When the Clocks Strike Thirteen — Daily Life In the Orwellian Dystopia

PUBLISHED  ON  TRUTHSEEKER

Orwell’s 1984 no longer reads like fiction. It’s the nightmare reality of our times. 

By Robert Bridge
RT

Abridged by Lasha Darkmoon
with added pictures and captions, video,
and an editorial endnote on ‘The Rat Torture’.

“He discovered that while he sat helplessly musing he had also been writing…. And it was no longer the same cramped, awkward handwriting as before. His pen had slid voluptuously over the smooth paper, printing in large neat capitals — DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER.”  — George Orwell, 1984, Ch. 1


70 years ago, the British writer George Orwell captured the essence of technology in its ability to shape our destinies in his seminal work, Nineteen Eighty-four [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 get 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. 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.

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.

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.”
— Opening sentence of Nineteen Eighty-Four

For anyone who entertains expectations for a happy ending in 1984, be prepared for serious disappointment.  Although Winston Smith manages to finally experience love, his 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’.

Source

ENDNOTE BY LASHA DARKMOON

The writer is referring to the famous  “rat torture“. The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith,  is terrified by rats. Arrested by the authorities, Winston is dragged off to Room 101 in the Ministry of Love for “reprogramming”.  A cage filled with giant rats is placed over his head.  There is a screen separating the rats on one side of the cage from Winston’s face on the other side. When the screen is lifted, the famished rats will fling themselves at Winston’s face and start eating it—their only source of food—in a frantic attempt to escape their cage.

It is up to Winston to cooperate with Big Brother by betraying the secrets of his nearest and dearest, by acting as an informant and name and shame as many others as possible, including the innocent, and  by admitting that even lies are true if Big Brother says they are, e.g. that 2 + 2 = 5.  Failure to cooperate with Big Brother will mean the lifting of the screen, with the rats being let loose to carry out  their dental demolition of the human face—a torture so inconceivably cruel that it didn’t even occur to Dante when imagining the tortures of hell in his Inferno

The rat torture in Orwell’s novel is a variation of the rat torture used in the Soviet Union in Stalin’s reign of terror, applied by the Bolshevik dictator’s  hired Chinese torturers against the Russian people, mostly Christian clergy and dissidents. (Scroll down to picture featuring the rat torture here: The Crimes of the Bolsheviks.)      

Winston breaks down and begs for mercy when threatened with the rat torture fang frenzy , betraying his true love by saying “Let it be Julia — not me!” This is the sign that he has been finally broken. Dehumanized completely.  Little better now than a human vegetable, a  zombified Hollow Man. When he sees Julia next, he knows from the look in her eyes that she knows he has betrayed her.  And that she, too, has betrayed him. 

In the words of T.S. Eliot: “After such knowledge, what forgiveness?”   

In Orwell’s own memorable words—in the final paragraph of his great book—Winston  Smith looks up into Big Brother’s face with the fatuous entrancement of a man who has learned the hard way that two plus two does indeed equal five — if Big Brother says it does. 


“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. 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 all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

For the reader’s convenience, here is a chart outlining the social structure in the Orwellian dystopia. It is pretty much the social structure we have today in our so-called “real world”.

We are the “proles”, roughly 85 per cent of the population: a demoralized and wretched ragbag of economic serfs, brainwashed into believing we live in a democracy. At the top of the pyramid are the richest and most powerful men in the world, aided and abetted by an elite oligarchy who implement their every wish — and who are suitably rewarded for their cruelty by enjoying all the emoluments of oppression. The Utopia of the rich is the planned dystopia of the poor. This is the hell world of tyrannical master and submissive slave, of predator and prey, and of big dog eating small dog on an eternal treadmill of pain.  [LD]

VIDEO   :   7.38 mins

54 thoughts to “When the Clocks Strike Thirteen — Daily Life In the Orwellian Dystopia”

    1. Orwell was a prophet. Early on he saw where things were headed

      We now find “Newspeak” presented as political correctness.

      We can now be jailed for speaking the truth.

      We have been brainwashed with false history and censorship.

      WE MUST NEVER SURRENDER TO BIG BROTHER ISRAEL.

      1. There is really no way to “enjoy” reading “1984” when the reality of the possibility of the story actually happening occurs to one’s mind. I’ve only read it once, when a freshman in high school, and I believe it so impacted my psyche that ever after I made it a point of going against “correkt politik” . My disdain for ” libtards” is open and voiced. (I believe I like Trump MAINLY because they hate him!)
        When I chose my college, I chose the most traditional,
        oldest, all-male school in the country, declining the military academies which I could have attended, because they tarnished themselves with PC striving. They reminded me of “1984”, of which I have always beegn terrified and have tried to avoid in my life. (Now, even my old alma mater has succumbed to too much PC!) (The sad part is – it didn’t need
        any government funding or approval, but the “academics” are so stupid, they shooed it on.) (I met Eustace Mullins, there, at an alumni function, and we instantly bonded over our mutual disgust with modern trends.)
        Unashamed, I will tell ANYONE I was born unto “White Privilege”, and plan to always keep it!

    1. And also destroy sexual morality. As the Freudian communist Wilhelm Reich discovered in the 1930s, if you sexualize a society and promote masturbation and sexual activity in children you can more easily control it and also cause religious belief to evaporate. The same for sexualizing the clergy. See E Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control.

  1. Darkmoon scrapes the bottom of the barrel here. She has a sick imagination that borders on the morbidly demonic. The real world, I assure you, is nothing like this. This is doom porn at its sickest.

    Shame on you, Darkmoon, for corrupting the young and impressionable and filling their innocent minds with this evil garbage.

    I threw up in the toilet after reading your end note on the Rat Torture, which you write with all the ghoulish relish of an Edgar Allen Poe having a sex orgy with Lady Dracula, Lucrezia Borgia, and Countess Bathory of Hungary. Never have I read such obscenities since I last immersed myself in the abominable works of the Marquis de Sade.

    1. Don’t equate the horror of reality with Poe’s horrific fantasies, Zak. T’is not true (but we already know the habit of YOUR tribe is to speak UNtruths…).

  2. “The rat torture in Orwell’s novel is a variation of the rat torture used in the Soviet Union in Stalin’s [??] reign of terror, applied by the Bolshevik dictator’s hired Chinese torturers against the Russian people, mostly Christian clergy and dissidents. (Scroll down to picture featuring the rat torture here: The Crimes of the Bolsheviks.)”

    Josef Stalin is nowhere mentioned in that article. It was written in 1926, apparently well before Stalin consolidated his defeat of Trotsky’s (((western capitalist linked))) Red Imperialism. It is about “The four Jews—Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky…” only.

    1. @ Bob in DC

      The article “The Crimes of the Bolshevik” was based on a much longer article published, as you say, in 1926. It says right at the beginning of the article:

      An edited abridgment of A Sea of Blood: the Truth about Bolshevik Russia, a 12,000-word pamphlet originally published in Munich (1926) and authored by a Russian émigré known as “Dr Gregor”.

      It’s true that Stalin was not mentioned in the original article and that the four Jews who were mentioned in the 1926 article were Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. However, the article “The Crimes of the Bolsheviks” was abridged and edited by Isabella Fanfani and Lasha Darkmoon in December 2011 and is updated with internal notes not found in the 1926 article. They are added annotations.

      You forget that Stalin had been around with Lenin and Trotsky from the beginning and was superior in power to Trotsky by 1926, by which time Lenin had died. By 1928, Stalin had attained supreme power in the Soviet Union and was to carry on the bloodbath initiated by Lenin. His atrocities were in fact far worse than the pre-1926 atrocities of the early days of the Bolshevik Revolution. Far, far worse. Stalin’s reign of terror went on to 1953.

      Altogether, according to Solzhenitsyn, 66 millions Russians were put to death in this period: 1917-1953. Stalin contributed to most of these deaths, since he was in supreme power from 1928 to 1953.

      So Lasha Darkmoon is quite right to mention Stalin’s reign of terror. She knows what she is talking about and has researched this subject exhaustively for several years.

      1. I forget nothing of the sort. Please direct Lasha to research Stalin’s purging of Jews, which began as a process in 1934. This was ongoing until the unfortunate ‘Barbarossa’. After the war he continued this, until mentioning to the few Jews left in power, which he naively thought he could trust, that he planned to ship most to Birobidzhan, as he had similarly shipped Tatars from the Crimea to Siberia. He was dead within a week.

        Josef Stalin was often not a good guy, and not ‘our’ guy, but other than the Holodomor, massive deaths under his regime occurred mainly during World War II. Benito Mussolini considered Josef Stalin a colleague, and his ‘socialism in one country’ came close to the ideals of the NSDAP’s 25 Points.

      2. I forget nothing of the sort. Please direct Lasha to research Stalin’s purging of Jews, which began as a process in 1934.

        Lasha does not need to take direction from you on this point. She is already quite aware of Stalin’s “purging of the Jews” after 1948. This does not make Stalin the nice “anti-Semite” you seem to think he is. During his entire career he was surrounded by Jews and got on with Jews famously. Two of the greatest of the Jewish killers were Lazar Kaganovich and Ilya Ehrenberg. Why didn’t Stalin have these dangerous mass murderers killed if he was a nice anti-Semite “purging” the Jews? How come their lives were spared? Ilya Ehrenberg even ended up in Israel.

        I’m sorry, you seem to belong to the Stalin cultists — along with Lobro who regards Donald Trump, most absurdly, as “the New Stalin.” The banned poster Circassian, hater of this website, also sung the praises of Stalin. This is an anti-Stalin website. We don’t accept the propaganda of the Stalin worshippers here. If you don’t like our view on Stalin, that’s too bad. But we’re not going to change our views to make you happy, nor do we accept for a moment that you are an authority on Stalin who is in a position to lecture us on our ignorance.

        Robert Conquest and Robert Service are world authorities on Stalin and portray him as a vicious killer. Stalin killed some Jews, yes, but that does nor make him an anti-Semite. He killed them only if they got in his way, not because they were Jews. And the reason he began to purge certain Jews after 1948 is because this is when the state of Israel was founded (in 1948) and many Russian Jews began to give their allegiance to Israel rather than to the Soviet Union. Something Stalin didn’t like. So he had to do something about it.

        All this is irrelevant to the Orwell article, by the way. So stop throwing sand in our eyes and trying to introduce a distraction. We are here to discuss an Orwellian dystopia, not if Stalin was one of the nice guys. If you wish to go on believing that, fine. But we will stick with our anti-Stalin views if you don’t mind.

      3. Lenin died in 1924. After conducting a bloodbath from 1917 to 1924. Stalin then jumped into his shoes, but he had serious competitors or rivals who kept him initially in check. For the next 3-4 years there was a power struggle between non-Jew Stalin on the one hand and three other Jews: Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev. Stalin emerged the victor and, as pointed out correctly above, had attained supreme power in the Soviet Union by 1928. In the next few years, Stalin continued in the bloodbath begun by Lenin with even greater loss of life and managed to have Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev all put to death with utmost violence. Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico with an ice pick in his brain. Zinoviev and Kamenev were given show trials, tortured t make false confessions, and finally executed — all on Stalin’s orders. Any attempt to portray Stalin as a plaster saint is bound to be a failure. Stalin remains one of the world’s cruellest and most prolific mass murderers.

      4. Saki: Please explain Benito Mussolini’s admiration for Stalin. Intelligence services back then (much closer to the ‘action’ than we) must have had a good idea of what was going on in Russia, and Mussolini was no ‘anti-Semite’ – at least not in the 1930s.

      5. @ Bob in DC

        Can you shut the fuck up! We are here to discuss Orwell’s 1984. Can you get through that dense skull of yours? All your fucking comments are off-topic. SHUT UP!

      6. So I am expected to lick Stalin’s boots because Mussolini admired Stalin? Why? I don’t follow your logic. Why should I like Stalin because you and Mussolini like him? Listen buddy, you worship your gods. And I’ll worship mine. OK?

      7. @ Bob in DC

        This Stalin discussion is worth pursuing but not, I think, on this thread. I agree 100 per cent with your comment that the important thing is to get rid of Jewish influence. You hit the nail on the head there.

      8. TOBY: “This does not make Stalin the nice ‘anti-Semite’ you seem to think he is.”

        Please reread my comment. NOWHERE do I say that Stalin is “nice”. I am in no ‘cult’, but simply seek some accuracy. You might direct Lasha to Kerry Bolton’s work on these subjects … and I agree: ’nuff said.

        First Thing First : Eliminate Jew Influence

  3. Before Orwell, there was Fritz Lang’s 1927 movie ‘Metropolis’. 15 years after Orwells warning there was the Wachkowski’s ‘The Matrix’. Entertainment or prophecy. I’d venture a guess all 2 authors had an ‘in’ with those in power, as to their intentions.

    Will we ever heed the warnings?

  4. Let us not forget Mao Zedung the darling of the American commie youth during the 60’s. Mao starved millions of Chinese to death shipping food stuffs to his hero Stalin for armaments .
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9746. Mao: The Unknown Story
    by Jung Chang, Jon Halliday leaves no doubt that Mao was the worse mass killer in history and was a true blue psychopath. The world has been ruled by psychopaths for thousands of years.
    Some worse then others.

  5. Winston Smith?
    That’s a Jew Name if there ever was one…
    I wonder how many Stienies is Winston Smith’s tree?
    The Zion use all forms of media for the furtherance of their goals..
    the Protocols came true, so did 1984…
    because somebody planned it that way, and because it was accepted…
    the book was part of the design… a design isn’t the product, but it is essential to its creation…
    roughly, “some things are real that didn’t happen, some things didn’t happen but they are real”, eli wiesel
    jewish media is all about mythology, and a myth isn’t a myth until people believe it…
    once they believe it, it’s real, whether it’s factual or not…
    in time society will have adjusted the myth to reality and reality to the myth…

    1. Bark –

      “I wonder how many Stienies is Winston Smith’s tree?”

      As many as ‘Yosemite Sam’ – He was an Invented character! 🙂

  6. Arrrgh! Ye best be believen’ in 1984 horror stories because ye be livin’ one!

    As I have written before Orwell was not prescient, his book was based on a plan to which he had been made privy. Orwell was a member of the Fabian Society, headed by George Bernard Shaw. The Fabians, no doubt supported by Rothschild funding funneled through Sidney and Beatrice Webb, were always looking for good writers like Shaw, along with other media talent, to produce their propaganda. Eric Blair was already a known writing talent by the time the Fabians approached him. The Fabians reportedly control the copyrights of 1984 until 2025.

    At some point during the thirties, a Rothschild agent came to the group to present the overall outline of the “New World Order” plan Fabians had been implementing at turtle speed, at least that is how the mindless drones that cannot remember three presidents ago perceive the movement of historical events. A frog in a pot might have been just as suitable as the Fabian’s turtle image.

    Critical to this plan was never ending war manufactured by the global government that gives the illusion of opposition to justify their wars. One only need examine how alliances have changed since WWII to see this part of the plan in action. The World is now rapidly polarizing into the same tri-regional powers portrayed in the book.

    The anti-sex leagues are here as well, with a twist only advancing technology could provide. Today it’s anti-sex because people cannot figure out what “gender” they are to begin with. It’s anti-sex in the name of over-sex, fornicating with everyone and anyone, anything but those who might effectively reproduce an intelligent, white race. It’s anti-sex because it’s loveless, useless porn sex.

    Of course, race is never mentioned in the book because the image of primitive third worlders foraging among white “proles” would have over the top for that “lily-white,” civilized era. The golden Negro would have to wait a few years before stepping forth from the shadows to shine brilliantly with its god-gifted genius, love and compassion.

    The reason Orwell’s novel is so horrific is because it describes real horror. Horror that has never been experienced by any of the current crop of fictional horror writers, back flipping to appeal to the Jews’ favorite form of “entertainment.” People who have experienced real horror, at least those who are not socio/psychopaths, typically spend the rest of their lives trying to forget the horror they experienced, instead of spending time trying to come up with an even more horrifying scenario. All too often, these tragic lives are cut short by those haunting, horrifying memories tormenting their souls. Say, isn’t it funny how Jews never want to forget the “horrors” of their Hallowedhoax? So just how horrible might it have been? https://archive.org/details/Holohoax.

    Blair lived through the Spanish Civil War, witnessing firsthand the atrocities committed by the terrorist Judeocommunist Republican forces who unleashed their horrors upon the Catholic clergy just as they had in Russia. The Judeocommunist destroyed Guernica, leveling it to the ground, and then blamed it on a German bombing attack invented by their propagandists. People still believe that lie, but then they still believe the Hallowedhoax myth as well.

    Mr. Blair knew about the Soviet Union and the firsthand horror Judeocommunism had unleashed on the proletariat or “proles.” Thus, it was not difficult to envision how the Judeocommunists’ global plan would unfold in the future. While the world played with dominoes, Jews snuck Judeocommunist socialism in through the back door.

    Television had been a proven technology for some 15 years before the book, so this was no great insight on how it would be used by a terror state like the Judeocommunist Soviet Union with its penchant for planting spies everywhere so they could know everything everyone was thinking. The potential for spies overhearing what was said and the draconian penalties for saying certain unspecified things kept the terror at fever pitch.

    The most interesting question is why he was allowed to publish the book in the first place. Thought the efforts of their publishing houses, Jews had been suppressing various works for years before 1984 was written. So how did it slip through? As I have also commented before, Jews seem to be possessed to tell the truth. But of course that would be suicidal, so they do it through fiction and humor, therefore we fail to realize they are truthfully exposing their intentions in such works. Evidently, the only way Jews can bring themselves to tell any truth is by framing it as a myth or a lie.

    Seig Heil Mein Blair! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/eb/OrwellBurmaPassport.jpg/639px-OrwellBurmaPassport.jpg

    Post Script, when using HTML links I get bizarre returns like the following:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The item you have requested had an error: Item cannot be found. which prevents us from displaying this page.
    Items may be taken down for various reasons, including by decision of the uploader or due to a violation of our terms.

    – And

    Error
    Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes.
    See the error message at the bottom of this page for more information.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Therefore, racy though it might be, I have posted the links in a bare naked format.

    1. Thanks, Arch!

      “As I have also commented before, Jews seem to be possessed to tell the truth.”

      They cannot resist bragging, even to the point of self-incrimination… because they are rarely prosecuted, as the jews control the courts!

      1. Wig –

        Yep!! We shall see who Jeff knows!! He might be one of the “rarely” chosens who are convicted.

        A team of federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, along with some in the public corruption unit, have been assigned to the case.

        Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI director James Comey, is one of the prosecutors. 🙂

  7. Make no mistake whatsoever……….Ephesians 6v12 tells it as it really is. The Prince of This World is Satan. He is behind the egregious dystopia we are already in and which is advancing at pace. His demise is well on its way also, but not before a tribulation that matches that of Orwell’s.
    We must invest in the eternal, i.e. in a Saviour, whom God became as human, two millennia
    ago. It requires a rebirth and a commitment to all that is good, and a sincere repentance of past error. And a very personal relationship between one and that Messiah, to lead one to eternity.

    1. No, no my good man. It is not satan. It is the children of the devil, as Jesus Christ called them in Saint John chapter 8 and verse 44.

  8. I have always thought that ‘1984’ was one of the most terrifying novels I have ever read. It is precisely for the reason that you state, because we can see, understand and relate to it without having to suspend our disbelief as we do with most fiction. We know that there are psychopaths out there who want to create a real 1984 world from which there will be no escape. The character O’Brien tells Smith in the torture chamber: ‘ The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. ….. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end…..Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your choosing.’ No doubt, many of the individuals, (even many jews), involved in creating this type of dystopia are unaware of the real goal and are happy with the trappings of power and wealth given to them for their assistance. However, the real puppet masters do know what they want to achieve. They view us as animals and will be utterly merciless in their efforts to attain this complete power over us. They will use any and every technology available in every way they think necessary. They are totally materialistic and inhuman and are without remorse for their crimes. Indeed, I believe they would be willing to kill billions and destroy all the higher qualities of humanity to attain their goals. There have been many attempts to explain this mentality but I think Orwell came closest to describing the reality. These creatures are far more terrifying than any vampire or werewolf to be found in fiction.

    1. We should not overlook the fact that behind “the real puppet masters” on earth are spiritual puppet masters, i.e. Satan and his fallen cohort of demons in hell. The reign of Antichrist may be right around the corner, and the most powerful defense against the agents of Satan historically has been the Catholic Church, but it is spiritually crippled today, maybe even “in eclipse,” as Our Lady of La Salette predicted, so we can only expect more misery, degradation, and death at the hands of our diabolical Masters until a miracle occurs, and that miracle will ultimately come in great part through the prayer of the Rosary and the intercession of the Queen of Heaven and Earth, the Blessed Virgin Mary, who crushes the head of the Serpent.

      1. No, Darrell. My Bible tells me that no one can successfully stand against Satan except the archangel Michael and God (Jesus), Himself. The Catholic Church is as tarnished as any. It has just had a longer time to establish its faults.

      2. The Catholic Church has been infiltrated and spiritually crippled, but it’s still where you got your Bible from, and it is the one authentic interpreter of it, as well as the Ark of Salvation. See what the early Church taught about it and about Christian doctrine, sacramental life, and worship. It’s called the apostolic teaching and the Church Fathers, successors of the apostles, guarded it jealously. https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Church-Fathers-According-Topic-ebook/dp/B07D63859M/ref=sr_1_4

      3. And the Church wanted to burn Martin Luther for promoting The Word to the masses! If my history isn’t faulty, MY Bible was translated during a Protestant regime.

      4. Darrell, Gil
        It’s not about Catholic or Protestant. It’s about certain wordings in Gospel Scripture, the construction of which is purported to have been spoken by Jesus (e.g.; The Sermon on the Mount). Whoever reads it, I mean READS like they know how and doesn’t, as the ancient saying goes ,”take it as Gospel”, would not hear it as coming from an exemplar that puts the onus on MAN to be the responsible protector of Life. One who does NOT defer this to “God” as some remote phantom – like Being, but on “God” whose reality and Grace is WITHIN, as Jesus taught

        Why are people not seeing this?

      5. Brownhawk –

        Sorry, I didn’t MEAN to be fussing over the merits/dismerits of Catholic vs. Protestant. I only pointed out to Darrell that the King James Bible was translated scripture by a Protestant commission (albeit an imperfect one, too!).
        According to all I’ve been taught since childhood, the Catholic deification of personages (including the Virgin Mary) smacks of idolatry. Moreover, the Popes omitted certain books therefrom which better explain whence we came. At Isaiah 51:1, we are instructed to “look into the rock whence ye were hewn, and the hole of the pit whence ye were digged.” The biggest fault among Sunday School teachers, today, is not knowing whence “Israel” came, and who we are. Jews – the enemies of Christ and His people – have co-opted the name for themselves, and have used it against us – fooling the “evangelicals” to teach faulty lessons, and further the interest of Jewry. Until truth-seeking people understand this, the Bible will mean less for them. However, there are books which ARE universally applicable, such as Proverbs and Ecclesiates. Also very beautiful. 🙂

  9. I watched some show recently that stated Orwell worked for the BBC. I had never heard that before although my knowledge of him is minuscule. I then wondered, as I do always now, if he was writing what he learned while at the BBC. Perhaps it was never fiction.

    1. The BBC time might have given him the idea for “The Ministry Of Truth”…..Google is the modern equivalent.

      1. Author Robert Bridge:

        “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.”

        Rather than “Man”, I would suggest that the real clowns, demons and evil monsters are closer to:

        The Rothschild Zionist empire of greed, vanity, hypocrisy and conceit, enabled by the fraudulent and unlawful control of money, in particular US DOLLAR$ which are used and abused by the state and its debt slaves who are forced into obedience by the super rich psychopathic swamp creatures who monopolize the means of indoctrination and extermination. They manipulate masses of people into paying for the means to their own demise.

        We are forced to pay for our balls & chains plus the poisons they hide in everything “Man” needs to live.

        The Georgia Guidestones prescribe an earthly population of 500 million. The pentagoons announced their plan for “full spectrum dominance” before 9-11 happened. These terrorists have enough weapons to kill by the billions. So far,
        they have been given all the time and money in the world to deploy their planetary-scale stealth killing machines. I think they have decided to use
        so many ways of killing, and otherwise degrading people in their quiet war using silent weapons, that they’re going to end up with way too much overkill.

        The animal world and the whole biosphere will be totally contaminated and decaying faster than ever.

        “Man’s opinion” was not considered by those who are behind the proliferation of diabolical nuclear power plants for generating “cheap” and “green” electricity. Electricity could have been produced in more intelligent, economical and safe ways
        since the days of Nikola Tesla, Nathan Stubblefield, Daniel McFarland Cook and Carlos F. Benitez, over a hundred years ago!

        Carlos F Benitez Historic Free Energy Loving Paths Open Source Project: Providing information, direction and actual Free Energy Over-unity Systems for people in need.

        By Rick Friedrich
        http://potentialtec.com/

  10. Englishman Eric Blair (aka: George Orwell) was
    born in India in 1903, where his father was employed in
    the Opium Department of the Indian Civil Service (the
    Opium Department being a whole other can of worms).

    As a young man Blair entered the Eaton college
    preparatory boarding school in England where his French
    teacher was none other than Aldous Huxley.

    Blair and Huxley became friends and
    shared a common love of literature.

    Orwell and Huxley read Henry Ford’s re-prints
    of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of
    Zion and Ford’s articles that were printed in his
    Dearborn Independent newspaper and formulated two
    separate, albeit similar, novels hat are both
    considered classics. Those being “1984” by George Orwell
    and “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley.

    Both novels describe a bleak futuristic world that would
    exist if the Protocols of Zion were successfully executed to fruition.

    For those who have not read either book, read “1984” first.
    If you don’t want to read all of “1984”, then at least read
    the “document” by the book’s character Emmanuel
    Goldstein titled, “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical
    Collectivism.” It’s located in the middle of the book
    (OR SCROLL DOWN FURTHER ON THIS PAGE).

    You will recognize what has come, or is coming, to be our
    reality. Such as Europa is today’s European Union, Oceania is
    the countries that subscribe to NAFTA; Eastasia is
    forming as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which
    are China, Japan and Indonesia, etc..

    “1984” describes state sponsored torture, 24/7 television
    brainwashing media machines , perpetual war and war
    hysteria, war not for territorial gains, omnipresent security
    cameras, concentration of wealth, representatives appointing
    other representatives, rampant pornography, gun control
    leading to total gun confiscation, well-spaced terror
    events, and so on.

    Blair and Huxley weren’t genius predictors of the future,
    they simply read the Protocols of Zion and made some very
    accurate conclusions.

    “Within the next generation I believe that the world’s
    leaders 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 them
    and kicking them into obedience.” …Aldous Huxley

    BTW: My paperback copy of Orwell’s “1984” contains an
    afterword by German social psychologist, psychoanalyst,
    son of Orthodox Jewish parents and member
    in good standing of the FRANKFURT SCHOOL, Erich Fromm.
    The FRANKFURT SCHOOL can be examined at this website…
    (search in the navigation bars or net search: http://www.chuckmaultsby.net/id109.html).

    Fromm will have you believe that “1984” is all about the
    danger of a communist takeover of the planet. And if you
    consider that most commies were, and are Jews, then he is
    correct. But he never once alludes to the Jewish hand in
    the world domination scheme.

    Fromm was included in Orwell’s masterpiece for the
    purpose of distraction. I have no doubt that Orwell
    himself would not have approved of Fromm’s inclusion
    as some sort of an expert on his novel. Fromm’s
    afterword was added to the New American Library of
    World Literature version of “1984” in 1961 (the height of the Cold War).

    “1984” was first published on June 8th, 1949. Orwell died
    on January 21st, 1950 and did not know what an impact
    his novel would have on humanity.

    “1984” was required reading in many American public
    high schools in the 1960s, but is no longer required reading
    because it has become a glimpse of today’s reality
    and our progeny’s future.

    Aldous Huxley replaced the words God,
    and the Lord, with Henry Ford in his
    futuristic novel “Brave New World.” The story
    is basically based on people’s lives who are directly or
    indirectly involved with the activities of the Central
    London Hatchery and Conditioning Center (where
    identical human beings are artificially conceived,
    incubated and indoctrinated into their roles in society).

    The “Brave New World” story takes place in the Seventh
    Century A.F. (after Ford), the novel opening in the year
    632 A.F. (2540 A.D. in the Gregorian Calendar) where
    people make the sign of the “T” (for Model-T) instead of
    the sign of the cross.

    Huxley narrates the activities in the lives of central
    characters such as Bernard Marx and Lenina Crowne,
    with other characters sprinkled throughout the novel with
    names such as Reuben Rabinovitch, Polly Trotsky,
    Morgana Rothschild and Sarojina Engels.

    So we have the actual original Russian Jewish
    Communists and the Rothschilds Jewish Banksters represented
    by characters named Bernard Marx, Lenina Crowne, Polly Trotsky,
    and Sarojini Engels all worshipping the deity named Ford.

    Other characters include Benito Hoover (incorporating Italian
    leader Benito Mussolini and President Herbert Hoover),
    Mustapha Mond (incorporating Mustapha Kemal
    Ataturk, the founder of Turkey after WWI, and Sir Alfred
    Mond, the English industrialist and founder of the
    Imperial Chemical Industries conglomerate), and Darwin
    Bonaparte (incorporating naturalist Charles Darwin and
    Napoleon I). Oh, how clever of Huxley…eh?

    The novel’s title, BRAVE NEW WORLD, is derived from Miranda’s speech in William Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Act V, Scene I:

    “O wonder! How many godly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in’t.”

    Aldous Huxley moved to L.A. and became a pioneer LSD guru in the
    1950s. He wrote a book titled “The Doors of Perception”
    that was about his LSD adventures. The 1960s L.A. rock
    band, The Doors, took their band name from Huxley’s book title.

    Huxley died of laryngeal cancer on
    November 22nd, 1963 in Los Angeles. On that day he made
    a written request to his wife that she inject him with
    massive doses of LSD. She did so at 11:45 am and again
    at 3 pm. Huxley died at 5:20 pm. His death was
    overshadowed by the assassination of President Kennedy
    that happened on the same day near the time of Huxley’s
    first LSD injection.

    More here: http://chuckmaultsby.com/id82.html

  11. THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF

    OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM

    by Emmanuel Goldstein

    Winston began reading:

    Chapter I

    Ignorance is Strength

    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 groups are entirely irreconcilable…

    Winston stopped reading, chiefly in order to appreciate the fact that he was reading, in comfort and safety. He was alone: no telescreen, no ear at the keyhole, no nervous impulse to glance over his shoulder or cover the page with his hand. The sweet summer air played against his cheek. From somewhere far away there floated the faint shouts of children: in the room itself there was no sound except the insect voice of the clock. He settled deeper into the arm-chair and put his feet up on the fender. It was bliss, it was eternity. Suddenly, as one sometimes does with a book of which one knows that one will ultimately read and re-read every word, he opened it at a different place and found himself at Chapter III. He went on reading:

    Chapter III

    War is Peace

    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 to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.

    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 is 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. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one’s own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.

    To understand the nature of the present war — for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war — one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. 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. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power. Between the frontiers of the super-states, and not permanently in the possession of any of them, there lies 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. It is for the possession of these thickly-populated regions, and of the northern ice-cap, that the three powers are constantly struggling. In practice no one power ever controls the whole of the disputed area. Portions of it are constantly changing hands, and it is the chance of seizing this or that fragment by a sudden stroke of treachery that dictates the endless changes of alignment.

    All of the disputed territories contain valuable minerals, and some of them yield important vegetable products such as rubber which in colder climates it is necessary to synthesize by comparatively expensive methods. 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. It should be noted that the fighting never really moves beyond the edges of the disputed areas. The frontiers of Eurasia flow back and forth between the basin of the Congo and the northern shore of the Mediterranean; the islands of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific are constantly being captured and recaptured by Oceania or by Eastasia; in Mongolia the dividing line between Eurasia and Eastasia is never stable; round the Pole all three powers lay claim to enormous territories which in fact are largely unihabited and unexplored: but the balance of power always remains roughly even, and the territory which forms the heartland of each super-state always remains inviolate. Moreover, the labour of the exploited peoples round the Equator is not really necessary to the world’s economy. They add nothing to the wealth of the world, since whatever they produce is used for purposes of war, and the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war. By their labour the slave populations allow the tempo of continuous warfare to be speeded up. But if they did not exist, the structure of world society, and the process by which it maintains itself, would not be essentially different.

    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. The world of today is a bare, hungry, dilapidated place compared with the world that existed before 1914, and still more so if compared with the imaginary future to which the people of that period looked forward. In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly, and efficient — a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete — was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the impoverishment caused by a long series of wars and revolutions, partly because scientific and technical progress depended on the empirical habit of thought, which could not survive in a strictly regimented society. As a whole the world is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago. Certain backward areas have advanced, and various devices, always in some way connected with warfare and police espionage, have been developed, but experiment and invention have largely stopped, and the ravages of the atomic war of the nineteen-fifties have never been fully repaired.

    Nevertheless the dangers inherent in the machine are still there. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process — by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute — the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

    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. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.

    Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened 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 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. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

    The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter — set 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 whom we call ‘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. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

    War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world.

    All members of the Inner Party believe in this coming conquest as an article of faith. It is to be achieved either by gradually acquiring more and more territory and so building up an overwhelming preponderance of power, or by the discovery of some new and unanswerable weapon. The search for new weapons continues unceasingly, and is one of the very few remaining activities in which the inventive or speculative type of mind can find any outlet. In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for ‘Science’. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty. In all the useful arts the world is either standing still or going backwards. The fields are cultivated with horse-ploughs while books are written by machinery. But in matters of vital importance — meaning, in effect, war and police espionage — the empirical approach is still encouraged, or at least tolerated. The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand. In so far as scientific research still continues, this is its subject matter. The scientist of today is either a mixture of psychologist and inquisitor, studying with real ordinary minuteness the meaning of facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice, and testing the truth-producing effects of drugs, shock therapy, hypnosis, and physical torture; or he is chemist, physicist, or biologist concerned only with such branches of his special subject as are relevant to the taking of life. In the vast laboratories of the Ministry of Peace, and in the experimental stations hidden in the Brazilian forests, or in the Australian desert, or on lost islands of the Antarctic, the teams of experts are indefatigably at work. Some are concerned simply with planning the logistics of future wars; others devise larger and larger rocket bombs, more and more powerful explosives, and more and more impenetrable armour-plating; others search for new and deadlier gases, or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents, or for breeds of disease germs immunized against all possible antibodies; others strive to produce a vehicle that shall bore its way under the soil like a submarine under the water, or an aeroplane as independent of its base as a sailing-ship; others explore even remoter possibilities such as focusing the sun’s rays through lenses suspended thousands of kilometres away in space, or producing artificial earthquakes and tidal waves by tapping the heat at the earth’s centre.

    But none of these projects ever comes anywhere near realization, and none of the three super-states ever gains a significant lead on the others. What is more remarkable is that all three powers already possess, in the atomic bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any that their present researches are likely to discover. Although the Party, according to its habit, claims the invention for itself, atomic bombs first appeared as early as the nineteen-forties, and were first used on a large scale about ten years later. At that time some hundreds of bombs were dropped on industrial centres, chiefly in European Russia, Western Europe, and North America. The effect was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although no formal agreement was ever made or hinted at, no more bombs were dropped. All three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believe will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for thirty or forty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the almost unsinkable Floating Fortress; but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated.

    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 superstates 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 super-states. 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.

    Under this lies a fact never mentioned aloud, but tacitly understood and acted upon: namely, that the conditions of life in all three super-states 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 semi-divine leader, the same economy existing by and for continuous warfare. 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. 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. Here it is necessary to repeat what has been said earlier, that by becoming continuous war has fundamentally changed its character.

    In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions. Moreover, to be efficient it was necessary to be able to learn from the past, which meant having a fairly accurate idea of what had happened in the past. Newspapers and history books were, of course, always coloured and biased, but falsification of the kind that is practised today would have been impossible. War was a sure safeguard of sanity, and so far as the ruling classes were concerned it was probably the most important of all safeguards. While wars could be won or lost, no ruling class could be completely irresponsible.

    But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. 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. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police. Since each of the three super-states is unconquerable, each is in effect a separate universe within which almost any perversion of thought can be safely practised. Reality only exerts its pressure through the needs of everyday life — the need to eat and drink, to get shelter and clothing, to avoid swallowing poison or stepping out of top-storey windows, and the like. Between life and death, and between physical pleasure and physical pain, there is still a distinction, but that is all. Cut off from contact with the outer world, and with the past, the citizen of Oceania is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.

    The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This — although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense — is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: War is Peace.

  12. PAT
    Well yeah, Winston Smith was an invented character, but it’s not possible to separate Winston from the guy who wrote the story…
    Epstien might go to jail, or be rubbed out… But neither of the Clintons will ever see the inside of a prison, at least not as long as the CIA/MOSSAD/SIS/KGB still exists in ITS present form, because they’re both CIA Agents…
    BARU
    “We know that there are psychopaths out there who want to create a real 1984 world from which there will be no escape. ”
    That world has been in existence forever all over most of the planet, exceptions being being the white democracies… Sadly, the documentation that made the USA the best functioning of those democracies was taken off the table by the bush cheney neocons with the 9-11 event… The rest of the plan is to overrun the usa with dark skinned foreigners, who would have no clue what a free country is and whose main motive is the destruction of the USA anyway… And at the rates they’re entering the country and reproducing themselves, shifting red states to blue, putting the permanent underclass welfare state democrat party in power, it will not be much longer until the ZOG will have succeeded, and the US will have become Saudi Arabia, ruled by a corpo-fascist form of dictatorship, overseen by a totally unaccountably elite and utterly ruthless police force of militarized killers, only now with the added AI super-surveillance thought control mindfk radiation technology…
    LARRY
    “It requires a rebirth and a commitment to all that is good, and a sincere repentance of past error. And a very personal relationship between one and that Messiah, to lead one to eternity.”
    I don’t know about the Messiah, but you’re certainly right about the necessity of commitment to goodness…
    Whatever your religion – let it not have violent content…
    When a society loses its goodness, it’s done, Orwell’s dystopia moves in… It’s imperative that those in authority, where the rubber meets the road, the police, operate as good people in their methods, no matter how far gone the rest of it is…… That does not mean the they use the “end justifies the means” methodology, lying and manipulating…. Militarization of the police is the end of the free society… There can be no real policemen in Winston’s world…

    1. Bark –

      Yep! THICKLY WOVEN!!!
      While at Oxford, Bill Clinton was recruited as a CIA asset by CIA London station chief Cord Meyer.
      And….. JFK had affairs with Meyer’s wife. When Mary Meyer died, no one knew about her affair with John Kennedy!
      Mystery of Mary Pinchot Meyer’s demise:
      https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/44-years-later-a-washington-dc-death-unresolved-93263961/

      We learned that Clinton’s rise to prominence within Arkansas politics was financed by a network of Arkansas organized crime figures prominent in the illegal gambling and drug money laundering businesses. Many members of Clinton’s inner circle were involved in the money laundering and drug running businesses, and Clinton was easily drawn into supporting and protecting the illegal CIA sponsored drug and gun running based in Arkansas.

      By participating in these criminal acts, Clinton earned his right to join the Cabal, and he was rewarded by having the Bush Syndicate use their influence to promote him on the national stage.

      The Cabal transcends any political party. The Cabal is always looking to penetrate and control both political parties. So during the 1992 presidential elections, the Cabal could not lose. Cabal leader George H. W. Bush had the Republican nomination, and compromised, junior Cabal member Clinton was the Democratic candidate.

  13. Here’s what another Fabian author, H.G. Wells had to say about free speech, in his book “The New World Order” published in 1940:

    “Before anything else, therefore, in this survey of the way to world peace, I put free speech and vigorous publication. It is the thing best worth fighting for. It is the essence of your personal honour. It is your duty as a world citizen to do what you can for that. You have not only to resist suppressions, you have to fight your way out of the fog. If you find your bookseller or newsagent failing to distribute any type of publication whatever–even if you are in entire disagreement with the views of that publication–you should turn the weapon of the boycott upon the offender and find another bookseller or newsagent for everything you read. The would-be world citizen should subscribe also to such organisation as the National Council for Civil Liberties; he should use any advantage his position may give him to check suppression of free speech; and he should accustom himself to challenge nonsense politely but firmly and say fearlessly and as clearly as possible what is in his mind and to listen as fearlessly to whatever is said to him. So that he may know better either through reassurance or correction. To get together with other people to argue and discuss, to think and organise and then implement thought is the first duty of every reasonable man.”

    H.G. Wells was also advocating a New World Order but at least with this regard to free speech and publication it seems to differ from the Orwellian one they’re constructing around us.

    1. CM –

      In the 17th century, “Freeborn John” Lilburne was flogged, dragged, placed in stocks and spent most of his life in prison for writing pamphlets and speaking against the orders of the Crown & Church. And he lived a shortened and sickly life for it.
      http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lilburnelinks.html

      John Lilburne, c.1615-1657: John Lilburne was born in Sunderland, the third son of a minor country gentleman. After attending schools in Bishop Auckland and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, he was apprenticed to Thomas Hewson, a London clothier and Puritan. He remained with Hewson from around 1630 to 1636. During his apprenticeship, Lilburne immersed himself in the Bible, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and the writings of the Puritan divines. In 1636, he was introduced to the Puritan physician John Bastwick, an active pamphleteer against episcopacy who, with William Prynne and Henry Burton, was persecuted by Archbishop Laud in a famous case in 1637. From: British Civil Wars, Commonwealth and Protectorate 1638-60

      John Lilburne: The First English Libertarian: He became known to his contemporaries as “Freeborn John.” He described himself as “a lover of his country and sufferer for the common liberty.” His biographer Pauline Gregg concluded: He could be called the first English Radical — a great-hearted Liberal — a militant Christian — even if the spirit of his teaching were taken fully into account, the first English democrat. But it is better to leave him without a label, enshrined in the words he spoke for his party: “And posterity we doubt not shall reap the benefit of our endeavours, what ever shall become of us.”

      His courageous campaigns for liberty resulted in him spending much of his life in prisons. These included Fleet prison in London, Oxford Castle, the notorious Newgate prison also in London, the Tower of London, Mount Orgueil Castle in Jersey, and Dover Castle.

      When Lilburne was brought before the court of Star Chamber, he refused to take the oath. “It is this trial that has been cited by constitutional jurists and scholars in the United States of America as being the historical foundation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is also cited within the 1966 majority opinion of Miranda v Arizona by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

      The late United States Supreme Court Judge Hugo Black, who often cited the works of John Lilburne in his opinions, wrote in an article for Encyclopaedia Britannica that he believed John Lilburne’s constitutional work of 1649 was the basis for the basic rights contained in the U.S. Constitution.

      John Lilburne: The First English Libertarian
      By: Peter Richards at http://mises.org/story/2861

  14. Today, as the clock strikes 14 & more…. Orwell might say: “Get Used To It!”

    “Get Used To It” – Sweden Is Experiencing A “Small Scale War”

    Grenade attacks and deadly shootings in Sweden – concerns over which were once derided as a conspiracy theory by the media – now represent a “national emergency” according to a new report.

    Deadly shootings in Sweden have also risen by a factor of 10 in one generation, exacerbated by witness intimidation and “a code of silence in the country’s socio-economically weak immigrant areas,” according to Quillette’s Paulina Neuding.

    The crime of robberies against children and sexual violence has also risen, with a third of young women reporting they feel unsafe going out at night.

    This has all happened under the watch of a “feminist government” that has opened the borders to mass immigration like never before.

    A sprawling and generous welfare system has also failed to deter migrants from turning to crime, while light punishments have also incentivized criminal behavior.

    Meanwhile, head of the Swedish Security Service (Säpo) Anders Thornberg has told Swedes that they better get used to the current conditions.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-07/get-used-it-sweden-experiencing-small-scale-war

    1. PAT

      And they’re calling the Polish people Nazis, fascists, and whatever other insults for not wanting to replicate this in their own country. There’s a constant stream of Brits going there making documentaries slandering the Poles and trying to shame them into adopting the same suicidal policy as the west.

      1. CM –

        Poles have been the laughing stock and taken the brunt of undeserving jokes for decades… because they are smart and ingenious and tough. Pulaski was one of the smartest and toughest generals in history….. referred to as “the father of the American cavalry.”

        Pulaski is remembered as a hero who fought for independence and freedom in both Poland and the United States. Numerous places and events are named in his honor, and he is commemorated by many works of art. Pulaski is one of only eight people to be awarded honorary United States citizenship.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Pulaski

        The jews need to be the brunt of jokes. Not the Poles!

  15. PAT
    Don’t forget Pilsudski…. He’s a determined looking cuss, isn’t he?
    https://biography.yourdictionary.com/joseph-pilsudski
    the poles are also refusing to pay any more reparations or whatever to the bs holohoax victims, their supposed offspring… the whole country’s antisemitic now… good…
    remember pretty much their whole government was wiped out in a big plane crash a few years back…
    guess who again…
    and guess who originated all those pollock jokes…

  16. The elite never do anything nefarious to the populace unless they first inform them in some way.

Comments are closed.