DAVID ICKE NEWSLETTER DECEMBER 3RD 2005
A GEORGE ORWELL SPECIAL
Hello all …
It’s not far off 60 years since George Orwell published his so prophetic novel, 1984, and, in the light of current events, it is a perfect time to remind ourselves that we are indeed rapidly heading for the nightmare world described so brilliantly in the book.
The more who realise that, the greater the challenge will be to the gathering control I have been exposing and warning about for more than a decade and a half now. As Orwell wrote: 'If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever'.
It does not have to come to pass, but it will unless arses and seats part company pretty damn quick. It is already doing so.
1984, written in 1948, is described as a political satire, but it’s not. It’s a political prophecy and there is no way that Orwell could have been so accurate without a deep understanding of the way the world was going, even probably inside knowledge of what was planned. Orwell had many contacts in political circles and it is far from impossible that he picked up the threads of what was intended to be. Orwell also worked for the BBC when it was under the control of the Ministry of Information, a wonderful Orwellian title in itself because, of course, it was there to dis-inform.
He described a global society of total control headed by Big Brother in which the people were not even allowed to have thoughts that disagreed with the authorities. So the people were subject to the Thought Police who dealt with anyone guilty of ‘thought crime’. My newsletter two weeks ago about the thought crime trial of Ernst Zundel in Germany and the arrest of David Irving are only two examples of how thought crime is quickly becoming an accepted part of our society.
In the Orwellian world the people were not allowed a personal life and everything they did – and thought – was controlled. Sex for pleasure was discouraged and employed only for the procreation of new Party members. Artificial insemination was the preferred method. Sexual life was entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words sexcrime (sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime covered all sexual ‘misdeeds’. It covered fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and heterosexual intercourse practised for its own sake. They were all punishable by death. The term ‘sex crime’ is now in every day use, of course.
The government was headed by ‘BB’ or Big Brother, who appeared everywhere on posters with the words ‘Big Brother is watching you’. But in the smoke and mirrors society that Orwell describes, Big Brother himself could have been a myth to hide the real controllers (see George Bush, Tony Blair et al who are controlled by forces that the public have no idea about). Big Brother may not even have existed, but the people were sold the story of his battle to save them from the terrorist, Emmanuel Goldstein. He was a Party member who had been in league with Big Brother and the Party during the revolution, but was said to have become a major part of the resistance Brotherhood, a vast underground anti-Party grouping (see al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and whoever they blame next for their own terrorism). Orwell implies that Goldstein either does not exist or was eliminated, but so long as the people believe in his existence and his complicity in terrorism they will support the actions taken by the government to protect them from his terror.
Heard that somewhere before??
Orwell describes the sequence of events that led to the creation of the Big Brother state. A revolution in the United Kingdom turned to civil war. At the same time, the Soviet Union embarked on a mass invasion of mainland Europe, overrunning the entire continent apart from the British Isles and Iceland. A Third World War then broke out between the three emerging powers of Oceania (led by what had previously been the United States), Eastasia (controlled by a revitalised China), and Eurasia (the expanded Soviet Union). During this struggle for total power hundreds of atomic bombs were dropped on Europe, western Russia, and North America.
http://www.Newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html
I have been writing for a decade about a planned conflict with China to trigger the imposition of a world government. This information has come to me from many sources over the years and look at the way the media is now full of stories about a ‘revitalised’ China. Also, the way the world was separated into giant superstates mirrors what the Illuminati are seeking to do with the European Union, American Union, African Union, and Pacific Union.
The three superstates in 1984 eventually realised that continuous stalemate war (see ‘War on Terrorism’) was far more effective than victory. The constant war kept the people focused and busy manufacturing products for the conflict. The standard of living was appalling because it was understood that a poor and needy population was easier to control than a rich and abundant one. The three powers take over most of the world, but leave one region officially ‘free’ so they have something to fight over. This ‘disputed zone’ includes the northern half of Africa, the Middle East, southern India, and down towards Indonesia and northern Australia.
The three world powers rarely fight on their own territory. Airstrip One (the official name for Britain) is apparently the target of Eurasian rocket bombs, but it is hinted that the Oceania government is in fact launching these attacks on its own land to convince Airstrip One's urban populations that they are under constant attack (again see ‘War on Terrorism’ – 9/11, the London bombings, etc.) By the year 1984, Airstrip One becomes a police state and a mere province of the vast Oceania (see European Union). The people are segregated into three classes – the Inner Party, Outer Party and Proles under the control of four ministries housed in massive pyramid structures.
The pyramid is an Illuminati symbol, especially the pyramid with the raised capstone, the so-called pyramid and all-seeing eye. Here it is on the dollar bill.
The ministries are named under the Newspeak law of language manipulation – call them the opposite of what they actually do. You see this technique used throughout society today:
The Ministry of Peace: its job is to ensure continuous wars.
The Ministry of Plenty: this is responsible for controlling food and goods through rationing.
The Ministry of Truth: this is in charge of propaganda to stop the people knowing the truth.
The Ministry of Love: its role is surveillance, identification of ‘dissidents’, and their arrest and torture in the infamous Room 101. This is designed to make them love the Party that controls them.
So that’s the basic background to the novel and this is a summary of the story:
The novel focuses upon one man named Winston Smith who ultimately gives up at the end of the book: hence its original working name of The Last Man in Europe. Although the storyline is unified, it could be described as having three parts: The first part deals with the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four as seen through the eyes of Winston; the second part deals with Winston's forbidden sexual relationship with Julia and his eagerness to rebel against the Party, and the third part deals with Winston's capture and torture by O'Brien.
The world described in Nineteen Eighty-Four contains striking and deliberate parallels with the Stalinist Soviet Union, notably the theme! s of a betrayed revolution — with which Orwell famously dealt in Animal Farm — the subordination of individuals to "the Party", and the extensive and institutional use of propaganda, especially as it influenced the main character of the book, Winston Smith.
Winston Smith, a member of the Outer Party, lives in the ruins of London, the chief city of Airstrip One — a front-line province of the totalitarian hyperstate Oceania. Winston grew up in post-Second World War Britain, during the revolution and civil war. When his parents died during the civil war, he was picked up by the growing Ingsoc [English socialism] movement and given a job in the Outer Party … He is deeply unhappy in his life and keeps a secret diary of his illegal thoughts about the P! arty. Winston is employed by the Ministry of Truth, which exer! cises co mplete control over all media in Oceania: his job in the Ministry's Records Department involves doctoring historical records in order to comply with the Party's version of the past. Since the perception of the past is constantly shaped by the events of the present, the task is a never-ending one.
However, Winston is fascinated by the real past, and eagerly tries to find out more about the forbidden truth. At the Ministry of Truth, he encounters Julia, a mechanic on the novel-writing machines, and the two begin an illegal relationship, regularly meeting up in the countryside (away from surveillance) or in a room above an antique shop in a proletarian area of the city. As the relationship progresses, Winston's views begin to change, and he finds himself relentlessly questioning Ingso! c. Unknown to him, he and Julia are under surveillance by the Thought Police, and when he is approached by Inner Party member O'Brien, he believes that he has made contact with the Resistance. O'Brien gives Winston a copy of "the book", a searing criticism of Ingsoc that Smith believes was written by the dissident Emmanuel Goldstein.
Winston and Julia are apprehended by the Thought Police and interrogated separately in the Ministry of Love, where opponents of the regime are tortured and executed. O'Brien reveals to Winston that he has been brought to "be cured" of his hatred for the Party, and subjects Winston to numerous torture sessions. During one of these sessions, he explains to Winston the nature of the endless world war, and that the purpose of the torture is not to extract a fake confession, but to a! ctually change the way Winston thinks. This is achieved through a combination of torture and electroshock therapy, until O'Brien decides that Winston is "cured". However, Winston unconsciously utters Julia's name in his sleep, proving that he has not been completely brainwashed. Winston is terrified of rats, and in Room 101, O'Brien uses these to destroy Winston's feelings for Julia. At the end of the novel, Winston and Julia meet, but their feelings for each other no longer exist. Winston has become an alcoholic and we know that eventually he will be shot, but the last sentence of the novel reveals that the torture and 'reprogramming' have been successful: 'He loved Big Brother'. In the closing pages he writes the equation 2+2=5, which he was forced to believe in his captivity, and is symbolic of Big Brother's control over what he thinks, regardless of his own reason.
The key theme of 1984 is mass and individual mind control through fear and trauma (see my books for the detailed exposure of ‘trauma-based’ mind control) and the manipulation of language, most obviously expressed today through what is called ‘Political Correctness’ and ‘Hate Speech’. These terms alone could have been invented by Orwell. This is how he describes such manipulation in 1984:
Newspeak
This was the official language of Oceania and the number of words available was reduced every year (once again see political correctness, ‘hate speech’ and the mobile phone text ‘language’). Newspeak was based on the premise that the fewer words are available the less efficiently you can articulate your views. But it went even further. In this reality we think in words also and limiting the language available diminishes your ability to even think freely. As one Internet article put it: ‘… Can we communicate the need for freedom, or organise an uprising, if we do not have the words for either?’ Newspeak was designed to eliminate all meaning from language, leaving only blandness that says nothing (see most political speeches) and it replaced the previous vibrant language known as ‘oldspeak’ – which is precisely what is happening today.
The word free still existed in Newspeak, but could only be used in statements like ‘The dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’, since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and equality, for instance, were contained in the single word crimethink, while all words grouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained in the single word oldthink. When Blair came to power in the British Labour Party he denounced ‘old Labour’ and renamed the Party ‘New’ Labour. With that, all ‘old Labour’ thinking and language were expunged from debate.
Words that powerfully expressed the opposite meaning to those promoted in the propaganda were eliminated in the world of 1984. For instance, the opposite of ‘good’ was ‘bad’, so bad was replaced by ‘ungood’. Instead of meaningful words like ‘best’ came the term ‘doubleplusgood’. Very bad became ‘doubleplusungood’. We are seeing the ever increasing introduction of such meanlingless words into our language all the time to hide the reality of what is happening. One e! xample o f how words are used to obscured the truth is the way ‘civilian casualties’ or ‘dead people’ have become ‘collateral damage’. They are also used to discredit opposition by the implication behind the terms used to describe them. If you challenge the impositions of the authorities you an ‘anti-government group’; If you suggest, indeed prove, that the government is lying you are a ‘conspiracy theorist’.
Here are some other examples of language manipulation from the Politically Incorrect Dictionary – see http://www.Newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html:
Affirmative Action
Implied : Action which is correct ("Affirmative" means correct, and "Action" is normally good as well)
Actual : Preferential treatment for a particular minority group. [Apartheid was ‘affirmative action’ for the white minority.]
American interest
Implied : The interest of Americans.
Actual : The interest of American corporations. This term is used by politicians that wish to start a war, without explaining the specific reasons they are doing it.
Change
This term is generally used to suggest that a particular idea is good because it is newer. But seldom are the effects of this "change" fully examined. Newer is not always better. Remember … Nazism was change. Communism was change. Prohibition was change … when a politician asks for 'change', one should consider whether or not the cure is really any better than the disease.
[Tony Blair’s buzz words have always been ‘change’ and ‘reform’ and they are used in the context that ‘change’ and ‘reform’ are, by definition, good and what they replace is ‘bad’. Iraq has been ‘changed’ and ‘reformed’ and look at the mess.]
Department of Defense
Implied - Department concerned with the defense of America's borders
! Actual - Department concerned with maintaining of Ameri! can prin ciples [see ‘American interests’] around the world through acts of large-scale terrorism.
Feminist
Implied - One who wishes to be more feminine, and wishes to protect feminine ideas and custom.
Actual - One who wishes to be more masculine, and destroy differences between the sexes.
Free Elections
Implied - The masses are free to choose any person they wish to run their government.
Actual - The masses are free to choose between the two candidates we choose for them ... and, if possible, even that is prohibited.
National security
Implied - The security of the nation.
Actual - The security of those in power. The security of our colonies. (See neo-colonization)
Progressive
Implied - One who wishes to move his country forward.
Actual - One who wishes to move his country toward a state-socialism.
Terrorist Attack
Implied : When an evil group ruthlessly attacks peaceful citizens for no reason whatsoever.
Actual : When we upset a group so much, they fight back as best they can against our superior forces. America is a "good" country because we bomb the hell out of terrorist nation.
[‘Terrorist attack’ also implies an attack from ‘outside’ when the most significant ones are attacks orchestrated by the forces who then condemn the ‘terrorists’ and blame those they wish to target.]
World Community
Implied : A league of equal states. Communities are quaint little places where everybody gets along - and wouldn't it be nice if the world was like that?
Actual : Governments that don't stand in the way of U.S. interest. A desire to turn the world into one community - and just like any other 'community', it will need to be policed - by us.
Then there are the new words or ‘Newspeak’ and the re-definition of words to make people sound ‘bad’ for having legitimate, often caring views. Those who oppose globalisation – the vast and increasing centralisation of power and the criminal abuse of poor peopl! e and countries – are dubbed ‘anarchists’ or ‘ anti-capitalist’ demonstrators when what they are opposing is ‘anti-cartelism’. Someone who thinks differently or questions the fundamental nonsense of the way the world is run is called an ‘extremist’. Someone who will not bow to pressure to stop such opposition is a ‘militant’. A ‘peacekeeper’ is someone who occupies another country and the ‘peace process’ is the means of placating an oppressed people in an effort to stop them opposing their oppression. It is a ‘road map’ with no destination because where you want to get is where you already are. ‘Western values’ are the values that must be imposed on the rest of the world when those ‘values’ are not even applied in the ‘West’ (see ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’).
1984 is 2005, even more 2006, 2007 …
The Orwellian Big Brother state is with us NOW with an agenda to impose ever greater suppression and control until the most extreme of the techniques Orwell described are in place. In the world of 1984, the three Party slogans were displayed everywhere to indoctrinate the people. These were:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Which, by no coincidence whatsoever, is what we are being told endlessly today:
These are examples of Orwell’s doublethink when two apparently contradictory thoughts are both considered to be true. There are so many examples of this all around us today. Bush and Blair talk about ‘fighting for peace’ and going to war because they ‘want peace’. Any statement that has the words ‘fighting’ or ‘war’ included cannot be about peace at all. It is about fighting and war. George Bush’s speechwriters have had him say:
‘See, we love – we love freedom. That’s what they didn’t understand. They hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don’t seek revenge, we seek justice out of love. You need to tell your loved ones, the little ones in particular, that when they hear the president talking about al-Qaeda, Iraq and other places, I do so because I long for peace. I want to send the signal to our enemy that you have aroused a compassionate and decent and mighty nation, and we’re going to hunt you down.’
Classic Orwellian doublespeak or doublethink.
There is also no debate in Orwell’s nightmare because the Party is never wrong – just as Bush and Blair are never wrong. As Orwell put it:
‘Since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the Party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black! is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.’
He adds:
‘Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.’
Through doublethink, the Party was able not only to bomb its own people and tell them it was an attack by the enemy, the Party members (including! those firing the weapons) were indoctrinated to believe that the bombs were launched by the enemy. Orwell’s Big Brother society had another Newspeak word called Facecrime, which was the indication that a person was guilty of thoughtcrime based on their facial expression. Then there was crimestop, which meant to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts and thus prevent a thought crime or crimethink. Orwell wrote:
‘The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.
He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions -- 'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the Party says that ice is heavier than water' -- and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them.
[See anyone who voted for Bush or Blair or supported the invasion of Iraq.]
Orwell says that in the last part of the 20th century technology is driven by two things - ‘war and the desire to determine against his will what another human being is thinking’. This is where we are today with technological innovation that is also motivated by ever more sophisticated methods of control and surveillance. Orwell writes about the telescreens, an obligatory item in every home whic h both transmitted constant propaganda and had the means to film and record all activity and conversation. This is Orwell’s vision of the telescreen surveillance and indoctrination:
The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
The propaganda part of the telescreen is already well established. We call it television and it bombards the collective mind with the official version of life all day every day. Fox News, CNN and the BBC are some of the most blatant examples, but the entire mainstream media is pretty much the same. We may have endless channels, but they are basically the same one churning out the same unquestioned government line. Thus, provably nonsensical ‘explanations’ for events like 9/11 and the London bombings become accepted ‘history’ purely though repetition on the telescreens and in the newspapers (propaganda sheets) and the suppression of investigation to see if the official version stands up to scrutiny.
But, as I have been saying in my books all these years, the technology that we are allowed to see is light years behind that which actually exists and the scale of surveillance is already far, far closer to that of Orwell’s telescreens than most people even begin to imagine. Even with the technology we know about the scale of surveillance is incredible. Walk through a city in Britain today and you pass from camera to camera with pretty much your whole journey recorded. Go into most shops now and it’s the same, and so it is when you take your own money from an ATM. Virtually everything you do in a town or city outside of your home is watched and recorded. Next it will be inside your home, as Orwell envisaged – indeed is it even ‘next’? They are now introducing vehicle technology that logs your every journey in detail and microchips that can immobilise your engine at will. Everything you do on your computer and where you surf, or what you communicate, on the Internet is logged, the same with your phone calls. The laws that allow this to be done legally increase by the month, all justified by the bogus ‘war on terrorism’ which resulted from the bogus version of what happened on September 11th. Orwell could not hardly have described it all better.
And there is far more to this than mere surveillance. It is about mind-controlling the population into a state of unquestioning acquiescence, using the same principle as electro-shocking a rat or mouse when they take certain routes in a laboratory maze. Eventually they avoid those routes by personal ‘choice’ without the shock and take the least line of resistance. Humans call this ‘anything for a quiet life’. They want to keep some of the more extreme technology secret because there are still enough people who would react with outrage if they knew what was going on. That will be made public knowledge only when the population is even more deeply indoctrinated to accept it. But, in general, they want people to know they are being watched and recorded because this has the effect of bringing them to a state of mentally conceding control to the all-powerful state. ‘There is nothing we can do, mate, so we might as well accept it.’ Much of this is happening on subconscious levels also, leading to unthinking reflex reactions that express what has been programmed and demanded.
Orwell’s mind-reading technology, too, is far more advanced than people believe and only recently it has been proposed to make passengers subject to lie-detectors in airports. There is also the ‘penile plethysmograph’ which has been used to try to detect ‘homosexual or paedophile thoughts’. A stretchable band with mercury inside is fitted around the subject's penis. The band is connected to a machine with a video screen and data recorder. Any changes in penis size, even those not felt by the subject, are recorded while the subject views sexually suggestive or pornographic pictures, slides, or movies, or listens to audiotapes with descriptions of such things as children being molested. Computer software is used to develop graphs showing ‘the degree of arousal to each stimulus’. (Show me a picture of my wife – no technology needed). There is also magnetic resonance imaging used to detect brain chemical activity allegedly corresponding to memory or thoughts. These and other technologies have been proposed at one time or another as a way of detecting ‘bad thoughts’ and these are just the start of what they have planned.
Orwell talked of the proles or proletarians, which made up around 85% of the population. They were the unthinking masses and the authorities looked upon them as cattle, just as they do today. They didn’t suffer the level of surveillance of those considered intellectually dangerous because they didn’t question anything. Then there was prolefeed, the brain-numbing ‘entertainment’ and made-up ‘news’ for the masses to keep them dumbed down and incapable of free thought. Spot on. There was also the unperson, someone removed from circulation and all files until he or she officially ceased to exist (see Guantanamo Bay and those who have simply disappeared never to be seen again). To talk about an unperson was a thoughtcrime, just as to highlight the suffering, indignity and injustice imposed upon the inmates of Guantanamo Bay is considered to be “supporting the terrorists”. Anything in any publication that put the Orwellian government in a bad light was described in Newspeak as malreported or malquoted because the authorities were never wrong. We are also n ow seeing the Orwellian ‘anti-terrorism’ programmes being introduced to encourage and reward the public to spy on each other and report their neighbours, workmates, clients and even fellow students to the authorities. All this is classic 1984.
How Orwell could be so prophetic and accurate is less important than the fact that he was. If you want to see the future, unless we wake up fast, read the book and there it is laid out before you. If that’s a world we don’t wish to experience then the time is here to ask ourselves: ‘What am I doing about it?’
If the answer is ‘nothing’ there can be no complaints when you hear the door to freedom slam behind you. And slam it will unless outrage becomes action very soon.
Best wishes,
David
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten