an extremist? I work, pay taxes, own a home and have a family,
and all I asked for was a fair election.
Moron Tagger 46 minutes ago remove link
That last bit.
Faceberg 43 minutes ago (Edited)
WTF? The lockdowns were ********, but I laughed at the sheeple. The ministry of truth idea
scares the **** out of me. I think I'll go do an inventory now.
son of sam 38 minutes ago (Edited)
**** gittin really real now! Reality constructs handed out like 'masks' - "reality up," or
you must go to quarantine camp and be 'reality-re-educated' - could mean wearing "google
goggles" 24/7, and enforced 'selfie-taking' every 6 hours so as to prove to the THOUGHT
POLICE that you are not deviating.
USA. It was fun, cool, and good while it lasted. Flic your bics, and shed a tear, as they
drive ol Dixie down, for the very last time
Moron Tagger 48 minutes ago remove link
Reality is for people who can't handle drugs!
ted41776 51 minutes ago (Edited)
i nominate Brennan or Comey, they'll get the job done
edit: actually, now that i think about it, Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch would do a damn
fine job too
so many good candidates
Faceberg 30 minutes ago
Lol. Those people are famous, but they're basically amateurs. If you want the varsity
squad, you need Anti-Defamation league and the Southern Poverty Law Center. That's who's
going to be running the interference, just like they do for Facebook, Google, YouTube, and
Twitter.
As a happy cohencidence, but they have all of the IT infrastructure already built and
ready to go. Talk about serendipity!
The First Rule 41 minutes ago
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
- George Orwell
We are THERE.
Foe Jaws 31 minutes ago
That is why Pedo Joe's Sec of Defense has 30,000 troops guarding DC. It will be
interesting to see how long they can keep them there and what will happen once they
leave.
yerfej 29 minutes ago
Every fascist regime ends up where the US is right now, they can't sell what they're
peddling so they have to control the narrative so they can push out propaganda to terrorize
the citizens. Think about it, the US roams the world with its military and CIA terrorizing
everyone and it does the same domestically, kind of funny how they seem to only have one
function.
balz 35 minutes ago remove link
Those people are so sick they are beyond any therapy. Just wish I had a time machine to send them back to USSR in 1934, to see what is the end
point of their sick ideology.
learnofjesuits 10 minutes ago
JFK: For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that
relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration
instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free
choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted
vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient
machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political
operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not
headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor
is printed, no secret is revealed.
Orwell's 1984 predicted all this in 1948. Wikipedia is rewriting history on a daily basis,
education is stifling young minds, free speech controlled, double standard legal system,
burning books next?.... It's all there, 1984 is upon us.
But, remember our ancestors were
considered terrorists by the by the controlling British at the time.
PEACEFUL revolution
starting with 75+ million Americans will work.
After 9/11, the entire country collectively lost its mind in the throes of fear. During that
time, all civil and Constitutional rights were shredded and replaced with the pages of
The USA PATRIOT
Act .
Almost 20 years later, the U.S. has again lost its collective mind, this time in fear of a
"virus" and it's "super mutations" and a
"riot" at the
capitol. A lot of people called this and to the surprise of very few, much like after 9/11,
Americans are watching what remains of their civil liberties be replaced with a new bill.
The DTPA is essentially the criminalization of speech, expression, and thought . It takes
cancel culture a step further and all but outlaws unpopular
opinions . This act will empower intelligence, law enforcement, and even military wings of
the American ruling class to crack down on individuals adhering to certain belief systems and
ideologies.
"The attack on the U.S. Capitol earlier this month was the latest example of domestic
terrorism, but the threat of domestic terrorism remains very real. We cannot turn a blind eye
to it," Upton said. "The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act will equip our law enforcement
leaders with the tools needed to help keep our homes, families, and communities across the
country safe.
Congressman Upton's
website gives the following information on DTPA:
The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 would strengthen the federal government's
efforts to prevent, report on, respond to, and investigate acts of domestic terrorism by
authorizing offices dedicated to combating this threat; requiring these offices to regularly
assess this threat; and providing training and resources to assist state, local, and tribal
law enforcement in addressing it.
DTPA would authorize three offices, one each within the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to
monitor, investigate, and prosecute cases of domestic terrorism. The bill also requires these
offices to provide Congress with joint, biannual reports assessing the state of domestic
terrorism threats, with a specific focus on white supremacists. Based on the data collected,
DTPA requires these offices to focus their resources on the most significant threats.
DTPA also codifies the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, which would coordinate with
United States Attorneys and other public safety officials to promote information sharing and
ensure an effective, responsive, and organized joint effort to combat domestic terrorism. The
legislation requires DOJ, FBI, and DHS to provide training and resources to assist state,
local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, deterring, and
investigating acts of domestic terrorism and white supremacy. Finally, DTPA directs DHS, DOJ,
FBI, and the Department of Defense to establish an interagency task force to combat white
supremacist infiltration of the uniformed services and federal law enforcement.
Those who read the bill aren't so gung ho to shred the Constitution
Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard has some serious reservations. In a recent
interview on Fox News Primetime, Gabbard stated that the bill effectively criminalizes half
of the country. (Emphasis ours)
"It's so dangerous as you guys have been talking about, this is an issue that all
Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians should be extremely concerned about,
especially because we don't have to guess about where this goes or how this ends," Gabbard
said.
She continued: "When you have people like former CIA Director John Brennan openly talking
about how he's spoken with or heard from appointees and nominees in the Biden administration
who are already starting to look across our country for these types of movements similar to
the insurgencies they've seen overseas, that in his words, he says make up this unholy
alliance of religious extremists, racists, bigots, he lists a few others and at the end, even
libertarians."
Gabbard, stating her concern about how the government will define what qualities they are
searching for in potential threats to the country, went on to ask:
"What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential
extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians,
evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? Where
do you take this"
Tulsi said the bill would create a dangerous undermining of our civil liberties and freedoms
in our Constitution. She also stated the DPTA essentially targets nearly half of the United
States.
"You start looking at obviously, have to be a white person, obviously likely male,
libertarians, anyone who loves freedom, liberty, maybe has an American flag outside their
house, or people who, you know, attended a Trump rally, " Gabbard said.
Tulsi Gabbard is not the only one to criticize the legislation
Even the ACLU , one of the weakest organizations on civil liberties in the United States,
has spoken out. While the ACLU was only concerned with how the bill would affect minorities or
"brown people," the organization stated that the legislation, while set forth under the guise
of countering white supremacy, would eventually be used against non-white people.
The ACLU's statement is true.
As with similar bills submitted under the guise of "protecting" Americans against outside
threats, this bill will inevitably expand further. The stated goals of the DPTA are
far-reaching and frightening enough. It would amount to an official declaration of the end to
Free Speech.
Soon there will be no rights left for Americans
In the last twenty years, Americans have lost their 4th Amendment rights, and now they are
losing their 1st. All that remains is the 2nd
Amendment , and both the ruling class and increasing numbers of the American people know
it.
"... Despite four years of dire warnings by the corporate media, the Intelligence Community, Hollywood celebrities, the Democratic Party, faux anti-fascists, fake-Left pundits, and pretty much every utterly deluded, Trump-obsessed liberal with an Internet connection, there was no Hitlerian "Reichstag Fire," no Boogaloo, no Civil War II, no coup, no white-supremacist uprising. Nothing. The man simply got on a chopper and was flown away to his Florida resort. ..."
"... I know, you're probably thinking "Wow, how embarrassing for the GloboCap 'Resistance,' being exposed as a bunch of utterly shameless, neo-Goebbelsian propagandists, and liars, and hysterical idiots, and such!" And, in any other version of reality, you'd have a point but not in this one. ..."
"... No, in this reality, "Democracy Has Prevailed!" Yes, it was touch and go there for a while, as there was no guarantee that the Intelligence Community, the military-industrial complex, Western governments, the corporate media, supranational corporations, Internet oligarchs, and virtually every other component of the global-capitalist empire could keep one former game show host with no real political power whatsoever from taking over the entire world. ..."
Hopkins? I got the latest Hopkins ( C.J. Hopkins , that is) on the glorious
victories of our GloboCap Overlords over the Great Orange Hitler/Satan and his deplorable
hordes in the Jan 6 Insurrection, right here:
As they used to say at the end of all those wacky Looney Tunes cartoons, that's all
folks! The show is over. Literal Russian-Asset Hitler, the Latest Greatest Threat to
Western Democracy, the Monster of Mar-a-Lago, Trumpzilla, Trumpenstein, the Ayatollah of
Orange Shinola, has finally been humiliated and given the bum-rush out of Washington by
the heroic forces of the GloboCap "Resistance," with a little help from the US military.
The whole thing went exactly to script.
Well OK, not quite exactly to script. Despite four years of dire warnings by the
corporate media, the Intelligence Community, Hollywood celebrities, the Democratic Party,
faux anti-fascists, fake-Left pundits, and pretty much every utterly deluded,
Trump-obsessed liberal with an Internet connection, there was no Hitlerian "Reichstag
Fire," no Boogaloo, no Civil War II, no coup, no white-supremacist uprising. Nothing. The
man simply got on a chopper and was flown away to his Florida resort.
I know, you're probably thinking "Wow, how embarrassing for the GloboCap 'Resistance,'
being exposed as a bunch of utterly shameless, neo-Goebbelsian propagandists, and liars,
and hysterical idiots, and such!" And, in any other version of reality, you'd have a
point but not in this one.
No, in this reality, "Democracy Has Prevailed!" Yes, it was touch and go there for a
while, as there was no guarantee that the Intelligence Community, the military-industrial
complex, Western governments, the corporate media, supranational corporations, Internet
oligarchs, and virtually every other component of the global-capitalist empire could keep
one former game show host with no real political power whatsoever from taking over the
entire world.
And here was GloboCap's dress rehearsal in Berlin last summer for the Jan 6 Capitol
Reichstag show:
On March 21, 1933, the Nazi-controlled Reichstag passed a law making it a crime to speak
out against the government. The "Regulations of the Reich President for Defense from
Treacherous Attacks against the Government of the National Uprising" made even the
slightest expression of dissent from Nazi ideology a criminal offense. This new law,
among other totalitarian measures, was part of a process known as Gleichschaltung the
process of achieving rigid and total ideological coordination and uniformity in politics,
culture, and private communication by forcibly repressing (or eliminating) independence
and freedom of thought and expression.
GloboCap hasn't done anything that heavy-handed in the course of rolling out the New
Normal totalitarianism, but that's mainly because they do not have to. When you control
the vast majority of the global corporate media, you don't need to pass a lot of
ham-fisted laws banning all dissent from your totalitarian ideology. This isn't the
1930s, after all. Over the last ninety years, the arts of propaganda, disinformation, and
perception management have advanced to a point that even Goebbels couldn't have
imagined.
The skill with which GloboCap and the corporate media delegitimized the anti-New
Normal demonstrations in Berlin, London, and other cities last weekend is a perfect
example of the state of those arts. I'll focus on Berlin, as that's where I live, and the
so-called "Storming of the Reichstag" incident, but it works pretty much the same way
everywhere. I believe there was a curious incident involving a person with a fascist flag
in London, and that the UK media have now officially chosen David Icke to be the
movement's figurehead.
In Berlin, in the days leading up to the protests, government officials and corporate
media propagandists did what officials and propagandists do they relentlessly repeated
their official narrative, namely, that anyone protesting the New Normal (or doubting the
official Coronavirus narrative) is a "violent neo-Nazi extremist," or "conspiracy
theorist," or some other form of existential "threat to democracy."
Well, hello there. I don't know if you've noticed, but we live in a vastly different worl d
than the last
time I posted here . The social landscape, political, and, it seems, everyday life is
trending vastly different since 2020, Covid, and the national elections.
A huge part of survival, prepping, and Nomad Strategies is getting done what needs to be
done with minimal interference or notice from those around us . The more eyes on your project,
the more people that can foul up our plans, throw a wrench in the works, or, nowadays, ruin
your life.
Have a secret identity.
So, we turn to lesson number one from the great bastion of literature: comic books.
What does almost every comic character have? A secret identity. And why? So they are not
having to fight, protect their family, and hide from the public all the time. That is a mighty
wise course of action. Life is not a movie. There are rarely times to take a bold, public stand
that will put you or your people in danger.
It is a blessing to live in the time and place we do that enables us to engage in such
vociferous debate levels with no real consequences. That is not the norm throughout history,
and, as we can see, it is changing in front of our eyes. All one needs to do is look at the
world outside of the U.S. for current or very recent historical examples. Take a look at
where Selco comes from
or Belfast just a couple of decades ago. Look at many areas of the Middle East, Syria , or Asia for current
displays of enforcement.
You don't have to share your opinions with everyone.
Keeping a low profile as long as possible is a crucial OpSec practice .
Note: I am not saying you are not allowed to have opinions. But, I am a firm believer in
only discussing them with known associates in private. It is also easier to keep seeing the
other party as still human if you do it in person. *Othering is a nasty thing to do and nastier
to be on the receiving end of. Remembering that the other side is not the devil incarnate helps
to identify actual enemies easier. Instead of jumping at every boogyman brought to your
attention, save your energy for real, in your face threats.
*The term Othering describes the reductive action
of labeling and defining a person as a subaltern native, as someone who belongs to the socially
subordinate category of the Other.
Choose your battles wisely, or don't battle at all
Another reason for concentrating on the mission: it's a waste of your time. Leave the
arguing and name-calling to others. Arguing lessens your productivity and may alienate
potential allies that could assist you. (Except for those pesky Facebook posts you made,
calling their kind evil and stupid.) Choosing not to participate in arguments and debates shows
that you have mental toughness, compassion, discernment, and, most importantly,
self-control.
In case you aren't aware, those and your integrity are essential things to keep intact. Both
for our own well being and for cultivating good, successful relationships. Keep your ego
intact, and if you can exercise the self-control required to not argue points with others that
don't matter in the day-to-day.
You will be more peaceful.
Fewer distractions = more time to work on numero uno
We want to give ourselves as much time as possible to work on various aspects of ourselves
that need the work.
Distractions from this can be costly. It can be costly in terms of time wasted on a needless
post, and at its worst, it can literally cost you everything you have worked for and built
up.
Stop throwing chum to the internet sharks.
An important but often overlooked aspect of any successful underground work is the ability
to escape notice. Therefore escaping issues that will negatively impact your ability to move
forward will help you complete whatever the mission at hand is.
Rather than willingly compromising your future, stop engaging with the sharks. Instead of
spending time engaged in activities that are not beneficial, use your time wisely. Allocate the
majority of your time to doing the work. Use your downtime to recharge, find the good, relax,
and keep your eyes on the prize.
There may be a time in the near future where we must elevate to a more offensive posture.
But now is not that time. What we do now is an important step in keeping us more even-keeled
and ready. Don't volunteer yourself for the enemies list. There are already plenty of people
that will gladly put some of us there.
1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners."
-- George Carlin play_arrow
Patmos 17 minutes ago
Ahhhh... George Carlin.... Back when liberals were liberals, and not "woke" regressive
morons.
Banker415 PRO 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
1. Get off Facebook
2. Delete your Instagram
3. Stop using douche apps like Snap and TikTok
4. Don't use WhatsApp--switch to Signal and Wickr
5. Migrate off of Google apps and Apple-related apps
6. Kill your Twitter
knopperz 1 hour ago remove link
Jack Dorsey is in cahoots with Signal.
He celebrated on Twitter when it went #1 after the Parler Ban.
Rather use Telegram.
Banker415 PRO 1 hour ago
I agree with you on Signal... but it's a short-term solution until better apps are
available. Telegram is ok but its subject to the same MITM attacks as the others.
Foe Jaws 1 hour ago
I have been using DuckDuckGo for a few years it is a fine replacement for Google.
AnonymousCitizen 58 minutes ago
You might want to look into the management team of DuckDuckGo. It may not be the search
engine you're looking for.
Onthebeach6 1 hour ago remove link
Sounds like the author is preparing to be a very quiet mouse and accept the coup d'etat
and the new illegitimate regime.
The new regime will consolidate quickly to eliminate any chance of organized resistance -
they may also try to make it impossible for states to secede.
Ted K. 6 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
So, is this where we're at? Now that we know 'political correctness' has grown up into
'cancel culture' with this takeover of the USA and Western society (because that's what it
is), we're simply reduced to understanding 'how to survive' in it?
For real? Really? REALLY?!?!
No fight at all? We're all just gonna lie down and show our bellies and accept this?
"... The Walrus law applies: "All governments achieve the reverse of their stated intentions". This Act, and associated DOJ enforcement, will do more to radicalise white males than the KKK in their wildest fantasies could imagine. It is bad law - bad for America - all of it. It makes us all poorer and less free, everyone, even the left wing will suffer and it will drag down our economy. It will increase stress tension and expense. ..."
"... The Capitol invasion is being used as the foundation for a kind of Dolchstoßlegende - the excuse that was spun into the mythical rationale for persecuting German Jewry in the Nazi era. In America's case this consists of the cooperative media (one which would make Goebbels proud) painting all Trump supporters as potential insurrectionists/terrorists and thus enemies of the state. This will not end well. ..."
We are entering an era where "White Supremacist" is the ultimate dirty word, at least
according to the Domestic Terrorism bill of 2021. Read the Act. Guilt is determined by a
committee of..... the Department of Justice. This is an Orwellian development.
The Walrus law applies: "All governments achieve the reverse of their stated
intentions". This Act, and associated DOJ enforcement, will do more to radicalise white males
than the KKK in their wildest fantasies could imagine. It is bad law - bad for America - all of
it. It makes us all poorer and less free, everyone, even the left wing will suffer and it will
drag down our economy. It will increase stress tension and expense.
As Australia's pre eminent Rabbi, John Levi, said yesterday (Australia Day): "plurality (of
ideas) strengthens us". A PC monoculture blaming racist white males for everything that is
wrong hides the true causes and hinders problem solving.
Furthermore radicalised white males are going to respond and the result will be further
polarisation.
I add a tiny cup of fuel to the fire by adding the link to some soon to be contraband below.
Lynyrd Skynyrd is soon to be proscribed. Count on it. Download this while you can. Teach
yourself and your kids the words and to hum it or sing it. It's your identification code.
You left out a link to the actual bill, sponsored by some expected members, however none or
the Squad, or any women, have cosponsored this as yet. I blame the sexism of the original
sponsors. Shame on them.
"'hate crime incident'' means an act described in section 241, 245, 247, or 249 of title 18,
United States Code, or in section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631);"
There's the perfectly Orwellian HR-1 that Ms. Pelosi intends to bring to a floor vote as the
first legislative act of the Party of Davos.
To expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics,
strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for
the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.
This legislation if it becomes law will essentially end elections as we have known it in the
past where States run all elections and make the "steal" permanent.
Will they ban the word "redneck"? I come from a very large family of rednecks--women and
men--who worked the fields on farms their entire lives. There is a very large number of
rednecks in this country.
You warned in a previous post how far and how fast the tide would go out - to use the
Shakespearean analogy - once the Dems took power. You were right and I think anyone who could
not see this coming has been deluding themselves. The Left is at war with Deplorables and it
looks very much like they are willing to develop a full blown police state in order to help
prosecute it. This should not be a surprise.
The Walrus law may apply in this case. My only reservation here is the question as to
whether or not this legislation is intended to further radicalize the enemy (white
conservatives). Congress is clueless, as usual, but the more unhinged totalitarian minds could
be hoping for this very outcome (John Brennan I'm thinking of you).
Ever since that fateful day when HRC categorized a large section of the electorate as
"deplorable" it has been obvious that the Dem establishment sees a good portion of the
citizenry not as a constituency to be won over, but as a barrier to Progress. The 2016 election
served to confirm to the globalists that Deplorables were capable of derailing their project.
Now that they are back in power, Deplorables must be demonized.
The Capitol invasion is being used as the foundation for a kind of Dolchstoßlegende - the
excuse that was spun into the mythical rationale for persecuting German Jewry in the Nazi era.
In America's case this consists of the cooperative media (one which would make Goebbels proud)
painting all Trump supporters as potential insurrectionists/terrorists and thus enemies of the
state. This will not end well.
As I said in a recent comment on another post, I think we are entering the phase where
accelerated feedback will quickly harden attitudes on both sides. Can this descent be stopped
or even reversed? I am by no means confident, but would very much like to hear optimistic, yet
realistic counter arguments - as the future looks bleak indeed.
As an aside, I've just noticed that clicking on the "Walrus" category to find your tagged posts
yield none. Not sure whether this is a TypePad error or something I'm doing wrong. Other
category searches work fine.
Once programmed, people will only change their mind if their understanding of the world
becomes untenable
That one is a keeper, I will borrow it myself in the future. Your number 2 is also very
important, I think. People are really suffering from neo-liberalism, and suffering people
tend to complain and lash out at the wrong targets sometimes.
"... Re Trump vs democracy I say the democracy train left the station a long time ago, now it's mostly theatre. ..."
"... Re Biden being the saviour I say I hold little hope because in the past he has been a total supporter of forever war and Wall Street and I see little to indicate he has changed. ..."
"... "Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal." ..."
"... I was reading a post in Ritzholtz about studies of cognitive dissonance. It was about the people who believed a spaceship would come and save them before the earth was destroyed. One point that was made that I think gets overlooked is that these people had jobs, relationships, they fully understood how the world worked 99.999 percent of the time. ..."
"... They were wrong about 1 major thing. I try to remember that I can't be right in everything either, and if I am wrong, how do I know it? ..."
We are great apes, 95% non-rational, with a thin veneer of rationality. We crave
hierarchy.
Life is becoming increasingly difficult materially and emotionally for many many
people.
Media-promoted division is very profitable, and our rulers want us divided and weak, so
division is sown endlessly.
We are immersed in propaganda and live in a literally Orwellian world (forever wars with
interchangeable enemies, total surveillance all the time, internal enemies neutralised). So
false flags, grotesque fabrications, relentless repetition of obvious falsehoods and
contradictory stories, are commonplace.
What I do:I live within the progressive side of things where the 4 points above abound –
especially Trump derangement syndrome and extreme identity politics. With people I almost
never see or don't care if I never do again, I challenge them (respond with comments along
the lines of points 3 and 4).
With people in my close world I am much more careful and usually quite restrained. I
determine how resilient I think the person is. How much challenge they can absorb. I keep in
mind Caitlin Johnson's point that, once programmed, people will only change their mind if
their understanding of the world becomes untenable. I know my few comments will not achieve
that. Re Russia-gate I say the hard evidence seems very weak to me and the story barely
believable.
Re Trump vs democracy I say the democracy train left the station a long time ago,
now it's mostly theatre.
Re general Trump derangement syndrome say I policy-wise he is a
standard Republican, but personally a jack-ass.
Re Biden being the saviour I say I hold
little hope because in the past he has been a total supporter of forever war and Wall Street
and I see little to indicate he has changed.
Once programmed, people will only change their mind if their understanding of the world
becomes untenable
That one is a keeper, I will borrow it myself in the future. Your number 2 is also very
important, I think. People are really suffering from neo-liberalism, and suffering people
tend to complain and lash out at the wrong targets sometimes.
agree completely – very well said. I always try to remember what I used to believe
but no longer do. I believed it than, and I don't think I had less respect for the truth than
– I was just wrong. I could be wrong now.
I was reading a post in Ritzholtz about studies of cognitive dissonance. It was about the
people who believed a spaceship would come and save them before the earth was destroyed. One
point that was made that I think gets overlooked is that these people had jobs,
relationships, they fully understood how the world worked 99.999 percent of the time.
They
were wrong about 1 major thing. I try to remember that I can't be right in everything either,
and if I am wrong, how do I know it?
Interestingly enough, my very liberal neighbor considers me a Trumpist who harbors these
views simply because I'm not a Biden supporter (you're with us or against us, somehow Biden
is labeled as good). I've tried to explain that I would have voted for a Dem if Tulsi had
been allowed to run, but once the DNC deemed her unwelcome, so to did they deem me unworthy.
Of course my failure to place Obama on the throne of divinity shreds any remaining moral
values I may have. It would seem as though any position short of hard left justifies the
label of deplorable. I find I have adopted the strategy of many I know, just keep it to
yourself, dare you temp team cancel.
I think a big part of the problem is that it is sometimes genuinely hard to tell the
difference between crackpot conspiracy theories and, well, true conspiracy theories. And as
most of us know, the mainstream press can't always be trusted.
So here are two examples. What the heck was going on with Epstein? Not just his death, but
his whole life? I won't go into any of the various conspiracy theories because I don't have
evidence, but I strongly suspect there was some intelligence agency or agencies involved. But
anyway, that story has vanished and as far as I know, nobody really knows what was going
on.
Second, I follow Aaron Mate and tentatively believe he is right -- the OPCW is probably
corrupt and lied about the evidence regarding what happened in Douma. If so, that is a
gigantic scandal, made worse by the fact that the press has largely chosen to ignore it. More
generally, I think we got a hugely one- sided and distorted view of the Syrian War. I don't
doubt that Assad is a war criminal, but I think the war crimes of the people we supported (
and our own crimes in the bombing of Raqqa and of Mosul in Iraq) were mostly downplayed or
ignored. In the mainstream US press I think Robert Worth is probably the best reporter. He
doesn't downplay anybody's crimes. But most of the coverage isn't like that.
One could go on and on. I gave up trying to figure out what parts of Russiagate were true.
But my attitude is that even if the Russians did steal the emails, releasing them was a
public service, and for Americans to get hysterical about Russian interference given what we
do all the time is nothing more than a joke.
So anyway, Qanon aside, I don't feel always blame people who believe false conspiracy
theories because it really is hard sometimes to figure out what is true when our mainstream
sources are often unreliable. The NYT has a lot of resources. Imagine what they could be
doing if they really were interested in following a story no matter where it led. But I
suppose if they were like that they probably wouldn't have gotten to be such a powerful
institution in the first place.
I think you are quite correct. I know a number of people that are Trumpists. Only one of
them fits the standard stereotype pushed by the media (no college education, rural, poor,
white male). The rest are all PMC types that are very pro-gun and and anti-tax. One was all
about blue lives matter until Babbitt was killed. He was perplexed when I was not angered she
was killed while storming the capitol building. I tried to explain but nuance is simply not
done.
The bigger issue is, as you say, not whether you believe in conspiracy theories but which
ones. Russiagate is a block of swiss cheese as hole-filled as Pizzagate. However, simply
blowing it off as a conspiracy theory is not easy when stories like Epstein cannot be
explained away. There is probably near-universal disgust of the current ruling class but it
is all being craftily misdirected so as to prevent change. But that sounds curiously
conspiratorial
At 78, after a prolonged illness and without recovering consciousness, Joe Biden succumbed
to the Presidency. The last hopes of the last QAnon believers vanished like smoke in the night,
with Biden assuming the mighty US throne. This is truly a dark day for America and for the
world, as the US example will be followed by many. It is also a farewell to the real world we
were brought up in. The new world is virtual, like most of the inauguration. It is virtual and
dark, ruled by digital companies fronted by old and tired politicians.
War Propaganda: The Cult of MilitarismPart 15a of 'Elephants in the Room'
series By Rod
Driver Global Research, January 20, 2021 Region: USA Theme: Intelligence
This is the second of two posts about war propaganda, and the last of four posts about
propaganda more generally.
"War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same
reputation and prestige as the warrior does today" (John F.Kennedy(1))
War Propaganda Runs Through Our Culture
Hollywood movies about war or spying tend to portray the US military, or James Bond, as the
'good guys' involved in 'goodies vs baddies' conflicts, with little discussion of the crimes of
the US and British militaries and their spy agencies. The US military cooperates closely with
these productions provided that they have final script approval, and can change scripts or
scenes that they do not like. Where movies have tried to say anything negative about the US
military, cooperation has been refused. They expect to have a generally patriotic view of the
US, with the military portrayed as heroes, always with good intentions. These films actually
help to recruit people for the military. The US navy provided planes, pilots and warships for
the 1986 movie 'Top Gun'. This led to a big rise in applications for people to become US
fighter pilots. A more recent development has been the use of internet adverts for Hollywood
movies, which deceptively take people to disguised army recruitment websites.(2)
One of the best examples of CIA propaganda is their manipulation of the film version of
George Orwell's book 'Animal Farm.' The book highlights the fact that politicians in both
capitalist and communist countries can be corrupted by power. The CIA bought the film rights,
knowing that it could be used as a propaganda tool. The CIA's film version omits the most
important part of the ending (which criticises capitalism) creating the impression that it is
only a criticism of communism.(3)
The developers of many computer video games work closely with the US military. There is
increasing use of drones in the military, piloted by soldiers thousands of miles away. What
they see on their control screens is indistinguishable from a video game. The content of some
games involves overthrowing governments in countries such as Venezuela.(4) Evidence from wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq indicates that US soldiers participate in war as if they are playing a
video game, and therefore they can convince themselves that their actions have no
consequences.
Never Question The Soldiers
One of the strongest parts of any pro-war propaganda system is convincing everyone that
whatever criticisms they make, they must always support the troops. But the job of a British or
American soldier has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. They are trained killers whose
job is to invade and occupy other countries, and kill anyone who gets in the way. Britain's
military is much smaller than that of the US, but British propaganda plays an important role in
generating support for war.(5) Military veterans are always praised on television when they
appear at public events. When large numbers of people are being slaughtered in Iraq, there is a
big difference between saying 'The valiant British and American soldiers in Iraq were viciously
attacked by terrorists, but successfully defended themselves' and 'The British and American
occupation forces murdered large numbers of Iraqi people'. Variations of the first comment
appear in US and British media regularly, but the second is a more honest way of describing
what is going on.
Groups of former soldiers, such as 'Veterans for Peace', are now coming forward to explain
that basic training is a form of brainwashing, and that the version of war that they
experience, which is the mass slaughter of innocent people, is completely different from the
propaganda.(6)
Brainwashing Begins In Childhood
Children's comic books about World War 2, such as Commando and War Picture Library, were
very popular for decades after the war. They had a strong focus on patriotism and heroism. They
stereotyped people from enemy countries as cruel or cowardly, and used derogatory terms such as
jerries, huns or krauts for German people, eyeties for Italian people, or nips for Japanese
people.(7) A generation of children grew up with a very distorted view of the war and people in
other countries.
Astute readers will have realised that the materials in these blogs are not taught in
schools. Most young people reach adulthood with no understanding of how the world really works.
This is because governments do not want citizens to understand the crimes they commit.
In 2007 the British government decided to increase its military propaganda in schools and
society more generally. It is encouraging more schools to have cadet forces. Sports
competitions for injured soldiers, such as the Invictus games in the UK, and the Warrior games
in the US, are intended to present former soldiers as heroes.(8) The link between the military
and the British Royal family also plays a propaganda role. More recently, Britain's
cybersecurity agency, GCHQ, started running courses in schools teaching hacking skills, and
inviting young children to visit them.(9) One campaign group noted:
"Armed Forces Day, Remembrance Day, Uniform to Work Day, Camo Day [where people wear
camouflage], in the streets, on television, on the web, at sports events, in schools,
advertising and fashion – the military presence in UK civilian life is increasing
daily"(10)
All of the activities described above are forms of militarism, where people are encouraged
to see the military, and spying, in positive terms; to think of violent, military solutions as
the best way to solve international disagreements; and to ignore peaceful alternatives. There
is no discussion of British and US war crimes, or the illegal spying activities of GCHQ(11) and
its US equivalent, the NSA. Encouraging children to play with military vehicles and weapons,
and to watch military parachutists or airshows, is intended to indoctrinate them. School trips
to war museums have a similar effect. Ideas learned at a young age come to seem like common
sense, as opposed to propaganda intended to serve the interests of rich and powerful people.
These activities play a direct role in recruiting soldiers, but just as importantly, they
recruit a large number of people to support militarism unquestioningly.(12)
The Power of Patriotism
The military activities mentioned above also indoctrinate people into thinking about
patriotism and nationalism, which are incredibly powerful propaganda tools.(13) Putting the
head of a Monarch or an Emperor onto coins was one of the earliest forms of propaganda, and
stamps with the Queen on them have a similar purpose. Royal pageants and processions are
celebrated as major national events. We are encouraged to think of our country as a single
entity, to be proud of it, and to forget, ignore, or be unaware of the crimes of our
government, and the fact that most people have little in common with the billionaires and
millionaires who dominate political decision-making. It makes it easy for decision-makers to
generate support for foreign wars, and to describe others as 'the enemy'.
It is important to realise that some government propaganda is targeted at politicians. This
is where the intelligence services come in. Most people think that intelligence services exist
to provide accurate information. This is only partly true. Some parts of the intelligence
services have a secondary role, which is to present information that supports policy. The US
decided to invade Iraq a long time before the invasion actually happened. From that point
onwards, they were trying to find intelligence that would give them a good excuse to invade.
Intelligence officers in Britain were told that if they did not sign up to a dossier on Weapons
of Mass Destruction, that they knew was untrue, that would be the end of their careers. In the
US, whole new departments were set up. The Office of Strategic Influence was set up in 2001 to
support the war on terror through psychological operations (PSYOPs), which includes creating
fake stories and propaganda. The Office of Special Plans was set up in 2002 specifically to
're-interpret' data to create a case for war. If the data did not support war, officers would
be told that this was not what their superiors wanted to hear, and they should try again until
they came up with the 'right' result.(14)
Anti-war opinions are being censored – Manipulating Information on the Internet
The internet is becoming increasingly important as a source of information, particularly for
young people. Wikipedia began as an online encyclopedia that could be edited by anyone. On some
non-political topics, it is a useful source of information. Unfortunately, most edits are now
made by a small number of people. There is strong evidence that some of these people are not
honest, independent researchers. They work to protect the establishment against its
critics.(15) Critical websites such as The Grayzone have been blacklisted by Wikipedia, even
though it has an outstanding track record of investigative journalism.(16) Many anti-war
activists, including the former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, discovered that their
Wikipedia entries had all been changed hundreds of times in very negative ways by a single
individual (or, more likely, a group of people operating under a single username).
Critical writers have noted that Facebook and Twitter censor their output, and Google
manipulates search results so that critical work does not appear on the first page of results.
This means that it is becoming more and more difficult for people to find information that
challenges the mainstream view.
Some Propaganda is More Subtle – Newspeak and Euphemisms
Most of the war propaganda discussed so far is reasonably obvious, once people have been
made aware that it is propaganda. However, as with other forms of propaganda, war propaganda
actually permeates our society.
We saw in an earlier post about the weapons industry that the word defence is
actually a euphemism for invasions, occupations, mass murder and maiming. There are many other
words that are intentionally used to give a misleading impression of what's going on. The
following is just a short selection of the more obvious ones:
National interest means the interests of the biggest corporations, and the rich
and powerful more generally
International community means the US government and any country that can be bribed
or threatened to support the US
Rogue state is a country that the US does not like. In reality, the biggest rogue
state is the US, with Britain also having a global reputation for ignoring international law
and committing war crimes.
Official secrets and national security are mechanisms to help the most
powerful people cover up their crimes.
George Orwell, the author of '1984', used the term 'Newspeak' to describe how the government
and the media use language as a weapon to limit the range of ideas that people consider
reasonable, and to distort our understanding of important issues. For example, politicians such
as Jeremy Corbyn, who object to invasions or drone assassinations, are labeled as
'soft-on-defence' or 'soft-on-terror',(17) when in fact they are objecting to serious crimes by
our government. If you watch any mainstream news program, particularly on the BBC, you
eventually realise that Newspeak is being used all the time.
"... Consider the religious tenets of the Sickness Cult; specifically, the dogma that requires all to wear a Face Burqa within a privately owned business, even if the owner isn't religious and isn't interested in proselytizing to his customers, much less insisting they show respect for a religion he doesn't subscribe to. ..."
"... "It was a bright, cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen" ..."
One of the nuggets to be mined from the wholesale cancelling of politically unapproved
speech by the Tech Oligarchs – soon to be empowered by government oligarchs, if the
"kraken" doesn't somehow prevent it – is how obvious their pathological dishonesty has
become.
Amazon, Facebook and Twitter have asserted that, as private businesses , they have the right
to decide with whom to do business – and not do business with. But do they feel the same
way about the right of other private businesses to practice what they preach?
Only when it conforms with what they preach.
Consider the religious tenets of the Sickness Cult; specifically, the dogma that requires
all to wear a Face Burqa within a privately owned business, even if the owner isn't religious
and isn't interested in proselytizing to his customers, much less insisting they show respect
for a religion he doesn't subscribe to.
It is a private business, is it not?
Why then must this private business be forced to conduct its business according to the
religious tenets of people who don't own the business? Isn't that a violation of the owner's
rights, just the same as the rights asserted by Amazon, Facebook and Twitter?
... ... ...
These Despicables want to enjoy the right to cancel, close – and decree – to
others while at the same time denying the right of any other privately owned business to set
its own terms and conditions.
The Despicables cannot stand the idea of freedom of religion when it comes to the wearing of
the Face Burqa, for instance. The Holy Vestment must be worn everywhere, even within privately
owned businesses and irrespective of a businesses' private property rights.
... ... ...
RedDog1 18 hours ago remove link
"It was a bright, cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen"
In George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four," members of the Outer Party of Oceania engage in
the Two Minutes Hate ritual against Emmanuel Goldstein, who is supposed to be the enemy of the
people but may actually just be a fabricated symbol to distract the people from their real
enemy -- Big Brother.
In Nancy Pelosi's "Twenty Twenty-One," members of the Democratic Party engage in the Two
Hours Hate against Donald Trump, who is supposed to be the enemy of the people, but may
actually just be a fabricated symbol to distract the people from their real enemy -- Big
Tech.
Two hours of hate -- er, debate -- was held in the House of Representatives last Wednesday
for the avowed purpose of removing a president of the United States. That's all it took. Two
hours. That should tell you everything you need to know about the state of democracy in our
country.
More time is routinely spent on picking wallpaper. But let's face it, most families wouldn't
trust Congress to pick out wallpaper for their living room, so why should we trust these
self-appointed moral arbiters to pick our president?
Well, we don't. Not all of us.
Rep. Doug LaMalfa, a Republican representative from California, put it plainly in his
90-second speech when he said the
"second annual impeachment" of Donald Trump "isn't really about actual words spoken at a rally.
No, this is all about the unbridled hatred of this president [by Democrats]. You use any
extreme language and any process to oppose the core of what he has really fought for. You hate
him because he is pro-life, the strongest ever. You hate him for fighting for the freedom of
religion. You hate him for Israel. You hate him for defending our borders. You hate him for
putting America first."
They certainly shouldn't hate him -- or impeach him -- just for telling a rally crowd that
"everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and
patriotically make your voices heard." But that's what they did. In two hours.
And before they ever got around to impeaching Trump, they de-platformed him. With stunning
suddenness, Trump went from the most powerful man in the world to a cornered, desperate
fugitive. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google -- they all came for him. Most importantly, they
came for us. Everyone who sided with the president, everyone who agreed with the president
about the questions of election fraud, we are all now guilty by association, and Big Tech has
turned its sights on all of us.
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"
Those were the words that terrified millions of Americans in the 1950s when Joe McCarthy and
other senators tried to purge the United States of what they considered a subversive movement
designed to overthrow the government.
In that case, of course, it was conservative senators -- both Democrat and Republican -- who
were trying to expose what they called a communist conspiracy. In their zeal to protect the
nation, they trampled on the civil liberties of individual Americans and tried to strip them of
their jobs, their reputations and in some cases their very freedom.
What was the crime most of those Americans had committed? They had either attended a meeting
of the Communist Party, donated money to the Communist Party or signed a petition on behalf of
the Communist Party. In other words, they had exercised their First Amendment rights of speech
and assembly. They had used their own minds and reached unpopular opinions. That was all it
took for McCarthy to try to ruin their lives.
Apparently the American left never forgot what was done to them, and now that they have
achieved absolute power, it looks like they want revenge.
In the lead-up to the impeachment vote, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts put Trump
defender Jim Jordan "on trial" for the new crime of having a dissenting view on the 2020
presidential election. The question McGovern barked at Jordan in a congressional hearing last
week could be repeated in job interviews for years to come:
"Will you admit that Joe Biden won fair and square and that the election was not rigged or
stolen?"
Jordan avoided a direct answer, but of course he and millions of other people don't believe
that Biden won fair and square. In a free country, they could say so, but in Pelosi's "Twenty
Twenty-One," you say so at your own risk. To begin with, you can lose your Twitter account or
your Facebook account, but who's to say that you won't lose your bank account next? China has a
"social credit" system that deprives citizens of certain rights if their score falls below a
certain level of acceptability -- meaning if they don't follow the party line in their thinking
and their public persona. You might lose your job. You might be denied a ticket on a train or a
plane. The only recourse is to do what the party tells you to do -- even if it means accepting
that 2+2=5.
Now, in modern America, we are precipitously close to duplicating the monolithic control of
information that Orwell predicted in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and that the Chinese Communist
Party has perfected.
In the last two weeks, we have seen the power of Big Tech unleashed mercilessly. With the
complicit assistance of Big Media, the Silicon Valley oligarchs not only neutered President
Trump as a political leader by taking away his bully pulpit but also effectively crushed
dissent by demanding that only social media companies that censor unpopular opinions can have a
platform on the Internet. Bye-bye, Parler. You can also make a reasonable case that Democrats
in Congress would never have impeached President Trump from public office so hastily were they
not goaded into action by Twitter and Facebook taking the first step of banning him from public
life.
In a sense, Big Tech has taken cyberbullying to its logical conclusion. When 13-year-olds
are entrusted with cellphones and Snapchat accounts, they can use them to bring shame on
innocent children and even destroy their lives. Often, this involves spreading false rumors
about the person or discrediting them for something they espouse, like their religion, their
political beliefs or their sexual identity.
Tell me how this is different from what Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have done to Donald
Trump and, by extension, the more than 74 million people who voted for him. This group of
post-pubescent cyberbullies in Silicon Valley doesn't like Donald Trump. They feel justified in
calling him names like white supremacist and Nazi and racist. They don't care whether it hurts
him or not. They don't care whether it is true or not. They are strangely enlivened by what
they perceive as their ability to hurt him, to weaken him. Like the mob that they have
attempted to link the president to, these bullies act in mindless concert, emboldened by each
other to see who can strike the deeper blow, who can make the victim hurt more.
And over what? Differences of opinion, for the most part. Strong border or no border? Mask
or no mask? Globalism or Americanism? Carbon credits or fracking? Abortion or no abortion? And
then the last straw -- fair election or fraudulent election?
These should be legitimate subjects for debate in a free society. But not anymore. Big Tech
has banned debate about government policy on the coronavirus, and any discussion of election
fraud is treated as if it were a crime. But wait? It's only a crime to question the government
in a totalitarian system, like that in communist China or Orwell's fictional Oceania, right? In
America, we have the right and obligation to question our government, don't we? Because, if we
don't have that right any longer, then what are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
Bottom line: At some point in some election, the allegations of election fraud have to be
real. It can't always just be the figment of some right-wing president's imagination. And if we
aren't allowed to have free speech, then how do we fight back? If Big Tech and Big Government
have their way, we don't. Just keep your head down and your nose clean -- and never ever
question what you are told.
Remember, 2+2=5. play_arrow
sgt_doom 8 hours ago (Edited) remove link
NTD TV now on cable!?
NTD TV and Epoch Times about the only Real News in America today!
Rolling Stone reports antifa is being "demonized"!
The New Yorker reports that antifa is protecting Portland from "white supremacists"a
RISE IMAGES feeds videos to the networks --- RISE IMAGES is a commie ghost site!
gaaasp 16 hours ago remove link
Two hours of hate? Try 4+ years of constant hate.
J J Pettigrew 5 hours ago remove link
So a person can not ask...
"Who shot Ashli Babbit?"
or
"Did Chris Wray just blackmail Joe Biden?" (Wray get's to keep his job, and Hunter's
laptop)
sunra 11 hours ago remove link
'big tech' is a result of 9/11, banks and the patriot act meeting stupids.
big tech has become the power tool and real time dashboard of banks and politicians to
rule the sheeple.
LouTurks PREMIUM 3 hours ago remove link
Einstein's Island is opening under new management! Thank you Joe
Following the January 6th riots at the Capitol in Washington DC, Donald Trump became the
first president in US history to be impeached twice after being charged with
�incitement of insurrection�. Trump was also banned from Twitter and DE
platformed from other sites. We examine this decision by Silicon Valley , as well as the
domestic terror laws being pushed by Democrats, as some warn that recent events could be
used to increase authoritarianism and expand the surveillance state.
You can't separate Silicon Valley giants from the security state, Welcome to Crazyville
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the corresponding regional offices of the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith ( ADL ). But, the FBI is running a coverup of the full
dimensions of its criminal collusion with the ADL , arguing that other documents must be
protected because of Executive Orders and because the ADL is an important source.
We are beyond fiction we are well into the rewriting of history.
Edwige , Jan 17, 2021 8:58 AM Reply to Moneycircus
Napoleon said "history is a set of lies that people have agreed upon". This isn't just a
pithy aphorism or a metaphor, it's a literal and deep truth.
Same as when another freemason, Mark Twain, said, "if you don't read the newspaper you are
uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed". Master Mason of the Scottish
Rite Samuel Clemens was telling the truth but in such a way it would't be perceived as
such.
Umbrellas as freemasonic symbols, they're very fond of an arch.
The Trump prject was all about identifying the populists i.e. those plebs who would vote
for what the oligarchs don't currently want. 'Populist' is elastic as 'kulak'. They are the
ones currently being "impeached", not Trump. Their guilt is assured. Anyone who, for example,
fancies going on a march against vaccinations will discover they were in the dock too. Anyone
not down with the plan is a violent insurrectionist now and can expect to be policed as such.
. .
Foreword to Brave New World, second edition -- circa 1947
Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)
Here's my abridgement:
In the meantime, however, it seems worth while at least to mention the most serious defect in
the story, which is this. The Savage is offered only two alternatives, an insane life in
Utopia, or the life of a primitive in an Indian village, a life more human in some respects,
but in others hardly less queer and abnormal. ... Today I feel no wish to demonstrate that
sanity is impossible. ... If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the Savage a third
alternative. Between the utopian and the primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the
possibility of sanity -- a possibility already actualized, to some extent, in a community of
exiles and refugees from the Brave New World, living within the borders of the Reservation.
In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian , politics
Kropotkinesque cooperative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath,
they had been made for man, not (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as
though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious and
intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of the immanent Tao or Logos,
the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of
Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the
Final End principle -- the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of
life being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the
achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final
End?"
.... and here is the Foreword, in full:
Chronic remorse, as all the moralists are agreed, is a most undesirable sentiment. If you
have behaved badly, repent, make what amends you can and address yourself to the task of
behaving better next time. On no account brood over your wrong-doing. Rolling in the muck is
not the best way of getting clean.
Art also has its morality, and many of the rules of this morality are the same as, or at
least analogous to, the rules of ordinary ethics. Remorse, for example, is as undesirable in
relation to our bad art as it is in relation to our bad behaviour. The badness should be hunted
out, acknowledged and, if possible, avoided in the future. To pore over the literary
shortcomings of twenty years ago, to attempt to patch a faulty work into the perfection it
missed at its first execution, to spend one's middle age in trying to mend the artistic sins
committed and bequeathed by that different person who was oneself in youth -- all this is
surely vain and futile. And that is why this new Brave New World is the same as the old one.
Its defects as a work of art are considerable; but in order to correct them I should have to
rewrite the book -- and in the process of rewriting, as an older, other person, I should
probably get rid not only of some of the faults of the story, but also of such merits as it
originally possessed. And so, resisting the temptation to wallow in artistic remorse, I prefer
to leave both well and ill alone and to think about something else.
In the meantime, however, it seems worth while at least to mention the most serious defect
in the story, which is this. The Savage is offered only two alternatives, an insane life in
Utopia, or the life of a primitive in an Indian village, a life more human in some respects,
but in others hardly less queer and abnormal. At the time the book was written this idea, that
human beings are given free will in order to choose between insanity on the one hand and lunacy
on the other, was one that I found amusing and regarded as quite possibly true. For the sake,
however, of dramatic effect, the Savage is often permitted to speak more rationally than his
upbringing among the practitioners of a religion that is half fertility cult and half
Penitente ferocity would actually warrant. Even his acquaintance with Shakespeare would
not in reality justify such utterances. And at the close, of course, he is made to retreat from
sanity; his native Penitente -ism reasserts its authority and he ends in maniacal
self-torture and despairing suicide. "And so they died miserably ever after" -- much to the
reassurance of the amused, Pyrrhonic aesthete who was the author of the fable.
Today I feel no wish to demonstrate that sanity is impossible. On the contrary, though I
remain no less sadly certain than in the past that sanity is a rather rare phenomenon, I am
convinced that it can be achieved and would like to see more of it. For having said so in
several recent books and, above all, for having compiled an anthology of what the sane have
said about sanity and the means whereby it can be achieved, I have been told by an eminent
academic critic that I am a sad symptom of the failure of an intellectual class in time of
crisis. The implication being, I suppose, that the professor and his colleagues are hilarious
symptoms of success. The benefactors of humanity deserve due honour and commemoration. Let us
build a Pantheon for professors. It should be located among the ruins of one of the gutted
cities of Europe or Japan, and over the entrance to the ossuary I would inscribe, in letters
six or seven feet high, the simple words: SACRED TO THE MEMORY OF THE WORLD'S EDUCATORS. SI
MONUMENTUM REQUIRIS CIRCUMSPICE.
But to return to the future . . . If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the
Savage a third alternative. Between the utopian and the primitive horns of his dilemma would
lie the possibility of sanity -- a possibility already actualized, to some extent, in a
community of exiles and refugees from the Brave New World, living within the borders of the
Reservation. In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian,
politics Kropotkinesque cooperative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the
Sabbath, they had been made for man, not (as at present and still more so in the Brave New
World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious
and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of the immanent Tao or Logos,
the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of
Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the
Final End principle -- the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of life
being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by
me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final End?"
Brought up among the primitives, the Savage (in this hypothetical new version of the book)
would not be transported to Utopia until he had had an opportunity of learning something at
first hand about the nature of a society composed of freely co-operating individuals devoted to
the pursuit of sanity. Thus altered, Brave New World would possess artistic and (if it is
permissible to use so large a word in connection with a work of fiction) a philosophical
completeness, which in its present form it evidently lacks.
But Brave New World is a book about the future and, whatever its artistic or philosophical
qualities, a book about the future can interest us only if its prophecies look as though they
might conceivably come true. From our present vantage point, fifteen years further down the
inclined plane of modern history, how plausible do its prognostications seem? What has happened
in the painful interval to confirm or invalidate the forecasts of 1931?
One vast and obvious failure of foresight is immediately apparent. Brave New World contains
no reference to nuclear fission. That it does not is actually rather odd, for the possibilities
of atomic energy had been a popular topic of conversation for years before the book was
written. My old friend, Robert Nichols, had even written a successful play about the subject,
and I recall that I myself had casually mentioned it in a novel published in the late twenties.
So it seems, as I say, very odd that the rockets and helicopters of the seventh century of Our
Ford should not have been powered by disintegrating nuclei. The oversight may not be excusable;
but at least it can be easily explained. The theme of Brave New World is not the advancement of
science as such; it is the advancement of science as it affects human individuals. The triumphs
of physics, chemistry and engineering are tacitly taken for granted. The only scientific
advances to be specifically described are those involving the application to human beings of
the results of future research in biology, physiology and psychology. It is only by means of
the sciences of life that the quality of life can be radically changed. The sciences of matter
can be applied in such a way that they will destroy life or make the living of it impossibly
complex and uncomfortable; but, unless used as instruments by the biologists and psychologists,
they can do nothing to modify the natural forms and expressions of life itself. The release of
atomic energy marks a great revolution in human history, but not (unless we blow ourselves to
bits and so put an end to history) the final and most searching revolution.
This really revolutionary revolution is to be achieved, not in the external world, but in
the souls and flesh of human beings. Living as he did in a revolutionary period, the Marquis de
Sade very naturally made use of this theory of revolutions in order to rationalize his peculiar
brand of insanity. Robespierre had achieved the most superficial kind of revolution, the
political. Going a little deeper, Babeuf had attempted the economic revolution. Sade regarded
himself as the apostle of the truly revolutionary revolution, beyond mere politics and
economics -- the revolution in individual men, women and children, whose bodies were
henceforward to become the common sexual property of all and whose minds were to be purged of
all the natural decencies, all the laboriously acquired inhibitions of traditional
civilization. Between sadism and the really revolutionary revolution there is, of course, no
necessary or inevitable connection. Sade was a lunatic and the more or less conscious goal of
his revolution was universal chaos and destruction. The people who govern the Brave New World
may not be sane (in what may be called the absolute sense of the word); but they are not
madmen, and their aim is not anarchy but social stability. It is in order to achieve stability
that they carry out, by scientific means, the ultimate, personal, really revolutionary
revolution. But meanwhile we are in the first phase of what is perhaps the penultimate
revolution. Its next phase may be atomic warfare, in which case we do not have to bother with
prophecies about the future. But it is conceivable that we may have enough sense, if not to
stop fighting altogether, at least to behave as rationally as did our eighteenth-century
ancestors. The unimaginable horrors of the Thirty Years War actually taught men a lesson, and
for more than a hundred years the politicians and generals of Europe consciously resisted the
temptation to use their military resources to the limits of destructiveness or (in the majority
of conflicts) to go on fighting until the enemy was totally annihilated. They were aggressors,
of course, greedy for profit and glory; but they were also conservatives, determined at all
costs to keep their world intact, as a going concern. For the last thirty years there have been
no conservatives; there have been only nationalistic radicals of the right and nationalistic
radicals of the left. The last conservative statesman was the fifth Marquess of Lansdowne; and
when he wrote a letter to the the Times , suggesting that the First World War should be
concluded with a compromise, as most of the wars of the eighteenth century had been, the editor
of that once conservative journal refused to print it. The nationalistic radicals had their
way, with the consequences that we all know --Bolshevism, Fascism, inflation, depression,
Hitler, the Second World War, the ruin of Europe and all but universal famine.
Assuming, then, that we are capable of learning as much from Hiroshima as our forefathers
learned from Magdeburg, we may look forward to a period, not indeed of peace, but of limited
and only partially ruinous warfare. During that period it may be assumed that nuclear energy
will be harnessed to industrial uses. The result, pretty obviously, will be a series of
economic and social changes unprecedented in rapidity and completeness. All the existing
patterns of human life will be disrupted and new patterns will have to be improvised to conform
with the nonhuman fact of atomic power. Procrustes in modern dress, the nuclear scientist will
prepare the bed on which mankind must lie; and if mankind doesn't fit -- well, that will be
just too bad for mankind. There will have to be some stretching and a bit of amputation -- the
same sort of stretching and amputations as have been going on ever since applied science really
got into its stride, only this time they will be a good deal more drastic than in the past.
These far from painless operations will be directed by highly centralized totalitarian
governments. Inevitably so; for the immediate future is likely to resemble the immediate past,
and in the immediate past rapid technological changes, taking place in a mass-producing economy
and among a population predominantly propertyless, have always tended to produce economic and
social confusion. To deal with confusion, power has been centralized and government control
increased. It is probable that all the world's governments will be more or less completely
totalitarian even before the harnessing of atomic energy; that they will be totalitarian during
and after the harnessing seems almost certain. Only a large-scale popular movement toward
decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism. At present there
is no sign that such a movement will take place.
There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old.
Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass
deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays), it is demonstrably
inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy
Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive
of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have
to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in
present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, news- paper editors and
schoolteachers. But their methods are still crude and unscientific. The old Jesuits' boast
that, if they were given the schooling of the child, they could answer for the man's religious
opinions, was a product of wishful thinking. And the modern pedagogue is probably rather less
efficient at conditioning his pupils' reflexes than were the reverend fathers who educated
Voltaire. The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something,
but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of
view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an "iron curtain" between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local
political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much
more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most
compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the
other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be
made as effective as the negative. The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be
vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists
will call "the problem of happiness" -- in other words, the problem of making people love their
servitude. Without economic security, the love of servitude cannot possibly come into
existence; for the sake of brevity, I assume that the all-powerful executive and its managers
will succeed in solving the problem of permanent security. But security tends very quickly to
be taken for granted. Its achievement is merely a superficial, external revolution. The love of
servitude cannot be established except as the result of a deep, personal revolution in human
minds and bodies. To bring about that revolution we require, among others, the following
discoveries and inventions.
First, a greatly improved technique of suggestion -- through infant conditioning and,
later, with the aid of drugs, such as scopolamine.
Second, a fully developed science of human differences, enabling government managers to
assign any given individual to his or her proper place in the social and economic hierarchy.
(Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to
infect others with their discontents.)
Third (since reality, however utopian, is something from which people feel the need of
taking pretty frequent holidays), a substitute for alcohol and the other narcotics, something
at once less harmful and more pleasure-giving than gin or heroin.
And fourth (but this would be a long-term project, which it would take generations of
totalitarian control to bring to a successful conclusion), a foolproof system of eugenics,
designed to standardize the human product and so to facilitate the task of the managers. In
Brave New World this standardization of the human product has been pushed to
fantastic, though not perhaps impossible, extremes. Technically and ideologically we are
still a long way from bottled babies and Bokanovsky groups of semi-morons. But by A.F. 600,
who knows what may not be happening? Meanwhile the other characteristic features of that
happier and more stable world -- the equivalents of soma and hypnopaedia and the scientific
caste system --are probably not more than three or four generations away. Nor does the sexual
promiscuity of Brave New World seem so very distant. There are already certain American
cities in which the number of divorces is equal to the number of marriages. In a few years,
no doubt, marriage licenses will be sold like dog licenses, good for a period of twelve
months, with no law against changing dogs or keeping more than one animal at a time. As
political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.
And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or
conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the
freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to
reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
All things considered it looks as though Utopia were far closer to us than anyone, only
fifteen years ago, could have imagined. Then, I projected it six hundred years into the future.
Today it seems quite possible that the horror may be upon us within a single century. That is,
if we refrain from blowing ourselves to smithereens in the interval. Indeed, unless we choose
to decentralize and to use applied science, not as the end to which human beings are to be made
the means, but as the means to producing a race of free individuals, we have only two
alternatives to choose from: either a number of national, militarized totalitarianisms, having
as their root the terror of the atomic bomb and as their consequence the destruction of
civilization (or, if the warfare is limited, the perpetuation of militarism); or else one
supranational totalitarianism, called into existence by the social chaos resulting from rapid
technological progress in general and the atomic revolution in particular, and developing,
under the need for efficiency and stability, into the welfare-tyranny of Utopia. You pays your
money and you takes your choice.
In the foreword to the 1946 edition of his novel, Brave New World , Aldous Huxley anticipated the
continued emergence, perhaps in novel forms, of statist totalitarianism:
There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old.
Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass
deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays), it is
demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin
against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the
all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of
slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it
is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda,
news-paper editors and schoolteachers. But their methods are still crude and
unscientific.
Because, in 1946, the world had yet to witness the horrors of Red China, North Korea, Cuba,
and Cambodia, Huxley guessed wrong that artificial famines, mass imprisonment, and political
executions would go out of fashion. Totalitarianism is impossible without brute violence. And,
from our brave new world of 2021, where Big Tech's promiscuous deployment of tools like
Machine
Learning Fairness and
shadow banning prevent users' exposure to wrongthink, his estimation of propaganda methods
as "crude and unscientific" is badly out of date.
But how chilling is Huxley's prescience about propaganda ministers, news editors, and
schoolteachers training generations of serfs to willingly obey "political bosses and their army
of managers"?
Just like the truism that "generals always fight the last war," Huxley's point that there's
"no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old" calls for both vigilance and
imagination on our part; our next totalitarian enemy isn't limited to patterns of
twentieth-century Nazism or Soviet-style Communism.
For instance, the suffocating blanket of censorship and suppression of free speech, which
seems to defy any constitutional remedy because it's not directly traceable to
government action, remains a problem without an obvious solution. Regardless, it's an open
secret that the corporate executives in media, Big Tech, and Hollywood managing this
suppression are acting on behalf of a single political party -- a party that, due in large part
to that interference and suppression now have near total control of the federal government.
Townhall's Matt Vespa quotes even a liberal reporter, Michael Tracey, warning that the
"absolute authoritarian lunacy" of Twitter's decision to ban President Trump isn't about
"'safety,' it's about purposely inflating a threat in order to assert political and cultural
dominance." Warns Tracey, "The new corporate authoritarian liberal-left monoculture is going to
be absolutely ruthless -- and in 12 days it is merging with the state ." [My
italics].
Glenn Greenwald, another committed progressive, also complains "
that political censorship has 'contaminated virtually every mainstream centre-left
political organization, academic institution and newsroom.'" In October, Greenwald, co-founder
of The Intercept news site,
resigned after they refused to publish his article
about Joe Biden and Hunter's shocking influence-peddling, unless Greenwald first removed
"critical points against the Democratic candidate."
In
reality, standing alone with election fraud notwithstanding , last October's lockstep
decision by an entire news industry to suppress the starkly headline-worthy scandals around
Hunter Biden's laptop, along with all other negative stories about Joe Biden, accounts directly
for 17% of Biden voters who would have abandoned him "
had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories." Because those lost votes
"would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden," re-electing
Trump, burying those stories was first-degree election interference.
Huxley foresaw this, too:
The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by
refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is
silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an "iron curtain" between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local
political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion
much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most
compelling of logical rebuttals.
In 2020 alone, news outlets systematically misinformed, or kept uninformed, scores of
millions of voters whose only news sources are either mainstream media or the occasional
de-contextualized sound bite. Corporate news, in addition to disappearing the Hunter Biden
story:
Misreported that opportunistic politicians imposing destructive, arbitrary lockdowns to
stop the spread of the Wuhan virus were only "following the science," while disregarding all
scientific studies showing how lockdowns were ineffective, detrimental, and even deadly;
Misreported for months that Black Lives Matter/Antifa's nightly demonstrations were
"mostly peaceful," while refusing to report on hundreds of BLM and Antifa-organized protests
involving widespread arson, looting, and violence against police and innocent civilians;
Perpetuated the dangerous myth that black men are casually shot down by white police
every day, while ignoring that "statistics "
flatly debunk the false narratives about 'racist white cops' and the 'hunt for unarmed
black men'";
Parroted the Democrat talking point that Trump's allegations of election fraud were made
"without any evidence," while obstinately refusing to investigate well-documented evidence of
pervasive election irregularities in battleground states.
But Fake News is only as powerful as its consumers are gullible. Knowing that, PJMedia's
Stephen Kruiser was able to predict in advance that a Biden win would be "the complete triumph
of decades of
public education indoctrination ," which is no longer education, anyway, but "more of a
leftist catechism class." Journalist
William Haupt III reports that 12 years of Common Core "has resulted in 51 percent of our
youth preferring socialism to democracy." It's also why "[t]wo thirds of the millennials
believe America is a racist and sexist country and 40 percent agree America is 'the most
unequal society in the world.'" In fact, in 2011 Chuck
Rogér traced this decline to the sixties, when teachers' colleges began churning out
"[s]ocial justice-indoctrinated teachers [who] instill resentment in 'non-dominant' (minority)
children and guilt in 'dominant' (white) children. Judging by the abundance of guilt-ridden
white Americans, the tactic is working its magic well." At present a reported
3,500 classrooms across fifty states are incorporating the New York Times ' specious
1619 Project , which teaches that every accomplishment in America's history came out
of slavery . The purpose of this all this falsified history? Not education, but more
generations of Americans "unable to discern
fact from fiction ."
Now that progressives have complete control of Washington, they'll escalate their lies -- of
commission, and especially of omission -- to gain a tighter and more permanent grip. Still,
Truth remains their real enemy. It explains social media's current blitz of de-platforming
conservatives, trying to drop an "iron curtain," just as Huxley predicted, to separate the
people from undesirable facts.
Likewise, fidelity to truth is our best defense; that, and continuing to refuse their lies.
That's one positive action Solzhenitsyn was able to offer his comrades who felt
powerless against the repressive Soviet system, "the most perceptible of its aspects" being
lies: "Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace
everything, but not with any help from me."
T.R. Clancy looks at the world from Dearborn, Michigan. You can email him at [email protected] .
In today's climate of political correctness and economic uncertainty, ad revenue only goes
so far to keep an independent voice like AmericanThinker.com going. If you enjoy our articles,
please consider supporting us with a direct contribution of as much or as little as you can
give. Your donation will ensure that we continue to bring great pieces from our outstanding
columnists.
If Orwell had done what's so popular now and written a prequel to 1984 he would pretty
much have described us.
amaericeltoi 1 hour ago
Huxley's vision seems more likely than Orwell's. Of course both dystopias have intrusive
governments, but Huxley's view of the technological aspects of the oppression were much more
prophetic. Genetic engineering, mass drugging, and planned consumption/consumerist economics
being the key to the planned technocracy. The evidence may be the widely heralded use of
genetic manipulation, unparalleled "pushing" of drugs to control every aspect of
emotional/intellectual well being and subtle but effective marketing through data mining.
I'm saving my Complete Works of Shakespeare and laying low . . .Brave New World be
hanged!
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), who used the pen name George
Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. His work is marked by lucid
prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and outspoken support of
democratic socialism.
Orwell wrote literary criticism, poetry, fiction, and polemical journalism. He is perhaps
best known for his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and the allegorical novella
Animal Farm (1945). His non-fiction works, including The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), documenting
his experience of working class life in the north of England, and Homage to Catalonia (1938),
an account of his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, are widely acclaimed, as are his essays
on politics, literature, language, and culture. In 2008, The Times ranked him second on a list
of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945".
Orwell's work continues to influence popular and political culture, and the term Orwellian
-- descriptive of totalitarian or authoritarian social practices -- has entered the language
together with many of his neologisms, including, but not limited to, cold war, Big Brother,
Thought Police, Room 101, memory hole, doublethink, and thoughtcrime.--Wikipedia.
"The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering... all
thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting,
triumphing, persecuting - three hundred million people all with the same face."
That was a quote from George Orwell's seminal work 1984 - a masterpiece that describes life
in a totalitarian state that demands blind obedience.
The 'Party' controlled everything - the economy, daily life, and even the truth. In Orwell's
1984 , "the heresy of heresies was common sense."
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has
been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been
altered."
"And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.
Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."
If you were ever caught committing a thoughtcrime -- dissenting from the Party for even an
instant– then "your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you
had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten."
Now, our world obviously hasn't become quite as extreme as Orwell's dystopian vision. But
Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Government certainly seem to be giving it their best effort.
70,000 thought criminals have already been purged from Twitter. Facebook and Reddit are
feverishly removing user content. Apple, Google, and Amazon have banned entire apps and
platforms.
Undoubtedly there is plenty of wacky content all over the Internet– misinformation,
ignorance, rage, hate, violence, and just plain stupidity.
But these moves by the Big Tech companies aren't about violence. If they were, they would
have deleted tens of thousands of accounts over the last few years– like the mostly
peaceful BLM activist who Tweeted "white people may have to die".
Or the countless others who have advocated for violent uprisings against the police
Then, of course, there's the #assassinatetrump and #killtrump hashtags that has Twitter has
allowed since at least 2016. Or the #killallmen hashtag that's allowed on Twitter and
Instagram.
This is not about violence. It's about ideology. If you hold different beliefs than the
'Party', then you risk being canceled or 'de-platformed' by Big Tech.
Icons like Ron Paul– who spent years criticizing the current administration's monetary
and national defense policies, and had nothing to do with the Capitol, have been suspended or
locked out of their Facebook pages.
The hammer has dropped, and it is now obvious, beyond any doubt, that you better watch what
you say– your livelihood, your social life, and your safety may just depend on it.
Or else, you will be purged, canceled, deleted from the Internet, denied payment processing
by Visa, PayPal, and Stripe, and expelled from domain registrars like GoDaddy.
The message is clear: behave and think exactly as we tell you, or you will lose everything
you have worked for, in the blink of an eye.
Sure, the 'Party' may give lip service to tolerance and unity. As long as you fall in line.
Otherwise it's more rage and ridicule.
They act like you're a crazy person because you have completely legitimate questions and
concerns– whether about Covid lockdowns, censorship, media misinformation, etc.
It's extraordinary that after so much deliberate misinformation and bias, the media still
expects people to take them seriously. CNN seems to believe that think anyone who doubts their
credibility is a 'conspiracy theorist.'
All of these trends are probably making a lot of people very nervous. Even scared. Despair
has undoubtedly set in, much like in Winston Smith, the main character in Orwell's 1984.
So, for all the Winstons out there, the most important thing right now is to remain
rational. As human beings we tend to make terrible decisions when we're scared, sad, or
angry.
Have confidence in knowing that you have MUCH more control over your own life, livelihood,
and future than they want to you believe.
But you absolutely will have to make some deliberate, potentially difficult decisions.
For example, if you're fed up with Big Tech, you can de-Google your life. No one is holding
a gun to your head to have a Facebook account or use gmail. There are plenty of other options
out there that we'll discuss in future letters.
More importantly, you might find that your hometown isn't safe anymore– especially if
you live in a big city controlled by politicians intoxicated on their Covid powers.
It's really time to consider your immediate environment – if the local schools are
brainwashing your kids, the dictatorial health officials shutting down your business, or nosy
neighbors ready to turn you into the Gestapo for having family over for the holidays, then you
might think about moving.
That might simply mean moving a few miles to a new county. Or a new state/province. Or
potentially overseas. We'll help provide you with information on plenty of options.
It might also be time to reconsider some of your business infrastructure– to have
backup web servers and payment processors, for example, if you have an online business.
It might be time to consider some new financial options as well, lest the banks jump on the
band wagon and start 'canceling' accounts for heretics.
But that's the silver lining: we've never had more alternatives than now. Everything–
technology platforms, financial institutions, and even our personal residence– it's all
replaceable. All of it.
We have never had more control over our own privacy, data, livelihood, and environment as
long as you have the willingness to take action.
2banana 2 hours ago remove link
GAB and Brave browsers,
rumble and bitchute video,
Signal for voice and messaging,
Session for messaging,
Epoch times for news,
Fastmail and ProtonMail for email,
Duchduckgo and dogpile for search,
And use a paid VPN like private internet access
Leave the phone at home as often as you can and pay cash.
Southern_Boy 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Use https, not http exclusively and don't use any web site that won't take it.
Fastmail is owned by Opera and its mail servers are located in the US, so it will not
protect you from subpoenas.
The GAB browser is called Dissenter.
Consider TOR for infrequent forays into the "dark web".
Don't forget that BitCoin (BTC) is traceable.
Use a free version of CCLEANER after every browser session to erase as much of your tracks
as you can.
Signal is a suspect because of its controlled ownership community
Using the same vendor for VPN as Anti-Virus is against IT security best practices
Paying for anything with your bank card is a red flag. Whoever you give your credit card
to now has your identity, including ZeroHedge. Consider creating an LLC or other identity
(preferably offshore) to fund a "burner" credit card or get a refillable debit card that you
can fill up using cash. Then you can pay for VPN, email and paid content subscription
services using an assumed name or LLC cover name. Assume that any payment to any tech service
with your personal card will be used for identification purposes.
Pay with money orders if possible.
Change cellular phone companies every 1 to two years. Avoid data usage on cellular phone,
consider using multiple WiFi hotspots for calls.
Consider 2-3 cheap used phones with cheap, pay as you go services and swap them regularly
and randomly.
Do not have contact lists on your cell phone and reset to factory settings every 6 months
to wipeout any data.
Reload from bare metal your laptop or desktop PC OS every 6 months.
Send random gibberish as an encrypted email every month or so and check if it's unusually
slow to be received or if any vendor calls or asks you about anything. If they do, you are
being tracked. There are no coincidences.
Make infrequent but regular phone calls with your multiple phones to law enforcement,
federal "three letter agency" main switchboards, politicians and random people. Just tell
anyone who answers it was a mistake and an improperly dialed number. If you get hold music,
then stay on as long as you can because traffic analysis will not know if your actually
talking to someone or not. If anyone is investigating or tracking you, your signals traffic
(CDR) will automatically confound them and involve unwanted parties that will confound and
scare the hounds.
If you are technically competent, consider getting any open source product you use and
then compile it yourself after reviewing the source. Check for hidden open doors or reporting
communications that aren't needed.
Fateful Destiny the Book 2 hours ago
1984 was prophetic for its time, but Fateful Destiny is the new dystopian benchmark novel
for what is to come. Get yours now: https://amzn.to/3owM5Sh
TheLastMan 1 hour ago
The media filter is dominant. Control the narrative, control the world. The official
narratives are perpetually meshed into daily consciousness. You must know it is literally
spellbinding.
Similar dangers exist on alt media sites like zh. Beware the narrative. Look for at least
three sides to every story - his side her side and maybe the truth
OpenEyes 1 hour ago
As much as possible, now is the time to start 'going grey' (if you haven't already
started).
One example: I see a lot of people, understandably, saying to delete your facebook
account, gmail account, twitter account etc. My recommendation, DO NOT do this. You don't
think "they" aren't keeping track of those who are doing this, especially right now? By
taking those actions you are pinning a big red flag on yourself.
No, my advice, just simply abandon your account. Stop commenting, posting, reading, etc..
simply walk away and stop using those accounts. It will take some time for 'them' to notice
that your account is inactive, if they even do. And, an inactive account will likely be
treated far less seriously than an actively deleted or cancelled account.
Keep your heads down and your family safe. Best wishes to all.
Misesmissesme 3 hours ago (Edited) remove link
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever. -
George Orwell: " An Instruction Guide for 2021 "
Cardinal Fang 2 hours ago (Edited)
Like that scene in The Graduate where the guy leans in and tells Dustin Hoffman 'One
word...Plastics' I am going to lean in and say 'One word...Wearables'
So Google just completes their acquisition of 'FitBit'...even though the Justice Dept has
not finished their anti-trust investigation...
Anyhow, it's all coming clear. The next stage in our Orwellian nightmare is Covid will be
the excuse to make you 'wear' a device to prove you are Covid free in some way. It will be
your permission slip, plus they can spy on you in real time even if you leave your phone
home, because you will not be able to leave your home without your 'Wearable'...
Then, in short order, you will get tired of your 'wearable' and beg for the chip
implant.
You will beg to be vaccinated and chipped like sheep.
They literally can't help themselves.
Jim in MN 2 hours ago
All new and improved ankle bracelets!
Only $299.99 and yes, it is required or else.
Batteries, monthly surveillance fees and random fines not included.
Dr.Strangelove 2 hours ago
I just watched 1984 and it is scary similar to the US political environment.
We are all Winston.
SullyLuther 1 hour ago remove link
Huxley will be proven correct. Z O G doesn't need a boot perpetually on our necks, when we
are so passive and ignorant.
Workdove PREMIUM 1 hour ago
They just need to make narcotics and psychedelics free and his vision of the future will
be complete. Orwell was correct too. We got both.
NIRP-BTFD 3 hours ago
Now, our world obviously hasn't become quite as extreme as Orwell's dystopian vision.
But Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Government certainly seem to be giving it their best
effort.
This is just the beginning. The technocrats at the WEF are planning to control your
thought with chips and brain interfaces. Now tell me what is neuralink that Musk is workign
on? I'm sure DARPA has technologcy that can allready do this.
seryanhoj 2 hours ago
It's hard to believe USA is now headed to a society like the worst days of the USSR.
Back in the fifties , paranoid Senator McCarthy used similar extreme methods to cancel all
those who he considered to by stealth communist sympathizers, or anyone who had been within
100 feet of one. Ironically his methods resembled those of Joseph Stalin.
He was finally discredited by an outstanding and brave news man who took the risk of
persecution by denouncing senator McCarthy's methods as unamerican .
So this kind of thing is not without precedent in USA.
IMO, it's a combination of those plus, a la 1984 , and distractions, sports
particularly. I was taught early that knowledge is power, then picked up Socrates admonition:
The unexamined life is not worth living; which later led to this formula: Gnosis=Logos. Then
there's defending against Machiavelli's Prince, which requires knowledge. Plus the
Enlightenment-based premises upon which the USA was founded. And most importantly, if you're
to be part of a self-governing nation, one must be informed as many Founders observed. I'm
well versed on what an ignorant life is like as there was a time from my late teens to my mid
30s when I lived that way, with my 50-60 hour per week job, chasing women and having fun
taking precedence. I do often wonder if my efforts are useful. Maybe not so much anymore
since the trolls seem to have stopped trying to smear me.
FBI is soliciting people to identify people involved with the rumble on Capitol Hill. This
is very 1984ish. The FBI must have the best facial recognition software in the land. Really?
This is heading to a dark place. (My man of the year is the Trump rebel with the Trump hat
waving holding the podium. He would be a rich man if he could get a copyright on that photo.
They really had to go this far to catch him? LOL)
The proles were more or less happy in 1984's London because they were supplied with cheap
food, booze, fags, records and cheap tabloids and pulp books. They had everything they needed
(and could afford it) to live their working-class lives and would never rise up –
therein lies Winston's frustration – revolution is simply beyond their mental
horizon.
Trumproles on the other hand have not been looked after very well by their Very Big
Brother and are unhappy – but remain proles – creatures of low consciousness and
intelligence and little understanding of the world beyond their fence. "America has most
freem in the world! If America goes down, the World is doooomed!" (that was one "patriot's"
lowing outside the Capitol). No, old chap, if you dispose of yourselves peacefully, the world
will rejoice and thank you forever. Thank you for the music though – some of it will
live on forever.
To expect any meaningful revolutionary action from them is a tad optimistic. Even a
chaotic mass action is beyond them because they do possess a healthy survival instinct and a
certain low cunning which middle-class observers often overlook.
Ultimately of course, if Iranians are our allies, let them enjoy this moment when a
tormentor-in-chief of their nation sinks in oblivion.
Fair points, Ken, but there is another difference between now and "1984" which
requires the prole class to have more than "low consciousness and intelligence and little
understanding of the world." Orwell wrote, "Everywhere there is the same pyramidal
structure, the same worship of a semi-divine leader, the same economy existing by and for
continuous warfare When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity.
Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or
disregarded."
The people of Oceania can be ignorant and insane because Eurasia and Eastasia operate on
the same level. However, can that be said of today's Russia, China, Iran, etc.? If the
"Western" prole class is too far below those opposed to our Orwellian overlords, then the
dystopia loses. Yet needing to raise their level makes them liable to oppose the dystopia
themselves.
Perhaps that is what makes things worse. Here in Britain, they would rather let the people
go without or risk bad vaccines than talk to Russians about using theirs. And of course the
attack on China is exploding. Perhaps they are trying to prevent what you are talking about.
If people started to cooperate, there would be no room for the criminals currently ruling the
West.
Yes, Ken, the banker gangsters are trying, and Orwell said they would try, too. "There
should be no contact with foreigners If he were allowed contact with foreigners he
would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been
told about them is lies."
However, the banksters could not prevent that. Orwell's Eurasia, the Soviet Union, was
collapsing, so Brits were needed to help fill the void left by Bolshevik-brand Communists.
Orwell's Oceania, which includes the US, was protesting and fragging corrupt officers over
the continuous war in Vietnam, so Brits were needed to help build up Orwell's Eastasia, which
includes China, as a replacement super-state. Yet as Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi
recently said, "We don't need a world where China becomes another United States."
If Eastasia is never really coming and Eurasia is never coming back, doesn't it stand to
reason that Oceania will likewise fail ?
I am not talking about working-class (although I conflate occasionally) but PROLES that
Saker talks about. And trust me, I'm not. Anybody who could have voted for the dismantling of
the American industry and social networks under Reagan can't be very bright!
Hello my friend, what a sad day for the ideal of a democratic and free republic it is. If
Americans rise up, it will not be for the sake of Donald Trump or his Presidency. It will be
when it is clear that if they don't rise up against tyrants and usurpers, the American
Revolution as an ongoing proposition is over for good. There hasn't been enough pain just
yet.
As somebody whose life has been enriched by American music and other things I wish the
American people all the best in their struggle but please ask them to stop bringing immense
harm and pain and suffering to the world. American military (thank you for your service) and
state apparatus have killed between 30 and 40 million people since the end of WWII (Johan
Galtung). In the words of Professor Galtung:
Galtung has stated that the US is a "killer country" guilty of "neo-fascist state
terrorism" and compared the US to Nazi Germany for bombing Kosovo during the 1999 NATO
bombing of Yugoslavia.[26][27]
According to Galtung, the US empire causes "unbearable suffering and resentment" because
the "exploiters/ killers/ dominators/ alienators, and those who support the US Empire because
of perceived benefits" are engaging in "unequal, non-sustainable, exchange patterns". In an
article published in 2004, Galtung predicted that the US empire will "decline and fall" by
2020. He expanded on this hypothesis in his 2009 book titled The Fall of the US Empire
– and Then What? Successors, Regionalization or Globalization? US Fascism or US
Blossoming?.[28][29]
Hello Ken Leslie, You mention Johan Galtung the Norwegian peace researcher.
Can you give me the exact places where I can find your quotes? especially the quote of about
30 – 40 million people killed by the US State apparatus.
Thank you for putting me in touch with this special man.
Keep safe, Donald
For all their unspeakable beastliness, the Germans did their slaughter while fighting (at
least some of the time). Most of the deaths caused by the USA have been caused to innocent
civilians or vastly inferior opponents. If I were to factor in the risk involved in mass
killing and multiply by it, the magnitude of the US crime would at least double.
Well, I see it for sure, not confident that others will, as Americans as a society have
never been particularly self-reflective.
I have an identity though that is grounded in natural and spiritual truths that predate
1776 AD, and will last after America is gone in it's present form. On that note, I say;
Hi Ken,
I don't disagree with your description of the proles, however they are not our enemy.
Our true enemy are the people who act and talk like gentlemen, those who speak of lofty
ideals and then use their bombs and cruise missiles to murder civilians halfway across the
globe. Give me proles, who mind their own business, any day over those guys.
Perhaps but I'm not sure why people are convinced that "working-class" Americans –
ultra right-wing bordering on fascist can provide a solution. Trump caused more damage to
peace than most other criminals-in-chief and these American proles (I'm in so sod the world)
have always voted for right-wing reprobates such as Reagan and Bus(c)h. Why should they
change now?
I have had recently a severe disagreement with a close friend who was a Australian Viet
Nam vet. In his opinion the US is/was the cornerstone of world order and its moral actions
over the years has kept the world in order by its muscle.
This is not a light matter as he is friend whith whom I said in reply 'you must be
kidding'. Minutes later the divide became real and we have not spoken for a few years. He no
doubt saw some things in his time in service that formulated such an opinion and I would
hazard a guess he is not Robinson Crusoe in that regard.
So neither of us is young and we both have travelled the world for many, many years since
with a similar view on most things moral or newsworthy.
So the destruction of empire I found to my cost has ramifications on a personal level if
not otherwise.
Remember for artists with limited attention span the personal is often more critical than
the general.
The dismantling of a neo-liberal world order from within the US would have a profound
effect on the rest, who espouse the same ideology. Also, the economy of the US is intertwined
with a large portion of the world. A US collapse will have a negative effect on many people,
just as the collapse of the Soviet system devastated the average person who lived within its
system. Yes, the world is tired of their perversions, stupidity, and violence inflicted upon
other nations. What should be hoped for is a more peaceful slide into a multipolar economic
system and a return of US Constitutionalists to power. Most regular people have committed no
crimes and shouldn't suffer from the crimes of corrupt, spineless scum that have made a
mockery of their own nation States.
Last thing the world needs is another madman in power. The famous "mad" leaders were able
to come to power due to grave injustices. Usually, from a second State that has an axe to
grind. Violence begots violence for sure. I don't know if US has the environment for a
classic type of madman to grab power. Though it can be argued most of their modern leaders
are mad for starting criminal wars and deserve punishment. However, no use leader has the
spine or charisma of such leaders. I agree with you, though the likelihood of it is less
likely in my opinion. As for a soft implosion and a rebuild with the true vales that united
all people of the country be reestablished. It's always darkest before the dawn.
Despite its Satanic foreign policy since WWII (I mean this literally – the demon of
the Third Reich simply swapped bodies), I don't think that anybody really wishes ill to the
broad palette of humanity that inhabits the USA. What we do ask is for a good slap that will
awaken them to the harm their sons (and increasingly daughters) have caused to the world
(thank you for your disservice!).
Fortunately, it appears that the slap will be self-administered – although I can see
the CIA troglodytes blaming China and Russia for the yesterday's farce.
Thank you – I don't mean to disrespect any group of people but really don't believe
that some kind of revolution can come from this particular demographic. It is the curse of
successful propaganda – they believe so much in "America the exceptional" that it is
difficult for them to try and dismantle it. Please look at the clashes – it's nothing
like real or colour revolutions – lots of swearing and "patriotism" and then home to
wide screen TVs and narrow beer bottles.
Second, what would be the cause of the revolution? That the USA has reached its natural
apex and is now slowly sinking? Why, the British and the Soviets could have done the same but
did spare the world their drama – latter at a considerable cost. I have a feeling that
many (me included) buy into the "exceptional" lie – which has now come to haunt the
Americans. Yes, they were betrayed but they enjoyed every minute of it while the rest of the
world groaned under their sanctions and bombs.
Agreed. We don't need a revolution, we need a resignation. Resigned to the new facts on
the ground in the 21st century. The US was never the one "indispensable nation" that
we were all led to believe, but regardless of that, we're certainly not anymore. We need to
resign ourselves to that fact and then demand that we resign from the odious task of
pretending to be the glorious imperialist hegemon that our politicians and lying media tell
us we are. No more glorious leaders and no more delusional ideas about ever becoming "great
again." The entire world will be better off once that happens, and who knows, the rest
of the world might even still be willing to forgive us our multitude of sins committed
these past many years if we do it now. But that's going to take a level of maturity,
fortitude, and humility that's currently nowhere in evidence.
Thank you for a mature and forward-looking post. That is exactly the posture the Russians
assumed and are coping ok. If there is even a small number of American people who believe
this – there is hope.
Shame that most people will ignore your deep insight. To survive, America must join the
world as an equal – prepared to prosper and suffer like everybody else. Otherwise the
suffering will be Boschian and like nothing we have ever seen.
The age of the wokeTard and progressive / liberal Jingoism is has arrived.
Procrastin8 4 hours ago remove link
See my above comments about Gulag Archipelago. Look at Soviet history. Many of the
original revolutionaries were assassinated, or merely swept aside if they were very lucky.
The Soviet Union managed to imprison on flimsy pretexts, work to death at slave labor, or
just shoot, millions of their own citizens. And for what? To prop up a bloodthirsty, paranoid
regime, fearful that any person could be an enemy, that every shadow contained a lurking
threat. Mapped to our modern world: if things got that bad here (let's hope they don't), even
if you were the world's best Democrat, you supported and contributed to the campaigns, you
marched with MLK and BLM, whatever, when the time comes, they will come for you and none of
your past will be of any avail. The mere fact that you are White, or if you were Black, you
once voiced approval of Whites, will be enough to condemn you.
Your opening sentence reminds me of something. I've just finished Solzhenitsyn's famous
Gulag Archipelago. Once in the prison camp, a prisoner may become convinced that everyone
else is guilty; that he is the only innocent man. Gulag should be required reading for
everyone. Another prime lesson: no matter your political ideology, no matter how "pure" you
were, even if you were a true revolutionary, you are still elibile for being shot/slave
labor, once the bad guys get into power (Lenin, Stalin played these roles in the Soviet
Union.) At some point, any pretense of law or civil procedure is tossed aside. Steal
vegetables from a job site because you're starving. Theft of state property, ten years. Did
you make a off-color joke or comment about the Leader in an unguarded moment? Anti-Soviet
agitation. Ten years. Were you captured by the enemy during the war? Then clearly you were
collaborating with the enemy. They could get you on any pretense, or just because they had a
quota to fill that month.
"Can't happen here?" It already is -- in slow motion.
They are going after conservatives now, as "dangerous vigilantes". My RINO governor today
canceled his inauguration, due to "fear of right wing protestors", and "my family's safety
comes first". . . Re-education camps are next, folks.
ZENDOG 17 hours ago (Edited)
Is it time, for vigilante justice ????
Because the ussa DOJ, is nowhere to be found.
NoDebt 17 hours ago
Saw this coming a ways off. That's one of the reasons I registered as an Independent in
2016 (the other was the Rs shameful lack of support for their own presidential candidate).
This year I might just flip to Democrat.
Not that it matters for voting reasons because I'm never participating in that fraudulent
process again.
But, one must consider that some "political camouflage" might be advisable in certain
areas of the country.
Procrastin8 4 hours ago
See my above comments about Gulag Archipelago. Look at Soviet history. Many of the
original revolutionaries were assassinated, or merely swept aside if they were very lucky.
The Soviet Union managed to imprison on flimsy pretexts, work to death at slave labor, or
just shoot, millions of their own citizens. And for what? To prop up a bloodthirsty, paranoid
regime, fearful that any person could be an enemy, that every shadow contained a lurking
threat. Mapped to our modern world: if things got that bad here (let's hope they don't), even
if you were the world's best Democrat, you supported and contributed to the campaigns, you
marched with MLK and BLM, whatever, when the time comes, they will come for you and none of
your past will be of any avail. The mere fact that you are White, or if you were Black, you
once voiced approval of Whites, will be enough to condemn you.
The Biden regime will be a mass murdering war criminal American regime--just as surely as
the Trump regime is a mass murdering war criminal American regime.
In an Orwellian democracy like the Land of the Free™ (or other capitalist nations),
changes in the ruling political party are used to disguise continuation of the same malignant
America Way of Life itself.
Indeed, there is only one political party in the USA: that of the American Evil
Empire.
And all the fake "partisan political differences" exist only to promote America's Fake
Democracy in general.
My concerns have been those of many writers throughout the ages -- poets, rebels,
journalists, philosophers, passionate writers of every stripe, desperados for truth and a
peaceful world of love and kindness. Those I have admired the most, believers or unbelievers --
it is often hard to tell the difference, nor does it matter -- were those who dismissed
categories, distinctions, or labels, but who wrote freely because for them to write freely was
to live freely and not to be caged by anyone's restrictions as to what they should be saying or
how they were saying it.
For them truth was their God, and through the weaving of words down a page they were always
seeking to disclose what was hidden from common sight. They used language to open up cracks in
the consensus reality that the great poet and writer Kenneth Rexroth called the "social
lie":
Since all society is organized in the interest of exploiting classes and since if men knew
this they would cease to work and society would fall apart, it has always been necessary, at
least since the urban revolutions, for societies to be governed ideologically by a system of
fraud."
Indeed, we live in the era of massive fraud where the trans-national wealthy elites, led by
the American war and propaganda machine, continue to try to convince the gullible that they are
saviors of humanity even as they lie and cheat and murder by the millions.
So what follows are my efforts to unearth the fraud, while celebrating the beauty of life
and telling little stories here and there that I hope exemplify its comedy and tragedy. I am
always experimenting every time I sit down to write. Not consciously, since I let inspiration
guide me. Often, as I think is evident in many pieces, thoughts come to me when walking, and
from those initial thoughts comes the path I follow, not knowing exactly where I am headed.
Some of these essays are highly intellectual and structured; some, straightforwardly political;
others are meanderings that seek to express essential truths I sense in the telling.
... ... ...
The unspeakable is a term coined by the Trappist monk Thomas Merton in the mid-1960s. He
meant it to point to a systemic evil that permeates American society that defies speech:
It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said;
the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment
when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss. It is
the void out of which Eichmann drew the punctilious exactitude of his obedience "
It is, in other words, the plague that is us when we live in the nest of the unspeakable as
obedient servants of the American Empire. Douglass makes the plague manifest in order to give
us hope, and in speaking the unspeakable, he shows us both the radical evil and the redemptive
courage that we are all capable of.
I'm literally sickened by the actions of some in the main stream media, leftists and their
minions in the education system that are seeking to rewrite history and ostracize anyone that
supported President
Donald Trump . Regardless of where anyone stands politically, everyone should oppose these
un-American tactics and disinformation war against the Commander-in- Chief.
The media, however, along with the help of powerful tech giants, are d oing everything in
their power to control the narrative of the Trump administration and by doing so change the
history of our nation.
Sharyl Attkinson's book
Slanted: How the media taught us to love censorship and hate journalism, lays it out
perfectly. She, like others who are concerned about censorship and the media's devolving role
in our Republic, compared the situation to George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984. She describes
the protagonist in Orwell's book, Winston Smith, whose job is to edit history for the Ministry
of Truth. Of course, Orwell naturally was describing a society that was rewriting history with
lies and a world where Big Brother was watching everyone.
It is essentially happening to our country now, but not by the dystopian government
described by Orwell but by a complex network of ideologists that are now in control of some of
the most essential industries to America's freedom.
Look at this headline from Yahoo. It is the first headline from the publication's Friday
story revealing Donald Trump Jr's diagnosis with COVID-19: Former reality TV show host's son
tests positive for COVID-19 , by Patrick
Gomez.
What an insult to the American people and to President Trump. Yes, he is still the president
of the United States. What was the point of this headline and others like this but to slowly
rewrite history and to erase this President and the administration's achievements.
Benny Johnson is right "the media is already trying to erase the fact that he is
President."
This has been happening since Trump became the Republican candidate nominee in 2016.
Think about the last four years of Trump's presidency. Think about the onslaught of lies
against him in the media. In fact, the outrageous lies that were perpetrated against Trump, his
campaign and the White House before, during and after his 2016 election. The Russia Hoax was
truly a conspiracy against the President by former senior Obama Administration officials who
didn't want him in office. They weaponized both federal law enforcement and the intelligence
community against him and then used the media to spread the lies that were later proven to be
false by investigations conducted by those of us who believed in seeking the truth.
This is the truth about the 2020 election: 73 million Americans voted for Trump, the most of
any Republican President in history. Moreover, if you, like me, believe that there may be a
significant chance that this election was plagued with enough fraudulent behavior that only a
thorough investigation could ever uncover, then he may have garnered the most votes of any
American President.
If Americans don't start demanding better we will only have ourselves to blame for what will
come in our future.
It's not going to end with President Trump. Others will be the target of these actions in
what is truly becoming a new dystopian world. Republicans and Democrats alike that don't fit
the mold of this new shadow government will meet a similar fate.
The actions of these leftists Marxist ideologues embedded in our nation's schools, combined
with left leaning social media platforms and their virulent spread of these unAmerican ideas is
what we have been witnessing.
I certainly hope we wake up, expose it and stop the infection before it kills our liberty
and shreds our Constitution.
palmereldritch , 12 minutes ago
The Neoliberals could never recognize themselves in the works of Orwell today because that
would require critical thinking skills, self-awareness and basic literacy, all things (among
others) programmed by their 'education' to be missing from their abilities.
"... I'm not sure that this is an original idea, but I've always thought that people missed the point about 1984 in that it is not about the evils of Government, so much as it is about the the Inner Party. The Government, represented by the Outer Party, is simply a tool that the Inner Party uses to maintain control and implement its agenda. The Inner Party is the real enemy, not the Government per se. The Outer Party is simply a means to an end. Right? ..."
"... Political correctness trying to rewrite history, continuing to try to keep a whole area of our population on a guilt trip (the South) while totally ignoring the warts on the rest of the country, focusing on the wealthy while calling the poor "parasites" are just a few of today's attempts at Doublethink. Something to think about. ..."
"... Excellent, to the point, and very well explained so even I can understand it. Begs an association to current events in America. The Democratic Party comes to mind. This is even more applicable to me since I grew up in socialism/communism in Eastern Europe. Until you know what living under limited freedom means you do not know freedom. ..."
Natalie Frank has a Ph.D. in Clinical psychology. She specializes in Pediatric Psychology and Behavioral Medicine.
At the beginning of the book 1984, these words are presented as the official motto of the nation of Oceania:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
-- George Orwell, 1984
These slogans were created by an entity known only as "The Party," which consist of those in charge of the country. The words
are written in enormous letters on the white pyramid of the Ministry of Truth, which considering that they are obvious contradictions,
seems to be an odd place to put them.
The fact that this motto is written on a government building for a department called the Ministry of Truth suggests that the author
is trying to convey that these statements are somehow true for the society he has constructed. These are just the first in a series
of contradiction written throughout the book and they serve to represent the nature of the society and how it is held together through
the way in which these opposites function.
Orwell opened his book in this way on purpose in order to introduce the reader to the concept of Doublethink , which is
what allows the people of Oceania to live with constant contradictions in their lives. Doublethink is the ability to hold two opposing
ideas in one's mind simultaneously.
The Party develops this ability in it's citizens by undermining their individuality, independence and autonomy and by creating
an environment of constant fear through propaganda. In this way, the Party breaks down their ability to think rationally and makes
citizens accept and believe anything they tell them, even if it is entirely illogical.
The book is filled with similar contradictions like the ones seen in the opening quote. For example:
The Ministry of Peace oversees war
The Ministry of Love carries out the torture of political prisoners and serve as the police of Oceania
The Ministry of Truth is in charge of changing the content in history books and in the news to agree with the Party's beliefs
These contradictions keeps the citizens constantly off balance, so they are never sure of themselves or each other and must rely
on the party for guidance as to how to live their lives.
The fact that the national motto of Oceania is just as contradictory as these other examples emphasizes the success of the Party's
campaign of psychological mind control. The government has become able to maintain the apparent veracity of these opposing statements
because the functions they serve which make them a reality in the society of Oceania.
What Is the Meaning of "War Is Peace" in 1984 ?
The first slogan is probably the most contradictory of the three. The people of Oceania believe that the saying War is Peace means
that in order to have peace one must tolerate the horrors of war. It does not equate the two as the statement might otherwise suggest.
The people fully believe that war is bad and peace is good.
Yet, as in real life, the people have come to the understanding that sometimes one must make terrible sacrifices in order to have
a peaceful nation. The war does not take place on the soil of Oceania but instead, somewhere far from it so they don't see the horrors
of the battle, the destruction, the wounded and dead in front of them. They only hear about it through the daily announcements made
by the Party.
While this contradiction may seem like a logical reality at first, it becomes less so when the reader realizes that there is actually
no war occurring at all. It is a made up fiction created by the Party just to keep the people in line. It is intended to keep their
attention focused elsewhere, so that they do not realize how the Party is controlling their every thought and action.
The motto War is Peace indicates how having a shared enemy unites the people of Oceania and helps them remain on a common course.
It gives them something to worry about external to the way the country is being run, that is happening somewhere else. It helps to
prevent them from becoming consciously aware of the obvious problems in their own society. This mentality, put in place for the benefit
of the Party, gives the people someone other than the government to blame for their problems, making them easier to rule.
A state of constant war demonstrates that people are sacrificing for the greater good of the society, pledging their effort and
money to the war, and devoting themselves to their country and government. From the Party's point of view, all of this is good in
that the more people that invest in and commit to their nation and government, the fewer problems they will perceive.
This saying focuses the people's attention, preventing them from being consciously aware of the obvious problems in their own
society, where they are being actively manipulated and controlled. If people find themselves having thoughts counter to accepted
government rhetoric, they can quickly distract themselves by thinking about the war and worrying over the possibility of attack.
What Is the Meaning of "Freedom is Slavery" in 1984 ?
The second motto, Freedom is Slavery, represents the message that the party imparts to the community that anyone who become independent
of society's control is bound to be unsuccessful. A society that is based on free will result in chaos and the devolvement of the
society. Since the slogan is commutative, if freedom is slavery then slavery is freedom. Here, the Party communicates the message
that those who are willing to subjugate themselves to the collective will or the will of the society which by definition is the will
of the Party, will be freed from danger and wanting what they can't have. Society defines what is good, what is acceptable, what
is desirable. Those who focus on those things and on fulfilling the will of the society will be free from despair and will lack nothing,
at least nothing that society, or the Party, condones.
The Party embodies the idea of a paternalistic structure for those who live in Oceania. Hence, the idea of the Government surveilling
it's citizens being presented under the guise of "Big Brother." Adherence to the ideals and rules are ensured by this individual,
who is presented as a family member and who is supposed to only have the best interests of the people in mind.
In order to survive in this society, the citizens must ignore the clear reality that Big Brother is certainly not a family member
showing concern, but is rather the government spying on everything the citizens do in order to control them. The Party even interprets
facial gestures and nonverbal communication and the people can be tortured as political prisoners because of behavior interpreted
as subversive.
The obvious contradiction here is that it is only by enslaving yourself to the government and whatever they condone that you are
free from harm and imprisonment. Freedom in Oceania means the freedom to do and think what the Party wants without deviating from
their rules and regulations.
What Is the Meaning of "Ignorance is Strength" in 1984 ?
There is also the need for the citizens to subvert their will and their awareness to accept the contradictions the government
puts forth. They are expected to bury the truth and accept irrationality such as is demonstrated in the three statements. Ignorance
is therefore strength as it is the willing ignorance of the people who ignore obvious contradictions. They fail to investigate such
inconsistencies as a non-existent war with an ever changing enemy.
It is this ignorance that maintains the power of the government and the seeming coherence of the the society. It is only through
ignorance that people can find the strength to live in a totalitarian society where the government oppresses them even while communicating
to them how fortunate they are.
When first reading these three slogans, most people scratch their heads wondering how conflicts that can arise from equating two
opposites. But the idea of contradiction is one of the main themes of the novel. In particular, specific themes include:
A shifting definition of freedom and enslavement
The nature of trust and true loyalty
What reality is and how it is affected by appearances
All of these themes are contradictory, yet they power the plot of the novel.
Shifting Definitions of Freedom and Enslavement
One idea presented in Orwell's book is expressed in the saying:
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The government has grown to become omnipotent, writing its own version of reality by changing the content of history books, and
making the people too fearful to think critically.
The Party is so powerful that when it says 2+2=5, the people accept this and come to mindlessly believe it. When the Party declares
that Oceania is at war with Eurasia, they distribute heaps of propaganda and edit records so that the people accept that this is
how it is and has always been. When the government then says Oceania is at war with Eastasia and has always been at war with them,
the people allow their reality to be changed and accept this as true. Not only that, but they accept that Eurasia has always been
their ally.
Even so, the people do not perceive any of these contradictions as a type of enslavement. They willingly let the Party tell them
what to think, what to believe, what to value, and how to act. They allow the government to change these ideals whenever they choose,
believing the new propaganda as fact and repressing the previous reality.
The people must be aware on some level that they are accepting clear opposites, reversals of what is presented as fact, and revisions
of history. Yet they have come to accept this as a small price to pay for safety from their assigned, feared enemy.
It is almost as if the government sometimes changes reality just because they can. There is no need to change a fictional enemy,
as the entire war is made up anyway. Creating a new contradiction for the people seems sometimes to be done just because the Party
is able to do so, and because it keeps the population on its toes. The government has not only come to rule completely, but has reached
a point where it takes pleasure in enslaving people so they do, say, and believe whatever their master tells them.
The nature of the relationship between the Party and its citizens is very much like slavery. The people must serve the government,
and any attempt to "escape" with independent thought is brutally punished. The people are valued only insomuch as they benefit the
government.
In 1984 , Winston, the protagonist, and Julia, his lover, secretly attempt to escape from the mind control of the government
in a room they rent above Mr. Charington's shop. They believe the old-fashioned room has no telescreen, a device through which the
Inner Party surveils the population.
But in fact the room does have a telescreen hidden behind a painting, and Mr. Charington is actually a member of the thought police.
The notion of freedom cannot be maintained as Winston and Julia are attempting to define it. They cannot be free just because they
remove themselves from their normal environment and go to a different room. There is no escape.
As the book comes to a close, Winston's idea of freedom has changed. He no longer has a sense of individual self, he has, in essence,
become selfless, a part of the greater society. Now, he is not only compliant with the Party's dictates, but he wants to be compliant.
He loves Big Brother and has no difficulty rejoicing when he hears about a tactical victory in Africa. The author then states that
he slips back into a blissful dream where he perceives himself to have a soul as white as snow as he confesses and reports more people
to the thought police.
The novel ends by saying that the long hoped for bullet entered Winston's brain. This does not mean he actually died, but that
the independently-minded Winston, whose idea of freedom was freedom from Big Brother and the dictates of the Party, died. This suggests
that Winston was willing to give up all that he had fought for and accept being subservient, controlled, and manipulated.
In today's complex world, it can sometimes feel as if having others take responsibility for making decisions for us would be freeing.
We wouldn't have to struggle with different options or accept the consequences of bad decisions and situations we can't control.
For different people, different degrees of autonomy, responsibility, and consequences contribute to the way freedom is defined. Some
may feel free when they have more control over their life, even if it means they have more responsibility. For others, the stress
of responsibility hampers their sense of freedom.
More choices may be construed as freedom, while numerous options may paralyze. Thus, freedom may be perceived in different ways
by different people. As we see with Winston and Julia, this is even true in the dystopia of 1984.
Trust, Loyalty, and Betrayal
The twisted nature of trust, loyalty, and betrayal is a recurring theme in the novel 1984. Winston is betrayed by Mr. Charrington,
O'Brien, and Julia. He also betrays Julia as well as himself. Yet the novel explores the nature of trust and how it plays into loyalty
and betrayal. Without trust, there can be no loyalty or betrayal, and trust is almost non-existent in the novel. The characters can
never know if they are being observed, either in person or through the telescreen.
It is also impossible to know who is a member of the thought police, and even those who are not part of the thought police often
betray others by turning them in. On multiple occasions those closest to one other–such as spouses, siblings, parents, and their
children–may betray each other. Yet this is what is expected of the members of this society. Citizens report one another with zeal.
Prior to their arrest and torture, Winston and Julia believe the only true betrayal is the betrayal of the heart, as this is the
only kind of betrayal they have control over. They learn that they actually have no control over this type of betrayal either, as
in the end they have no choice but to betray each other and themselves. What establishes their loyalty to each other is trust in
something outside of the Party and Big Brother, but this idea is eventually broken.
They aren't traitors, though, until the Party makes them traitors through torture, when they confess to betraying the entire society
and are forced to further betray anyone toward whom they may feel loyalty. The Party seeks to eliminate potential betrayal at the
root by getting rid of all trust and loyalty.
So, the contradiction exists whereby trust and loyalty to other citizens is deemed bad, while trust and loyalty to the Party is
deemed good. Moreover, betrayal of the Party is deemed bad, while betrayal of others is deemed good. The irony is that when all loyalty
toward other citizens is destroyed, no true loyalty toward the Party can exist either. Still, loyalty based on fear and manipulation
is satisfactory to the Party.
Winston believes that despite knowing they will turn against each other and tell the Party what they want to hear about each other's
sins, as long as they continue to love one another this will not be betrayal. This is an idealistic and naive viewpoint, since he
clearly tells Julia that, once they are captured, there will be nothing they can do for each other.
Truthfully, they can remain loyal to the other by not giving up information. But neither of them consider this an option. When
you cannot put another over yourself, or stop yourself from saying something that could harm the other, true or not, not only can
there be no trust and thus no loyalty, there can be no love.
The Appearance of Reality vs. True Reality
In the novel, O'Brien tries to teach Winston about the nature of reality under the Party through torture, manipulation, and fear.
Winston attempts to hold onto his belief that there is a true reality that cannot be controlled by the Party, especially in relation
to the past, which is fixed and a part of people's memories. O'Brien points out that the Party controls all documents as well as
people's thoughts, so the Party truly can control the past.
This absolute control leads to the assertion that whomever controls the past controls the future, and whomever controls the present
controls the past. O'Brien is arguing that the Party's version of the past is what people believe, and what people believe is truth
even if it has no basis in true reality. This is related to the Party slogans in several ways.
O'Brien wants Winston to let go and allow himself to be torn down so he can be reconstructed as a citizen that is loyal to the
Party. This ties into the reversal of the traditional idea of freedom and enslavement, as it is only in allowing oneself to become
enslaved by the Party, by fully accepting it and its ideals, that one can get rid of the stress and strain involved in fighting against
it.
Once one accepts the Party, they no longer have to worry about what to think, how to act, or what to do with their lives. It is
all done for them, and they are free from the burden of self-determination. By waging war against self-determination one can find
peace. The easiest way to do this is through ignorance, which provides a person with the ability to accept anything the Party wants
them to believe. This allows them to be a model citizen, and in this world, that is a strength.
Concluding Thoughts
In today's world we all too often fail to notice that we are allowing ourselves to be enslaved as well. Sometimes this is due
to propaganda and the lack of alternative information that is easy to obtain. Other times it may be do to shear laziness and the
failure to seek the truth or to let ourselves realize that we are contributing to our own slavery such as when we turn over personal
information online without thinking twice.
We register brief outrage when learning of the government's intrusion into our private lives such as with hidden wires that allow
them to access our mobile conversations and data. But we just as quickly let it go without demanding redress, with the excuse that
we can't do anything about it or that that the company in question must deal with it. We let government officials change reality
with false facts and fake news and again give lip service to our anger and disbelief but allow them to remain in office saying that
is what politicians do and we have to accept the bad with the good.
In other words. we are letting those who lead, those in power, define our reality, at least in part. This is done through whatever
means will help them retain power as opposed to what is in our best interests. We accept propaganda that reverses itself similar
to the war propaganda in 1984. For instance, whether Libya is our staunchest enemy or ally has depended on if there was benefit to
one vs. the other at the time.
We can accept that a nation is our friends one day and our enemy the next, largely by allowing ourselves to remain ignorant. We
fail to learn everything we can about the situation, instead, simply believing the position the government tells us to believe. We
allow ourselves to be led to wage war on what we know to be reality that is based on manipulated collective memories of events.
This may seem like peace since we don't have to work to undercover the truth of situations, but it is taking the easy way out
and allowing others to define our past, present and future. The only way to find true freedom, peace and strength is to refuse to
blindly accept whatever we are told just to keep things simple and non-confrontational.
We need to come to the conclusion that it is time to wage war on such automatic acceptance of manipulated reality. We can take
a stance and follow our words with actions, demanding there be consequences for those who attempt to feed the public lies dressed
up as alternate facts or who rewrite history according to their own best interests. This is ultimately what will lead to true strength,
the abandonment of ignorance and ultimately freedom and peace.
If you found this article useful or interesting, please share on Facebook or Pinterest.
Related Articles
If you enjoyed this article, you might enjoy these, as well:
A Different View of Women
in Orwell's 1984
Orwell has been criticized for his misogynistic portrayal of women in 1984. However, a careful look at how the female characters
impact the male characters, in particular Winston, and the Party suggests that they have great importance in the plot.
Related Questions What Are the Four Ministries in 1984 ?
Ministries in 1984 are the departments of the government that maintain the status quo. Each of the ministries has a different
responsibility. The four ministries and their functions are as follows.
Ministry
Function
Ministry of Truth
Alters official documents to reflect the artificial reality dictated by Big Brother. Distributes propaganda, controls the
flow of new information, and alters documents from the past to make them align with the present.
Ministry of Love
Enforces the rules of the government by carrying out surveillance of Oceania's citizens. Employs the thought police to spy
on and capture potential offenders. Carries out the imprisonment and torture of political prisoners.
Ministry of Peace
Carries out all matters of war, including the creation of armies and the creation of weapons.
Ministry of Plenty
Carries out the production of goods like food, clothing, appliances, and equipment.
What Is Facecrime in 1984 ?
Facecrime in 1984 is committed when a citizen of the Party reveals that they are committing thoughtcrime through the expression
on their face. It may also be something that indicates abnormality such as a nervous tic, a look of anxiety, muttering to oneself,
for example. Anything that suggests someone has something to hide.
Facecrime can be detected using telescreens, a citizen spy, or a member of the thought police.
What Is Thoughtcrime in 1984 ?
Thoughtcrime in 1984 is committed when a citizen of the Party thinks "deviant" thoughts, which would include any thoughts
that have to do with individuality or freedom. A citizen can be charged with thoughtcrime for simply thinking about thoughtcrime.
Thoughtcrime is detected with telescreens installed throughout Oceania that have both microphones and cameras. Thoughtcrime can
also be detected by the inflection of one's voice or the micro-expressions of their face (called facecrime ). Members of the
thought police, an organization within the Ministry of Love, or a citizen spy may catch someone committing thought crime which leads
to the individuals arrest and interrogation.
What Is Doublethink in 1984 ?
Doublethink in 1984 occurs when a person knows that something is not true, but believes it to be true anyway. One example
of the citizens of Oceania using doublethink is if Big Brother were to say that 2+2 equals 5. While mathematical fact says that 2+2
equals 4, through the use of doublethink, 2+2 can equal 5.
Doublethink is a fact of life in Oceania, and must be used everyday in order to survive. The best citizens in George Orwell's
dystopian universe are those who have mastered the art of doublethink.
What Is Duckspeak in 1984 ?
Duckspeak in 1984 occurs when someone speaks without thinking, like a quacking duck. In Oceania, saying that somebody is
using duckspeak can be interpreted as either good or "ungood" depending on who is speaking and what they are saying.
If a citizen is saying something in line with the parties ideals then it is good. If they are carelessly saying something against
the Party doctrine then it is "ungood" and results in their arrest and interrogations.
What Does it Mean to Be Vaporized in 1984 ?
To be vaporized in 1984 is to be captured by the thought police for a crime and eliminated. Being vaporized means you not
only cease to exist, but have never existed. Once you have been vaporized by the Ministry of Love, the Ministry of Truth goes to
work removing every trace of your existence.
Often, those who are vaporized are not even told of their crimes. Instead, they are simply abducted one day, taken to the Ministry
of Truth, tortured until they admit to some wrongdoing, asked to implicate others, and vaporized. The cycle continues endlessly,
and keeps citizens vigilant when it comes to enforcing Big Brother's rules and ideologies.
In one scene from the book, Winston, is his job at the Ministry of Truth, has to edit an article from the past about a man who
was recently vaporized. Since he is now considered an unperson , Winston fills the hole left by this man by creating an entirely
fictional character, a decorated war hero. Other departments in the Ministry of Truth go to work making a face for the man, taking
pictures of him in professional studios that make it look like he is in some far away, war-torn land. Once this work is finished,
the real man is gone, replaced by a fictional one.
What Is an Unperson in 1984 ?
An unperson in 1984 is a person who has been vaporized and no longer exists (and has never existed). This is the term the
Inner Party uses to refer to those they have had removed from society through vaporization.
A large part of Winston's job at the Ministry of Truth is to fill the gaps in history that are left in the wake of unpersons.
Questions & Answers
Question: Is the statement, "War is Peace" a paradox or an oxymoron? Also, what are some examples of paradoxes and oxymorons in
literature?
Answer: Many people confuse oxymorons and paradoxes. Both can be recognized in everyday conversation as well as in literature.
However, they are not the same thing and have different purposes.
A paradox is a statement or group of statements that may on the surface appear to embody contradictions or seen absurd but upon
further reflection be seen as true or at least as something that makes sense. They are contrary to what we normally believe and can
make us think about things in different ways or more deeply. They, therefore, are frequently employed as literary devices. An oxymoron
is comprised of two opposing or contradictory words that are used for dramatic effect.
War is peace seems like a contradiction and an absurd one at that. War is the most brutal act we can carry out against each other.
It is far from peaceful. Sometimes war is necessary to ensure that peace can occur.
Consider the situation where a country is constantly launching missiles at another country, going on stealth raids or other types
of limited attacks that may be months apart and each a single occurrence but which still result in the loss of life, property, the
constant fear or another attack that causes the population to have to change the way they live to protect themselves from harm and
terror when the attacks occur.
This is not a state of peace. So to stop all this, the country being attacked launches a war against the other nation to render
it impossible for them to continue the attacks both materially and based on the conditions of either a cease-fire or final agreement.
The country that had been previously attacked wins the war following which they now have peace and are free from fear of further
attack.
In Animal Farm, also by George Orwell, there is a cardinal rule set forth for all the animals. Part of it states:
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
This statement seems like it is impossible. First of all, equal is equal; it's an absolute without a related quantity. You can't
have something that is more equal or less equal. So then, if all the animals are equal, you can't have some that are more equal.
This would imply that some are either better, have more power, have more of a right to make decisions or deserve more resources than
others. Again this would not suggest equality.
But in the novel, the government has never treated everyone equally even while stating that everyone is equal. It is akin to the
separate but equal doctrine that once justified systems of segregation and the dual education system in the south. It was determined
that as long as black children were provided with equal facilities as white children, segregation didn't go against the Constitution.
But these separate schools were anything but equal.
In another, example, In Shakespeare's Hamlet, Hamlet states, "I have to be cruel to be kind." Again being cruel and being kind
are considered to be opposite and mutually exclusive such that an action that is cruel cannot be kind and vice versa. We typically
don't see someone who is cruel to us as a kind person.
In this example, Hamlet is speaking about his mother, and his intention to kill Claudius, his Uncle. It will be a tragedy for
his mother, who is Claudius's wife, but Hamlet thinks that killing his father's murderer will ultimately be the best thing for this
mother. So in the greater scheme of things, while it may seem cruel initially, Hamlet feels that the kindness he is doing is far
greater.
In another Shakespeare work, The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, it says,
"The earth that's nature's mother is her tomb;
What is her burying grave, that is Rainbow in her womb "
The lines are at once describing the birth, with the earth being the birthplace, and death with the same earth housing Juliet's
tomb. The second life, juxtaposes the idea of a grave, again alluding to death, with a womb, which is associated with birth.
In the poem, My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold by William Wordsworth, is the line:
"The child is father of the man "
This line seems reversed for it should be the man who is the father of the child. But thinking about it more carefully, it can
be seen that childhood and everything that happens during this stage sets the stage for what comes after. So childhood is the basis
for adulthood and thus, childhood "fathers" the man or adulthood.
There are numerous examples of an oxymoron in literature, but probably the most obvious one is from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet:
Why, then, O brawling love! O loving hate!
O anything, of nothing first create!
O heavy lightness! Serious vanity!
Mis-shapen chaos of well-seeming forms!
Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health!
Still-waking sleep, that is not what it is!
This love feel I, that feel no love in this.
Romeo learns he has fallen in love with an unavailable woman and feels as if he has descended into chaos. All his hopes and dreams
have been shattered. Shakespeare portrays this sense of discord through the use of opposites that don't make sense much the same
as Romeo's life no longer makes sense to him. This is communicated through phrases such as loving hate, heavy lightness, serious
vanity, feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health, waking sleep.
Natalie said: "Given everything that is going on in the world today and our current President in the U.S. I think so many of the
things Orwell wrote about have already come to pass in our society. "
Well Natalie, you are clearly drinking the INGSOC Party Kool-Aid if you think the current president represents the worst of 1984...
the previous president (Obama) and his party see 1984 as their bible.
Daniel on May 28, 2019:
Hilarious that both 1984 and Brave New World predicted the future. Even more hilarious that us proles are still allowed to read
them as a token freedom of "and what are you going to do about it?".
Natalie Frank (author) from Chicago, IL on September 15, 2018:
No, you have that reversed, jnjerrynelson. The Inner Party rules Oceania, making up 2% of the population. They are the ones that
have the power and make the decisions for the society. The outer party is essentially the middle class and composed of the more educated
members of society. They are largely responsible for implementation of the Party's policies (though this is actually carried out
through spying and reporting on each other often aimed at gaining a bit more safety from being arrested) but they have no say in
anything. They have strict rules applied to them. The proles are the lower class and have the same rules applied to them they just
have less resources and lower level jobs. The inner party is the government.
jnjerrynelson on September 12, 2018:
Hi Natalie - I read the great 1984 many years ago and think about it all the time these days. I'm not sure that this is an original
idea, but I've always thought that people missed the point about 1984 in that it is not about the evils of Government, so much as
it is about the the Inner Party. The Government, represented by the Outer Party, is simply a tool that the Inner Party uses to maintain
control and implement its agenda. The Inner Party is the real enemy, not the Government per se. The Outer Party is simply a means
to an end. Right?
Derek on September 07, 2018:
Actually,1984 is NOT pessimistic -- everyone ignores the Appendix, which is clearly written in Oldspeak -- after the novel's events. It
begins-''Newspeak WAS (my italics) the official language of Oceania'', and later-about a slogan-''it was believed with a fervour it
is impossible for us to understand today'' -- implying the Party has been overthrown. Also, don't forget the idea that maybe Julia really
was an agent of the Thought Police, with her access to quality tobacco, chocolate, etc.
Natalie Frank (author) from Chicago, IL on September 04, 2018:
Naum, Thank you for interest and your comment. I agree with you that the war is real from the standpoint of the people of Oceania.
I hope I made that clear in the article. The point I was making as since from the standpoint of the government the war is made up
and the people already believe in it, what does it matter who the enemy is? It causes the government added to work to suddenly change
the enemy - they have to then ensure all of the people are on the same page, make announcements, change all sorts of documents and
all the textbooks every time they do this.
So it would seem in the governments best interests since the war is always somewhere far away with the people only having a vague
idea where so they'll never to near and find out the whole thing is a lie, to keep the enemy the same. It would serve the same purpose
of unifying the people and make them willing to sacrifice resources, freedom, privacy etc. on behalf of the war effort.
My opinion is that the reason they change what is already a fictional enemy - meaning that while Eurasia and Eastasia, exist Oceania
isn't at war with either - is for the purpose of doublethink, control and power. The government wants to get the people engaging
in doublethink as much as possible so it is automatic. This is the main source of power for Ingsoc.
It also means the government can tell them blue is red and up is down then immediately say no, red is green and down is sideways
and the people will have no problem switching from the first set of illogical statements to the second, fully believing each in turn.
This makes them easy to control as they stop thinking for themselves, and let Ingsoc do all the thinking and decision making for
them.
This allows the government to remain in complete control, to have all the power and different from most real life situations,
they don't have to worry that the people will overthrow them - it takes a thinking population to first see things differently from
the way they are told to believe and do what it takes to carry out a revolt.
Thanks again for reading the article and taking the time to comment. I hope you return to take a look at some of my other articles.
Naum Shuv on August 29, 2018:
Thank you for this extremely interesting article.
However, I cannot agree with one of your statements. Just one.
"There is no need to change a fictional enemy, as the entire war is made up anyway."
In my opinion, the war in the novel is absolutely real. I mean, it is artifical, of course, but it is not fictional. Unfortunately,
war is real in our life too, and loss of dozens or even hundreds human lives is of no importance for politicians.
Natalie Frank (author) from Chicago, IL on August 21, 2018:
The more I look into it, the more similarities I see between what Orwell predicted and warned us about and the society we live
in today. It really is an amazing parallel in a lot of ways. Thanks for reading and for commenting, Linda.
Natalie Frank (author) from Chicago, IL on August 05, 2018:
Dora - I'm glad you found the article interesting and relevant. Given everything that is going on in the world today and our current
President in the U.S. I think so many of the things Orwell wrote about have already come to pass in our society. Thanks for reading
and commenting.
Natalie Frank (author) from Chicago, IL on August 05, 2018:
Hi Doris - You are so right about what you said. We may not call it doublethink but that's not to say we don't do it a whole lot.
We read 1984 and can't imagine living in such a world but fail to see that many of the things he warned us about have come true in
spades. Just the fact we are accepting the idea of fake news and alternative facts, perhaps giving lip service to being outraged
but at the same time we are letting leaders stay in power who are actually admitting to doing this as well as responsible for coining
the terms in the first place. I'm sure what you saw in Russia was even worse as these things are certainly not limited to our country
and have been going on elsewhere a lot longer. But seeing it actually develop under our noises with our awareness and ultimate acceptance
or at least refusal to do anything is frightening and frustrating. Thanks for stopping by and for the comment. I am just finishing
another article on other similarities between our world and 1984 - I hope you'll check back for it and take a look once it's published.
I'll look forward to your response.
Doris James MizBejabbers from Beautiful South on July 09, 2018:
I agree with your analysis on 1984. Good job! I read this book back in the dark ages when I was a college student and found it
so frightening that I thought it too ridiculous to even consider the possibility that it could come true. Today, I'm not so sure,
and that is what really concerns me.
Political correctness trying to rewrite history, continuing to try to keep a whole area of our
population on a guilt trip (the South) while totally ignoring the warts on the rest of the country, focusing on the wealthy while
calling the poor "parasites" are just a few of today's attempts at Doublethink. Something to think about.
I like Tom's' comment mainly because I spent two weeks in the Soviet Union in the late 80s. Although I enjoyed traveling through
a couple of major Russian cities, I could not wait to get back home to my own country, the land of the free and the home of the brave.
HA!
Tom S on July 06, 2018:
Excellent, to the point, and very well explained so even I can understand it. Begs an association to current events in America.
The Democratic Party comes to mind. This is even more applicable to me since I grew up in socialism/communism in Eastern Europe. Until you know what living under
limited freedom means you do not know freedom.
Doris James MizBejabbers from Beautiful South on May 04, 2018:
Excellent analysis of Orwell's 1984. I read the book during my sophomore year of college in the 1960s, and it has stuck with me
all these years enough to see a parallel with today's propaganda being spoon fed to us through both professional and social media.
It doesn't matter whether we are losing elections allegedly due to fake news sourced from Russian hacking or whether Southerners
are being fed a constant barrage that they are bad people because of something their ancestors did over 150 years ago. The result
is still the same, and it stems from the same premise of mind control as was evident in the dystopian novel. Just as in 1984, people
are accepting this form of mind-control as truth and allowing it to stir up hate for each other. In today's society, as was then,
there seems to be a preponderance of the absence of love.
Linda Crampton from British Columbia, Canada on May 03, 2018:
This is a very interesting and thought-provoking analysis, Natalie. 1984 is an impressive book that contains some fascinating
ideas. I enjoy reading people's thoughts about the story and its implications for today. BY
NATALIE FRANK
Free speech is not a dimmer switch, its on or its off – you can’t have it both ways. Cancel culture is a reincarnation of
Stalinist purges, or McCarthyism.
Notable quotes:
"... The sort of "lose your job for engaging in speech" thing happens in other contexts, too. Companies routinely censor their employees' speech in ways small and large, and this includes completely non-political speech about purely technical matters. ..."
"... the government severely punishes employers whose employees speak in ways the government/the identity politics left (they are working together here) dislike, and so effectively outsources speech regulation to employers. ..."
"... The concern about cancel culture is in my observation largely driven by this dynamic: the frequent tagline right-leaning speech is violence, while left-leaning violence is speech" reflects the fact that getting some particular approach to a topic defined as "discrimination" ..."
"... Think about Rebecca Long-Bailey's recent demotion from the Labour shadow cabinet over a tweet she made. Last month, she retweeted a newspaper interview with prominent Labour-supporting actress Maxine Peake, calling her an "absolute diamond." The interview included an inaccurate claim from Peake ( based apparently on information in a Morning Star article, and which Peake subsequently withdrew when she was challenged on it) that the specific knee restraint used on George Floyd had been taught to Mineapolis police by Israeli secret police consultants. ..."
"... Long-Bailey lost the Shadow Education role, and her political career is likely over, ostensibly on the basis of this one tweet. ..."
"... The RLB case also throws a spotlight on language. The various rationales for cancelling listed in the OP -- racism, transphobia, or (in this case) antisemitism -- are rarely clear-cut in real-world instances ..."
"... This, I would suggest, is also related to power. The purpose of an accusation like this is to demonstrate the power or dominance of the cancelling agent, and to intimidate others by example. ..."
"... These concepts are capable of apparently endless linguistic elasticity. Indeed, it's when they're at their most extended or diffuse, that these grounds for cancellation seem to have the most signifying power. ..."
"... Everyone working in academia, the non-profit sector, and journalism is aware that there are many ideas broadly held which people hesitate to say because they are worried a group of their strident colleagues will try to destroy their career ..."
"... it is unquestionable that "canceling from the left" is a bigger threat from the right. ..."
"... Remember that the academic institutions in which controversies about 'cancel culture' exist are bourgeois institutions, pretty much like corporations. It is a world of authority, hierarchy, and carefully controlled behavior. ..."
"... As the power and prestige of the bourgeoisie shrink, the inmates of that particular cage will fight more fiercely for what's left. One way of fighting is to get someone's job by turning up something disreputable, such as the use of an apparently racist epithet. ..."
"... It seems to me that "cancel culture" is based on the infosphere's equivalent of the technological progress that now allows a small group of determined people with AK-47s to render a region ungovernable. ..."
"... The arms dealers don't care – they sell to everyone, and the more ammunition they sell, the more you'll need. ..."
"... Whether justified or not, a significant minority of Americans, across multiple lines, are fearful that their political opinions could endanger their jobs; this suggests the problem might be more than just people getting "bent-out-of-shape that they can't be raging bigots" . ..."
"... Purveyors of what-aboutery will probably appreciate that Steve Salita now makes a living as a bus driver ; I have no reason to think that the Harpers Letter signers (even Bari Weiss) would regard that situation as any more just than other examples. ..."
"... My position on this is that individuals shouldn't face public opprobrium unless there is 1) Clear and convincing evidence they are motivated by fundamentally malicious ends and 2) They have no remorse about it. Even when these conditions are met the opprobrium they receive should be clearly proportional to the wrong they've committed. We should relax these rules somewhat for celebrities, and a great deal for politicians, who have implicitly agreed to face criticism as a consequence of their role. ..."
"... In that testing sense, cancel culture can be seen as a type of supplementary social defense mechanism compared to the standard immune system response of trying to prove the political cult wrong in the eyes of unbiased observers; in too many historical cases, the immune response is weakened by factors such as adverse economic or geopolitical circumstances (e.g., a lost war) ..."
"... Cancel culture then works as (a) tracking and removal in the form of boycotts and ostracism, in that the infected cells(individuals) are removed from positions of influence, and (b) as a type of lockdown measure (censorship) that is warranted when the infected individual is transmitting patently false versions of current events or past history, and is starting to infect others around him. ..."
"... As to Peter's argument that cancel culture disfigures the left, I would add that the only cases where the radical left has seized power took place in the brutal aftermath of right-wing pandemics: e.g. the hyper-nationalism that led Germany and Russia among others to war in 1914, or KMT/warlord attempts to violently and brutally suppress peasant demands in the case of China. In such situations, it is no surprise that the radical left becomes infected with political cultism. ..."
"... Between those two positions there's a large space where people get harassed, threatened, ostracised and silenced for minor slips, reasonable disagreements, details that were lost in translation and failures to recite the correct thought-terminating cliches with sufficient conviction – basically, things that don't threaten anyone else's ability to speak. ..."
Racism from my perspective, looks like an unwillingness to evaluate people on an
individual basis, whether it's from sloth, contempt or disability and it's a terrible look
for an intellectual.
JQ @ 1: The sort of "lose your job for engaging in speech" thing happens in other
contexts, too. Companies routinely censor their employees' speech in ways small and large,
and this includes completely non-political speech about purely technical matters.
I know of a
case where a famous chip designer got up at a conference and said "none of you people talking
about Itanium [Intel's ia64 chip that was the future of microprocessors once upon a time]
actually think it's going to succeed -- why don't any of you admit it?"
Within moments he was
covered in PR and lawyers basically taping his mouth shut. When I worked in global enterprise
IT, I didn't post blog comments (neither political nor technical) b/c it was clear that
there would always be the possibility of career repercussions for making statements that
would have post-hoc repercussions
Companies censor their employees speech before-and-after-the-fact for lots of reasons,
sometimes political. This is a fact of life, and you're very right to point out that if
people actually cared about this [as opposed to getting bent-out-of-shape that they can't be
raging bigots] they'd support strong unions.
This is mainly a problem in the US because of employment at will.
Employment at will may contribute, but a larger part of the problem is that the US laws
around free speech are odd. Technically, the government cannot regulate speech at all (with
very limited exceptions, not relevant here.) In practice, though, what has happened (via
so-called "antidiscrimination" law) is that the government severely punishes employers whose
employees speak in ways the government/the identity politics left (they are working together
here) dislike, and so effectively outsources speech regulation to employers.
The concern about cancel culture is in my observation largely driven by this dynamic: the frequent tagline
right-leaning speech is violence, while left-leaning violence is speech" reflects the fact that getting some particular
approach to a topic defined as "discrimination" means that it is severely punished by government, at second-hand.
One thing that might be useful is distinguishing "cancel culture" as a phenomenon from
cancellation more narrowly defined as a tactic . So many of the discussions I've seen
recently about the issue seem content to operate at the big-picture level, asking whether
such a thing as cancel culture even exists (the New Statesman approach) or (if it
does) whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. Focussing in on actual cases, and thinking
about who (precisely) benefits from individual instances, might instead help us think about
the specific function of cancel culture, and the role that language plays in it.
Think about Rebecca Long-Bailey's recent demotion from the Labour shadow cabinet over a
tweet she made. Last month, she retweeted a newspaper interview with prominent
Labour-supporting actress Maxine Peake, calling her an "absolute diamond." The interview
included an inaccurate claim from Peake (
based apparently on information in a Morning Star article, and which Peake
subsequently withdrew when she was challenged on it) that the specific knee restraint used on
George Floyd had been taught to Mineapolis police by Israeli secret police consultants.
Long-Bailey lost the Shadow Education role, and her political career is likely over,
ostensibly on the basis of this one tweet. This, to me, is a fairly clear instance of
cancellation at work, but it would be inadequate to leave it at that. The complete lack of
commensurability between the transgression and the outcome would be incomprehensible without
asking how RLB's cancellation fits into Labour Party politics; that is, the function of
cancelling in this specific instance. Absolutely no one I know thinks this tweet proved
Long-Bailey was genuinely antisemitic, or that it was even the primary reason she was
demoted. Instead, it's been broadly (and, I think, correctly) interpreted as a signal from
the Starmer wing of the party that the Corbyn faction with which RLB is aligned has no future
in Labour. Cancellation, in this case, is a naked piece of power politics: a way of getting
political opponents out of the way.
The RLB case also throws a spotlight on language. The various rationales for cancelling
listed in the OP -- racism, transphobia, or (in this case) antisemitism -- are rarely
clear-cut in real-world instances. In fact, there's a kind of homeopathic logic at work,
where the more tendentious the attribution is, the more cut-through it often seems to have.
This, I would suggest, is also related to power. The purpose of an accusation like this is to
demonstrate the power or dominance of the cancelling agent, and to intimidate others by
example. ("If RLB got cancelled for this , then how little would I need to do
to suffer the same fate?") As Jonathan Dollimore has pointed out, there's a certain in-built
"linguistic imprecision" in many of the terms that cancellation depends on, and it's from
that imprecision that the capacity for intimidation or fear generation stems from.
These
concepts are capable of apparently
endless linguistic elasticity. Indeed, it's when they're at their most extended or
diffuse, that these grounds for cancellation seem to have the most signifying power.
Anon For Obvious Reasons 07.30.20 at 5:31 pm (
23 )
I find this deliberately misleading. "Cancel culture" in practice refers to the idea that
you shouldn't be ostracized by your peers, friends, or professional field for holding and
voicing ideas that are essentially mainstream.
Everyone thinks that if you insult someone with a racial slur, there should be
consequences.
But after that, what should be the proper "bound" that discourse should not cross? I would
argue that "any idea which can be studied rigorously" and "any idea held by a reasonably
broad cross section of society" is clearly within the bound, and we do ourselves a huge
disservice by refusing to countenance ideas in those sets. Further, as a commenter above
notes, most people in the world are not left-wing activists. Setting the norm that you
shouldn't be friends with/work with/hire/buy from people with ideas you find acceptable, but
which are not extreme, will be and has been a disaster for gay people, atheists, and many
others.
Everyone working in academia, the non-profit sector, and journalism is aware that there
are many ideas broadly held which people hesitate to say because they are worried a group of
their strident colleagues will try to destroy their career. The Shor example comes up
because, as Matt Yglesias pointed out yesterday, it is so obviously ridiculous to lose your
job for linking to a paper in APSR by a prominent (young, black) political scientist, and yet
there really are many people in that world, progressive political campaigns, who would
refuse to work with you if you hired Shor . It wasn't just his boss or "workplace
protections" – he was kicked out of the listserv that is the main vector for finding
jobs in that sphere, and his new employer remains anonymous on purpose!
And yes, this is not just a lefty thing. I'm sure that right-wing media sites, and church
groups, and the rest all have similar cases. Trump clearly "canceled" Kaepernick, with the
NFL's help. Yet we all agree that is bad! And in the sphere many of us are in, academia, it
is unquestionable that "canceling from the left" is a bigger threat from the right.
Trader Joe 07.30.20 at 2:17 pm @ 17 -- Remember that the academic institutions in which controversies about 'cancel culture' exist
are bourgeois institutions, pretty much like corporations. It is a world of authority,
hierarchy, and carefully controlled behavior. Obviously there is little expression which may
not have adverse consequences.
As the power and prestige of the bourgeoisie shrink, the
inmates of that particular cage will fight more fiercely for what's left. One way of fighting
is to get someone's job by turning up something disreputable, such as the use of an
apparently racist epithet.
This didn't start yesterday. There is a certain spillover into popcult as students emerge from academia into the outer, also declining world and repeat the
patterns which they have observed. Numerous stories are available, but I'll spare you. Anyway,
Mr. Taibbi has been ranting well, and you can go there.
Surprising to see so little emphasis on social media as the main catalyst. Tribalism is
the driver of "engagement" online, and if righteous anger at the out-group gets the clicks,
so be it. Consider how any Twitter post can become a tiny gleaming tableau, a battle flag, an
allegory of sin or virtue. Context and interpretation cannot be arbiters, and must only serve
the self-evident cause of loyalty to one's synthetic tribe. Faith and bad faith merge; that's
just optimal use of an app's system of influence. "We shape our tools and then our tools
shape us".
It seems to me that "cancel culture" is based on the infosphere's equivalent of the
technological progress that now allows a small group of determined people with AK-47s to
render a region ungovernable. This does not imply that the region's current government is a
good one. It does not imply anything about the group's views, except that debating them is
not likely to be on the agenda when they visit your village. There will no doubt be some
unpleasant people among the casualties; perhaps that counts as a silver lining.
The arms dealers don't care – they sell to everyone, and the more ammunition they sell,
the more you'll need.
"But the fact that the same example (David Shor) is cited every time the
issue is raised " here is one attempt to tabulate
cancellations, at least on the left identitarian side; I am not endorsing any particular
example. (NB: Sophie Jane in this case, not Sophie Grace.)
I would be curious about whether Henry approves of the
suppression of speech as much as the OP does.
Purveyors of what-aboutery
will probably appreciate that Steve Salita now makes a
living as a bus driver ; I have no reason to think that the Harpers Letter signers (even
Bari Weiss) would regard that situation as any more just than other examples.
There have been occasions in my life when I have justly and rightly experienced adverse
consequences as a result of things that I have said. The proposition that nobody should ever
experience adverse consequences as a result of statements made is utterly indefensible.
Discussions over "cancellation" can make things unnecessarily difficult because it's a
very hard term to define- exactly how badly does your public reputation have to be before you
are cancelled. All too often debates turn into "well so and so wasn't cancelled because they
still have a job/they still have a platform/they're still living their life." (Although your
post does avoid this by describing it in terms of an attempt instead of outcome) So to avoid
ambiguities that attend "cancellation", I prefer "opprobrium"
My position on this is that individuals shouldn't face public opprobrium unless there is
1) Clear and convincing evidence they are motivated by fundamentally malicious ends and 2)
They have no remorse about it. Even when these conditions are met the opprobrium they receive
should be clearly proportional to the wrong they've committed. We should relax these rules
somewhat for celebrities, and a great deal for politicians, who have implicitly agreed to
face criticism as a consequence of their role.
I support this anti-opprobrium position because being shamed publicly is extremely
painful. I would rather lose a limb than be widely publicly shamed and reviled, and I think a
lot of people feel the same way, so, by the golden rule and all of that
In terms of the position you outline it seems to me that we're going to agree on a lot of
issues. Pre-meditated use of racial slurs, for example. But I think there are a lot of
instances of cancel culture that we won't agree on.
Here's some people I think have been unfairly subject to vast amounts of pubic opprobrium
that some people would call cancel culture:
The p**nstar ( I won't spell it out because I'm at work) who killed herself in part
because of the criticism she received when tweeted out (homophobically) that she didn't want
to work actors who had done gay male scenes. While criticism would have been appropriate, the
torrent of backlash she received was disproportionate.
The woman who went to the Washington Post's cartoonist party in blackface in a very
misguided but not malicious attempt to satirize blackface and subsequently lost her job when
the Washington post named her in their paper. Natalie Wynn of Contrapoints – for many different things.
Glenn Greenwald over the age difference between him and his partner
Now I'm picking cases of opprobrium that came from the left broadly construed, because I
think of this as an internal conversation on the left. However, one thing that frustrates me
about this debate is that no one is acknowledging that the right are masters of excessive
opprobrium. Some examples:
Steven Salaita
Diane Abbott
Norman Finklestein
Matthew Bruenig
But maybe my position amounts to a silly apolitical wish that people would be nice to each
other, unless there's a very, very good reason not to.
Chris: An interesting case can be made in favor of cancel culture if we start thinking of
most political cults including communism, fascism, maga-Trumpism and other types of fake
populism as pandemics.
For starters, there is the testing. A positive test result is indicated by
(a) the talking
points or analysis are exclusionary toward one or more social groups that are being "othered"
based on any common aspect other than political actions that are unethical by some
well-defined criterion; the extent indicates the severity of the symptoms, and
(b) the
speaker or commenter is repeating someone else's talking points or writing rather than their
own attempts to understand the issue; the extent indicates the degree of infectiousness.
In that testing sense, cancel culture can be seen as a type of supplementary social
defense mechanism compared to the standard immune system response of trying to prove the
political cult wrong in the eyes of unbiased observers; in too many historical cases, the
immune response is weakened by factors such as adverse economic or geopolitical circumstances
(e.g., a lost war).
Cancel culture then works as (a) tracking and removal in the form of
boycotts and ostracism, in that the infected cells(individuals) are removed from positions of
influence, and (b) as a type of lockdown measure (censorship) that is warranted when the
infected individual is transmitting patently false versions of current events or past
history, and is starting to infect others around him.
I am not in complete agreement with the above political cults-as-pandemics theory, but it
has some compelling aspects in exceptional situations. Normally, the
political-economic-cultural discourse is sufficiently healthy that the standard "cure for bad
speech is more good speech" response is sufficient. Commenters above such as Peter Dorman are
assuming that the "body politic" has a healthy and undisrupted immune system, but I would
argue that is far from being the case right now; the U.S. is afflicted by oligarchic
politics, highly unequal and quasi-feudal economics that make appeals to the free market
laughable, and by standard of living deterioration in a large number of inner urban areas as
well as mid-tier and small cities. So the patient is immuno-compromised and additional
interventions are called for.
As to Peter's argument that cancel culture disfigures the left, I would add that the only
cases where the radical left has seized power took place in the brutal aftermath of
right-wing pandemics: e.g. the hyper-nationalism that led Germany and Russia among others to
war in 1914, or KMT/warlord attempts to violently and brutally suppress peasant demands in
the case of China. In such situations, it is no surprise that the radical left becomes
infected with political cultism.
The important thing is to know when to apply cancel culture
(and other resistance measures including mass disobedience) to left-wing movements that are
"infected". Post-1989 Eastern Europe is a good example, though now it is right-wing pandemics
that are taking hold. That is, cancel culture is not just for Lost Cause racism and
proto-fascism, but for all political movements that cross the border into cultism and
"othering".
Much of the pushback against cancel culture has come from prominent journalists and
intellectuals who perceive every negative reaction from ordinary people on social media as
an affront.
I don't think this is fair. As EB says @22:
The (wealthy, high profile) signers of the Harper's letter were not complaining on their
own behalf; they were complaining on behalf of the millions of people with no power or
money who are also threatened with mobbing if they voice divergent (not racist, not
transphobic, not misogyist) views.
JK Rowling is pretty hard to cancel; she has a mountain of cash, and her books are still
selling. But people who don't have a mountain of cash are going to look at examples like
children's author Gillian Philip, who appears to have been "let go" by her publisher after
being targetted by a cancellation campaign for tweeting "#ISTANDWITHROWLING", and think very
carefully about whether they can afford to stick their head over the parapet. Personally,
I've made a number of comments on Crooked Timber which I don't think were at all outside the
bounds of acceptable discourse – certainly not in the same category as the racist
speech you refer to (and at least one moderator must have agreed, because they were posted)
– but which I simply couldn't risk making without a pseudonym.
I often detect a bit of motte-and-bailey in the anti-anti-cancel culture argument. The
outer bailey is something like "cancel culture isn't the problem it's made out to be; it's
just how norms of acceptable behaviour are worked out these days"; the motte is "it's okay to
deplatform hardcore racists and holocaust deniers".
Between those two positions there's a large space where people get harassed, threatened,
ostracised and silenced for minor slips, reasonable disagreements, details that were lost in
translation and failures to recite the correct thought-terminating cliches with sufficient
conviction – basically, things that don't threaten anyone else's ability to speak.
Often this is done with the assistance of the false-flag social media "activist" accounts
that right-wing agitators use to pick away at fault lines on the left.
Even when there are no serious real-world consequences this tends to create a narrow,
stifling intellectual environment, which is what a large part of the opposition to "cancel
culture" is trying to prevent. You do realise, don't you, that Crooked Timber's willingness
to acknowledge heterodox views, on certain subjects, from the broad left puts it radically
out of step with most of the "progressive" Western Internet?
(There are other parts where cancel-culture tactics are used against different targets,
such as apostates and feminists in general (not just the wrong kind of feminists), which
hopefully we can all agree is not good.)
Basically, I don't think it's an adequate response to critique of cancel-culture to pick
out the cases where relatively mild tactics were used against acceptable targets, without
acknowledging that the critique is much broader than that.
It's hilarious hearing democrats say "no-one is above the law" as they cheat the system becoming multi millionaires via
insider trading and selling their influence.
Over these last few weeks Tucker has been one of the few people to stand up to the mob and refuses to give in. Tremendous
respect for people who refuse to give up their dignity.
The "cancel culture" proponents who actually do the most damage (as opposed to twitter
spats and maybe blocking speakers from a college campus here and there) are the pro-israel
types. frum's presence alone brings up that question and i'm sure greenwald's positions on
palestine were a major factor. chomsky is ostensibly anti-imperialist and anti-racist but
let's not forget he lived on a kibbutz for a while and still thinks the two state solution is
a good idea whereas BDS supposedly isn't. greenwald has also backed taibbi to some degree in
his anti-cancel stance so that didn't help.
"The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful
ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy."
This sacred cow of illusion is being threatened from all directions it seems. Democracy is
great for whoever owns it, and whoever owns the media owns democracy. A cow well worth
milking.
@the pair:
"the "cancel culture" proponents who actually do the most damage (as opposed to twitter spats
and maybe blocking speakers from a college campus here and there) are the pro-israel types.
frum's presence alone brings up that question and i'm sure greenwald's positions on palestine
were a major factor"
Exactly this! Greenwald has been a major irritant to many of the letters signatories. You
mentioned Frum, but also it would include the hyper hypocritical "cancel culture" queen
herslf: Ms. Bari Weiss - who recently 'resigned' from her last pro Zionist platform: the
NYT's.
Jonathan Cook has one of the most cogent, nuanced and accurate critiques of this Harpers
letter at than anyone I've read. Very long and well reasoned, with three additional updates
too. He takes many of the signers to task, especially in their noted over-whelming support
for Israel, for which many of them are now 'suffering' criticism
....It is easy to agree with the letter's generalised argument for tolerance and free and
fair debate. But the reality is that many of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have
shown precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their
deeds...
....The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a
more just world, some of those signing – like Frum, a former speechwriter for President
George W Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former US State Department official – would
be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting
"interventions" in Iraq and Libya respectively, not being held up as champions of free
speech.
....Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to
free speech, even for those with appalling opinions such as Holocaust denial.
...Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all, because he correctly
understands that the powerful are only too keen to find justifications to silence those who
challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their interests
in dominating the public space..."
And then Cook says, most importantly:
...By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the
centrists – are interested in free speech for themselves and those like them. They care
about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating the
public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years
ago, before social media started to level the playing field a little...."
While Sullivan does not share the Likudnik politics of Weiss, he enjoys some notable
institutional and personal links to her political network. As the former editor of The New
Republic , Sullivan worked under the direction of the magazine's fanatically pro-Israel
former publisher, Marty Peretz, who has since relocated to Tel Aviv .
Peretz's daughter, Evgenia, published a fawning
profile of Weiss in Vanity Fair in April 2019, portraying her as an inspiring new
talent who was "genuinely fueled by curiosity, the desire to connect, to cross boundaries and
try out new things."
During the time Sullivan and Peretz ran The New Republic , the magazine was
funded by the
pro-Israel businessman Roger Hertog. Hertog also plowed his fortune
into the Shalem Center to launch a training institute for young pro-Israel pundits in 2002.
Among the first interns to pass through the Shalem training school was a Columbia University
student named Bari Weiss. (Weiss' editor at the Times , Rubenstein, had also been
involved in the Hertog Foundation) .
Whether or not Weiss plans to join Sullivan at a new outlet for disgruntled anti-SJW [social
justice warrior] centrists, the circumstances surrounding her self-expulsion reveal her
resignation letter as an insincere whitewash.
Besides the possibility that Weiss' departure was a PR stunt, there is the fact that she has
spent a large portion of her adult life working to cancel Palestinian academics and left-wing
politicians while howling about the rise of a totalitarian "cancel culture."
Self-Styled Free Thinker Campaigns to Silence Left-Wing Dissenters
Before Bari Weiss branded herself as an avatar of free thought, she established herself as
the queen of a particular kind of cancel culture. The 36-year-old pundit has dedicated a
significant portion of her adult life to destroying the careers of critics of Israel, tarring
them as anti-Semites, and carrying out the kind of defamation campaigns that would result in
her targets losing their jobs.
The pundit has
shown a particular obsession with Palestinian-American scholar Joseph Massad and the New
York City-based Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour. Other targets have included Keith
Ellison, the Minnesota Attorney General who was the first Muslim elected to Congress, and Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard, an ardent opponent of U.S. regime change wars.
There is also ample evidence that while at Columbia University, Weiss helped bring down
the dean of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, Lisa Anderson, for inviting
Iran's then-President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad to speak on campus. Anderson's son has pointed to
Weiss as a key factor in her resignation:
In her resignation letter, Weiss found space to castigate the Times for publishing
an interview with renowned African-American author Alice Walker , whom she casually defamed as "a proud
anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati."
Weiss also flexed her bona fides as a proud neoconservative activist, saying she was
"honored" to have given the world's most prestigious media platform to a slew of regime-change
activists from countries targeted by the U.S. national security for overthrow, including
Venezuela, Iran, and Hong Kong, along with notorious Islamophobe Ayaan
Hirsi Ali and Chloe Valdary – a fellow Israel lobby product who previously
worked as an intern for Bret Stephens .
In her three-year career as an editor of the opinion section of the newspaper of record,
Weiss devoted a significant chunk of her columns to attacking her left-wing critics, while
complaining endlessly of the haters in her Twitter mentions (which is risible given her
lamentation in her resignation letter that "Twitter has become [the Times '] ultimate
editor").
In her 2019 book, Weiss condemned the pro-Palestine left as a whole. She insisted the idea
that Zionism is a colonialist and racist movement is an anti-Semitic "Soviet conspiracy;" that
the UK Labour Party under leader Jeremy Corbyn was a "hub of Jew hatred," and that "leftist
anti-Semites" are "more insidious and perhaps existentially dangerous" than far-right
"Hitlerian anti-Semites."
It is worth reviewing this historical record to show how Cancel Queen Bari Weiss' apparent
change of heart on cancel culture might more appropriately be described as an opportunist
career choice.
Campaigns to Cancel Massad, Sarsour & Ellison
In her 2019 book "How to Fight Anti-Semitism," Weiss revived her condemnations of Massad,
whom she first targeted at Columbia University after interning at the Hertog-funded Shalem
Center.
Weiss also argued that New York University (NYU) was
rife with anti-Semitism . Her proof? An individual student was told some stupid
anti-Semitic comments, and -- much more disconcertingly for Weiss – "In December 2018,
the student government successfully passed a BDS resolution," and "NYU gave the President's
Service Award, the school's highest honor, to Students for Justice in Palestine."
Massad was hardly the only victim of Bari Weiss' compulsive cancel culture campaigns. The
neoconservative pundit wrote an entire New York Times column in 2017 dedicated to
trying to cancel
Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour .
Rapping progressives over the knuckles for purportedly "embracing hate," Weiss characterized
Sarsour as an unhinged anti-Semite because of her criticism of the colonialist Zionist
movement, and worked to disrupt the Women's March, which Sarsour helped to found.
Then in a tag-team cancel campaign with feverishly pro-war CNN host Jake Tapper (who
has his own questionable
history with
racial issues ), they portrayed Sarsour as an extremist for expressing support for former
Black Panther leader Assata Shakur, whom they jointly demonized as a "cop-killer fugitive in
Cuba."
Next, Weiss turned her sights on the Democratic Attorney General of Minnesota Keith Ellison,
claiming in a 2017
column that he had a "long history of defending and working with anti-Semites."
Attempts to Cancel Tulsi Gabbard
Bari Weiss' cancelation rampage continued without a moment of self-reflection.
In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan in January 2019, the
pundit tried to cancel Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard because of her work advocating
against the international proxy war on Syria.
When Rogan mentioned Gabbard's name, Weiss scoffed that the congresswoman is "monstrous,"
smearing her an "Assad toady," in reference to the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Confused,
Rogan asked Weiss what exactly that meant. The bumbling New York Times pundit could
not answer, unable to define or even spell the insult.
Claims 'Leftist Anti-Semitism' Worse Than 'Hitlerian Anti-Semitism'
Bari Weiss' most extreme views on Israel-Palestine and the left can be seen in her 2019 book
How to Fight Anti-Semitism . In this tome, the neoconservative writer set out to
cancel the pro-Palestinian anti-racist left as a whole by arguing that supposed "leftist
anti-Semitism" is more dangerous than "Hitlerian anti-Semitism."
Weiss wrote:
"Hitlerian anti-Semitism announces its intentions unequivocally. But leftist
anti-Semitism, like communism itself, pretends to be the opposition of what it actually
is.
Because of the easy way it can be smuggled into the mainstream and manipulate us –
who doesn't seek justice and progress? who doesn't want a universal brotherhood of man?
– anti-Semitism that originates on the political left is more insidious and perhaps
existentially dangerous [than on the right]."
When she says "leftist anti-Semitism," Weiss almost invariably means progressive criticism
of Israeli apartheid, racism, and brutality against the indigenous Palestinian population.
If that wasn't already obvious, Weiss spelled it out:
"If you want to see the stakes, just look across the pond, where Jeremy Corbyn, an
anti-Semite, has successfully transformed one of the country's great parties into a hub of
Jew hatred.
Corbynism is not confined to the U.K. Right now in America, leftists who share Corbyn's
worldview are building grassroots movements and establishing factions with the Democratic
Party that are suspiciously unskeptical of genocidal terrorist groups like Hamas and actively
hostile to Jewish power and the state of Israel."
In her book, Weiss insisted the idea that Zionism is a colonialist and racist movement is
the product of a
"Soviet conspiracy" spread by USSR in order to destroy Israel. She expressly ignored the
words of the father of Zionism himself, Theodor Herzl, who wrote that Zionism "is a colonial idea"
and requested help from British colonialists, including colonial master Cecil Rhodes.
"Progressives have, knowingly or unknowingly, embraced the Soviet lie that Israel is a
colonialist outpost that should be opposed," Weiss lamented.
"In the most elite spaces across the country, people declare, unthinkingly, that Israel is a
racist state and that Zionism is racism, without realizing that they are participating in a
Soviet conspiracy, without realizing that they are aligning themselves with the greatest mass
murderers in modern history," she bemoaned.
Not mincing her words, Weiss concluded, "When anti-Zionism becomes a normative political
position, active anti-Semitism becomes the norm."
With these passages, it became clear that her How to Fight Anti-Semitism was a
book-length attempt to cancel anti-Zionists as a whole, by conflating their opposition to
Israeli apartheid as anti-Semitism.
Anyone who disputes that Israel is "a political and historical miracle" is secretly a Jew
hater, Weiss has argued. She effused, "That I can walk the streets of Tel Aviv today as a
feminist woman in a tank top," she marveled, "that it is a free and liberated society in the
middle of the Middle East, is an achievement so great that it is often hard for many people to
grasp."
As with much of the content Weiss produces, her gushing praise for Israel's supposedly
"liberated society" could have been lifted from a propaganda pamphlet distributed on campus by
a pro-Israel lobbying outfit. But it was never quality writing or original ideas that won Weiss
the attention she sought, and which has virtually ensured she will be "cancelled" into a new,
high-profile position in the mainstream commentariat.
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including
best-selling " Republican
Gomorrah ," " Goliath ," "
The
Fifty One Day War ," and " The Management of
Savagery ." He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video
reports, and several documentaries, including "Killing Gaza ." Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in
2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous
domestic repercussions.
Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The
Grayzone , and the producer of the " Moderate Rebels" podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .
Numerous other figures of lesser rank have been purged, their careers and livelihoods
destroyed for Tweeting out a phrase such as "All Lives Matter," whose current classification
as "hate speech" might have stunned even George Orwell.
Indeed: In some ways, our 'normal' is more insane than anything in Orwell's fiction.
"So, in this case, I think there is a significant portion of the American
intelligentsia who genuinely believe in this mad thesis that perpetual war will always solve
positively all the domestic problems of the USA. I don't think this is pure cynicism: many of
those Cold War living fossils really envision an even better America for their children and
grandchildren by promoting an all-out war against China, Russia, Iran, North Korea et al -
even in the stances where USA proper is attacked and Americans directly die because of
it."
America is channeling its Inner George Orwell, as the only solution the Americans have to
deal with their fading global hegemony and domestic national implosion is to recycle their
old Cold War tactic of Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.
The United States of Oceania has always been at war with East Asia or Eurasia or Osama Bin
Goldstein!
America is truly a sick country, and its worse than any COVID-19.
"... Antiracism has been transformed... At the time of the great migration, it is no longer a question of welcoming newcomers by integrating them into European civilization, but exposing the faults of this civilization ..."
"... He referred to "self-racism" as "the most dismaying and grotesque pathology of our time". Its capital is London. ..."
"... Vandalism and self-hatred are quickly gaining ground. The epic of great discoveries associated with British Empire has become shameful. The protests are not about slavery. No one in the UK today would cheer that period. It is rather a call for cultural cleansing of all the works contradicting the new mantra: "diversity". ..."
"... "A new form of Taliban was born in the UK today" , wrote Nigel Farage, referring to two giant ancient Buddha statue that were blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. ..."
"... This movement of hating the West -- which has, as all of us do, an imperfect history -- seems to have begun in British universities. In Cambridge, professors of literature asked to replace white authors with representatives from minorities to "decolonize" the curriculum. The student union of London's prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) asked to remove Plato, Kant, Descartes, Hegel and others from the curriculum, because they were "all white" -- as if the color of our skin should be the sole determinant of our thoughts. In Manchester, students painted over a mural based on Kipling's poem "If". ..."
"... A scholar of colonialism, Nigel Biggar, said that a "climate of fear" has returned to British universities. The University of Liverpool recently agreed to rename a building honoring former prime minister William Gladstone. At Oxford, meanwhile, the statue of Cecil Rhodes, philanthropist and founder of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), risks being the next to go. ..."
"Every record has been destroyed , every book rewritten , every statue and street building has been renamed ... nothing exists
except an endless present in which the Party is always right ..." - George Orwell, 1984.
"Antiracism is no longer the defense of the equal dignity of people, but an ideology, a vision of the world,"
said the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, son of Holocaust survivors.
"Antiracism has been transformed... At the time of the great migration, it is no longer a question of welcoming newcomers by
integrating them into European civilization, but exposing the faults of this civilization".
He referred to "self-racism" as "the most dismaying and grotesque pathology of our time". Its capital is London.
" Topple the racists " consists of a map with 60 statues in 30
British cities. The removal of the statues is being requested to support a movement born in the United States after a white policeman,
Derek Chauvin, killed a black man, George Floyd,
by kneeling on his neck.
In Bristol, a crowd
pushed the statue of philanthropist and slave-owner Edward Colston into the harbor. The act was followed in London by protests
vandalizing statues of Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln. London's Mayor Sadiq Khan, after
removing the monument to Robert Milligan, a Scottish
slave trader, from outside the Museum of London Docklands,
announced the creation of commission to review tearing down statues that do not reflect "the city's diversity". Two more statues
were ordered
to be removed from two London hospitals.
Vandalism and self-hatred are quickly gaining ground. The epic of great discoveries associated with British Empire has become
shameful. The protests are not about slavery. No one in the UK today would cheer that period. It is rather a call for cultural cleansing
of all the works contradicting the new mantra: "diversity".
"A new form of Taliban was born in the UK today" ,
wrote Nigel Farage, referring to two giant ancient
Buddha statue that were
blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001.
"Unless we get moral leadership quickly our cities won't be worth living in".
The
list of statues to be removed includes the names of Oliver Cromwell and Horatio Nelson, two major figures in British history,
as well as Nancy Astor, the first woman to be elected to the British Parliament and take a seat in 1919. Also on the list were the
names of Sir Francis Drake, Christopher Columbus and Charles Gray (the prime minister whose government supervised the abolition of
slavery in 1833).
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, expressing opposition to the removal campaign,
said :
" We cannot now try to edit or censor our past. We cannot pretend to have a different history. The statues in our cities and
towns were put up by previous generations. They had different perspectives, different understandings of right and wrong. But those
statues teach us about our past, with all its faults. To tear them down would be to lie about our history, and impoverish the
education of generations to come."
British post-colonial guilt is, however, having repercussions far larger than statues. There is, for instance, still total silence
about persecuted Christians,
according to a UK bishop leading a government review into their suffering. There is also, notably, a retreat from the world's
stage.
"When the West loses confidence in itself, because of excessive or misplaced guilt over colonialism, it turns to isolationism",
noted Bruce Gilley, a professor of political science.
"We are afraid that anything we do is colonial. There's plenty of countries willing to step into that global governance gap:
China, Iran, Russia, Turkey".
Post-colonial guilt is also suffocating freedom of speech in the UK. The former British "equality watchdog" chief, Trevor Phillips,
was suspended from the Labour Party after allegations of "Islamophobia".
Phillips' guilt? Being critical of multiculturalism.
According to Phillips:
"In my view, squeamishness about addressing diversity and its discontents risks allowing our country to sleepwalk to a catastrophe
that will set community against community, endorse sexist aggression, suppress freedom of expression, reverse hard-won civil liberties,
and undermine the liberal democracy that has served this country so well for so long."
Phillips also
claimed that British politicians and journalists are "terrified" of discussing race, thereby leaving multiculturalism to become
a "
racket " exploited by some to entrench segregation. A man of
Guyanese origin , a
Labour Party veteran and an
equality commissioner spoke the truth to the multiculturalists.
The activists who campaign to remove the statues want radically to change the look of the British capital. The clash seems to
consist of, on one side, violent censors who bully everyone, and on the other side, cowardly, appeasing politicians, who are afraid
and bow to the vandals. Monuments are a vital and visible part of a global city; they embody their place in the history of a city,
otherwise only bus stops and Burger Kings would remain there. These protestors appear to wish for a revised, sanitized history. If
we do not quickly understand that, if we erase our past, as the former Soviet Union tried to do, it will be easier for people to
create their vision of our future with no rudder to anchor us or our values. We will be left with nothing in our hands but shattered
pieces of our history and culture.
This movement of hating the West -- which has, as all of us do, an imperfect history -- seems to have begun in British universities.
In Cambridge, professors of literature
asked to replace white authors with representatives from minorities to "decolonize" the curriculum. The student union of London's
prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
asked to remove Plato, Kant, Descartes, Hegel and others from the curriculum, because they were "all white" -- as if the color
of our skin should be the sole determinant of our thoughts. In Manchester, students
painted over a mural based on Kipling's poem "If".
A scholar of colonialism, Nigel Biggar,
said that a "climate of fear" has returned to British universities. The University of Liverpool recently
agreed to rename a building honoring former
prime minister William Gladstone. At Oxford, meanwhile, the statue of Cecil Rhodes, philanthropist and founder of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe),
risks being the next to go.
"There is a bit of hypocrisy," Lord Patten, the chancellor of Oxford,
commented , "in Oxford taking money for
100 scholars a year, about a fifth of them from Africa, to come to Oxford, and then saying we want to throw the Rhodes statue...
in the Thames" .
He said that his own view remained the same as one "expressed by Nelson Mandela at a celebration of the Rhodes Trust in 2003":
that despite the "problems associated with Cecil Rhodes in history, if it was alright for Mandela, then I have to say it's pretty
well alright for me". But not for the revisionists.
Western history is seemingly being remade to portray all of Western civilization as just one big apartheid . It is as if we should
not only pull down statues but also pull down ourselves. But a successful democracy, cannot be built on just erasing the past.
The statue in London of Churchill -- who stood against the Nazis during the Second World War and saved Europe from barbarism --
was
covered up by the city authorities during recent protests. Its visual erasure
reminds one of the nude statues in Rome covered up by authorities to please Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, or the "disappearance"
of portraits in the former Soviet Union, of people whom the Politburo decided had fallen out of favor. There is a falsity in erasing
one's history. One may not have a perfect history, but it is one's history, nevertheless. As the historian Victor Davis Hanson
wrote , a country "does not have to
be perfect to be good." Excising the distasteful parts does not change what happened; they may even be replaced with parts that are
more distasteful.
Some London museums already adopted this covering-up and self-censorship a while ago. The
Tate Gallery in London banned a work by John
Latham that displayed a Koran embedded in glass. The
Victoria and Albert Museum showed, then withdrew, a devotional art image of Muhammad. The
Saatchi Gallery featured two works of nudes overlaid with Arabic script, which prompted complaints from Muslim visitors; the
museum covered the works. The Whitechapel Art Gallery
purged an exhibit containing nude dolls.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary just
revised the definition
of "racism" to include "systemic racism", presumably meaning that the entire society is guilty and unjust.
The censors seem to want to control our mental universe, as in George Orwell's novel,
1984 :
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street
building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History
has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right".
This process of Western self-abasement began long ago. The Labour Party councils in the UK, for example,
began to examine all the statues under their jurisdiction. The mayor of Bristol, Marvin Rees, instead of defending the rule of
law, called the violent removal of the statue of Colston an act of "
historical poetry ". When vandals started to destroy statues, many applauded. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called it
" politically correct
iconoclasm ".
A week before the statues row, people in the UK knelt in the name of George Floyd. It was as if there was a collective claim that
Western society as a whole had to repent. It seemed a form of ideological hysteria, not so distant from that of the Inquisition or
the Salem Witch Trials: those who knelt were presumably supposed appear as if they were more moral, on the "right side" of justice.
There were even
British
policemen kneeling, as, in the US, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats
knelt to their overlords. Both were acts of irresponsibility
and capitulation. A few days later, the British establishment kowtowed to the new Taliban.
What is this macabre ideological game aimed at accomplishing? Not taking down monuments as such, like the statues of Christopher
Columbus which have been
torn
down or beheaded . It is more than that. It is a power-grab to create a cultural revolution, to prevent anyone from saying that
cultures are not all the same; to put Europe's past on trial; to instill perennial remorse into consciences, and to spread intellectual
terror to advance multiculturalism.
How many people will refuse to go along with this coerced suppression of history? If many kneel to this new totalitarianism, who
will have the courage to stand up for Western history and culture?
It looks like the USSR managed to bite the USA from the grave and infect plenty of people
here who developed a strong allergy to any opinion different from their own. Kind of
political COVID-19 virus.
Performed by you farce of playing Jewish Commissar in a leather jacket in this blog should
probably be stopped.
You have neither IQ nor moral standing to judge others the way you do. And your political
and other preferences are far from being interesting to anybody here.
The toxicity that Matt writes about isn't just due to Trump - it's due to the left
abandoning traditional liberal values in favor of political correctness and identity
politics. This new Red Guard of ideological purity is the natural - shocking - evolution of
that....
1984 -- The writer of Truth rewrites history to fit whatever they want. Read the book.
That's the news media today. A warning leftists: Stalin and Hitler controlled the media. It's
not TRUMP controlling the media. Or ignoring the truth. And it should scare the hell out of
every American.
Crazy times indeed. It is reminiscent of the Hollywood Terror. A tipping point will come
when enough people are sickened of their arbitrary and capricious cultural fascism.
Mr. Taibbi fires a warning shot to alert us that the "instinct (in the American media)
to shield audiences from views or facts deemed politically uncomfortable has been in
evidence since Trump became a national phenomenon." I would say not "since" -- that vile
instinct has merely been more in evidence. The media's fear and hatred for diversity of
opinion, for the freedom of speech, has doubtless worsened ...
This is looking like another 1960's type insurrection that will end up the same way: it will
be used by the rich and powerful elites (notice how the corporate controlled media has gone
on one knee for BLM and has gone outright anti-white?), there will be a back lash that will
crush it (right after the election), and its leaders will be either absorbed into the
establishment or offed.
America looks like a hybrid of Stephen King, Brave New World, and 1984 and the rich and
powerful US elites and intel agencies stroke it and love it. Notice that the US super rich
have been raking it in since January 2020? While at the same time Trump is busy making the US
a vassal state of Israel and accelerating the roll-out of Cold War v2 which is just fine with
US elites that will not change with the election of moron Biden (if the people elect Biden
they are electing his VP as Biden will not last long; he is a lot like Yeltsin that was
pumped up on mental stimulants and nutriments to perform for short periods until the next
treatment).
"... This is where Orwell enters the convergence , for the State masks its stripmining and power grab with deliciously Orwellian misdirections such as "the People's Party," "democratic socialism," and so on. ..."
"... Orwell understood the State's ontological imperative is expansion, to the point where it controls every level of community, markets and society. Once the State escapes the control of the citizenry, it is free to exploit them in a parasitic predation that is the mirror-image of Monopoly capital. For what is the State but a monopoly of force, coercion, data manipulation and the regulation of private monopolies? ..."
"... Aldous Huxley foresaw a Central State that persuaded its people to "love their servitude" via propaganda, drugs, entertainment and information-overload. In his view, the energy required to force compliance exceeded the "cost" of persuasion, and thus the Powers That Be would opt for the power of suggestion. ..."
"... "My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World . ..."
"... As Marx explained, the dynamics of state-monopoly-capitalism lead to the complete dominance of capital over labor in both financial and political "markets," as wealth buys political influence which then protects and enforces capital's dominance. ..."
The global crisis is not merely economic; it is the result of profound financial,
sociological and political trends described by Marx, Kafka, Orwell and Huxley.
The unfolding global crisis is best understood as the convergence of the dynamics described
by Marx, Kafka, Orwell and Huxley. Let's start with Franz Kafka , the writer (1883-1924) who most
eloquently captured the systemic injustices of all-powerful bureaucratic institutions--the
alienation experienced by the hapless citizen enmeshed in the bureaucratic web, petty
officialdom's mindless persecutions of the innocent, and the intrinsic absurdity of the
centralized State best expressed in this phrase: "We expect errors, not justice."
If this isn't the most insightful summary of the current moment in history, then what is? A
lawyer by training and practice, Kafka understood that the the more powerful and entrenched the
institution and its bureaucracy, the greater the collateral damage rained on the innocent, and
the more extreme the perversion of justice.
We are living in a Kafkaesque nightmare where suspicion alone justifies the government stealing from its citizens, and an
unrelated crime (possessing drug paraphernalia) is used to justify state theft.
As in a Kafkaesque nightmare, the state is above the law when it needs an excuse to steal your car or cash. There is no
crime, no arrest, no due process--just the state threatening that you should shut up and be happy they don't take everything you
own.
All these forms of civil forfeiture are well documented. While some would claim the worst
abuses have been rectified, that is far from evident. What is evident is how long these kinds
of legalized looting have been going on.
When the state steals our cash or car on mere suspicion, you have no recourse other than
horrendously costly and time-consuming legal actions. So you no longer have enough money to
prove your innocence now that we've declared your car and cash guilty?
Tough luck, bucko--be glad you live in a fake democracy with a fake rule of law, a fake
judiciary, and a government with the officially sanctioned right to steal your money and
possessions without any due process or court proceedings-- legalized looting .
They don't have to torture a confession out of you, like the NKVD/KGB did in the former
Soviet Union, because your cash and car are already guilty.
This is where Orwell enters the convergence , for the State masks its stripmining and power
grab with deliciously Orwellian misdirections such as "the People's Party," "democratic
socialism," and so on.
Orwell understood the State's ontological imperative is expansion, to the point where it
controls every level of community, markets and society. Once the State escapes the control of
the citizenry, it is free to exploit them in a parasitic predation that is the mirror-image of
Monopoly capital. For what is the State but a monopoly of force, coercion, data manipulation
and the regulation of private monopolies?
What is the EU bureaucracy in Brussels but the perfection of a stateless State?
As Kafka divined, centralized bureaucracy has the capacity for both Orwellian obfuscation
(anyone read those 1,300-page Congressional bills other than those gaming the system for their
private benefit?) and systemic avarice and injustice.
The convergence boils down to this: it would be impossible to loot this much wealth if the
State didn't exist to enforce the "rules" of parasitic predation.
Aldous Huxley foresaw a Central State that persuaded its people to "love their servitude"
via propaganda, drugs, entertainment and information-overload. In his view, the energy required
to force compliance exceeded the "cost" of persuasion, and thus the Powers That Be would opt
for the power of suggestion.
"My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of
governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I
described in Brave New World .
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience."
As prescient as he was, Huxley could not have foreseen the power of mobile telephony, gaming
and social media hypnosis/addiction as a conditioning mechanism for passivity and
self-absorption. We are only beginning to understand the immense addictive/conditioning powers
of 24/7 mobile telephony / social media.
What would we say about a drug that caused people to forego sex to check their Facebook
page? What would we say about a drug that caused young men to stay glued to a computer for 40+
hours straight, an obsession so acute that some actually die? We would declare that drug to be
far too powerful and dangerous to be widely available, yet mobile telephony, gaming and social
media is now ubiquitous.
... ... ...
Last but not least, we come to Marx. As Marx explained, the dynamics of
state-monopoly-capitalism lead to the complete dominance of capital over labor in both
financial and political "markets," as wealth buys political influence which then protects and
enforces capital's dominance.
Marx also saw that finance-capital would inevitably incentivize over-capacity, stripping
industrial capital of pricing power and profits. Once there's more goods and services than
labor can afford to buy with earnings, financialization arises to provide credit to labor to
buy capital's surplus production and engineer financial gains with leveraged speculation and
asset bubbles.
But since labor's earnings are stagnant or declining, there's an end-game to
financialization. Capital can no longer generate any gain at all except by central banks
agreeing to buy capital's absurdly over-valued assets. Though the players tell themselves this
arrangement is temporary, the dynamics Marx described are fundamental and inexorable: the
insanity of central banks creating currency out of thin air to buy insanely over-priced assets
is the final crisis of late-stage capitalism because there is no other escape from
collapse.
Having stripped labor of earnings and political power and extracted every last scrap of
profit from over-capacity (i.e. globalization) and financialization, capital is now completely
dependent on money-spewing central banks buying their phantom capital with newly printed
currency, a dynamic that will eventually trigger a collapse in the purchasing power of the
central banks' phantom capital (i.e. fiat currencies).
When there is no incentive to invest in real-world productive assets and every incentive to
skim profits by front-running the Federal Reserve, capitalism is dead. Paraphrasing
Wallerstein, "Capitalism is no longer attractive to capitalists."
We can see this for ourselves in the real world: if "renewable energy" was as profitable as
some maintain, private capital would have rushed in to fund every project to maximize their
gains from this new source of immense profits. But as Art Berman explained in Why the
Renewable Rocket Has Failed To Launch , this hasn't been the case. Rather, "green energy"
remains dependent on government subsidies in one form or another. If hydropower is removed from
"renewables," all other renewables (solar, wind, etc.) provide only 4% of total global energy
consumption.
Japan's stagnation exemplifies Marx's analysis: Japan's central bank has created trillions
of yen out of thin air for 30 years and used this phantom capital to buy the over-valued assets
of Japan's politically dominant state-capitalist class, a policy that has led to secular
stagnation and social decline. If it weren't for China's one-off expansion, Japan's economy
would have slipped into phantom capital oblivion decades ago.
Kafka, Orwell, Huxley and Marx called it, and we're living in the last-gasp stage of the
cruel and unsustainable system they described. So sorry, but investing your phantom capital in
FANG stocks, Tik-Tok and virtual-reality games will not save phantom capital from well-deserved
oblivion.
The wristband and microchip sound fab for children under 18 so we monitor to ensure their
safety, especially in educational settings and on school trips. It would enable them to be
located if lost or snatched. If it can be used to monitor language and aspects of behaviour
then they could not be falsely accused of of antisocial actions. If they don't comply then
child care benefits or access to higher education could be withdrawn as a sanction. It may
even improve road safety if they drive illegally or badly. Any chance of a tiny electric
shock feature to the microchip?
If you thought you knew everything about Eric Blair/George Orwell, I suggest
reading this essay as a test. Hopefully, you'll discover many facets not known before as
I did.
Orwell's career was a lot more complicated than that. Basically, he came from a relatively
prosperous middle-class family, which allowed him to play the game of the writer, when it
worked, and to come back to the family when things were thin. Of course he exploited his own
experiences, as every writer does. That doesn't detract from the great creations. Animal Farm
and 1984 don't have direct origins.
Posted by: Laguerre | May 20 2020 21:39 utc |
32 @Posted by: karlof1 | May 20 2020 18:51 utc | 26
That essay is a real shame, an impossible intend of whitewashing and redime Orwell, just
another intent on rewritting of history, and try to paint what is black as white.
Neo-language
This intent could be inscribed along the rescues of Stepan Bandera and the Forest Brothers as
new heroes of NATO world in their offensive against reviving socialist ideas.
That Orwell did not change even a bit after returning from Burma is proven by the fact
that he came to Spain, and strolled around there with the Trotskyites of POUM, to elaborate
black lists of communists which then were provided to Franco, at result of which many people
was tortured and summarily executed. He, this way, contributed greatly to decimate the
resistance in the side of the legitimate republican government, and thus, to help the
fascists in their way to power, well supported by the US with arms and fuel and by the air
forces of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
Orwell: Sneak sighting of British secret services in the Cold War (is declassified by MI-5
and documented). Its function: to expose communists. He even betrayed Charles Chaplin,
exiled in his native England for FBI persecution. "Referrer". "Always loyal"
@Posted by: H.Schmatz | May 20 2020 21:40 utc | 33
In the essay by Alert Escusa linked above, it is studied the historical context in which
Orwell published his most famous works, at all innocent, debunking the legend on that he was
kinda an outsider and was about to self-publish Animal Farm , being the checked
reality that he had full support of the birgueoisie to publish his influential works when the
time was more propice for the capitalists.
As a sample, a button:
What was happening that year of 1943, while Orwell was writing his Animal Farm? It was not
exactly, as Pepe Gutiérrez says "the distribution of the world", but something quite
different that he hides from us: the Nazis had invaded the USSR two years ago,
exterminating millions of Russians and devastating much of the country. The greatest battle
of the war, Stalingrad, had taken place, and it was not yet known who would win the
conflict, whether Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. No one could safely predict that Nazism
would be extirpated from Europe, the Nazi death camps had not yet been discovered, but
Orwell was obsessed with his anti-Soviet writings. What did Orwell want to portray with his
Farm Rebellion? Nothing more and nothing less than the following: "The specific purpose
Orwell threw into it with a sense of urgency was the desire to exploit the "myth" of the
Soviet Union, as a paradigm of the socialist state".
There are plenty of comments about it. It is only worth reflecting on who benefited from
Orwell's position in 1943. The victory was precisely achieved by the Soviet people and the
Red Army at the price of innumerable human sacrifices, also easily forgotten in the West,
where the true character of the anti-fascist war is hidden. It is logical that the USSR,
which had suffered a war of extermination unprecedented in history, and which also defeated
the collaborationist and fascist regimes of Eastern Europe, along with the popular and
communist guerrillas, was seen as a liberating power by broad sectors of local populations.
In addition, the communist guerrillas, ideologically linked to the USSR, had come to have
great prestige throughout Europe: so much so that, in the first French general elections
after Nazism, the French Communist Party was the most voted party, achieving more out of 5
million votes representing 30% of the electorate [7]. As we will see later, the USSR had
very well-founded reasons to believe that a new war was being prepared against him, this
time with the country devastated, so it was logical and legitimate that he try to win
allies against the possibility of a new world war. This is a long way from "distribution of
the world" and trying to equate imperialism with socialism, as will be seen later.
I must say the replies to my 26 go in many directions. As to Martin Sieff's essay, it's
fundamentally a well deserved critique of the BBC that segues into a discussion about how
George Orwell would easily recognize its Fake News for what it is that draws on Finding George
Orwell in Burma for some of its content. (A very short preview's available at the
link and it can be borrowed if you're an Archive member, for which there's no excuse as it's
free.) IMO, the comments fit Sieff's intent quite well. Judging from book excerpts offered here , the book's more
a critique of Myanmar than Orwell, although the additional sources provided at page bottom
leads to credibility questions. I also note that most websites promoting Finding lead
with the NY Times jacket blurb which is more about dissing Myanmar than revealing what
was found regarding Orwell. Sieff says he knows the author but doesn't speculate on why he
chose a female nom de plume; I too wonder why as I don't see what purpose it could serve
unless it's anti-Myanmar propaganda that Orwell would recognize or something similar.
Curious--an innocuous comment becomes a can of worms. Also curious how Orwell and his
writing still generate an intense level of controversy.
karlof1 , May 20 2020 22:47 utc |
42H.Schmatz , May 20 2020 22:52 utc |
43
@Posted by: H.Schmatz | May 20 2020 22:08 utc | 36
A bit more from the must read essay linked, even related to current events...
2. THE HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT OF "ANIMAL FARM" AND "1984"
What events were taking place in the western world at that time, which caused a
favorable change of attitude towards Orwell's publications, of those who were previously
reticent? Neither more nor less than the imminent offensive against socialism, which had
already lost almost thirty million lives during the anti-fascist war and had suffered
appalling material destruction.
While the first copies of Animal Farm were being printed and bound, some
extremely disturbing events were taking place. Just at the end of the war, Nazi spies and
war criminals were being recycled by the American spy services, such as the German SS
General Reinhard Genhlen, whose spy network passed entirely to the Americans and was used
in Eastern Europe to promote the anti-Soviet uprisings in East Berlin in 1953 and Hungary
in 1956. Clandestine networks were created to evade thousands of Nazi criminals towards
Latin America and the USA. Later, with Japan defeated, the operation was repeated with the
Japanese scientists who are experts in bacteriological weapons, responsible for the deaths
of tens of thousands of allied prisoners, but who were secretly brought to the United
States. Meanwhile, during the 1945 Potsdam conference, which brought together Hitler's
victorious allies - where the alleged "honeymoon" took place to "divide the world" - US
President Truman and English Churchill had speculated before Stalin about the power the
western allies had with a new secret weapon. On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima. According to Ian Gray, Stalin's biographer: "Stalin and the majority
of Russians immediately understood the terrible meaning of this fact ... Stalin realized
that the Americans had used the bomb mainly to impress and threaten Russia". Stalin and the
Soviets were right: the American Secretary of State, James Byrnes, recognized that the bomb
was necessary not against Japan, but "to make Russia moldable to Europe".
As the historian Pauwels has explained, the initial will of the Soviets in Europe was
not to have like-minded regimes and their own zone of influence, but to intervene in
Germany to prevent it from engaging in a second war, this time together with its former
allies against the USSR. This is demonstrated by the fact that until well into the post-war
period, the Soviets did not help to make any political-social change in the liberated
countries. It was Truman's nuclear policy that forced the Soviets to stand face to face
with the Americans in Eastern Europe, thus deterring American aviation: from this way they
would have to carry out a long trip until arriving at the Soviet cities where they had to
drop their bombs. This caused the political and social changes in Eastern Europe to
accelerate, which, however, were already taking place autonomously since the end of the war
thanks to the triumph of the popular anti-fascist forces. This fact not only saved the USSR
from a new war and enabled socialism to survive: stability in Eastern Europe laid the
foundations for a development of national liberation struggles and for socialism throughout
the world: in 1949 the victory of the Chinese Revolution heralded the triumph of many
others, putting all capitalism in danger of death.
In parallel, just after the Cold War started by imperialism, the conservative British
leader Churchill theorized about the need to build an Iron Curtain to contain the
communists and allegedly asked the American President Truman to attack the USSR with the
atomic bomb by means of a preemptive attack. Churchill was not just any character, but one
of the most influential leaders of the British Empire, champion of English colonialism and
the participation of his country in World War I, therefore responsible for many millions of
deaths and suffering of peoples.
That was the real reason for the delay in publishing Animal Farm . Orwell,
naturally, during the anti-fascist war could not see his anti-Soviet work published until
the end of the conflict, since it would have been quite awkward for the Western governments
allied to the USSR, who were risking their lives against the Nazis, to criminalize in this
way a friendly government. On the other hand, at that time, from the Orwellian model, it
would be difficult for western and world public opinion to understand how it was possible
that the Soviet people fought with such a degree of sacrifice and heroism, expelling the
Nazis from Europe: all the other bourgeois regimes, where there was freedom, had collapsed
rapidly and had collaborated with the Nazis.
It was in connection with these events that the first copies of Animal farm were
placed on the shelves of bookstores. Precisely the publication coincided with the end of
World War II and the dissolution of the anti-fascist alliance between England, USA, and the
USSR. The first edition is exactly from 1945 in England, published by Secker &
Wargburg, from London, and from 1946 in the USA, published by Harcourt, from New York. The
capitalist governments, which were imminently going to promote Animal Farm , were
evaluating different options to attack the USSR: from rearming German units as shock
brigades to attack the Soviets, to the launch of "preventive" atomic bombs. The prestige
that the USSR had among all the workers of the world, fundamentally the Europeans who
suffered the Nazi atrocities, was enormous, as well as among the intellectual and popular
sectors, whose reflection could be followed in the great influence that some communist
parties had. It was necessary to dismantle this prestige to sweep the opposition of the
world public opinion to an armed aggression against those who liberated Europe from Nazism,
and Orwell's novels came as a ring to a finger for this purpose, since they were a good
instrument to spread among the so called mass culture, just as later were the film versions
of his works.
Albert Escusa, gives in his essay a good semblance of what kind of person could Orwell
really be:
Orwell was above all a great individualist, with some important personal contradictions and
prejudices that led him to oscillate along various paths without being able to commit
himself in a stable and permanent way to anything that was not himself, in such a way that,
when he became disenchanted with some social processes that he was unable to interpret
correctly and scientifically, ended up ranting against what he believed to be the object of
his anger.
We can see it in Corbière's sharp description: "Who was Orwell? A sniper, a
skeptic who devoted his efforts to Manichean criteria describing the great social and
political contradictions of our time. Anarchist, Semitrotskyist in Spain, Labor in England,
free thinker, undercover anti-Semite, his real ideas reveal a kind of elitism.
He had an intense imagination but his methodology of thought was restricted,
one-sided.
No that I am aware, but, if interested, you could translate it with a translator.
Since the essay is quite long, you could translate paragraph by paragraph, then read the whol
thing once assembled.
A bit complicated, but worth the effort, the essay is a well researched work, wu¡ith
several referecnes as weel worth reading, like a disection of Orwell, his epoch and
motives.
Oh dear. Relatively prosperous middle class means descended from Earls of Westmorland, family
tree of Fanes, de Veres, Grosvenors, at a little reach basically related to the entire
peerage. True, Orwell's father was a bit of a dope, he did manage to contract a marriage to a
very wealthy woman. Jacintha Buddicom's memoir, Eric and Us, about growing up living next
door to the Blairs, will tell you what 'middle class' life was like.
Orwell maintained the friendships from St. Cyprians and Eton for life. Pretty much
everyone on the roster could be considered as spooks and agents. All of them tied to old
money, old family, government service. Government as MI6 and CIA.
I think he's a great writer. My copy of the four volumes of Collected Essays Letters &
Journalism is still right here next to the fireplace. All the rest of it around here
somewhere, even the minor novels from the 30s. But no illusions what team he is on or what
station he was born to.
Winston Smith means 'maker of Winston', as in broadcasting from Room 101 and forging the
myth of Winston Churchill. Orwell was a big boy when he did that and was far past having any
illusions. He created the myth that Room 101 of Broadcasting House was the worst place in the
world. And talked of how the war years were the best years of his life.
@Posted by: oldhippie | May 20 2020 23:13 utc | 48
I think he's a great writer
Not even so, more proper a plagiarist and propagandist at the service of Western
totalitarian imperialism.
Since we are in the task of deconstructing Orwell, let´s go to the end...
In addition to the Animal Farm , one of the works that most influenced the
construction of Western totalitarianism against the Communists was 1984 . It shows
an overview of socialism in the USSR similar to a delusional totalitarian and monstrous
drama, with a Big Brother (Stalin) who had absolute social control over the individuals
under his rule, through a sophisticated mind control mechanism. This work became a
must-read for CIA officers and a dependent body called the Council for Psychological
Strategies, in addition to the fact that NATO used the entire vocabulary of this novel
during the 1950s in its anti-communist strategy.12 It is interesting to know how He
conceived this book, since it was apparently a plagiarism Orwell did to another
disenchanted of Bolshevism, in this case a Russian writer, in the opinion of the writer
Emilio J. Corbière: "Orwell's was a conscious plagiarism, since he explained it
himself in another of his works. The plot, the main characters, the symbols and the climate
of its narration, belonged to a completely forgotten Russian writer of the beginning of the
century: Evgeny Zamyatin. In his book We , the Russian disillusioned with socialism
after the failure of the 1905 revolution, devoted his efforts to anathematizing the Social
Democratic Workers Party founded by Jorge Plejanov. When the October revolution happened -
in 1917 - Zamyatin went into exile in Paris, where he wrote his posthumous anti-communist
work"
This opinion is also shared by the historian Isaac Deutscher in his work The
Mysticism of Cruelty , an essay about 1984 , where he states that Orwell
"borrowed the idea of 1984, the plot, the main characters, the symbols and
the whole plot situation from the work We of Evgeny Zamyatin"
We see how behind the image of a great writer, lies the reality of a plagiarist of
stories, which served to elaborate theoretical and academic models on the functioning of
socialism in the Soviet Union totally adjusted to the requirements of imperialism in the
anti-communist Cold War. The impact of 1984 was tremendous among the population,
creating an atmosphere of anti-communist and anti-Soviet paranoia that was very effective
among the masses, as the disturbing personal testimony of Isaac Deutscher demonstrates:
"Have you read that book? You have to read it, sir. Then you will know why we have to drop
the atomic bomb on the Bolsheviks! With those words, a miserable blind newspaper vendor
recommended me in New York 1984 , a few weeks before Orwell's death".
H. Schmatz.
I am not a good book reader but I did read 1984 and it definitely seemed to be a veiled
critique on Communism.
However it seems the story is now more fitting to capitalism.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), happily amplified by the Public Broadcasting
System (PBS) in the United States which carries its World News, continues to pump out its
regular dreck about the alleged economic chaos in Russia and the imagined miserable state of
the Russian people.
It is all lies of course. Patrick Armstrong 's
authoritative regular updates including his reports on this website are a necessary corrective
to such crude propaganda.
But amid all their countless fiascoes and failures in every other field (including the
highest per capita death rate from COVID-19 in Europe, and one of the highest in the world) the
British remain world leaders at managing global Fake News. As long as the tone remains
restrained and dignified, literally any slander will be swallowed by the credulous and every
foul scandal and shame can be confidently covered up.
None of this would have surprised the late, great George Orwell. It is fashionable these
days to endlessly trot him out as a zombie (dead but alleged to be living – so that he
cannot set the record straight himself) critic of Russia and all the other global news outlets
outside the control of the New York and London plutocracies. And it is certainly true, that
Orwell, whose hatred and fear of communism was very real, served before his death as an
informer to MI-5, British domestic security.
But it was not the Soviet Union, Stalin's show trials or his experiences with the Trotskyite
POUM group in Barcelona and Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War that "made Orwell Orwell" as
the Anglo-America Conventional Wisdom Narrative has it. It was his visceral loathing of the
British Empire – compounded during World War II by his work for the BBC which he
eventually gave up in disgust.
And it was his BBC experiences that gave Orwell the model for his unforgettable Ministry of
Truth in his great classic "1984."
George Orwell had worked in one of the greatest of all world centers of Fake News. And he
knew it.
More profoundly, the great secret of George Orwell's life has been hiding in plain sight for
70 years since he died. Orwell became a sadistic torturer in the service of the British Empire
during his years in Burma, modern Myanmar. And as a fundamentally decent man, he was so
disgusted by what he had done that he spent the rest of his life not just atoning but slowly
and willfully committing suicide before his heartbreakingly premature death while still in his
40s.
The first important breakthrough in this fundamental reassessment of Orwell comes from one
of the best books on him. "Finding George Orwell in Burma" was published in 2005 and written by
"Emma Larkin", a pseudonym for an outstanding American journalist in Asia whose identity I have
long suspected to be an old friend and deeply respected colleague, and whose continued
anonymity I respect.
"Larkin" took the trouble to travel widely in Burma during its repressive military
dictatorship and her superb research reveals crucial truths about Orwell. According to his own
writings and his deeply autobiographical novel "Burmese Days" Orwell loathed all his time as a
British colonial policeman in Burma, modern Myanmar. The impression he systematically gives in
that novel and in his classic essay "Shooting an Elephant" is of a bitterly lonely, alienated,
deeply unhappy man, despised and even loathed by his fellow British colonialists throughout
society and a ludicrous failure at his job.
This was not, however, the reality that "Larkin" uncovered. All surviving witnesses agreed
that Orwell – Eric Blair as he then still was – remained held in high regard during
his years in the colonial police service. He was a senior and efficient officer. Indeed it was
precisely his knowledge of crime, vice, murder and the general underside of human society
during his police colonial service while still in his 20s that gave him the street smarts,
experience, and moral authority to see through all the countless lies of right and left, of
American capitalists and British imperialists as well as European totalitarians for the rest of
his life.
The second revelation to throw light on what Orwell had to do in those years comes from one
of the most famous and horrifying scenes in "1984." Indeed, almost nothing even in the memoirs
of Nazi death camp survivors has anything like it: That is the scene where "O'Brien", the
secret police officer tortures the "hero" (if he can be called that) Winston Smith by locking
his face to a cage in which a starving rat is ready to pounce and devour him if it is
opened.
I remember thinking, when I was first exposed to the power of "1984" at my outstanding
Northern Irish school, "What kind of mind could invent something as horrific as that?") The
answer was so obvious that I like everyone else missed it entirely.
Orwell did not "invent" or "come up" with the idea as a fictional plot device: It was just a
routine interrogation technique used by the British colonial police in Burma, modern Myanmar.
Orwell never "brilliantly" invented such a diabolical technique of torture as a literary
device. He did not have to imagine it. It was routinely employed by himself and his colleagues.
That was how and why the British Empire worked so well for so long. They knew what they were
doing. And what they did was not nice at all.
A final step in my enlightenment about Orwell, whose writings I have revered all my life
– and still do – was provided by our alarmingly brilliant elder daughter about a
decade ago when she too was given "1984" to read as part of her school curriculum. Discussing
it with her one day, I made some casual obvious remark that Orwell was in the novel as Winston
Smith.
My American-raised teenager then naturally corrected me. "No, Dad, " she said. "Orwell isn't
Winston, or he's not just Winston. He's O'Brien too. O'Brien actually likes Winston. He doesn't
want to torture him. He even admires him. But he does it because it's his duty."
She was right, of course.
But how could Orwell the great enemy of tyranny, lies and torture so identify with and
understand so well the torturer? It was because he himself had been one.
"Emma Larkin's" great book brings out that Orwell as a senior colonial police officer in the
1920s was a leading figure in a ruthless war waged by the British imperial authorities against
drug and human trafficking crime cartels every bit as vicious and ruthless as those in modern
Ukraine, Columbia and Mexico today. It was a "war on terror" where anything and everything was
permitted to "get the job done."
The young Eric Blair was so disgusted by the experience that when he returned home he
abandoned the respectable middle class life style he had always enjoyed and became, not just an
idealistic socialist as many in those days did, but a penniless, starving tramp. He even
abandoned his name and very identity. He suffered a radical personality collapse: He killed
Eric Blair. He became George Orwell.
Orwell's early famous book "Down and Out in London and Paris" is a testament to how much he
literally tortured and humiliated himself in those first years back from Burma. And for the
rest of his life.
He ate miserably badly, was skinny and ravaged by tuberculosis and other health problems,
smoked heavily and denied himself any decent medical care. His appearance was always
abominable. His friend, the writer Malcolm Muggeridge speculated that Orwell wanted to remake
himself as a caricature of a tramp.
The truth clearly was that Orwell never forgave himself for what he did as a young agent of
empire in Burma. Even his literally suicidal decision to go to the most primitive, cold, wet
and poverty-stricken corner of creation in a remote island off Scotland to finish "1984" in
isolation before he died was consistent with the merciless punishments he had inflicted on
himself all his life since leaving Burma.
The conclusion is clear: For all the intensity of George Orwell's experiences in Spain, his
passion for truth and integrity, his hatred of the abuse of power did not originate from his
experiences in the Spanish Civil War. They all flowed directly from his own actions as an agent
of the British Empire in Burma in the 1920s: Just as his creation of the Ministry of Truth
flowed directly from his experience of working in the Belly of the Beast of the BBC in the
early 1940s.
George Orwell spent more than 20 years slowly committing suicide because of the terrible
crimes he committed as a torturer for the British Empire in Burma. We can therefore have no
doubt what his horror and disgust would be at what the CIA did under President George W. Bush
in its "Global War on Terror." Also, Orwell would identify at once and without hesitation the
real fake news flowing out of New York, Atlanta, Washington and London today, just as he did in
the 1930s and 1940s.
Let us therefore reclaim and embrace The Real George Orwell: The cause of fighting to
prevent a Third World War depends on it.
We are living in strange times indeed, this crisis raises many questions about the nature of
freedom and what our expectations are, or should be. Everyone has their own notions about what
freedom means and how far that should extend to oneself and indeed, to everyone else.
I want to start with a look at where we've come from before I look at where we are now, as I
feel it gives a better understanding of our definitions of freedom and a better context for
viewing where we are, at this moment in time.
Society probably started with the tribe – maybe not even having a leader if the
numbers where small enough, say 10 people. Tribes of scores or more obviously became hard to
manage and so, undoubtedly, this led to the idea of a leader or a group of leaders – a
chief, or a council of chiefs. Such a system seems to have worked well, so long as the chiefs
acted in the best interest of the tribe, and not in their own best interest. Tribes and early
kingdoms often had a mechanism for dealing with a poor leader – the symbolic marriage of
the leader to the land and the right to depose, or even execute, a leader that failed to live
up to expectations.
Such concepts of leadership are ancient but have survived in various places into the modern
era, including Ireland where I live. Although the practice associated with this custom is long
gone, knowledge of it remains vaguely in the public consciousness and more definitively in the
realms of scholarship and Celtic Neo-Paganism. However, societies across the globe began to
move beyond this cherished accountability millenia ago – with the rise of despotic
monarchy, something that still exists as an unfortunate anachronism even now.
As tribes grew into countries and countries grew into empires, monarchs became decreasingly
accountable to their citizens, or rather subjects – those who are subjugated. While many
monarchs felt an obligation, both 'divine' and moral to behave with care and responsibility,
others acted in pure self interest, free of any accountability for their actions. With the
backing a large army or, sizeable personal guard, it became increasing difficult to hold
monarchs accountable and one had to rely on goodwill in most cases, rather than
enforcement.
Of course, there have been countless deposing of monarchs, by the people or by rival
claimants, although the latter didn't always turn out to be beneficial. Probably the most
famous of these is that of Galus Julius Caesar, the Dictator for life of the final years of the
Roman Republic, who gave his name to the title Caesar, Czar and Keiser. He was brutally
murdered by Brutus (hence the word brutal) and we all know how that turned out the for Roman
Republic.
The republic itself was a form of democracy, based on an earlier model from Greece, a
civilization that had immense influence on Rome. Of course, Athenian democracy was nothing like
what we now regard as democracy. The right to decide how government was organised and what it
did fell to the hands of an elite group - demokratia , or "rule by the people" was only for
citizens and of these, only the men could vote. At the time (507 BC) this meant 40,000 men, out
of a much larger population, but in reality no more than about 5000 men could attend
assemblies, due to other commitments. Still, it was a ground-breaking step, so long as you
weren't a foreigner, criminal, woman, child or a slave.
It is from these Greek origins that we get the word democracy and the notion of rights and
freedom for all. Over time there have been variations on this model that have been tried out
– constitutional monarchies, republics, socialist states, fascist states and communist
states, which have varying levels of input for the masses. The masses might also be referred to
as 'plebeians' as the Romans liked to call ordinary folk, a corrupted form of which still
exists as a minor insult - pleb.
However, through most of recorded history, the most common system has been monarchy,
although one could hardly describe it as the most popular. Simpler than a democracy and easy to
enforce – notions such as corruption, fairness and accountability do not come into play,
as divine rule (e.g. the divine right of kings) gives the ruler carte blanche to do whatever
they god-damn like, unless their despotism provokes a revolt. Of course, revolt has happened,
from time to time, throughout history and one of the most famous ones is that of the barons in
England against king John.
The Magna Carta (Great Charter, of 1215) is considered by many as the bedrock of Western
civilization and democracy, despite the fact that it only gave limited concessions to a very
small number of nobles. It was a start at least, and perhaps enabled further inroads into the
monarchic monopoly on power. The Peasants' Revolt of 1381, against Richard II of England was a
major shift. Led by a commoner (Wat Tyler) it was a great embarrassment for Richard, who did
not have a standing army on hand. He was forced to pretend to negotiate with the rebels, who
camped at Blackheath, while he secretly ordered the Mayor of London to raise an army to
disperse and execute the protestors.
There are countless other examples of rebellion against monarchs across the world, but most
of them are forgotten. Perhaps the best remembered rebellion is that of the French paupers,
against the Bourbon monarchy and the entire aristocracy of France. This violent and
bloodthirsty revolution sent shudders of terror across the monarchies of the world and
precipitated a programme of reform, based on fear of similar events occurring.
Of course, some countries carried on regardless – Russia and America being
particularly sad examples, as Russia only abolished serfdom in 1861, while USA only abolished
slavery in 1865. One could justifiably say that the lives of these ordinary people, who were
now 'citizens' hardly improved as their freedom was pretty much nominal. This, in Russia, led
to the revolution of 1917, due to the intransigence of the Czar/Tsar (Caesar) Nicholai II
Alexandrovich Romanov II. The overthrow of the Russian system, inspired by the ideas of Marx
and Engels, led to a Bolshevik government headed by Vladimir Lenin. Whatever notions the
Soviets had, Lenin was a de facto Tzar in waiting and Stalin was certainly that, if not an
uncrowned heir to Ivan The Terrible.
Post World War II, we supposedly have a new age of democracy and freedom, but that only
applies to some. In truth, almost the whole world collection of governments has learned the art
of propaganda - thanks to the astounding upskilling efforts of the National Socialists (Nazis)
of Germany, who took this to new heights (or lows rather), turning it almost into an artform.
While we have been led to believe that we are free and democratic, we have never been more
exposed to lies and propaganda than we are now. The biggest lie of all is that we live in a
democracy, when in fact we actually only get to choose a new set of corrupt and self-serving
narcissists, every 4 or 5 years.
Democracies, the world over, have been bought – lobbyists have far more power than the
electorate could ever hope to achieve. What we in fact have is the illusion of democracy
– state agencies act without oversight, individuals have no say over the manifesto and
policies of parties in power and have no mechanism to undo or prevent undesirable actions by
governments. The only mechanisms available are the occasional referenda (instigated under
pressure), protest (peaceful or otherwise) and violent overthrow.
In most cases, the effort and risk of violent overthrow is considered too much for the
majority of people – it takes dire poverty, starvation and horrific coercion before the
'plebs' are pushed to the brink. Governments are aware of this and generally apply the 'boiling
frog' method of restricting people's freedoms and the removal of privacy and general rights.
However, they do on occasion overstep the mark or fail to adequately conceal their stealthy
nefarious actions – which inevitably leads to protest or insurrection.
History has proven that violent insurrection usually fails, but it is rather foolish of
authoritarian governments to take a gamble on this not happening. What is far more effective
for us 'plebs' is non-violent insurrection, in the form of non-compliance - this worked wonders
for both Gandhi and for Martin Luther-King, two of the most inspirational leaders of the 20th
century. Nelson Mandella is another fine example of someone who led a monumental change, in
South Africa, while also avoiding a catastrophic bloodbath, again through advocating of
non-violence and showing exceptional leadership skills.
At this moment in time, we are held hostage by a virus and the fear of what it might do to
humanity. While public safety has to be a priority, one has to ask the question – what is
this really about? Is this a manufactured crisis or is it is just opportunistic governments
capitalizing on their best chance to roll out new draconian measures? Temporary emergency
powers is one thing, but if there is no rollback after the crisis is over, what then? What if
the crisis is one without end – like George Orwell's perpetual war in his novel 1984?
We have come to expect freedom, we are told that we live in the 'free world' yet we see our
rights and freedoms and privacy being eroded by government legislation, corporate invasive
technology and data collection. Where do we draw the line? When do we say enough is enough?
Strangely, the same technology that enables our surveillance monitoring is also the most
powerful tool at our disposal. Internet and telecommunications enables us to share information,
just as the 'system' collects information about all of us. For many, it has opened our eyes
about government agendas, methods and operations as we now have unprecedented access to
worldwide information, often in real-time, or within minutes and hours of events happening.
Many believe that a new era of oppression is being rolled out, right now as we sit in our
homes, enabled by the high-power, high-speed and low latency 5G network, worldwide by a hidden
agency. Conspiracies aside, there are many questions to be asked about our rights, what our
freedoms should consist of and what the limits of government and corporate actions should be.
We need to ask those questions, we need to demand answers and show the 'powers that be' that
the thirst for true democracy is still alive and kicking. If we volunteer to be imprisoned or
to become our own jailors then there is no hope for humanity. As in the past, humanity needs to
assert itself, in order to remain free of despotism and it has never been more urgent than now.
Corny as it may be, the simplest way to express this is for me to repeat the words of the late
Bob Marley - "Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights!"
"... There is little doubt that the modern cult of power worship is bound up with the modern man's feeling that life here and now is the only life there is. If death ends everything, it becomes much harder to believe that you can be in the right even if you are defeated . I would say that the decay in the belief in personal immortality has been as important as the rise of machine civilization. ..."
"... Since society is held together by this myth system – the beliefs and values people live for and live by – that sustains it, societies have always had to offer symbolic "answers" to death. For without a meaningful symbolic for coming to terms with death, human action would be stymied and people would be reduced to what the psychiatrist Allan Wheelis termed "intense, preoccupying yearning." ..."
"... When leaders speak, the children hear the inner voices of their parents telling them to be careful, be very careful, the bogeyman is everywhere, so listen and obey. Freud, the Jewish atheist, and Dostoevsky, the Russian Orthodox Christian, were in agreement about people's desire to give up their freedom to authority figures who would allegedly shelter them within their warm embrace. ..."
"... The easiest way to do this is to convince people that death is stalking them, for the bogeyman is always death in one form or another. ..."
"... It works to get people to support the terrifying sadism of wars against fabricated "others, ..."
"... It works to get people to give up their freedoms out of fear of "terrorists," who are said to slide and hide in the interstices of everyday life, ready to pounce and kill at any moment. ..."
"... For the Grand Inquisitor represents those power elites across the world who wish to cower people into accepting their dicta on Covid-19 as truth without questioning its logic or rationale. ..."
"... The use of technology to control behaviour by denying holidays to people, denying promotions etc all based on credit scores and similar monitoring has to be seen by the wealthy as a model of what can be achieved by the combination of ruthless force and control over information. ..."
"... All are brainwashed from birth. Its not "capitalism" its is a parasitic banking cabals economy . ..."
"... When the education system has been designed to eliminate the use of critical thinking and the purveyors of propaganda control the vast majority of the MSM, academia plus the creation of a veneer of democracy, it is little wonder so many people have swallowed this lie. ..."
"... many who call themselves atheists worship science( but not science as knowledge as it originally meant) ..."
"... The cabal wants only their narrative( lies as the truth) they want the truth of who we are and that we are co creators in this world unknown to us . ..."
Since death is one idea that has no history except as an idea and not a reality any of us have experienced, it is the most frightening
idea there is and also quite simple. It is the ultimate unknown. It has always haunted human beings, whether consciously or unconsciously.
It lies at the root of war, violence, religion, art, love, and civilization. The good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly,
why we like to win and not lose, pass and not fail, "pass on" and not die. It is so funny and so sad. We would be lost without it,
even when we feel lost when thinking about it. And it is fundamental for understanding the action and reaction to Covid-19.
Societies have always been people banded together in the face of death. And since people are not just physical beings but symbolic
creatures who can think and imagine the past and the future, societies are necessarily mythic symbol systems whose job is not only
to protect people physically, but symbolically as well.
Sometimes, however, the protection is a protection racket with racketeers holding people hostage to fabricated fears that keep
them locked in a living-death.
Thus death, this most potent imaginative idea and reality that doesn't exist except as a mystery about which anything we say is
speculation, can be used for good and evil, depending on who controls society.
Death is the great fear, the human haunting that hangs by a thread over life like the sword of Damocles.
In 1944 in a newspaper column, George Orwell made an astute remark:
There is little doubt that the modern cult of power worship is bound up with the modern man's feeling that life here and now
is the only life there is. If death ends everything, it becomes much harder to believe that you can be in the right even if you
are defeated . I would say that the decay in the belief in personal immortality has been as important as the rise of machine civilization.
Beliefs, of course, like "personal immortality" and all others, such as the recent rise in the belief in atheism, which is as
much a belief as belief in God, are, partially at least, relative to time and place, and develop out of social storytelling. The
"hard facts" on which many feel their lives and security rest are themselves dependent upon the symbols which give them legitimacy.
Reality is indeed precarious with society suspended by a web of myths and symbols. It is through cultural and social symbol systems
that society's meaning is transmitted to individuals, and it is within the symbol systems that the control and release of action
resides.
In today's electronic mass media world, those who control the mass media that control the narrative flow – the storytelling –
control the majority's beliefs and actions.
Since society is held together by this myth system – the beliefs and values people live for and live by – that sustains it,
societies have always had to offer symbolic "answers" to death. For without a meaningful symbolic for coming to terms with death,
human action would be stymied and people would be reduced to what the psychiatrist Allan Wheelis termed "intense, preoccupying
yearning."
Today we can hear such yearning everywhere.
Shortly after Orwell made his prescient comment in The Tribune, nuclear weapons were developed and used by the United States to
kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. With those weapons and their use, the ages-old symbolic narrative of life
and death was transformed in a flash.
"The significance of the possibility of nuclear death is that it radically affects the meaning of death, of immortality,
of life itself," wrote Hans Morgenthau.
The traditional symbolic sources that once served to allow humans to transcend death were fundamentally undercut, and the search
for new modes of death transcendence was carried on beneath the portentous covering of the nuclear umbrella.
A qualitative transformation in the meaning of human existence was thus brought about as humans, who had the weapons, replaced
the belief in God as the holder of the power over life and death, since nuclear war could result in the extinction of human life,
leaving no one left to die.
This is our world today, and it is where the Covid-19 story takes place. A world not just of nuclear fear, but a host of other
fears constantly inflamed by the mass media that hypnotize people through the conjuring of death-fear.
In his great work on group psychology, Freud showed us how it was not just mental contagion and the herd instinct that got people
to join in group behavior. People could be induced to become little children and obey their leaders because they have "an extreme
passion for authority."
When leaders speak, the children hear the inner voices of their parents telling them to be careful, be very careful, the bogeyman
is everywhere, so listen and obey. Freud, the Jewish atheist, and Dostoevsky, the Russian Orthodox Christian, were in agreement about
people's desire to give up their freedom to authority figures who would allegedly shelter them within their warm embrace.
The easiest way to do this is to convince people that death is stalking them, for the bogeyman is always death in one form
or another.
It works to get people to support the terrifying sadism of wars against fabricated "others," who are always portrayed
as aliens who are out to kill the good people.
It works to get people to give up their freedoms out of fear of "terrorists," who are said to slide and hide in the interstices
of everyday life, ready to pounce and kill at any moment.
And it works to get people to obey orders to protect themselves from terrifying viruses that are lying in wait everywhere to strike
them dead.
In his novel The Brothers Karamazov , Dostoevsky said that people want miracles, mystery, and authority, not freedom. His
Grand Inquisitor, while a fictional creation, lives on in reality.
For the Grand Inquisitor represents those power elites across the world who wish to cower people into accepting their dicta
on Covid-19 as truth without questioning its logic or rationale.
To question has become an act of insubordination deserving death by censorship or the defiling of one's name via the term "conspiracy
theorist," a name used by the CIA to dismiss anyone questioning its murder of President Kennedy. Death comes in many forms, and the
fear of it has always been used by the powerful to render the common people speechless and obedient.
How can any thinking person, anyone not totally crippled by fear, not question what is going on with the coronavirus disaster
when reading what Peter Koenig, a thirty-year veteran economist of the World Bank and World Health Organization, writes in his article
The Farce and Diabolical Agenda
of a 'Universal Lockdown' :
The pandemic was needed as a pretext to halt and collapse the world economy and the underlying social fabric.
There is no coincidence. There were a number of preparatory events, all pointing into the direction of a worldwide monumental
historic disaster. It started at least 10 years ago – probably considerably earlier – with the infamous 2010 Rockefeller Report,
which painted the first phase of a monstrous Plan, called the "Lock Step" scenario. Among the last preparatory moves for the "pandemic"
was Event 201, held in NYC on 18 October 2019.
The event was sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the World
Economic Forum (WEF), the club of the rich and powerful that meets every January in Davos, Switzerland. Participating were a number
of pharmaceuticals (vaccine interest groups), as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s of the US and – of
China.
One of the objectives of Event 201 was a computer simulation of a corona virus pandemic. The simulated virus was called SARS-2-nCoV,
or later 2019-nCoV. The simulation results were disastrous, killing 65 million people in 18 months and plunging the stock market
by more than 30% -- causing untold unemployment and bankruptcies. Precisely the scenario of which we are now living the beginning.
The Lock Step scenario foresees a number of ghastly and disturbing events or components of The Plan to be implemented by the so
called Agenda ID2020, a Bill Gates creation, fully integrated into the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) – target date for
completion – 2030 (also called Agenda 2030, the hidden agenda unknown to most of the UN members), the same target date for completion
of the Agenda ID02020.
I ask the question but I am afraid I know the answer: miracle, mystery, and authority usually defeat evidence and simple logic.
Fear of death and free thought scare children. The Grand Inquisitor lives on:
But man seeks to bow before that only which is recognized by the greater majority, if not by all his fellow-men, as having
a right to be worshipped; whose rights are so unquestionable that men agree unanimously to bow down to it.
Death: A simple idea with such a powerful punch.
JoeC ,
It isn't just about the fear of death. It's also the fear of being responsible for the death of others. It's no accident that
they've chosen a contagion as our imaginary enemy. We become the visible enemy if we refuse to wear face masks, abide social distance,
wash our hands every 30 seconds or refuse a vaccine when it comes to it etc etc. Hence the laws that will follow. We will soon
be public enemy number one. The new terrorists. I'm not scared of dying but I'm petrified of being persecuted for not believing
this shit. What sort of life is that?
a belief. The author adds his on baggage to an otherwise lucid
article, which rather diminishes the other truths he mentions ?
BigB ,
Excellent stuff, with plenty to think about as usual. As a proviso: Ed's sociology and ethnography needs tightening up though.
The big cultural repertoire of myths and symbols has a name; several names actually nomos, Weltanschauung, Weltansicht (cosmographic
worldview or wide world sight), and *sensus communis* (the consensual common sense). Which is the consensus of views everyone
shares.
The last is from Giambattista Vico: who also said: "Verum esse ipsum factum" ("What is true is precisely what is made [up]").
Which is the verum-factum principle of worldviews. The ideal eternal cosmological history is subjectively made up, culturally
constructed, as a consensually maintained worldbuilding and world-maintaining mythological storytelling.
To which the individual is socialised not once – from birth through education – not twice – in the workforce – but continually
as a process of cultural individuality making. Which is not all one way, top-down traffic of obedience and control – but a reflexive
and causal circularity. The big bunch of historically specific myths and symbols make and maintain the person: just as the person
makes and maintains the big bunch of historically specific myths as a consensually maintained worldbuilding and world-maintaining
mythological storytelling. The individual self is itself a cultural constructivism.
It cannot be any other way: otherwise there can be no common ground for communication and there is only communication. Or participatory
sense-making: no one can have their own language or behavioural repertoire maintained far from the socially regulated consensus
and continue to make sense. Maintaining the dictionary definition of words (intension) and the encyclopaedic repertoire of social
norms and modes of behaviour is critical to the meaning of the overall order. And there is only the order. Very uneasy order.
The individual finds themselves historically situated in the ordinate nexus of thinking, speaking, and acting in a constrained,
shared, and lawfully regulated landscape of language, culture, society, state and market economy. There is no 'outside': except
for the retreat into solipsism and ahistoric flights of imagination. We make our own history: but not autonomously and not in
circumstances of our own choosing.
Cultural construction and reproduction – and the worldview maintainence of socially constructed reality – is a permanent process.
Following the basic processes of social constructivism – as laid out by Berger and Luckman. Which are: habitualisation by subjectivated
externalisation and reification by objectivated internalisation as a recurrent, resonant, and reflexive lifelong process.
We are part of the tissue and fabric of socially constructed reality. And socially constructed reality is part of the tissue
and fabric of us: the flesh of the cultural worldview.
Of course: the biggest lie of the principle of cultural constructivist storytelling is that what is told is naturally objective,
true, and real. And some of it is lawfully authoritative (like this old computer epidemiology model I had lying around). Which
is what gives the story its universal regulative ordinate control and constative overpower.
I mean, who would want to self-admit they were regurgitating institutionalised and habitualised false beliefs and mistaken
abstractive assumptions about the objective nature of things that were just a bunch of made up and recycled socialisation and
pacification rites of a cultural constructivist performance?
Truth, self, and social reality itself is constructed by such rites.
And what if the nomos – the ordered and naturalised ordinate principle – which is a cultures own talisman against chaos, indiscipline,
and made up shite about virology turns out to be chaotic, restrictive, petrifying and rapidly fossilising as a permanent order
of fascising bollox and corporatist control?
If the fossilising order is worse than the disorder it symbolically wards off and guards against: and the culturally created
fear of death worse than the natural process of dying then what?
Is it better that the institutionalised and institutionalising lawful ordering is in principle false and an unjust draconian
social realism? Or that it is objective, rational, and scientifically real? And eternally and universally valid?
What if a society had been rationalised and institutionalised into a universal analytical reasoning, an empiric objectivity,
a historically contingent subjectivity, and a nomological scientific principle that were in fact falsely constructed? And just
habitually and consensually maintained as a lawful, juridical, and regulatory idealism of an eternally natural cosmological order?
Which just happened to turn out to be totalitarian fascistic co-participatory dumbfuckerry?
That culture would find itself in a headfuck situation of a nomological breakdown of its worldview and its interwoven individual
identities most of which would want to shelter in the pretence of being ahistorically situated outside of language, culture, and
thought in a nomological no mans land. Which is exactly the abnegation of cultural creativity that precipitated the meaning crisis
and breakdown of order.
I'm so glad I do not live in such a culture. That would indeed be terrifying.
😱 😱 😱 😱 😱
aspnaz ,
An interesting article that reminds me of the difference between westerners and the mainland Chinese whom I believe are the model
that will used to create the future world.
I am not talking about communism, the Chinese gave up communism ages ago, they are now the world's premier imperialists, using
capitalism to drive their influence across the globe. But their control over people is surely the model aspired to by any person
wanting to rule the world.
The use of technology to control behaviour by denying holidays to people, denying promotions etc all based on credit scores
and similar monitoring has to be seen by the wealthy as a model of what can be achieved by the combination of ruthless force and
control over information.
The response of the Chinese to the virus – the lockdown – was seen in the west as China caring for its people, but here in
HK it is still commonly seen as China panicking because it thought that the people would be afraid and would turn on the government
for not protecting them. It was riot control, not virus control, hence the arrest of people spreading virus rumours.
tonyopmoc ,
Edward Curtin, what you wrote is completely brilliant, in the few minutes it took me to read it, you took me through the vastness
of time, and my entire physical and spiritual existence. thank you. tony
Hugh O'Neill ,
Another thought-provoking article, Ed. I was reminded of four quotes:
1. G.K. Chesterton: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing; he believes in anything"
2. On the dropping of the first atomic bomb, Oppenheimer quoted from Hindu scripture: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of
worlds"
3. JFK's favourite poem was Alan Seeger's "I have a rendezvous with death". Seeger died in 1916
4. Whatever the merits of the poem, JFK was no stranger to death. Likewise, he had adopted Lincoln's prayer: "I know there is
a God – and I see a storm coming. If he has a place for me, I believe that I am ready."
Edward, how people can be so easily fooled is an age old question. One hundred years ago they queued up to be slaughtered in the
trenches. It was all so senseless it was beyond belief.
"Over the top lads, for King and Country" (the Black Adder comedy programme really captured this).
I'm not sure what else I can say about the stupidity of the human race.
We are at this point again, and people need to fecking wake-up.
Richard Le Sarc ,
People in the West are brainwashed from birth. They have NO idea that the capitalist system is incompatible with Life on Earth,
that it is a form of cancer, that the USA is the greatest force for Evil in history and that businessmen, politicians, MSM presstitutes
are psychopaths at best, dullards and ignoramuses at best. And the worst are those that deny death in belief in various 'Gods'
who all hate each other and compel them to kill and destroy in his name. The system is collapsing, and that is finally dawning
on the brain-dead 'consumers', who will now proceed to consume one another.
All are brainwashed from birth.
Its not "capitalism" its is a parasitic banking cabals economy .
Its a monopoly you've just always believed as a debt slave its capitalism and you're free.
They are resetting it, those that understand the minds of the manchild.
Good stuff Edward,
Most of the 'plan' has been on these boards for months- the one missing is Whitney Webbs latest which exposes the dumb fucks plan
to close the 'AI Gap with China'.
'THEY' have never let a good crises go to waste to further their agenda and plans.
Another old adage is about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time.
Death and politicians and media narrative control can also lose their grip. It starts by laughing at them. It's started:
THEY will not succeed this time – the narrative is a shattering mirror, that reveals their plans – the BS isn't sticking any
more.
crank ,
Confronting our exaggerated fear of dying is the only way out of this prison.
Thanks for this article Edward.
John Deehan ,
When the education system has been designed to eliminate the use of critical thinking and the purveyors of propaganda control
the vast majority of the MSM, academia plus the creation of a veneer of democracy, it is little wonder so many people have swallowed
this lie.
Doug Stillborn ,
The cabal beleives that the truth is irrelevant and that whatever appears to you as truth is what is true to you and the only truth.
This is false. The truth is not relative. Einstein knew this and said, time is an illusion albeit a persistent one. If you propagate
the idea of atheism and science what you are actually doing is you are relinquishing any responsibility/accountability.
I don't think so Doug . The ideas of " atheism and science " are out there.
But what has happened is that many who call themselves atheists worship science( but not science as knowledge as it originally
meant) so its mostly theories taken a facts, pseudoscience.
Agree though that time is an illusion.
The cabal wants only their narrative( lies as the truth) they want the truth of who we are and that we are co creators in this
world unknown to us .
1. "The US political culture is that 99.99% of Americans will believe literally ANY lie,
no matter how self-evidently stupid, about the rest of the world rather than accepting any
unpleasant truth about the US. "
2. "Eventually, and inevitably, this strategic PSYOP upped the ante and FOXnews
(logically) aired this true masterpiece: "Sen. Hawley: Let coronavirus victims sue Chinese
Communist Party". Truly, this is brilliant. "I lost my job, let the evil Chinese commies pay
me back" is music to the ears of most Americans."
This is what Anglo-Zionist religious/political culture produces. And it is not restricted
to jingoistic blaming of the peoples of other nations; it also features blaming those who are
citizens of the nation but are more outsiders to the WASP Elites that the group doing the
blaming. That pattern keeps the non-Elites from ever seeing that their enemy is the
national/imperial Elite they serve.
For example, the horrors the Brit WASP Elites and their system inflicted on Lancashire
factory workers would have made any real life Simon Legree giddy at the possibilities. And
those abused masses could be counted on at every turn to retard their own demands any time
the Elites could turn the conversation to how the Irish or Highlanders would come in and take
their jobs for even less and ruin their delightful communities. Or how the evil empires on
the Continent were causing trouble and to save lives of British soldiers the factory workers
must be reasonable.
Orwellian fiction is steeped deeply in the actual ways that WASP Empire operates to grind
its own citizens and ue them as mindless pawns to make Anglo-Zionist Elites ever richer, ever
more entrenched in power.
1984 and Animal Farm get the attention, but Homage to Catalonia - Orwell's non-fiction on
the Spanish Civil War - might be his best. Wow, did he hate reporters: "It was the first time
that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies -- unless one counts
journalists..."
Alex Berenson 4:34 PM - 18 Apr 2020
2/ And this: "I do not suppose I should exaggerate if I said that nine-tenths of it is
untruthful. Nearly all the newspaper accounts published at the time were manufactured by
journalists at a distance, and were not only inaccurate in their facts but intentionally
misleading..."
Alex Berenson 4:37 PM - 18 Apr 2020
3/ I guess one might say that the groupthink and lies Orwell saw in Spain *informed* his
writing in 1984 - which was published in 1949, 11 years after Homage to Catalonia. Apropos of
nothing, of course.
Okay, I'll be adding this book to my list of books to read after I graduate and take my
big exam.
B Ekdahl 5:06 PM - 18 Apr 2020
The part of that book that I've thought of
with hope during this chillling time is how Orwell noted that the Spanish were incompetent
even with fascism. Let's hope that US is even more incompetent.
R.R. Reno 5:30 PM - 18 Apr 2020
I don't think we can underestimate how many reporters have been so panicked that only a
few are outside their homes in New York reporting on what's actually happening.
1984 and Animal Farm get the attention, but Homage to Catalonia - Orwell's non-fiction on
the Spanish Civil War - might be his best. Wow, did he hate reporters: "It was the first time
that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies--unless one counts
journalists..."
Will 6:27 PM - 18 Apr 2020
If you haven't heard of Udo Ulfkotte's story, you should check it out: https://www. paulcraigroberts.org/2019/10/14/jou
rnalists-are-prostitutes/ His initiation into big time media was watching fellow
reporters pour gasoline on burnt up tanks & film it, replete w/ soldier actors, like war
was happening. Audio tracks added later.
"... This is the problem with the Democrats. You might be interested in class issues, and economic equality, and not at all interested in wokeness. But what you're going to get is wokeness, because that is what the power-holding class in the Democratic Party really cares about. As James Lindsay, the left-liberal professor who does heroic work fighting wokeness, told me in our recent interview: ..."
"... Of course [Social Justice Warriors] going to find ways to use this crisis to their advantage. They go around inventing problems or dramatically exaggerating or misinterpreting small problems to push their agenda; why wouldn't they do the same in a situation where there's so much chaos and thus so much going wrong. My experience so far is that people are really underestimating how much of this there will be and how much of it will be institutionalized while we're busy doing other things like tending to the sick and dying and trying not to lose our livelihoods and/or join them ourselves. ..."
"... It's very important to understand that "Critical Social Justice" isn't just activism and some academic theories about things. It's a way of thinking about the world, and that way is rooted in critical theory as it has been applied mostly to identity groups and identity politics ..."
Might Orwell's sensitive nose have detected a whiff of cant anywhere on the contemporary left? I suspect he would have cast
a baleful eye on identity politics. He would, I think, be dubious about "diversity." Why do every college and corporation in America
have a fleet of "diversity" officers? What is gained by ensuring -- at enormous expense -- that every student or employee is proud
of his/her culture and that every other student or employee respects it? According to Walter Benn Michaels in The Trouble with
Diversity, what is gained is the avoidance of class conflict. "The commitment to diversity is at best a distraction and at worst
an essentially reactionary position . We would much rather celebrate cultural diversity than seek to establish economic equality."
Orwell was moderately obsessed with class. He would probably have noted that the explosive growth of inequality in the United
States over the past four decades has closely paralleled the explosive growth of the diversity industry, and would have drawn
some conclusions. He might have asked: If there were two societies with the same Gini coefficient, but in one of them, the proportion
of billionaires by race and gender matched that of the general population, would that society be morally better than the other?
Or: If the ratio of CEO to median employee earnings was the same in two societies, but in one of them the proportion of CEOs by
race and gender matched that of the general population, would that society be morally better than the other? I'm pretty sure that
most diversity bureaucrats would answer "yes" to both questions, and that Orwell would have answered "no."
Orwell was fearless, so a tribute to him shouldn't pull any punches. I think he would suggest that there was something irrational
about the way we enforce our most sensitive taboo: the N-word. From the wholesale banning of Huckleberry Finn to the many times
teachers and civil servants have been censured, and in one case fired, for using the word "niggardly" (which has no etymological
relation to the N-word) to the resignation under pressure recently of a Cambridge, Massachusetts, school committeewoman for using
the N-word in a discussion of a proposed high-school course about the N-word, we have often made fools of ourselves and done disadvantaged
African Americans no good. As the school superintendent summarized the Cambridge case: the committeewoman "made a point about
racist language and used the full N-word instead of the common substitute, 'N-word.' Although said in the context of a classroom
discussion, and not directed to any student or adult present, the full pronunciation of the word was upsetting to a number of
students and adults who were present or who have since heard about the incident." No one, however, as far as I am aware, has publicly
expressed hurt feelings over the fact that the average net worth of African Americans in the Boston area is $8. (Eight, no zeros.)
As Benn Michaels observes: "As long as the left continues to worry about [respect], the right won't have to worry about inequality."
I wrote earlier today about actually existing conservatism being more of a "folk libertarianism" than anything resembling philosophical
conservatism. But what about actually existing liberalism?
The surprising triumph of Joe Biden, the most normie Democrat in America, tells us something about actually existing liberalism.
Illiberal progressivism dominates in academia, the media, and in corporate America's human resources departments. A reader sends
in this abstract from a paper published by a Penn professor at the Ivy League university's Wharton School of Business (Trump's alma
mater!) in which she argues that the state should
forbid identity-based discrimination but permit refusals of service for projects that foster hate toward protected groups,
even where the hate-based project is intimately linked to a protected characteristic (as with religious groups that mandate white
supremacy). Far from perpetuating discrimination, these refusals instead promote anti-discrimination norms, and they help realize
the vision of the morally inflected marketplace that the Article defends.
You could say that Biden's (not yet assured) victory in the Democratic primaries shows that actually existing liberalism is much
less interested in wokeness than in bread-and-butter issues. After all, the more self-consciously woke candidates in the Democratic
race didn't get anywhere. I would like to read it that way. But would Biden actually stand up to any wokeness? After all, this is
the man who tweeted:
Let's be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise when it comes to
basic human rights.
This is the problem with the Democrats. You might be interested in class issues, and economic equality, and not at all interested
in wokeness. But what you're going to get is wokeness, because that is what the power-holding class in the Democratic Party really
cares about. As James Lindsay, the left-liberal professor who does heroic work fighting wokeness, told me
in our recent interview:
Of course [Social Justice Warriors] going to find ways to use this crisis to their advantage. They go around inventing
problems or dramatically exaggerating or misinterpreting small problems to push their agenda; why wouldn't they do the same in
a situation where there's so much chaos and thus so much going wrong. My experience so far is that people are really underestimating
how much of this there will be and how much of it will be institutionalized while we're busy doing other things like tending to
the sick and dying and trying not to lose our livelihoods and/or join them ourselves.
It's very important to understand that "Critical Social Justice" isn't just activism and some academic theories about things.
It's a way of thinking about the world, and that way is rooted in critical theory as it has been applied mostly to identity groups
and identity politics. Thus, not only do they think about almost nothing except ways that "systemic power" and "dominant
groups" are creating all the problems around us, they've more or less forgotten how to think about problems in any other way.
The underlying assumption of their Theory–and that's intentionally capitalized because it means a very specific thing–is that
the very fabric of society is built out of unjust systemic power dynamics, and it is their job (as "critical theorists") to find
those, "make them visible," and then to move on to doing it with the next thing, ideally while teaching other people to do it
too. This crisis will be full of opportunities to do that, and they will do it relentlessly. So, it's not so much a matter of
them "finding a way" to use this crisis to their advantage as it is that they don't really do anything else.
To be honest, I don't have a lot of confidence in predictions about what valence wokeness (or right-wing culture war
themes) will have in this fall's election, given the economic destruction upon us now. I do have confidence, though, that if the
left gets into power, this professional class of woke activists will march triumphantly through the institutions of government,
and implement their identity-politics utopianism. Do I think that most Democratic voters do, or would, favor that? No, probably
not. I imagine they would be voting Democratic primarily to oust Trump, and secondarily because they are more interested in
income inequality...
If Orwell were alive today and writing with his superlative critical pen about them, he would struggle
to find publication in one of our major liberal journals.
UPDATE: Just now:
I'm sure Critical Social Justice isn't quietly reorganizing things that might matter because of the pandemic Or so I keep being
told. https://t.co/LEzvjqbu2B
-- James Lindsay, staying home (@ConceptualJames)
March 31, 2020
Rod Dreher is a senior editor at The American Conservative . He has written and edited for the New York Post , The Dallas
Morning News , National Review , the South Florida Sun-Sentinel , the Washington Times , and the Baton Rouge Advocate . Rod's commentary
has been published in The Wall Street Journal , Commentary , the Weekly Standard , Beliefnet, and Real Simple, among other publications,
and he has appeared on NPR, ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the BBC. He lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with his wife Julie
and their three children. He has also written four books, The Little Way of Ruthie Leming , Crunchy Cons , How Dante Can Save Your
Life , and The Benedict Option
We is set in the future. D-503, a spacecraft engineer, lives in the One State,[3] an urban nation constructed almost entirely of
glass, which assists mass surveillance. The structure of the state is Panopticon-like, and life is scientifically managed F. W.
Taylor-style. People march in step with each other and are uniformed. There is no way of referring to people except by their given
numbers. The society is run strictly by logic or reason as the primary justification for the laws or the construct of the
society.[4][5] The individual's behaviour is based on logic by way of formulas and equations outlined by the One State.[6]
Francis Lee ,
Sounds very much like Yevgeny Zamyatin – We . But we never thought it would
happen!
In the case of "Brave New World", the establishment knows how to cure pretty much any
conventional disease. Then if you're in approved society you die around age 60 because of
everything that's kept you alive and looking like 40.
I just read the book last month for the first time in 30+ years. It does belong on that
diagram. And "1984" doesn't either, since it really doesn't deal with anything like
infectious diseases--reread that about 2 years ago.
I've not read the other 2 outer books ever, but the movie of "Fahrenheit 451", which I just
watched and Bradbury certainly had a hand in writing, has nothing to do with infectious
disease.
There might be something in Camus' "The Plague" though. Haven't read that since the
1980s.
There aren't food shortages so not sure about the "Soylent Green" reference, yet at least.
"Long's Run" is about killing people off at age 35, which I guess overlaps with "kill 80% of
the poor workers", something the likes of Charles Koch certainly supports. So indirectly
there could be a "Logan's Run" connection.
Gattica is just about favored people with the right genes, so an update of "Brave New
World", without the highly literate "savage" as the main character.
I don't see how "The Matrix" relates, that's more about the material world's completeness
being an illusion.
"Clockwork Orange?" A thug suppressed with mind control?
Haven't read "Lord of the Flies", but don't the kids worship a god of the island, and
justify the horrors they commit based on that conception of god or a god?
The "social" is "social media" is in contrast to "professional" or "business" or
"commercial" media, i.e. the MSM and other commercial media.
I understand "social media" literally in the Orwellian sense, it is "social" media just like
war is peace. The true meaning is "asocial media" which prevents real interaction, and under
complete control by big brother, you can become a non-person at any moment.
Totalitarian ideologies live by lies and contradiction. For example, the slave-state of
North Korea , ruled by
a hereditary dictatorship, proclaims itself a Democratic People's Republic when it is neither
democratic, popular, nor a republic.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four , Orwell wrote of how "the names of the
four Ministries by which [the oppressed population is] governed exhibit a sort of impudence in
their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the
Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with
starvation.
These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary
hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink ."
Defending the death-machine
You could, then, call GCHQ and the NSA part of the Ministry of Morality. While breaking laws
against surveillance and trying to destroy freedom of expression and enquiry, they pretend that
they're caring, ethical organizations who defend the oppressed and want to build a better
world. In fact, of course, GCHQ and the NSA are defending the death-machine of the military-industrial
complex , which has been wrecking nations and slaughtering civilians in
the Middle East (and elsewhere ) for
decades.
Quote: Orwell didn't foresee the celebration of homosexuality by totalitarians, but he did
explain it.
If you read Anthony Burgess' The Wanting Seed he writes about the roles of gays in
dystopia. He also talks about race, two things that Orwell and Huxley didn't. The Wanting
Seed is just as important in the world of dystopia as Brave New World or 1984.
one way George Orwell got the future completely wrong
That assumes he was writing about the future. He was mocking the Soviet "justice" system
in the recent past. The man was a satirist, after all. How did Stalin's men treat sexual
deviation?
1) The iniquities of the members of one skyfairy cult are not evidence for the virtues of
another such organisation and never will be.
2) It seems likely to me that homosexuality is a feature of overpopulation and may be a
natural population control mechanism. Experiments have shown that rats kept in overcrowded
conditions exhibit homosexual tendencies and also become more violent towards other rats. I
doubt that it is purely a coincidence that homosexuality first became notable round about the
time that humans started living in cities.
Other species have means of controlling their
populations, rabbits for example can reabsorb their embryos if the population count is too
high, seals can freeze the development of their foetuses etc.
I see no rational purpose in demonising homosexuals and I am certainly not going to let the purveyors of ancient
superstitious claptrap do my thinking for me. Cue howls of outrage from both skyfairy
cultists and from queers (if they are happy to use the word I don't see why I shouldn't)
3) It seems to me that the Zionist bankers have essentially bankrupted the western world
in an attempt to bring the rest of the world under their control, they have failed. They are
now attempting to mobilise any and all sections of the population that identify as minorities
as allies against the majorities in those countries, importing as many more as they can get
away with. What sense does it make to reinforce their narrative that it is heterosexual
whites v everyone else? because that is exactly what some people are doing. The Zionists are
making their following as broad as possible while attempting to narrow ours, why play into
their hands? Opposition to immigration for example does not have to be presented as a racial
issue, many people here in the UK were opposed to mass immigration from eastern Europe on
purely economic grounds, Poles and Lithuanians are not a different race and hardly even a
different culture. Do you really think that Blacks and Latinos that have been in the US for
generations are uniformly delighted about a new influx of cheap labour? Do you really believe
that Muslims are the natural allies of Jews or of homosexuals? If you actually put some
thought into the struggle rather than relying on superstitious claptrap and bigotry you might
be able to start pushing back.
So, Western civilization is going to collapse because of a few fairies & fag
hags?
Yes, it looks as if it will collapse. Not because the fairies and fag hags are
all-powerful, but because we have had it so good & easy for so long that we've gotten
weaker than any determined, focused fairy or hag.
Leftism in general, which I characterize as a mass adoption of a "mental map" (the gross
oversimplification of infinite reality people use to navigate their lives) highly estranged
from underlying reality, is Nature's "suicide switch" for an organism that has grossly
overgrown its ecological niche.
Today people believe palpably unreal things, in incredibly large numbers, with incredibly
deep fervor. The poster-child is the belief in the efficacy of magical incantations (statute
legislation) to change Actual Reality. If "we" want to end racism (however we define it in
the Newspeak Dictionary) then we just pass a law and "pow!" it's gone. (When that doesn't
work, we pass another law, and another and another and another, always expecting a different
result.)
Ditto the banking (and monetary) system. Money used to be basically a "receipt" for
actually having something IN HAND to take to the market and engage in trade. This was the
essence of Say's Law, "in order to consume (buy something) you must first produce."
Some clever Machiavellians figured out that if you could "complexify" and obscure the
monetary system enough, you could obtain the legal right to create from thin air the
ability to enter that market and buy something, which stripped to its essence is the crime of
fraud.
Banking has been an open fraud for a very long time, certainly since the era of naked fiat
money was introduced in the 1960's. But as long as everyone went along with the gag, and
especially once Credit Bubble Funny Money started fueling a debt orgy and rationalizing an
asset price mania, everyone thought "we could all get rich."
Today we have vast claims on real wealth (real wealth is productive land, productive plant
& equipment and capital you can hold in your hands, so to speak.) But we have uncountable
claims on each unit of real capital. The Machiavellians think that they will end up holding
title to it all, when the day comes to actually make an honest accounting. I suspect that
they lack the political power to pull that off, but only time will tell.
When this long, insane boom is reconciled, a lot of productive capital will turn out to be
nothing but vaporware and rusting steel. Entire industries arose to cater to
credit-bubble-demand, and when the bubble eventually ceases to inflate, demand in (and the
capital applied to) those industries will collapse. How many hospitals do you need when no
one has the money to pay for their services, and the tax base has burned to the ground?
Simple formula. Liberalism was the defense of the individual against the group.
All one needs to do is a simple substitution. Minorities , environment , animals etc are a
means by witch one can make individuals into the institutionalized oppressor. Even better is
the so called intersectional mini oppressions which make nearly all victims which in turns
makes all guilty. State intervention must increase .Guilty people , as all religions of the
world understand, are easily dominated and controlled.
The power the individual is destroyed by its own momentum.
@Digital Samizdat The Bolsheviks first pushed "free love" – easy divorce, abortion
and homosexuality. There even was serious discussion about whether or not to abolish
marriage. They reversed themselves and by the time WWII broke out, the official culture of
the Soviet Union was more socially conservative than that of the US. Even in the 1980s, the
Commies were tough on gays, lesbians and druggies.
The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert
academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is
Neo-Orwellian.
"Nadler's committee will likely vote to impeach Trump. In a report defining what it
considers impeachable offenses, the committee states that even if Trump did not actually
break any laws in his supposed "quid pro quo" dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky, he can still be impeached for his unstated motives.
"The question is not whether the president's conduct could have resulted from
permissible motives. It is whether the president's real reasons, the ones in his mind at the
time, were legitimate, " it stated."
"... Finally, the Thought Police were also inspired by the human struggle for self-honesty and the pressure to conform. "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe," Rudyard Kipling once observed. ..."
"... The struggle to remain true to one's self was also felt by Orwell, who wrote about "the smelly little orthodoxies" that contend for the human soul. Orwell prided himself with a "power of facing unpleasant facts" -- something of a rarity in humans -- even though it often hurt him in British society. ..."
"... In a sense, 1984 is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power. ..."
"... The new Thought Police may be less sinister than the ThinkPol in 1984 , but the next generation will have to decide if seeking conformity of thought or language through public shaming is healthy or suffocating. FEE's Dan Sanchez recently observed that many people today feel like they're "walking on eggshells" and live in fear of making a verbal mistake that could draw condemnation. ..."
"... When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi , East Germany's secret police, had a full-time staff of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what's frightening is that the organization had almost double that in informants, including children. And it wasn't just children reporting on parents; sometimes it was the other way around." ..."
"... Movies like the Matrix actually helped people to question everything. What is real and not. Who is the enemy, and can we be sure. And when Conspiracy theories become fact, people learn. The problem is in later generations who get indoctrinated at school and college to not think, not question. Rational examination is forbidden. ..."
There are a lot of unpleasant things in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 . Spying screens. Torture and propaganda. Victory
Gin and Victory Coffee always sounded particularly dreadful. And there is Winston Smith's varicose ulcer,
apparently a symbol of his humanity (or something),
which always seems to be "throbbing." Gross.
None of this sounds very enjoyable, but it's not the worst thing in 1984 . To me, the most terrifying part was that you couldn't
keep Big Brother out of your head.
Unlike other 20th-century totalitarians, the authoritarians in 1984 aren't that interested in controlling behavior or speech.
They do, of course, but it's only as a means to an end. Their real goal is to control the gray matter between the ears.
"When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will," O'Brien (the bad guy) tells the protagonist Winston Smith
near the end of the book.
We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture
his inner mind, we reshape him.
Big Brother's tool for doing this is the Thought Police, aka the ThinkPol, who are assigned to root out and punish unapproved
thoughts. We see how this works when Winston's neighbor Parsons, an obnoxious Party sycophant, is reported to the Thought Police
by his own child, who heard him commit a thought crime while talking in his sleep.
"It was my little daughter," Parsons tells Winston when asked who it was who denounced him.
"She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a
nipper of seven, eh?"
Who Are These Thought Police?
We don't know a lot about the Thought Police, and some of what we think we know may actually not be true since some of what Winston
learns comes from the Inner Party, and they lie.
What we know is this: The Thought Police are secret police of
Oceania -- the fictional land
of 1984 that probably consists of the UK, the Americas, and parts of Africa -- who use surveillance and informants to monitor the
thoughts of citizens. The Thought Police also use psychological warfare and false-flag operations to entrap free thinkers or nonconformists.
Those who stray from Party orthodoxy are punished but not killed. The Thought Police don't want to kill nonconformists so much
as break them. This happens in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love, where prisoners are re-educated through degradation and torture.
(Funny sidebar: the name Room 101
apparently was inspired by a conference room at the BBC in which Orwell was forced to endure tediously long meetings.)
The Origins of the Thought Police
Orwell didn't create the Thought Police out of thin air. They were inspired to at least some degree by
his experiences in
the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), a complicated and
confusing affair. What you really need to know is that there were no good guys, and it ended with left-leaning anarchists and Republicans
in Spain crushed by their Communist overlords, which helped the fascists win.
Orwell, an idealistic 33-year-old socialist when the conflict started, supported the anarchists and loyalists fighting for the
left-leaning Second Spanish Republic, which received most of its support from the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. (That might sound
bad, but keep in mind that the Nazis were on the other side.) Orwell described the atmosphere in Barcelona in December 1936 when
everything seemed to be going well for his side.
The anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing ... It was the first time
that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle,
he wrote in Homage to Catalonia.
[E]very wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle ... every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized.
That all changed pretty fast. Stalin, a rather paranoid fellow, was bent on making Republican Spain loyal to him . Factions and
leaders perceived as loyal to his exiled Communist rival, Leon
Trotsky , were liquidated. Loyal Communists found themselves denounced as fascists. Nonconformists and "uncontrollables" were
disappeared.
Orwell never forgot the
purges or the steady stream of lies and propaganda churned out from Communist papers during the conflict. (To be fair, their Nationalist
opponents also used propaganda
and lies .) Stalin's NKVD was not exactly like the Thought Police
-- the NKVD showed less patience with its victims --
but they certainly helped inspire Orwell's secret police.
The Thought Police were not all propaganda and torture, though. They also stem from Orwell's ideas on truth. During his time in
Spain, he saw how power could corrupt truth, and he shared these reflections in his work
George Orwell: My Country Right or Left, 1940-1943 .
...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.
In short, Orwell's brush with totalitarianism left him
worried that "the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world."
This scared him. A lot. He actually wrote, "This kind of thing is frightening to me."
Finally, the Thought Police were also inspired by the human struggle for self-honesty and the pressure to conform. "The individual
has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe," Rudyard Kipling once observed.
The struggle to remain true to one's self was also felt by Orwell, who
wrote about "the smelly little orthodoxies" that contend for the human soul. Orwell prided himself with a "power of facing unpleasant
facts" -- something of a rarity in humans -- even though it often hurt him in British society.
In a sense, 1984 is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.
It might be tempting to dismiss Orwell's book as a figment of dystopian literature. Unfortunately, that's not as easy as it sounds.
Modern history shows he was onto something.
When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany's secret police, had a full-time
staff of 91,000.
When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that
the Stasi , East Germany's secret police, had a full-time staff
of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what's frightening is that the organization had almost double that in informants,
including children. And it wasn't just children reporting on parents;
sometimes
it was the other way around.
Nor did the use of state spies to prosecute thoughtcrimes end with the fall of the Soviet Union. Believe it or not, it's still
happening today. The New York Times recently ran
a report featuring one Peng
Wei, a 21-year-old Chinese chemistry major. He is one of the thousands of "student information officers" China uses to root out professors
who show signs of disloyalty to President Xi Jinping or the Communist Party.
The New Thought Police?
The First Amendment of the US Constitution, fortunately, largely protects Americans from the creepy authoritarian systems found
in 1984 , East Germany, and China; but the rise of "cancel culture" shows the pressure to conform to all sorts of orthodoxies (smelly
or not) remains strong.
The new Thought Police may be less sinister than the ThinkPol in 1984 , but the next generation will have to decide if seeking
conformity of thought or language through public shaming is healthy or suffocating. FEE's Dan Sanchez
recently observed
that many people today feel like they're "walking on eggshells" and live in fear of making a verbal mistake that could draw condemnation.
That's a lot of pressure, especially for people still learning the acceptable boundaries of a new moral code that is constantly
evolving. Most people, if the pressure is sufficient, will eventually say "2+2=5" just to escape punishment. That's exactly what
Winston Smith does at the end of 1984 , after all. Yet Orwell also leaves readers with a glimmer of hope.
"Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad," Orwell wrote.
"There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad."
In other words, the world may be mad, but that doesn't mean you have to be.
" When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany's secret police, had a full-time
staff of 91,000.
When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that
the Stasi , East Germany's secret police, had a full-time staff
of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what's frightening is that the organization had almost double that in
informants,
including children. And it wasn't just children reporting on parents;
sometimes
it was the other way around."
Confidential informants should be illegal.
How many people are employed by the various Federal intelligence agencies, of which there are 17 the last time I heard. Hundreds
of thousands of Federal employees, protected by strong government employee unions.
When this shitshow goes live, it will only take a small team to shut off the water that is necessary to keep the NSA servers
cool in Utah.
Movies like the Matrix actually helped people to question everything. What is real and not. Who is the enemy, and can we be sure. And when Conspiracy theories become fact, people learn. The problem is in later generations who get indoctrinated at school and college to not think, not question.
Rational examination
is forbidden.
"... This is the direction in which the world is going at the present time, and the trend lies deep in the political, social and economic foundations of the contemporary world situation. ..."
"... Specifically the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on Liberal capitalist communities by the necessity to prepare for total war with the U.S.S.R. and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and the most publicized. But danger lies also in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours. ..."
"... Two of the principal super states will obviously be the Anglo-American world and Eurasia. If these two great blocks line up as mortal enemies it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents and will not dramatize themselves on the scene of history as Communists. Thus they will have to find a new name for themselves. The name suggested in Nineteen Eighty-Four is of course Ingsoc, but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the U.S.A. the phrase "Americanism" or "hundred per cent Americanism" is suitable and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as anyone could wish. ..."
"... Pretty much explains the SDP and NuLabourInc and his name sake Blair and our political landscape of the last 50 years, don't you think? ..."
"... Also pay attention to the 'parody phrase. ' ..."
Because i feel that some agenda is at play. I'm not going to accuse you of trolling, or even a bit of gas lighting, but
it seems like a slide into classic red scaring and recasting of Eric Blair
By way of explaining my emotion and since you mention Warburg, here is an example of Orwellian post humous attribution.
He never said "imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever."
'from a post-publication press release directed by publisher Fredric Warburg toward readers who "had misinterpreted [Orwell's]
aim, taking the novel as a criticism of the current British Labour Party, or of contemporary socialism in general." The quotation
from the press release was "soon given the status of a last statement or deathbed appeal, given that Orwell was hospitalized
at the time and dead six months later."
You can read more at georgeorwellnovels.com, which provides a great deal of context on this press release, which runs, in
full, as follows:
It has been suggested by some of the reviewers of Nineteen Eighty-Four that it is the author's view that this, or something
like this, is what will happen inside the next forty years in the Western world. This is not correct. I think that, allowing
for the book being after all a parody, something like Nineteen Eighty-Four could happen. This is the direction in which
the world is going at the present time, and the trend lies deep in the political, social and economic foundations of the contemporary
world situation.
Specifically the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on Liberal capitalist communities by the necessity
to prepare for total war with the U.S.S.R. and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and
the most publicized. But danger lies also in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours.
The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: Don't let it happen. It depends on you.
George Orwell assumes that if such societies as he describes in Nineteen Eighty-Four come into being there will be several
super states. This is fully dealt with in the relevant chapters of Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is also discussed from a different
angle by James Burnham in The Managerial Revolution. These super states will naturally be in opposition to each other or (a
novel point) will pretend to be much more in opposition than in fact they are.
Two of the principal super states will obviously be the Anglo-American world and Eurasia. If these two great blocks
line up as mortal enemies it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents and will not dramatize
themselves on the scene of history as Communists. Thus they will have to find a new name for themselves. The name suggested
in Nineteen Eighty-Four is of course Ingsoc, but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the U.S.A. the phrase "Americanism"
or "hundred per cent Americanism" is suitable and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as anyone could wish.
If there is a failure of nerve and the Labour party breaks down in its attempt to deal with the hard problems with which
it will be faced, tougher types than the present Labour leaders will inevitably take over, drawn probably from the ranks of
the Left, but not sharing the Liberal aspirations of those now in power. Members of the present British government, from Mr.
Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps down to Aneurin Bevan will never willingly sell the pass to the enemy, and in general the older
men, nurtured in a Liberal tradition, are safe, but the younger generation is suspect and the seeds of totalitarian thought
are probably widespread among them. It is invidious to mention names, but everyone could without difficulty think for himself
of prominent English and American personalities whom the cap would fit.' http://www.openculture.com/2014/11/george-orwells-final-warning.html
-- -- -- -
Pretty much explains the SDP and NuLabourInc and his name sake Blair and our political landscape of the last 50 years, don't
you think?
Also pay attention to the 'parody phrase. '
'
As i wrote earlier, perhaps Blair of Eton ultimately saw how clearly hist talents had been misused by the 'totalitarians' before
he died.
I understand that some of his works are still censored and others never published. As are his state employment in propaganda
on which he probably based his 'parody' on.
The Iron Heel is a dystopian[1] novel by American writer Jack London, first published in
1908.[2] Generally considered to be "the earliest of the modern dystopian" fiction,[3] it
chronicles the rise of an oligarchic tyranny in the United States.
In The Iron Heel, Jack London's socialist views are explicitly on display. A forerunner of
soft science fiction novels and stories of the 1960s and '70s, the book stresses future changes
in society and politics while paying much less attention to technological changes.
The novel is based on the fictional "Everhard Manuscript" written by Avis Everhard... The
Manuscript itself covers the years 1912 through 1932 in which the Oligarchy (or "Iron Heel") arose in the United
States. In Asia, Japan conquered East Asia and created its own empire, India gained independence,
and Europe became socialist. Canada, Mexico, and Cuba formed their own Oligarchies and were
aligned with the U.S. (London remains silent as to the fates of South America, Africa, and the
Middle East.)
In North America, the Oligarchy maintains power for three centuries until the Revolution
succeeds and ushers in the Brotherhood of Man. During the years of the novel, the First Revolt is
described and preparations for the Second Revolt are discussed. From the perspective of Everhard,
the imminent Second Revolt is sure to succeed but from Meredith's frame story , the reader knows that Ernest
Everhard's hopes would go unfulfilled until centuries after his death.
The Oligarchy is the largest monopoly of trusts (or robber barons ) who manage to
squeeze out the middle class by bankrupting most small to mid-sized business as
well as reducing all farmers to effective serfdom . This Oligarchy maintains power through a
"labor caste " and the
Mercenaries . Laborers in
essential industries like steel and rail are elevated and given decent wages, housing, and
education. Indeed, the tragic turn in the novel (and Jack London's core warning to his
contemporaries) is the treachery of these favored unions which break with the other unions and
side with the Oligarchy. Further, a second, military caste is formed: the Mercenaries. The Mercenaries are
officially the army of the US but are in fact in the employ of the Oligarchs.
Jack London ambitiously predicted a breakdown of the US republic starting a few years past
1908, but various events have caused his predicted future to diverge from actual history. Most
crucially, though London placed quite accurately the time when international tensions will reach
their peak (1913 in "The Iron Heel", 1914 in actual history ), he (like many others at
the time) predicted that when this moment came, labor solidarity would prevent a war that would
include the US, Germany and other nations.
The Iron Heel is cited by George Orwell 's biographer Michael Shelden as having influenced
Orwell's most famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four .
[4] Orwell himself
described London as having made "a very remarkable prophecy of the rise of Fascism ", in the book and believed that
London's understanding of the primitive had made him a better prophet "than many better-informed
and more logical thinkers." [5] ( The Iron Heel - Wikipedia )
As writer or thinker, Jack London can't touch George Orwell, but he's nearly the Brit's
equal when it comes to describing society's bottom. To both, being a writer is as much a
physical as an intellectual endeavor. Wading into everything, they braved all discomforts and
dangers. This attitude has become very rare, and not just among writers. Trapped in intensely
mediated lives, we all think we know more as we experience less and less.
At age 14, London worked in a salmon cannery. At 16, he was an oyster pirate. At 17, he was
a sailor on a sealing schooner that reached Japan. At 18, London crossed the country as a hobo
and, near Buffalo, was jailed for 30 days for vagrancy. At 21, he prospected for gold in the
Klondike. London was also a newsboy, longshoreman, roustabout, window washer, jute mill grunt,
carpet cleaner and electrician, so he had many incidents, mishaps and ordeals to draw from, and
countless characters to portray.
London's The Road chronicles his hobo and prison misadventure. Condemned to hard labor, the
teenager nearly starved, "While we got plenty of water, we did not get enough of the bread. A
ration of bread was about the size of one's two fists, and three rations a day were given to
each prisoner. There was one good thing, I must say, about the water -- it was hot. In the
morning it was called 'coffee,' at noon it was dignified as 'soup,' and at night it masqueraded
as 'tea.' But it was the same old water all the time."
London quickly worked his way up the clink's hierarchy, to become one of 13 enforcers for
the guards. This experience alone should have taught him that in all situations, not just dire
ones, each man will prioritize his own interest and survival, and that there's no solidarity
among the "downtrodden" or whatever. Orwell's Animal Farm is a parable about this. Since man is
an egoist, power lust lurks everywhere.
During the Russo-Japanese War a decade later, London would approvingly quote a letter from
Japanese socialists to their Russian comrades, but this pacific gesture was nothing compared to
the nationalistic fervor engulfing both countries. Like racism, nationalism is but self love.
Though clearly madness if overblown, it's unextinguishable.
Jailed, London the future socialist stood by as his gang disciplined a naïf, "I
remember a handsome young mulatto of about twenty who got the insane idea into his head that he
should stand for his rights. And he did have the right of it, too; but that didn't help him
any. He lived on the topmost gallery. Eight hall-men took the conceit out of him in just about
a minute and a half -- for that was the length of time required to travel along his gallery to
the end and down five flights of steel stairs. He travelled the whole distance on every portion
of his anatomy except his feet, and the eight hall-men were not idle. The mulatto struck the
pavement where I was standing watching it all. He regained his feet and stood upright for a
moment. In that moment he threw his arms wide apart and omitted an awful scream of terror and
pain and heartbreak. At the same instant, as in a transformation scene, the shreds of his stout
prison clothes fell from him, leaving him wholly naked and streaming blood from every portion
of the surface of his body. Then he collapsed in a heap, unconscious. He had learned his
lesson, and every convict within those walls who heard him scream had learned a lesson. So had
I learned mine. It is not a nice thing to see a man's heart broken in a minute and a half."
Jailed, you immediately recover your racial consciousness, but London apparently missed
this. In any case, a lesser writer or man wouldn't confess to such complicity with power.
Elsewhere, London admits to much hustling and lying, and even claims these practices made him a
writer, "I have often thought that to this training of my tramp days is due much of my success
as a story-writer. In order to get the food whereby I lived, I was compelled to tell tales that
rang true [ ] Also, I quite believe it was my tramp-apprenticeship that made a realist out of
me. Realism constitutes the only goods one can exchange at the kitchen door for grub."
Informed by hard-earned, bitter experience, London's accounts resonate and convince, even
when outlandish, for they are essentially true about the human condition.
London on a fellow prisoner, "He was a huge, illiterate brute, an
ex-Chesapeake-Bay-oyster-pirate, an 'ex-con' who had done five years in Sing Sing, and a
general all-around stupidly carnivorous beast. He used to trap sparrows that flew into our hall
through the open bars. When he made a capture, he hurried away with it into his cell, where I
have seen him crunching bones and spitting out feathers as he bolted it raw."
Though London often uses "beast" or "beastly" to describe how humans are treated, this
fellow appears to be congenitally bestial, with his all-around stupidity. As for the other
prisoners, "Our hall was a common stews, filled with the ruck and the filth, the scum and
dregs, of society -- hereditary inefficients, degenerates, wrecks, lunatics, addled
intelligences, epileptics, monsters, weaklings, in short, a very nightmare of humanity." Though
many are wrecked, others are born deficient, addled or weak, but in our retarded days, morons
must be smart in other ways, and raging monsters are merely oppressed into mayhem or
murder.
ORDER IT NOW
But of course, society does oppress, then and now. Remember that an 18-year-old London was
sentenced to 30 days of hard labor for merely being in a strange city without a hotel
reservation. Another inmate was doing 60 for eating from a trash can, "He had strayed out to
the circus ground, and, being hungry, had made his way to the barrel that contained the refuse
from the table of the circus people. 'And it was good bread,' he often assured me; 'and the
meat was out of sight.' A policeman had seen him and arrested him, and there he was." Well, at
least Americans are no longer locked up for dumpster diving, so there's progress for you, but
then many must still feed from the garbage, with that number rapidly rising.
Though London was a worldwide celebrity at his death in 1916, his fame faded so fast that
Orwell could comment in 1944, "Jack London is one of those border-line writers whose works
might be forgotten altogether unless somebody takes the trouble to revive them."
London's most enduring book may turn out to be The People of the Abyss, his 1903
investigation into the abjectly impoverished of London's East End.
Dressed accordingly, London joined its homeless to see how they survived. With a 58-year-old
carter and a 65-year-old carpenter, London wandered the cold streets, "From the slimy,
spittle-drenched, sidewalk, they were picking up bits of orange peel, apple skin, and grape
stems, and, they were eating them. The pits of greengage plums they cracked between their teeth
for the kernels inside. They picked up stray bits of bread the size of peas, apple cores so
black and dirty one would not take them to be apple cores, and these things these two men took
into their mouths, and chewed them, and swallowed them; and this, between six and seven o'clock
in the evening of August 20, year of our Lord 1902, in the heart of the greatest, wealthiest,
and most powerful empire the world has ever seen."
Having mingled with many homeless in cities across America, I can attest that the food
situation is not as bad in that unraveling empire, but the squalor is just as appalling, if not
worse. A Wall Street Journal headline, "California's Biggest Cities Confront a 'Defecation
Crisis'." There's no need to import public shitting from shitholes, since there's already
plenty of it, homegrown and well-fertilized with smirkingly cynical policies.
Trump, "We can't let Los Angeles, San Francisco and numerous other cities destroy themselves
by allowing what's happening," but he's only talking about the unsightliness of it all, not its
root cause, which is a deliberately wrecked economy that, over decades, has fabulously enriched
his and our masters. This, too, is a controlled demolition.
Ensconced in some leafy suburb, you might be missing this beastly, raving, zonked out and
shitty transformation. Jack London, though, never recoiled from society's diarrhea. My favorite
passage of The People of the Abyss is his account of bathing, so to speak, in a workhouse:
We stripped our clothes, wrapping them up in our coats and buckling our belts about them,
and deposited them in a heaped rack and on the floor -- a beautiful scheme for the spread of
vermin. Then, two by two, we entered the bathroom. There were two ordinary tubs, and this I
know: the two men preceding had washed in that water, we washed in the same water, and it was
not changed for the two men that followed us. This I know; but I am also certain that the
twenty-two of us washed in the same water.
I did no more than make a show of splashing some of this dubious liquid at myself, while I
hastily brushed it off with a towel wet from the bodies of other men. My equanimity was not
restored by seeing the back of one poor wretch a mass of blood from attacks of vermin and
retaliatory scratching.
If other men had to endure that, why shouldn't London, especially since he was trying to
understand these wretches?
Many moons, suns and saturns ago, I taught a writing course at UPenn, and for one
assignment, I asked students to take the subway to a strange stop, get off, walk around and
observe, but don't do it in the dark, I did warn them. Frightened, one girl couldn't get off,
so simply wrote about her very first ride. At least she got a taste of an entirely alien world
beyond campus. Considering that her parents had to cough up over 60 grands annually to consign
her to the Ivy League, they'd probably want to murder me for subjecting their precious to such
needless anxieties.
Cocooned, Americans are oblivious to their own destruction. Screwed, they're fixated by
Pornhub.
London insisted a worldwide class revolution was the answer. A century and several gory
nightmares later, there are those who still cling to this faith, but only in the West. In the
East, even the most ignorant know the survival of his identity and dignity is conterminous with
his nation's. Orwell understood this well. It is the biggest crime to wreck anyone's heritage
in a flash.
In each society, you can begin to right the ship by prosecuting the biggest criminals, with
existing laws, but first, you must have the clarity and courage to identify them.
In the US, at least, this shouldn't be too complicated, for their crimes are mostly out in
the open, and their enforcers appear nightly in your living room, not unlike 1984. As you
watch, they cheerfully lie, silence witnesses, mass murder, squander your last cent and
dismantle, brick by brick, the house your forefathers built and died defending. Even if all
they saw was its basement, it was still their everything.
Lexicologically, Jack London far surpasses Orwell. He mixes erudite and argot. Stylistically
London far surpassed anything Orwell ever came up with. Orwell is a man of unum librum.
Nor would I say Orwell was a better thinker than London. 1984 is partly inspired by the
Iron Heel, an image coined by London in a namesake book.
Reducing London to being a mere "socialist" is moronic.
London is one of those authors whom aesthetes despise, but who- against all odds- stubbornly
refuse to go away. When he wrote about "serious" topics, London was a failure (Burning
Daylight, Martin Eden, ); on the other hand, when he wrote about animals, primitives,
mentally impaired, (white) underclass & quasi-fascist-Darwinian fantasies (most stories
& short novels) -he was an unavoidable writer, one that will be read long after most
canonized authors are just a footnote.
By the way, he was extremely popular even in Czarist Russia, something along the lines of
American vitalism & energy.
Jack London's "The Iron Heel" is another of his fictional stories about the working classes
and in the book he attacks capitalism and promotes socialism while presenting the story of
the US turned into an oligarchy in 1913 (the book was written in 1907). What's interesting
about "The Iron Heel" is that by 1900 it must have been quite obvious as to how the world's
more powerful nations were planning on parceling up the world, and London makes reference to
this in his novel about the future military campaigns that will take place in the book's
dystopian future, and his fiction was not far wrong from what actually transpired in WW1 and
WW2.
After Jack London gained fame he did not work alone, he hired aspiring writers to
"fill-in" his fiction, much like famous painters painting large commissions would hire
subordinates to "fill-in" their canvas after the outline was drawn. The plot and subplots
would come from London, but his underlings would write the stories. At this point in time I
can't remember the names but as I recall a few famous authors got their start working for
Jack London.
London was also cursed with the writer's nemesis, he was an alcoholic, and his
autobiographical novel "John Barleycorn" treats the "demon drink" as one of the world's great
ills. The book being published in 1913, it is noteworthy that the eighteenth amendment
banning alcohol was passed by congress a few years later in 1919, so it could be that London
was at least a minor fulcrum in giving a push to the moral crusade against alcohol being sold
in the US.
Much of Jack London's work is classic like his short story fiction placed in Alaska, "To
Start a Fire" about a man exposed to the elements and slowly freezing to death, or his
fictional tales about being a constable sailing a schooner chasing pirates off the coast of
California. Also unique and thrilling is the short story "A Piece of Steak" about an aging
boxer hoping to win one last fight. These were tough and gritty stories about men at their
extremity, and not tales for children.
London wrote a good tale and he understood human nature, and perhaps that's what motivated
him to become an alcoholic socialist.
@Bardon
Kaldian I enjoyed much of London's works. Although I read many of his books when
young,and I don't remember them too much, they helped inspire me to head north in the very
backyard of Burning Daylight, a best seller in it's day. His portrayal of characters of the
North seem quite believable and his description of the land and it's peculiar traits are also
accurate. The short story 'All Gold Canyon' is spot on for how a prospector prospects.
I read the Jack London Reader (for sale in Chicken, ak) a few years ago and enjoyed it
immensely as I did the Sea Wolf.
Martin Eden is a depressing read. I have only read Animal Farm so I really can't compare.
Depends how much one 'likes' to get disgruntled.
Cocooned, Americans are oblivious to their own destruction. Screwed, they're fixated by
Pornhub.
Funny, all I ever read on the Internet these days are articles about America's
destruction. This article's another one. Yet according to some pouty guy on the other side of
the planet, we're oblivious.
And Pornhub is #32 according to Alexa. That's really high, but 31 websites precede it.
I've never visited Pornhub, and I'd bet neither have 9 out of 10 Americans. Eliminate kids
under 10, adults over 80, most women, and all those without Internet access, and you're left
with a core of certain primetime lusty guys who are comfortable with pornography. Couldn't be
more than 10%.
It'd be wonderful if we could have a single calendar day, say October 21, when everyone
declares a moratorium on blithely shitting on America. Or is this part of the Jewish strategy
to keep us divided and unhappy?
"London was also a newsboy, longshoreman, roustabout, window washer, jute mill grunt, carpet
cleaner and electrician" and – not least – SPORTSWRITER!John Griffith Chaney
packed a lot of experience into his short forty year span on this wretched earth but his
stint on the Oakland Herald & later sports writing – especially about surfing
– are some of his best & consistent with his own fiery enjoyment of active outdoor
sports. Perhaps best summed up in his aphorism:"I would rather be ashes than dust." London
was not known for being a soccer fan but nonetheless, he would probably still be pleased to
know that there is in his hometown today a very large & thriving Jack London Youth Soccer
League. Anybody's guess how long it will be before the Woke Folk in town try to shut it down
for being named after a 'white supremacist'.
Eric Arthur Blair had a similarly short stay in this world – only seven more years than
London – but didn't much share his enthusiasm for the sporting life. Orwell was quite
candid in his rejection of the world's favorite past time, explaining in an essay: "I loathed
the game, and since I could see no pleasure or usefulness in it, it was very difficult for me
to show courage at it. Football, it seemed to me, is not really played for the pleasure of
kicking a ball about, but is a species of fighting." Orwell was even more pointed in a London
Tribune op-ed during his early newspaper days, commenting on a recent series of matches
between a Russian & English clubs, " the games cult did not start till the later part of
the last century. Dr Arnold, generally regarded as the founder of the modern public school,
looked on games as simply a waste of time. Then, chiefly in England and the United States,
games were built up into a heavily-financed activity, capable of attracting vast crowds and
rousing savage passions, and the infection spread from country to country. It is the most
violently combative sports, football and boxing, that have spread the widest. There cannot be
much doubt that the whole thing is bound up with the rise of nationalism -- that is, with the
lunatic modern habit of identifying oneself with large power units and seeing everything in
terms of competitive prestige."
"Orwell understood this well. It is the biggest crime to wreck anyone's heritage in a
flash."
Or beat their national team. Go Golden Dragons!
When I read about a woman dying from a rooster attack, or people falling to their death to
take selfies, or the growing number of hikers who venture out into semi- wilderness with
their cell phones but not adequate water, I always think of London's "To Build a Fire."
If London observed man's diminished capacity to measure and survive nature in his era,
what would he make of any airport or street today? Like the parasite creature in "Alien",
phones are stuck to every face encountered. Most people are not "present" in any sense when
in the public sphere now, let alone taking note of the world around them.
Great essay. I made it a point to visit Jack London's ranch on a California visit. The ranch
was a huge unfulfilled project with the sad burnt out ruins of his dream house reminding us
of his grand plans. The condition of his grown-over untended grave startled me. I find it
interesting that many men of that time viewed socialism as a panacea; however, the intellect,
ambition and energy of a man like Jack London would never have survived the ideology he
espoused.
@Paul Did
you see the "Trotsky" miniseries on Netflix? It was in Russian with English subtitles, but I
enjoyed reading them all and found it riveting. It appeared to be historically accurate to
someone like me who knows little of Russian history. Trotsky (born Lev Bronstein) was a
Ukrainian Jew who cared little for how many Russians he killed. I guess Ukies hated Russians
even back then.
In each society, you can begin to right the ship by prosecuting the biggest criminals,
with existing laws, but first, you must have the clarity and courage to identify them.
This is why I don't get your disgust at President Trump. He has the will and the position
to do just as you recommend and he would do it if the ruling class weren't trying to cut him
off at the knees 24-7. Trump is the people's first successful attempt to drive the destroyers
from the forum. I fear for coming generations if he doesn't.
@simple_pseudonymic_handle
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Herman Melville
Walt Whitman
Mark Twain
Stephen Crane
T.S. Eliot
Henry James
Tennessee Williams
Saul Bellow
John Updike
I wish the author would have done an analysis of London's "Iron Heel." I just read it for
the first time, and what he was writing about 100 years ago on the dominance of the
"oligarchs", i.e., the "iron heel" rings as true today as it did back then.
Curious also how he died so suddenly. There is a YouTube video of him at his ranch looking
as healthy as can be only a couple of days before he mysteriously died.
@AaronB
An empire exploits and abuses all natives, including those of its host nation. Just think of
how they must send these natives to foreign lands, not just to kill, but die. It's better to
be a house slave than a field one, however, so many far flung subjects of the empire will try
to sneak into the house. It's also safer there, generally. Except for rare instances, as in
9/11, the empire won't blow up natives inside its borders.
World War II ended nearly three generations ago, and few of its adult survivors still walk
the earth. From one perspective the true facts of that conflict and whether or not they
actually contradict our traditional beliefs might appear rather irrelevant. Tearing down the
statues of some long-dead historical figures and replacing them with the statues of others
hardly seems of much practical value.
But if we gradually conclude that the story that all of us have been told during our entire
lifetimes is substantially false and perhaps largely inverted, the implications for our
understanding of the world are enormous. Most of the surprising material presented here is
hardly hidden or kept under lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon
or even freely readable on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and
scholarly acclaim, and in some cases their works have sold in the millions.
Yet this important material has been almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular
media that shapes the common beliefs of our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder
what other massive falsehoods may have been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving
incidents of the recent past or even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous
practical significance. As I pointed out several years ago in my original American Pravda article :
Aside from the evidence of our own senses, almost everything we know about the past or the
news of today comes from bits of ink on paper or colored pixels on a screen, and fortunately
over the last decade or two the growth of the Internet has vastly widened the range of
information available to us in that latter category. Even if the overwhelming majority of the
unorthodox claims provided by such non-traditional web-based sources is incorrect, at least
there now exists the possibility of extracting vital nuggets of truth from vast mountains of
falsehood.
We must also recognize that many of the fundamental ideas that dominate our present-day
world were founded upon a particular understanding of that wartime history, and if there seems
good reason to believe that narrative is substantially false, perhaps we should begin
questioning the framework of beliefs erected upon it.
ORDER IT NOW
George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s and discovered that the true
facts in Spain were radically different from what he had been led to believe by the British
media of his day. In 1948 these past experiences together with the rapidly congealing "official
history" of the Second World War may have been uppermost in his mind when he published his
classic novel 1984, which famously declared that "Who controls the past controls the future;
who controls the present controls the past."
Great article, thank you. The WWII legend is sacrosanct because it is the founding myth of
the empire that replaced our republic, just as the Founders predicted would be the result of
choosing sides in foreign conflicts. Is seems credible to think that FDR enabled Churchill's
blood lust because encouraging the seriously weakened British empire to finish committing
suicide by engaging in another ground war in Europe would clear the way for the US to finally
replace the hated mother country as the world's great power- just as another faction of the
Founders dreamed. The motto on our National Seal "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is quoted from
Virgil's Eclogues, where it is the prophecy of the Cumaean Sybil that Rome was destined to
rule the world.
Historian Murray Rothbard best described the impact of the war in this obituary he wrote
for fellow popular historian Harry Elmer Barnes, "Our entry into World War II was the crucial
act in foisting a permanent militarization upon the economy and society, in bringing to the
country a permanent garrison state, an overweening military-industrial complex, a permanent
system of conscription. It was the crucial act in expanding the United States from a republic
into an Empire, and in spreading that Empire throughout the world, replacing the sagging
British Empire in the process. It was the crucial act in creating a Mixed Economy run by Big
Government, a system of State-Monopoly-Capitalism run by the central government in
collaboration with Big Business and Big Unionism. It was the crucial act in elevating
Presidential power, particularly in foreign affairs, to the role of single most despotic
person in the history of the world. And, finally, World War II is the last war-myth left, the
myth that the Old Left clings to in pure desperation: the myth that here, at least, was a
good war, here was a war in which America was in the right. World War II is the war thrown
into our faces by the war-making Establishment, as it tries, in each war that we face, to
wrap itself in the mantle of good and righteous World War II."
For those who lack the time to read these books, or even this great essay, here is a
13-minute video summary. For those shocked by this information, return and read this entire
essay, then the books if you still fail to understand that history has been distorted.
"Although Saddam Hussein clearly had no connection to the attacks, his status as a
possible regional rival to Israel had established him as their top target, and they soon
began beating the drums for war, with America finally launching its disastrous invasion in
February 2003."
I agree that replacing a progressive Arab leader with an Anglo-American puppet government
was an important factor, but the return of Iraqi oil fields to Anglo-American control was the
main objective. Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, and British Petroleum are now the biggest
producers of Iraqi oil.:
Thank You to Mr. Unz for mentioning the long-forgotten hero of the America First Committee,
John T. Flynn.
His biography, by Michele Stenehjem Gerber, is called An American First: John T. Flynn
and the America First Committee and has not yet been banned on Amazon:
Nonetheless I read it years ago, and it confirmed my suspicion that Lillian Gish,
pioneering film actress, was on a blacklist of some sort, and indeed she was. And this was
years before her name was removed from a college building here in Ohio. It is short, not hard
to read, less a full biography of Flynn than an interesting look at that filthy period in US
history when non-interventionists were slimed as "isolationists" and had their reputations
ruined. Or at least dinged quite a bit.
From an Amazon review:
This book inspires the broadening of the America First discussion, making references to
Lillian Gish, who proved she was blacklisted , Charlie Chaplin, whose The Great
Dictator was itself attacked as propaganda, and the charges of anti-Semitism from some
names not already researched, like Brooklyn Dodgers' president Larry MacPhail, S. H. Hauk,
Laura Ingalls, and Wilhelm Kunze of the German-American Bund (but still no Walt Disney
I went to Cambridge University in 1966 to study history. Two things I recall very distinctly:
the powerful impression Taylor's books made on me; and the very subtle but unmistakable
deprecation my tutors and lecturers applied to him and his work.
Taylor was certainly very talented, they said, but prone to "bees in his bonnet";
over-enthusiastic; sometimes unreliable.
Looking back, I can see how very effective this treatment was. As a rebellious and
iconoclastic 18-year-old, if I had been told that Taylor was wicked and wrong and I must
ignore his books, I would have hurried to study them deeply. But since I was cleverly
informed that he was just mildly eccentric and prone to unjustified speculation, I neglected
him in order to concentrate on the many other writers we had to read.
Most of the surprising material presented here is hardly hidden or kept under
lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon or even freely readable
on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and scholarly acclaim, and in
some cases their works have sold in the millions. Yet this important material has been
almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular media that shapes the common beliefs of
our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder what other massive falsehoods may have
been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving incidents of the recent past or
even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous practical significance.
Being the Guardian, of course, their prescription is that people should make a more
sincere effort to support the Reporters of Truth, such as the Guardian. In their retrograde
Left vs Right world, it's still up to the 'goodthinkers' to preserve our liberties from the
Boris Johnsons and Donald Trumps of the world. Never in a million years would they entertain
the possibility that Johnsons and Trumps come about because the Establishment–most
certainly including its MSM lackeys–is corrupt to its core.
As the Washington Post has it, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" -- neglecting to add, "We
supply the Darkness."
So now, instead of now [erroneously] believing, as we were all , er, "taught", that the
allies were the good guys of WW2, and that the Japs and Germans were the bad guys, we are now
supposed to believe the exact opposite, right, Mr Unz ? Jap and German governments now"good"-
WW2 allies governments now "bad"?
Reality fact: before, during and after WW2 and all the way up to this present
moment in time, the US, Soviet, French , Polish, Brit [etc. etc. ad infinitum] governments
lied; the German government lied, the Jap government lied. They ALL lied [and lie]!
Reality fact: It [lying] is what all governments everywhere all do – , all of
the time!
Reality fact: It's what they _must_ do to maintain power over their slave
populations [ see the Bernays quote below].
Regarding the fundamental nature of all governments, past, present, or future – this
"just" in :
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
" The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the
masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen
mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested,
largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their
power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must
be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of
the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." ~ Adolf Hitler
"My first rule- I don't believe anything the government tells me- nothing!- ZERO!" George
Carlin
@Tom67
Thank God we American's were pillars morality. LOL
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the
American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi,
"the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose
progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his
race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."
Those measures are nothing special. They are typical for any war or any coup d'état to install totalitarian regime in the
country. Fritened people are easily manipulated. . The only question against whom the war was launched and what was real origin of
9/11. Here 1984 instantly comes to mind.
Next week will be the
18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Politicians and bureaucrats wasted no time after that
carnage to unleash the Surveillance State on average Americans, treating every person like a
terrorist suspect.
Since the government failed to protect the public, Americans somehow
forfeited their constitutional right to privacy. Despite heroic efforts by former NSA staffer
Edward Snowden and a host of activists and freedom fighters, the government continues ravaging
American privacy.
Two of the largest leaps towards "1984" began in 2002.
Though neither the
Justice Department's Operation TIPS nor the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program was
brought to completion, parcels and precedents from each program have profoundly influenced
subsequent federal policies.
In July 2002, the Justice Department unveiled plans for Operation TIPS -- the Terrorism
Information and Prevention System.
According to the Justice Department website, TIPS would
be "a nationwide program giving millions of American truckers, letter carriers, train conductors,
ship captains, utility employees, and others a formal way to report suspicious terrorist activity."
TIPSters would be people who, "in the daily course of their work, are in a unique position to serve
as extra eyes and ears for law enforcement." The feds aimed to recruit people in jobs that "make
them uniquely well positioned to understand the ordinary course of business in the area they serve,
and to identify things that are out of the ordinary." Homeland Security director Tom Ridge said
that observers in certain occupations "might pick up a break in the certain rhythm or pattern of a
community." The feds planned to enlist as many as 10 million people to watch other people's
"rhythms."
The Justice Department provided no definition of "suspicious behavior" to guide
vigilantes.
As
the public began to focus on the program's sweep, opposition surfaced; even the U.S. Postal Service
briefly balked at participating in the program. Director Ridge insisted that TIPS "is not a
government intrusion." He declared, "The last thing we want is Americans spying on Americans.
That's just not what the president is all about, and not what the TIPS program is all about."
Apparently, as long as the Bush administration did not announce plans to compel people to testify
about the peccadilloes of their neighbors and customers, TIPS was a certified freedom-friendly
program.
When Attorney General John Ashcroft was cross-examined by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on TIPS at
a Judiciary Committee hearing on July 25, he insisted that
"the TIPS program is
something requested by industry to allow them to talk about anomalies that they encounter."
But, when George W. Bush first announced the program, he portrayed it as an administration
initiative. Did thousands of Teamsters Union members petition 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over
"anomalies"? Senator Leahy asked whether reports to the TIPS hotline would become part of a federal
database with millions of unsubstantiated allegations against American citizens.
Ashcroft told Leahy, "I have recommended that there would be none, and I've been given assurance
that the TIPS program would not maintain a database." But Ashcroft could not reveal which federal
official had given him the assurance.
The ACLU's Laura Murphy observed,
"This is a program where people's activities,
statements, posters in their windows or on their walls, nationality, and religious practices will
be reported by untrained individuals without any relationship to criminal activity."
San Diego law professor Marjorie Cohn observed, "Operation TIPS will encourage neighbors to
snitch on neighbors and won't distinguish between real and fabricated tips. Anyone with a grudge or
vendetta against another can provide false information to the government, which will then enter the
national database."
On August 9, the Justice Department announced it was fine-tuning TIPS, abandoning any "plan to
ask thousands of mail carriers, utility workers, and others with access to private homes to report
suspected terrorist activity," the
Washington Post
reported. People who had enlisted to be
TIPSters received an email notice from Uncle Sam that "only those who work in the trucking,
maritime, shipping, and mass transit industries will be eligible to participate in this information
referral service." But the Justice Department continued refusing to disclose to the Senate
Judiciary Committee who would have access to the TIPS reports.
After the proposal created a fierce backlash across the political board, Congress passed
an amendment blocking its creation.
House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-Tex.) attached
an amendment to homeland security legislation that declared, "Any and all activities of the federal
government to implement the proposed component program of the Citizen Corps known as Operation TIPS
are hereby prohibited." But the Bush administration and later the Obama administration pursued the
same information roundup with federally funded fusion centers that encouraged people to file
"suspicious activity reports" for a wide array of innocuous behavior -- reports that are dumped into
secret federal databases that can vex innocent citizens in perpetuity.
Operation TIPS illustrated how the momentum of intrusion spurred government to propose
programs that it never would have attempted before 9/11.
If Bush had proposed in August
2001 to recruit 10 million Americans to report any of their neighbors they suspected of acting
unusual or being potential troublemakers, the public might have concluded the president had gone
berserk.
Total Information Awareness: 300 million dossiers
The USA PATRIOT Act created a new Information Office in the Pentagon's Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
In January 2002, the White House chose retired admiral
John Poindexter to head the new office. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explained, "Admiral
Poindexter is somebody who this administration thinks is an outstanding American, an outstanding
citizen, who has done a very good job in what he has done for our country, serving the military."
Cynics kvetched about Poindexter's five felony convictions for false testimony to Congress
and destruction of evidence during the investigation of the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages exchange.
Poindexter's convictions were overturned by a federal appeals court, which cited the immunity
Congress granted his testimony.
Poindexter committed the new Pentagon office to achieving Total Information Awareness (TIA).
TIA's mission is "to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans --
and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist
acts,"
according to DARPA. According to Undersecretary of Defense Pete Aldridge, TIA would
seek to discover "connections between transactions -- such as passports; visas; work permits;
driver's licenses; credit cards; airline tickets; rental cars; gun purchases; chemical purchases --
and events -- such as arrests or suspicious activities and so forth." Aldridge agreed that every
phone call a person made or received could be entered into the database. With "voice recognition"
software, the actual text of the call could also go onto a permanent record.
TIA would also strive to achieve "Human Identification at a Distance" (HumanID),
including "Face Recognition," "Iris Recognition," and "Gait Recognition."
The Pentagon
issued a request for proposals to develop an "odor recognition" surveillance system that would help
the feds identify people by their sweat or urine -- potentially creating a wealth of new job
opportunities for deviants.
TIA's goal was to stockpile as much information as possible about everyone on Earth -- thereby
allowing government to protect everyone from everything.
New York Times
columnist William
Safire captured the sweep of the new surveillance system: "Every purchase you make with a credit
card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you
visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you
make, every trip you book, and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications
will go into what the Defense Department describes as 'a virtual, centralized grand database.'"
Columnist Ted Rall noted that the feds would even scan "veterinary records. The TIA believes that
knowing if and when Fluffy got spayed -- and whether your son stopped torturing Fluffy after you put
him on Ritalin -- will help the military stop terrorists before they strike."
Phil Kent, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, an Atlanta-based public-interest law
firm, warned that TIA was "the most sweeping threat to civil liberties since the Japanese-American
internment." The ACLU's Jay Stanley labeled TIA "the mother of all privacy invasions. It would
amount to a picture of your life so complete, it's equivalent to somebody following you around all
day with a video camera." A coalition of civil-liberties groups protested to Senate leaders, "There
are no systems of oversight or accountability contemplated in the TIA project. DARPA itself has
resisted lawful requests for information about the Program pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act."
Bush administration officials were outraged by such criticisms.
Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared, "The hype and alarm approach is a disservice to the public . I
would recommend people take a nice deep breath. Nothing terrible is going to happen." Poindexter
promised that TIA would be designed so as to "preserve rights and protect people's privacy while
helping to make us all safer." (Poindexter was not under oath at the time of his statement.) The
TIA was defended on the basis that "nobody has been searched" until the feds decide to have him
arrested on the basis of data the feds snared. Undersecretary Aldridge declared, "It is absurd to
think that DARPA is somehow trying to become another police agency. DARPA's purpose is to
demonstrate the feasibility of this technology. If it proves useful, TIA will then be turned over
to the intelligence, counterintelligence, and law-enforcement communities as a tool to help them in
their battle against domestic terrorism." In January 2003, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) learned
that the FBI was working on a memorandum of understanding with the Pentagon "for possible
experimentation" with TIA. Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Security Paul McHale confirmed,
in March 2003 testimony to Congress, that the Pentagon would turn TIA over to law-enforcement
agencies once the system was ready to roll.
DARPA responded to the surge of criticism by removing the Information Awareness Office
logo from the website.
The logo showed a giant green eye atop a pyramid, covering half the
globe with a peculiar yellow haze, accompanied by the motto "Scientia est Potentia" (Knowledge is
Power).
Shortly after DARPA completed a key research benchmark for TIA, Lt. Col. Doug Dyer, a DARPA
program manager, publicly announced in April 2003 that Americans are obliged to sacrifice some
privacy in the name of security:
"When you consider the potential effect of a terrorist
attack against the privacy of an entire population, there has to be some trade-off."
But nothing in the U.S. Constitution entitles the Defense Department to decide how much privacy or
liberty American citizens deserve.
In September 2003, Congress passed an amendment abolishing the Pentagon's Information Office and
ending TIA funding. But by that point, DARPA had already awarded 26 contracts for dozens of private
research projects to develop components for TIA. Salon.com reported,
"According to
people with knowledge of the program, TIA has now advanced to the point where it's much more than a
mere 'research project.' There is a working prototype of the system, and federal agencies outside
the Defense Department have expressed interest in it."
The U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol is already using facial recognition systems at 20 airports and the Transportation Security
Administration is expected to quickly follow suit.
Two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo sent a secret memo
to the White House declaring that the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches was null
and void:
"If the government's heightened interest in self-defense justifies the use of
deadly force, then it also certainly would justify warrantless searches."
That memo
helped set federal policy until it was publicly revealed after Barack Obama took office in 2009.
Unfortunately, that anti-Constitution, anti-privacy mindset unleashed many federal intrusions that
continue to this day, from the TSA to the National Security Agency to the FBI and Department of
Homeland Security.
In our time, we are endlessly brainwashed to love all the things that we can buy.
Meanwhile, people are being bombed, terrorized, sanctioned, etc. across the world ... We
can't complain since we got lots of toys to play with.
And here I think one has an enormous area in which the ultimate revolution could
function very well indeed, an area in which a great deal of control could be used by not
through terror, but by making life seem much more enjoyable than it normally does.
Enjoyable to the point, where as I said before, Human beings come to love a state of things
by which any reasonable and decent human standard they ought not to love and this I think
is perfectly possible.
"Happiness" with our toys is being used to keep us quiet.
"The dictatorships of tomorrow will deprive men of their freedom, but will give them in
exchange a happiness none the less real, as a subjective experience, for being chemically
induced. The pursuit of happiness is one of the traditional rights of man; unfortunately,
the achievement of happiness may turn out to be incompatible with another of man's rights
-- namely, liberty."
...press has complete control to filter everything to look rosey for them, demonize any
dissidents, and the masses fall for it. Why? They do not allow any counter arguments...
A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive
of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not
have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.
...bread and circus propaganda. They want to keep that way. Any one who dissents is a
"hater".
What I may call the messages of Brave New World, but it is possible to make people
contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the
past. I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with
bread and circuses and you can provide them with endless amounts of distractions and
propaganda.
...Pleasure trick keeps one from looking at what our rulers are doing.
As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to
increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom it will help to reconcile
his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
...using their MSM to make massive herds of humans all over the earth to love their
servitude to Zion uber alles.
The question of the next generation will not be one of how to liberate the masses, but
rather, how to make them love their servitude
At TruePublica we have written endlessly about the continued slow strangulation of civil liberties and human rights in Britain.
We have warned about the rise of a
techno-Stasi-state
where technology is harnessed and used against civilians without any debate or indeed any real legal framework. We have alerted the
public on the illegal mass data collections by the government and
subsequent loss of much it by MI5 who should not have had it all in the first place. We warned against '
digital strip
searches ' – an activity of the police of the victims in rape cases, and the fact that Britain is becoming a
database state . At TruePublica
we have tried to press home the story that surveillance by the state on such a scale, described as the most intrusive in the Western
world – is not just illegal, it's immoral and dangerous. (see our surveillance database
HERE ).
Here is more evidence of just how dangerous and out of hand this creeping surveillance architecture is becoming. An investigation
by Big Brother Watch has uncovered a facial recognition 'epidemic'
across privately owned sites in the UK. The civil liberties campaign group has found major property developers, shopping centres,
museums, conference centres and casinos using the technology in the UK.
Millions of shoppers scanned
Their investigation uncovered the use of live facial recognition in Sheffield's Meadowhall , one of the biggest shopping
centres in the North of England, in secret police trials that took place last year. The trial could have scanned the faces of
over 2 million visitors.
The shopping centre is owned by British Land, which owns large areas within London including parts of Paddington, Broadgate,
Canada Water and Ealing Broadway. Each site's privacy policy says facial recognition may be in use, although British Land insists
only Meadowhall has used the surveillance so far.
Last week, the Financial Times revealed that the privately owned Kings Cross estate in London was using facial recognition,
whilst Canary Wharf is considering following suit. The expose prompted widespread concerns and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan,
to write to the estate to express his concerns. The Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has launched an investigation.
Last year, the Trafford Centre in Manchester was pressured to stop using live facial recognition surveillance following an
intervention by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. It was estimated that up to 15 million people were scanned during the operation.
" Dark irony" of China exhibition visitors scanned
Big Brother Watch's investigation has also revealed that Liverpool's World Museum scanned visitors with facial recognition
surveillance during its exhibition, "China's First Emperor and the Terracotta Warriors" in 2018. Director of Big Brother Watch
Silkie Carlo described it as "dark irony" noting that "this authoritarian surveillance tool is rarely seen outside of China" and
warning that "many of those scanned will have been school children".
The museum is part of the National Museums Liverpool group, which also includes the International Slavery Museum, the
Museum of Liverpool and other museums and art galleries. The museum group said it is "currently testing the feasibility of using
similar technology in the future".
" Eroding freedom of association"
Big Brother Watch's investigation also found that the Millennium Point conference centre in Birmingham uses facial recognition
surveillance "at the request of law enforcement", according to its privacy policy. In recent years, the area surrounding the conference
centre has been used for demonstrations by trade unionists, football fans and anti-racism campaigners. The centre refused to give
further information about its past or present uses of facial recognition surveillance. Millennium Point is soon to host a 'hackathon'.
A number of casinos and betting shops also have policies that refer to their use of facial recognition technology including
Ladbrokes, Coral and Hippodrome Casino London.
Director of Big Brother Watch, Silkie Carlo, said:
There is an epidemic of facial recognition in the UK.
The collusion between police and private companies in building these surveillance nets around popular spaces is deeply
disturbing. Facial recognition is the perfect tool of oppression and the widespread use we've found indicates we're facing
a privacy emergency.
We now know that many millions of innocent people will have had their faces scanned with this surveillance without knowing
about it, whether by police or by private companies.
The idea of a British museum secretly scanning the faces of children visiting an exhibition on the first emperor of China
is chilling. There is a dark irony that this authoritarian surveillance tool is rarely seen outside of China.
Facial recognition surveillance risks making privacy in Britain extinct.
Parliament must follow in the footsteps of legislators in the US and urgently ban this authoritarian surveillance from
public spaces.
"... Today, it might be argued, Americans have been plunged into our own bizarre version of 1984 . In our world, Donald Trump has, in some sense, absorbed into his own person more or less everything dystopian in the vicinity. ..."
"... In some strange fashion, he and his administration already seem like a combination of the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of eternal lies ), the memory hole (down which the past, especially the Obama legacy and the president's own discarded statements , disappear daily), the two-minutes-hate sessions and hate week that are the essence of any of his rallies ("lock her up!," " send her back! "), and recently the "hate" slaughter of Mexicans and Hispanics in El Paso, Texas, by a gunman with a Trumpian "Hispanic invasion of Texas" engraved in his brain. And don't forget Big Brother. ..."
"... In some sense, President Trump might be thought of as Big Brother flipped. In The Donald's version of Orwell's novel, he isn't watching us every moment of the day and night, it's we who are watching him in an historically unprecedented way. ..."
"... In his book, he created a nightmare vision of something like the Communist Party of the Stalin-era Soviet Union perpetuating itself into eternity by constantly regenerating and reinforcing a present-moment of ultimate power. For him, dystopia was an accentuated version of just such a forever, a "huge, accurately planned effort to freeze history at a particular moment of time," as a document in the book puts it, to "arrest the course of history" for "thousands of years." ..."
"... In other words, with the American president lending a significant hand, we may make it to 2084 far sooner than anyone expected. With that in mind, let's return for a moment to 1984 . As no one who has read Orwell's book is likely to forget, its mildly dissident anti-hero, Winston Smith, is finally brought into the Ministry of Love by the Thought Police to have his consciousness retuned to the needs of the Party. In the process, he's brutally tortured until he can truly agree that 2 + 2 = 5. Only when he thinks he's readjusted his mind to fit the Party's version of the world does he discover that his travails are anything but over. ..."
I, Winston Smith I mean, Tom Engelhardt have not just been reading a dystopian novel, but,
it seems, living one -- and I suspect I've been living one all my life.
Yes, I recently reread George Orwell's classic 1949 novel, 1984 . In it, Winston Smith, a secret opponent of the totalitarian world of Oceania,
one of three great imperial superpowers left on planet Earth, goes down for the count at the
hands of Big Brother. It was perhaps my third time reading it in my 75 years on this
planet.
Since I was a kid, I've always had a certain fascination for dystopian fiction. It started,
I think, with War of the
Worlds , that ur-alien-invasion-from-outer-space novel in which Martians land in
southern England and begin tearing London apart. Its author, H.G. Wells, wrote it at the end of
the nineteenth century, evidently to give his English readers a sense of what it might have
felt like to be living in Tasmania, the island off the coast of Australia, and have the
equivalent of Martians -- the British, as it happened -- appear in your world and begin to
destroy it (and your culture with it).
I can remember, at perhaps age 13, reading that book under the covers by flashlight when I
was supposed to be asleep; I can remember, that is, being all alone, chilled (and thrilled) to
the bone by Wells' grim vision of civilizational destruction. To put this in context: in 1957,
I would already have known that I was living in a world of potential civilizational destruction
and that the Martians were here. They were then called the Russians, the Ruskies, the Commies,
the Reds. I would only later grasp that we (or we, too) were Martians on this planet.
The world I inhabited was, of course, a post- Hiroshima , post-
Nagasaki one. I was born on July 20, 1944, just a year and a few days before my country
dropped atomic bombs on those two Japanese cities, devastating them in blasts of a kind never
before experienced and killing more
than 200,000 people. Thirteen years later, I had already become inured to scenarios of the
most dystopian kinds of global destruction -- of a sort that would have turned those Martians
into pikers -- as the U.S. and the Soviet Union (in a distant second place) built up their
nuclear arsenals at a staggering pace.
Nuclear obliteration had, by then, become part of our everyday way of life. After all, what
American of a certain age who lived in a major city can't remember, on some otherwise perfectly
normal day, air-raid sirens suddenly beginning to howl outside your classroom window as the
streets emptied? They instantly called up a vision of a world in ashes. Of course, we children
had only a vague idea of what had happened under those mushroom clouds that rose over Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. As we huddled under our desks, hands over heads, " ducking
and covering " like Bert the Turtle while a radio on the
teacher's desk blared Conelrad
warnings , we knew enough, however, to realize that those desks and hands were unlikely to
save us from the world's most powerful weaponry. The message being delivered wasn't one of
safety but of ultimate vulnerability to Russian nukes. After such tests, as historian Stephen
Weart recalled in his book Nuclear Fear ,
"The press reported with ghoulish precision how many millions of Americans 'died' in each mock
attack."
If those drills didn't add up to living an everyday vision of the apocalypse as a child,
what would? I grew up, in other words, with a new reality: for the first time in history,
humanity had in its hands Armageddon-like possibilities of a sort
previously left to the gods. Consider
, for instance, the U.S. military's Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) of 1960 for a
massive nuclear
strike on the Communist world. It was, we now know, meant to deliver more than 3,200
nuclear weapons to 1,060 targets, including at least 130 cities. Official, if then secret,
estimates of casualties ran to 285 million dead and 40 million injured (and probably
underestimated the longer term effects of radiation).
In the early 1960s, a commonplace on the streets of New York where I lived was the
symbol for "fallout
shelters" (as they were then called), the places you would head for during just such an
impending global conflagration. I still remember how visions of nuclear destruction populated
my dreams (or rather nightmares) and those of my friends, as some would later admit to me. To
this day, I can recall the feeling of sudden heat on one side of my body as a nuclear bomb went
off on the distant horizon of one of those dreams. Similarly, I recall sneaking into a Broadway
movie theater to see On the
Beach with two friends -- kids of our age weren't allowed into such films without
parents -- and so getting a glimpse, popcorn in hand, of what a devastated, nuclearized San
Francisco might look like. That afternoon at that film, I also lived through a
post-nuclear-holocaust world's end in Australia with no less than Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, and
Fred Astaire for company.
An All-American Hate Week
So my life -- and undoubtedly yours, too -- has been lived, at least in part, as if in a
dystopian novel. And certainly since November 2016 -- since, that is, the election of Donald
Trump -- the feeling (for me, at least) of being in just such a world, has only grown stronger.
Worse yet, there's nothing under the covers by flashlight about The Donald or his invasive
vision of our American future. And this time around, as a non-member of his "base," it's been
anything but thrilling to the bone.
It was with such a feeling growing in me that, all these years later, I once again picked up
Orwell's classic novel and soon began wondering whether Donald Trump wasn't our very own
idiosyncratic version of Big Brother. If you remember, when Orwell finished the book in 1948
(he seems to have flipped that year for the title), he imagined an England, which was part of
Oceania, one of the three superpowers left on the planet. The other two were Eurasia
(essentially the old Soviet Union) and Eastasia (think: a much-expanded China). In the book,
the three of them are constantly at war with each other on their borderlands (mostly in South
Asia and Africa), a war that is never meant to be either decisive or to end.
In Oceania's Airstrip One (the former England), where Winston Smith is a minor functionary
in the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of lies, of course), the Party rules eternally in a world
in which -- a classic Orwellian formulation -- "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS
STRENGTH." It's a world of "inner" Party members (with great privilege), an outer circle like
Smith who get by, and below them a vast population of impoverished "proles."
It's also a world in which the present is always both the future and the past, while every
document, every newspaper, every bit of history is constantly being rewritten -- Smith's job --
to make it so. At the same time, documentation of the actual past is tossed down "the memory
hole" and incinerated. It's a world in which a "telescreen" is in every room, invariably
announcing splendid news (that might have been terrible news in another time). That screen can
also spy on you at just about any moment of your life. In that, Orwell, who lived at a time
when TV was just arriving, caught something essential about the future worlds of surveillance
and social media.
In his dystopian world, English itself is being reformulated into something called Newspeak,
so that, in a distant future, it will be impossible for anyone to express a non-Party-approved
thought. Meanwhile, whichever of those other two superpowers Oceania is at war with at a given
moment, as well as a possibly mythical local opposition to the Party, are regularly subjected
to a mass daily "two minutes hate" session and periodic "hate weeks." Above all, it's a world
in which, on those telescreens and posters everywhere, the mustachioed face of Big Brother, the
official leader of the Party -- "Big Brother is watching you!" -- hovers over everything,
backed up by a Ministry of Love (of, that is, imprisonment, reeducation, torture, pain, and
death).
That was Orwell's image of a kind of Stalinist Soviet Union perfected for a future of
everlasting horror. Today, it might be argued, Americans have been plunged into our own bizarre
version of 1984 . In our world, Donald Trump has, in some sense, absorbed into his own
person more or less everything dystopian in the vicinity.
In some strange fashion, he and his
administration already seem like a combination of the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of
eternal lies ), the memory hole (down which the past, especially the
Obama legacy and the president's own
discarded statements , disappear daily), the two-minutes-hate sessions and hate week that
are the essence of any of his rallies ("lock her up!," " send her
back! "), and recently the "hate" slaughter of
Mexicans and Hispanics in El Paso, Texas, by a gunman with a Trumpian
"Hispanic invasion of Texas" engraved in his brain. And don't forget Big Brother.
In some sense, President Trump might be thought of as Big Brother flipped. In The Donald's
version of Orwell's novel, he isn't watching us every moment of the day and night, it's we who
are watching him in an historically unprecedented way. In what I've called the
White Ford Bronco presidency , nothing faintly like the media's 24/7 focus on him has ever
been matched. No human being has ever been attended to, watched, or discussed this way -- his
every gesture, tweet, passing comment, half-verbalized thought, slogan, plan, angry outburst,
you name it. In the past, such coverage only went with, say, a presidential assassination, not
everyday life in the White House (or at
Bedminster , Mar-a-Lago, his rallies, on Air Force One, wherever).
Room 101 (in 2019)
Think of Donald Trump's America as, in some sense, a satirical version of 1984 in
crazed formation. Not surprisingly, however, Orwell, remarkable as he was, fell short, as we
all do, in imagining the future. What he didn't see as he rushed to finish that
novel before his own life ended makes the Trumpian present far more potentially dystopian than
even he might have imagined. In his book, he created a nightmare vision of something like the
Communist Party of the Stalin-era Soviet Union perpetuating itself into eternity by constantly
regenerating and reinforcing a present-moment of ultimate power. For him, dystopia was an
accentuated version of just such a forever, a "huge, accurately planned effort to freeze
history at a particular moment of time," as a document in the book puts it, to "arrest the
course of history" for "thousands of years."
Yes, in 1948, Orwell obviously knew about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the weaponry that went
with them. (In 1984 , he even mentions the use of such weaponry in the then-future
1950s.) What he didn't imagine in his book was a dystopian world not of the grimmest kind of
ongoingness but of endings, of ultimate destruction. He didn't conjure up a nuclear apocalypse
set off by one of his three superpowers and, of course, he had no way of imagining another kind
of potential apocalypse that has become increasingly familiar to us all: climate change.
Unfortunately, on both counts Donald Trump is proving dystopian indeed. He is, after all,
the president who threatened
to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea (before
falling in love with its dictator). He only recently claimed he could
achieve victory in the almost 18-year-old Afghan War "in a week" by wiping that country "off
the face of the Earth" and killing "10 million people." For the first time, his generals
used
the "Mother of all Bombs," the most powerful weapon in the U.S. conventional arsenal (with a
mushroom cloud that, in a test at least, could be seen for 20 miles), in that same country,
clearly to impress him.
More recently,
beginning with its withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, his
administration has started trashing the Cold War-era nuclear architecture of restraint that
kept the great-power arsenals under some control. In the process, it's clearly helping to
launch a
wildly expensive new nuclear arms race on Planet Earth. And keep in mind that this is happening
at a time when we know that a relatively localized nuclear war between regional powers like
India
and Pakistan (whose politicians are once again at each other's throats
over Kashmir ) could create a global nuclear winter and
starve to death up to a
billion people.
... ... ...
And keep in mind as well that our own twisted version of Big Brother, that guy with the
orange hair instead of the mustache, could be around to be watched for significantly longer,
should he win the election of 2020. (His polling numbers have, on the whole, been slowly rising ,
not falling in these years.)
In other words, with the American president lending a significant hand, we may make it to
2084 far sooner than anyone expected. With that in mind, let's return for a moment to
1984 . As no one who has read Orwell's book is likely to forget, its mildly dissident
anti-hero, Winston Smith, is finally brought into the Ministry of Love by the Thought Police to
have his consciousness retuned to the needs of the Party. In the process, he's brutally
tortured until he can truly agree that 2 + 2 = 5. Only when he thinks he's readjusted his mind
to fit the Party's version of the world does he discover that his travails are anything but
over.
He still has to visit Room 101. As his interrogator tells him, "You asked me once what was
in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is
in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." And that "worst thing" is always adjusted to the
specific terrors of the specific prisoner.
So here's one way to think of where we are at this moment on Planet Earth: Americans -- all
of humanity, in fact -- may already be in Room 101, whether we know it or not, and the truth
is, by this steaming summer, that most of us should know it.
It's obviously time to act on a global scale. Tell that to Big Brother.
tomdispatch.com The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of
the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Big BrotherOrwell
"... I favor the notion that the Internet's gift of vastly more accessible information and greater and less expensive communication is exposing more of corruption in government that continues an ancient trend, this web site being a sterling example. ..."
Quite a few people couldn't help but notice that the country was shifting into a
dis-informational mode several years ago. So much for the Information Age, the Internet and
hand held ( communication ) devices to increase awareness. It was noticed by some folks even
here at CN that tendencies had come ito play that were reminiscent of Orwell's dystopian yet
fictional accounts in the novel 1984. This entire Russiagate episode could just as easily
have come from 1984's Ministry of Information as our own Intelligence Services and might have
been just as boring if it had . Meanwhile us , prols, just go with the flow and don't really
care. Are things that much different than they have ever been? I rem,ember the Waterdate
hearings and the Iran-Contra Hearings, Ken Starr's Investigation. I'm a little to young to
remember the Warren Commission or Senator Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare but I do remember
the 9/11 Commission and WMGs in Iraq.. I remember wrote a paper on Propaganda films in WW II.
Is this episode really all that different?
@ "Quite a few people couldn't help but notice that the country was shifting into a
dis-informational mode several years ago. So much for the Information Age, the Internet and
hand held ( communication ) devices to increase awareness. "
You address a topic I've pondered long and hard. Although I can cite scant evidence, I
can't help but wonder: Are we instead only noticing -- because of the far wider availability
of information via the Internet -- a disinformation phenomenon that is perhaps centuries old
if not still older?
Huxley's Brave New World was published in 1931, Orwell's 1984 in 1949. Dickens' Bleakhouse
was serialized in 1852-53. All can be fairly said to deal with a perception that those who
control government are dishonest and corrupt, based on then-current norms. E.g., Dickens
noted in the preface of his first edition that his fictional Jarndyce and Jarndyce largely
paralleled the sadly real Thellusson v Woodford. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thellusson_v_Woodford
Such precedents argue against the "disinformational mode" being of recent origin.
I favor the notion that the Internet's gift of vastly more accessible information and
greater and less expensive communication is exposing more of corruption in government that
continues an ancient trend, this web site being a sterling example.
While email and web activity of employees is definitely monitored, all other monitoring
usually is pretty fragmentary. Often on a corporate smartphone there are two zones -- secure zone
where you access corporate network and email and private zone where you have access to the
internet via you provider and traffic is not monitored other then for the volume.
Keeping track of all those details (and some of them will be wrong) is just too expensive and
few corporation outside FIRE sector so that.
In short anything that opens company to a lawsuit will be monitored, but outside of that
companies actually are not interested in the information collection as it opens them to
additional liability in save of suicides and such.
Mining data from social media is a different complex topic and requires a separate
article.
Notable quotes:
"... From there, the company even sees as Chet logs onto the guest Wi-Fi connections at places like the coffee shop in the morning. Many companies require additional authentication when they try to access company information from unsecure Wi-Fi networks. ..."
"... Then, as Chet gets to his desk, his web browsing is tracked along with his email. New software breaks down how workers interact with email and how quickly colleagues reply in an attempt to see which employees are most influential . Some software on company computers even snaps screenshots every 30 seconds to evaluate productivity and hours worked. ..."
"... Even Chet's phone conversations can be recorded, transcribed and monitored. Companies use this information to find subject matter experts and measure productivity. Even conference room discussions and meetings can now be recorded and analyzed by software. ..."
Orwell, Inc.: How Your Employer Spies On You From When You Wake Up Until You Go To Bed
An increasing number of large companies are using data from employees' electronic devices to
track such personal details like when you they wake up, where they go for coffee in the
morning, their whereabouts throughout the entire day, and what time they go to bed according to
a new Wall
Street Journal article. What's the company explanation for this type of spying?
"An increasing number of companies are keeping track of such information to flag
potentially suspicious activity and measure work-life balance," the article claims.
The article walks through the day in the life of a fictional worker, Chet. It starts by
noting that his employer logs the time and his location when he first wakes up to check his
e-mail in the morning.
From there, the company even sees as Chet logs onto the guest Wi-Fi connections at
places like the coffee shop in the morning. Many companies require additional authentication
when they try to access company information from unsecure Wi-Fi networks.
Then, a Bluetooth device and his ID badge mark what time he arrives at the office while
tracking his movement around the building. These technologies are supposedly used to see what
teams collaborate frequently and to make sure that employees aren't accessing unauthorized
areas.
Then, as Chet gets to his desk, his web browsing is tracked along with his email. New
software breaks down how workers interact with email and how quickly colleagues reply in an
attempt to see which employees are most influential . Some software on company computers even
snaps screenshots every 30 seconds to evaluate productivity and hours worked.
Even Chet's phone conversations can be recorded, transcribed and monitored. Companies
use this information to find subject matter experts and measure productivity. Even conference
room discussions and meetings can now be recorded and analyzed by software.
At the end of the day, if Chet goes to the gym or for a run, the company will know that too
and just how many calories he has burned: his fitness tracker logs how many steps he takes and
what exercise, if any, he is doing. Companies then use that information to determine how
frequently employees are exercising and whether or not they should be paying for health and
fitness services.
They retain firms that track us on our social media accounts. Supposedly to defend against
workplace violence threats. And then there are the cameras. We never really know. Just do my
job and keep personal use of company resources to a minimum.
The operation known as "LifeLog" was replaced the very day that Face Book came into
being?
Life Log : The objective of the LifeLog concept was "to be able to trace the 'threads' of
an individual's life in terms of events, states, and relationships", and it has the ability
to "take in all of a subject's experience, from phone numbers dialed and e-mail messages
viewed to every breath taken, step made and place gone". [1]
My takeaway from all this is that many, perhaps most, human institutions are corrupt and
that there is no basis from which most people are able to discern truth from lies or right
from wrong. This explains the ability of the Power Elite to easily divide people against each
other. For example, you cannot debate a Liberal because they have their basis for truth on
their personal feeling or emotions. Many conservatives do as well, but they are closer in
their thingking to the foundation from which truth sits upon.
Edward Snowden, former NSA employee. Snowden is an absolute supporter of encryption of all
stored and transmitted content. Now there are many applications that have encryption
features. And among them there are common and well-known messengers, such as, for example,
WhatsApp, Telegram and others.
The former NSA agent also advises to secure his computer, in particular, the hard drive.
On the Internet you can find instructions on how to do this. Usually used special software.
For example, for Windows, there is a program preinstalled in advanced versions of the OS --
BitLocker, for Mac -- FileVault. Thus, if the computer is stolen, the attacker will not be
able to read your data.
Password Managers A useful thing that most people do not even think about. Such programs
allow you to keep your passwords in order - to create unique keys and store them. According
to Snowden, one of the most common problems with online privacy is leaks.
Tor. The former NSA official calls the anonymous Tor network "the most important
technological project to ensure the confidentiality of those currently used." He stated that
he uses it on a daily basis. Tor allows you to "cover up traces" on the Internet, that is, it
provides anonymity, making it difficult to determine the person's IP address and
location.
Also, Snowden told how to avoid total surveillance. For example, special services that can
remotely turn on a microphone or camera on a smartphone and start listening. The answer is
simple - pull out the microphone and camera modules from the device. Instead, it is proposed
to use an external accessory and disconnect from the selfie and never use it.
The only safe way is to abstain as much as possible, which is now next to impossible.
Security is only as protected as the weakest link. Consider a person who uses their smart
phone giving Google or Apple the permissions needed to use their OS's and apps; we do not
even know exactly how much info we agreed to give away. Consider all the contact info that
your friends, relatives, work or other organizations you associate with have on their devices
and how vulnerable they make it; they are not as cautious as you and some people using these
things do not even think about security; it never occurs to them.. .. just some musing on my
part.
Jeez, I used to sign a quarterly affirmation that I complied with all of the companies
electronic communication monitoring policies...and they made us sign that we understood that
they had climbed up our *** and pitched a tent.
One of the reasons they had to find a replacement for me when I quit.
If you're using your employer's devices, facilities, or networks, you should assume they
are tracking what you're doing, and they have every right to do so. When I buy your company's
products or services, I don't want to have to pay for your time spent messing around at
work.
I can't read the article since it's behind a paywall, but I don't see how your waking and
sleeping time and "work life balance" could be tracked unless you are using your employer's
devices or networks outside of work. Which is friggin stupid if you do it.
Actually it doesnt work like that... Chet isn't informed of this happening. The fact that
the company does this is buried in vague language in the 500 page employee handbook that Chet
has to sign when he is hired. Chet is just like anyone else with a company provided
electronic device. All companies monitor and track everything they can with the electronic
devices they provide. If you have one and th think your company doesnt do it... you are
naive.
Chet has the ability to determine when and where he uses the work-provided devices. And
why does work have access to his fitness tracker? Supplied by his employer too? Really, Chet
had options
Not with me... I have a personal phone and when I am not at work I keep my work phone at
home turned off. My emails are forwarded to my personal device and any voicemail I get also
gets forwarded to my personal device. I never place personal calls with my work phone and I
turn it off the second I leave work to go home.
What a waste of resources. If you want to see what I do, just ask. I'll show you how I
accomplish my work-related duties. How I manage my time at work. Where I go to cry and regret
my life choices.
"... Huxley died at 5:20pm, London time, on 22 November 1963. About ten minutes later, CS Lewis died. Just under an hour after that, of course, JFK was shot and killed in Dallas. There may never have been a deadlier 70 minutes for celebrity ..."
"... Fifty years ago, three great men died within a few hours of each other: C. S. Lewis, John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley. In 1982, philosophy professor Peter Kreeft imagined the three of them in conversation after their deaths. ..."
"... I think there's a good deal to be said for this this point of view in in regard to the permanence of any dictatorship. " ..."
Poor old Aldous Huxley. In other circumstances, his name would be all over the place today, the 50th anniversary of his death.
Yet, just moments after his demise, the Brave New World author had the misfortune, if that's the right word, of becoming a key
member of the "eclipsed celebrity death club".
Huxley died at 5:20pm, London time, on 22 November 1963. About ten minutes later, CS Lewis died. Just under an hour after that,
of course, JFK was shot and killed in Dallas. There may never have been a deadlier 70 minutes for celebrity
A book has been written about these three deaths on the same day by Peter Kreeft. He imagines them talking together in the heavens.
Fifty years ago, three great men died within a few hours of each other: C. S. Lewis, John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley. In
1982, philosophy professor Peter Kreeft imagined the three of them in conversation after their deaths.
Positioning Lewis as a proponent of ancient Western theism, Kennedy as a modern Western humanist, and Huxley as an ancient Eastern
pantheist, Kreeft wrote a conversational book entitled Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F.
Kennedy, C. S. Lewis & Aldous Huxley. "
Aldous Huxley said something that points exactly what happening in the world now. We are lead by a wild species. The Zios don't
want to be domesticated by freedom of speech. Spare the rod ( of freedom of speech) spoil the child. The Zios want to be wild forever.
They want to do whatever they want on earth with no scolding feedback.
This question and answer talk was at Berkeley Univ. on March
20 1962. This fear of being domesticated is why the ADL went crazy on 6/6/19, closing down websites and videos all over the internet.
Another point which was made by Sir Charles Darwin in his book "The Next Million Years" which I think was one would with
in different terms .
I envisaged in brave new world .I mean here
he points out that the human species is still a wild species, it has never been domesticated .
I mean domesticated species is
one which has been tamed by another species. Well, until we get an invasion from Mars we shall not be tamed by another species.
All we can do is to try to tame ourselves.
An oligarchy tries to tame ourselves but the oligarchy still remains wild. I mean
however much it succeeded in taming the domesticating the rest of the race it from it must remain wild. And this was the part
of the fable the dramatic part of the fable of brave new world is that the people in the upper hierarchy who were not ruthlessly
conditioned could break down.
I mean this Charles Darwin insists that because man is wild he can never expect to domesticate
himself because the people on top would always be undomesticated sooner or later always run wild. I think there's a good deal
to be said for this this point of view in in regard to the permanence of any dictatorship. "
1984, Brave New World, and Idiocracy look more and more like Documentaries now.
Notable quotes:
"... Describing the protagonist Winston Smith's frugal London flat, he mentions an instrument called a 'telescreen', which sounds strikingly similar to the handheld 'smartphone' that is enthusiastically used by billions of people around the world today. ..."
"... At the same time, the denizens of 1984 were never allowed to forget they were living in a totalitarian surveillance state, under the control of the much-feared Thought Police. Massive posters with the slogan 'Big Brother is Watching You' were as prevalent as our modern-day advertising billboards. Today, however, such polite warnings about surveillance would seem redundant, as reports of unauthorized spying still gets the occasional lazy nod in the media now and then. ..."
"... In fact, just in time for 1984's anniversary, it has been reported that the National Security Agency (NSA) has once again been illicitly collecting records on telephone calls and text messages placed by US citizens. ..."
"... Another method of control alluded to in 1984 fell under a system of speech known as 'Newspeak', which attempted to reduce the language to 'doublethink', with the ulterior motive of controlling ideas and thoughts. ..."
"... Another Newspeak term, known as 'facecrime', provides yet another striking parallel to our modern situation. Defined as "to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense." It would be difficult for the modern reader to hear the term 'facecrime' and not connect it with 'Facebook', the social media platform that regularly censors content creators for expressing thoughts it finds 'hateful' or inappropriate. ..."
"... 'Hate speech' is precisely one of those delightfully vague, subjective terms with no real meaning that one would expect to find in the Newspeak style guide. Short of threatening the life of a person or persons, individuals should be free to criticize others without fear of reprisal, least of all from the state, which should be in the business of protecting free speech at all cost. ..."
"... Another modern phenomenon that would be right at home in Orwell's Oceania is the obsession with political correctness, which is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." But since so many people today identify with some marginalized group, this has made the intelligent discussion of controversial ideas – not least of all on US college campuses , of all places – exceedingly difficult, if not downright dangerous. Orwell must be looking down on all of this madness with much surprise, since he provided the world with the best possible warning to prevent it. ..."
70 years ago, the British writer George Orwell captured the essence of technology in its ability to shape our destinies in his
seminal work, 1984. The tragedy of our times is that we have failed to heed his warning.
No matter how many times I read 1984, the feeling of total helplessness and despair that weaves itself throughout Orwell's masterpiece
never fails to take me by surprise. Although usually referred to as a 'dystopian futuristic novel', it is actually a horror story
on a scale far greater than anything that has emerged from the minds of prolific writers like Stephen King or Dean Koontz. The reason
is simple. The nightmare world that the protagonist Winston Smith inhabits, a place called Oceania, is all too easily imaginable.
Man, as opposed to some imaginary clown or demon, is the evil monster.
In the very first pages of the book, Orwell demonstrates an uncanny ability to foresee future trends in technology. Describing
the protagonist Winston Smith's frugal London flat, he mentions an instrument called a 'telescreen', which sounds strikingly similar
to the handheld 'smartphone' that is enthusiastically used by billions of people around the world today.
Orwell describes the ubiquitous device as an "oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror" affixed to the wall that "could be dimmed,
but there was no way of shutting it off completely." Sound familiar?
It is through this gadget that the rulers of Oceania are able
to monitor the actions of its citizens every minute of every day.
At the same time, the denizens of 1984 were never allowed to forget
they were living in a totalitarian surveillance state, under the control of the much-feared Thought Police. Massive posters with
the slogan 'Big Brother is Watching You' were as prevalent as our modern-day advertising billboards. Today, however, such polite
warnings about surveillance would seem redundant, as reports of unauthorized spying still gets the occasional lazy nod in the media
now and then.
In fact, just in time for 1984's anniversary, it has been
reported that the National Security
Agency (NSA) has once again been illicitly collecting records on telephone calls and text messages placed by US citizens. This latest
invasion
of privacy has been casually dismissed as an "error" after an unnamed telecommunications firm handed over call records the NSA
allegedly "hadn't requested" and "weren't approved" by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In 2013, former CIA employee
Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA's intrusive surveillance operations, yet somehow the government agency is able to continue
– with the help of the corporate sector – vacuuming up the private information of regular citizens.
Another method of control alluded to in 1984 fell under a system of speech known as 'Newspeak', which attempted to reduce the
language to 'doublethink', with the ulterior motive of controlling ideas and thoughts. For example, the term 'joycamp', a truncated
term every bit as euphemistic as the 'PATRIOT Act', was used to describe a forced labor camp, whereas a 'doubleplusgood duckspeaker'
was used to praise an orator who 'quacked' correctly with regards to the political situation.
Another Newspeak term, known as 'facecrime', provides yet another striking parallel to our modern situation. Defined as "to wear
an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense."
It would be difficult for the modern reader to hear the term 'facecrime' and not connect it with 'Facebook', the social media platform
that regularly censors content creators
for expressing thoughts it finds 'hateful' or inappropriate. What social media users need is an Orwellian lesson in 'crimestop',
which Orwell defined as "the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought." Those
so-called unacceptable 'dangerous thoughts' were determined not by the will of the people, of course, but by their rulers.
And yes, it gets worse. Just this week, Mark Zuckerberg's 'private company'
agreed to give French authorities the "identification
data" of Facebook users suspected of spreading 'hate speech' on the platform, in what would be an unprecedented move on the part
of Silicon Valley.
'Hate speech' is precisely one of those delightfully vague, subjective terms with no real meaning that one would expect to find
in the Newspeak style guide. Short of threatening the life of a person or persons, individuals should be free to criticize others
without fear of reprisal, least of all from the state, which should be in the business of protecting free speech at all cost.
Another modern phenomenon that would be right at home in Orwell's Oceania is the obsession with political correctness, which is
defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people
who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." But since so many people today identify with some marginalized group, this
has made the intelligent discussion of controversial ideas – not least of all on US college
campuses , of all places – exceedingly difficult,
if not downright dangerous. Orwell must be looking down on all of this madness with much surprise, since he provided the world with
the best possible warning to prevent it.
For anyone who entertains expectations for a happy ending in 1984, be prepared for serious disappointment (spoiler alert, for
the few who have somehow not read this book). Although Winston Smith manages to finally experience love, the brief romance – like
a delicate flower that was able to take root amid a field of asphalt – is crushed by the authorities with shocking brutality. Not
satisfied with merely destroying the relationship, however, Smith is forced to betray his 'Julia' after undergoing the worst imaginable
torture at the 'Ministry of Love'.
The book ends with the words, "He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother." Will we too declare, like Winston Smith,
our love for 'Big Brother' above all else, or will we emerge victorious against the forces of a technological tyranny that appears
to be just over the horizon? Or is Orwell's 1984 just really good fiction and not the instruction manual for tyrants many have come
to fear it is?
An awful lot is riding on our answers to those questions, and time is running out.
"You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard,
and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."
Who could have predicted that 70 years after Orwell typed the final words to his dystopian novel, "He loved Big Brother," we would
fail to heed his warning and come to love Big Brother.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone
-- to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the
age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink -- greetings!"
-- George Orwell
1984 portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree
with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven
society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. People are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes.
The government, or "Party," is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words: "Big Brother is watching you."
We have arrived, way ahead of schedule, into the dystopian future dreamed up by not only Orwell but also such fiction writers
as Aldous Huxley, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
―George Orwell
Much like Orwell's Big Brother in 1984 , the government and its corporate spies now watch our every move. Much like Huxley's
A Brave New World , we are churning out a society of watchers who "have their liberties taken away from them, but rather enjoy
it, because they [are] distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing." Much like Atwood's
The Handmaid's Tale , the
populace is now taught to "know their place and their duties, to understand that they have no real rights but will be protected up
to a point if they conform, and to think so poorly of themselves that
they will
accept their assigned fate and not rebel or run away ."
And in keeping with Philip K. Dick's darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police state -- which became the basis for
Steven
Spielberg's futuristic thriller Minority Report -- we are now trapped in a world in which the government is all-seeing,
all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few
skulls to bring the populace under control.
What once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction.
Incredibly, as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alike -- facial recognition,
iris scanners, massive databases, behavior prediction software, and so on -- are incorporated into a complex, interwoven cyber network
aimed at tracking our movements, predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior, the
dystopian visions of past writers is fast becoming
our reality .
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
―George Orwell
The courts have
shredded the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, SWAT teams battering down doors
without search warrants and FBI agents acting as a secret police that investigate dissenting citizens are common occurrences in contemporary
America. And bodily privacy and integrity have been utterly eviscerated by a prevailing view that Americans have no rights over what
happens to their bodies during an encounter with government officials, who are allowed to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe,
pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible
to say which was which."
We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state.
What many fail to realize is that the government is not operating alone. It cannot. The government requires an accomplice. Thus,
the increasingly complex security needs of the massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data
management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds
the growth of governmental overreach.
In fact, Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother, and we are now ruled by the Corporate Elite whose tentacles
have spread worldwide. For example, USA Today reports that five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the homeland security
business was booming to such an extent that it
eclipsed mature
enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue. This security spending to private corporations such as
Google, Amazon, Microsoft and others is
forecast to exceed
$1 trillion in the near future.
The government now has at its disposal technological arsenals so sophisticated and invasive as to render any constitutional protections
null and void. Spearheaded by the NSA, which has shown itself to care little to nothing for constitutional limits or privacy, the
"security/industrial complex" -- a marriage of government, military and corporate interests aimed at keeping Americans under constant
surveillance -- has come to dominate the government and our lives. At three times the size of the CIA, constituting one third of
the intelligence budget and with its own global spy network to boot, the NSA has a long history of spying on Americans, whether or
not it has always had the authorization to do so.
Money, power, control. There is no shortage of motives fueling the convergence of mega-corporations and government. But who is
paying the price? The American people, of course.
Orwell understood what many Americans, caught up in their partisan flag-waving, are still struggling to come to terms with: that
there is no such thing as a government organized for the good of the people. Even the best intentions among those in government inevitably
give way to the desire to maintain power and control over the citizenry at all costs. As Orwell explains:
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power,
pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know
what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian
Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended,
perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there
lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention
of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution;
one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture
is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
― George Orwell
How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.
In totalitarian regimes -- a.k.a. police states -- where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the
government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises
itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.
Dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In
Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451
, reading is banned and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize
the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.
In Huxley's Brave New World
, serious literature, scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through
the use of conditioning, social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality
are viewed as vulgar and abnormal.
And in Orwell's 1984
, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history
and punish "thoughtcrimes." In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother,
while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation),
the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment,
education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
All three -- Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell -- had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood
the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell's Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such
words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a
single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to 1984 :
The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as "This dog is free from lice" or
"This field is free from weeds." It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free," since political
and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts .
Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where
only that which is "safe" and "accepted" by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will
pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.
This is the final link in the police state chain.
"Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
-- George Orwell
Americans have been
conditioned to accept routine incursions on their privacy rights . In fact, the addiction to screen devices -- especially cell
phones -- has created a hive effect where the populace not only watched but is controlled by AI bots. However, at one time, the idea
of a total surveillance state tracking one's every move would have been abhorrent to most Americans. That all changed with the 9/11
attacks. As professor Jeffrey Rosen observes, "Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives
under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and
stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable,
a dystopian fantasy of a society that
had surrendered privacy and anonymity ."
Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry -- mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the
face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield,
and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all -- we have nowhere left to go.
We have, so to speak, gone from being a nation where privacy is king to one where nothing is safe from the prying eyes of government.
In search of so-called terrorists and extremists hiding amongst us -- the proverbial "needle in a haystack," as one official termed
it -- the Corporate State has taken to monitoring all aspects of our lives, from cell phone calls and emails to Internet activity
and credit card transactions. Much of this data is being fed through
fusion centers across the
country, which work with the Department of Homeland Security to make threat assessments on every citizen, including school children.
These are state and regional intelligence centers that collect data on you.
"Big Brother is Watching You."
―George Orwell
Wherever you go and whatever you do, you are now being watched, especially if you leave behind an electronic footprint. When you
use your cell phone, you leave a record of when the call was placed, who you called, how long it lasted and even where you were at
the time. When you use your ATM card, you leave a record of where and when you used the card. There is even a video camera at most
locations equipped with facial recognition software. When you use a cell phone or drive a car enabled with GPS, you can be tracked
by satellite. Such information is shared with government agents, including local police. And all of this once-private information
about your consumer habits, your whereabouts and your activities is now being fed to the U.S. government.
The government has nearly inexhaustible resources when it comes to tracking our movements, from electronic wiretapping devices,
traffic cameras and biometrics to radio-frequency identification cards, satellites and Internet surveillance.
Speech recognition technology now makes it possible for the government to carry out massive eavesdropping by way of sophisticated
computer systems. Phone calls can be monitored, the audio converted to text files and stored in computer databases indefinitely.
And if any "threatening" words are detected -- no matter how inane or silly -- the record can be flagged and assigned to a government
agent for further investigation. Federal and state governments, again working with private corporations, monitor your Internet content.
Users are profiled and tracked in order to identify, target and even prosecute them.
In such a climate, everyone is a suspect. And you're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. To underscore this shift in
how the government now views its citizens, the FBI uses its wide-ranging authority to investigate individuals or groups, regardless
of whether they are suspected of criminal activity.
"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull."
― George Orwell
Here's what a lot of people fail to understand, however: it's not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how you
think that is being tracked and targeted. We've already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime
legislation that cracks down on so-called "hateful" thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on
various subject matter.
Total Internet surveillance by the Corporate State, as omnipresent as God, is used by the government to predict and, more importantly,
control the populace, and it's not as far-fetched as you might think. For example, the NSA is now designing an artificial intelligence
system that is designed to anticipate your every move. In a nutshell, the NSA will feed vast amounts of the information it collects
to a computer system known as Aquaint (the acronym
stands for Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence), which the computer can then use to detect patterns and predict behavior.
No information is sacred or spared.
Everything from cell phone recordings and logs, to emails, to text messages, to personal information posted on social networking
sites, to credit card statements, to library circulation records, to credit card histories, etc., is collected by the NSA and shared
freely with its agents in crime: the CIA, FBI and DHS. One NSA researcher actually quit the Aquaint program, "citing concerns over
the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability."
Thus, what we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised
of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).
Clearly, the age of privacy in America is at an end.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever."
-- Orwell
So where does that leave us?
We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not
to us but to our government and corporate rulers. This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us
on a daily basis.
It won't be long before we find ourselves looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we
wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted without those thoughts, words and activities being tracked, processed and stored
by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police
with their army of futuristic technologies.
To be an individual today, to not conform, to have even a shred of privacy, and to live beyond the reach of the government's roaming
eyes and technological spies, one must not only be a rebel but rebel.
Even when you rebel and take your stand, there is rarely a happy ending awaiting you. You are rendered an outlaw.
So how do you survive in the American surveillance state?
We're running out of options.
As I make clear in my book
Battlefield
America: The War on the American People , we'll soon have to choose between self-indulgence (the bread-and-circus distractions
offered up by the news media, politicians, sports conglomerates, entertainment industry, etc.) and self-preservation in the form
of renewed vigilance about threats to our freedoms and active engagement in self-governance.
Yet as Aldous Huxley acknowledged in
Brave New World Revisited
: "Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern
themselves effectively by democratic procedures. A society, most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot,
not here and now and in their calculable future, but somewhere else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology
and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist the encroachments of those would manipulate and control it."
"... America just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable. ..."
"... And after all our idiotic overcomplicated plots and schemes, they are but to mask simple truths ..."
"... What is more compelling than the average person captured in a truthful narrative, as counterpoint to a society that delves into the celebrity, the spectacle, the idiocy as Jason puts forth in his piece, "The Idiot." ..."
"... Yet, my friend, Joe the Farmer from Merced, hits the nail on the head by providing his own retort to example after example of the cruelty of capitalism and the US of I -- United States of Idiots? ..."
"... What in the fuck is wrong with this country? The republicans enact cruel legislation to protect criminal enterprises, slash taxes for the obscenely rich, while removing any social or environmental protections for the population, (the Flint Michigan water system for example). ..."
"... The democrats response to Trump is to promote Joe Biden, a compilation of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Strom Thurman and just about every other corporate whore they could steal parts off of to make their democratic very own version of Donald Trump. ..."
"... As if there were no real journalists working on all the pre-September 11 illegalities of the republican party and then the post-September 11 evisceration of the few rights the people of the world and USA had before full spectrum war on our planet. ..."
"... As if journalists hadn't cracked open the Koch brothers, the fake think tanks, all the pre-Truman/post-Truman lies of empire, from Roy Cohen, through to the rigged systems of oppression. Way before any trivial Hollywood wannabe open her eyes. ..."
"... Entertainment and a few laughs at the expense of millions of bombed-dead people, millions more suffering-a-lingering-death daily because of Hollywood and USA policies and the evangelicals and the Crypto-Christo-Zionists bombing "the other" back to the stone age. The movie, Vice. ..."
"... What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies , the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy . ..."
"... As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984 , Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World , they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us. ..."
"... The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. ..."
"... Huxley was right -- " Words can be like X-rays if you use them properly -- they'll go through anything. You read and you're pierced." Brave New World , "Chapter 4" ..."
America just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing
anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.
Now I think poetry will save nothing from oblivion, but I keep writing about the ordinary because for me it's the home of the
extraordinary, the only home.
I'm digging the DV piece, " The Idiot " by
Jason Holland, since in a critical mass sort of black hole kind of way, his main thesis is reflective of the experiences many of
us in the bloody trenches of dying capitalism see/feel/believe minute by minute.
And after all our idiotic overcomplicated plots and schemes, they are but to mask simple truths the idiot facade tries so desperately
to avoid; the inner torments of being afraid of not being good enough, not measuring up to our peers, not meeting arbitrary expectations
we either accept from others or set for ourselves, or quite simply feeling like we are not worthy of love. So we play these pointless
high stakes games which have a rewards as meaningless and worthless as a plastic trophy just to prove our worth. The idiot is
a temporal state of being, although many are finer long term examples of displaying the behaviors of the idiot; however none of
us are the perfect idiot. To avoid the affectations of being in an idiotic state it takes conscious effort to live our lives moment
to moment with authenticity, to be in a state of awareness of our actions, to always be willing to suffer for something worthwhile
and to be consistently well reasoned examiners of what constitutes something worthwhile.
That authenticity, moment to moment existence -- and it should be a reveling of life -- is good, but there is a bifurcating of
sorts when many of us are still subject to the masters of Big Brother and Big Business. We are suffering the dualism of the Century,
and the more we know, the more we seek and the more we grapple, well, the more emancipated we are, but in that freedom comes some
pretty harsh treatment by the masters and their sub-masters and all the Little Eichmann's that keep the Capitalist's trains moving
like clockwork toward the global demise set in their plastic worlds!
And some of us think Dachau and Auschwitz were bad! We have already seen a hundred of them since 1945.
For me, I have the benefit of being a writer, and at this time, I have this new gig I created myself to bring to the Oregon Coast
a sense of the people who are here living or who come here to set down their own stories . . . people who do things to make this
world better and themselves better. Something in the draw that brings my subjects for my pieces here to the coast of Oregon. These
are people, and they are not perfections or cut-outs or pulverized remnants of humanity that Capitalism mostly demands in it shark
tank of inane media manipulation and marketing.
I crack open humanity and get people's contexts -- entire stories upon stories laid down, strata by strata, and cover their own
formula for the art of living in harmony in a world of disharmony. Reading my stuff, I hope, will allow readers of this rag, Oregon
Coast Today , and its on-line version a better sense of authenticity via people they may or may not even run across in their
own lives of being the consummate busy tourist and consumer.
A few of the pieces will be worthy of DV display, and I hope that my attempt at drilling down and "getting people" for
who they are and how they got here will better the world, in some small shape. Really small, but small wonders sometimes are the
ionic glue of a bettering world.
What is more compelling than the average person captured in a truthful narrative, as counterpoint to a society that delves into
the celebrity, the spectacle, the idiocy as Jason puts forth in his piece, "The Idiot."
In many ways, talking to people who have lived authentic (albeit struggle-prone) lives, or who are just embarking on a nascent
stage of multiple iterations of living, I get my sense of grounding in a very flummoxed world of inanity and crass disassociation,
as in the disease of pushing away humanity and pushing away the natural world to hitch oneself to the perversions of the billionaire
class.
Time and time again, daily, my friends who are still in struggle -- still trying to make sense of the perverted world of idiots
controlling the message, the economy, the environment, the culture, and the mental-physical-spiritual health of the world, as if
this is it, Trump 2.0 -- give me news feed after news feed of the quickening of not only idiocy that capitalism and consumerism and
war engender in our species, but also examples of the inhumanity driving the agendas of the Fortune 500 Class, the Davos crowd, the
Aspen Institute gatherings, et al .
Yet, my friend, Joe the Farmer from Merced, hits the nail on the head by providing his own retort to example after example of
the cruelty of capitalism and the US of I -- United States of Idiots?
If this doesn't slap the Hell out of you and rub your nose into the proverbial dog shit of what a criminally insane, inhumane,
cruel and thuggish enterprise our government has become, then there is absolutely no hope for your soul. The truth tellers like
Manning, Assange, Snowden and others, the brave young guys like Tim DeChristopher that monkey wrenched the sale of oil leases
to public lands to try and protect the environment, this fellow that is showing his human side by providing water and aid for
those dying in the desert sun, are all facing prison terms or maybe even the death penalty. Their crime? Being a compassionate
human being.
What in the fuck is wrong with this country? The republicans enact cruel legislation to protect criminal enterprises, slash
taxes for the obscenely rich, while removing any social or environmental protections for the population, (the Flint Michigan water
system for example).
The republicans are ruthlessly attacking the environment and endangered species, turning their backs on infrastructure that
is endangering peoples lives, while the spineless democrats sit idly by, wringing their hands. The democrats won't take action
against the most openly corrupt president we have ever had, that is daily destroying everything in this country as well as the
rest of the world with his insane military budgets, trade wars and climate policies. The democrats response to Trump is to promote
Joe Biden, a compilation of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Strom Thurman and just about every other corporate whore they
could steal parts off of to make their democratic very own version of Donald Trump.
Both the republicans and the democrats promote austerity for the working people and the poor, while stuffing the oligarchs
pockets with gold. Both political Parties support endless war and war profiteers but slash budgets for schools, infrastructure,
health care and the elderly. Both political Parties shower money on the police state and a corrupt system of justice and private
prisons. Both political Parties are turning their heads to what the oil industry is doing to our water and air with fracking and
are in fact have promoted legislation to let the oil industry off the hook when it causes unbelievable environmental damage. Both
political Parties are doing nothing to check the nuclear industry that is a environmental time bomb waiting to go off and have
promoted legislation to limit the industries liability when it does.
What is wrong with the American people that they sit on their collective asses and do nothing while all this is happening?
Are they that fucking stupid? Are they that lacking in human decency? Are they that politically dumbed-down that they won't even
fight for their own interests?
The fact that this government corruption has been allowed to go on for years evidently proves that Americans are that stupid
and lacking of compassion and politically dumbed-down. Thank God for guys like Dr. Warren the others that are trying to slap some
sense into the American public to show us what courage and being humane is all about. Dr. Warren and company shouldn't be put
in jail but our so called leaders sure as Hell should be for their crimes against humanity.
He's talking about a desert saint of sorts, Scott Warren, who has the power of his call to duty to give water in milk cartons
to anyone crossing the Arizona desert. Now that is a hero, yet, he is facing decades in prison. America!
The charges against Warren "are an unjust criminalization of direct humanitarian assistance" and "appear to constitute a politically
motivated violation of his protected rights as a Human Rights Defender," states Amnesty International's Americas regional director
Erika Guevara-Rosas .
"Providing humanitarian aid is never a crime," Guevara-Rosas added in a statement last week. "If Dr. Warren were convicted
and imprisoned on these absurd charges, he would be a prisoner of conscience, detained for his volunteer activities motivated
by humanitarian principles and his religious beliefs."
Yet how many humans in this crime country even give a rat's ass about one man who is doing the good that all men and women should
be doing?
So, here, whatever will come of my new column, "Deep Dive: Go Below the Surface with Paul Haeder," starting June 7, well, I hope
people reading this rag -- 18,000 and counting and as they are compelled to hit each longer version of each of my profiles on line,
Oregon Coast Today -- will understand that
life is the sum total of one's search for meaning and worthy work and community involvement.
Maybe this compulsion toward narrative has always been inside me during my early root setting living in Canada, Maryland, Paris,
Edinburgh, Arizona . . . then on that walkabout throughout Latin America, Europe, Vietnam, USA, Central America!
When times get tough, the storyteller gets writing. Ha. Believe you me, the stories we all have collected in this Marquis de Sade
world of capital and artery-clogging entertainment and constant death spiral the elites have banked as their Appian Way to Complete
Dominance, they make for so much more validation of humanity than anything Hollywood could make.
Point of fact -- I attempted to watch the film, Vice, about Dick Cheney, his perverse family, the perversity of neocons
fornicating with neoliberalism. It was one of Hollywood's "cutting edge" dramas. Written and directed by a Saturday Night Live
writer. All the usual suspects with Hollywood multi-millions stuffed in their jowls -- Christian Bale, Amy Adams, et al .
It wasn't that good, but I sensed that the filmmakers were all about trying to make something that was "different." I didn't nod
off during the viewing. But, I unfortunately had the DVD so I went to the extras section, and then, the behind-the-scenes of the
making of Vice . This is when things went south real quickly with neoliberal, Democrat-leaning Hollywood creeps. We get every
goofy platitude about each and every department's genius in making this film. Every actor fawns the other actor for his or her amazing
performance.
Then the Limey, Christian Bale, yammers on and on about he was all about making Dick Cheney human, going into his good side, being
cognizant of Cheney, the human. Rubbish and this is the quality of men, adults, in our society -- multimillionaires with gobs of
limelight and credit and awards and houses and yachts thrown at them, and they can't even begin to attack the cause -- capitalism,
rampant competitiveness, droll I-got-mine-too-bad-you-can't-get-yours thinking. Hollywood is the anti-culture, the flagging bumbling
money changers, the money makers, the money grubbers, and well, everything is about the pockets and the suits and the "executive
producers," i.e. Bankers.
Oh god, what a trip going into these Hollywood people's hot yoga, macrobiotic diet, four-hour-a-day workout minds. The director,
McKay, actually thinks this drama -- make-believe -- has given the world new stuff, new insights, new news about the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush-Reagan-Bush
world of prostitute politics.
As if there were no real journalists working on all the pre-September 11 illegalities of the republican party and then the post-September
11 evisceration of the few rights the people of the world and USA had before full spectrum war on our planet.
As if journalists hadn't cracked open the Koch brothers, the fake think tanks, all the pre-Truman/post-Truman lies of empire,
from Roy Cohen, through to the rigged systems of oppression. Way before any trivial Hollywood wannabe open her eyes.
Entertainment and a few laughs at the expense of millions of bombed-dead people, millions more suffering-a-lingering-death daily
because of Hollywood and USA policies and the evangelicals and the Crypto-Christo-Zionists bombing "the other" back to the stone
age. The movie, Vice.
Racists, misogynists, misanthropes, one and all. Yet, we gotta love these democrat-leaning guys and gals making films, having
millions stuffed up every possible orifice until their brains gel.
Insight into the flippancy that is Hollywood the Power Broker! Watching people like Amy Adams and Steve Carell and Sam Rockwell
play this soft-shoe goofball show, and then in the little "Making of the Movie Vice" documentary (sic-infomercial) blathering
on and on about the greatness of the script and every cog of the machine that churns out this pabulum, well, it steels me to continue
my small-time, no-fame, big-effing-deal gig writing people profiles to bring some sense to a world captured by capital . . . idiocy!
Oh, how we fall in line. Over at
Counterpunch
, that cloistered world of writers has the countdown for 2018 -- Best Films of the Year, as in the most conscious, socially (give
me a effing break!) that is. Nothing in American society once it floats on the offal barrel is sacred, socialist, communist.
Peak TV is creating more opportunities for independent film directors, and for new stories to be told. More films from around
the world are released on streaming every day, and Netflix spent an estimated 13 billion dollars on content just this year. More
cash available can sometimes mean more stories by and about communities of color, women, transgender and gender nonconforming
people, and other communities Hollywood has long ignored. But the movie industry is still primarily about making profit, and it's
main business is reinforcing the status quo, including churning out films that glorify capitalism, war, and policing.
Below are 2018's top ten conscious films that made it through these barriers, plus twenty more released this year that you
may want to check out.
[ ]
Hollywood doesn't have a great record in covering presidential politics (remember Kevin Costner in Swing Vote ?).
Vice , comedy director Adam McKay's follow up to The Big Short , explores the Bush/Cheney presidency, attempting to
make history and polemic accessible to a wide audience. It's not as effective as his previous film, but it's a good history, especially
for those less familiar with the ins and outs of the early 2000s corporate power grab.
Lighten up already , many a friend and acquaintance tell me. "You are going to burn out like one of the bulbs you use underwater
to do your night dives. Way too much shining the hoary light onto the more hoary caverns of American society. Let things go."
Ha, well, how can we? We are entertained to death, as
Neil Postman
states:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for
there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those
who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed
from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies , the orgy porgy, and
the centrifugal bumblepuppy .
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert
to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984 , Orwell added,
people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World , they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short,
Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.
This book [ Amusing Ourselves to Death ] is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
And so it goes, as I trail the acrid dust devil of injustice -- my own and the veterans' and families' I helped just months ago
in Portland as a social worker for, drum roll, homeless veterans (and some came with families, including babies and service dogs).
I've written about it here and elsewhere -- the Starvation Army. The deceitful, unethical, possibly murderous Starvation Army.
You see, where I worked, I had these insane Nurse Ratched's lording over grown men and women treating them like criminals, and infantiles,
and the constant berating and recriminations. It was anything but social work 101. Anything but trauma-informed care. Anything but
caring people, enlightened helpers; instead, think mean, warped people who within their own broken self's, do all the wrong things
for veterans.
I decided to jump ship, and, alas, a few lawyers advised me I couldn't get far with a hostile workplace complaint until I went
through the state of Oregon's, Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) quasi-judicial pathway.
There was great harm put upon the veterans, great harm put upon the staff, because a director was all into herself and her self-described
Jesus Saves bullshit, yammering on about her former cocaine addiction and booze abuse and 350 pounds of flesh, as well as her own
failings as a mother. This place has 100 people living in it temporarily, while Starvation Army receives taxpayer money, all part
of the poverty pimping Starvation/Salvation Army's SOP.
In the end, relying on idiots in any state bureaucracy to carry forth an investigation was not my idea of justice. I did my due
diligence and filed grievances, first with the Starvation Army, and, then with BOLI. I contacted VA officials, state politicians,
and the media. To no avail. They too are accomplices!
To make a long and stupid Byzantine story short, my prediction of zero assistance and zero admonishing from the state to the executive
director and the higher ups of the Starvation Army played out. BOLI is a toothless and empty-hearted agency, staffed by soulless
Little Eichmann's counting their paychecks and amassing points to their state sourced pension fund.
I have moved on, as usual, and the injustice perpetrated upon me is minor in the scheme of things. The veterans, however, already
foisted with trauma, PTSD, administrative rape, etc., are still vulnerable to the Nurse Ratched's of the inhumane social services
that serves (sic) non-profits and religious crime syndicates like the Starvation Army.
Here , "How the Salvation Army Lives Off (and thrives with) a Special Brand of Poverty Pimping"
Here , "Alcohol, Atheism, Anarchy: The Triple A Threat to the Pro-Capitalist Salvation Army"
I have since my departure been in contact with a few veterans, and talked a few off the proverbial ledge -- several that wanted
to off themselves because of the Nurse Ratched's they encounter at the Starvation Army, in the VA, and in non-profits. This is the
reality, and it's sick, in real perverted American time -- "Hundreds witness veteran shoot and kill himself in VA waiting room"
In December, Marine Col. Jim Turner, 55, put his service uniform on, drove to the Bay Pines Department of Veterans Affairs,
and shot himself outside the medical center, leaving a note next to his body. "I bet if you look at the 22 suicides a day you
will see VA screwed up in 90 percent,"
it read.
This is Trump, this is Biden, this is Clinton, this is the lot of them, callous and broken capitalists, who have sold their souls
to the devil and brains to Jeff Bezos, et al . And it ain't going to get fixed until we cut away the cancer. Really cut away,
daily, in small acts of defiance, great collective acts of beating the system. Not sure what that great director Ava Duvernay says
about more and more movies like her 13th or this new Netflix mini-series on the
Central Park Five , When They See Us will do to eventually get enough Americans (70 percent are racist to the core) to
demand change in the criminal injustice system of private prisons, Incarceration Complex, Profitable Prosecutions. That all those
cops, dailies, elites, deplorables, Trumpies, and Trump said terrible terrible things about these 5 juveniles, calling them animals,
or super predators like the Clinton Klan, well, imagine, an insane 2016 runner for the highest crime lord position of the land, POTUS,
Donald Trump, after these five men were released after all the evidence found them innocent, sputtering with his big fat billionaire's
fourth grader's words that the Central Park Five are guilty, guilty, guilty.
The press coverage was biased. There was a study done by Natalie Byfield, one of the journalists at the time for the New York
papers who later wrote a book about covering the case, and it saw that a little more than 89 percent of the press coverage at
the time didn't use the word "alleged," that we had irresponsibility in the press corps at the time not to ask second questions
and literally take police and prosecutor talking points and turn those into articles that people read as fact, and proceeded to
shape their opinions about this case that essentially spoils the jury pool, so that these boys were never given a chance.
Trump's comments in his ads that he took out in 1989 were taken out just two weeks after the crime was announced -- they hadn't
even gone to trial, so it was impossible for them to have an impartial jury pool. The printing of their names in the papers for
minors, and where they lived, was a jaw-dropper. All of this was done by "reputable" papers in New York that we still read, so
I'm curious how these papers take responsibility for their part in this, and also possibly use this to review the part they play
in other cases that may not be as famous as this.
Thus, she makes my case -- the callous and racist and sexist and xenophobic US Press, and here we are today, 2019, enter Amusing
Ourselves to Death and a Brave New World .
The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is
truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.
-- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World , "Preface"
Alas, though, we have to keep those words coming, even sent to the great gray hearts and souls populating those state agencies
whose workers are supposed to investigate the workplace safety concerns of workers, and are supposed to prevent workplace harassment.
I write to break through the fog, and to envelop a new way of seeing my world, for me and for the few readers that dabble in even
attempting to start, let alone finish, these missives.
Huxley was right -- " Words can be like X-rays if you use them properly -- they'll go through anything. You read and you're pierced."
Brave New World , "Chapter 4"
Paul Kirk Haeder has been a journalist since 1977. He's covered police, environment, planning and zoning, county and city politics,
as well as working in true small town/community journalism situations in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Mexico and beyond. He's been
a part-time faculty since 1983, and as such has worked in prisons, gang-influenced programs, universities, colleges, alternative
high schools, language schools, as a private contractor-writing instructor for US military in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington.
He organized Part-time faulty in Washington State. His book, Reimagining Sanity: Voices Beyond the Echo Chamber (2016), looks at
10 years of his writing at Dissident Voice . Read his autobiography, weekly or bi-weekly musings and hard hitting work in
chapter installments, at LA Progressive
. He blogs from Otis, Oregon. Read other articles by Paul
, or visit Paul's website .
Comments published by NYT draw a very sad picture of paranoid, brainwashed society. Very few critical comments (less then
a dozen), while number of jingoistic and otherwise stupid comments is in the hundreds). This is very sad, if not tragic.
Petty CIA-controlled provocateurs from Grey Prostitute. Hacking national grid means war.. Bolton needs to be fired for jingoism
and stupidity.
Do those two presstitutes and their handlers accurately calculated possible reaction from Moscow on such "revelations"?
From comments: "It is horrible to think that we have our of control counterintelligence agencies with their own agenda
operating as independent forces capable of dragging the country into international conflict "
From comments: "Aggressive malware intrusions into foreign countries' sensitive (and sovereign) computer systems is now seen as
a standard security procedure. "Gunboat diplomacy" is not an apt metaphor, as gunboats remained at discreet distances from borders.
Our cyber policy is more akin to placing bombs in the public squares of foreign cities with threats to detonate. "
Notable quotes:
"... But in a public appearance on Tuesday, President Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said the United States was now taking a broader view of potential digital targets as part of an effort "to say to Russia, or anybody else that's engaged in cyberoperations against us, 'You will pay a price.'" ..."
"... Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place "implants" -- software code that can be used for surveillance or attack -- inside the Russian grid. ..."
"... Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction -- and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister. ..."
"... The intent of the operations was described in different ways by several current and former national security officials. Some called it "signaling" Russia, a sort of digital shot across the bow. Others said the moves were intended to position the United States to respond if Mr. Putin became more aggressive. ..."
"... Already, such attacks figure in the military plans of many nations. In a previous post, General Nakasone had been deeply involved in designing an operation code-named Nitro Zeus that amounted to a war plan to unplug Iran if the United States entered into hostilities with the country. ..."
"... How Mr. Putin's government is reacting to the more aggressive American posture described by Mr. Bolton is still unclear. "It's 21st-century gunboat diplomacy," said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas, who has written extensively about the shifting legal basis for digital operations. "We're showing the adversary we can inflict serious costs without actually doing much. We used to park ships within sight of the shore. Now, perhaps, we get access to key systems like the electric grid." ..."
"... successful attack on Iranian centrifuges as one example ..."
"... Not willing to discuss it with the President but happy to chat about it with reporters..? ..."
"... This scenario sounds like something straight out of Dr, Strangelove. All sides and all actors need to realize that this is a no win game, with the very real possibility of serious harm to the lives and livelihoods of millions of people hanging in the balance. ..."
"... It's a macho power game that can easily escalate into unintended and out-of-control consequences. As with prior successful nuclear test ban negotiations & treaties we need to step back and consider what's truly in the long-term national interests of all concerned. The citizens of all the countries involved are not pawns to be played with like disposable chess pieces, in a power game with no real winners. ..."
"... This turn of events is truly disturbing, as it presents the seriousness, now, of how cyberwar is more likely a prelude to actual war ..."
"... Restated, the Commander In Chief is not briefed on military operations for fear of betrayal. I feel like I'm going nuts. Someone please tell me what is going on in this country! ..."
WASHINGTON -- The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia's electric power grid in a warning to President
Vladimir V. Putin and a demonstration of how the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively,
current and former government officials said.
In interviews over the past three months, the officials described the previously unreported deployment of American computer code
inside Russia's grid and other targets as a classified companion to more publicly discussed action directed at Moscow's disinformation
and hacking units around the 2018 midterm elections.
Advocates of the more aggressive strategy said it was long overdue, after years of
public warnings from
the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. that Russia has inserted malware that could sabotage American power plants,
oil and gas pipelines, or water supplies in any future conflict with the United States.
But it also carries significant risk of escalating the daily digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow. Advertisement
The administration declined to describe specific actions it was taking under the new authorities, which were granted separately
by the White House and Congress last year to United States Cyber Command, the arm of the Pentagon that runs the military's offensive
and defensive operations in the online world.
But in a public appearance on Tuesday, President Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said the United States
was now taking a broader view of potential digital targets as part of an effort "to say to Russia, or anybody else that's engaged
in cyberoperations against us, 'You will pay a price.'"
Power grids have been a low-intensity battleground for years. Since at least 2012, current and former officials say, the United
States has put reconnaissance probes into the control systems of the Russian electric grid. But now the American strategy has shifted
more toward offense, officials say, with the placement of potentially crippling malware inside the Russian system at a depth and
with an aggressiveness that had never been tried before. It is intended partly as a warning, and partly to be poised to conduct cyberstrikes
if a major conflict broke out between Washington and Moscow.
The commander of United States Cyber Command, Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, has been outspoken about the need to "defend forward" deep
in an adversary's networks to demonstrate that the United States will respond to the barrage of online attacks aimed at it. President
Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said the United States was taking a broader view of potential digital targets
as part of an effort to warn anybody "engaged in cyberoperations against us." Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
Image
President Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said the United States was taking a broader view
of potential digital targets as part of an effort to warn anybody "engaged in cyberoperations against us." Credit Doug Mills/The
New York Times
"They don't fear us," he told the Senate a year ago during his confirmation hearings.
But finding ways to calibrate those responses so that they deter attacks without inciting a dangerous escalation has been the
source of constant debate.
Mr. Trump issued new authorities to Cyber Command last summer, in a still-classified document known as National Security Presidential
Memoranda 13, giving General Nakasone far more leeway to conduct offensive online operations without receiving presidential approval.
But the action inside the Russian electric grid appears to have been conducted under little-noticed new legal authorities, slipped
into the military authorization bill
passed by Congress last summer. The measure approved the routine conduct of "clandestine military activity" in cyberspace, to
"deter, safeguard or defend against attacks or malicious cyberactivities against the United States."
Under the law, those actions can now be authorized by the defense secretary without special presidential approval.
"It has gotten far, far more aggressive over the past year," one senior intelligence official said, speaking on the condition
of anonymity but declining to discuss any specific classified programs. "We are doing things at a scale that we never contemplated
a few years ago."
The critical question -- impossible to know without access to the classified details of the operation -- is how deep into the
Russian grid the United States has bored. Only then will it be clear whether it would be possible to plunge Russia into darkness
or cripple its military -- a question that may not be answerable until the code is activated. Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa
Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the
endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
Sign Up
* Captcha is incomplete. Please try again. Thank you for subscribing
Both General Nakasone and Mr. Bolton, through spokesmen, declined to answer questions about the incursions into Russia's grid.
Officials at the National Security Council also declined to comment but said they had no national security concerns about the details
of The New York Times's reporting about the targeting of the Russian grid, perhaps an indication that some of the intrusions were
intended to be noticed by the Russians.
Speaking on Tuesday at a conference sponsored by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Bolton said: "We thought the response in cyberspace
against electoral meddling was the highest priority last year, and so that's what we focused on. But we're now opening the aperture,
broadening the areas we're prepared to act in."
He added, referring to nations targeted by American digital operations, "We will impose costs on you until you get the point."
Gen. Paul Nakasone, the commander of United States Cyber Command, was given more leeway to conduct offensive online operations
without obtaining presidential approval.
Gen. Paul Nakasone, the commander of United States Cyber Command, was given more leeway to conduct offensive
online operations without obtaining presidential approval. Credit Erin Schaff for The New York Times
Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place "implants"
-- software code that can be used for surveillance or attack -- inside the Russian grid.
Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia
for concern over his reaction -- and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as
he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister.
Because the new law defines the actions in cyberspace as akin to traditional military activity on the ground, in the air or at
sea, no such briefing would be necessary, they added.
The intent of the operations was described in different ways by several current and former national security officials. Some called
it "signaling" Russia, a sort of digital shot across the bow. Others said the moves were intended to position the United States to
respond if Mr. Putin became more aggressive.
So far, there is no evidence that the United States has actually turned off the power in any of the efforts to establish what
American officials call a "persistent presence" inside Russian networks, just as the Russians have not turned off power in the United
States. But the placement of malicious code inside both systems revives the question of whether a nation's power grid -- or other
critical infrastructure that keeps homes, factories, and hospitals running -- constitutes a legitimate target for online attack.
How Mr. Putin's government is reacting to the more aggressive American posture described by Mr. Bolton is still unclear. "It's 21st-century gunboat diplomacy," said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas, who has written extensively
about the shifting legal basis for digital operations. "We're showing the adversary we can inflict serious costs without actually
doing much. We used to park ships within sight of the shore. Now, perhaps, we get access to key systems like the electric grid."
Russian intrusion on American infrastructure has been the background noise of superpower competition for more than a decade.
A successful Russian breach of the Pentagon's classified communications networks in 2008 prompted the creation of what has become
Cyber Command. Under President Barack Obama, the attacks accelerated. But Mr. Obama was reluctant to respond to such aggression by Russia with counterattacks, partly for fear that the United States'
infrastructure was more vulnerable than Moscow's and partly because intelligence officials worried that by responding in kind, the
Pentagon would expose some of its best weaponry.
At the end of Mr. Obama's first term, government officials began uncovering a Russian hacking group, alternately known to private
security researchers as Energetic Bear or Dragonfly. But the assumption was that the Russians were conducting surveillance, and would
stop well short of actual disruption.
That assumption evaporated in 2014, two former officials said, when the same Russian hacking outfit
compromised the software updates that reached into hundreds of systems that have access to the power switches.
"It was the first stage in long-term preparation for an attack," said John Hultquist, the director of intelligence analysis at
FireEye, a security company that has tracked the group.
In December 2015, a Russian intelligence unit
shut off power to hundreds of thousands of people in western Ukraine. The attack lasted only a few hours, but it was enough to
sound alarms at the White House.
A team of American experts was dispatched to examine the damage, and concluded that one of the same Russian intelligence units
that wreaked havoc in Ukraine had made significant inroads into the United States energy grid,
according to officials and a homeland security
advisory that was not published until December 2016. Advertisement
"That was the crossing of the Rubicon," said David J. Weinstein, who previously served at Cyber Command and is now chief security
officer at Claroty, a security company that specializes in protecting critical infrastructure.
In late 2015, just as
the breaches
of the Democratic National Committee began, yet another Russian hacking unit began targeting critical American infrastructure,
including the electricity grid and nuclear power plants. By 2016, the hackers were scrutinizing the systems that control the power
switches at the plants. In 2012, the defense secretary at the time, Leon E. Panetta, was warned of Russia's online intrusions, but
President Barack Obama was reluctant to respond to such aggression by Moscow with counterattacks. Credit Luke Sharrett for The New
York Times
Image
In 2012, the defense secretary at the time, Leon E. Panetta, was warned of Russia's online intrusions, but President
Barack Obama was reluctant to respond to such aggression by Moscow with counterattacks. Credit Luke Sharrett for The New York Times
Until the last few months of the Obama administration, Cyber Command was largely limited to conducting surveillance operations
inside Russia's networks. At a conference this year held by the Hewlett Foundation, Eric Rosenbach, a former chief of staff to the
defense secretary and who is now at Harvard,
cautioned that when it came to offensive operations "we don't do them that often." He added, "I can count on one hand, literally,
the number of offensive operations that we did at the Department of Defense."
But after the election breaches and the power grid incursions, the Obama administration decided it had been too passive.
Mr. Obama secretly ordered some kind of message-sending action inside the Russian grid, the specifics of which have never become
public. It is unclear whether much was accomplished.
"Offensive cyber is not this, like, magic cybernuke where you say, 'O.K., send in the aircraft and we drop the cybernuke over
Russia tomorrow,'" Mr. Rosenbach said at the conference, declining to discuss specific operations.
After Mr. Trump's inauguration, Russian hackers kept escalating attacks.
Mr. Trump's initial cyberteam decided to be far more public in calling out Russian activity. In early 2018, it named Russia as
the country responsible for "
the most destructive
cyberattack in human history ," which paralyzed much of Ukraine and affected American companies including Merck and FedEx.
When General Nakasone took over both Cyber Command and the N.S.A. a year ago, his staff was assessing Russian hackings on targets
that included
the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation , which runs a nuclear power plant near Burlington, Kan., as well as previously
unreported attempts to infiltrate Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper Nuclear Station, near Brownville. The hackers got into
communications networks, but never took over control systems.
In August, General Nakasone used the new authority granted to Cyber Command by the secret presidential directive to overwhelm
the computer systems at Russia's Internet Research Agency -- the group at the heart of the hacking during the 2016 election in the
United States. It was one of four operations his so-called Russia Small Group organized around the midterm elections. Officials have
talked publicly about those, though they have provided few details.
But the recent actions by the United States against the Russian power grids, whether as signals or potential offensive weapons,
appear to have been conducted under the new congressional authorities.
As it games out the 2020 elections, Cyber Command has looked at the possibility that Russia might try selective power blackouts
in key states, some officials said. For that, they said, they need a deterrent.
In the past few months, Cyber Command's resolve has been tested. For the past year, energy companies in the United States and
oil and gas operators across North America discovered their networks had been examined by the same Russian hackers who successfully
dismantled the safety systems in 2017 at Petro Rabigh, a Saudi petrochemical plant and oil refinery.
The question now is whether placing the equivalent of land mines in a foreign power network is the right way to deter Russia.
While it parallels Cold War nuclear strategy, it also enshrines power grids as a legitimate target.
"We might have to risk taking some broken bones of our own from a counterresponse, just to show the world we're not lying down
and taking it," said Robert P. Silvers, a partner at the law firm Paul Hastings and former Obama administration official. "Sometimes
you have to take a bloody nose to not take a bullet in the head down the road." David E. Sanger reported from Washington, and Nicole
Perlroth from San Francisco
See the Zero Days documentary, available on several streaming services, if you want to better understand this issue and its origins
and early applications (successful attack on Iranian centrifuges as one example). This cat has been out of the bag for some time.
Not willing to discuss it with the President but happy to chat about it with reporters..? If the President didn't know about it
he does now, so it's hardly a successful strategy. I would presume this is more a way to convince the public that something is
being done. Whether there is reality behind it is a different issue.
This scenario sounds like something straight out of Dr, Strangelove. All sides and all actors need to realize that this is a no
win game, with the very real possibility of serious harm to the lives and livelihoods of millions of people hanging in the balance.
It's a macho power game that can easily escalate into unintended and out-of-control consequences. As with prior successful nuclear
test ban negotiations & treaties we need to step back and consider what's truly in the long-term national interests of all concerned.
The citizens of all the countries involved are not pawns to be played with like disposable chess pieces, in a power game with
no real winners.
On the cyber playing field, the U.S. has so far shown itself still in the minor leagues against other nations. If the U.S. is
so bold as to reveal action against Russia's power grid, we'd be best advised to stock up on candles and batteries.
And here is yet another reason for the US to get off the use of public utilities alone for the production of electricity. A big
goal for national security ought to be the decentralization of electrical production. Businesses and many individual households
could do this and create a manufacturing boom at the same time. Too bad the guys in charge are so fixated on making energy money
in way only.
What's most disturbing about this article is that Trump hasn't been told much about it, out of concern he could screw it up. It
raises the question of how much the president is actually The President or just an obstacle to be managed while parts of the federal
government are haring off on their own into uncharted waters.
The US Military revealing that they have done this means that they believe that they have established superiority with this malware,
and also the ability to re-establish it if needed. Else, why would they reveal it. If you think what a patchwork the controls
on US Power systems, dams, and other key infrastructure are, Russia's must be in much worse shape. Their national systems are
likely made up largely of outdated infrastructure, with controls that are a patchwork. Their economy is the size of Italy's, yet
they funnel inordinate amounts of money to their armed forces, starving other areas. Their economy is based on petroleum and natural
gas, using technology and expertise from European and American companies --just imagine what opportunities that provides.
We are extremely vulnerable here. The US power grid is made up of a series of local systems that are tied together with high voltage
interconnects that allow power to be sent from one system to another to balance loads. Those interconnects are powered by a few,
very few, specialized transformers.
These transformers are huge, expensive, and take a long time to build. Disruption of these
transformers would have devastating consequences. Several years ago we got a taste of this in SoCal. There was a region wide power
outage. The back up generators for business's promptly kicked in, no problem. The power outage lasted longer than their fuel supply,
you could not drive to the gas station to get more fuel, all of SoCal was without power. One by one these businesses and other
critical operations shutdown. Now try to imagine you life with no power at all for just a short time, say a week. . . .
This turn of events is truly disturbing, as it presents the seriousness, now, of how cyberwar is more likely a prelude to actual
war. But what it most alarming is that we have a President who cannot be trusted to honor the institutional frameworks around
National Security and our own Intelligence Institutions and organization. It is the height of incredulity to know that his narcissism,
coupled with his sense of authoritarian marriage to wealth and delusions of Royalty, is the weakest point, now, in our security
as a nation. So--given these new developments: what about all those earlier attempt to create "back channels" with Russia???
Does
Trump feign arrogance and disinterest in reading and keeping up on Security and Intelligence briefings--so that he can assimilate
what he chooses to "hear/grasp" and then operate on such information as it might fit is grifter family's greed and faux aristocratic
delusions? There is much to worry us--and it is worse than daily lies...
William Romp, Vermont | June 15
It is telling that the language of military "defense" has become indistinguishable from that of military offense.
Aggressive malware intrusions into foreign countries' sensitive (and sovereign) computer systems is now seen as a standard
security procedure. "Gunboat diplomacy" is not an apt metaphor, as gunboats remained at discreet distances from borders. Our
cyber policy is more akin to placing bombs in the public squares of foreign cities with threats to detonate.
Absent in this discussion is the distinction between military targets of cyber warfare and civilian targets, if such
distinctions remain. America prepares to unplug millions of Russian citizens, including the elderly and children, plus
hospitals and other sensitive civilian infrastructure targets, in order to "inflict pain" (on foreign citizens) and "send a
message" (to foreign politicians). The abandonment of moral principles formerly displayed by American institutions is
striking.
The failure of leadership on all sides is even more striking. Having spent many months in Russia and China I can tell you (as
can anyone who has travelled beyond the tourist destinations) that the people there hold largely positive feelings toward
Americans and other foreigners. A small minority of xenophobes and racists dominate the leadership, as in America, and form
foreign policies that are at odds with the citizenship, at odds with moral justice, and at odds with humanity.
Viv, .|10h ago
@William Romp
In the abstract, of course people hold positive views of their "enemy" nations. In practice, it is not at all true.
You don't need to travel to Russia to find Russians who have been victims of American xenophobia and bigotry. They're right
there in America.
Americans has never really held to "moral" standards of war.
To this day you have people believing that dropping atomic bombs on civilians was the right thing to do because it
"minimized" loss of life. This is absurd.
To this day you have people believing that it was okay to not only finance the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, but indoctrinate
their children to be war fighters.
There's nothing to be proud about this "moral" leadership.
Tim Rutledge, California | June 15
Won't they just do the same to us? This is the strategy?
DaWill, 11 hours ago
"Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations
against Russia for concern over his reaction - and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign
officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister."
Restated, the Commander In Chief is not briefed on military operations for fear of betrayal. I feel like I'm going
nuts. Someone please tell me what is going on in this country!
Carlos Fiancé
Oak Park, Il | June 15
I appreciate this article. The US media breathlessly report on Russia spending a few hundred thousand on Facebook, but rarely do they recount all the ways the US meddles with Russia, as well as a host of other countries.
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", as Jesus (doubtfully) said.
Pete, CA|11h ago, @HonorB14U
Actually, everything you could think of in American 'technology' is the result of government, usually military, development
projects. The internet and everything associated with it came out of DARPA. American advances in solid state integrated
circuitry are the results of satellite, rocketry, i.e. military development.
Castanet, MD-DC-VA | June 15
Another theatre of war where Pandora's unintended consequences plays a major role. We hope the better angels will be able
to keep the balance. And put the lid back on the box, and put the box away forever.
Norman,
NYC|9h ago
@TMah
Outdated infrastructure is less vulnerable to cyberattacks. It's not connected to the internet.
It's like the railroads in Atlas Shrugged. When the latest technology is left dysfunctional, you can go back to the manual
controls.
If I was designing digital equipment that's so complicated it's essentially a black box and you can't understand what's going on
inside, I'd design it with a fallback to simpler controls, even manual controls.
C.O., Germany|11h ago
For me it is really amazing that so many believe in the meddling of Russia in the US-election in 2016. I at least have
never seen or read about concrete evidence that they did. What was apparent, however, was the misuse of social media like
Facebook and Co in the election. They are open to everyone who can speak English, and everyone can use fake names. I am sure
there were indeed waves of misinformation among voters in the US. But every reasonable person could have read American
newspapers or watched American television to correct fake news if they pop up. In addition, I think that FoxNews, Trump's and
Steve Bannon's disruptive and manipulative ideology and the massive campaign funds have been much more effective for Trump's
victory. To blame it all on Russia is really too simple and in the end rather dangerous. To call for "persistent presence"
inside Russian and its digital systems, as Bolton does, moreover shows that the US is not an innocent victim but up to the
state of art. Frightening.
N. Smith, New York City|6h ago
It speaks volumes that Donald Trump was not informed and purposely kept out of the loop about these cyber operations
against Russia's power grid.
But it's not surprising.
Especially when only a few days ago before walking it back, this President said that he'd have no problem taking advantage
of any available information to undercut his opponent, obviously forgetting that Russia already took him up this invitation in
the 2016 elections.
No doubt they're primed to do it again. Sooner or later Americans will come to the realization that Vladimir Putin is an
ex-KGB operative who plans to restore Russia to its former Soviet glory. And the Cold War never ended.
Phil, Brooklyn | 4h ago
So your argument is that it's a good thing that the military is staging attacks against a nuclear power, basically
without any oversight from any branch of government?
Paul, Virginia | June 15
The use of cyber attacks is another slippery road to actual shooting war. Some says that cyber warfare would deter or
prevent nations from actually going to war with each other. This is wishful thinking for the national survival instinct would
force a nation on the verge of being plunged into darkness and thus cyber defeat to resort to nuclear weapons or maximum
conventional warfare which could easily lead to the use of nuclear weapons.
The world's leading powers should come together, discuss, and agree to a treaty outlawing the use of cyber attacks against
other nations' power grids and other online systems essential for human welfare. The world cannot afford another arm race
similar to the nuclear arm race after WW II that has since placed the survival of the human race on the vagaries of a few men.
Michael, Evanston, IL|June 15
@M. Casey Yes, and we have been doing it to them (and others) for some time. So it is a perfectly reasonable response to
wonder if this won't simply escalate. And I hardly assume that this is a transparent process in which we will even know what
is going on.
TPH, Colorado|11h ago
@David Henderson Actually, the US has been deeply involved in cyber-warfare for over nine years. In June 2010, the US
attacked Iran with a cyber-attack and, together with Israel, completely took out the Iranian military nuclear facility in
Natanz with the cyber-worm 'Stuxnet'. That attack destroyed over 1,000 nuclear centrifuges and pushed the Iranian nuclear
program back by at least two years. The type of attacks on civilian power plants now being discussed would be a cakewalk in
comparison. Nearly ten years of continuing development has taken place since -- not just in the US -- and the tech people
working for and with the US government are some of the best in the world.
If the US has decided to start implanting the latest 2019 malware in the Russian power grid, they have a real reason for
concern. It will be far more damaging and difficult to stop than anything the Russians have yet to develop.
The idea that NonPetya was developed using NSA exploit EternalBlu
is most probably false
Notable quotes:
"... Some F.B.I. and Homeland Security officials, speaking privately, said more accountability at the N.S.A. was needed. A former F.B.I. official likened the situation to a government failing to lock up a warehouse of automatic weapons. ..."
"... "I disagree completely," said Tom Burt, the corporate vice president of consumer trust, insisting that cyberweapons could not be compared to pickup trucks. "These exploits are developed and kept secret by governments for the express purpose of using them as weapons or espionage tools. They're inherently dangerous. When someone takes that, they're not strapping a bomb to it. It's already a bomb." ..."
"... Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, has called for a "Digital Geneva Convention" to govern cyberspace, including a pledge by governments to report vulnerabilities to vendors, rather than keeping them secret to exploit for espionage or attacks. ..."
For nearly three weeks, Baltimore has struggled with a cyberattack by digital extortionists that has frozen thousands of computers,
shut down email and disrupted real estate sales, water bills, health alerts and many other services.
But here is what frustrated city employees and residents do not know: A key component of the malware that cybercriminals used
in the attack was developed at taxpayer expense a short drive down the Baltimore-Washington Parkway at the National Security Agency,
according to security experts briefed on the case.
Since 2017, when the N.S.A.
lost control of the tool , EternalBlue, it has been picked up by state hackers in North Korea, Russia and, more recently, China,
to cut a path of destruction around the world, leaving billions of dollars in damage. But over the past year, the cyberweapon has
boomeranged back and is now showing up in the N.S.A.'s own backyard.
It is not just in Baltimore. Security experts say EternalBlue attacks
have reached a high
, and cybercriminals are zeroing in on vulnerable American towns and cities, from Pennsylvania to Texas, paralyzing local governments
and driving up costs. Advertisement
The N.S.A. connection to the attacks on American cities has not been previously reported, in part because the agency has refused
to discuss or even acknowledge the loss of its cyberweapon, dumped online in April 2017 by a still-unidentified group calling itself
the Shadow
Brokers . Years later, the agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation still do not know whether the Shadow Brokers are foreign
spies or disgruntled insiders.
Thomas Rid, a cybersecurity expert at Johns Hopkins University, called the Shadow Brokers episode "the most destructive and costly
N.S.A. breach in history," more damaging than the better-known leak in 2013 from Edward Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor.
"The government has refused to take responsibility, or even to answer the most basic questions," Mr. Rid said. "Congressional
oversight appears to be failing. The American people deserve an answer."
The N.S.A. and F.B.I. declined to comment.
Since that leak, foreign intelligence agencies and rogue actors have used EternalBlue to spread malware that has paralyzed hospitals,
airports, rail and shipping operators, A.T.M.s and factories that produce critical vaccines. Now the tool is hitting the United States
where it is most vulnerable, in local governments with aging digital infrastructure and fewer resources to defend themselves.
On May 7, city workers in Baltimore had their computers frozen by hackers. Officials have refused to pay the $100,000 ransom.
Credit .
Image
On May 7, city workers in Baltimore had their computers frozen by hackers. Officials have refused to pay the
$100,000 ransom. Credit .
Before it leaked, EternalBlue was one of the most useful exploits in the N.S.A.'s cyberarsenal. According to three former N.S.A.
operators who spoke on the condition of anonymity, analysts spent almost a year finding a flaw in Microsoft's software and writing
the code to target it. Initially, they referred to it as EternalBluescreen because it often crashed computers -- a risk that could
tip off their targets. But it went on to become a reliable tool used in countless intelligence-gathering and counterterrorism missions.
Advertisement
EternalBlue was so valuable, former N.S.A. employees said, that the agency never seriously considered alerting Microsoft about
the vulnerabilities, and held on to it for more than five years before the breach forced its hand.
The Baltimore attack
, on May 7, was a
classic ransomware
assault. City workers' screens suddenly locked, and a message in flawed English demanded about $100,000 in Bitcoin to free their
files: "We've watching you for days," said the message,
obtained by
The Baltimore Sun . "We won't talk more, all we know is MONEY! Hurry up!"
Today, Baltimore remains handicapped as city officials refuse to pay, though workarounds have restored some services. Without
EternalBlue, the damage would not have been so vast, experts said. The tool exploits a vulnerability in unpatched software that allows
hackers to spread their malware faster and farther than they otherwise could.
North Korea was the first nation to co-opt the tool, for an attack in 2017 -- called WannaCry -- that paralyzed the British health
care system, German railroads and some 200,000 organizations around the world. Next was Russia, which used the weapon in an attack
-- called NotPetya -- that was aimed at Ukraine but spread across major companies doing business in the country. The assault cost
FedEx more than $400 million and Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, $670 million.
The damage didn't stop there. In the past year, the same Russian hackers who targeted the 2016 American presidential election
used EternalBlue to compromise hotel Wi-Fi networks. Iranian hackers have used it to spread ransomware and hack airlines in the Middle
East, according to researchers at the security firms Symantec and FireEye.
"It's incredible that a tool which was used by intelligence services is now publicly available and so widely used," said Vikram
Thakur, Symantec's director of security response. Sign Up for The Daily Newsletter
Every Friday, get an exclusive look at how one of the week's biggest news stories on "The Daily" podcast came together.
One month before the Shadow Brokers began dumping the agency's tools online in 2017, the N.S.A. -- aware of the breach -- reached
out to Microsoft and other tech companies to inform them of their software flaws. Microsoft released a patch, but hundreds of thousands
of computers worldwide remain unprotected. Microsoft employees reviewing malware data at the company's offices in Redmond, Wash.
EternalBlue exploits a flaw in unpatched Microsoft software.
Hackers seem to have found a sweet spot in Baltimore, Allentown, Pa., San Antonio and other local, American governments, where
public employees oversee tangled networks that often use out-of-date software. Last July, the
Department of Homeland Security issued a dire warning
that state and local governments were getting hit by particularly destructive malware that now, security researchers say, has started
relying on EternalBlue to spread.
Microsoft, which tracks the use of EternalBlue, would not name the cities and towns affected, citing customer privacy. But other
experts briefed on the attacks in Baltimore, Allentown and San Antonio confirmed the hackers used EternalBlue. Security responders
said they were seeing EternalBlue pop up in attacks almost every day.
Amit Serper, head of security research at Cybereason, said his firm had responded to EternalBlue attacks at three different American
universities, and found vulnerable servers in major cities like Dallas, Los Angeles and New York.
The costs can be hard for local governments to bear. The Allentown attack, in February last year, disrupted city services for
weeks and cost about $1 million to remedy -- plus another $420,000 a year for new defenses, said Matthew Leibert, the city's chief
information officer.
He described the package of dangerous computer code that hit Allentown as "commodity malware," sold on the dark web and used by
criminals who don't have specific targets in mind. "There are warehouses of kids overseas firing off phishing emails," Mr. Leibert
said, like thugs shooting military-grade weapons at random targets. Advertisement
The malware that hit San Antonio last September infected a computer inside Bexar County sheriff's office and tried to spread across
the network using EternalBlue, according to two people briefed on the attack.
This past week, researchers at the security firm Palo Alto Networks discovered that a Chinese state group, Emissary Panda, had
hacked into Middle Eastern governments using EternalBlue.
"You can't hope that once the initial wave of attacks is over, it will go away," said Jen Miller-Osborn, a deputy director of
threat intelligence at Palo Alto Networks. "We expect EternalBlue will be used almost forever, because if attackers find a system
that isn't patched, it is so useful." Adm. Michael S. Rogers, who led the N.S.A. during the leak, has said the agency should not
be blamed for the trail of damage. Credit Erin Schaff for The New York Times
Image
Until a decade or so ago, the most powerful cyberweapons belonged almost exclusively to intelligence agencies -- N.S.A. officials
used the term "NOBUS," for "nobody but us," for vulnerabilities only the agency had the sophistication to exploit. But that advantage
has hugely eroded, not only because of the leaks, but because anyone can grab a cyberweapon's code once it's used in the wild.
Some F.B.I. and Homeland Security officials, speaking privately, said more accountability at the N.S.A. was needed. A former
F.B.I. official likened the situation to a government failing to lock up a warehouse of automatic weapons.
In an interview in March, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, who was director of the N.S.A. during the Shadow Brokers leak, suggested in
unusually candid remarks that the agency should not be blamed for the long trail of damage. Advertisement
"If Toyota makes pickup trucks and someone takes a pickup truck, welds an explosive device onto the front, crashes it through
a perimeter and into a crowd of people, is that Toyota's responsibility?" he asked. "The N.S.A. wrote an exploit that was never designed
to do what was done."
At Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, Wash., where thousands of security engineers have found themselves on the front lines
of these attacks, executives reject that analogy.
"I disagree completely," said Tom Burt, the corporate vice president of consumer trust, insisting that cyberweapons could
not be compared to pickup trucks. "These exploits are developed and kept secret by governments for the express purpose of using them
as weapons or espionage tools. They're inherently dangerous. When someone takes that, they're not strapping a bomb to it. It's already
a bomb."
Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, has called for a
"Digital Geneva Convention" to govern cyberspace, including a pledge by governments to report vulnerabilities to vendors, rather
than keeping them secret to exploit for espionage or attacks.
Last year, Microsoft, along with Google and Facebook, joined 50 countries in signing on to a similar call by French President
Emmanuel Macron -- the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace -- to end "malicious cyber activities in peacetime."
Notably absent from the signatories were the world's most aggressive cyberactors: China, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Russia --
and the United States.
Looks like NYT provocation. Coordinated with whom? With Brennan and his cabal?
I wonder what will be reaction of Russian authorities and military intelligence on reading
this stupid provocation. Hopefully they will not overreact.
Notable quotes:
"... I think they're revealing it because it may be for Russian ears, but not necessarily true or as good as stated. Misinformation abounds, especially when they're letting the press in. Mass destruction anyone? In Reply to Socrates ..."
"... While Obama and Trump are obviously different in some ways, this article reveals yet another continuity between their administrations. Burgeoning attacks on a foreign country's power grid, and little need for prior approval and oversight. ..."
"... Given the timing and the decision to talk about something so classified just now, I take this to be a threat aimed at Iran. "General Nakasone had been deeply involved in designing an operation code-named Nitro Zeus that amounted to a war plan to unplug Iran if the United States entered into hostilities with the country." The leak is an escalation, a threat. ..."
"... This will not end well. The unspoken assumption behind this issue is that the US assumes it must have dominance in all relations to other countries, and that moral outrage for such acts do not apply to us, because we are the "good guys" of course. ..."
"... It's always the big-mouth in the bar that starts the bar fight, then he sneaks out the side door while the rest of us get hit with beer bottles. ..."
"... What about attaching a price to the US's misdeeds, there are plenty of them, Iraq, and all the other US forced regime changes or attempted regime change as in Syria and Venezuela. ..."
"... Giving the military the authority to decide if and when a cyber attack occurs seems unconstitutional. And it seems very dangerous. Just because the actions originate on computer networks doesn't mean it's not violence against a foreign power. Even though everyone is dancing around the issue, a cyber attack is an act of war. Congress is supposed to make decisions on attacks by the military. It seems very Dr. Strangelove-like to me. Very risky giving a military commander the authority to start a war. ..."
"... Of course, the problem with all these "implants" and zero-day exploits is that once they are out there, they are readily deconstructed, repurposed, and turned back to bite us in new form, as has already happened on numerous occasions. ..."
"... To this day you have people believing that it was okay to not only finance the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, but indoctrinate their children to be war fighters. There's nothing to be proud about this "moral" leadership. ..."
"... Sure, the US can install malware deep inside Russia's grid. But that doesn't mean that the American cyberwar gambit is effective. And it doesn't mean that the US has the capacity to prevent Russia from using malware to inflict even deeper damage on the American grid. ..."
"... To understand exactly who is probably getting the better of who in this conflict, we need to ask ourselves what motivates Russia and America to fight this conflict. The answer doesn't bode well for Americans. Russia, which has been on the defensive since the fall of the USSR three decades ago, is fighting to protect its sovereignty against American encroachment. ..."
"... We could have mandated IPV6 with its better security model twenty years ago. We could encourage end-to-end encryption to secure networks. We could have directed the NSA and other security agencies to search out and fix bugs in software libraries instead of building backdoors that are now open to everyone. Instead everything gets converted to a weapon. Fear reigns supreme. Then we go to war and the merchants of death make huge profits ..."
"... The U.S. escalates cyber attacks on Russia's power grid. However, the Pentagon [and NSA] will not brief Trump because he might "countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials" as he did before with the Russians. Folks, we're running an unchecked cyber war against a global nuclear power without the involvement of POTUS who isn't interested, doesn't care, and is too busy complaining about CNN on Twitter. We are a banana republic and no one is minding the store ..."
"... I just don't get it. The New York Times publishing what surely must be classified information about a secret incursion by the U.S. government into the Russian power grid! And Julian Assange is criminally charged for doing the same thing? ..."
"... The US is certainly a very offensive country. The US Is considered The Exceptional World Leader. I don't know if the world can survive such leadership. The US is going to drown in its military superiority, and settle into a state of violent mediocrity with a poorly educated, somewhat unhealthy citizenry with loads of of weaponry, poor mental health and lots of drug addiction and a country with the world's highest rate of incarceration and lousy infrastructure. ..."
"... And for all of those who are blaming Russia, kindly remember how the U.S. started all this with the creation and deployment of Stuxnet against Iran. ..."
"... This reminds me of the Cold War. We were sold a bill of goods about Russia's capacity to harm us when, we the US was actually the aggressor, JFK sold this under the brand of "Missile Gap". The United States is, as usual, the aggressor here. The US Empire wants to control the world. Any independent nation will be considered a threat and not be tolerated. This demonization of Russia is an embarrassment and worse, is extremely dangerous, The Russian bear is not to be trifled with, despite American fantasies. ..."
"... The world needs a Cyber Geneva Convention. Immediately if not years ago. All the tunnel vision patriotic cheering in these comments is very alarming. Think about where Cyber War could go, what it could do, who it would harm. ..."
"... This is the path to the military itself becoming a danger to the state through ill-considered unilateral action. ..."
"... "Defend forward?" A new entry in the Newspeak dictionary... We are partying like it's 1984. ..."
"... "Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction..." So the commander of United States Cyber Command, Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, decided to undertake an overt act of war and not tell his Commander in Chief because he thought he might disagree? If true, Trump should fire this guy tomorrow, if not court-martial him for insubordination. ..."
"... Something's wrong with this article. A newspaper is telling the world that the US is messing around with Russia's power grid? Shouldn't this be super confidential? Basically now Russians are allowed to re tagliate in any way for what the USA is doing. What would be the reaction of the US if the situation was reversed? A bunch of blackouts in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and the Russians saying "we did it"? Our military would bomb them right away! ..."
"... GREAT ! A military junta within the Trump regime...what could go wrong. ..."
"... There is a real danger in deploying cyber-mines in adversary systems. All code can be broken and used in retaliation. Even so-called "encapsulated" code can be disassembled. STUXNET was disassembled and repurposed as ransom-ware. ..."
This is very disturbing and it threatens the security of the entire planet. Cyber warfare is
cheap. As this technology continues to develop, no nation, no industry, no utility will be
safe. Just as many nations want the bomb, many will want this capability and they don't have
to spend much to have it. The economic and human costs of disrupting power flows could be
huge. This isn't a video game. It is real warfare. We should be extremely cautious with the
application of these cyber tools. Do we want to live in a world where nation states are
actively trying to cripple any infrastructure they can get at? Talk about the war of all
against all. It is also very troubling that organizations within our government can carry out
these incursions without specific orders from the top of our command structures. We can't
have the dept. of this or that conducting assaults on other nations on their own. Everyone
can see where that aircraft carrier is, but no one can see that malware hiding in a water
treatment center. These weapons cause us to lose our ability of command and control. That's
the real danger here, loss of command and control. We already have president who has command
but no control. We don't need a dozen agencies with the same problem.
I think they're revealing it because it may be for Russian ears, but not necessarily
true or as good as stated. Misinformation abounds, especially when they're letting the press
in. Mass destruction anyone? In Reply to Socrates
"the action inside the Russian electric grid appears to have been conducted under little-noticed new
legal authorities, slipped into the military authorization bill passed by Congress last summer. " That bipartisan bill, now
law, is known as "H.R.5515 - The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019", was reluctantly
signed by Donald Trump; he hated the law because it was named after an American patriot and hero that he hated.
While Obama and Trump are obviously different in some ways, this article reveals yet another
continuity between their administrations. Burgeoning attacks on a foreign country's power
grid, and little need for prior approval and oversight.
How did we ever survive for half a century without putting our power grid on the internet?
Get our power back off the internet, create some extra jobs to do what computers do now,
raise prices a couple of percent to cover the new employees, and avoid the worry about
hacking the grid. 2 Replies
Given the timing and the decision to talk about something so classified just now, I take this
to be a threat aimed at Iran. "General Nakasone had been deeply involved in designing an
operation code-named Nitro Zeus that amounted to a war plan to unplug Iran if the United
States entered into hostilities with the country." The leak is an escalation, a threat.
It seems to be common knowledge that our country's electric grid has been infiltrated by the
Russians. What I don't understand, given this situation, is why the compromised systems can't
be purged of any malware that might be present and the security holes that allowed it to be
installed in the first place patched.
Retail software companies (e.g., Microsoft) are finding
security vulnerabilities in and releasing updates to their products all the time. What's so
different about industrial software systems?
This will not end well. The unspoken assumption behind this issue is that the US assumes it
must have dominance in all relations to other countries, and that moral outrage for such acts
do not apply to us, because we are the "good guys" of course. Almost anything that another
country can be accused of (interfering in elections, cyber-espionage, stealing trade secrets
and technology) is something almost surely done by the US first to others. I applaud the NYT
for reporting this, but reporters should question the reasoning behind it a bit more. 1 Reply
It's always the big-mouth in the bar that starts the bar fight, then he sneaks out the side
door while the rest of us get hit with beer bottles. Sure wish the bouncer had stopped DJT
and his entourage at the door.
They're what? My son graduated in 2002 and we've been at war or trying to start one ever
since. Can we not do anything but build weapons of death and destruction and look for ways to
put them to use? This war thing is getting out of control.
What about attaching a price to the US's misdeeds, there are plenty of them, Iraq, and
all the other US forced regime changes or attempted regime change as in Syria and Venezuela.
The US has wrecked lots of countries with its superior military and awesome financial clout.
The US is going to drown in its military superiority, and settle into a state of violent
mediocrity with a poorly educated, somewhat unhealthy citizenry with loads of of weaponry,
poor mental health and lots of drug addiction and a country with the world's highest rate of
incarceration and lousy infrastructure.
If the US would just drown quickly, before it destroys the livability of the world, perhaps Europe, Russia and China could
cooperate enough to save the world.
Giving the military the authority to decide if and when a cyber attack occurs seems
unconstitutional. And it seems very dangerous. Just because the actions originate on computer
networks doesn't mean it's not violence against a foreign power. Even though everyone is
dancing around the issue, a cyber attack is an act of war. Congress is supposed to make
decisions on attacks by the military. It seems very Dr. Strangelove-like to me. Very risky
giving a military commander the authority to start a war. 1 Reply
Of course, the problem with all these "implants" and zero-day exploits is that once they are
out there, they are readily deconstructed, repurposed, and turned back to bite us in new
form, as has already happened on numerous occasions.
Those of us in the cybersecurity
community have been sounding the alarm for more than a decade, whether in professional
papers, the general press, or in fictionalized accounts. With escalation, we are virtually
inviting the Russians to mount counterattacks, the cost of which could be incalculable. Our
natural gas transmission network may be even more vulnerable than our power grid, as an
industry insider confessed to me prompting the writing of Gasline in 2013. Of course, now we
have Trump on the trigger and...
I can't wait until this US president is gone so that our future Executive branch can directly
and positively (not out of self interest or hind-covering denial) get back to the the table
with Russia and bring about real change on both sides. If we don't, one has to assume that
all types of cold war warfare can lead to a thermonuclear exchange.
That has always been the
potential endgame since 1948. Did you think that was no longer possible after 1991? You, like
myself, were being naive. I think it's more possible now than ever before. For we have two
authoritarians, each carrying a football named, Doom. 1 Reply
@William Romp In the abstract, of course people hold positive views of their "enemy" nations.
In practice, it is not at all true. You don't need to travel to Russia to find Russians who
have been victims of American xenophobia and bigotry. They're right there in America.
Americans has never really held to "moral" standards of war. To this day you have people
believing that dropping atomic bombs on civilians was the right thing to do because it
"minimized" loss of life. This is absurd.
To this day you have people believing that it was
okay to not only finance the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, but indoctrinate their children to be
war fighters. There's nothing to be proud about this "moral" leadership. In Reply to Viv
Sure, the US can install malware deep inside Russia's grid. But that doesn't mean that the
American cyberwar gambit is effective. And it doesn't mean that the US has the capacity to
prevent Russia from using malware to inflict even deeper damage on the American grid.
To
understand exactly who is probably getting the better of who in this conflict, we need to ask
ourselves what motivates Russia and America to fight this conflict. The answer doesn't bode
well for Americans. Russia, which has been on the defensive since the fall of the USSR three
decades ago, is fighting to protect its sovereignty against American encroachment.
The US,
meanwhile, isn't fighting because it has to. America is fighting Russia simply to aggrandize
its own power, and to expand its influence over world affairs. In my opinion, Russia is the
power that has greater motivation to win this fight. For this reason, any American effort to
defeat Russia by using cyberwarfare is likely to trigger a devastating Russian response. The
US should quit while it's ahead. 1 Reply
Reagan talked about a missile shield, a Star Wars defense, that would make nuclear weapons
obsolete. Almost 40 years later we know that was a pipe dream. But we can be safe in
cyberspace. Many of the tools are there. A few more might need to be invented. What stands in
the way? A U.S. government that wants, claims to need, to spy on everyone including its
citizens stands in the way. Businesses that want to vacuum up and sell everyone's information
stand in the way. Hardware companies that want to lease you a networked service instead of a
stand alone device stand in the way.
We could have mandated IPV6 with its better security model twenty years ago. We could encourage end-to-end encryption
to secure networks. We could have directed the NSA and other security agencies to search out and fix bugs in software
libraries instead of building backdoors that are now open to everyone. Instead everything gets converted to a weapon. Fear
reigns supreme. Then we go to war and the merchants of death make huge profits.
@B. Rothman Micro grids would be helpful, yes, but what about large businesses? Say the ones
who make the fuel for your home furnace, or that power the compressors for your natural gas?
Or that power the giant freezers at the plant that makes your french fries? My point is that
we are really interconnected, and vulnerable to attacks as described in this article. This is
the kind of thing that gives the cyber security pro at you local utility nightmares. We are
balanced on a ball. In Reply to Eric Peterson
@M. Casey - Here we go with "timidity" and Obama. At the time, and in keeping with the
strategy to withhold knowledge of our cyber reach into their systems, Obama's decision
probably made sense. Such a thoughtful approach would have benefited us in the phony,
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" war against Iraq, which cost thousands of American lives and
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Such a thoughtful approach, which is anathema to
chest-pounding chickenhawks, would have also been useful in Vietnam. And the Falklands. And
Beirut. And Cuba and... In Reply to JM
Electricity generation and reticulation worked perfectly satisfactorily before the internet,
so why does it need to be connected to the internet? The obvious solution to attacks on
systems is to cut the internet out of the equation. 2 Replies
@Bruce1253 I have lived through hurricanes that caused power outages for a week or more.
Puerto Ricans can tell us just what it's like right now, given the damage they experienced
recently. Our forebears lived without power for centuries. We would survive, but we wouldn't
enjoy it. In Reply to Larry L
Some thoughts from an obsolete old power engineer:
(1) For the most part our power grid can
be run by people at the substations and generating plants. There are always manual
overrides--to wit: big levers with handles that actuate big switches. This is not a new
development, for the systems were initially designed for manual operation. The digital relays
were added later.
(2) The whole business makes power guys cringe, for they've been trained to
keep the system going. But if necessary, every section of the power grid can be brought back
to life by the employees.
(3) No public utility can operate reliably in a war or anywhere
else that's lacking basic civil behavior. I'm surprised that cell phones have done so well in
combat zones, for they rely on cables to link the towers.
The U.S. escalates cyber attacks on Russia's power grid. However, the Pentagon [and NSA] will
not brief Trump because he might "countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials" as he
did before with the Russians. Folks, we're running an unchecked cyber war against a global
nuclear power without the involvement of POTUS who isn't interested, doesn't care, and is too
busy complaining about CNN on Twitter. We are a banana republic and no one is minding the
store
@Mark. Ok, but it is inconceivable that either the national security apparatus or his own
advisors would have conspired to keep Obama in the dark because they didn't trust him. In
Reply to Mark
It's clear that most American, including many Times' readers don't understand Putin's
strategy toward the U.S. and other democracies of western Europe. The real danger is his
attack on our political system and democratic values. While an aggressive cyber defense and
hardening of targets is important, cyber operations also need to undermine Russians'
confidence in Putin and his government. There are plenty of ways to spread fake news and
paranoia in Russia social and political media. The sanctions are our best "weapon". They hurt
Russian economy and threaten wealthy oligarchs. If they didn't, why would Putin try so hard
to squash them. Unfortunately, the President fails to enforce or expand them. Any guesses why
he undermines sanctions?
that's not nice of the US.---disrupting Russia's power [grid]. They will not be happy about this.
Donald can expect a phone call from Vladimir, expressing his displeasure!
The problem, as usual is management. It is not possible underestimate management. Those of us
on Long Island were without power after Sandy. In portions of The Rockaways, some 20' or more
above sea level, National Grid turned off the power for 15 days. So we know what it is like
to have no power. Having solar cells on the roof is no solution because LIPA / PSEG-LI
REQUIRES the system to shut down if grid power drops!
But the real question must be, why is
the electrical grid vulnerable? Do the control systems use PCs, or rock solid IBM z/OS
architecture? Has any z/OS system ever been compromised? Why aren't individual electric
systems designed to operate off the regional and therefore national grid in the event of a
failure? And whatever happened to synchronous encrypted communication over secure leased
lines? These problems are not difficult to solve. They only require a desire. Mr. Cuomo, are
you listening?
I just don't get it. The New York Times publishing what surely must be classified information
about a secret incursion by the U.S. government into the Russian power grid! And Julian
Assange is criminally charged for doing the same thing? 2 Replies
The US is certainly a very offensive country. The US Is considered The Exceptional World
Leader. I don't know if the world can survive such leadership. The US is going to drown in
its military superiority, and settle into a state of violent mediocrity with a poorly
educated, somewhat unhealthy citizenry with loads of of weaponry, poor mental health and lots
of drug addiction and a country with the world's highest rate of incarceration and lousy
infrastructure.
If the US would just drown quickly, before it destroys the livability of the
world, perhaps Europe, Russia and China could cooperate enough to save the world. Or, if
enough citizens vote for Senator Bernie Sanders for President, the US could refresh its world
leadership with a sane, even wise foreign policy and provide citizens with quality education
for all, health care for all, better infrastructure, and, mostly, A FUTURE TO BELIEVE IN. 1
Reply
It's been pointed out for years that our much higher level of internet control of our systems
makes us more vulnerable to cyber attacks that Russia or China or Iran and certainly N.
Korea. If this story is getting out, and based on the thesis that nothing happens by accident
in the political world, the source must think that our defenses are strong enough to more
than offset our inherent vulnerabilities. I hope that's true.
The fact that we have implanted code is well-known, or at least should be. To say there has
been only a handful of offensive operations is either purposely deceitful or shows the lack
of access by the person quoted.
"Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr.
Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction -- and the possibility
that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he
mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister." Sigh.... our prez.
Our number one threat to National Security.
@HonorB14U Always? Who went first into space? If you were a trained technical person in
control systems you'd know the names of lots of Russians who made fundamental break-throughs
in understanding - more Russian names than I can recall American names. In Reply to HonorB14U
This mutual insanity results from the disease people all around the world suffer from: the
nation-state. Nation-states, in their modern form only four hundred years old, have taken the
world hostage through feverish calls to nationalism and patriotism, deliberately confusing in
our minds cultural identity with the nation-state. But cultural identity is not dependent on
the nation-state! Either we find a way to free our cultural identities from those in power
or, if and when this insane posturing leads to war, we pay the ultimate price of losing our
lives.
Upgrading the grid to be more resilient to hacking and also to better accommodate wind and
solar would be a significant, smart, long term investment. It would improve something we all
use that really needs improving. It would help reduce our carbon footprint. It would generate
good jobs here in America. So instead the GOP spent a trillion dollars on tax breaks for very
wealthy people which the corporate kind used mostly for stock buy backs.
If both countries didn't have stable geniuses in charge, I would be pretty worried. If the
stability of one of the leaders was not the case, I would be even more worried.
So all these attacks we're trading have all gone through proper quality control procedures to
make sure they don't disrupt anything by accident? Not likely. And with the UK, China, North
Korea and others all doing the same, both the large controlling computers and the small
embedded control system components are going to start failing due to all the malware they're
being asked to hold. Malware will attack expecting it is attacking clean manufacturer
supplied software/firmware, but if someone else has already modified it, how will these
systems react? This seems like a mutual game of Russian Roulette. Any time an opponent makes
a mistake something will break somewhere.
The scariest thing about this escalation is that nobody really knows which country--the U.S.,
Russia, or China--has the best cyber-weapons and cyber-defenses until the cyber-war actually
begins. And for all of those who are blaming Russia, kindly remember how the U.S. started all
this with the creation and deployment of Stuxnet against Iran. 2 Replies
This reminds me of the Cold War. We were sold a bill of goods about Russia's capacity to harm
us when, we the US was actually the aggressor, JFK sold this under the brand of "Missile
Gap". The United States is, as usual, the aggressor here. The US Empire wants to control the
world. Any independent nation will be considered a threat and not be tolerated. This
demonization of Russia is an embarrassment and worse, is extremely dangerous, The Russian
bear is not to be trifled with, despite American fantasies.
The world needs a Cyber Geneva Convention. Immediately if not years ago. All the tunnel
vision patriotic cheering in these comments is very alarming. Think about where Cyber War
could go, what it could do, who it would harm.
@M Congress should be at the helm of formulating an overall policy. The power to make war has
moved from Congress to the President, and some Presidents have had an attitude of leave it up
to the generals. So, the departments have gained power in some cases. Rightfully, Congress
should create defensive and offensive policy which the President should endorse and the
Cabinet should carry out. In Reply to TJ
John Bolton has a long history as a Russia hawk. It seems he's now in involved in ramping up
cyber attacks on Russia's power grid, sending the message "You will pay a price" for
cyberoperations – like election interference – against the US. ...
I can understand why the U.S. would want to have this capability and to let the Russians know
about it for the purposes of deterrence, but still, the news fills me with dread. The U.S.
power infrastructure is far from perfect, but as anyone who has lived and worked in Russia
knows, their system is much less reliable and far more prone to breakdowns. In addition, for
anyone who watched the recent HBO series "Chernobyl," the idea of messing with the power grid
in Russia is a little alarming. Russia still operates several RBMK reactors, and although
there are repeated assurances that they are safe now, I wouldn't want to put that theory to
the test by fiddling with the system. I'm sure our guys are all well aware of this, but, just
sayin'...
And we'd be the first to complain if they did this to us. How about if humans finally stopped
behaving like vindictive petulant 8 year olds. We're all stuck on this rock, so get along!
Perhaps the most disturbing reveal in this article is that Trump has delegated an undisclosed
amount of authority to engage in offensive military action by launching a cyber attack,
potentially amounting to an act of war, without direct presidential oversight and approval.
Trump issued "National Security Presidential Memoranda 13, giving General Nakasone far more
leeway to conduct offensive online operations without receiving presidential approval." 9
Replies
@B. Rothman Individual decentralization of your home or business or a factory when the grid
power goes out would be a wise move for many. This would most likely be solar or wind and
possibly a generator as well, all backed by a battery. The interesting part comes in when
your system is connected with the power companies grid. Will it be interactive? If it is then
if the power company is hacked you are also hacked. If your system only comes on when the
grid power goes off you would not be connected to the power companies grid communication and
therefor you would not be hacked. An independent distributed system would keep your power on.
Only used when the grid power was off. You would not be able to send excess power to the grid
or get paid for excess power from solar or wind. Think military base or critical
infrastructure. If all critical systems are isolated they stand alone and cannot be taken
down by cyber war fare. This is a redundant system but it does keep the power on when
everything else goes down. The only way I can see around this is to be connected to the power
grid on a two way communication that is secured and verified to be hack free at all times.
Not likely in this day of cyber war. It may be possible to shut down communication to the
grid as soon as power goes down, thus isolating the location from any further attack or
control by the outside. Then get conformation that it was not an attack, just an ordinary
power outage and then reconnect. Simple. In Reply to Eric Peterson
Power grids as legitimate targets. Affecting hospitals, schools, civilian homes. After 9/11
there was discussion as to whether the Geneva Conventions on war should be modified, and also
discussions on designating captured terrorists as POWs or....enemy combatants. A follow up
article on how these ...agreements on war....might cover cyber attacks, would be helpful.
Shutting off the power to a hospital- or all the hospitals, doctor's offices, clinics in a
major city- how many die? Nuclear power plants as targets? If its war, call it war. At least
we possible victims will know we aren't just disposable pawns in cyber gamesmanship.
Until recently I would be concerned if our military was acting independently of presidential
direction or oversight and if the president or presidential advisors were not kept informed
of initiatives our military and security forces were undertaking against other nations. Now I
am thankful for it. As for the U.S. embedding malware and other malicious software in
Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, Saudi, Israeli, and other potentially hostile nation
infrastructure systems, we should be prepared to send them all back to campfires and candles
at a moment's notice.
The article reveals that the military is withholding information from the president about
actions it's taking against another country, because it doesn't trust him. Predictably in the
current political climate, everyone focuses on what it says about President Trump and fails
to consider what it says about the military; i.e., that it feels it has a mandate to decide,
at its own discretion, what military action against other nations is in the country's best
interests. The military didn't trust President Obama either -- to the extraordinary extent of
public insubordination by its top leadership.
How do we know that it obeyed his directive not
to wage cyberwarfare against Russia, or any other country? We now have no reason to believe
that it did. It doesn't matter that the military distrusts the current and previous president
for different reasons. It will defy a strong, competent president as easily as it will
sideline a weak, incompetent president. This is the path to the military itself becoming a
danger to the state through ill-considered unilateral action.
@Andrzej Warminski...they'd call it 'un-American' to freeze US oligarchs out of ill gotten
assets. Russia has its oligarchs, we have ours. Ours get protection for spiraling profits and
power by mega donations to the lawmakers we elect, and our own Supreme Court legalized this
Constitutional 1st A -Free Speech. This obvious collusion of big money and politics is
avoided in our news media, famous for it's 1st Amendment protections from censorship. Russia
has it's state media, and we have ours. FOX news functions as the GOP state media, consulting
with Trump, and broadcasting his messages daily. Then social media further amplifies this
across the country. 16 Replies
@David G. Generally increased use of the internet in any industry is a way to cut labor
costs. In the pre-internet days, grid workers were likely paid more in today's dollars and
jobs were more plentiful. In Reply to R. Fenwick
@JohnW13 It bothers me the Most that Mr Bolton is in the line of command there, for some
ungodly reason. He is the type that would have flown drones, himself, to do a false flag
attack like that. That they were above waterline is telling. I wonder what Iran found when
they took whatever it was that attached itself to that tanker. I am sure that will be
interesting indeed. 9 Replies
"Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr.
Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction..." So the commander of
United States Cyber Command, Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, decided to undertake an overt act of war
and not tell his Commander in Chief because he thought he might disagree? If true, Trump
should fire this guy tomorrow, if not court-martial him for insubordination.
The Chinese! The Russians! They started it! Anyone who believes fairy tales from the Pentagon
or Washington about this is a fool. Let's see at the end of the 'Cold War' Washington
promised not expand NATO if the Russians et al handed over much of their nukes. They handed
them over and Clinton, etc. marched NATO right up to the Russian border. George Kennan warned
it was the greatest strategic error post WWII.
Who knows what nasty things Washington is
really up to. Like the mysterious Venezuelan blackouts right at the height of their coup
operation. Washington's unending saber-rattling and war mongering can never be trusted. What
a horrifying thought that they would cut off heat and power to millions of Russian people in
the winter. It will be ordinary people who pay the price on all sides.
I have found that nobody listens to my critique of technology by which I state that 1) we no
longer possess the skills that technology does for us, 2) our division of labor has become so
extreme due to technological advancements that nobody really knows how to do anything but
their one job, shopping and driving, and 3) should we lose power, we lose petroleum too, and
without both we lose our society in just a few days. Food goes bad immediately, water
pressure drops in cities precipitously, and people can't go to work, school or entertainment
-- they can't do anything but wait for the power to come back on. But they don't wait, they
loot, they attack, they scavenge, they make trouble. Anybody with a personal supply of food
and water are targets. None of this is hyperbole or paranoia, yet those who make such
slanders are driven by fearsome possibilities they NEVER want to face. Power outages would be
akin to full-scale bombing of whole cities. The Defense Department knows this, but the
citizenry does not.
Something's wrong with this article. A newspaper is telling the world that the US is messing
around with Russia's power grid? Shouldn't this be super confidential? Basically now Russians
are allowed to re tagliate in any way for what the USA is doing. What would be the reaction
of the US if the situation was reversed? A bunch of blackouts in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco
and the Russians saying "we did it"? Our military would bomb them right away!
@Bruce1253, fragmented systems are inherently more resilient because one system going down
does not mean everything else goes down. But having fragmented CONTROLS over INTERCONNECTED
systems is more problematic. Lack of coordination will mean that if a problem occurs, there
will be lack of oversight and will not be able to react quickly enough to contain the
situation. As someone else also mentioned: old pre-Internet systems are actually far more
secure because they are off the grid. Attempts by companies to make things more efficient
(and profitable) actually makes them less secure. 9 Replies
"As Washington's strategy shifts to offense ..." What does the word "Washington" mean? It
*used* to mean the U.S. gov't -- when it used to speak with more or less one voice. But it
doesn't speak with one voice anymore. So, what does it mean now?
Here's the thing - if electricity goes out for any protracted time in the U.S., people will
die. Many people, and quickly. The fragile veneer of social cohesion will be the first, and
fatal, casualty.
If you are going to start covert operations that attack Russia's essential power grid, why
brag about it? American geeks conducting cyber war can't keep a secret is one answer. Its
certainly the wrong thing to do; it gives Putin more ammunition in his propaganda war against
the West, and ensures he remain the 'savior' of mother Russia for the people.
GREAT ! A military junta within the Trump regime...what could go wrong. I'm sure these
attacks are devastating to Russian citizens, but how will it compare when the Russians are
finally successful with similar attacks on us? They've already shown us what happens when
they blow up and election.
@GV and, I suppose the way the game is played, Putin, and any other leader of a country who
has suffered because of the US actions, and that list is long, should attach a price to our
misdeeds. The word "price" always reminds me of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright saying,
when asked about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to US sanctions, "The price was
worth it". With the US has The Exceptional World Leader, the world may not survive in a
livable state. We need more Nelson Mandelas and Mikhail Gorbachevs. GV, do you know much
Russian history? Putin's misdeeds are so minor compared to the killing of hundreds of
thousands and wrecking of countries by the US... Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia 14
Replies
What is wrong with this law system? Open demand on attacking energy sources which could lead
to casualties, property and environmental damage is an international criminal case and such
officials must be investigated and charged immediately to avoid subsequent collateral
effects.
There is a real danger in deploying cyber-mines in adversary systems. All code can be broken
and used in retaliation. Even so-called "encapsulated" code can be disassembled. STUXNET was
disassembled and repurposed as ransom-ware. To be effective in Internet-connected systems,
any attack-code must emulate "normal" behavior. To do this, publicly available programming
code, such as, Java, Perl, etc., is used as components of the attack-code. Once the
encapsulation of the code is broken, and it will be, the code can be reverse-engineered,
defended against, and repurposed to use against us. CYBERCOM, tread lightly.
Is it just me or shouldn't this kind of program be, you know, black? Eyes only, top secret.
The US would have a lot more to lose than Russia if we lost the East Coast for a few weeks.
We don't stockpile transformers which are the backbones of the grid so if Russia overloaded a
few thousand of them we'd be down for months. We shouldn't "overbound our steps" as Stan
Laurel used to say. 1 Reply
@Bruce1253 exactly. We experienced the giant blackout of 2003. You really can't imagine how
damaging this can be until you experience it. We lived somewhat near the interstate and
hundreds of people had to pull off at our exit - they were low on gas, and there was no way
to get gas. In the city, we know someone who was stuck in a subway under the East River for
hours not even knowing what had happened, then had to crawl through dirty tunnels to get up
to the streets. These are just the relatively minor things that happen in the first few
hours. People were generally helpful, but I can't imagine that lasting over a few days. we
don't need to be tested like this. We need to be protected. 9 Replies
Think on this for just a bit... These authorities were delegated downwards and the plans are
largely being kept from Trump because the military and other national security authorities
don't trust him not to tell Russia about them. That's right, the military does not trust
Trump not to tell Russia or "put Russia first." The good news is that as long as this story
stays in the newspapers and not on TV, Trump will never know about it.
Yes but is a useful narrative created by the Clinton campaign to justify their electoral
debacle. It also serves as a useful tool to seek to deligitimize Trump (like the Republicans
with Whitewater and 'birther' angles-- both parties equally rotten liars). What is most
dangerous is the Democrats resurrection of McCarthyite and jingoistic denunciations of
'foreign' influences (like BLM), and calls for greater and greater censorship of the media
and social media. While that seems attractive when applied to rightists, they are fools not
to understand it will be enforced against the left first and foremost. In Reply to Dan K
Oh great, American politicians who think power originates in the plug on the wall making
decisions about things that neither their IQ nor their training allow them to understand. I
can hear our President saying, "we just turned off power to the bad guys' houses and crime
dens". Meanwhile, our top leaders will never report how many die in the hospitals or
accidents that their messing with the power grids in other countries have caused. Just
like... bombing Iraq. Collateral damage: out of sight, out of mind.
@Socrates As usual, the article read in its entirety tells a different story about what the
President's involvement actually was and why presidential briefing wasn't required. "Mr.
Trump issued new authorities to Cyber Command last summer, in a still-classified document
known as National Security Presidential Memoranda 13, giving General Nakasone far more leeway
to conduct offensive online operations without receiving presidential approval." And as to
what the -- again, as usual, "anonymous") officials purportedly aside: "Because the new law
defines the actions in cyberspace as akin to traditional military activity on the ground, in
the air or at sea, no such briefing would be necessary, they added." In Reply to Mauichuck
@jrinsc Wisely our military and intelligence 'leaders' restrict information flow to
Individual-1. He is very Kirkland Russian asset. Remember that he passed Top Secret
information to Russians in the Oval Office as a Russian press entourage looked on. 16 Replies
This is a new definition of war in the 21st century, cyber-war, and I suspect that most
Americans, especially Trump supporters are nearly clueless about what is at stake. With Putin
and other authoritarian rulers, we must put on display our capabilities in more than nuclear
warheads and naval powers. I trust the U.S. intelligence agencies and military much more than
the executive branch of government. This is not my preference but it reflects the
unprecedented time in which we are living.
From yesterdays article on US doing trying to start a war with Iran. That was regarding oil
tankers that were attacked in the Gulf of Oman. Your editorial on that yesterday stated that
we need to stay on top of this tanker violence because of: "American objectives in Syria,
Iraq and elsewhere across the region." Those tankers are not American and the serial lying
about the middle east and Russia and of course Venezuela are pathetic. All of this combined
with climate change, world population growth and a news media that is only doing the
"Manufacturing Consent" thing for the corporations including military industrial complex can
only lead to world disaster. It is existential. Russia has been interfering with our military
recently and that is another horrid example of why Donald Trump is the worst president we
have ever had. A very dangerous man who surrounds himself with the most ignorant, hysterical,
people who support the military industrial complex over anything else. Billions and billions
of money is given to the military by the congress whenever they ask. We do not look for
peace; we look to support the MIC at all costs and those COSTS ARE VERY, VERY HIGH AND
GLOOMY. Attacking Russian power plants? Faking news for Venezuela and Iran? "American
objectives in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere across the region?" Wake up folks. It's up to you; no
one else can save us!
Imagine a world where one country tried to tell every other country in the world who to be
friends with, who to trade with, who their rulers should be, what products they should buy
and from whom, what laws they should pass, what meetings they should attend, how to live,
etc, etc. And imagine this same world where the people who lived in this bully of a country
thought they and their country had the God-given right to tell other people in other
countries how to live. Sounds like some future dystopian hellscape, right? Surprise! It's
not. This is 'Murica! in the 21st century on planet Earth.
How can we aggress in this manner and then be so indignant when it is done to us?? I hate
this!! I don't want to be a citizen of a country that attacks others. I want peace! Defense
is understandable; attack is not.
The newer and more digital a system is, the more vulnerable it is to hacking. The older and
less digital it is, the less vulnerable. That probably makes us more vulnerable than Russia,
but our somewhat obsolete infrastructure (the one we need to spend $1 trillion on) may be
less vulnerable than expected due to its obsolescence. The inherent immorality of going after
power plants, refineries, and other non-military targets is that the effects target
civilians. The fact that one nation may have done so (Russia, to Ukraine's electricity during
a winter) does not justify another nation doing the same.
This entire notification is a message for one person... Trump. This is the intelligence
agencies using their newfound powers that lack White House oversight, to signal to the White
House that the intelligence agencies are DEEP inside Russia's systems and that they will know
if Trump shows up inside those systems during the next election cycle. They can't stop Russia
from waging cyber war... and they can't stop Trump from welcoming help from or siding with
Russia... but they can send a message that they will know if this administration "goes
there"... again...
@Stan Chaz MAD [mutual assured destruction] between Russia and the United States prevented
nuclear devastation because both sides knew they couldn't win. We are in a different universe
now. Russia, with its poor economy one fifth of the US is no longer a superpower, although it
is rebuilding its network of client states [with some like Cuba and Venezuela dying on the
vine, and other former satellites like Ukraine and Georgia resisting their reacquisition by
Russia.] China is also a growing player, expanding its wealth an political and economic
strength. Various quasi stateless terrorist groups can damage the US and not experience
appropriate retaliation because they have no official governments or homelands to hold
accountable. In Reply to Ron
@David Henderson I would suggest going back and reading some of the material Edward Snowden
revealed about the NSA. Those capabilities will be oriented toward this objective now rather
than just conventional espionage. The expertise is second to none. For that matter, read the
DOJ indictment of the 12 GRU officers who hacked the DNC. The amount of detail described
there will make you understand their capabilities. It's as if they were in the room with
them. 7 Replies
This is very concerning on why the Trump administration would disclose this to the public.
What's their motive? More concerning is that Trump in his infinite wisdom had the idea of
setting up a joint cyber security task force with none other than Russia. Weird.
@Telly55 And this from the article. Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad
hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over
his reaction -- and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign
officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian
foreign minister. 4 Replies
I am not so sure I believe much in this. Bragging about such a program would be
counterproductive. Meanwhile, our Republican president and Senate continue to deny Russian
interference in our elections and do nothing about it.
Anyone who thinks that our military is not constantly fighting our enemies doesn't know
anything about the military. Some version of this kind of thing has been ongoing throughout
history. They are very good at it, often the best in the world. That the US officials would
reveal this information can be nothing but part of a strategy related to global objectives,
including but not limited to Russia. The revelation itself can be considered a kind of
weapon, though, of course, the general public is not privy to it's purpose. I trust the
competence of our military almost completely, but I do not trust their ability to set
national policy. They control some enormous hammers, and there are many things in the world
that could look like a nail. The erosion of civilian oversight described in this article is
terrifying. Unfortunately we're all getting used to that.
All of which begs the question, why on earth do we spend about $750 billion a year on
military hardware and personnel, when our adversaries have learned to do as much damage as
they want without firing a shell, torpedo or missile? And, it would appear -- and one would
hope -- so can we. It cost Russia next to nothing to commence the unraveling of America's
political system - a few hackers sitting in cubicles, each with a laptop and an internet
connection accomplished that, with the help of Fox News, facebook, instagram, you tube and,
above all, an uneducated, bible-thumping American populace uninterested in facts and
seemingly incapable of rational thought.
To whom it may concern: This article would be far more credible if it listed the names of the
companies that make and sell the vulnerable power plant operating systems, transmission line
management systems, and the power distribution systems. Which systems are vulnerable?
Emerson's? ABB's? Siemens? Who's switch gear is vulnerable? Are they infiltrating the
operating systems, the sensors, communications, the actuators, or maybe even the metering?
Even the US electric grid is, for the most part, very unsophisticated. Grid operators have
very limited visibility into what is happening on the grid. In most of the US, when there is
a power outage, linemen are dispatched in trucks to visually look for downed wires with their
eyes!!! No computers needed. Combine the fact that Trump shows no interest in fighting
election interference with the improbability of vast penetration into the electric grid and
all you have left is a paper tiger named John Bolton. This article is likely fake news. Mike
I don't quite understand this, if US know that Russia is illegally hacking in to US power
grids you either remove the malware or lodge a complaint with with the UN or whatever
international authorities involved. If you hack back then you are no better then Russia.
HOW TO WIN AN ELECTION WITHOUT STEALING ANY EMAILS 1 Restrict early voting in key swing
states 2 Pass laws discouraging absentee ballots in those same states 3 On election day, turn
off the power in the core of every large city where democrats usually win by large margins,
heavily suppressing turnout 4 Count the ballots: Trump wins the state and is re-elected
President.
My concern with US cyber warfare is the possibility the same code is turned around and used
against us or our allies (I think we still have those outside outside our favored Sunni and
right wing autocracies). The possibility of boomerang cyber mischief isn't confined to
governments either. Remember the stolen NSA hacking tools that ended up on the dark web?
Those have been turned against municipal governments and individuals in the form of ransom
ware. Perhaps we can limit such risks by forming the most sophisticated cyber weapons as
binary tools. Ones where the full capability isn't effective without two secret parts, only
one part of which is installed in an adversary's infrastructure. But once fully deployed,
there's still the risk the weapon is identified, preserved, and later redeployed against us.
I think there are also ways for our adversaries to guard against erasure protocols within
cyber weapons. Lastly, we still don't know if our president is a Russian asset. Maybe he just
really likes murderous kleptocrats and autocrats like Putin, Kim, MBS, MBZ, and Duterte.
Maybe he just has to talk privately with no one else from our side listening. Either way,
none of our current top secrets or foreign intelligence assets may be safe while he's in
office, or even after he leaves (unless he's in jail).
@maureen f. Israel released Stuxnet, just a minor correction there. That is actually more
problem than had we done it, Israel is more unstable than we are, and that says something. In
Reply to B. Honest
What was published here is not classified and if you read the article, you will know that
administration officials had no problem with the publication of this work. Assange, on the
other hand, definitely published stolen classified information and may have solicited and
facilitated its acquisition -- a crime. In Reply to Jim
I thought that Trump is a stooge of Putin, so, he won't take any action against Russia. This
is the misinformation NY Times and other fake news have been telling Americans and the world.
Now by releasing this classified information they are jeopardizing American National
security. No wonder they are called enemies of the people. 2 Replies
Escalating attacks? Or informing Russia of their weaknesses? Cyber assault is inherently
centered around stealth. Sounds to me like Trump is intentionally tipping our hand. A
submarine isn't much use if you teach your enemy how to find it. The description presented
here more closely resembles a joint exercise. However, the US is the only one providing
intelligence. Surprise, surprise. Unilaterally providing intelligence to Putin no less.
US taxpayers still paying for government officials to create new malware that will eventually
be turned against US taxpayers. Thanks "public servants".
@M Trump has made unpresented changes much like a fascist dictator, which he wants to be.
It's just a wing and a prayer that our government hasn't ceased to function effectively, due
to long-standing norms and those who would resist his worst impulses. All Russia would need
is another cosy private meeting with Trump to have him bragging about this new secret weapon
to deliver all this for Comrad Putin to use on us. Flattery is the way to his heart and there
goes everything that should be kept under wraps for security. 8 Replies
@GV Couldn't agree more! And it would make the Straits of Hormuz attach a much different
issue. What's it going to take to get this oil addicted country to switch to renewables? I
guess we'll find out. 14 Replies
This doesn't bode well for Putin's next job performance appraisal of the POTUS he worked so
hard to put into power. Trump's been kept in the dark by Americans who aren't subservient to
Putin.
I keep 14 days worth of water, food, and candles in my apt. I live on the 12th floor and
twice a week I use the stairs to get up to my apt. I also keep a shotgun and cash
You see how Donald Trump's Iran claims were eaten up by the mainstream media. Now you see how
Trump is playing both sides. He claims he wants to be lenient with Russia (which is a fool's
errand) but his administration is getting tougher with Russia. Trump is easy to manipulate
because he is so beholden to so many interests. Sorry to say it, but this makes him an
attractive candidate to powerful interests.
The best defense is a good offense, and a vital part of this American offensive capability is
to keep the details out of the hands of this president. I have long waited to hear of how we
are actively and effectively responding to Russian aggression, but in this age of Trump I
have feared his ability to undermine any steps on our part. Of course he is beholden to the
regime that got him elected. It is essential to counter the aggression of authoritarian
regimes like Putin's and just as important to rid America in 2020 of the authoritarian menace
that is Donald Trump.
I thought America was the country that always played by the rules, and we're upset because
we've been taken advantage of for too long. But apparently we're attacking another nation's
power grid. Hypocrites we are. It's better if we're just honest with ourselves. Admit that we
spin facts to feed our narrative, to justify the damage we cause to other nations. Next
nation to justify going to war with? China. Cause only we can be #1.
Finally something presidential about Trump. They say there's a lot of symbolism to the
presidency and this piece reflects an instance where he's president in name only.
GOOD! About time we started punching back. Russia is mistaken if it thinks it can wantonly
interfere in other countries (Salisbury, 2016, etc.) without repercussion. Good job boys.
Well, if the US decides to engage in some covert cyber-warfare then we should be safe,
because the NSA has some really powerful hacking tools. So I'm sleeping easy tonight. Oh,
wait, you say those tools got misplaced and lost? Never mind then, just buy some candles for
light and a Coleman stove to cook on. You'll be fine; it'll be fun, just like camping out. In
your own kitchen.
Its obvious that we need to protect our online infrastructure in ways we have never done
before, which a majority of the US economy uses. If this is not the case I get nervous if we
start kicking the hornets next and we are not fully prepared for the response. As a consumer
I am very wary of buying and using " smart" products in my home. It is obvious that the
private sector has not even fortified their own firewalls to protect themselves. Do you think
that Alexsa or that new refrigerator will have the level of encryption and protection guess
against even the most basic cyber attack. I think a parallel approach is to fortify our own
network in ways that have not occurred before, but sadly too much of these illegal breaches
are based on human error and when it comes to that one you will never be fully secure. It is
clear the rules of engagement for cyber warfare need to be discussed and treaties need to be
put in play to protect civilians, who sadly in warfare always pay the highest prices when our
maligned leaders, like the one currently holding office, go off the deep end.
@Bruce1253 Agree. However, imagine your life without any power, for good? Everyone involved,
whether they be American, Russian, Chinese, Korean, etc. is playing a deadly chess game, and
humanity are the pawns. 9 Replies
So now we are going to attack other countries power grids , to hurt citizens like it seems we
did to Venezuela to try and install our puppet Gaido, because we want to control their oil
the largest in the world. We did not like their election of President Maduro so we tried to
overthrow him because he wasn't willing to be controlled, like the 73% of dictators around
the world that are our allies that we sell arms too. We have never cared about other
countries elections, I also wonder if our elections are rigged, with our electronic machines
supplied by questionable corporations. Now we are blaming the Russian government for what a
troll farm company did in Russia buying election ads for clickbait so they could profit. This
sounds like the 1950's red scare. Russia should be our friend just like Iran, except we ally
with countries like Saudi Arabia the largest financier of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and
that spreads Wahhabism. This is all so our Military Industrial Complex can profit needing
ever larger weapons systems. Peace is not profitable it seems for our Oligarchy.
If the US is openly pursuing this course, and succeeds, I would expect Putin to hit back in
kind, by shutting down the power grids of America's less prepared allies. Like Canada, where
our aging power grid is already struggling, without being attacked. 1 Reply
I'm not sure we want to perpetuate this tactic as fair game in war. Do we want our power grid
hacked? This puts regular people at risk of have no electricity, no heat, no AC. Our war is
not with regular people. Our war is with oligarchs.
"Under the law, those actions [cyber espionage against U.S. adversaries] can now be
authorized by the defense secretary without special presidential approval." Because Donny
would pick up the phone to tattle to his BFF Vlad.
I thought the stable genius did not reveal what he was doing in terms of attacking another
country. And if his good bro, Putin, said nothing was going on, why is the US attacking
Russia? (sarcasm).
What an absurd, clearly unprecedented, and highly dangerous state this country is in when the
Commander-in-Chief, as reported herein, cannot be trusted by our own military and
intelligence leaders with probably compartmentalized, top secret classified information about
our cyber warfare capabilities and plans against Russia for fear that he could very well
compromise the operation. Isn't this yet another reason why Trump should be removed from
office by impeachment? What his own Administration's national security people are saying is
that their leader cannot be trusted with the most sensitive information held by the
government. If this Fake President is a threat to the nation on a scale of that profound
magnitude, he cannot and must not be allowed to remain in office. Congress, are you
listening???
"Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any
detail..." Um, isn't it normal procedure to brief the president of the United States about
major changes in military strategy like this? I mean, the president is supposedly "commander
in chief." How about Congress, or at least the relevant Congressional committees? Are they
being kept in the loop? Or are Bolton and Co. just winging it on their own? If so, that's
quite disturbing.
So if a Russian nuclear plant has a meltdown or other catastrophe, will they be justified in
wondering if the US caused it? Also, the malware against Iran spread to other countries even
thought that was not intended to do so.
Wasn't their just an excellent show on HBO that shows what happens when you mess with
controlling power? No, not Game of Thrones. Chernobyl. Nuclear comprises 20% of Russia's
electricity generation. Do we really want our fingerprints all over the crime scene should
something go wrong? Can't we mess with computer controlled vodka distillation instead?
Let me understand this. The same USA that is outraged by Russian election hacking is
simultaneously conducting cyber-attacks on Russian infrastructure? This situation would be
merely ironic if it weren't so callously hypocritical.
It would be nice to think that the self proclaimed 'genius Trump knows something about the
cyber war we are fighting or at least trust the experts on the front lines of this war. As it
is he looks into Putin's eyes and declares him without sin and denies that Russia used cyber
space to hack our 2016 elections and even declares that this information can be used to help
his campaign. He prevaricates a little, but we heard you the first time, Mr.Trump. Our
intelligence agencies may be planting these bugs in the Russian electric grid, but what we
need is a leader who has the intelligence and wisdom to guide its use.
So CyberCommand doesn't brief the President because (1) they don't think the law requires
them to do so, (2) and they don't trust him with important information? This is deeply
disturbing on multiple fronts.
@Barbara, in the past, before urbanism, it was possible to survive because you could live off
the land. This is not a possibility in the middle of NYC, DC or SF. 9 Replies
"... Surveillance cameras are everywhere. Government agents listen in on our telephone calls and read our emails. Political correctness -- a philosophy that discourages diversity -- has become a guiding principle of modern society. ..."
"... We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state. ..."
"... What many fail to realize is that the government is not operating alone. It cannot. The government requires an accomplice. Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of the massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental overreach. ..."
"... In fact, Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother, and we are now ruled by the Corporate Elite whose tentacles have spread worldwide. For example, USA Today reports that five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the homeland security business was booming to such an extent that it eclipsed mature enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue. This security spending to private corporations such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft and others is forecast to exceed $1 trillion in the near future. ..."
"... Everything from cell phone recordings and logs, to emails, to text messages, to personal information posted on social networking sites, to credit card statements, to library circulation records, to credit card histories, etc., is collected by the NSA and shared freely with its agents in crime: the CIA, FBI and DHS. One NSA researcher actually quit the Aquaint program, "citing concerns over the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability." ..."
"You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard,
and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." -- George Orwell, 1984
Who could have predicted that 70 years after Orwell typed the final words to his dystopian novel, "He loved Big Brother," we would
fail to heed his warning and come to love Big Brother.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone
-- to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the
age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink -- greetings!" -- George Orwell
1984 portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree
with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven
society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. People are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes.
The government, or "Party," is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words: "Big Brother is watching
you."
We have arrived, way ahead of schedule, into the dystopian future dreamed up by not only Orwell but also such fiction writers
as Aldous Huxley, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."―George Orwell
Much like Orwell's Big Brother in 1984 , the government and its corporate spies now watch our every move. Much like Huxley's
A Brave New World , we are churning out a society of watchers who "have their liberties taken away from them, but rather enjoy
it, because they [are] distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing." Much like Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale
, the populace is now taught to "know their place and their duties, to understand that they have no real rights but will be protected
up to a point if they conform, and to think so poorly of themselves that
they will
accept their assigned fate and not rebel or run away ."
And in keeping with Philip K. Dick's darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police state -- which became the basis for
Steven
Spielberg's futuristic thriller Minority Report -- we are now trapped in a world in which the government is all-seeing,
all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few
skulls to bring the populace under control.
What once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction.
Incredibly, as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alike -- facial recognition,
iris scanners, massive databases, behavior prediction software, and so on -- are incorporated into a complex, interwoven cyber network
aimed at tracking our movements, predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior, the
dystopian visions of past writers is fast becoming
our reality .
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."―George
Orwell
The courts have
shredded the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, SWAT teams battering down doors
without search warrants and FBI agents acting as a secret police that investigate dissenting citizens are common occurrences in contemporary
America. And bodily privacy and integrity have been utterly eviscerated by a prevailing view that Americans have no rights over what
happens to their bodies during an encounter with government officials, who are allowed to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe,
pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible
to say which was which."―George Orwell, Animal Farm
We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state.
What many fail to realize is that the government is not operating alone. It cannot. The government requires an accomplice.
Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of the massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance
and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on
and feeds the growth of governmental overreach.
In fact, Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother, and we are now ruled by the Corporate Elite whose tentacles
have spread worldwide. For example, USA Today reports that five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the homeland security
business was booming to such an extent that it
eclipsed mature
enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue. This security spending to private corporations such as
Google, Amazon, Microsoft and others is
forecast to exceed
$1 trillion in the near future.
The government now has at its disposal technological arsenals so sophisticated and invasive as to render any constitutional protections
null and void. Spearheaded by the NSA, which has shown itself to care little to nothing for constitutional limits or privacy, the
"security/industrial complex" -- a marriage of government, military and corporate interests aimed at keeping Americans under constant
surveillance -- has come to dominate the government and our lives. At three times the size of the CIA, constituting one third of
the intelligence budget and with its own global spy network to boot, the NSA has a long history of spying on Americans, whether or
not it has always had the authorization to do so.
Money, power, control. There is no shortage of motives fueling the convergence of mega-corporations and government. But who is
paying the price? The American people, of course.
Orwell understood what many Americans, caught up in their partisan flag-waving, are still struggling to come to terms with: that
there is no such thing as a government organized for the good of the people. Even the best intentions among those in government inevitably
give way to the desire to maintain power and control over the citizenry at all costs. As Orwell explains:
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power,
pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know
what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian
Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended,
perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there
lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention
of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution;
one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture
is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." ― George Orwell
How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.
In totalitarian regimes -- a.k.a. police states -- where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the
government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises
itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.
Dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In
Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 , reading is banned
and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and
render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.
In Huxley's Brave New World , serious literature,
scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through the use of conditioning,
social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality are viewed as vulgar and
abnormal.
And in Orwell's 1984 , Big Brother does
away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish "thoughtcrimes."
In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace
deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals
with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda).
The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
All three -- Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell -- had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood
the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell's Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such
words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a
single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to 1984 :
The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as "This dog is free from lice" or
"This field is free from weeds." It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free," since political
and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts .
Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where
only that which is "safe" and "accepted" by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will
pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.
This is the final link in the police state chain.
"Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious." --
George Orwell
Americans have been
conditioned to accept routine incursions on their privacy rights . In fact, the addiction to screen devices -- especially cell
phones -- has created a hive effect where the populace not only watched but is controlled by AI bots. However, at one time, the idea
of a total surveillance state tracking one's every move would have been abhorrent to most Americans. That all changed with the 9/11
attacks. As professor Jeffrey Rosen observes, "Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives
under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and
stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable,
a dystopian fantasy of a society that
had surrendered privacy and anonymity ."
Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry -- mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the
face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield,
and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all -- we have nowhere left to go.
We have, so to speak, gone from being a nation where privacy is king to one where nothing is safe from the prying eyes of government.
In search of so-called terrorists and extremists hiding amongst us -- the proverbial "needle in a haystack," as one official termed
it -- the Corporate State has taken to monitoring all aspects of our lives, from cell phone calls and emails to Internet activity
and credit card transactions. Much of this data is being fed through
fusion centers across the
country, which work with the Department of Homeland Security to make threat assessments on every citizen, including school children.
These are state and regional intelligence centers that collect data on you.
"Big Brother is Watching You."―George Orwell
Wherever you go and whatever you do, you are now being watched, especially if you leave behind an electronic footprint. When you
use your cell phone, you leave a record of when the call was placed, who you called, how long it lasted and even where you were at
the time. When you use your ATM card, you leave a record of where and when you used the card. There is even a video camera at most
locations equipped with facial recognition software. When you use a cell phone or drive a car enabled with GPS, you can be tracked
by satellite. Such information is shared with government agents, including local police. And all of this once-private information
about your consumer habits, your whereabouts and your activities is now being fed to the U.S. government.
The government has nearly inexhaustible resources when it comes to tracking our movements, from electronic wiretapping devices,
traffic cameras and biometrics to radio-frequency identification cards, satellites and Internet surveillance.
Speech recognition technology now makes it possible for the government to carry out massive eavesdropping by way of sophisticated
computer systems. Phone calls can be monitored, the audio converted to text files and stored in computer databases indefinitely.
And if any "threatening" words are detected -- no matter how inane or silly -- the record can be flagged and assigned to a government
agent for further investigation. Federal and state governments, again working with private corporations, monitor your Internet content.
Users are profiled and tracked in order to identify, target and even prosecute them.
In such a climate, everyone is a suspect. And you're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. To underscore this shift in
how the government now views its citizens, the FBI uses its wide-ranging authority to investigate individuals or groups, regardless
of whether they are suspected of criminal activity.
"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull." ― George Orwell
Here's what a lot of people fail to understand, however: it's not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how you
think that is being tracked and targeted. We've already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime
legislation that cracks down on so-called "hateful" thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on
various subject matter.
Total Internet surveillance by the Corporate State, as omnipresent as God, is used by the government to predict and, more importantly,
control the populace, and it's not as far-fetched as you might think. For example, the NSA is now designing an artificial intelligence
system that is designed to anticipate your every move. In a nutshell, the NSA will feed vast amounts of the information it collects
to a computer system known as Aquaint (the acronym
stands for Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence), which the computer can then use to detect patterns and predict behavior.
No information is sacred or spared.
Everything from cell phone recordings and logs, to emails, to text messages, to personal information posted on social networking
sites, to credit card statements, to library circulation records, to credit card histories, etc., is collected by the NSA and shared
freely with its agents in crime: the CIA, FBI and DHS. One NSA researcher actually quit the Aquaint program, "citing concerns over
the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability."
Thus, what we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised
of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).
Clearly, the age of privacy in America is at an end.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever." -- Orwell
So where does that leave us?
We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not
to us but to our government and corporate rulers. This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us
on a daily basis.
It won't be long before we find ourselves looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we
wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted without those thoughts, words and activities being tracked, processed and stored
by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police
with their army of futuristic technologies.
To be an individual today, to not conform, to have even a shred of privacy, and to live beyond the reach of the government's roaming
eyes and technological spies, one must not only be a rebel but rebel.
Even when you rebel and take your stand, there is rarely a happy ending awaiting you. You are rendered an outlaw.
So how do you survive in the American surveillance state?
We're running out of options
As I make clear in my book
Battlefield America: The
War on the American People , we'll soon have to choose between self-indulgence (the bread-and-circus distractions offered
up by the news media, politicians, sports conglomerates, entertainment industry, etc.) and self-preservation in the form of renewed
vigilance about threats to our freedoms and active engagement in self-governance.
Yet as Aldous Huxley acknowledged in Brave New World Revisited : "Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only
those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures. A society,
most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot, not here and now and in their calculable future, but somewhere
else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist
the encroachments of those would manipulate and control it."
-----------------------------------------------------
The corrupt establishment will do anything to suppress sites like the Burning Platform from revealing the truth. The corporate media
does this by demonetizing sites like mine by blackballing the site from advertising revenue. If you get value from this site, please
keep it running with a donation. [Jim Quinn - PO Box 1520
Every hour taxpayers in the United States are paying $32,077,626 for
Total Cost of Wars Since 2001.
I'm going through a Department of Defense background check right now and it's not so bad. The thing is they already know everything
damn there is to know about me. How do I know this ? Because I can pull up on their computers what they already know. It's to
help guys like me pass or at least that's what they say.
They got us by the balls now . How can you fight something like this Unless you take down the whole electric grid. Only God knows
the horror that would bring.
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." – Orwell
Galatians 4:16 KJB "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" – Paul
Boat Guy
It is serious concern the move from a free republic to a corporate state with armed government badge wearing just doing my
job minions existing in comfort thanks to the confiscatory tax and asset forfeiture programs in play by the circle jerk of Wall
Street to K-Street to Capitol Street .
Sadly the people of honor and integrity that could initiate a Nuremberg style justice system upon those in power and control will
quickly be stricken down by minions unaccountable thanks to nonsense like the patriot act and FISA courts . So much for the bill
of Rights that is supposed to be the impenetrable shield protecting Americans from government . Our alleged honor and oath bound
representatives have been able to turn it into Swiss cheese !
Refuse & Resist , Forget Me Not !
"... In the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four , there is an all-encompassing surveillance state that keeps a watchful eye on everyone, in search of possible rebels and points of resistance. ..."
"... Censorship is the norm in this world, and is so extreme that individuals can become "unpersons" who are essentially deleted from society because their ideas were considered dangerous by the establishment. This is an idea that is very familiar to activists and independent journalists who are being removed from the public conversation for speaking out about government and corporate corruption on social media. ..."
"... Orwell is famous for coining the term "double-speak," which is a way to describe the euphemistic language that government uses to whitewash their most dirty deeds. For example, in Orwell's story, the ministry of propaganda was called the Ministry of Truth, just as today the government agency that was once known as "The Department of War," is now called the "Department of Defense." ..."
"... "Sometimes the man who looks happiest in town, with the biggest smile, is the one carrying the biggest load of sin. There are smiles and smiles; learn to tell the dark variety from the light. The seal-barker, the laugh-shouter, half the time he's covering up. He's had his fun and he's guilty. And men do love sin, oh how they love it, never doubt, in all shapes, sizes, colors, and smells." ..."
"... Unfortunately, just like in Orwell's book, people in the modern world are so distracted by entertainment and the divided by politics that they have no idea they are living in a tyrannical police state. ..."
"... "We are not at war with Eurasia. You are being made into obedient, stupid slaves of the Party." -Emmanuel Goldstein ..."
This month, George Orwell's legendary novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four turns
70 years old, and the warnings contained within the story are now more relevant than ever. Orwell's predictions were so spot on that
it almost seems like it was used as some type of accidental instruction manual for would-be tyrants.
In the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four , there is an all-encompassing surveillance state that keeps a watchful eye on everyone,
in search of possible rebels and points of resistance.
Censorship is the norm in this world, and is so extreme that individuals can become "unpersons" who are essentially deleted
from society because their ideas were considered dangerous by the establishment. This is an idea that is very familiar to activists
and independent journalists who are being removed from the public conversation for speaking out about government and corporate corruption
on social media.
Orwell is famous for coining the term "double-speak," which is a way to describe the euphemistic language that government
uses to whitewash their most dirty deeds. For example, in Orwell's story, the ministry of propaganda was called the Ministry of Truth,
just as today the government agency that was once known as "The Department of War," is now called the "Department of Defense."
There was also never-ending war in Orwell's story, the conditions of which would change on a regular basis, keeping the general
population confused about conflicts so they give up on trying to understand what is actually going on. Some of these predictions
were merely recognitions of patterns in human history, since the idea of "unpersons" and war propaganda is nothing new. However,
Orwell had an incredible understanding of how technology was going to progress over the 20th century, and he was able to envision
how technology would be used by those in power to control the masses.
The technological predictions made in the book were truly uncanny, as they give a fairly accurate description of our modern world.
Orwell described "telescreens," which acted as both an entertainment device and a two-way communication device. This type of technology
was predicted by many futurists at the time, but Orwell's prediction was unique because he suggested that these devices would be
used by the government to spy on people, through microphones and cameras built into the devices.
Unfortunately, just like in Orwell's book, people in the modern world are so distracted by entertainment and the divided by politics
that they have no idea they are living in a tyrannical police state. This police state was also a strong deterrent in the world of
Nineteen Eighty-Four , because although many of the citizens in the book had a positive opinion of "big brother," it was still something
that they feared, and it was a force that kept them in control. Of course, this is not much different from the attitude that the
average American or European has when confronted with police brutality and government corruption.
Many of the ideas about power and authority that were expressed in Orwell's classic are timeless and as old as recorded history
; but his analysis of how technology would amplify the destructive nature of power was incredibly unique, especially for his time.
Not to stray too far, I always liked the part in Ray Bradbury's "Something Wicked This Way Comes":
"Sometimes the man who looks happiest in town, with the biggest smile, is the one carrying the biggest load of sin.
There are smiles and smiles; learn to tell the dark variety from the light. The seal-barker, the laugh-shouter, half the time
he's covering up. He's had his fun and he's guilty. And men do love sin, oh how they love it, never doubt, in all shapes,
sizes, colors, and smells."
The laugh shouter is one of those government or corporate chuckle-heads that goes along, gets along, and usually spends less
than an hour a day actually doing his job. You see them on TV and in every office. Everything out of their mouths has to be punctuated
with a chuckle.
The thing I remember from the novel was the "versificator" which was a typewriter-like device that allowed historical events
to be changed as needed . . . very much like the networked computer.
Facebook recently made me an UnPerson, not joking. I had deleted my acct some years ago, re-registered to man a business page
and...haha they rejected me, recent photo and all.
There are a few other books and booklets and letters that also seem eerily prescient. Following modern-day protocols, however,
it's best not to mention them in polite company. ;-)
Unfortunately, just like in Orwell's book, people in the modern world are so distracted by entertainment and the divided
by politics that they have no idea they are living in a tyrannical police state.
Exactly...
"We are not at war with Eurasia. You are being made into obedient, stupid slaves of the Party." -Emmanuel Goldstein
I plan on voting in the local elections, especially for Sheriff and the bond issues. Also, I still think that voting for the
quality Libertarian candidates is a better option than not voting, but I do understand your point. But when all else fails, you
better be prepared to vote from the rooftops...
"... In Orwell's imagination, society was ruled in the future by Big Brother. It wasn't a computer, but rather the collective expression of the Party. But not like the Republicans; this Party was an autonomous bureaucracy and advanced surveillance state interested only in perpetuating itself as a hierarchy. In this dystopia, "the people" had become insignificant, without the power of "grasping that the world could be other than it is." ..."
"... Concepts like freedom were perverted by a ruthless Newspeakperpetuated by the Party through the media. A Goodthinker was someone who followed orders without thinking. Crimestop was the instinctual avoidance of any dangerous thought, and Doublethink was the constant distortion of reality to maintain the Party's image of infallibility. ..."
"... Writing in 1948, Orwell was projecting what could happen in just a few decades. By most measures, even 70 years later we're not quite there yet. But we do face the real danger that freedom and equality will be seriously distorted by a new form of Newspeak, a Trumpian version promoted by the administration and its allies through their media. We already have Trumpian Goodthinkers -- the sychophantic surrogates who follow his lead without thinking, along with Crimestop -- the instinctual avoidance of "disloyal" thought, and Doublethink -- the constant distortion of reality to maintain Trump's insatiable ego and image of infallibility. Orwellian ideas are simply resurfacing in a post-modern/reality TV form. ..."
"... As community life unravels and more institutions fall into disrepute, media have become among of the few remaining that can potentially facilitate some social cohesion. Yet instead they fuel conflict and crisis. It's not quite Crimestop, but does often appeal to some of the basest instincts and produce even more alienation and division. ..."
"... In 1980, Ralph Nader called the race for president at that time -- between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan -- a choice between mediocrity and menace. It was funny then, but now we can see what real menace looks like. Is Trump-ism what Orwell warned us about? Not quite, though there are similarities. Like Trump, you can't talk to Big Brother. And he rarely gives you the truth, only doublespeak. But Trump is no Big Brother. More like a Drunk Uncle with nukes. ..."
"... Security is tight and hard to avoid, on or offline. There are cameras everywhere, and every purchase and move most people make is tracked by the state. Still, there are four bombings in the first week of the Games. There is also another kind of human tragedy. Four runners collapse during preliminary rounds as a result of a toxic mix -- heat and pollution. ..."
"... Greg Guma is the Vermont-based author of Dons of Time, Uneasy Empire, Spirits of Desire, Big Lies, and The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution. ..."
"... This article was originally published by Greg Guma: For Preservation & Change . ..."
More people are becoming alienated, cynical, resentful or resigned, while too much of
mass and social media reinforces less-than-helpful narratives and tendencies. The frog's in the
frying pan and the heat is rising.
On the big screens above us beautiful young people demonstrated their prowess. We were
sitting in the communications center, waiting for print outs to tell us what they'd done before
organizing the material for mass consumption. Outside, people were freezing in the snow as they
waited for buses. Their only choice was to attend another event or attempt to get home.
The area was known as the Competition Zone, a corporate state created for the sole purpose
of showcasing these gorgeous competitors. Freedom was a foreign idea here; no one was more free
than the laminated identification card hanging around your neck allowed.
Visitors were more restricted than anyone. They saw only what they paid for, and had to wait
in long lines for food, transport, or tickets to more events. They were often uncomfortable,
yet they felt privileged to be admitted to the Zone. Citizens were categorized by their
function within the Organizing Committee's bureaucracy. Those who merely served -- in jobs like
cooking, driving and cleaning -- wore green and brown tags. They could travel between their
homes and work, but were rarely permitted into events. Their contact with visitors was also
limited. To visit them from outside the Zone, their friends and family had to be screened.
Most citizens knew little about how the Zone was actually run, about the "inner community"
of diplomats, competitors and corporate officials they served. Yet each night they watched the
exploits of this same elite on television.
The Zone, a closed and classified place where most bad news went unreported and a tiny elite
called the shots through mass media and computers, was no futuristic fantasy. It was Lake
Placid for several weeks in early 1980 -- a full four years before 1984.
In a once sleepy little community covered with artificial snow, the Olympics had brought a
temporary society into being. Two thousand athletes and their entourage were its royalty, role
models for the throngs of spectators, townspeople and journalists. This convergence resulted in
an ad hoc police state, managed by public and private forces and a political elite that
combined local business honchos with an international governing committee. They dominated a
population all too willing to submit to arbitrary authority.
Even back then, Lake Placid's Olympic "village" felt like a preview of things to come. Not
quite George Orwell's dark vision, but uncomfortably close.
In Orwell's imagination, society was ruled in the future by Big Brother. It wasn't a
computer, but rather the collective expression of the Party. But not like the Republicans; this
Party was an autonomous bureaucracy and advanced surveillance state interested only in
perpetuating itself as a hierarchy. In this dystopia, "the people" had become insignificant,
without the power of "grasping that the world could be other than it is."
Concepts like freedom were perverted by a ruthless Newspeakperpetuated by the Party through
the media. A Goodthinker was someone who followed orders without thinking. Crimestop was the
instinctual avoidance of any dangerous thought, and Doublethink was the constant distortion of
reality to maintain the Party's image of infallibility.
Writing in 1948, Orwell was projecting what could happen in just a few decades. By most
measures, even 70 years later we're not quite there yet. But we do face the real danger that
freedom and equality will be seriously distorted by a new form of Newspeak, a Trumpian version
promoted by the administration and its allies through their media. We already have Trumpian
Goodthinkers -- the sychophantic surrogates who follow his lead without thinking, along with
Crimestop -- the instinctual avoidance of "disloyal" thought, and Doublethink -- the constant
distortion of reality to maintain Trump's insatiable ego and image of infallibility. Orwellian
ideas are simply resurfacing in a post-modern/reality TV form.
Our fast food culture is also taking a long-term toll. More and more people are becoming
alienated, cynical, resentful or resigned, while too much of mass and social media reinforces
less-than-helpful narratives and tendencies. The frog's in the frying pan and the heat is
rising.
Much of what penetrates and goes viral further fragments culture and thought, promoting a
cynicism that reinforces both rage and inaction. Rather than true diversity, we have the mass
illusion that a choice between polarized opinions, shaped and curated by editors and networks,
is the essence of free speech and democracy. In reality, original ideas are so constrained and
self-censored that what's left is usually as diverse as brands of peppermint toothpaste.
When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the notion that freedom of speech and the press should
be protected meant that the personal right of self-expression should not be repressed by the
government. James Madison, author of the First Amendment, warned that the greatest danger to
liberty was that a majority would use its power to repress everyone else. Yet the evolution of
mass media and the corporate domination of economic life have made these "choicest privileges"
almost obsolete.
As community life unravels and more institutions fall into disrepute, media have become
among of the few remaining that can potentially facilitate some social cohesion. Yet instead
they fuel conflict and crisis. It's not quite Crimestop, but does often appeal to some of the
basest instincts and produce even more alienation and division.
In general terms, what most mass media bring the public is a series of images and anecdotes
that cumulatively define a way of life. Both news and entertainment contribute to the illusion
that competing, consuming and accumulating are at the core of our aspirations. Each day we are
repeatedly shown and told that culture and politics are corrupt, that war is imminent or
escalating somewhere, that violence is random and pervasive, and yet also that the latest
"experts" have the answers. Countless programs meanwhile celebrate youth, violence, frustrated
sexuality, and the lives of celebrities.
Between the official program content are a series of intensely packaged sales pitches. These
commercial messages wash over us, as if we are wandering in an endless virtual mall, searching
in vain for fulfillment as society crumbles.
In 1980, Ralph Nader called the race for president at that time -- between Jimmy Carter and
Ronald Reagan -- a choice between mediocrity and menace. It was funny then, but now we can see
what real menace looks like. Is Trump-ism what Orwell warned us about? Not quite, though there
are similarities. Like Trump, you can't talk to Big Brother. And he rarely gives you the truth,
only doublespeak. But Trump is no Big Brother. More like a Drunk Uncle with nukes.
So, is it too late for a rescue? Will menace win this time? Or can we still save the
environment, reclaim self-government, restore communities and protect human rights? What does
the future hold?
It could be summer in Los Angeles in 2024, the end of Donald Trump's second term. The
freeways are slow-moving parking lots for the Olympics. Millions of people hike around in the
heat, or use bikes and cycles to get to work. It's difficult with all the checkpoints, not to
mention the extra-high security at the airports. Thousands of police, not to mention the
military, are on the lookout for terrorists, smugglers, protesters, cultists, gangs, thieves,
and anyone who doesn't have money to burn or a ticket to the Games.
Cash isn't much good, and gas has become so expensive that suburban highways are almost
empty.
Security is tight and hard to avoid, on or offline. There are cameras everywhere, and every
purchase and move most people make is tracked by the state. Still, there are four bombings in
the first week of the Games. There is also another kind of human tragedy. Four runners collapse
during preliminary rounds as a result of a toxic mix -- heat and pollution.
... ... ...
Greg Guma is the Vermont-based author of Dons of Time, Uneasy Empire, Spirits of Desire,
Big Lies, and The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution.
"Sometimes [two and two are four], Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are
three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become
sane."
One of the key themes from George Orwell's dystopic novel 1984 is that the Party can do and
say whatever it wants.
And more importantly, you must believe it, with all your heart. No matter how absurd.
That's doublethink . It is impossible for two plus two to equal three, four, and five
simultaneously. But if the Party says it is so, it is so.
If you can't make yourself believe two contradictory facts simultaneously, that makes you a
thought criminal– an enemy of the Party.
Thoughtcrime is thinking any thought that contradicts the Party.
Facecrime is when you have the wrong expression on your face. For instance, if captured
enemy soldiers are being paraded through the streets, looking sympathetic is a facecrime.
Newspeak is the language of the Party–one that has painstakingly been removed of
unnecessary words, or words that might contradict the Party's ideals.
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end
we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to
express it."
During daily two minutes hate , citizens shout and curse whatever enemies the Party shows
them.
And the face of the Party, Big Brother , is watching you. He helps you be a better
citizen.
This isn't just some random literature lesson. Understanding Orwell's 1984 will help you
understand 2019 America.
For instance, one California state senator is working on her own version of Newspeak.
She has banned the members of her committee from using gender pronouns, such as he, she,
her, and him. Instead they must use "they and them" to respect non-binary gender choices.
So Billy Joel's famous song "She's always a woman" would become "They're always a non-binary
gender. . ." Somehow that just doesn't ring with the same sweetness.
Last month a high school student famously committed a facecrime when he stood, apparently
smirking, while a Native American activist beat a drum in his face.
The 16-year-old was then subjected to "two minutes hate" by the entire nation. The Party
labeled him an enemy, and Twitter obliged.
Of course when I reference the 'Party', I don't mean to imply that all these Orwellian
developments are coming from a single political party.
They've ALL done their parts to advance Orwellian dystopia and make it a reality.
Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders want to
limit corporate stock buybacks and share payouts. But the tax code already has the
accumulated profits tax, which punishes corporations for NOT engaging in stock buybacks and
share payouts
It's like doublethink you have to simultaneously pay and not pay out dividends.
When Matt Damon pointed out that we should not conflate a pat on the butt with rape, he was
met with "two minutes hate" for expressing the wrong opinion.
"Emmanuel Goldstein is a fictional character in George Orwell's dystopian novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four. He is the principal enemy of the state according to the Party of the
totalitarian Oceania. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious (and possibly fictitious)
dissident organization called "The Brotherhood" and as having written the book The Theory and
Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism. He is only seen and heard on telescreen, and he may be a
fabrication of the Ministry of Truth, the State's propaganda department." (from
Wikipedia)
Yet Orwell wrote the following words in The Road to Wigan Pier :
"there is the horrible -- the really disquieting -- prevalence of cranks wherever
Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words
'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker,
nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in
England."
And:
"The ordinary man may not flinch from a dictatorship of the proletariat, if you offer it
tactfully; offer him a dictatorship of the prigs, and he gets ready to fight."
In the first of these excerpts, we see a perfect delineation of today's "Cultural
Marxism," and in the second, a perfect explanation of the support for Donald Trump. The
"deplorables" are those who resent and fight the dictatorship of the prigs. I'm somewhat
surprised that no one has written a history of the rise and advance of political correctness
in American public life and entitled it "The Dictatorship of the Prigs." I hope someone
does.
Brave New World has had a funny way of growing more interesting with age. Lenina
Crowne, the vacuous Future Woman, has leaped out of the pages of Huxley's novel and into our
real lives. Just give Lenina some tattoos and piercings, dye her hair an unnatural color and
put a smart phone on her fashionable Malthusian belt, and she would fit right into our world.
I think the author a little unfair to Huxley when he criticises him for no sense of social
"Class". The issue here is that class, in BNW, has been hard wired into each grouping (ie
deltas etc). Genetic engineering has predetermined all class AND individual desires &
interests. The sophistications of language, mind control etc in Orwell are thus unnecessary
& superseded.
The distinction between the inner party, outer party and proles does seem to be absolutely
crucial to Orwell (at least in 1984) and is often neglected by people debating Orwell vs
Huxley. Still, I tend to agree with those dissidents who have observed that there really is
no inner party. It is outer party buffoons all the way up.
George Orwell also beat his coolies "in moments of rage" as he put it in his autobiography.
He had first-hand experience as a repressive British colonial police officer in Burma,
1922-1927. He knew the autocratic mindset well, because he had lived it.
" Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected President since Andrew Jackson
and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of top-down tyranny"
That was good for a laugh. What's the difference between governed from the top by liberal
slime career opportunist and governed from the top by the moron womanizer opportunist
comparable to the governor played by Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles? The difference is top
down slime versus top down idiocy.
There is a misapprehension at the core of this article; Huxley wrote from a liberal
'anything goes' perspective of morality, comparable to today's 'it's all about me' MTV
generation. A deeper understanding of Huxley's profound distaste and preoccupation with this
is afforded in his novel 'Point, Counter Point.' Orwell, on the other hand, aptly projects a
future social conservatism that is better compared to the extremes of a cloistered and
tightly policed ultra religious right.
It's not a matter of who was more 'right.' They are describing separate trajectories of
human social phenomena we see playing out today. The two were peering down different avenues
into the future.
But, despite this, this debate exists not only on the Dissident Right but further
afield. Believe it or not, even Left-wingers and Liberals debate this question, as if they
too are under the heel of the oppressor's jackboot.
Some left-wingers are. Think of poor Julian Assange!
'All of a sudden, as many commentators have pointed out, there were almost daily
echoes of Orwell in the news The most obvious connection to Orwell was the new
president's repeated insistence that even his most pointless and transparent lies were in
fact true, and then his adviser Kellyanne Conway's explanation that these statements were
not really falsehoods but, rather, "alternative facts."'
The counter to this is that Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected
President since Andrew Jackson and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of
top-down tyranny.
Exactly. In 1984, 'Big Brother' actually controlled the media; Trump clearly doesn't, so
he is not Big Brother. He is Emmanuel Goldstein: a leader of the resistance but alas,
probably not real.
Oh dear no, big mistake -- it's Two Minutes Hate, not three as stated here. Orwell is
superior by far, since he was serious and more humane in his understanding of the effects of
totalitarianism on human psychology. But as a Morrissey song puts it, "I know you love one
person, so why can't you love two?"
@George F.
Held Goldstein isn't Orwell's hero. There is nothing in the book to show that Goldstein
even exists. All he could be is a propaganda construct (as I believe ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al
Baghdadi is in real life). And Goldstein's Jewishness, apart from his name, is non-existent.
When I read 1984 for the first time (in 1986, as it happens), I didn't realise that he was
even meant to be a Jew.
Lots of Jews are against the racist apartheid colonial settler zionazi pseudostate in
Occupied Palestine and its financial backers in New York, but we wouldn't want to disturb you
with facts, would we now.
Orwell, who finished his 1984 shortly after the liquidation of Palestine in 1947,
[1st printing was 1950], never saw the Elephant (Zionist Elephant). No one is perfect.
Orwell, who during WW II, was an employee for Churchill's Government, and labored in
Churchill's Propaganda Department (different official title), loyally reflected (most of)
that propaganda.
Few visionaries in 1947, understood or opposed the imperialist Oligarchs (financial
banking power), who supported the establishment of a so-called Jewish Nation – in
someone else's Nation. (The Balfour Declaration was issued during WW I and the liquidation of
one of the Peoples of the Middle East was in the planning stages). The Palestinians became
the – final victims of World War II.
The Palestinian General Strike (for independence) of 1936 , followed by an
insurrection was brutally suppressed by King George (the British Empire Oligarchs – who
had long (at least since 1815), become the Minions of the Zionist Bankers.
After WW II, Orwell, chose to ignore the crimes against the Palestinians, and possibly, to
get his books published/circulated. Who controls Hollywood-and the Mainstream Media?
For this anarchist, Orwell remains a visionary, a courageous soldier who served in
army of the POUM (Partido Obrero Unida Marxista -Trotskyist), and was wounded while defending
the same Spanish Republic as Durruti's Anarchists. Orwell's wife served as a Nurse in
Spain.
Recommend Orwell's fine book, His HISTORY, " Homage to Catalonia ."
Orwell had courage.
We American Citizen Patriots must display the same courage – as we Restore Our
Republic.
@Justsaying
" In fact, control by proxy seems to have generated a two-tiered control phenomenon where the
leaders are the puppets of puppeteers of a Zionist entity. "
Indeed my idea: Morgenthau Wilson, Baruch FDR, Bilderberg conferences, Soros Brussels,
Merkel, with whom exactly I do know, but it does not matter, Macron Rothschild, Tony Blair
Murdoch.
The catholic countries resist: Poland, Hungary, etc., maybe S Germany and Austria in this
respect also can be seen as catholic.
Trump, put your money where your mouth is, Soros, the Koch brothers, they did, but money
seeems to have failed in the last USA elections.
Must have been a shock, Solsjenytsyn writes that each jewish community in tsarist Russia
always had money for bribes.
@Durruti
Palestine and the Balfour declaration was a bit more complicated, the British saw an
opportunity to keep France, that had Syria and Lebanon, away from Egypt.
Mandate of course was just a fig leaf for colonialism.
@Ronald Thomas
West " What's the difference between governed from the top "
Possibly what is the theory of prof Laslo Maracs, UVA univrsity Amsterdam, that eight years
Obama have driven China and Russia so together that Khazakstan now is the economic centre of
the world, and that the present USA president understand this.
Khazakstan has the land port for trains to and from St Petersburg Peking.
Four days travel.
Do not hope this railway will have the same effect as the Berlin Bagdad: WWI.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist This isn't a top-ten contest. The reality we find ourselves in
seems to consist largely of billion-shades-of-grey continuums, not black-and-white absolutes.
Full-frontal assault (Orwell's state brutality) generally stimulates defensive action.
Tangential, obtuse assault (Huxley's anaesthetising hedonia) doesn't alert the defensive
posture, the immune response. Tipping points, inflection points, exist, but stealthy wolves
in sheeps' clothing, are more effective. The Venus fly trap, the carrion flower, convince
prey to approach trustingly. Brave New World's disguised depredation – the
nanny/welfare state, etc. – paves the way for Orwell's naked totalitarianism. It's the
friendly inmate offering the scared, lonely new prisoner a Snicker's bar and a smoke.
Why limit Orwell to "1984"? His "Animal Farm" is a great work, too. Although much shorter, it
captured the essence of all totalitarian societies even better. "All animals are equal, but
some animals are more equal than others" expresses the "democratic" rule of the 1% better
than anything.
Sail-Dog's favorite movie, Idiocracy is pretty good prescient too; especially the part about
president Camacho, who, by the way, and rather incredibly, most of you voted for two years
ago.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist Consider these excerpts:
1.All the rest had by that time been exposed as traitors and counter-revolutionaries.
Goldstein had fled and was hiding no one knew where, and of the others, a few had simply
disappeared, while the majority had been executed after spectacular public trials at which
they made confession of their crimes. Among the last survivors were three men named Jones,
Aaronson, and Rutherford. It must have been in 1965 that these three had been arrested.
2. 'It is called wine,' said O'Brien with a faint smile. 'You will have read about it in
books, no doubt. Not much of it gets to the Outer Party, I am afraid.' His face grew solemn
again, and he raised his glass: 'I think it is fitting that we should begin by drinking a
health. To our Leader: To Emmanuel Goldstein.'
Winston took up his glass with a certain eagerness. Wine was a thing he had read and dreamed
about. . . . The truth was that after years of gin-drinking he could barely taste it. He set
down the empty glass.
'Then there is such a person as Goldstein?' he said.
'Yes, there is such a person, and he is alive. Where, I do not know.'
'And the conspiracy -- the organization? Is it real? It is not simply an invention of the
Thought Police?'
'No, it is real. The Brotherhood, we call it. You will never learn much more about the
Brotherhood than that it exists and that you belong to it. I will come back to that
presently.'
Whether Goldstein exists is an issue raised in the novel itself, but that he (obviously
Jewish like another member of the Brotherhood, Aaronson) is presented sympathetically as a
libertarian enemy of the oppressive government is certain. Orwell's novel presents Jews
sympathetically as liberators of themselves and others.
And that presentation is historically false: Jews throughout history are the oppressors, not
the oppressed.
It is interesting to note that today's voice activated computer interfaces (Alexa, etc.) are
equivalent to Orwell's "telescreens" that monitor all activity within a household. Add to
that, the present push to implement "chipping"–the implantation of microchips into
humans, ostensibly for "convenience" and identification that cannot be lost–the "mark
of the beast" in biblical parlance.
The sad part is that much of the population is openly embracing these technologies instead of
being wary (and aware) that these are monitoring technologies which will lead to no good.
@Che Guava
The woman truck driver was the protagonist's love object and inspired what little plot
exists. He was supposed to save her, or so he thought. Everything else was window-dressing
(albeit quite imaginative), possibly the product of his growing insanity
"One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more
correct or prescient, Orwell or Huxley".
This is the first lie by this author trying to co-opt both these writers for his agenda.
Orwell was an anti-imperialist and thats evident if you read 'Down and out in Paris or
London' or the 'Road to Wigan Pier'.
Burgess' politics and views can readily be known by reading 'Clockwork Orange' or 'The brave
New World'.
The world today is topsy turvy and what was the left then is now the right but both were anti
fascists.
If the comment posted is wrong , it's because the first paragraph was blatantly misleading
and stopped me from going any further.
One thing that most people in America leave out of consideration is the reality and power of
secret societies. Recently Freemasonry celebrated its 300th anniversary with a big bash in
England. In Europe, the Catholics are aware of its power and effectiveness. Democracy is a
total illusion anyway; oligarchs always rule.
Another good one was Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. It also has Alexa-type screens that allow the
viewer to participate, feel like a "star" and acquire instant fame. Firemen start fires
instead of putting them out. Books (good books anyway) cause people to discover and share
another more meaningful world. Ergo, old books must be rooted out and destroyed. The war on
whiteness and patriarchy in today's parlance.
Nineteen Eighty-Four should be required reading in high schools. One of the most
creative and prophetic novels of all time. EN LEAVES, etc. But because of its socio-political
themes, BNW became part of high school canon. In contrast, 1984 maybe Orwell's greatest work.
It's like Anthony Burgess often said A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is the least of his works, but it's
his most famous novel because it was made into a classic movie and dealt with relevant social
themes of crime and psychology.
Still, even though 1984 has stuff about control of the populace through drugs and
pornography, the vision of BNW is closer to our world in this sense. We live in a world of
plenty than scarcity. So, whereas vice is allowed by the state in 1984 as an outlet for a
bored and tired public, vice is at the center of life in BNW. The world of 1984 allows some
kind of vice but is nevertheless essentially a puritanical, spartan, and moralistic state.
Also, vice, even if legal and state-sanctioned, is to be enjoyed behind closed doors. In
contrast, the world of BNW has vice of sex and drugs all over the place. Indeed, it is so
pervasive that it's not even regarded as vice but the New Virtue. And in this, our world is
like BNW. Gambling was once a vice but now a virtue. We are told it is fun, it offers
reparations to Indians, and creates jobs. And Las Vegas is like Disneyland for the entire
family. Disney Corp has turned into a Brothel, but it's still promoted as Family
Entertainment. Trashy celebs who indulge in hedonism and market excessive behavior are held
up as role models. Whether it's Hillary with Miley Cyrus or Trump with Kanye, it seems Vice
is the new Virtue. (I finally heard a Kanye album on youtube, and it began with a song along
the lines of 'suck my dic*'.)
Orwell was insightful about the power of language, but he thought that the totalitarian
state would simplify language to create conformity of mind. Such as 'doubleplusgood'. It
would be increasingly anti-intellectual and anti-poetic. But the PC manipulation of language
works the other way. It keeps on creating fancy, pseudo-intellectual, or faux-sophisticated
terms for what is total rot. So many people are fooled because they go to college and are fed
fancy jargon as substitute for thought.
Btw, as the 84 in 1984 was the reverse of 48, the year in which the book was written, many
literary critics have said the book was not about the future but the present, esp. Stalinist
Russia(though some elements were taken from Nazi Germany and even UK). As such, it was a
testament and a warning than a prophecy. Besides, Orwell had pretty much laid out the logic
of totalitarianism in ANIMAL FARM. Perhaps, the most distressing thing about 1984 is that the
hero embodies the very logic that led to the Repressive System in the first place. When asked
if he would commit any act of terror and violence to destroy the System, Winston Smith
answers yes. It's an indication that the System was long ago created by people just like him,
idealists who felt they were so right that they could do ANYTHING to create a just order. But
the result was totalitarianism.
One area where the current order is like 1984. The hysterical screaming mobs and their
endless minutes of hate. It's like Rule by PMS.
@AnneOne thing that most people in America leave out of consideration is the reality and power
of secret societies.
One reason why BNW and 1984 fail as future-visions is they assume that the West will
remain white. Both are about white tyranny, white systems, white everything. So, the tyranny
is ideological, systemic, philosophical, and etc. It's about the rulers and the ruled. It's
about systems and its minions. Same with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. As ugly as its future vision is,
at least UK is still white in the novel and movie. But look at London today. It's turning
Third World. And white droogs and gangs are getting their ass whupped by black thugs.
Something happened in the West after WWII. Jews gained supreme power and eventually aided
homos to be their main allies. And Negroes gained supreme status as idols of song, sports,
and sex. This has complicated matters. The group-personalities of Jews and whites are
different. Jews are more aware and anxious; whites are more earnest and trusting. There is a
huge difference between Chinese elites manipulating Chinese masses AND Jewish elites
manipulating non-Jewish masses. Chinese elites think in terms of power. Jewish elites think
in terms of power over the Other. There is bound to be far less trust in the latter case,
therefore more need to twist logic in so many ways.
As for Negroes, their attitudes are very different from that of whites. In some ways, blacks
are the single most destructive force against order and civilization. Look at Detroit and
Baltimore. Haiti and Africa. And yet, the rulers of the Current Order elevate blackness as
the holiest icon of spiritual magic and coolest idol of mass thrills. This lead to the
madonna-ization of white women. Whore-ship as worship. It leads to cucky-wuckeriness among
white men. But if whites submit to blackness, their civilization will fall.
But because Jewish power needs to suppress white pride and power with 'white guilt'(over what
was done to Negro slaves) and white thrill(for blacks in sports, song, and dance), it
promotes blackness. So, on the one hand, Jewish Power is invested in maintaining the Order in
which they have so much. But in order for Jews to remain on top, whites must be instilled
with guilt and robbed of pride. And blackness is the most potent weapon in this. But in
promoting blackness, the West will be junglized. The future of France looks dire with all
those blacks coming to kick white male butt and hump white women. And when it all falls
apart, Jews will lose out too, at least in Europe. US might be spared from total black
destruction with brown-ization. Browns may not have stellar talent but they not crazy like
the Negroes.
1984 and BNW are about people lording over others. There isn't much in the way of minority
power. But today's world is about Minority Rule, especially that of Jews and Homos. And it's
about minorities of blacks in the West taking the mantle of Manhood and Pride from white guys
who are cucky-wucked.
Now, the thing about BNW is that its vision has been fulfilled yet. While one can argue
that Stalinism pretty much achieved the full extent of Orwellianism, humanity has yet to see
the rise of clones and bio-engineering. So, to fully appreciate Huxley, it might take a 100
to 200 yrs. Maybe women will stop giving birth. Maybe the idea of 'mother' will seem funny.
Maybe future beings will be cloned. And maybe different castes will be produced to do
different jobs. That way, there will be happiness. Today, people are still born naturally,
and each person wants to be 'equal'. But what if certain people are bio-engineered to be
submissive and happy to do menial work?
Also, mass cloning may be the only way a nation like Japan can sustain itself as they are
not breeding anymore.
The world today is topsy turvy and what was the left then is now the right but both were
anti fascists.
Orwell doesn't seem anything at all like the anti-fascists we see today I'd say my
politics hover around where Orwell's were but I get called a Nazi not infrequently.
Truly "war is (now) peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."
Most forget that the three great rats (snitches) of the 20th century were Eric Blair aka
Orwell (his famous list of Stalinist media simps), Ron Reagan (Commie Hollywoodites) , and
Tim Leary (Weathmen who broke him out of jail). Blair never imagined 99% of the population
would willingly invite a telescreen into their homes, and even pay a monthly fee to be dumbed
down and manipulated. He visualized the screen correctly to be just an advanced means of
propaganda and enslavement. Maybe it is time for an updated version of 1984. Call it 2024.
Big Jew (giant orange bloated comb over head on screen) could replace Big Brother, and say
Spencer UnzSailer could replace the mythical Goldstein. Dershowitz could replace O'Brien and
torment the hapless Winston Anglin and his tatted blowup doll, Julia.
Lesson: It is a Jewish question which we need not bother ourselves about, one way or the
other. Therefore, no rules for or against BDS, no influence from AIPAC, no aid to Israel or
Palestine, etc. etc. In other words, let's learn from our Jewish friends for once, and play a
game of "let's you and him fight."
@Tyrion 2Orwell doesn't seem anything at all like the anti-fascists we see today I'd say my
politics hover around where Orwell's were but I get called a Nazi not infrequently.
Oddly enough, what we have in the West is actually repression by
sacro-ethno-corporatism.
Jews are disproportionately immensely powerful. So, there is an ethnic angle to the
current power.
But if Jews were merely rich and powerful, they could be critiqued and challenged like Wasps
still are. But they are untouchable because of the sacro-element. As the Children of Shoah,
opposition to Jewish Power is 'antisemitic' or 'nazi'.
Also, Globo-Shlomo-Homo Power owes to capitalism, not socialism or communism. Now,
corporate tyranny can't be as total as statist tyranny. Even with all the deplatforming and
etc, the current power can't do to dissidents what Stalin, Mao, and Hitler did. Still,
considering that a handful corporations dominate so much and that so many Americans are
either apathetic or rabid-with-PC, the current tyranny is formidable. After all, one doesn't
need to control EVERYTHING to keep the power. One only needs control of elite institutions,
flow of information, main narratives & icons/idols, and majority support(as US has a
winner-takes-all political system). As all such are concentrated in few institutions and
industries, the elites own pretty much everything.
With their power of media and academia, Jews have persuaded enough whites that it's virtuous
to be anti-white. And with mass-immigration-invasion, the combined votes of white cucks and
non-white hordes tip the majority toward the Globo-Shlomo-Homo Party. Unless there is total
collapse, this system can go on for a long long time.
Also, corporate power pretty much determines state power since most politicians are whores
of donors. And most people who serve in the Deep State were raised from cradle to idolize
certain figures and symbols as sacrosanct. As toadies and servants of the Power, they've
absorbed these lessons uncritically, and they are afraid to raise their kids with truly
critical mindset because asking Big Questions will derail their chance of entering the
corridors of privilege. Those in the Deep State bureaucracies are not necessarily corrupt.
They may be hardworking and committed to their service to the state, but they are essentially
flunkies since they never questioned the central shibboleths that govern today's PC. I don't
think people like James Comey are corrupt in the conventional sense. They probably sincerely
believe they are committed to the proper functioning of the state. But lacking in imagination
and audacity to question beyond the Dominant Narrative and Dogma, they can only be lackeys no
matter how smart or credentialed they are.
US and Israel are both essentially fascist states, but the differences is Israel is an
organic-fascist state whereas the US is an gangster-fascist state. If not for Israel's
Occupation of West Bank and bad behavior to its neighbors, its form of fascist-democratic
nationalism would be sound. It is a majority Jewish nation where the Jewish elites have an
organic bond with the majority of the people. Also, Jews have a ancestral and spiritual bond
with the territory, the Holy Land. Also, there is a balance of capitalism and socialism, and
the main theme is the preservation and defense of the homeland for Jews. So,
identity/inheritance is served by ideology, not the other way around. As such, Israel is a
pretty good model for other nations(though it could treat Palestinians somewhat better; but
then, Arabs IN Israel have it pretty good.) Israel need not be a gangster-fascist state
because there is natural, historical, and cultural bond between the rulers and the ruled.
But in the US, there is no such bond between the Jewish elites and the masses of goyim.
That being the case, it is most unnatural for the US to be Jewish-dominated. It's one thing
for Jews to be successful and disproportionately represented in US institutions and
industries due to higher IQ and achievement. But the idea of the Jewish elites serving as the
Dominant Ruling Elites in a nation where they are only 2% is ridiculous. It's like Turkey has
successful minority communities of Greeks, Armenians, and some Jews, but clearly the Turks
are in control. But in the US, Jews have the top power, and furthermore, Jews want to keep
the power and make all Americans suck up to Jewish power. But this can only work via
gangster-fascism since there is no organic bond between Jews and non-Jews. If Jewish elites
in Israel think and act in terms of "What can we do to empower all of us Jews as one united
people?", Jewish elites in the think in terms of "What can we do to bribe, browbeat,
threaten, silence, blacklist, and/or brainwash the goy masses to make them do our bidding?"
One if borne of love and trust, the other of contempt and fear.
Whatever problems exist in Israel, I'm guessing there is genuine love between Jewish elites
and Jewish masses. But there is a lot of hatred, fear, and anxiety among Jewish elites when
it comes to the goyim. The result is outrageous policy like hoodwinking white Christian
soldiers to smash 'terrorist muzzie' nations and then bringing over Muslims and embracing
them as 'refugees' against 'white supremacist bigots'.
Another problem with globo-shlomo-homo(and-afro) world order is that it's leading to
Mono-everything. It's leading to mono-financial rule by Wall Street. As Wall Street is so
dominant, it is effectively taking over all financial markets. And as the US military is so
dominant, the world is ending up with Mono-Militarism. The US continues to encircle China,
Russia, and Iran. And it's leading to Mono-Manhood. Prior to mass-migration-invasion, Europe
was all white. So, even though white men tend to lose to blacks in world competition, every
white nation had its white local-national hero. Its manhood was defined and represented by
its own men. The world had poly-manhood, or plurality of manhood. Even if white men lost to
blacks in world competition, they were the dominant men in their own nations. But with
Negroes entering every white nation, the result is Mono-Manhood(that of the Negro) in every
white nation. This is now spreading to Japan as well, as Japanese women now travel around the
world to fill up their wombs with black babies. And of there is Mono-Media. The world
communicates through English, but most English media are dominated by Jews. European nations
may censor American Media, but it's never the mainstream media. It's always alternative
media, and these censorship is done at the pressure of globalist Jewish groups. Jewish
globalists pressure Europe to allow ONLY mainstream US media while banning much of
alternative media that dares speak truth to power about Jewish power and race-ism(aka race
realism).
Why does the one have to be 'superior' to the other as they both make a lot of sense?
Why not a combination of both?
How about a society that controls people with a velvet glove by allowing for and promoting
every Brave New Worldish (often fatuous) personal pleasure while simultaneously, should a
person get out of line from the state's dictates, maintaining in the background the iron fist
of a full blown Orwellian police state?
The present society, though not there yet, is not that far away from that now.
Regarding 1984 I've always thought the Michael Radford film version starring
Richard Burton, John Hurt, and the luscious Suzanna Hamilton, filmed in an around London from
April – June, 1984, the exact time and setting of Orwell's novel, to have been
outstanding.
9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance,
and opening of mail.
In my estimation, That Hideous Strength, the final novel of the science fiction trilogy of C.
S. Lewis, is the best and most prescient dystopian novel written – largely because it
is so much more than just a dystopian novel. It combines great characters, imaginative
fantasy from modern to medieval, and is a truly creepy horror story as well – with a
hilarious happy ending which illustrates God's very own sense of humor.
"... Huxley's main insight, namely that control can be maintained more effectively through "entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies" is not actually absent in 1984 . ..."
"... In fact, exactly these kind of methods are used to control the Proles, on whom pornography is pushed and prostitution allowed. In fact porn is such an important means of social control that the IngSoc authorities even have a pornography section called "PornSec," which mass produces porn for the Proles. ..."
"... One of the LOL moments in Michael Radford's film version is when Mr. Charrington, the agent of the thought police who poses as a kindly pawnbroker to rent a room to Winston and Julia for their sexual trysts, informs them on their arrest that their surveillance film will be 'repurposed' as porn. ..."
"... But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer needs policing. ..."
"... But most brilliant of all is Orwell's prescient description of how language is changed through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed "thought crime," to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition of their "Newspeak" dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what they talk about in a comparatively short period of time. ..."
"... Orwell's insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley's novel. The same can be said about Orwell's treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings particularly true today. ..."
"... Colin Liddell is one of the founders of the Alt-Right, which he now disavows, and currently blogs at Affirmative Right . He recently published a book "Interviews and Obituaries," available on Amazon . ..."
One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more correct
or prescient, Orwell or Huxley.
In fact, as the only truly oppressed intellectual group, the Dissident Right are the only
ones in a position to offer a valid opinion on this, as no other group of intellectuals suffers
deplatforming, doxxing, and dismissal from jobs as much as we do. In the present day, it is
only the Dissident Right that exists in the 'tyrannical space' explored in those two dystopian
classics.
But, despite this, this debate exists not only on the Dissident Right but further afield.
Believe it or not, even Left-wingers and Liberals debate this question, as if they too are
under the heel of the oppressor's jackboot. In fact, they feel so oppressed that some of them
are even driven to discuss it in the pages of the New York Times at the despotically
high rate of pay which that no doubt involves.
In both the Left and the Dissident Right, the consensus is that Huxley is far superior to
Orwell, although, according to the New York Times article just alluded to, Orwell has
caught up a lot since the election of Donald Trump. Have a look at this laughable, "I'm
literally shaking"
prose from New York Times writer Charles McGrath :
And yet [Huxley's] novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now,
especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment,
than does Orwell's more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North Korea.
Or it did until Donald Trump was inaugurated.
All of a sudden, as many commentators have pointed out, there were almost daily echoes of
Orwell in the news The most obvious connection to Orwell was the new president's repeated
insistence that even his most pointless and transparent lies were in fact true, and then his
adviser Kellyanne Conway's explanation that these statements were not really falsehoods but,
rather, "alternative facts." As any reader of "1984" knows, this is exactly Big Brother's
standard of truth: The facts are whatever the leader says they are.
those endless wars in "1984," during which the enemy keeps changing -- now Eurasia, now
Eastasia -- no longer seem as far-fetched as they once did, and neither do the book's
organized hate rallies, in which the citizenry works itself into a frenzy against nameless
foreigners.
The counter to this is that Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected
President since Andrew Jackson and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of top-down
tyranny.
But to return to the notion that Huxley is superior to Orwell, both on the Left and the
Dissident Right, this is based on a common view that Huxley presents a much more subtle,
nuanced, and sophisticated view of soft tyranny more in keeping with the appearance of our own
age. Here's McGrath summarizing this viewpoint, which could just as easily have come out of the
mouth of an Alt-Righter, Alt-Liter, or Affirmative Righter:
Orwell didn't really have much feel for the future, which to his mind was just another
version of the present. His imagined London is merely a drabber, more joyless version of the
city, still recovering from the Blitz, where he was living in the mid-1940s, just before
beginning the novel. The main technological advancement there is the two-way telescreen,
essentially an electronic peephole.
Huxley, on the other hand, writing almost two decades earlier than Orwell (his former Eton
pupil, as it happened), foresaw a world that included space travel; private helicopters;
genetically engineered test tube babies; enhanced birth control; an immensely popular drug
that appears to combine the best features of Valium and Ecstasy; hormone-laced chewing gum
that seems to work the way Viagra does; a full sensory entertainment system that outdoes
IMAX; and maybe even breast implants. (The book is a little unclear on this point, but in
"Brave New World" the highest compliment you can pay a woman is to call her "pneumatic.")
Huxley was not entirely serious about this. He began "Brave New World" as a parody of H.G.
Wells, whose writing he detested, and it remained a book that means to be as playful as it is
prophetic. And yet his novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now,
especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment,
than does Orwell's more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North
Korea.
It is easy to see why some might see Huxley as more relevant to the reality around us than
Orwell, because basically "Big Brother," in the guise of the Soviet Union, lost the Cold War,
or so it seems.
But while initially convincing, the case for Huxley's superiority can be dismantled.
Most importantly, Huxley's main insight, namely that control can be maintained more
effectively through "entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through
overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies" is not actually absent in
1984 .
In fact, exactly these kind of methods are used to control the Proles, on whom pornography
is pushed and prostitution allowed. In fact porn is such an important means of social control
that the IngSoc authorities even have a pornography section called "PornSec," which mass
produces porn for the Proles.
One of the LOL moments in Michael Radford's film version is when
Mr. Charrington, the agent of the thought police who poses as a kindly pawnbroker to rent a
room to Winston and Julia for their sexual trysts, informs them on their arrest that their
surveillance film will be 'repurposed' as porn.
In fact, Orwell's view of sex as a means of control is much more dialectical and
sophisticated than Huxley's, as the latter was, as mentioned above, essentially writing a
parody of the naive "free love" notions of H.G.Wells.
While sex is used as a means to weaken the Proles, 'anti-Sex' is used to strengthen the
hive-mind of Party members. Indeed, we see today how the most hysterical elements of the Left
-- and to a certain degree the Dissident Right -- are the most undersexed.
Also addictive substances are not absent from Orwell's dystopian vision. While Brave New
World only has soma, 1984 has Victory Gin, Victory Wine, Victory Beer, Victory
Coffee, and Victory Tobacco -- all highly addictive substances that affect people's moods and
reconcile them to unpleasant realities. Winston himself is something of a cigarette junkie and
gin fiend, as we see in this quote from the final chapter:
The Chestnut Tree was almost empty. A ray of sunlight slanting through a window fell on
dusty table-tops. It was the lonely hour of fifteen. A tinny music trickled from the
telescreens.
Winston sat in his usual corner, gazing into an empty glass. Now and again he glanced up
at a vast face which eyed him from the opposite wall. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the
caption said. Unbidden, a waiter came and filled his glass up with Victory Gin, shaking into
it a few drops from another bottle with a quill through the cork. It was saccharine flavoured
with cloves, the speciality of the cafe
In these days he could never fix his mind on any one subject for more than a few moments
at a time. He picked up his glass and drained it at a gulp.
But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in
terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much
more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how
tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a
formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer
needs policing.
But most brilliant of all is Orwell's prescient description of how language is changed
through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed
"thought crime," to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big
Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition
of their "Newspeak" dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what
they talk about in a comparatively short period of time.
Orwell's insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much
deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley's novel. The same can be
said about Orwell's treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings
particularly true today.
In 1984 hate figures, like Emmanuel Goldstein, and fake enemies, like Eastasia and
Eurasia, are used to unite, mobilise, and control certain groups. Orwell was well aware of the
group-psychological dynamics of the tribe projected to the largest scale of a totalitarian
empire. The concept of "three minutes hate" has so much resonance with our own age, where
triggered Twitter-borne hordes of SJWs and others slosh around the news cycle like emotional
zombies, railing against Trump or George Soros.
In Huxley's book, there are different classes but this is not a source of conflict. Indeed
they are so clearly defined -- in fact biologically so -- that there is no conflict between
them, as each class carries out its predetermined role like harmonious orbit of Aristotlean
spheres.
In short, Brave New World sees man as he likes to see himself -- a rational actor,
controlling his world and taking his pleasures. It is essentially the vision of a well-heeled
member of the British upper classes.
Orwell's book, by contrast, sees man as the tribal primitive, forced to live on a scale of
social organisation far beyond his natural capacity, and thereby distorted into a mad and cruel
creature. It is essentially the vision of a not-so-well-heeled member of the British middle
classes in daily contact with the working class. But is all the richer and more profound for
it.
Colin Liddell is one of the founders of the Alt-Right, which he now disavows, and
currently blogs at Affirmative
Right . He recently published a book "Interviews and Obituaries," available on Amazon
.
"... Orwell grew up in a time of increasing scale, Managerialism, and atomization. His thinking narrates the moral discourse shaped by that anti-social environment and its effects (mass wars) but dresses it up in an emancipatory narrative. One is immediately struck by his lack of foresight in predicting how power would operate as the 20th century wore on (Foucault and and Huxley are a lot closer the truth), and his inability to grapple with the essence of power and its moral and conceptual implications as a whole. ..."
"... Orwell proceeds to demand by implication we view the ancestral efforts which secured our position in the present day as illegitimate, since they conformed to emergent anthropological patterns of conflict and conquest instead of categorical laws plucked out of thin air by self-styled 'enlightened' big-brains during the 18th century. ..."
"... Had we actually lived by these 'standards', those of us left would be a marginalized set of tribes pushed to the far north of Europe, regularly getting shafted by whatever Magian civilization moved in. As a matter of fact, that's happening right now as these self-critical ideas have installed themselves within our cultural substrate. ..."
"... But if you have a decline and you have a desire to assert yourself to arrest the decline, and you have to apologize to yourself about even having the idea of assertion to arrest decline, you're not going to get anywhere, are you? ..."
Orwell's intellect is overrated, and his aphorisms have become thought-ending cliches. Look at the string of assumptions in quote
above. Do individuals really 'choose' to 'sink' their consciousness into a greater body? What makes far more sense is that at
the 'core' of I there is a 'we', which is conditioned by prior forms of particularity - religion, ethnicity, language, race, and
culture. This is the basis of a harmonious common good, and a meaningful lifeworld.
Orwell grew up in a time of increasing scale, Managerialism, and atomization. His thinking narrates the moral discourse
shaped by that anti-social environment and its effects (mass wars) but dresses it up in an emancipatory narrative. One is immediately
struck by his lack of foresight in predicting how power would operate as the 20th century wore on (Foucault and and Huxley are
a lot closer the truth), and his inability to grapple with the essence of power and its moral and conceptual implications as a
whole.
In reality, power is a moral imperative, and its acquisition and application the inaugural raison d'être of the state and the
concomitant society. Hence, the cogito subject at the heart of Orwell's evaluative presuppositions is itself a product of prior
systems of power, upstream from personal judgment and value sets.
Orwell proceeds to demand by implication we view the ancestral efforts which secured our position in the present day as
illegitimate, since they conformed to emergent anthropological patterns of conflict and conquest instead of categorical laws plucked
out of thin air by self-styled 'enlightened' big-brains during the 18th century.
Had we actually lived by these 'standards', those of us left would be a marginalized set of tribes pushed to the far north
of Europe, regularly getting shafted by whatever Magian civilization moved in. As a matter of fact, that's happening right now
as these self-critical ideas have installed themselves within our cultural substrate.
These pious set of mere assertions are deployed by the ruling globalist cabal to justify the replacement of Western founding
stocks. Yet they are so ingrained among our senior cohort, when their *own people actually under attack* seek to affirm themselves
without contradiction in *response*, they are viewed as the root menace. But if you have a decline and you have a desire to
assert yourself to arrest the decline, and you have to apologize to yourself about even having the idea of assertion to arrest
decline, you're not going to get anywhere, are you?
Those who feel uncomfortable about this should have worked harder to prevent the erosion of the historic American nation, and
if there is nothing they could have done against the DC Behemoth, abstain from opposing the instinctive response of the cultural
immune system.
I'm not American, but i'm 5th generation in an Anglo-setter nation. The implication here is that i'm an ungrateful you whipper-snapper
who just doesn't grasp the sacrifices and horrors of the 20th century. Exactly when does my generation get the moral cachet
entitling us to input directions into the civilizational compass? Arguments predicated on commitment to a cause haven no inherent
validity. I'm certainly not disparaging or denying here, but you're putting us in a position where our ambit of choice is circumscribed
by the ideology that justified post-War US hegemony (for which people from my community were still dying until very recently
in Afghanistan).
I have long thought that NATO should have been abolished after the fall of the USSR. Go your own way. I am not concerned with
you foreigners in Europe or anywhere else. I am concerned with the state of mind of my own people who should wise up and forget
about Europe except as a trading partner and a tourist destination.
Well, I would love to do that Col., but unfortunately Western civilization as a whole goes the way of Washington, New York,
Brussels, and maybe Paris and Moscow. What happens to weaker power centres without the strong ones? What has happened Tibet,
that's what.
Thinking in terms of elites tied to specific nations is no longer a good model to conceive of politics. Formal institutions
like NATO are an expression of that. We have to address transnational networks of soft power that bind together and enculturate
the ruling class. I have more in common with a Trump voter from flyover country and he with me than either of us with our respective
'national' elites.
An important distinction, thank you for forcing us to consider the difference.
The two are not always easy to distinguish and a 'My country right or wrong' mindset seems to be dangerously on the rise.
I was considering the use of the national flag on homes in the US and UK. It surprised me how common it seemed in the States
and assumed it was a show of Patriotic fervor when I see it in the UK it sends a shiver down my spine as (with the exception
of major international sporting events) I interpret it as extreme Nationalism often associated with racist or Neo-Nazi sympathies.
Conflation of the two seems much the same as that of Anti-Israeli, Anti-Zionist and Anti-Semitic again three very distinct
mindsets.
... Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You
are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist,
you must be bad.
I think that the wisdom of Humpty Dumpty when speaking to Alice fits here:
"When I use a word..it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is which is to be master -- that's all."
Zone 23 was one of the best novels I've ever read. I'm a big reader, and Zone 23 stands out
as one of the better fiction books in my lifetime. It is sort of a cross between 1984,
Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World, but with better, much funnier, dialogue. It also
introduces the corporate-state-hybrid as a menacing enemy.
The Ministries of Love , Peace , Plenty , and Truth are
ministries in George Orwell 's futuristic
dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four , set in
Oceania . [1]
Despite the name, no actual "ministers" are mentioned in the book, and all public attention is
focused on the idealized figurehead Big Brother .
The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the
Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These
contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are
deliberate exercises in doublethink .
The Ministry of Love ( Newspeak : Miniluv ) serves as Oceania's
interior ministry
. It enforces loyalty to Big Brother through
fear, buttressed through a massive apparatus of security and repression, as well as systematic
brainwashing . The
Ministry of Love building has no windows and is surrounded by barbed wire entanglements, steel
doors, hidden machine-gun nests , and guards armed with
"jointed truncheons ". Referred to as "the
place where there is no darkness", its interior lights are never turned off. It is arguably the
most powerful ministry, controlling the will of the population. The Thought Police are a part of Miniluv.
The Ministry of Love, like the other ministries, is misnamed, since it is largely
responsible for the practice and infliction of misery, fear, suffering and torture . In a sense, however, the name is
apt, since its ultimate purpose is to instill love of Big Brother -- the only form of
love permitted in Oceania -- in the minds of thoughtcriminals as part of the process of
reverting them to orthodox thought. This is typical of the language of Newspeak , in which words and names frequently
contain both an idea and its opposite; the orthodox party member is nonetheless able to resolve
these contradictions through the disciplined use of doublethink .
Room 101 , introduced in the climax of the novel, is the basement torture chamber in the Ministry of
Love, in which the Party attempts to subject a prisoner to his or her own worst nightmare , fear or phobia , with the object of breaking
down their resistance.
You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already.
Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
Such is the purported omniscience of the state in the society of Nineteen
Eighty-Four that even a citizen's nightmares are known to the Party. The nightmare, and
therefore the threatened punishment, of the protagonist Winston Smith is to be attacked by rats . This is manifested in Room 101 by
confronting Smith with a wire cage that contains two large rats. The front of the cage is
shaped so that it can fit over a person's face. A trap-door is then opened, allowing the rats
to devour the victim's face. This cage is fitted over Smith's face, but he saves himself by
begging the authorities to let his lover, Julia , suffer this torture instead of him.
The threatened torture, and what Winston does to escape it, breaks his last promise to himself
and to Julia: never to betray her. The book suggests that Julia is likewise subjected to her
own worst fear (although it is not revealed what that fear is), and when she and Winston later
meet in a park, he notices a scar on her forehead. The intent of threatening Winston with the
rats was to force him into betraying the only person he loved and therefore to break his
spirit.
Orwell named Room 101 after a conference room at Broadcasting House where he used to sit
through tedious meetings. [2]
When the original room 101 at the BBC was due to be demolished, a plaster cast of it was made
by artist Rachel
Whiteread and displayed in the cast courts of the
Victoria and
Albert Museum from November 2003 until June 2004. [3][4]
The Ministry of Peace ( Newspeak : Minipax ) serves as the war
ministry of Oceania's government, and is in charge of the armed forces , mostly the navy and army . The Ministry of Peace may be the most vital
organ of Oceania, seeing as the nation is supposedly at an ongoing genocidal war with either
Eurasia or Eastasia and requires the right amount of force not to win the war, but keep it in a
state of equilibrium.
As explained in Emmanuel Goldstein 's book,
The Theory
and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism , the Ministry of Peace revolves around the
principle of perpetual
war . Perpetual war uses up all surplus resources, keeping most citizens in lives of
constant hardship – and thus preventing them from learning enough to comprehend the true
nature of their society. Perpetual warfare also "helps preserve the special mental atmosphere
that a hierarchical society needs." Since that means the balance of the country rests in the
war, the Ministry of Peace is in charge of fighting the war (mostly centered around Africa and
India), but making sure to never tip the scales, in case the war should become one-sided.
Oceanic telescreens
usually broadcast news reports about how Oceania is continually winning every battle it fights,
though these reports have little to no credibility.
As with all the other Nineteen Eighty-Four ministries, the Ministry of Peace is named
the exact opposite of what it does, since the Ministry of Peace is in charge of maintaining a
state of war. The meaning of peace has been equated with the meaning of war in
the slogan of the party, "War is Peace". Like the names of other ministries, it also has a
literal application. Perpetual war is what keeps the "peace" (the status quo) in Oceania and
the balance of power in the world.
The Ministry of Plenty ( Newspeak : Miniplenty ) is in control of
Oceania's planned
economy . It oversees rationing of food , supplies , and goods . As told in Goldstein's book, the
economy of Oceania is very important, and it's necessary to have the public continually create
useless and synthetic supplies or weapons for use in the war, while they have no access to the
means of
production . This is the central theme of Oceania's idea that a poor, ignorant populace is
easier to rule over than a wealthy, well-informed one. Telescreens often make reports on how Big Brother has been able
to increase economic production, even when production has actually gone down (see §
Ministry of Truth ).
The Ministry hands out statistics which are "nonsense". When Winston is adjusting some
Ministry of Plenty's figures, he explains this:
But actually, he thought as he readjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not
even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of
the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real world,
not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as
much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of time
you were expected to make them up out of your head.
Like the other ministries, the Ministry of Plenty seems to be entirely misnamed, since it
is, in fact, responsible for maintaining a state of perpetual poverty , scarcity and financial shortages.
However, the name is also apt, because, along with the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of
Plenty's other purpose is to convince the populace that they are living in a state of perpetual
prosperity. Orwell made a similar reference to the Ministry of Plenty in his allegorical work
Animal Farm
when, in the midst of a blight upon the farm, Napoleon the pig orders the silo to
be filled with sand, then to place a thin sprinkling of grain on top, which fools human
visitors into being dazzled about Napoleon's boasting of the farm's superior economy.
A department of the Ministry of Plenty is charged with organizing state lotteries . These are very popular among the
proles, who buy tickets and hope to win the big prizes – a completely vain hope as the
big prizes are in fact not awarded at all, the Ministry of Truth participating in the scam and
publishing every week the names of non-existent big winners.
The Ministry of Truth ( Newspeak : Minitrue ) is the ministry of propaganda
. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer
because in reality it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of
historical events.
As well as administering truth, the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace
called Newspeak , in
which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping
with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it
creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the
doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of
events.
Winston Smith ,
the main character of Nineteen Eighty-Four , works at
the Ministry of Truth. [5] It
is an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete rising 300 metres (980 ft) into
the air, containing over 3000 rooms above ground. On the outside wall are the three slogans of
the Party: "WAR IS PEACE," "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY," "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." There is also a large
part underground, probably containing huge incinerators where documents are destroyed after
they are put down memory
holes . For his description, Orwell was inspired by the Senate House at the University of London .
[6]
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and
educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine
for propaganda effect.
For example, if Big
Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of
Truth correct the record to make it accurate. This is the "how" of the Ministry of Truth's
existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence, the
"why", is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change
its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during
war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction),
for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and
strong.
Minitrue plays a role as the news media by changing history, and changing the words in
articles about events current and past, so that Big Brother and his government are always seen
in a good light and can never do any wrong. The content is more propaganda than actual
news.
The novel's popularity has resulted in the term "Room 101" being used to represent a place
where unpleasant things are done.
According to Anna
Funder 's book Stasiland , Erich Mielke , the last Minister of State
Security ( Stasi ) of
East Germany , had
the floors of the Stasi headquarters renumbered so that his second floor office would be
number 101. [7]
In the BBC comedy television series Room 101 , the concept is
radically changed from that of Orwell, and celebrities are invited to discuss their pet hates
and persuade the host to consign them to oblivion, as metaphorically represented by the idea
of Room 101. [ citation needed
]
In the 2005
series of Big
Brother (UK) , a housemate was required to enter a Room 101 to complete tedious and
unpleasant tasks, including sorting different colours of maggots . [ citation needed
]
In The
Ricky Gervais Show , Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant play a game called "Room
102", based on the concept of "Room 101", in which Karl Pilkington has to decide what things
he dislikes enough to put in Room 102. This would result, according to their game, in these
things being erased from existence. [ citation needed ]
The name "Ministry of Peace", and shorthand "Minipax", appear in the US science fiction TV
series Babylon 5 .
The Ministry of Peace first appears in the episode " In the Shadow of Z'ha'dum ". It
is a sinister organisation, created to instill loyalty to the government of Earth and root out
dissent; one of its senior staff is a "Mr Welles". In its role it more closely resembles the
novel's §
Ministry of Love (which is responsible for the Thought Police and the interrogation of
dissidents) than it does the Ministry of Peace depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four . [
citation
needed ]
In the 2011 Doctor
Who episode " The God Complex ", The Doctor and his companions find
themselves in a hotel full of their own personal Room 101s, each with their greatest fear in
it. [8]
Jump up
^ Stansky, Peter (1994). London's Burning . Stanford: Stanford
University Press. pp. 85–86. ISBN0-8047-2340-0
.
Tames, Richard (2006). London . Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. p.
126. ISBN0-19-530953-7
.
Humphreys, Rob (2003). The Rough Guide to London . Rough Guides Limited. p. 146.
ISBN1-84353-093-7
. "Orwell Today,
Ministry of Truth" . Retrieved 2008-08-27 .
"... There is a vast literature analyzing the political prophecy of George Orwell 's Nineteen Eighty-Four . Big Brother, double-speak, telescreens, crimestop, etc. – all applied to our current political situation. The language has become part of our popular lexicon, and as such, has become clichéd through overuse. Blithe, habitual use of language robs it of its power to crack open the safe that hides the realities of life. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Orwell wrote a brilliant political warning about the methods of totalitarian control. But hidden at the heart of the book is another lesson lost on most readers and commentators. Rats, torture, and Newspeak resonate with people fixated on political repression, which is a major concern, of course. But so too is privacy and sexual passion in a country of group-think and group-do, where "Big Brother" poisons you in the crib and the entertainment culture then takes over to desexualize intimacy by selling it as another public commodity. ..."
"... The United States is a pornographic society. By pornographic I do not just mean the omnipresent selling of exploitative sex through all media to titillate a voyeuristic public living in the unreality of screen "life" and screen sex through television, movies, and online obsessions. I mean a commodified consciousness, where everyone and everything is part of a prostitution ring in the deepest sense of pornography's meaning – for sale, bought. ..."
"... As this happens, words and language become corrupted by the same forces that Orwell called Big Brother, whose job is total propaganda and social control. Just as physical reality now mimics screen reality and thus becomes chimerical, language, through which human beings uncover and articulate the truth of being, becomes more and more abstract. People don't die; they "pass on" or "pass away." Dying, like real sex, is too physical. Wars of aggression don't exist; they are "overseas contingency operations." Killing people with drones isn't killing; it's "neutralizing them." There are a "ton" of examples, but I am sure "you guys" don't need me to list any more. ..."
"... This destruction of language has been going on for a long time, but it's worth noting that from Hemingway's WW I through Orwell's WW II up until today's endless U.S. wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc., there has been the parallel development of screen and media culture, beginning with silent movies through television and onto the total electronic media environment we now inhabit – the surround sound and image bubble of literal abstractions that inhabit us, mentally and physically. In such a society, to feel what you really feel and not what, in Hemingway's words, "you were supposed to feel, and had been taught to feel" has become extremely difficult. ..."
"... But understanding the history of public relations, advertising, propaganda, the CIA, the national security apparatus, technology, etc., makes it clear that such hope is baseless. For the propaganda in this country has penetrated far deeper than anyone can imagine, and it has primarily done this through advanced technology and the religion of technique – machines as pure abstractions – that has poisoned not just our minds, but the deepest wellsprings of the body's truths and the erotic imagination that links us in love to all life on earth. ..."
"... Orwell makes it very clear that language is the key to mind control, as he delineates how Newspeak works. I think he is right. And mind control also means the control of our bodies, Eros, our sex, our physical connections to all living beings and nature. Today the U.S. is reaching the point where "Oldspeak" – Standard English – has been replaced by Newspeak, and just "fragments of the literature of the past" survive here and there. ..."
"Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of it, certainly, but
degenerated to Vice." – Frederick Nietzsche , Beyond Good and Evil
"Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has
happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little
hopes. It is rather hard work: there is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or
scramble over the obstacles. We've got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen." –
D. H. Lawrence , Lady Chatterley's Lover
"The so-called consumer society and the politics of corporate capitalism have created a
second nature of man which ties him libidinally and aggressively to the commodity form. The
need for possessing, consuming, handling and constantly renewing gadgets, devices, instruments,
engines, offered to and imposed upon the people, for using these wares even at the danger of
one's own destruction, has become a 'biological' need." – Herbert Marcuse , One
Dimensional Man
There is a vast literature analyzing the political prophecy of George Orwell 's Nineteen
Eighty-Four . Big Brother, double-speak, telescreens, crimestop, etc. – all applied
to our current political situation. The language has become part of our popular lexicon, and as
such, has become clichéd through overuse. Blithe, habitual use of language robs it of
its power to crack open the safe that hides the realities of life.
There is no doubt that Orwell wrote a brilliant political warning about the methods of
totalitarian control. But hidden at the heart of the book is another lesson lost on most
readers and commentators. Rats, torture, and Newspeak resonate with people fixated on political
repression, which is a major concern, of course. But so too is privacy and sexual passion in a
country of group-think and group-do, where "Big Brother" poisons you in the crib and the
entertainment culture then takes over to desexualize intimacy by selling it as another public
commodity.
The United States is a pornographic society. By pornographic I do not just mean the
omnipresent selling of exploitative sex through all media to titillate a voyeuristic public
living in the unreality of screen "life" and screen sex through television, movies, and online
obsessions. I mean a commodified consciousness, where everyone and everything is part of a
prostitution ring in the deepest sense of pornography's meaning – for sale, bought.
And
consumed by getting, spending, and selling. Flicked into the net of Big Brother, whose job is
make sure everything fundamentally human and physical is debased and mediated, people become
consumers of the unreal and direct experience is discouraged. The natural world becomes an
object to be conquered and used. Animals are produced in chemical factories to be slaughtered
by the billions only to appear bloodless under plastic wrap in supermarket coolers. The human
body disappears into hypnotic spectral images. One's sex becomes one's gender as the words are
transmogrified and as one looks in the mirror of the looking-glass self and wonders how to
identify the one looking back.
Streaming life from Netflix or Facebook becomes life the movie.
The brilliant perverseness of the mediated reality of a screen society – what Guy Debord
calls The Society of the
Spectacle – is that as it distances people from fundamental reality, it promotes that
reality through its screen fantasies. "Get away from it all and restore yourself at our spa in
the rugged mountains where you can hike in pristine woods after yoga and a breakfast of locally
sourced eggs and artisanally crafted bread." Such garbage would be funny if it weren't so
effective. Debord writes,
The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by
images .Where the real world changes into simple images, the simple images become real beings
and effective motivations of hypnotic behavior.
Thus sex with robots and marrying yourself are not aberrations but logical extensions of a
society where solipsism meets machine in the America dream.
As this happens, words and language become corrupted by the same forces that Orwell called
Big Brother, whose job is total propaganda and social control. Just as physical reality now
mimics screen reality and thus becomes chimerical, language, through which human beings uncover
and articulate the truth of being, becomes more and more abstract. People don't die; they "pass
on" or "pass away." Dying, like real sex, is too physical. Wars of aggression don't exist; they
are "overseas contingency operations." Killing people with drones isn't killing; it's
"neutralizing them." There are a "ton" of examples, but I am sure "you guys" don't need me to
list any more.
Orwell called Big Brother's language Newspeak, and Hemingway preceded him when he so
famously wrote in disgust In a Farewell to Arms ,
"I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice, and the expression
in vain. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene "
This destruction of language has been going on for a long time, but it's worth noting that
from Hemingway's WW I through Orwell's WW II up until today's endless U.S. wars against
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc., there has been the parallel development of screen
and media culture, beginning with silent movies through television and onto the total
electronic media environment we now inhabit – the surround sound and image bubble of
literal abstractions that inhabit us, mentally and physically. In such a society, to feel what
you really feel and not what, in Hemingway's words, "you were supposed to feel, and had been
taught to feel" has become extremely difficult.
... ... ...
But as we learn in 1984 and should learn in the U.S.A. today , "seemed" is the
key word. Their triumph was temporary. For sexual passion reveals truths that need to be
confirmed in the mind. In itself, sexual liberation can be easily manipulated, as it has been
so effectively in the United States. "Repressive de-sublimation" Herbert Marcuse called it
fifty years ago. You allow people to act out their sexual fantasies in commodified ways that
can be controlled by the rulers, all the while ruling their minds and potential political
rebelliousness. Sex becomes part of the service economy where people service each other while
serving their masters. Use pseudo-sex to sell them a way of life that traps them in an
increasingly totalitarian social order that only seems free. This has been accomplished
primarily through screen culture and the concomitant confusion of sexual identity. Perhaps you
have noticed that over the past twenty-five years of growing social and political confusion, we
have witnessed an exponential growth in "the electronic life," the use of psychotropic drugs,
and sexual disorientation. This is no accident. Wars have become as constant as Eros –
the god of love, life, joy, and motion – has been divorced from sex as a stimulus and
response release of tension in a "stressed" society. Rollo May, the great American
psychologist, grasped this:
Indeed, we have set sex over against eros, used sex precisely to avoid the
anxiety-creating involvements of eros We are in flight from eros and use sex as the vehicle for
the flight Eros [which includes, but is not limited to, passionate sex] is the center of
vitality of a culture – its heart and soul. And when release of tension takes the place
of creative eros, the downfall of the civilization is assured.
Because Julia and Winston cannot permanently escape Oceania, but can only tryst, they
succumb to Big Brother's mind control and betray each other. Their sexual affair can't save
them. It is a moment of beauty and freedom in an impossible situation. Of course the
hermetically sealed world of 1984 is not the United States. Orwell created a society in
which escape was impossible. It is, after all, an admonitory novel – not the real world.
Things are more subtle here; we still have some wiggle room – some – although the
underlying truth is the same: the U.S. oligarchy, like "The Party," "seeks power entirely for
its own sake" and "are not interested in the good of others," all rhetoric to the contrary. Our
problem is that too many believe the rhetoric, and those who say they don't really do at the
deepest level. Fly the flag and play the national anthem and their hearts are aflutter with
hope. Recycle old bromides about the next election when your political enemies will be swept
out of office and excitement builds as though you had met the love of your life and all was
well with the world.
But understanding the history of public relations, advertising, propaganda, the CIA, the
national security apparatus, technology, etc., makes it clear that such hope is baseless. For
the propaganda in this country has penetrated far deeper than anyone can imagine, and it has
primarily done this through advanced technology and the religion of technique – machines
as pure abstractions – that has poisoned not just our minds, but the deepest wellsprings
of the body's truths and the erotic imagination that links us in love to all life on earth.
In "Defence of Poetry," Percy Bysshe Shelley writes:
The great secret of morals is love; or a going out of our nature, and an identification of
ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own. A man,
to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the
place of another and of many others; the pains and pleasure of his species must become his
own. The great instrument of moral good is the imagination.
We are now faced with the question: Can we escape the forces of propaganda and mind control
that run so very deep into American life? If so, how? Let's imagine a way out.
Orwell makes it very clear that language is the key to mind control, as he delineates how
Newspeak works. I think he is right. And mind control also means the control of our bodies,
Eros, our sex, our physical connections to all living beings and nature. Today the U.S. is
reaching the point where "Oldspeak" – Standard English – has been replaced by
Newspeak, and just "fragments of the literature of the past" survive here and there.
This is
true for the schooled and unschooled. In fact, those more trapped by the instrumental logic,
disembodied data, and word games of the power elite are those who have gone through the most
schooling, the indoctrination offered by the so-called "elite" universities. I suspect that
more working-class and poor people still retain some sense of the old language and the
fundamental meaning of words, since it is with their sweat and blood that they "earn their
living." Many of the highly schooled are children of the power elite or those groomed to serve
them, who are invited to join in living the life of power and privilege if they swallow their
consciences and deaden their imaginations to the suffering their "life-styles" and ideological
choices inflict on the rest of the world. In this world of TheNew York Times ,
Harvard, The New Yorker , Martha's Vineyard, TheWashington Post , Wall
St., Goldman Sachs, the boardrooms of the ruling corporations, all the corporate media, etc.,
language has become debased beyond recognition. Here, as Orwell said of Newspeak, "a heretical
thought should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words. Its
vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every
meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express." The intelligently orthodox, he
adds, must master the art of "doublethink" wherein they hold two contradictory ideas in their
minds simultaneously, while accepting both of them. This is the key trick of logic and language
that allows the power elites and their lackeys in the U.S. today to master the art of
self-deception and feel good about themselves as they plunder the world. In this "Party" world,
the demonization, degradation, and killing of others is an abstraction; their lives are
spectral. Orwell describes doublethink this way:
To tell deliberate lives while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion
for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while
to take account of the reality one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in
using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink . For by using
the word one admits one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one
erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the
truth.
... ... ...
*
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely; he is a frequent contributor
to Global Research. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website
is http://edwardcurtin.com/ .
"... His book Animal Farm was a satire on Stalin and Trotsky and 1984 * gave readers a glimpse into what would happen if the government controlled every detail of a person's life, down to their own private thoughts. (*online bio). The battles in Europe were life and death with the goal of survival. ..."
"... We are now programed (propagandized) from pre school to the home for the elderly. We are initially taught as children, continue through college, and are forever conditioned by media such as TV, Movies, Radio, Newspapers and Advertising our entire lives. The younger generations are not taught to think independently or critically but instead indoctrinated with pre packaged knowledge 'propaganda' while older generations assess outcomes from a different perspective. There is as a result, a clash within the society which we are experiencing today. ..."
"... 1984 was about controlling the news and airwaves. Farenheit 451 was about burning history. The two go hand in hand. ..."
"... The similarity of the major networks evening "news" programs has given rise to a report that, each day, a list of ten or twelve "acceptable" news stories is prepared by British Intelligence in London for the networks, teletyped to Washington, where the CIA routinely approves it, and then delivered to the networks. ..."
"... The "selectivity" of the broadcasters has never been in doubt. Edith Efron, in "The News Twisters," (Manor Books, N.Y., 1972) cites TV Guide's interview with David Brinkley, April 11, 1964, with Brinkley's declaration that "News is what I say it is. It's something worth knowing by my standards." This was merely vainglorious boasting on Brinkley's part, as he merely reads the news stories previously selected for him. ..."
"... "REMEMBER THE MAINE!" That false flag headline is over a century old. ..."
"... Next time you are in a Best Buy.. go up to the Geek Squad guy and say... "So how does it feel to work for the CIA " ..."
"... Fuck the Washington Post. As Katherine Austin Fitts has suggested, it is essentially the CIA's Facebook wall. The same could be said of the NYT as well. ..."
"... James Rosen from Fox, he was at a state dept briefing with that little weasel Kirby, and Kirby stated that the negotiations over the Iran "deal" were all overt and "above the table." He remembered, tho, a briefing years earlier from the witch Psaki, who stated that sometimes, in interests of expedience, aspects of the negotiations are not made public. ..."
"... Rosen goes back to state dept video archives, finds out that his whole exchange with Psaki has been erased. Weasel Kirby, when asked how this happened, who did it, who ordered it, blames it on a "technical glitch." ..."
Snowflakes should also learn the depressing fact that Orwell's 1984 was not a complete work
of fiction, but a successful blueprint for full statist control.
Orwell was dying of tuberculosis when he wrote "1984" and passed away after its publication
in 1949. Once you have their attention and they have read the book, it is time to show snowflakes
the MANY obvious parallels between Orwellian concepts and modern society.
NEWSPEAK AND THOUGHT CRIME
You can start with soft targets like Newspeak (today's examples include gems like cis-gender
labels and other politically correct BS).
Now move to the "thought police" and thought crime in general.
Explain how thought and speech crime keep the globalist model alive and ticking by discouraging
independent thought and discussion.
Explain how state-financed institutions seek to implant these concepts at an early age and
onwards into university education.
Provide real-life newspeak and double-think examples, such as "police-action" "regime-change",
"coalition of the willing" and "collateral damage". Show how these are really just PC euphemisms
for "wars of aggression" and "murder". If you have a picture of a droned wedding party handy,
now is the time to use it.
Also mention people who have been silenced, prosecuted or even killed for committing "hate
crimes" or other political blasphemies. Explain how this often occurs while they are standing
up for or using their constitutionally protected human rights.
Name some of these people: Randy and Vicki Weaver, David Koresh, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders,
Julian Assange, William Binney, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning
Show them how this trend is ongoing both in the USA and abroad, and is primarily being deployed
against populist politicians who promote more individual rights and reduced state control over
citizens. Ask them whether or not they can see a pattern developing here.
Above all, d on't waste time with cheap shots at identity politics and its absurd labelling.
This will just polarize the more brainwashed members of your audience. Stick to the nitty gritty
and irrefutable facts.
And be very careful here, because if they have insufficient vocabulary to understand or critique
what you are saying, you will lose them. Which was the whole point of Newspeak. Of course you
can use this failed learning opportunity to demonstrate just how successful the Newspeak program
has been.
TELESCREENS
Tell them about the real life "Telescreens" that can now listen to you, even when turned off.
Name one of their known manufacturers: Samsung and users: Central Intelligence Agency
Show them how these same telescreens are used to pump out constant lies from the MSM whenever
they are turned on. Name some of these organizations: CNN, BBC, MSNBC, FOX, etc.
MASS SURVEILLANCE and the "PANOPTICON"
Talk to them about the modern surveillance state and how it will always be abused by corporate
globalists and corrupt elites.
Describe how mass-surveillance service providers (MSSPs) and MSM stooges have become obscenely
rich and powerful as the real-life proles (who were 85% of the population in "1984") struggle
to put food on the table, pay their debts, find a decent job or buy a home. Tell them to find
out how much wealth is owned by 8 very wealthy people relative to the poorest half of the world,
and how this trend is accelerating. Name a few of them: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Carlos Slim,
etc.
Show how the previously enacted, totalitarian US policies, programs and laws have been extensively
deployed, lobbied for, used and abused by the very Big-Brothers (Clinton and Obama) they so adored.
Even George W is swooning progressives again.
Name some of these policies, programs and laws: Patriot Act, SOPA, US Telecommunications Act,
FISA, Echelon, PRISM, and Umbrage
Explain why this whole surveillance system, its operators and proponents must be completely
dismantled and reined in or imprisoned, unless we wish all whistle blowers, dissidents and normal
citizens to end up like Winston Smith.
ETERNAL WAR AND THE BROTHERHOOD
Explain how eternal war keeps the proles from getting too restless and questioning their leaders.
How it leads to modern strategic idiocies like "Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahedeen are steadfast
allies against Russian totalitarianism, which is why the CIA needs to give them Stingers" (aka
Operation Cyclone). Or the illegal provision of arms and funds to countries with questionable
human rights records (KSA, Iran, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Israel.....)
Explain how this leads to, nay requires, state-propagated lies like WMD to justify illegal
military actions against sovereign nation states like Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Show how 9/11 was used to target a former-ally Osama and his Taliban brotherhood and prepare
the terrain for eternal war, even though the real criminals were actually in DC, Riyadh and other
world capitals. Explain how letting Osama escape from Tora Bora was all part of this intricate
plan for the PNAC, until he finally outlived his usefulness as a bogeyman. If they disagree, ask
for their counter-argument and proofs.
Explain how these same criminals then made a financial killing when our real life Oceania went
to war bigly with Eastasia. How this resulted in over a million civilian deaths (half of them
children), around 80,000 terrorists and perhaps 10,000 uniformed soldiers/contractors. Show them
videos where US officials justify this slaughter as "worth it", unimportant or irrelevant. Ask
what kind of individuals could even say these things or let them happen. If they can't answer,
name a few: Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
At this point, you may need to take a break as listeners will soon have trouble distinguishing
between real-life events and those in Orwell's book.
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Next, explain how real, imagined or simulated terrorist outrages can be manipulated to influence
electorates. This is done by creating or allowing atrocities that frighten citizens into seeking
"safety". These citizens will then vote in corrupt, globalist leaders who promise to keep them
safe. These same leaders can then curtail freedoms in their previously democratic, freedom-loving
nation states. New terrorist threats can always be used to justify more restrictions on free movement
and state-mandated invasions of personal privacy.
If your snowflakes don't agree with this, name some leaders responsible for bad laws, policies
and the ensuing restrictions on civil liberties:
Tony Blair, George W Bush, Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Francois Hollande.
Name some events as well: Oklahoma City, 911, 7/7 Sandy Hook, 11-M
Also mention that the USA has not waged a single legal, constitutional, Congress-declared war
since 1945. But that the USA has been involved in hot or cold wars for all but 5 of the past 71
years.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Tell them that Orwell's original book title was actually "1944" (already past), but that his
publisher vetoed this choice saying it could hurt sales.
Then explain how 1944-45 was actually the perfect crucible for the divisive, right-left political
paradigm we live in today and many of the concepts presciently described in Orwell's chilling
masterpiece.
EPILOGUE
Tell them everything, until their brains hurt, their eyes water and their ears bleed.
Eventually even the iciest snowflakes will get it.
Of course, some will cry, and some will have temper tantrums and meltdowns.
But a few might just wake up, start reading real books and get a proper education.
This is when the healing can begin.
Those thinking a career in gender-diversity-issue management is still the way forward may figure
it out later, God help them. Until then, we should just pity them.
Ira Levin's "This Perfect Day" (1970) is from the same dystopian mold. In the late Eighties,
my then teenage daughter kept reading it, till it literally fell apart.
How technology has "advanced"! People in this phantasy had to wear bracelets with which they
checked in and out of buildings and areas. Reality always seems to surpass the imaginative powers
of SF-writers.
Your government is not populated by reptilians from outer space. The politicians and the bankers,
lawyers are YOUR sons and daughters. You gave birth to them, you educated them, you taught them
their values.
YOU pull the trigger when the government says KILL! YOU vote Democrat or Republican EVERY TIME.
Yet you have the temerity to blame them when you don't get what you wanted.
Scum,
Hitler didn't kill anyone as fas as we know, in WWII. People [YOU] killed people. You blame
the Jews because the wars they incite you to fight result in blowback to you. Why do you blame
them because YOU jumped when they said JUMP! YOU are the ones flying the fighter jets and firing
the tank shells against foreign populations living 10,000 miles away from your land, and who have
not attacked you. NO ONE does anything unless they wanted to, in the first place. In any case,
YOU are responsible for YOUR actions. This we all know.
Even your own money the US dollar is illegal according to your own US Constitution (Article
1, Section 10) yet you commit mass murder and mass torture throughout the world in order to impose
it on everyone?
The liberals are promoting the book (Nineteen Eighty-Four). IMO, that's great! Orwell's book
is a classic and accurately describes features in our current society.
The downside is that the liberals won't understand it . They are promoting the idea that Trump
is a fascist. They don't see that they themselves are fascists (albeit a different brand of fascism).
Ironic that the book could help them see past the indoctrinated haze of their perspective, but
it won't. The future, from my perspective, is a boot stamping on a human face forever.
I read 1984 in 1960 as a freshman in HS. Spent the next 24 years waiting. I don't remember
details but I do remember it was upsetting at the time to picture my future as depicted by Orwell.
It might be more interesting to me now to go back to the publishing date and study the paradigm
that Orwell lived under to get a perspective of his mindset. He wasn't a US citizen. He was born
in India, moved to England with his mother, had little contact with his father, was sickly and
lonely as a child and suffered from tuberculosis as an adult, served in Burma for five years as
a policeman, fought Soviet backed Communsts in the Spanish Civil War, fought Facism, believed
in Democratic socialism or Classless socialism.
His book Animal Farm was a satire on Stalin and Trotsky and 1984 * gave readers a glimpse into
what would happen if the government controlled every detail of a person's life, down to their
own private thoughts. (*online bio). The battles in Europe were life and death with the goal of
survival.
The European cauldron produced or nurtured, IMO, the seeds of most social evils that exist
today. In Orwell's era society was changing and reacting to the Machine age which was followed
by the Atomic age, the Space age and to the current Information age. He died in 1950 but in his
environment, the Machine age is where he related. The forces (of evil) at work in his era still
exist today with the additions of the changes brought by the later ages. We don't contend with
the physical (at least not initially) conquerors such as the Genghis Khan, Mohamed, Alexander,
Roman conquest etc. of the past but the compulsion of others to control our lives still exists
just in different forms. We as a society react or comply and have the same forces to deal with
as did Orwell but also those that resulted in the later eras. 1984 was actually the preview of
the information age that Orwell didn't experience.
We are now programed (propagandized) from pre school to the home for the elderly. We are initially
taught as children, continue through college, and are forever conditioned by media such as TV,
Movies, Radio, Newspapers and Advertising our entire lives. The younger generations are not taught
to think independently or critically but instead indoctrinated with pre packaged knowledge 'propaganda'
while older generations assess outcomes from a different perspective. There is as a result, a
clash within the society which we are experiencing today.
Through the modern (at least recorded) ages the underlying force no matter what era humans
lived through was the conflict of...religion. In the name or names of God and whose god is the
true god and which god will rule. Even in the most 'godless' societies it is the underlying force.
There are many who do not believe in god or a god and by extension should or do not believe in
satin. Good vs Evil? It's always there, although we are encouraged not to mention it?
Can't say I need another go at 1984 from Costco but I do need another indoor/outdoor vacuum
and right now they have one with a manufacturers discount of $5. See you there!
1984 is really just a knock off of Evgeny Zemyatin's "We," which is frankly a better account
of dystopian authoritarianism from someone who wrote shortly after the Russian Revolution.
This is not true. Orwell's book touched on major points, such as the destruction of people's
ability to communicate real ideas by perversion and simplification of language, that are not discussed
elsewhere. It is a unique and disturbing view of totalitarian regimes.
The similarity of the major networks evening "news" programs has given rise to a report that,
each day, a list of ten or twelve "acceptable" news stories is prepared by British Intelligence
in London for the networks, teletyped to Washington, where the CIA routinely approves it, and
then delivered to the networks.
The "selectivity" of the broadcasters has never been in doubt. Edith Efron, in "The News Twisters,"
(Manor Books, N.Y., 1972) cites TV Guide's interview with David Brinkley, April 11, 1964, with
Brinkley's declaration that "News is what I say it is. It's something worth knowing by my standards."
This was merely vainglorious boasting on Brinkley's part, as he merely reads the news stories
previously selected for him.
Fuck the Washington Post. As Katherine Austin Fitts has suggested, it is essentially the CIA's
Facebook wall. The same could be said of the NYT as well.
Bezos has no problem selling "1984" on Amazon.
https://tinyurl.com/hdmhu75 He's collecting the sales price and sticking it in his pocket. He's not making a joke out of
it. Bezos is a lunatic. The Washington Post is full of shit. End of story.
James Rosen from Fox, he was at a state dept briefing with that little weasel Kirby, and Kirby
stated that the negotiations over the Iran "deal" were all overt and "above the table." He remembered,
tho, a briefing years earlier from the witch Psaki, who stated that sometimes, in interests of
expedience, aspects of the negotiations are not made public.
Rosen goes back to state dept video archives, finds out that his whole exchange with Psaki
has been erased. Weasel Kirby, when asked how this happened, who did it, who ordered it, blames
it on a "technical glitch."
It's a slippery fuckin slope. Only now the progressives are finding relevance in 1984?
"Next time you're at Costco, you can pick up a jumbo bag of Cheetos and a copy of '1984.' Doubleplus
good!"
That's how the Washington Post opened its quick little
entry on Wednesday. Continuing, Ron Charles, editor of Book World for the Post , wrote:
"The discount store is now stocking Orwell's classic novel along with its usual selection of current
bestsellers."
If the significance of the fact that a dystopian masterwork can now be purchased alongside a three-ton
bag of cheese puffs instantly strikes you, it should. Strangely, though, Charles and the Post don't
seem to see it.
In fact, it seemed to be a joke to them. The entry closed in the manner it opened. With humor:
"Appropriately, Costco is offering a reprint of the 2003 edition of '1984,' which has a forward
by Thomas Pynchon. That reclusive satirist must love the idea of hawking Orwell's dystopian novel
alongside towers of discounted toilet paper and radial tires. SHOPPING IS SAVING."
In the one and only instance Charles even approached something that could be considered commentary,
he linked the surge in the book's sales to "alternative" news items :
"Last month, amid talk of 'alternative facts' from the Trump administration, Signet Classics announced
that it had reprinted 500,000 copies, about twice the novel's total sales in 2016."
Note Charles was certain to use the word "alternative" when mentioning Trump. Why? Very clearly,
"fake news" is the man's go-to phrase when speaking of the media. So why go with "alternative" instead?
Hell, the Post
itself was the driving force behind the "fake news" frenzy in the first place.
I could go on about how this is the Washington Post , corporate media juggernaut, attempting,
rather pathetically, to poison the notion of "alternative" in the minds of its readers - or, I should
say, what's left of them - but that's not really what this is about.
What it's really about is journalism. The fact that "1984" is being sold at Costco, the fact that
demand for the classic tale has
skyrocketed , is significant. It's societal. And journalists are supposed to write about things
like that.
And what does the Post do? They make a joke of it.
This is an organization that, as recently as January, has been
busted publishing false news stories. You would think that with its credibility among a growing
division of society hanging on by a thread - at best - the Post would turn an event like this into
social commentary. This was an opportunity to speak about a changing world.
But instead, the Post went for laughs.
Let it sink in, friends. George Orwell's "1984," a dystopian tale about a society being crushed
under the boot of authoritarian regime, is, once again, flying off bookshelves. To the extent that
you can now get it at Costco. Let the significance of that truly dig in deep.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post is talking about Cheetos and toilet paper.
It is truly Orwellian that the sheep only take interest in Orwell when someone challenges Big
Brother. If I had a Facebook account, I'd post this article straight away.
It is truly Orwellian that the sheep only take interest in Orwell when someone challenges Big
Brother. If I had a Facebook account, I'd post this article straight away.
Well, after all the shit is going down, White House is definitely in distress. Trump gets a
taste of his own medicine as he's grabbed by the pussy from all intelligence agencies directions.
Read 'Little Heroes' by Norman Spinrad. It's like the dude had a trip to the future which is
our present, a completly broken society dominated by corporations exploiting the masses of hedonist
mindless snowflakes. In my humble oppinion perfect companion to Orwell's 84.
[...
In the future the class divide between capitalist and worker will have widened to become a
virtually unbridgeable chasm. In HG Wells' The Time Machine (1895) this division has become so
extreme that humanity had split into two species.
The way to keep the underclass under control is to feed them mass-produced pseudo-culture.
If - as in Orwell's 1984 (1949) - the technocratic ruling class can get some kind of computer
or machine to generate this product, so much the better.
In the future, 20th century entertainment forms like TV and movies will have been superseded
by more direct experiences that, ideally, feed directly into the brain or, at least - as with
the 'feelies' in Huxley's Brave New World (1932) - stimulate more senses than simply the visual
and auditory.
And now, here's a book that uses all these themes in one hit, and builds on these classic foundations
by adding rock & roll to the mix.
Set in the early years of the 21st century, it shows us an America decimated by devaluation,
where unemployment is commonplace and rock music is firmly in the grip of accountants and electro-nerds
producing synthesized superstars to keep the proles contented.
Once they notice you, Jason realized, they never completely close the file. You can never get
back your anonymity. It is vital not to be noticed in the first place. -- Philip K Dick
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control
the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
P.K.D., How To Build A Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later
Philip was spot on decades before the advent of the CIA's infestation of cell phones and other
electronic devices.
"There will come a time when it isn't 'They're spying on me through my phone' anymore. Eventually,
it will be 'My phone is spying on me'." Philip K. Dick
"The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above
the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within
the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There
was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often,
or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was
even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in
your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live-did live, from habit that became instinct-in
the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement
scrutinized."
As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen.
There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak
of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how
long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on
a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had
been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.
That's actually a waste of time at this point. If anything read Anthony Suttons Wall Street
series for free on the internet, or stay here. You already know more than Orwell will teach you
at this point. Unless your a mouth breather or blind from herpes of the eyeball. Apparently that
is something contracted at birth.
All wars are bankers wars. You can sum 1984 up to that. Actually they didn't even cover that.
They just covered mechanisms. Actually they didn't even cover that, just symptoms.
You're fine. Their lists don't have enough enforcers to do jack shit. By the time the first
raid occurs, all hell would break loose and they'll all die.
The ones most relevant in my mind are the logistics and support as well as the "action" guys
(using that term very loosely).
The military, the CIA and a few other agencies have trained combat arms types that are effective.
The rest are at various stages of competency. In any event, they still don't have enough competent
troops by a long shot. The logistics tail is also very wide and vulnerable.
Huxley had deeply felt apprehensions about the future the developed world might make for
itself. From these, he made some warnings in his writings and talks. In a 1958 televised
interview conducted by journalist
Mike Wallace
,
Huxley outlined several major concerns: the difficulties and dangers of world overpopulation; the
tendency toward distinctly hierarchical social organisation; the crucial importance of evaluating
the use of technology in mass societies susceptible to wily persuasion; the tendency to promote
modern politicians to a naive public as well-marketed commodities.
[32]
away humility and restraint. It fosters a sense of
entitlement.
Chris G
said...
February
24, 2017 at 04:48 AM
On the Crooked Timber piece: Quiggin makes a very astute
observation about 'propertarians' and Divine Providence in
his concluding paragraphs. If one takes it as a matter of
faith (religious or secular) that human activity inherently
leads to good outcomes that'll be a huge influence on how you
engage with the world. It blows away humility and restraint.
It fosters a sense of entitlement.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to
Chris G
...
Yep. All roads lead to scapegoating. The anti-social
capabilities of base desires and greed are often paled in
comparison to those of detached indifference supported by
abstract high-mindedness. For example, both sides can blame
the robots for the loss of decent blue collar jobs.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Not sure that there are "both sides" any more in elite
circles. There are at least two types though. There is very
little presence among elites on the progressive side.
Reply
Friday, February 24, 2017 at 04:58 AM
Chris G
said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Hard to call this related but worth reading, Why Nothing
Works Anymore -
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/the-singularity-in-the-toilet-stall/517551/
Reply
Friday, February 24, 2017 at 05:11 AM
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to
Chris G
...
[THANKS! This was LOL funny:]
"...When spun on its ungeared
mechanism, an analogous, glorious measure of towel appears
directly and immediately, as if sent from heaven..."
[This was highly relevant to today's lead article "The
Jobs Americans Do:"]
..."Precarity" has become a popular way to refer to
economic and labor conditions that force people-and
particularly low-income service workers-into uncertainty.
Temporary labor and flexwork offer examples. That includes
hourly service work in which schedules are adjusted ad-hoc
and just-in-time, so that workers don't know when or how
often they might be working. For low-wage food service and
retail workers, for instance, that uncertainty makes
budgeting and time-management difficult. Arranging for
transit and childcare is difficult, and even more costly, for
people who don't know when-or if-they'll be working.
Such conditions are not new. As union-supported
blue-collar labor declined in the 20th century, the service
economy took over its mantle absent its benefits. But the
information economy further accelerated precarity. For one
part, it consolidated existing businesses and made efficiency
its primary concern. For another, economic downturns like the
2008 global recession facilitated austerity measures both
deliberate and accidental. Immaterial labor also
rose-everything from the unpaid, unseen work of women in and
out of the workplace, to creative work done on-spec or for
exposure, to the invisible work everyone does to construct
the data infrastructure that technology companies like Google
and Facebook sell to advertisers...
[This was very insightful into its own topic of the
separation of technology "from serving human users to pushing
them out of the way so that the technologized world can
service its own ends," but I would rather classify that as
serving owners of proprietary technology rights.]
...Facebook and Google, so the saying goes, make their users
into their products-the real customer is the advertiser or
data speculator preying on the information generated by the
companies' free services. But things are bound to get even
weirder than that. When automobiles drive themselves, for
example, their human passengers will not become masters of a
new form of urban freedom, but rather a fuel to drive the
expansion of connected cities, in order to spread further the
gospel of computerized automation. If artificial intelligence
ends up running the news, it will not do so in order to
improve citizen's access to information necessary to make
choices in a democracy, but to further cement the supremacy
of machine automation over human editorial in establishing
what is relevant...
[THANKS! It was an exceptionally good article in places
despite that it wandered a bit off into the ozone at times.]
It hits on one of the reasons
why I am less skeptical than Darryl that AI will succeed, an
soon, in all kinds of fields: it may remain stupid in some
ways, but we will adapt to it.
Consider phone answering services. Its simple speech
recognition, which was once at the forefront of artificial
intelligence, has made them ubiquityous. Yet Dante would need
a new circle for a person who said "I just heard you say
5...3...7...is this correct?"
Some of these adaptations subtract from our quality of
life, as the article nicely describes. Some add to it, e.g we
no longer spend time at the mall arranging when and where to
meet if we get separated. Some are interesting and hard to
evaluate, e.g. Chessplayers' relation to the game has changed
radically since computers became good at it.
And there is one I find insidious: the homogeneization of
human activity and even thought. The information we ALL get
on a subject will be what sorts to the top among google
answers; the rest might as well not exist, much like
newspaper articles buried in a back page.
On the political front, Winston will not be necessary,
nobody will click through to the old information, we will all
just know that we were always at war with Eurasia.
And on the economic front, the same homogeneization, with
giant multinationals and crossmarketing deals. You'll be in a
country with great food, like Turkey, get into your rented
Toyota, say "I want dinner", and end up at a Domino's because
they have a deal with Toyota.
The middle third of the twentieth century was hysterical
about the totalitarian state
And the erasure of micro scale cultural heritage
That seems laughable since at least 1965 as lots of old
long dormant memes
Revived in these frightfully "totalized " civil societies
The Motions of human Society reveal underlying dialectics
not mechanics
Reply
Friday, February 24, 2017 at 09:55 AM
Paine said in reply to Paine...
"1984 " is way past it's sell by date
Much like Leviathan and the declaration of independence
Reply
Friday, February 24, 2017 at 09:59 AM
cm said in reply to
Julio
...
There was probably more than one movie about this topic -
people not happy with their "peaceful" but bland, boring, and
intellectually stifling environment.
I have read most of Orwell, and just about all of Kipling.
If the two are to be compared, then
the fact that Orwell is from a later generation has to be taken into account.
It is possible to get an idea about what a writer actually believes, especially one who
writes in certain genre. Orwell was a writer who wanted to change things, and he made it fairly
clear by what he wrote that change was one of his goals.
Kipling was not especially concerned with changing things. He wrote extremely well, and did
a very good, and exceptional , job of describing the times and places he wrote about.
If you read his work for comprehension, it is clear he understood and sympathized with the
troubles of the lower classes.
It is a mistake however to assume the work of a novelist or poet reflects all or most of the
deeper beliefs he or she may hold.
I think Kipling, if he were around, would have something uncomplimentary to say about this
Orwell quote:
"It is true that Kipling does not understand the economic aspect of the relationship between
the highbrow and the blimp. He does not see that the map is painted red chiefly in order that
the coolie may be exploited. "
It does not follow that he believed otherwise because of his writing. Writers have to make
a living. He wrote what would sell.
I used to read Louis L'amour novels to get to sleep, they worked great.( His novels also display
a keen sense of the way men come to bond together in small groups in the face of opportunity and
adversity , and some not insignificant understanding of American frontier culture. )
When asked why he did not turn out serious work, simply said he wrote in order to make a living,
and that meant he wrote what would sell.
Another horrific act of terror, another shrill chorus calls the faithful to war. It's a recurring
phenomenon in this early Twenty-first Century. The horrible news crashes from the heavens like a
meteor, violently jolting us from the Saint Vitus Dance of our produce-consume existence. Our screens
with all the answers flash between splattered blood on the pavement and the victims' smiling faces
as they were in life. From the Middle East we hear little and see less of the shattered lives on
the receiving end of our vengeance. Like giving a fifth of bourbon to a drunk prostrate on the pavement,
our leaders advocate more slaughter as the solution to the world's problems. Mass civilian casualties
is the global order of the day, the constant in our lives.
Orwell's essay on Perpetual War in "1984" is currently enjoying a revival in certain circles. Through
the novel's mysterious bogey man, Emmanuel Goldstein, Orwell avers that technological innovations
have brought industry to such a level of efficiency that material abundance and leisure should be
attainable to all. Widespread material comfort and spare time would allow the populace to develop
intellectually and spiritually, and thus to achieve a kind of universal enlightenment. Orwell argues
that with such leisure-based understanding, humanity would question the necessity for hierarchy and
begin to threaten the arrangement that so benefits those at society's pinnacle.
During the first half of the Twentieth Century those atop "1984"'s pyramid perceived this eventuality
and identified a leisured, enlightened public as a threat to social stability and their dominant
position. The ruling caste devised Perpetual War as a way of keeping industrial production humming.
Orwell plainly states, "The primary aim of modern warfare… is to use up the products of
the machine without raising the general standard of living." Rather than distribute the fruits
of modern industry to the masses, produced goods are blown up and sent to the bottom of the ocean,
thus artificially maintaining scarcity. According to Orwell, both the terror and material scarcity
attendant to such engineered, continuous conflict deprives humanity of the security and leisure necessary
for the political awareness necessary to question society's hierarchical arrangement. Perpetual War
keeps the population struggling to eke out its meager existence and thus remain both ignorant and
docile.
The hypothesis of Perpetual War has been blowing around the sentient class for decades. Author
Chalmers Johnson, said it was the failed promise of the promised peace dividend at the end of
the Cold War that lead him to question motives behind the American Empire. Going back further, Col.
Fletcher Prouty argued that the Vietnam War was engineered as early as 1945 to be a profit-making,
interminable war. Vietnam, Korea, The Cold War, The War on Drugs, and now The Global War on Terror
were all virtually unending with exorbitant price tags, driving nations–particularly our own–deeply
into debt. Our leaders constantly cry public poverty when it comes to rebuilding our infrastructure
or keeping the lights on in our cities, yet there's always funds for new carpet bombing, furtive
drone campaigns, or boots on the ground abroad.
Orwell's hypothesis of Perpetual War as a bulwark to maintain the status quo works quite well, up
to a point. What he did not seem to recognize was the far more effective silencing mechanism,
not of material scarcity, but of consumer abundance. Long before Orwell envisioned his "1984" nightmare,
a small group of virtually anonymous men devised and implemented consumerism in a mere decade, the
1920's.
With industrial Europe transformed into a battlefield during World War I, America became the manufacturing
base for the Western Powers. After the war, U.S. industrialists and Wall Street bankers feared the
loss of demand for elevated wartime capacity would plunge the national economy into ruin. At that
time the American public purchased items based on need. Paul Mazur of Lehman Brothers decided to
change that, and with Edward Bernays' adroit effort in public relations, they conceived and gave
birth to the American Consumer by creating, molding, and then catering to the individual's desires.
The nephew of Sigmund Freud, Bernays was fascinated with his uncle's work on the human subconscious
and its applicability to commerce. For example, when tobacco industry executives came to him with
the problem that half the population wouldn't buy cigarettes, Bernays devised a scheme making it
acceptable for women to smoke. Basing his research on psychoanalysis, he identified cigarettes as
a phallic symbol. Bernays arranged for a group of young socialites to interrupt the New York Easter
Day Parade by lighting up, declaring them "Torches of Freedom" for the whirring cameras and reporters.
By portraying smoking as an act of women's liberation, Bernays turned the tide, and Big Tobacco soon
captured the other half of American market. Bernays and his cohorts continually repeated such manipulative
feats for the next fifty years, and in the process supplanted the American citizen with the American
consumer.
The ramifications of the shift away from a needs-based culture cannot be overestimated. Acting on
rational thought, the citizen who bought only what he needed merely did his job to sustain life and
got on with his day. But desires emanate from emotion rather than reason, so the consumer driven
by impulse becomes a puppet in the hands of those controlling the media. Fearing the herd, the powers
that be have instilled in us a false belief in our own significance and made us slaves to our ethereal,
artificial and irrational whims.
The individual consumed and lead by base impulses ceases to think rationally, much less critically.
Most importantly he sees himself, if he ever looks at himself beyond the bathroom mirror, as the
embodiment of "product choice," rather than the citizen of a republic obligated to being informed
and participating in the public debate. The consciousness of the modern consumer is a passive, empty
vessel, defined by corporate brands rather than a more autonomous self.
An entire culture of such unquestioning individuals consumed by their own fickle desire forms a docile,
in-cohesive herd of chattel, incapable of debate, unifying, or demanding a redress of grievances.
"We are silenced by our greed," as Christopher Hedges so succinctly defines it.
A lively, engaged electorate might steady power's hand, but the U.S. electorate, as well as the rest
of Western society, have been distracted and in the end lobotomized by an ever-increasing workload,
fueled by the febrile chase of gewgaws and numbing mass entertainment. As Orwell observed in "1984,"
modern technological marvels should liberate humanity to reach a higher form of living, but instead
have been bent by men in the shadows to enslave us. One of those men, Edward Bernays, brazenly opened
his book, "Propaganda," with the declaration:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is
an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed,
our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
Bernays and his cohorts manipulated the American electorate and shaped public opinion. Men like spymaster
Allan Dulles, and the apostles of University of Chicago academic, Leo Strauss, ran foreign policy
from behind the curtain and engineered decades of unending wars. All the while Americans have stood
by idly cowed and duped into approving the global carnage, as those on top amassed more power.
The owners of humanity's wealth have always held undue sway over government. At times during the
Twentieth Century it seemed as if Western society might reach a more sustainable balance between
top and bottom, but towards the new millennium the scales tipped radically toward the top. Transfer
of production to the virtual slave nations of Asia, as well as public and private skyrocketing debt
worked to shift earlier material gains away from the masses to society's owners. Consumerism is the
opiate to calm us while the doctors in the shadows kill us with endless global war and its concomitant
debt.
Those on high profit immensely from the mayhem which embroils the globe. How we wound up killing
in these far places and what exactly the policy is are questions we rarely ask. The carnage in the
Middle East–much of it engineered by the Western powers–has been a bonanza for the for-profit Military
Industrial Complex and the bankers enriched by the ballooning debt it generates. Every cruise missile
or drone strike forges a new link in the public's chains of debt-servitude. We should be asking,
"Is there another way?" and collectively making life difficult for public officials who cannot answer.
Demdere
It is time someone in MSM bragged about how amazing powerful it has been, with recent examples,
otherwise nobody will notce, because they are about to be eclipsed.
The entire world's Status Quos are burning the last of their legitimacy in Keynesian hyperflation
and not dealing with 9/11 as they fumble the consequences.
9/11 was a False Flag operation by Israeli-Neocons in control fo the US Government. They cannot
every allow normal government processes, and so every single bit of social discord is hyped to
the moon as they gradually destroy our communities and civilization.
There is no possible remedy except taking on 9/11 and dealing with it, dispensing Justice. It
will require arresting hundreds of high-level people in governments and other institutions around
the world. Many of them will be executed.
I think their control of MSM has an excellent chance of producing the social discord that foments
the revolution, which will protect them for a few more years.
What do you think? They are soo good at producing hate, and I can't see where to hide.
And then, to really add the dessert of truth . listen to this man, voice of truth, harsh truth...
James Trafficant...perhaps the last great american hero... Trump is a pale, false shadow of THIS
man...
And in case you think any of this is new or was not foretold in other books, by other people,
so brilliantly, perhaps you need a dose of King Goshawk.... ;-)
Nineteen Eighty Four was a prophecy. And we're living in Oceania.
Ms No
The manufacture of desire or the amplification of it is an interesting subject. Even with
the sex advertizing you have to wonder how much of it is about selling and how much of it is about
changing the person and society to be more controlled by the lizard brain.
Everybody likes looking at beautiful people but our society has become a cheap absence of culture
because of it. How many people become controlled by their desires as a result and where would
our culture be if we obsessed less on our vices that our shoved in our face perpetually? How much
of our other capacities may be dumbed down due to the over stimulation of our base lizard brain?
Oh screw it, might as well go drink some booze, rub one out, plan a gambling adventure and shopping
spree.
Practical Cogitator
Ferrari has hit the ball clear out the park. We live in Thailand and sadly have not a single
friend or relative left stateside who has not been corrupted by the Deep State's various toxic
candy. Their brains have all gone to mush alongside their morals. Every single one is obese,
having gobbled down way too many highly refined carbohydrates. As a result, they all take gobs
of dehabilitating and very expensive drugs to combat the 'Civilization Diseases' that track almost
perfectly with BigFood's and BigPharma's fascist marriage to BigGov - i.e., the flooding of highly
refined sugars and carbs everywhere all the time.
We have even defined a new term to capture the overall rot that is going on: Collective Corruption.
And, we suppose not unexpectedly, with each progressively destructive level of Collective Corruption
comes ever more moral depravity. As just one of many examples, every single one of our highly-educated,
upper-income stateside friends vehemently argue that the kinds of torture practiced at Uncle's
various detention centers spread around the world is absolutely essential for protecting the American
citizen from the bad guys.
The country is lost. Far too many of the 318 million Americans are fat, brain-dead, brain-washed
twits, with not a single idea how they've blown their winning the birthright lottery, or how they
are systemically destroying society. They all deserve precisely what they get in this representive
democracy turned dictatorship, which is some monster like Trump or Killary.
o r c k
And now It's spilled over into the PRISON Industrial Complex.
Despite what one reviewer states here, 1984 is an extremely important literary work. It explains
to the reader what the ultimate facist state would be like. This story is never more important
than now, with the world in crisis. It is an absolute must that people read or see 1984. Other
films have been made about fascism. One of the most notable examples being Pier Pasolini's Salo.
But the problem is hardly anyone is going to see that except for weirdo's or film buffs. This
is because of the graphic nature of the film. Besides, Salo was explaining the inherently depraved,
decadent nature of fascism. Orwell's 1984 explains the mechanisms that invoke totalitarianism.
John Hurt is excellent as the main character. I am quite a fan. The film is also very well
made. The bleakness of the book is perfectly captured by the director. You feel sympathy for the
characters even though they seem far away because they appear so weary, yet willing to hope. Transcendence
is hinted at when there is a scene where Hurt looks out and sees a wilderness instead of a prison.
Hurt's character, Winston looks like he is about half dead! You really hope that Winston and Julia
can pull off a passionate love affair. Although you know that it is doomed and is more of an act
of rebellion against big brother than anything else. The setting is a land that is half destroyed
because of the constant wars. The wars being yet another method of control. They tell us in psychology
that in war, depression and other similar disorders actually go down! Interesting eh? The start
where everyone sits watching the screens and begins to scream at images of the enemy. This is
a great moment in the film that shows a kind of utter conformity through extreme social norms.
The most effective form of brainwashing.
The problem with the film, like the book, is that people will find it too bleak and horrific
to really appreciate it. It is depressing but this is the horror of totalitarianism. The material
is not intended to be a walk in the park. One of the most striking and horrific instances of 1984
is the 2+2 does not equal 4 scene. The torture and brainwashing too achieve utter obedience. Richard
'my voice competes with Orson Welles' Burton, who normally pontificates and chews up the scenery
is remarkably restrained here. This restraint is the key to a very good performance. These torture
scenes are horrific and Hurt really shines. This guy should have got an Oscar! The scenes had
me gasping...When I originally read the book it took a while for me to get over the rats. EWWWWWWW!
Looking at the overall rating of 1984 I am just totally surprised that this film has such a
low rating. Maybe people would rate the novel exactly the same way because of the material. This
brings me too my other quibble. The film does not TOTALLY cover all of the novels themes. In fact,
although Suzanna Hamilton puts on a good performance, her character is not completely captured.
Viewers must remember that literature and cinema are two completely different mediums. There is
no such thing as a 100 percent adaption. Therefore you must rate the film on the usual cinematic
features. But the main thing is how well the overall message of the story was transmitted. This
film powerfully demonstrates Orwell's message!
What is weird is one of the reviewers here states that they did not like the nudity. Well,
I'm guessing the director was going for a Adam and Eve state with their being naked out in the
woods. This is obviously the complete opposite of the unnatural state they have to live in. It
does not cheapen the film and points more to the reviewers own repressed desires. Reaction formation
perhaps? Besides no one is going to get this for naked bodies when porn is so freely available
from your local video store!
Consider how relevant this story is. How propaganda and public relations has never been more
prevalent. How public relations has overtaken journalism, causing journalism to become more and
more watered down. How the political economy of the media is now being hugely influenced by being
based in a monopoly economy. A few now control the flow of information for the general population
in western nations. This is not conspiracy theory, this is fact. True investigative journalism
is at an all time low and the media itself is in a shocking state of affairs. Like everything
in our capitalist system, it is controlled by money. Ever read Michel Foucault? Dominant hegemonies,
discourse analysis, bla bla bla. I don't want to get all crusty and academic here. But Rupert
Murdoch is rubbing his hands together. Time and time again, the United States has been shown to
be patently false about why they engaged in conflict with Iraq. Just read John Pilger! Yet many
Americans supported the conflict. Even believing chemical weapons were used on American troops,
when no such event took place! Why? Because they were manipulated by a sophisticated propaganda
machine.
Knowledge is power. That is why in 1984 language is being systematically destroyed. This denial
of language is the denial of thought itself. Reality is then more easily shaped by the oppressor.
Remember dictators, such as Pol Pot destroy the educated first. This is why the film and book
are so important, they are still very RELEVANT! In fact I think the progression of western society
will become a mixture of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and 1984. Either way we are being manipulated
and controlled and these books show you how. America has the 'Patriot Act' that was rushed through
congress although human rights groups had many serious doubts about the act. In New Zealand we
have a Government that is similary becoming too involved in the regulation of peoples lives. BIG
BROTHER IS STILL ALIVE!
I give this film a 10 and think the last scene with Hurt looking so haunted in the bar/coffee
place was awesome! GREAT, GREAT BOOK! GREAT, GREAT FILM!
I have had a bit of a rant here...But hey I really like the book and this version of the film!
So why not? This is a film for rebels!
quixoboy from Ottawa, Ontario, 31 October 2003
One of the great screen adaptations
Merely a few days after finishing my read of George Orwell's fantastic 1948 novel "Nineteen
Eighty-Four", I was immediately keen on looking to rent the modern film version, "1984" - filmed,
appropriately enough, not only during the actual YEAR of 1984, but also during the exact same
short span of months that the story took place in. This, to me, is a prime example of perfect,
and unbelievably well-timed, brilliance. A picture based on such complex, prophetic, and well-known
material could have turned out to be a complete disaster (which it certainly had potential for,
judging from the horrendous-looking DVD cover); thankfully, however, I was not disappointed.
"1984" is probably one of the most, if not THE most, masterful transitions from book to movie
I have ever seen. Easily, its most impressive aspect was its phenomenal accuracy, attention to
detail, etc. In other words, this film was FAITHFUL, in every sense of the word, to its source
material. One can't give such a statement about films these days.
Amazing casting, terrific musical score, and mind-blowing sets, cinematography, and direction,
"1984" is surely a unique treasure, and one that still retains the same timeless messages even
decades since its release.
jawills from Vancouver, Canada, 23 May 2000
"We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness..."
Michael Radford's utterly superlative film of Orwell's famed novel may well be the greatest
cinematic adaptation of a major literary source ever -- and it stands out as one of the most memorable
British films of the past thirty years. Full credit is due to cinematographer Roger Deakins who
shoots everything in grainy, washed-out, desaturated colors adding to the picture's atmosphere
of wistful yet austere, dream-like strangeness. The modern London settings -- with their cobblestone
streets, shabby, dilapidated buildings, desolate fields, rubble-strewn alleyways, and forbidding,
blackened Gothic-Victorian façades and hints of minimalist fascist architecture -- resemble a
Depression-era housing project after the Luftwaffe. And Dominic Muldowney's score, with its martial
clarion calls, bombastic church-organ blasts, and swelling choral leitmotiv of `Oceania, 'tis
for thee,' has a mixture of Wagnerian grandeur and Bach-like religiosity about it. All the while,
the bizarre, mantra-like drones of the much-maligned Eurythmics soundtrack rises and falls, weaving
in and out of the narrative like so many subconscious banshee wails.
Radford treats the book's premise not as a sci-fi flight of fantasy or grim prophecy but rather
as the world of 1948 seen through a glass darkly -- a kind of medieval morality play for the post-totalitarian
age. There is less emphasis on the novel's musty, well-worn-and-endlessly-picked-over polemical
import and more focus on the stark human element, and indeed, the actors bear such uncanny resemblance
to Orwell's descriptions they practically seem born for their roles.
With his quiet, brooding eloquence and haunted eyes peeking out of a gaunt, cadaverous frame
like a tubercular, ashen-faced Egon Schiele figure, John Hurt is ideally cast as Winston Smith.
As Julia, Suzanna Hamilton (first seen as a lovelorn dairymaid in Polanski's TESS and as the paralyzed
daughter in BRIMSTONE AND TREACLE) has a serene, arresting presence – and she appears as mysteriously
stirring and beguiling to us as she does to Hurt. She brings a captivating freshness and warmth
to her role, a little reminiscent of a young Harriet Andersson. Her pale, wiry, broad-hipped body
has a simple, unaffected, almost archetypal beauty, and in the film's more intimate moments, she
radiates all the tactile sensual grace of a Munch or Degas nude.
As O'Brien, the Jesuitical inquisitor of infinite patience, Richard Burton delivers a superbly
perspicacious swan-song performance – he becomes almost a kind of an oracular Thanatos to Hamilton's
Eros. In an exquisite, maliciously Swiftian twist of irony, Burton's famous voice, with its rich,
mellifluous Welsh inflections and descending cadences of Shakespearean sonnets and Dylan Thomas
poetry, becomes a cruel herald of the willful, systematic destruction of the human spirit -- of
`the worst thing in the world' that waits in Room 101… in the fated `place where there is no darkness.'
When O'Brien tells Winston, `you are thinking that my face is old and tired…and that while I talk
of power I am unable to prevent the decay of my own body,' Burton's sagging, weary face speaks
volumes.
In the lesser roles, Gregor Fisher's Parsons literally resembles a sweaty frog, James Walker's
Syme is the classic image of a squirrelly, mealy-mouthed hack-intellectual, while Andrew Wilde
cuts the most chilling figure as the bespectacled, unblinking 'company man,' Tillotson. The late
Cyril Cusack plays Mr. Charrington, the kindly Cockney landlord who is not all that he appears
to be, with an understated sentimental charm punctuated by slight flickers of calculating menace
(watch closely for the way Cusack's facial expression changes whenever Hurt is not looking at
him). Phyllis Logan (the star of Radford's début feature, ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE, and a supporting
player in Mike Leigh's SECRETS AND LIES) provides one of the film's most clever unacknowledged
ironies: as the Telescreen Announcer, her strident, hectoring voice suggests a more shrill caricature
of Margaret Thatcher.
If anything, this film makes a unique and compelling case for some of the oldest cinematic
devices in the book that nearly all contemporary filmmakers have since abandoned: slow dissolves,
fades, blackouts, shock-cuts, slow motion, flashbacks, montage. The high-contrast photography,
alternately harsh and low-key lighting, and iconic close-up shots evoke the abstract, transcendental
purity of Bresson or Dreyer. There is even one extraordinary sequence when Winston, bruised and
battered, is seen having his head shorn in a holding cell that is clearly meant to recall Falconetti's
famous haircutting scene in Dreyer's LA PASSION DE JEANNE D'ARC (1928). Similarly, Burton is filmed
in oppressive, looming low-angle with Expressionist shadows defining the lines of his craggy visage
à la Eugène Silvain's Bishop Cauchon sans the warts. And the idyllic barley fields of the 'Golden
Country,' where Winston and Julia have their first tryst is a possible homage to the titular peasant
paradise of Dovzhenko's EARTH (1926).
What makes the film so powerful is not merely its fidelity to its source but its vivid sense
of realism. NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR is such an impassioned and richly textured work that the visuals
almost seem to seep into the pores of your skin, intoxicating you with dread and longing. And
Radford is so adept at obscuring the boundaries that separate the ameliorative persistence of
reverie from the glaring harshness of waking reality, that the film's seamless perfection becomes
almost frightening.
America is badly governed. Congress has dismal approval ratings, sometimes as low as single digits.
Presidential elections, settled by popular landslides in most postwar contests, now see margins of
less than 5 percent separating winner from loser. Half or more of the country at any time disapproves
of the president.
Politics is polarized. Yet activists left and right are frustrated that our politics
also seems stuck in an unprincipled middle. Republicans and Democrats employ violent rhetoric against
one another but are more similar than not in their behavior. Republican and Democratic presidents
alike expand the welfare state; both parties endorse free trade; both are quick to use military force
abroad. Even on divisive social issues, where popular passions are most irreconcilable, the conformity
among the elite can be surprising. Only after Republicans like Ken Mehlman and Ted Olson had come
out in support of same-sex marriage did the Clintons and Obama do so. Democrats are not necessarily
as liberal, nor Republicans as conservative, as they seem.
Meanwhile, the troubles facing the country are grave. Wars, terrorism, and a sense of losing
ground economically and strategically beset the national psyche. Politics seems inadequate to
the crises.
These appear to be a variety of different and even paradoxical problems-how can our politics be
both too extreme and too consensual? Yet one writer's work pulls all this into focus. He was one
of the key thinkers of the postwar conservative movement, though his thought is badly neglected on
the right today. The man whose mind explains our politics today and suggests a diagnosis-if not a
cure-for our condition is James Burnham. Once a Marxist, he became the American Machiavelli, master
analyst of the oligarchic nature of power in his day and ours.
He was one of William F. Buckley Jr.'s first recruits for the masthead of National Review
before the magazine's launch in 1955. Burnham, born in 1905, had already had a distinguished career.
He had worked with the CIA and its World War II-era precursor, the OSS. Before that, as a professor
of philosophy at New York University, he had been a leading figure in the American Trotskyist movement,
a co-founder of the socialist American Workers Party.
But he broke with Trotsky, and with socialism itself, in the 1940s, and he sought a new theory
to explain what was happening in the world. In FDR's era, as now, there was a paradox: America was
a capitalist country, yet capitalism under the New Deal no longer resembled what it had been in the
19th century. And socialism in the Soviet Union looked nothing at all like the dictatorship of the
proletariat: just "dictatorship" would be closer to the mark. (If not quite a bull's-eye, in Burnham's
view.)
Real power in America did not rest with the great capitalists of old, just as real power in the
USSR did not lie with the workers. Burnham analyzed this reality, as well as the fascist system of
Nazi Germany, and devised a theory of what he called the "managerial revolution." Economic control,
thus inevitably political control, in all these states lay in the hands of a new class of professional
managers in business and government alike-engineers, technocrats, and planners rather than workers
or owners.
The Managerial Revolution, the 1941 book in which Burnham laid out his theory, was a bestseller
and critical success. It strongly influenced George Orwell, who adapted several of its ideas
for his own even more famous work,1984. Burnham described World War II as the first
in a series of conflicts between managerial powers for control over three great industrial regions
of the world-North America, Europe, and East Asia. The geographic scheme and condition of perpetual
war are reflected in Orwell's novel by the ceaseless struggles between Oceania (America with its
Atlantic and Pacific outposts), Eurasia (Russian-dominated Europe), and Eastasia (the Orient).
The Managerial Revolution itself appears in 1984 as Emmanuel Goldstein's forbidden book
The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.
Could freedom of any sort survive in the world of 1984 or the real world of the managerial
revolution? Burnham provided an answer-one Orwell didn't want to hear-in his next book, The Machiavellians:
Defenders of Freedom. Liberty's only chance under any economic or political system at all was
to be found in a school of political realism beginning with the author of The Prince.
Machiavelli poses yet another paradox. The Florentine political theorist seems to recommend a
ruthless and manipulative ethos to monarchs in The Prince-the book is a veritable handbook
of tyranny. Yet his other great work, the Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy, is
as deeply republican as The Prince appears to be despotic. Whose side was Machiavelli on?
Scholars still argue, but Burnham anticipated what is today a widely accepted view: Machiavelli
was fundamentally a republican, a man of the people, yet one who took a clear-eyed, even scientific
view of power. And by discussing the true, brutal nature of politics openly, Machiavelli provided
any of his countrymen who could learn a lesson about how freedom is won and lost. As Burnham writes:
If the political truths stated or approximated by Machiavelli were widely known by men, the
success of tyranny and all the other bad forms of oppressive political rule would become much
less likely. A deeper freedom would be possible in society than Machiavelli himself believed attainable.
If men generally understood as much of the mechanism of rule and privilege as Machiavelli understood,
they would no longer be deceived into accepting their rule and privilege, and they would know
what steps to take to overcome them.
From his experience in government and reading of the classics Machiavelli distilled a number of
lessons, which Burnham further refines. "Machiavelli insists," he notes, that in a republic "no person
and no magistrate may be permitted to be above the law; there must be legal means for any citizen
to bring accusations against any other citizen or any official…" Freedom also requires a certain
extent of territory, even if the means by which that territory is to be acquired are not as republican
as one would wish: hence Machiavelli's call for a prince to unify Italy. Machiavelli was a Florentine
patriot, but he had seen his beloved city ruined by wars with other cities while mighty foreign kingdoms
like France overawed them all. Cities like Florence and their citizens could be free only if Italy
was.
Most importantly, within any polity "only out of the continuing clash of opposing groups can liberty
flow," writes Burnham:
the foundation of liberty is a balancing of forces, what Machiavelli calls a 'mixed' government.
Since Machiavelli is neither a propagandist nor an apologist, since he is not the demagogue of
any party or sect or group, he knows and says how hypocritical are the calls for a 'unity' that
is a mask for the suppression of all opposition, how fatally lying or wrong are all beliefs that
liberty is the peculiar attribute of any single individual or group-prince or democrat, nobles
or people or 'multitude.'
All well and good-but what has any of this to do with the perils of America in 1943, let alone
those of seven decades later? The answer begins to emerge once later contributions to the Machiavellian
tradition are taken into account. Burnham focuses on four late 19th- and early 20th-century thinkers:
Italian social theorists Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto; French syndicalist Georges Sorel; and
German sociologist Robert Michels. Together, their work explains a great deal about 21st-century
American oligarchy-and what can be done about it.
Mosca's signal contribution was a categorical one: all societies are logically divided into two
classes, rulers and ruled. This may seem like common sense, yet in fact Mosca's taxonomy dispels
two persistent myths, those of autocracy and democracy-of one-man rule and rule by everyone. For
even the most absolute monarch depends on a class of advisers and magistrates to develop and enforce
his policies, while in the most liberal modern democracy there is still a practical difference between
the elected and appointed officials who make or execute laws and the ordinary citizen who does neither.
The rationale according to which a society justifies the division between rulers and ruled is
what Mosca calls its "political formula." In the U.S. today, representative democracy is the political
formula. For early modern monarchies, it was a theory of divine right. Under communism, the political
formula was the idea of the party as the vanguard of the proletariat-the class that according to
Marx would inherit the earth. For the Nazis the formula was the identification of the party and its
leader with the mystical essence of the Volk.
Just as Machiavelli does not entrust liberty to any one class-nobles, king, or people-Mosca does
not believe freedom depends on any particular political formula. Such doctrines are myths, even if
some historically correspond only to the most repressive regimes. The reality is that liberty comes
from specific conditions, not abstract formulas-conditions that permit open competition among what
Mosca calls "social forces." Burnham explains: "By 'social force' Mosca means any human activity
which has significant social and political influence," including "war, religion, land, labor, money,
education, technological skill," all of which are represented by different factions and institutions
in society.
The ruling class represents the strongest forces-but which ones are strongest changes over time.
Practices that allow competition among social forces thus imply a ruling class of some permeability,
as well as one tolerant of organized opposition and dissent.
A lesson here for America's nation-building efforts in the Islamic world should be plain-democracy
and a paper-based rule of law count for nothing; actual social forces are everything. In Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, and Libya we understand nothing about the forces of tribe, sect, and interest. As a
result, trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives lost are not nearly enough to create
order, let alone freedom. We let our own political formula blind us to foreign realities.
Not all myths are politically debilitating, however. Burnham finds in the work of Georges Sorel-a
revolutionary syndicalist who early in the 20th century became a fellow traveler of Charles Maurras's
Action Française and the nationalist right-a theory of myth as constitutive of political identity
and a driver of political action. "A myth that serves to weld together a social group-nation, people,
or class-must be capable of arousing their most profound sentiments," says Burnham, "and must at
the same time direct energy toward the solution of the real problems which the group faces in is
actual environment."
For Sorel, the archetypal myth of this sort was the anarcho-syndicalist idea of the general strike,
in which all workers cease their labor and bring down society, resulting in spontaneous creation
of a new and more just order. A Sorelian myth is not a utopian vision-the utopia is what comes after
the mythical action-but it is also not a thing that occurs in time and space. It is an aspiration
that in theory could be fulfilled but in practice never will be, yet in working toward this impossible
goal much real progress-in terms of organization, reform, and empowering one's group-is achieved.
Myths of this sort are plentiful in American politics. On the right, they include the idea of
ending all abortion or returning to a pristine interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. On the left,
they include the goals of eliminating all discrimination and bringing about universal human equality
- as if more equality in some things might not lead to more inequality in others.
"A myth cannot be refuted," however, "since it is, at bottom, identical with the convictions
of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is,
in consequence, unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions,"
Sorel writes. Such myths "are not descriptions of things but expressions of determination to act."
The key is the ability of myths to organize groups and mass movements. The effects of
such mobilization, however, can be paradoxical. The election of a Tea Party senator like Ted Cruz,
a Princeton and Harvard graduate whose wife is a Goldman Sachs executive, or a left-wing populist
like Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor herself who is, if not a one-percenter, much closer to
the top one percent than to the bottom 90, shows how the myths of the masses serve society's winners.
Even organizations that come into being to rally the masses are themselves subject to the scientific
laws of power, in particular the "iron law of oligarchy" described by Burnham's third subject, the
German-Italian sociologist Robert Michels. In works such as the book known in English as Political
Parties, Michels shows that all organizations and movements have a leadership class whose interests
and abilities are distinct from those of the membership. Democracy or equality-the idea that everyone
participates on the same level-is antithetical to the very concept of organization, which necessarily
involves different persons, different "organs," serving different roles. And some roles are more
powerful than others.
Not only do leaders corrupt organizations, Burnham observes, but the oligarchic nature of organization
affects even the most selfless leader as well. "Individual saints, exempt in individual intention
from the law of power, will nonetheless be always bound to it through the disciples, associates,
and followers to whom they cannot, in organized social life, avoid being tied." Many a grassroots
true believer faults bad advisers for the mistakes of a Ronald Reagan or Ron Paul-but the problem
is not bad advisers, it's advisers, period. They are necessary, and they necessarily have their own
motives and perspectives. Without them, however, there would be no organization. This is as true
of grassroots groups, even purely volunteer ones, as of Beltway cliques.
Effective politics therefore means accepting the limits of human nature and organization and working
within those limits, not expecting perfection. An organization as a whole must harmonize the interests
of the leaders with those of the membership and direct them all toward political achievement.
The greatest of the modern Machiavellians considered by Burnham is the one he covers last: Vilfredo
Pareto, whose accomplishments spanned the fields of economics and sociology. Pareto's work on elitism
sums up and extends the thinking of the others, though Mosca considered him a rival and copycat.
Pareto examines not only social class but classes of social psychology: his magisterial Mind and
Society reduces human motives to six fundamental classes of what Pareto terms "residues." (They
are residues in that they are what remains when everything less stable has been boiled away by analysis.)
Only the first two classes are important for Burnham's investigation. Class I residues involve
the "instinct for combinations"-manufacturing new ideas and tastes from the disassembling and reassembling
of old ones; creating complex systems from simple materials; incorporating experiences of the world
with ideas in novel ways. These are the instincts that drive the verbalist and theorist, the filmmaker,
the philosopher, the magician. Class II residues, by contrast, involve "group persistences" and encourage
the preservation of existing institutions and habits. These are the psychological forces of social
inertia; they are also the forces of loyalty.
Burnham observes that Class I residues correspond to the character type Machiavelli describes
as the fox, cunning and quick to use fraud to get his way. Class II residues correspond to Machiavelli's
lions, more comfortable with force than manipulation. A society needs both types. "If Class II residues
prevail" in all strata of society, Burnham warns,
the nation develops no active culture, degenerates in a slough of brutality and stubborn prejudice,
in the end is unable to overcome new forces in its environment, and meets disaster. Disaster,
too, awaits the nation given over wholly to Class I residues, with no regard for the morrow, for
discipline or tradition, with a blind confidence in clever tricks as the sufficient means for
salvation.
After residues, the rock-bottom motives of men and women, come what Pareto calls "derivations."
These, writes Burnham, are "the verbal explanations, dogmas, doctrines, theories"-and ideologies-"with
which man, with that passionate pretense of his that he is rational, clothes the non-logical bones
of the residues." Derivations may seem to be expressions of rational thinking, but they are not.
"It is for this reason," Burnham continues,
that the 'logical' refutation of theories used in politics never accomplishes anything so long
as the residues remain intact. Scientists proved with the greatest ease that Nazi racial theories
were altogether false, but that had no effect at all in getting Nazis to abandon those theories;
and even if they had abandoned them, they would merely have substituted some new derivation to
express the same residue.
Facts about voter fraud and the suppressive effects of voter ID requirements, for example, thus
count for very little in today's discussions of such laws-not because either side is consciously
dishonest about its intentions but because such arguments are driven by emotional commitments that
are not subject to proof or disproof. This is also why our cable news channels put little effort
into persuading skeptics. The politics to which they cater is about group loyalty and its derivative
mythologies. (To be sure, this costs Fox and MSNBC their credibility with people in whom Class I
residues are stronger-not necessarily because such people are devoted to the truth but because they
at least desire variety and complexity. Fox News is for lions, not foxes.)
No one is a slave of a single class of residues, however, and both within the individual mind
and within society there are always competing currents. Elites in particular must cultivate a mixture
of fox-like and lion-like qualities if they hope to retain power. An imbalance of these characteristics
leads to social upheaval and what Pareto terms "the circulation of elites," the fall of one ruling
class and rise of another.
This happens especially when foxes, having outmaneuvered the lions in the struggle for power within
society, are confronted by an external threat that cannot be overcome without violence. Foxes are
inept in the use of force, apt to apply too much or too little, and always they prefer to secure
their goals by deceit or diplomacy.
There is also internal danger from an imbalance of residues. Talented verbalists denied admittance
to an elite whose ranks are closed will, instead of competing for power within the institutions of
society, attempt to gain power by subverting those institutions-including through revolution, which
they foment by sowing alienation and anger among the lions of the public.
Burnham feared that foxes were dangerously dominant in the America of his own time, which is why
he followed The Machiavellians with a series of books arguing for a hard line in the Cold
War: The Struggle for the World in 1947, The Coming Defeat of Communism in 1949, and
Containment or Liberation? in 1953. His column in National Review, which he wrote from
1955 until ill health ended his career in 1978, was called first "The Third World War" and later,
only a little mellowed, "The Protracted Conflict."
He died in 1987, much honored by the conservative movement he had helped build. Yet he is poorly
understood today, remembered only as a Cold Warrior rather than a brilliant social theorist of enduring
urgency. Ironically, Burnham's last original book, The Suicide of the West in 1964, may have
contributed to misperceptions about his work. In it, Burnham describes liberalism as "the ideology
of Western suicide"-meaning not that it was the cause of the West's loss of ground and nerve but
that it was a rationale expressing a more fundamental mood of surrender. Burnham was assumed to be
saying that the managerial revolution, having put in a place a new liberal ruling class since World
War II, was leading America into weakness and withdrawal.
In fact, though Burnham hardly emphasized this for his free-market readership in National Review,
liberalism was the ideology of Western capitalism's suicide in the face of an assertively managerial
Communist bloc. Burnham had, after all, argued in The Managerial Revolution that of the three
great nations in the throes of the revolution-the U.S., Russia, and Nazi Germany-the U.S. was least
far along the path and the most torn between its capitalist past and managerial future. Liberalism,
even in its left-wing, statist iteration, is the characteristic ideology of capitalism, and it was
the capitalist system as well as the West-Burnham identified both with the British Empire-that was
committing suicide.
This might suggest Burnham's social thought is even more antiquated than his Cold War strategizing.
After all, the managerial Soviet Union is gone, and the capitalist U.S. has not only survived but
thrived for decades in what is now a globalized free-market system. While the political theory of
The Machiavellians doesn't depend on The Managerial Revolution-it's surprising, in
fact, how little connected the two books are-his reputation must surely suffer for getting such a
basic question wrong.
Only he didn't get it wrong-for what is the political and economic system of China if not what
Burnham described in The Managerial Revolution? Engineers, industrial planners, and managers
have led China for decades, with unarguable results. Indeed, several East Asian economies, including
those of American allies Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, are managerialist. As Burnham predicted,
these economies have been highly successful at controlling unemployment and raising standards of
living.
The American ruling class, by contrast, has pursued a largely anti-managerial policy, ridding
the country of much strategic manufacturing. Such industry-including shipbuilding and semiconductor
fabrication-is now overwhelmingly based in Asia. The U.S. hybrid system, transitioning from capitalism
to managerialism, outperformed the Soviet Union. Whether it can outperform the next wave of managerial
revolution is very much uncertain.
For the Machiavellians, freedom is not a thing to be won by popular revolt against the ruling
class-for any revolt can only replace one ruling class with another. Instead, freedom requires that
factions among the elite-representatives of different social forces or rival elements of the same
one-should openly compete for power and seek to draw into their ranks the most talented foxes and
lions of the people, to gain advantages in skill and strength over their rivals. In such a system,
the people still do not rule directly, but they can influence the outcome of elite contests at the
margin. This leads evenly matched elites constantly to seek popular support by looking out for the
welfare of the common citizen, for perfectly self-interested reasons.
What has happened in America since the end of the Cold War, however, is that competition for popular
favor has been reduced to a propaganda exercise-employing myths, symbols, and other "derivatives"-disconnected
from policies of material interest to the ruling class. Thus monetary policy, foreign policy, and
positions on trade and immigration vary little between Republican and Democratic presidents. This
is a terrible situation-if you're not part of the elite. If you are, all the gridlock and venom of
our politics is simply irrelevant to the bottom line. For the non-elite, however, insecurity of all
kinds continues to rise, as does a sense that the country is being sold out from under you.
America's ruling class has bought itself time-for continuing capitalism in an age of worldwide
managerial revolution-at the expense of America's middle and working classes. Reform, alas, will
not come from "throw the bums out" populism of either the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street varieties.
It can only come from two directions: the best of the people must grow conscious of how oligarchy
operates and why populist leadership is a paradox, and new factions among the elite must be willing
to open competition on more serious fronts-campaigning not only on myths and formulas but on the
very substance of the managerial revolution.
Daniel McCarthy is editor of The American Conservative.
George Orwell's own Animal
Farm, a classic novel about a farm run by animals who overthrow their owner and slowly succumb
to communist leadership, paralleling
the Russian Revolution
and Stalin's rise to power in the
Soviet Union.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
The
picture of modern MSM and the level of brainwashing is less intrusive but no less effective, and journalists
proved to be willing accomplices of the regime (Neoliberal
Brainwashing: Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few)
In
reality, standing alone with election fraud notwithstanding , last October's lockstep
decision by an entire news industry to suppress the starkly headline-worthy scandals around
Hunter Biden's laptop, along with all other negative stories about Joe Biden, accounts directly
for 17% of Biden voters who would have abandoned him " 
