The oligarchs are the lords of the earth. Everything exists for their benefit.
The ordinary people, the workers – are their slaves. ~ 1984
CORPORATE COMMUNISM
(what Orwell called “Oligarchical Collectivism”)
Since the events of 9-11 all governments of the civilized world have been treating their citizens to a dose of what people living under Communism experience. Just because they’re doing it under the guise of “to keep us SAFE” doesn’t make it any different from what it is. It’s still Communism in one form or another.
Its form in our time is the worst of two evils. The worst of the right (unfettered Capitalism) has joined together with the worst of the left (iron-heel Communism).
It can be best described as CORPORATE COMMUNISM because CORPORATIONS own everything – including ALL governments – and run them with COMMUNIST tactics.
In CORPORATE COMMUNISM there are no boundaries. Politicians from Communist AND Capitalist countries are shareholders in multi-national corporations. They benefit financially and otherwise from policies dictated by Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) who, collectively, own everything in the world, coming and going.
In 1984 Orwell called the system OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM, because the oligarchs (another name for CEOs) collectively owned everything. He said: “The oligarchs are the lords of the earth. Everything exists for their benefit. The ordinary people, the workers – are their slaves.” ~ Jackie Jura
10. The Rulers
“The oligarchs – and a few lawyers and priests and so forth who lived on them – are the lords of the earth. Everything exists for their benefit. The ordinary people, the workers – are their slaves. They could do what they liked with you. They could ship you off to Canada like cattle. They could sleep with your daughters if they chose. They could order you to be flogged with something called a cat-o’-nine tails. You had to take your cap off when you passed them. Every oligarch went about with a gang of lackeys. Salvation Army, Roman Catholics, Jews, Indians – and other sorts – were lackeys, parasites, flunkies of the ruling class.“
A member of the Inner Party enjoys the luxury of a large, well-appointed flat, better textures of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter. This sets him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses known as “the proles.” The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty.
In principle, membership of these three groups is not hereditary. The child of Inner Party parents is in theory not born into the Inner Party. Admission to either branch of the Party is by examination, taken at the age of sixteen. Nor is there any racial discrimination, or any marked domination of one province by another. Jews, Negroes, South Americans of pure Indian blood are to be found in the highest ranks of the Party, and the administrators of any area are always drawn from the inhabitants of that area. In no part of Oceania do the inhabitants have the feeling that they are a colonial population ruled from a distant capital. Oceania has no capital, and its titular head is a person whose whereabouts nobody knows. Except that English is its chief lingua franca and Newspeak its official language, it is not centralized in any way. Its rulers are not held together by blood-ties but by adherence to a common doctrine. It is true that our society is stratified, and very rigidly stratified, on what at first sight appear to be hereditary lines.
In the crucial years, the fact that the Party was not a hereditary body did a great deal to neutralize opposition. The older kind of Socialist, who had been trained to fight against something called “class privilege”, assumed that what is not hereditary cannot be permanent. He did not see that the continuity of an oligarchy need not be physical, nor did he pause to reflect that hereditary aristocracies have always been shortlived, whereas adoptive organizations such as the Catholic Church have sometimes lasted for hundred or thousands of years. The essence of oligarchical rule is not father-to-son inheritance, but the persistence of a certain world-view and a certain way of life, imposed by the dead upon the living. A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same.
5. BB Pyramidal New World Order
Four buildings towered vast and white above the grimy landscape. They were startingly different from any other objects in sight. They were enormous pyramidical sructures of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. So completely did they dwarf the surrounding architecture that from the roof of VICTORY MANSIONS you could see all four of them simultaneously. They were the homes of the four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided. The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. the Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty.
At the apex
of the pyramid
comes BIG BROTHER.
Below BIG BROTHER comes the Inner Party
(the High), its numbers limited to six millions
or something less than 2% of the population of Oceania (the brain).
Below the Inner Party
comes the Outer Party (the Middle) which may be justly likened to (the hands).
Below that come the Dumb Masses
(the Low), who are habitually referred to as
‘the proles’, numbering perhaps 85 percent of the population (the body).
The slave populaton of the equatorial lands,
who pass constantly from conqueror to conqueror, are not a permanent or necessary part of the structure.
The rules of the Inner Party are held together by adherence to a common doctrine. In a Party member not even the smallest deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated. A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts…What was required in a Party member was an outlook similar to that of the ancient Hebrew who knew, without knowing much else, that all nations other than his own worshipped “false gods”. He did not need to know that these gods were called Baal, Osiris, Moloch, Ashtaroth, and the like: probably the less he knew about them the better for his orthodoxy. He knew Jehovah and the commandments of Jehovah: he knew, therefore, that all gods with other names or other attributes were false gods. In somewhat the same way, the party member knew what constituted right conduct, and in exceedingly vague, generalized terms he knew what kinds of departure from it were possible.
The Outer Party was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government.
The Party taught that the Proles were natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals, by the application of a few simple rules.
There is far less to-and-fro movement between the different groups than happend under capitalism or even in the pre-industrial age. 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. Proletarians, in practice, are not allowed to graduate into the Party. The most gifted among them, who might possibly become nuclei of discontent, are simply marked down by the Thought Police and eliminated. But this state of affairs is not necessarily permanent, nor is it a matter of principle. The Party is not a class in the old sense of the word. It does not aim at transmitting power to its own children, as such; and if there were no other way of keeping the ablest people at the top, it would be perfectly prepared to recruit an entire new generation from the ranks of the proletariat.
The two aims of the Party are to:
(1) - extinquish once and for all the possibility of independent thought, and
(2) - conquer the whole surface of the earth.
There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is:
(1) - how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking. And the other is:
(2) - how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning before hand.
Members of the Brotherhood are prepared to:
give one’s life; commit murder; commit acts of sabotage;
betray one’s country to foreign powers;
cheat, forge, and blackmail;
corrupt the minds of children;
distribute habit-forming drugs;
encourage prostitution; disseminate venereal diseases;
do anything which is likely to cause
demoralization of society.
~ 1984
35. Big Brother’s Brotherhood
They had done it, they had done it at last! The room they were standing in was long-shaped and softly lit. The telescreen was dimmed to a low murmer; the richness of the dark-blue carpet gave one the impression of treading on velvet. At the far end of the room O’Brien was sitting at a table under a green-shaped lamp, with a mass of papers on either side of him. Winston’s heart was thumping so hard that he doubted whether he would be able to speak. Merely to walk into such a place needed an effort of the nerve. It was only on very rare occasions that one saw inside the dwelling-places of the Inner Party, or even penetrated into the quarter of the town where they lived. The whole atmosphere of the huge block of flats, the richness and spaciousness of everything, the unfamiliar smells of good food and good tobacco, the silent and incredibly rapid lifts sliding up and down, the white-jacked servants hurrying to and fro – everything was intimidating.
O’Brien’s servant had admitted the two of them without demur. He was a small, dark-haired man in a white jacket, with a diamond-shaped, completely expressionless face which might have been that of a Chinese. The passage down which he led them was softly carpeted, with cream-papered walls and white wainscoating, all exquisitely clean. That too was intimidating. Winston could not remember ever to have seen a passageway whose walls were not grimy from the contact of human bodies.
O’Brien rose deliberately from his chair and came towards them. His expression was grimmer than usual, as though he were not pleased at being disturbed. As O’Brien passed the telescreen he stopped, turned aside and pressed a switch on the wall. There was a sharp snap. The voice had stopped. Julia uttered a tiny squeak of surpirse. Winston was too much taken aback to be able to hold his tongue.
“You can turn it off!” he said.
“Yes,” said O’Brien “we can turn it off. We have that privilege. Everything is turned off. We are alone.”
Winston said: “We believe that there is some kind of conspiracy, some kind of secret organization working against the Party. We want to join it and work for it. We are enemies of the Party. We disbelieve in the principles of Ingsoc. We are thought-criminals.”
He stopped and glanced over his shoulder, with the feeling that the door had opened. Sure enough, the little yellow-faced servant had come in without knocking.
“Martin is one of us,” said O’Brien impassively. “We may as well sit down and talk in comfort. Bring a chair for yourself, Martin. This is business. You can stop being a servant for the next ten minutes.”
Winston could not help snatching another sidelong glance at Martin’s Mongolian face. There were no scars that he could see. Exactly as they had done at the front door, the little man’s dark eyes flickered over their faces. There was no trace of friendliness in his manner. He was memorizing their appearance, but he felt no interest in them, or appeared to feel none. It occurred to Winston that a synthetic face was perhaps incapable of changing expression.
There was a silver box of cigarettes on the table. O’Brien pushed them towards the others. They were very good cigarettes, very thick and well-packed, with an unfamiliar silkiness in the paper.
O’Brien took the decanter by the neck and filled up the glasses with a dark-red liquid. “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.”
Winston took up his glass with a certain eagerness. Wine was a thing he had read and dreamed about. Like the glass paperweight or Mr Charrington’s half-remembered rhymes, it belonged to the vanished, romantic past, the olden time as he liked to call it in his secret thoughts. For some reason he had always thought of wine as having an intensely sweet taste, like that of blackberry jam and an immediate intoxicating effect. Actually, when he came to swallow it, the stuff was distinctly disappointing. The truth was that after years of gin drinking he could barely taste it.
“I think it is fitting that we should begin by drinking a health. To our Leader: To Emmanuel Goldstein.” said O’Brien.
“Then there is such a person as Goldstein?” Winston 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.
“We fight in the dark. We will always be in the dark. We receive orders and we obey them, without knowing why. Later I will send you a book from which you will learn the true strategy by which we shall destroy the society we live in. Full members of the Brotherhood have read the book. But between the general aims that we are fighting for, and the immediate tasks of the moment, one never knows anything. I tell you that the Brotherhood exists, but I cannot tell you whether it numbers a hundred members, or ten million. From one’s personal knowledge he is never able to say that it numbers even as many as a dozen.
We’re sometimes obliged to give a person a new identity. His face, his movements, the shape of his hands, the colour of his hair – even his voice would be different. Our surgeons can alter people beyond recognition. Sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes we even amputate a limb.”
One has three or four contacts, who recognize one another by code words or by special movements of the hand, and who will be renewed from time to time as they disappear. When one is caught, he confesses. That is unavoidable. But one has very little to confess, other than one’s own actions. One is not able to betray more than a handful of unimportant people. At most, when it is absolutely necessary that someone should be silenced, we are occasionally able to smuggle a razor blade into a prisoner’s cell.”
Members of the Brotherhood are prepared to:
- give ones life
- commit murder
- commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people
- betray one’s country to foreign powers
- cheat, forge, and blackmail
- corrupt the minds of children
- distribute habit-forming drugs
- encourage prostitution
- disseminate venereal diseases
- do anything which is likely to cause demoralization
O’Brien continued to move back and forth over the soft carpet. When he spoke of murder, suicide, venereal disease, amputated limbs, and altered faces, it was with a faint air of persiflage. “This is unavoidable,” his voice seemed to say; “this is what we have got to do, unflinchingly…”
“…The Brotherhood cannot be wiped out because it is not an organization in the ordinary sense. Nothing holds it together except an idea which is indestructible. Perceptible change doesn’t happen within one lifetime. One takes part in it as handfuls of dust and splinters of bone. It could take a thousand years. We extend the area little by little generation after generation. I will send you a copy of the book.”
O’Brien, Winston noticed, seemed to pronounce the words as though they were in italics: “Goldstein’s book, you understand, as soon as possible. There are not many in existence, as you can imagine. The book is undestructible. If the last copy were gone, we could reproduce it almost word for word. You will return it in fourteen days.”
The book, a heavy black volume, was amateurishly bound, with no name or title on the cover. The print also looked slightly irregular. The pages were worn at the edges, and fell apart, easily, as though the book had passed through many hands. The inscription on the title page ran:
THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM
by Emmanuel Goldstein
8. Classes of People
Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.
The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable:
- The aim of the High is to remain where they are.
- The aim of the Low, when they have an aim – for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives – is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.
Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice.
As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently, a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins all over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters…
After the revolutionary period of the ‘fifties and ‘sixties, society regrouped itself, as always, into High, Middle, and Low. But the new High group, unlike all its foreunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what was needed to safeguard its position. It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism.
By comparison with that existing to-day, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient …and were content to leave loose ends everywhere, to regard only the overt act and to be uninterested in what their subjects were thinking… Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance.
The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate,
land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to,
great blocks of the population were prevented from working
and were kept half alive by State charity.
9. Keeping Masses Down
As early as the beginning of the twentieth century, human equality had become technically possible. It was still true that men were not equal in their native talents and that functions had to be specialized in ways that favoured some individuals against others; but there was no longer any real need for class distinctions or for large differences of wealth. With the development of machine production – even if it was still necessary for human beings to do different kinds of work – it was no longer necessary for them to live at different social or economic levels.
But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction – indeed, in some sense was the destruction – of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.
It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism.
Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called ‘abolition of private property’ put the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before: but with this difference, the new owners were a group instead of a mass of individuals. Individually, no member of the Party owns anything, except petty personal belongings. Collectively, the Party owns everything in Oceania, because it controls everything, and disposes of the products as it thinks fit. In the years following the Revolution it was able to step into this commanding position almost unopposed, because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization. It had always been assumed that if the capitalist class were expropriated, Socialism must follow: and unquestionably, the capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport – everything had been taken away from them: and since these things were no longer private property, it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc, which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist programme; with the result, foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.
Nor could the hierarchy be maintained by keeping the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This was tried to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and were kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable.
But the problems of perpetuating a hierarchical society go deeper than this. There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and willingness to govern. These causes do not operate singly, and as a rule all four of them are present in some degree. A ruling class which could guard against all of them would remain in power permanently. Ultimately the determining factor is the mental attitude of the ruling class itself.
Physical rebellion, or any preliminary move towards rebellion, is at present not possible. From the proletarians nothing is to be feared. Left to themselves, they will continue from generation to generation and from century to century, working, breeding, and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without the power of grasping the world could be other than it is. They could only become dangerous if the advance of industrial technique made it necessary to educate them more highly; but since military and commercial rivalry are no longer important, the level of popular education is actually declining. What opinions the masses hold, or do not hold, is looked on as a matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual liberty because they have no intellect.
From the point of view of our present rulers, therefore, the only genuine dangers are the splitting-off of a new group of able, under-employed, power-hungry people, and the growth of liberalism and scepticism in their own ranks. The problem, that is to say; is educational. It is a problem of continuously moulding the consciousness both of the directing group and the larger executive group that lies immediately below it. The consciousness of the masses needs only to be influenced in a negative way.
“They prop one another up, like three sheaves of corn.”
6. Super-States
The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines.
EURASIA comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait.
OCEANIA comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa.
EASTASIA, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries in the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.
The DISPUTED TERRITORIES form a rough quadrilateral with its corners at Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin and Hong Kong, containing within it about a fifth of the population of the earth.
In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It was a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. It follows that the three super-states not only cannot conquer one another, but would gain no advantage by doing so. On the contrary, so long as they remain in conflict they prop one another up, like three sheaves of corn.
None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable.
EURASIA is protected by its vast land spaces.
OCEANIA by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific.
EASTASIA by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants.
Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. Each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. It is for the possession of the thickly-populated regions, and of the northern ice-cap, that the three powers are constantly struggling. All of the disputed territories contain valuable minerals, and some of them yield important vegetable products.. But above all they contain a bottomless reserve of cheap labour. Whichever power controls equatorial Africa, or the countries of the Middle East, or Southern India, or the Indonesian Archipelago, disposes also of the bodies of scores or hundreds of millions of ill-paid and hard-working coolies. The inhabitants of these areas, reduced more or less openly to the status of slaves, pass continually from conqueror to conqueror, and are expended like so much coal or oil in the race to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory… to control more labour power… to turn out more armaments… to capture more territory… and so on indefinitely.
None of the three super-states ever attempts any manoeuvre which involves the risk of serious defeat. When any large operation is undertaken, it is usually a surprise attack against an ally. The strategy that all three powers are following, or pretend to themselves that they are following, is the same. The plan is, by a combination of fighting, bargaining, and well-timed strokes of treachery, to acquire a ring of bases completely encircling one or other of the rival states, and then to sign a pact of friendship with that rival and remain on peaceful terms for so many years as to lull suspicion to sleep. During this time rockets loaded with atomic bombs can be assembled at all the strategic spots; finally they will all be fired simultaneously, with effects so devastating as to make retaliation impossible. It will then be time to sign a pact of friendship with the remaining world-power, in preparation for another attack. This scheme, it is hardly necessary to say, is a mere daydream, impossible of realization. Moreover, no fighting ever occurs except in the disputed areas round the Equator and the Pole: no invasion of enemy territory is ever undertaken. This explains the fact that in some places the frontiers between the super-states are arbitrary. Eurasia, for example, could easily conquer the British Isles, which are geographically part of Europe, or on the other hand it would be possible for Oceania to push its frontiers to the Rhine or even to the Vistula. But this would violate the principle, followed on all sides though never formulated, of cultural integrity.
If Oceania were to conquer the areas that used once to be known as France and Germany, it would be necessary either to exterminate the inhabitants, a task of great physical difficulty, or to assimilate a population of about a hundred million people, who so far as technical development goes, are roughly on the Oceanic level. The problem is the same for all three-superstates. It is absolutely necessary to their structure that there should be no contact with foreigners, except, to a limited extent, with war prisoners and coloured slaves. Even the official ally of the moment is always regarded with the darkest suspicion. War prisoners apart, the average citizen of Oceania never sets eyes on a citizen of either Eurasia or Eastasia, and he is forbidden the knowledge of foreign languages. 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. The sealed world in which he lives would be broken and the fear, hatred, and self-righteousness on which his morale depends might evaporate. It is therefore realized on all sides that however often Persia, or Egypt, or Java, or Ceylon may change hands, the main frontiers must never be crossed by anything except bombs.
Practices which had been long abandoned …
imprisonment without trial… torture to extract confessions …
were tolerated and even defended.
7. Systems Of Thought
It was only after a decade of national wars, civil wars, revolutions, and counter-revolutions in all parts of the world that Ingsoc and its rivals emerged as fully worked-out political theories. But they had been fore shadowed by the various systems, generally called totalitarian, which had appeared earlier in the century, and the main outlines of the world which would emerge from the prevailing chaos had long been obvious.
The conditions of life in all three superstates are very much the same. In Oceania the prevailing philosophy is called Ingsoc, in Eurasia it is called Neo-Bolshevism, and in Eastasia it is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-Worship, but perhaps better rendered as Obliteration of the Self. The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosophies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense.
Actually the three philosophies are barely distinguishable, and the social systems which they support are not distinguishable at all. Everywhere there is the same pyramidal structure, the same worship of a semi-divine leader, the same economy existing by and for continuous warfare.
And, as usual, the ruling groups of all three powers are simultaneously aware and unaware of what they are doing. Their lives are dedicated to world conquest, but they also know that it is necessary that the war should continue everlastingly and without victory. Meanwhile the fact that there is no danger of conquest makes possible the denial of reality which is the special feature of Ingsoc and its rival systems of thought.
Socialism, a theory which appeared in the early nineteenth century and was the last link in a chain of thought stretching back to the slave rebellions of antiquity, was still deeply infected by the Utopianism of past ages. But in each variant of Socialism that appeared from about 1900 onwards the aim of establishing liberty and equality was more and more deeply abandoned. The new movements which appeared in the middle years of the century, Ingsoc in Oceania, New-Bolshevism in Eurasia, Death-Worship, as it is commonly called, in Eastasia, had the conscious aim of perpetuating unfreedom and inequality. These new movements, of course, grew out of the old ones and tended to keep their names and pay lip-service to their ideology. But the purpose of all of them was to arrest progress and freeze history at a chosen moment. The familiar pendulum swing was to happen once more, and then stop.
Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years – imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations – not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.
The idea of an earthly paradise in which men should live together in a state of brotherhood, without laws and without brute labour, had haunted the human imagination for thousands of years. The heirs of the French, English, and American revolutions had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and have even allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable.
The atomic bomb will rob the exploited classes and peoples
of all power to revolt,
and at the same time put the possessors of the bomb
on a basis of military equality.
ORWELL COINED “COLD WAR”
These three super-state nations will make a tacit agreement
never to use the atomic bomb against one another.
Unable to conquer one another,
they will continue ruling the world between them,
in a permanent state of ‘cold war’.
Reader read that Orwell created the term “cold war”
and asks where the reference can be found:
You and the Atomic Bomb
by George Orwell, 1945
Considering how likely we all are to be blown to pieces by it within the next five years, the atomic bomb has not roused so much discussion as might have been expected. The newspapers have published numerous diagrams, not very helpful to the average man, of protons and neutrons doing their stuff, and there has been much reiteration of the useless statement that the bomb ‘ought to be put under international control.’ But curiously little has been said, at any rate in print, about the question that is of most urgent interest to all of us, namely: ‘How difficult are these things to manufacture?’
Such information as we — that is, the big public — possess on this subject has come to us in a rather indirect way, apropos of President Truman’s decision not to hand over certain secrets to the USSR. Some months ago, when the bomb was still only a rumour, there was a widespread belief that splitting the atom was merely a problem for the physicists, and that when they had solved it a new and devastating weapon would be within reach of almost everybody. (At any moment, so the rumour went, some lonely lunatic in a laboratory might blow civilisation to smithereens, as easily as touching off a firework.)
Had that been true, the whole trend of history would have been abruptly altered. The distinction between great states and small states would have been wiped out, and the power of the State over the individual would have been greatly weakened. However, it appears from President Truman’s remarks, and various comments that have been made on them, that the bomb is fantastically expensive and that its manufacture demands an enormous industrial effort, such as only three or four countries in the world are capable of making. This point is of cardinal importance, because it may mean that the discovery of the atomic bomb, so far from reversing history, will simply intensify the trends which have been apparent for a dozen years past.
It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.
The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans — even Tibetans — could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one. There are fewer and fewer foci of power. Already, in 1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale, and now there are only three — ultimately, perhaps, only two. This trend has been obvious for years, and was pointed out by a few observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon — or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting — not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.
From various symptoms one can infer that the Russians do not yet possess the secret of making the atomic bomb; on the other hand, the consensus of opinion seems to be that they will possess it within a few years. So we have before us the prospect of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them. It has been rather hastily assumed that this means bigger and bloodier wars, and perhaps an actual end to the machine civilisation. But suppose — and really this the likeliest development — that the surviving great nations make a tacit agreement never to use the atomic bomb against one another? Suppose they only use it, or the threat of it, against people who are unable to retaliate? In that case we are back where we were before, the only difference being that power is concentrated in still fewer hands and that the outlook for subject peoples and oppressed classes is still more hopeless.
When James Burnham wrote The Managerial Revolution it seemed probable to many Americans that the Germans would win the European end of the war, and it was therefore natural to assume that Germany and not Russia would dominate the Eurasian land mass, while Japan would remain master of East Asia. This was a miscalculation, but it does not affect the main argument. For Burnham’s geographical picture of the new world has turned out to be correct. More and more obviously the surface of the earth is being parceled off into three great empires, each self-contained and cut off from contact with the outer world, and each ruled, under one disguise or another, by a self-elected oligarchy. The haggling as to where the frontiers are to be drawn is still going on, and will continue for some years, and the third of the three super-states — East Asia, dominated by China — is still potential rather than actual. But the general drift is unmistakable, and every scientific discovery of recent years has accelerated it.
We were once told that the aeroplane had ‘abolished frontiers’; actually it is only since the aeroplane became a serious weapon that frontiers have become definitely impassable. The radio was once expected to promote international understanding and co-operation; it has turned out to be a means of insulating one nation from another. The atomic bomb may complete the process by robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt, and at the same time putting the possessors of the bomb on a basis of military equality. Unable to conquer one another, they are likely to continue ruling the world between them, and it is difficult to see how the balance can be upset except by slow and unpredictable demographic changes.
For forty or fifty years past, Mr. H. G. Wells and others have been warning us that man is in danger of destroying himself with his own weapons, leaving the ants or some other gregarious species to take over. Anyone who has seen the ruined cities of Germany will find this notion at least thinkable. Nevertheless, looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery. 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 — that 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 neighbors.
Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national sovereignty and of the highly-centralised police state. If, as seems to be the case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a ‘peace that is no peace’.
ORWELL’S CRYPTO-COMMIE LIST
The intellectual establishment condemn Orwell for making a list of people he suspected of being Communists or having Communist leanings (“fellow-travellers”) and giving it to the British government.
When Animal Farm and 1984 were published the books received violent reviews from the left-wing press. Critics called Orwell every name in the book including “maggot, octopus, hyena and swine”. These attacks made Orwell feel that he must have struck home.
One of the people condemning Orwell has been the writer Alexander Cockburn, whose father, Claud, a British Journalist and a member of the Communist Party, was a bitter foe of Orwell’s. He recently wrote an introduction to an anti-Animal Farm parody. See SNOWBALL’S REVENGE ON ORWELL.
The truth about Orwell’s “list of crypto (secret)-communists” is told in detail in the biography, ORWELL: WINTRY CONSCIENCE OF A GENERATION by Jeffrey Myers. [The visit described in the following excerpt takes place in the tuberculosis sanitorium where Orwell was admitted after handing in 1984 for publication]. ~ Jackie Jura
Chapter 16, pages 295 to 297:
“…Celia Paget, whom Orwell loved and trusted, made an important visit in April 1949. They sat outside in the horribly damp little wooden hut and ate ghastly tinned peas, and Orwell seemed awfully ill. Celia was then working for the Information Research Department, which had been established by the Labour government’s Foreign Office in 1948. Its purpose was ‘to devise means to combat Communist propaganda, then engaged in a global and damaging campaign to undermine Western power and influence.’
When Celia asked about people who could write for her organization, Orwell suggested Franz Borkenau and Gleb Struve (a Russian scholar, teaching in California). He also offered to give her a list of actors, “journlists and writers who in my opinion are crypto-Communists, fellow-travellers or inclined that way and should not be trusted as propagandists” (my emphasis). These people, whose Communist sympathies were well known, would not lose their jobs or be harmed in any way. They would, quite simply, not be asked to write anti-Soviet propaganda for the British government.
Orwell, a great maker of lists in his notebooks, sent Celia thirty-five names, explaining that “it isn’t very sensational and I don’t suppose it will tell your friends anything they don’t know.” He felt that listing politically unreliable people would prevent them from ‘worming their way into important propaganda jobs where they [could] do us a lot of harm.‘ Charlie Chaplin, Michael Redgrave and Orson Welles were mentioned without comments. But several other names were accompanied by satiric remarks: Nancy Cunard — Silly. Has money; Louis Untermeyer — Very silly; Sean O’Casey — Very stupid; Paul Robeson — Very anti-white; John Steinbeck — Spurious writer, pseudo-naif; Bernard Shaw — Reliably pro-Russian on all major issues; Kingsley Martin (his old enemy at the New Statesman) — Decayed liberal. Very dishonest.
The recent publication of Orwell’s list has provoked accusations that he betrayed his friends and his Socialist principles, and played the role of Big Brother. But when the list is seen in the political context of 1949, his behaviour seems necessary, even commendable. It’s important to remember that though Orwell hated Communism (and Nineteen Eighty-Four was in part an attack on the Russian dictatorship), he strongly supported civil rights and protested against the purge of Communists from the British Civil Service…
Orwell was still furious about the Russians’ slaughter of 15,000 Poles at Katyn, Starobielsk and other prison camps, about the British government’s attempt to cover it up and about his inability to find a British publisher for Joseph Czapski’s Souvenirs de Starobielsk (1945), which documented these massacres. In the spring of 1949, as the Cold War intensified and opposition hardened on both sides of the Iron Curtain, Berlin was blockaded by the Russians and the West conducted a massive airlift to maintain life in their sectors of the city. In sensational espionage cases of the late 1940s, Dr Alan Nunn May and Klaus Fuchs had been caught betraying atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Russia realized Orwell’s great fear by exploding its first atomic bomb in 1949. In April NATO was formed and in May 1949 Chinese Communists drove the Nationalists off the mainland of China and won the long civil war. Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia were beginning to form.
As Robert Conquest, a leading authority on the Soviet Union, recently wrote: “The charge thus amounts simply to his having made available to an agency of his own government his honest, if not infallible, opinion of the political attitudes of a number of members of the Western intelligentsia to a despotic power hostile to it and its principles.” By doing so, the long-standing anti-Communist Orwell did his patriotic duty. The people on his list could not have sold atomic secrets and posed no danger to Western security, but they were certainly not suited to write pro-British propaganda. As he wrote in June 1949, when clarifying the ideas of Nineteen Eighty-Four: ‘I believe that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences. The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.’“.
end quoting from Orwell: Wintry Conscience of a Generation, by Jeffrey Meyers
I hope people now understand why Orwell provided the so-called “Commie list” to his friend in the British government. It was common knowledge to thinking people then, as now, that Communists ALWAYS attempt to infiltrate legitimate organizations in order to undermine and implode them from within. Who better to ask for names than a man like Orwell who had dedicated his life to exposing Totalitarianism wherever he saw it. Did the Communists expect the writer of Homage to Catalonia; The Road to Wigan Pier; Burmese Days; Animal Farm and 1984 to plead ignorance and keep his mouth shut? If so, I know a London bridge they might want to buy. ~ Jackie Jura
Appendix III in Meyer’s book closes with the following on page 336:
“…The political battle-lines of the 1930s have endured into the 1990s. Hard-liners still believe it’s ethical to lie in the service of Communism… They continue to repeat what Orwell in 1940 called ‘the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls.’“
COMMUNIST CRIMES EXPOSED
Today in the news [November 2002] it is reported that for the first time a trial is being conducted against members of Stalin’s secret police who, after the war, rounded up civilians for torture, death or exile to the Gulag*. One of the people giving evidence says: “This is not about punishment, but the people who did this must be labelled as guilty. They have shown no remorse and that makes me very angry. The Germans committed crimes and they have paid for them. But with the Russians, it’s as if we can’t even raise the subject“.
This is very true. It is only now that mainstream criticism is starting to seep out about the reality of Communism. A recent book by Martin Amis, the son of an establishment writer, entitled KOBA THE DREAD, was described by the Los Angeles Times as “a powerful treatise on the almost unbelievable monstrosity of Stalin’s 30-year rule.” And another book by Antony Beevor entitled BERLIN, THE DOWNFALL, 1945, describes “a side of the Soviet Union which is rarely told… a story of frenzied violence and mass rape committed against civilian populations… ‘virtually every woman left behind in East German territory is being raped by Red Army troops’…officers who tried to impose discipline were either shot down by their own troops or even were accused of bourgeois humanism and pity for the enemy, which was almost tantamount to treason”
The suppression of truth regarding the horrors of life under Communism is nothing new. Orwell met the same obstacles in almost every book he ever attempted to publish, because of his “unorthodox” or, as we now say, “politically incorrect” views.
Prior to WWII Orwell opposed going to war against Germany. After WWII he was against Jewish control of Palestine. This put him in the bad books with Communists AND Capitalists, just like his stance against Franco in the Spanish Civil War offended the Fascists and his book BURMESE DAYS offended the Imperialists. Even the so-called Socialists turned against him for his mockery of them in WIGAN’S PIER.
Orwell was disgusted by the dichotomy between what the peoples’ political parties pretended to be and what they actually were. He was especially concerned with the cover-up of the true nature of life behind Stalin’s Iron Curtain that was perpetrated by the governments of the western-world both during and after the war. This became all too obvious with their attempts to censor and/or suppress the publication of his books both in England and abroad. ~ Jackie Jura
ORWELL’S PUBLISHING PROBLEMS
ANIMAL FARM could have been published much sooner but no one in Britain or America would touch it because it was too obviously an allegory of Communism in Russia. Their excuse for not publishing it during the war was that it would offend the Soviet Union, an ally. But even AFTER the war, when Russia once again became the enemy, the powers-that-be were STILL protecting Stalin’s evil deeds from being exposed. ANIMAL FARM was finally published in August 1945 – eighteen months after Orwell finished writing it. Tragically his wife Eileen died five months before publication and wasn’t alive to share the joy of the book’s success. She had encouraged Orwell greatly in the writing of it.
The following excerpt from a recent biography by Jeffrey Meyers, Orwell: Wintry Conscience Of A Generation, describes the problems Orwell had in getting ANIMAL FARM published in America, and then the scathing reaction he received from the Communist press four years later when NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR was published. And the only reason the Capitalists published it (as they too were villified) was because they couldn’t resist the money they knew it would make. ~ Jackie Jura
“…According to Peter Viereck, writing in 1952 (in a journal edited by Henry Kissinger) there was a Communist conspiracy to prevent publication: ‘Some 18 to 20 publishers, almost all the leading ones, turned down the best anti-Soviet satire of our time. In view of its wit, its readability, its saleability, and its democratic outlook, the most likely motive for these rejections is the brilliantly successfull infiltration of Stalinoid sympathizers in the book world‘… The fable was finally brought out by Harcourt & Brace after their editor Frank Morley saw its great success in London and immediately bought the rights…”
Now skip down the road to NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR: ~ JJ
“…NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR was published during the Cold War on June 8, 1949, and created bitter poltical controversy …Communist reviewers violently attacked the book. In Pravda I. Anisimov insisted that the novel showed Orwell’s ‘contempt for the people, his aim of slandering man.’ Samuel Sillen, writing in the American Masses and Mainstream called his review ‘Maggot-of-the-Month’ and condemned the novel as ‘cynical rot…a diatribe against the human race.’ James Walsh, in the Marxist Quarterly, also condemned Orwell’s ‘neurotic…and depressing hatred of everything approaching progress.’ All three claimed that since Orwell criticized Communism he must be in favor of Capitalism, and since he depicted the degradation of man he must despise the common people. These attacks made Orwell feel that he must have struck home. When the Communist press called him maggot, octopus, hyena and swine, he wryly told David Astor: ‘they seem to be very fond of animals.’
Both the novelist Lawrence Durrell and the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz (a future Nobel Prize-winner) praised Orwell’s portrayal of Communist oppression. Soon after the novel appeared, Durrell, working for the British Council in Belgrade, wrote to say ‘how much I admire your new novel. It is intellectually the bravest and cruellest book you’ve done. Reading it in a Communist country is really an experience because one can see it all around one – the ever-present fact which no left-wingers of my acquaintance will dare to look in the eye.’ Milosz, in The Captive Mind, an important study of the disastrous effects of Communism on artists and intellectuals, observed that becasue Nineteen Eighty-Four ‘is both difficult to obtain and dangerous to possess, it is known only to certain members of the Inner Party. Orwell fascinates them through his insight into details they know well….Even those who know Orwell only by hearsay are amazed that a writer who never lived in Russia should have so keen a perception into its life.’
In March 1949 Orwell refused the Book-of-the-Month Club’s offer to publish the novel if he would take out several chapters (including Goldstein’s tract and the Appendix on Newspeak) and cut it by about a quarter. He risked losing about $40,000 — an enormous amount of money. But in April he told Richard Rees that the ‘Club have selected my novel after all, in spite of my refusing to make the changes they demanded. So that shows that virtue is its own reward or honesty is the best policy, I forget which.’
The first English printing of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR was 26,000; the first American 20,000 plus 540,000 in the first two printings of the book club. The book sold, and continues to sell, phenomenally well. By the year 1984 the British Penquin edition was still selling 750,000 copies a year and the USA paperback 1,000 copies a day. Five years later, ANIMAL FARM and NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR together had sold 40 million copies in more than sixty languages, and Orwell had become the most popular English writer of our time. Orwell never owned a house or a decent car, and it was not until the last years of his life that he earned substantially more than the $1,000-pounds a year he considered to be a comfortable income. After the spectacular success of his last novel, the enemy of capitalism had to hire an accountant and turn himself into a limited company.
The continued popularity of the novel has made it part of an enduring English-speaking culture. Orwell described Kipling as ‘the only English writer of our time who has added phrases to the language.’ The same is now true of Orwell. In NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR alone he invented the vivid phrases, “Big Brother Is Watching You,’ ‘two minutes hate,’ ‘thought police,’ ‘thoughtcrime,’ ‘facecrime,’ ‘doublethink,’ ‘memory hole,’ ‘vaporized,’ and ‘unperson’. These words uncanningly expressed the ideas and feelings of people living in totalitarian societies.
Another reason for the novel’s great influence was Orwell’s amazingly accurate predictions. As former colonies have given way to corrupt oligarchies and dictatorships, and the Communist economies of the last half-century have failed, crumbling infrastructure and acute shortages of essential goods have become a reality for millions of people. Many repressive regimes confine dissidents to mental hospitals and ‘disappear’ people who oppose them. Orwell was also acutely prophetic (in the novel and elsewhere) about many crucial problems of the postwar world: the breakdown of the family, the legions of homeless people, environmental pollution, deforestation, addictive drugs, fanaticism and violence in international sporting events (the new focus of nationalism), the decay of language, proliferation of atomic weapons and the permanent state of war between the superpowers, who provoke a great number of minor conflicts but never actually fight each other. Orwell’s novel warned millions of people about the dangers of Communism and helped prevent the realization of the totalitarian world that he described.” ~ quoting from Orwell: Wintry Conscience Of A Generation, by Jeffrey Meyers
1984 published 60 years ago today (June 8, 1949 – 2009) & Winston’s Diary (To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free – greetings!). Go to ORWELL’S PUBLISHING PROBLEMS (Communist reviewers violently attacked the book; called him maggot, octopus, hyena & swine; Capitalist press wanted Goldstein part removed). Go to GOLDSTEIN CONSPIRACY IN 1984 & JFK OPPOSED MONOLITHIC CONSPIRACY & 35.Big Brother’s Brotherhood
Physicist helped build first Atomic-bomb (admitted involved in Communist Party). Telegraph, Apr 29, 2005. Go to 13.Weapons & 6.Superstates & 35.Brotherhood & ATOMIC-BOMB SCIENTIST COMMUNIST
ORWELL INTERVIEWS JONATHAN SWIFT (imaginary interview broadcast over BBC in November 1942)
Reader asks about Orwell’s film rights. Nov 10, 2004. Go to ORWELL A WRITER WRONGED & ANIMAL FARM A BAD MOVIE
COZY DAYS IN STALIN’S KREMLIN (moral depravity of elite men & women who enthusiastically inflicted horrors). Go to 10.The Rulers & 22.Doublethink
New York Times spun Stalin’s lies (Moscow correspondent lived good life while over 20 million in USSR starved & died as slaves in Gulag). National Post, Nov 26, 2003. Go to 16.Minitrue & 17.Falsification of Past & WARTIME MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
SPYING FOR STALIN WAS BAD (but Whittaker Chambers was villified for exposing communist Hiss). National Post, Jul 4, 2003. Go to 35.The Brotherhood & COMMUNISTS COINED MCCARTHYISM & ORWELL’S CRYPTO-COMMIE LIST
GULAG’S HAUNTING LEGACY (18 million tortured & starved; hell for women & children). National Post, Jun 15, 2003. Go to 7.Systems of Thought
PACIFIC MISSILE UN-CRISIS (as opposed to Cuban Missile Crisis)
STALIN’S LIAR IN NEW YORK (got Pultzer Prize for denying Soviet starvation & gulags). CalgarySun, May 20, 2003. Go to 17.Falsification of Past
COMMUNIST CRIMES EXPOSED (new books being published, legal action being taken)
RUSSIA: NEW BOOK SHOWS DARK SIDE OF RED ARMY’S LIBERATION OF GERMANY (book review of BERLIN: THE DOWNFALL, 1945)
STALIN: KOBA THE DREAD II (another review of Martin Amis book)
STALIN: KOBA THE DREAD I (review of Martin Amis book)
ORWELL’S UTOPIA (describes what Orwell understood to be “Democratic Socialism”)
Go to 16. Ministry of Truth
Jackie Jura
~ an independent researcher monitoring local, national and international events ~
’1984' A Prophesy
George Orwell was introduced to the Fabian Society by his French teacher and lifelong friend Aldous Huxley.
However, he later became disenchanted with the Fabian Society and it is NOW thought his book “1984? (a title chosen to mark the 100th anniversary of the Fabians) is really a SATIRE describing the kind of world he believed the Fabians would eventually achieve.
The Fabian Society acquired and sealed the archives of Orwell when his second wife Sonia died some years ago. According to representatives of the publishing company, Harper Collins, the Fabians will be in control of the “1984? copyright and name through the year 2025. And they have done their best to block unauthorized investigative research about Orwell’s anti-socialist works. Even the rights to Orwell’s estate fell under control of the Fabian Society. [Camelot]
George Orwell is a pen name. The real name for the author of “1984? is Eric Blair.
Eric Blair joined the Fabian Socialist Society as a young man, and he dropped out of the Fabian Socialist Society long before he wrote “1984.”
The Fabian Socialist Society was founded in 1884. At their founding, they made a prediction of what they could accomplish as their objectives within 100 years by 1984.
Eric Blair defected from the Fabian Socialist Society and THEN wrote “1984? in 1949 as an EXPOSE’ of what the Fabian Socialist Society was trying to do.
“1984? is an INSIDER’s expose’ of reality; it is not a fantasy, as most people I know have believed.
Everything in “1984? is coming to pass.
Remember the slogan: “War is peace”?
This slogan sounded ridiculous to me, when I first read it. And NOW we have a United Nations “peace” army that is waging so-called “peace” on almost a dozen nations.
Remember the slogan: “Freedom is Slavery”?
Now we have “liberal” programs and “Liberation” movements that are yelling “power to the people” while building a bigger and more powerful government in every way.
Remember the slogan: “Ignorance is Strength”?
Now it is called “plausible deniability.” How many times have we heard “I have no recollection of that”?
What about “thought criminals”? NOW we call them “cult members,” “supremacists,” “antigovernment” and numerous other terms that refer to unauthorized thoughts.
“Politically correct” means that you are NOT a “thought criminal.”
A “Hate Crime” is an ordinary crime that is given FEDERAL jurisdiction and more severe penalty because of the ALLEGED thoughts of the accused.
Who has the right to define such a term as “cult”?
Where freedom of religion exists, NO ONE should have authority to “approve” or “disapprove” of ANY religion.
“Cult member” is a modern word for what George Orwell called a “thought criminal.”
“…if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face… for ever.” — George Orwell – ‘1984’
Isn’t it interesting how Orwell prophesied events as they are actually coming to fruition today?
The three slogans of the Party:
“War is Peace”
“Freedom is Slavery”
“Ignorance is Strength”
The ‘Ministry of Truth’ was established to conceal, distort, or destroy all facts and any evidence of Big Brother’s horrendous crimes against humanity.
The ‘Ministry of Love’ was established to torture and murder any citizen who questioned the unlimited and unrestrained power of Big Brother.
The ‘Ministry of Plenty’ was established to oversee the rationing of everything so that all but the elite (Big Brother) would have barely enough to survive.
And now we have:
The ‘National Security Agency’ (NSA).
The ‘Department Of Homeland Security’ (DHS).
The ‘Federal Emergency Management Agency’ (FEMA).
The ‘Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’ (DARPA).
And far too many agencies to list here; ‘benevolent’ and ‘humanitarian’ agencies so intent on the welfare of “the people” that they think of nothing else. And so it goes…
The grand finale is in sight… There is light at the end of the tunnel — as all of humanity is bought and sold in the marketplace.
I remember first thinking that the Party’s slogan “War is Peace” was too ridiculous to actually be believed by anyone.
BUT TODAY everything in “1984? is coming to pass. What Hitler tried to do, The United Nations is doing today.
We are feeding our neighbors to the Beast, in hopes that the Beast will eat US LAST. And he will.
The same things that The United Nations is doing, in other countries is HAPPENING RIGHT HERE:
IMAGINE: That you wake up tomorrow morning, and learn that The United Nations has declared our country to be a “no fly zone.” The airport is closed. There are no more flights in or out.
IMAGINE: That you head out for work, and find foreign troops in the streets. These foreign troops have set up “check points.” You car is searched, and all weapons are taken from you. All political or religious literature is taken from you. Hopefully you are not arrested. If you ARE arrested you will be held without a trial.
IMAGINE: That you learn that some of your fellow citizens organized a protest demonstration and were shot down in the street.
The February 12th, 1999, New York Times accused UN personnel of executing children suspected of being rebels, and on January 12th, of executing a score of patients at Connaught Hospital in Freetown.
Other reports described the summary detention of civilians, brutal body searches, whipping, beating, varying types of public humiliation of detainees – including children – and acts of sexual assault committed by so-called ‘peacekeepers.’
IMAGINE: That The United Nations changes your President as they recently did in Haiti. The United Nations is creating a world government. What kind of government will that be?
Most of the member nations of The United Nations are totalitarian, by American standards. Are we supposed to believe that all of these dictators are planning to give up their power so that we can have a one world constitutional republic with a competitive free enterprise system?
Or shouldn’t we conclude that we would wind up with a totalitarian socialist superstate?
Who is your representative at The United Nations? Can you remember for whom you voted?
The fact is: you HAVE NO REPRESENTATIVE at The United Nations.
EVERYONE voting at The United Nations is appointed by some government. Most of which are totalitarian.
The United Nations is a government “of the governments, for the governments, and by the governments.”
The fact is: The world being conquered by totalitarians in the name of “Peace.”
Watch the movie “1984? online at
http://www.orwelltoday.com/orwellpubprob.shtml
http://restoretherepublic.com/editorial/1984-a-prophesy.html
Controlled opposition- LIBLABCON PARTY.
