Part One
It's a book that I might well have read long ago, but didn't. So it is only recently that I got hold of a copy, and made my way through the enthralling prose of '1984'. During the first few chapters especially, where Orwell lays down the bones of his dark vision of the future, shivers went down my spine as I saw how precise his crystal ball had, in many ways, turned out to be. I mean, he could see all that, way back when. That in itself is worthy of serious contemplation in regard to how history unfolds.
Not all of Orwell's predictions were spot-on. In particular, his vision of deliberate abject poverty for the masses and overt, vicious brutality towards large sections of the home population have not come to pass. Control System has become more clever than all this. Murdering your own kind in large numbers is not likely to be a successful long-term strategy. And it is the continual creation of material goods - consumerism - that provides the ongoing fuel necessary for Empire's well-being, not utter deprivation and poverty. In other respects, though, 1984 is 2015. I could do worse than quote from the wikipedia summary of the book: '..... perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public manipulation, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (or Ingsoc in the government's invented language, Newspeak) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite, that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrimes".' That's a long sentence, the type I try to avoid writing myself nowadays. But sound familiar? Perpetual war (anyone who thinks all these wars are still 'necessary' in our modern day and age I would kindly request to think again); government surveillance; discouragement of thinking and living 'outside the box'.
It is in the region of language that I wish to focus a few thoughts. Orwell is chillingly strong on the importance of words in his vision of 1984. They stand peerless in the weaponry of those who would control us all. In Chapter Five, Winston Smith, the 'hero' of the book (should be there such a thing), meets Syme at lunch. Syme is busy at work on the eleventh edition of the Newspeak dictionary. Newspeak, so goes the vision, will eventually be the only language spoken; and, as Syme points out, the vocabulary of Newspeak becomes less by the year. Nuances of meaning are not needed. Syme explains concisely the aim: 'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.'
'Rubbed out and forgotten': take away the means to conceptualise an idea, and the idea eventually goes away. Though obviously not presented in this guise, the notion of 'thought crime' is more and more a feature of Control System strategy nowadays. More and more things are not permissable to express; and if you can't express them for long enough, the thoughts will disappear, and it's as if the entire thing never existed. Much modern thoughtcrime manifests under headline terms such as 'sexism' and 'racism' these days. Nobody wants 'sexist' or 'racist' on their CV, do they? They are the worst things possible. So you'd better be extremely careful about saying anything about perceived differences between people. Certain groups of people are especially sensitive subjects: Zionist Jews, for example.
A look at humour is instructive in seeing the advance of thoughtcrime policy over the decades. Watch almost any comedy programme made for British television before 1980, and it's full of stuff that just wouldn't get written today. People wouldn't even think about writing it (you see, that's how it works). A lot of it is awfully 'sexist' and 'racist' by the standards set by some people today, believe me. About three years ago I managed to offend a woman I was working with by imitating a person from China, Japan, or Korea (I can't recall which) speaking English. Now, I spent more than a decade as a language teacher trying to teach people from across the world how to speak and write English. Begin to study English language, and you begin to realise what a difficult language it is in many respects. Some nationalities - Swedes, Italians, Brazilians, some Poles - manage to grasp English relatively painlessly. But for some people, from Eastern Asia especially, it is a truly monumental task. Grammar, syntax, pronunciation, are all very foreign to them. So it is hardly surprising that their efforts to speak the Queen's English are sometimes less than perfect. Now, when I did my imitation, there was no malice involved whatsoever; if anything, it was a recognition of their genuine difficulty with this thankless task. Should I ever decide to learn Chinese, I hope I would provide a good laugh for some native Chinese speakers. But no. You just didn't do that any more - apparently. It is no longer permissable to communicate the truth - in this case, the realities of language learning. Thoughtcrime, reality control.
Part Two
The question of thoughtcrime is uppermost in my mind at present as I consider the Extremism Bill, the draft form of which was proposed in the Queen's Speech this Wednesday, all part and parcel of the Brave New World package of the new British conservative government. Measures include closing websites, prohibiting people from speaking at public meetings, and the like. "Plans have been introduced in the context of increasing Islamic extremism, but cover the 'harmful activities' of all extremist individuals - including those that pose a risk of public disorder or a threat to the functioning of democracy." (The Independent) "For too long we've been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" said David Cameron, referring to the good old days, when obeying the law meant that you could be left alone. This is all due to change, he implies. So, get this: it's not gonna be good enough for government for the nation's citizens to obey the law, They want more now. And it ain't pretty....
At the same time, Home Secretary Theresa May assures us that "(The measures are part of a) bigger picture, a strategy which will also have as a key part of it actually promoting our British values, our values of democracy, rule of law, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths." (The Independent)
Now let's get this clear: Cameron says that obeying the law isn't enough, while May says we are promoting rule of law. Cameron says that extremist individuals, whatever their form of extremism, should not be tolerated, while May says we are promoting tolerance. This is not a metaphysical exercise demonstrating the paradoxical nature of existence. It is linguistic black magic with a dirty stink about it, of the same kind as the three great slogans of the Party written on the face of the Ministry of Truth in 1984: 'War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength'.
Another spell cast by the dark magicians is that of changing the meaning of words. We've already seen this in the case of 'racism', 'sexism' and 'discrimination'. So get this. Quote again from the Independent: "At the National Security Council today (May 13th) Mr Cameron unveiled a series of measures that he said would crack down on people holding minority 'extremist' views that differed from Britain's consensus". (italics mine). Now, get this. Britain's consensus. 'Consensus' means 'general agreement, unanimity'. But black magician Cameron is changing it to mean 'anybody who doesn't buy into my own version of reality; anyone who disagrees with me.' Minority extremist views are out, it seems. Extremists are people who don't go along with Cameron's version of a democratic society, which is not actually democratic at all. Minorities are out. Remember the wikipedia summary: '....an Inner Part Elite that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes.' This is, 101%, what is being attempted at present. A momentous shift under the false guise of 'combating terrorism'. Hey, what happened to that tolerant pluralistic society?
To get another thing clear. By the new definitions that our lords of darkness are trying to push through, Pale Green Vortex, and me personally, can well be classified as minority extremists. Most of the basic assumptions of mainstream Control System life are questioned and rejected on this site. I will be, by the new Orwellian definitions, what Niall Murphy/Opaque Lens terms a non-violent extremist/domestic terrorist. So, for that matter, will be many of the people alive on this planet who I most respect and admire. All excellent people, but extremists through their questioning of the mainstream narrative (this is the new definition of 'extremist'). I urge anybody reading this to kick up a real stink as the Extremism Bill comes closer on the horizon. As Niall/Opaque points out on his fine programme on the subject, there's a point where the Control System inadvertently poos in its own pants (my image, not his....). It is not all-powerful; it just wants us to think it is, A plan can be so stupid, so extreme, that the population at large says 'no'. Poll tax is an example. So I hope that masses of people are going to object to this creeping totalitarianism, and hit its perpetrators where it hurts. Inaction hands consent to those who would be overlords of darkness.
I recommend a listen to the podcast on the topic on 'Shamanic Freedom Radio'. Heartfelt, and an excellent demonstration of how humour can be the best of weapons. Follow the link on this page.
