The notion of some sort of large conspiracy
behind the scenes of history is clearly compelling. We've all had someone
urge us to dig a dollar bill out of our wallets and point out the reverse
of the Great Seal of the United States. And for some who oppose the globalist
machinations and Whitewater corruption of the Clinton administration, it's
seen as a given. But it often lacks a certain empirical credibility. You
know, there's a tendency for such sentiment to carry us away into the nether
regions of little gray bug eyed extra-terrestrials, swamp monsters, and
weather control experiments. After all, in the research archives these
themes are often tied together by association. But there are a few respectable
places where coincidence become rather curious, even to the skeptical observer.
While most read past the evidence, unaware of the implications, one of
these pieces of prescience is George Orwell's masterpiece work, 1984.
"How often, or
on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was
guesswork....Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer...A
kilometer away the Ministry of Truth...was an enormous pyramidal structure
of glittering white concrete...it was just possible to read...on its white
surface...WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."
Was Orwell just playing with our minds?
Or did he have a reason to associate the invasion of personal privacy,
and this "Newspeak," this disinformation, with the pyramid shaped building
in the distant background? Perhaps. But consider just how clearly he tells
us about the political future from his perspective back in 1948.
"...meanwhile there
was the book...A heavy black volume...the inscription on the title page
ran: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM. Chapter 1, IGNORANCE
IS STRENGTH...Throughout recorded time...there have been three kinds of
people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low...The aims of these
three groups are entirely irreconcilable...by the fourth decade of the
twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian...After
the revolutionary Fifties and Sixties, society regrouped itself...But the
new High group, unlike all its forerunners...knew what was needed to safeguard
its position. It had long been realized that the only secure basis for
oligarchy is collectivism...The so-called 'abolition of private property'...meant,
in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before.
At the apex of the pyramid comes Big Brother..."
That's a passage from the fictitious book,
itself within the fictional 1984, and attributed to a fictitious character
within the fiction, Emmanuel Goldstein, object of Oceania's Hate propaganda,
itself one of the trilateral global powers of the fictional world of 1984
who were locked in a perpetual "cold" war.
Now, in retrospect, consider the implications
of 1984, which was written in 1948. Most readers are mesmerized with the
details of Winston Smith's drab personal experiences, and rarely pay attention
to the background that Orwell painted on. Since our world didn't turn out
to be quite so gray, and since 1984 has long since come and gone, we tend
to conclude that Orwell was interesting but largely inaccurate.
But think about the between-the-lines
prescience of Orwell's novel. Intentional and deceptive "redefinition"
of important cultural terms to confuse the public. The all seeing eye of
big brother at the apex of the pyramid. The consistent reference to the
pyramid itself in describing the authoritarian system. The trilateral world
powers of Eurasia, the Americas, and Asia intentionally trading technology
and military secrets in order to engage in a perpetual series of "cold"
wars for profit and power. A public kept in their daily grind subject to
fear (the IRS?), ignorance (the dumbing down?), and apathy (the economy's
fine?). A revolution of thought in the 1950's and 1960's that sold socialism
as the desirable political system of the age. An oligarchy behind the collectivist
political thrust, using it to consolidate power, labor, and personal property
for their own purposes, while at the expense of individual liberty, the
public is lulled into embracing the Marxist theme as an ostensible benefit
to the poor and downtrodden. That was Orwell's theme for 1984, written
in 1948!
Even the choice of the character name,
Emmanual Goldstein, is strange. It sounds like one of the European banking
family names linked by conspiracists to the formation of the American Federal
Reserve. Of all the possible names an author could have come up with in
a piece of fiction, was that just an accident? Is there any significance
to the fact that Goldstein was not an actual character in the novel, but
a non-existent fiction within the fiction, selected by Oceana to become
the focus of public anger and blame by the "real" fictional character,
inner party member and brain washing specialist with the Anglo-roundtable
name, O'Brien? The public was encouraged to hate the non-existent Goldstein,
while O'Brien was unseen by the public at large. He posed at night as a
lowly book salesman, and by day worked in the great pyramidal building
as an elite member of the "nomenclatura." Remember what O'Brien told Winston
Smith in the final scene of 1984, after Winston figured out the elitist,
oligarchical scheme behind world socialism by reading a copy of the banned
book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism?
"We are the priests
of power-do not forget this, Winston. Always there will be the intoxication
of power...If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping
on a human face-forever."
This book was given to him by O'Brien himself
to test Winston's loyalty to Big Brother and set him up for the final brainwashing
that would forever subordinate him to the system. Orwell had O'Brien intentionally
allow Winston to discover the truth. Then when Winston thought about freedom
and began to consider telling others, he exposed himself. O'Brien was able
to pick him out for a little re-education-a "new paradigm." It was a technique
Orwell had the authorities use to discover and correct dissention!
Now consider the actual historic 1960's
"revolution" against classical American Constitutional Republicanism, favoring
cryptically hidden Marxism in the extreme culturally destructive themes
of Gramscian Liberal Democracy. How did Orwell guess this almost to the
decade? Consider the rise of Ted Turner's global propaganda organ, CNN,
his leftist wife Hanoi Jane, and WWII Republicrat George Bush's New World
Order (Novus Ordo Seclorum). Reflect on the 60's generation's boy president,
his blatant Gramscian morality, and his wife's collectivist efforts toward
nationalizing health care under the supporting interests of the families
dominating the HMO's and American banking. Talk to Judge Lamberth about
that one. Think about the long MADD Cold War with regional hot flare-ups
made possible by constant technological infusions to the communists and
financed with private loans.
Think on the business and political
implications of the goals of the Trilateral Commission, formed thirty years
after Orwell's novel: a unified Democratic Socialist Eurasia, the unification
of true Asia under the Chinese communists, and the possible unification
of the largely "socialist" Americas through the "free trade" of an authoritarian
Nafta and Gatt. Consider the growing collectivism of public lands under
this global authority, the acceleration of private property forfeiture,
and the trend toward an almost brutal militarization of the world's police.
How about the almost mad attraction to popular "newspeak" and the adamant
denial by the public at large to accept the logic of certain perfectly
reasonable truths because they appear to be in contradiction to what the
propagandists tell us. Then consider the recent news concerning the Clinton
administration, the Middle East, China, and the possibility of yet another
orchestrated arms race. There's a very real possibility of another Cold
War between the three emerging spheres of global influence.
"'In your heart
you'd prefer to stick to Oldspeak...Don't you see that the whole aim of
Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...By 2050...even the slogans
will change. How could you have a slogan like 'freedom is slavery' when
the concept of freedom has been abolished?'"
Orwell had Newspeak philologist, Syme,
preaching to Winston Smith, while Winston only half listened because he
was preoccupied with an open sore on his leg. Another accidental and inconsequential
allusion?
Have you ever watched Politically Incorrect,
Charles Grodin, Geraldo Rivera, Life and Times, or the talking heads defending
the Clinton left? Have you ever listened to NPR? If you have, I don't have
to remind you that there is an uncanny resemblance between the un-reasoning
of the modern cultural elite, and poor Mr. Syme. They can spew the most
venous authoritarian hatred imaginable against the political thought of
the traditional Western conservative and dismiss the collectivist slaughter
of a hundred million. Then with a perfectly straight face, they point out
how any defender of the Constitutional Republic of the American Founding
Fathers is clearly an intolerant Fascist. And with the exception of a handful
who summon the courage to make a questionable query about the King's nakedness,
way too many nod in agreement, "Oh yes...yes. That's perfectly true."
Now it's possible that 1984 was a piece
of 1948 fiction that just happened to turn out to slightly resemble future
events. And it's possible that coincidence is in fact coincidence. And
of course, 1984 was not a completely accurate picture. Real life didn't
turn out to be exactly like 1984 in 1984. Let's face it. History as we
know it is an impossible mess. To get even a concocted picture of it, we
would probably have to take an over-cranked print of the film Brazil and
an under-cranked print of Bulworth, then let the late Dali twist his little
mustache and splatter paint on the celluloid. We would have to get William
Jaspers to interrogate the deceased Carol Quiqley about Cecil Rhodes, get
a hold of Sir Gordon Richardson's diary, have Ambrose Evans-Pritchard interview
Arthur Slesinger and George Kennon about the Cold War, audit Fort Knox,
and set up a live televised video interview between the ghosts of James
Forestal and Vincent Foster. We'd have to get David Rockefeller, Sir Rothschild,
the Pope, and Gorbechev to star, and exhume Alger Hiss, General Patton,
and Douglas McArthur as co-stars. Then we would have to shoot the new script,
superimpose the uncut director's dailies over the Brazil-Bulworth background,
cut in the Forestal-Foster interview, and finally, hire Tom Clancy to write
the narration and Charlton Heston to orrate. All this in order to even
come close to achieving a thin fictional veneer of what the world has actually
become since 1948.
Still, seriously, after consideration,
what's the best way to explain the apparent coincidence of Orwell's premonitions?
Quaint colloquial fiction, embellished with colorful prescience back in
1948, almost predicting significant pieces of core history for the second
half of the twentieth Century? A whistle blowing insider named Eric Blairs,
writing under the pseudonym, George Orwell, and roughly exposing privied
pieces of an actual plan? Or merely the accidentally accurate ravings of
a lunatic launching a conspiracy tirade way before it became a fashionably
popular foolishness?
You probably all remember the story
about the turtle on the fence post? How could a turtle get onto a fence
post without at least a little help from someone, somewhere? Well here's
another turtle story for you. It seems a turtle was about to cross a river,
and a nearby scorpion requested a ride. The turtle argued with the scorpion,
"I can't give you a ride! You're a scorpion, and if I come near you, you'll
sting me!" But with the compelling voice of George Carlin doing a children's
show, the scorpion insisted, "Hey man, if I sting you, you'll sink and
we'll both die." The turtle thought on it. The scorpion's reply was indeed
logical. So the turtle agreed to give the scorpion a ride. And about half
way across, as you can guess, the scorpion stung the poor turtle. As they
both sank, the turtle cried out, "You stung me, and now we'll both die!
Why in hell did you do it?" And the scorpion, in it's own death, calmly
replied, "It's got nothing to do with logic, dude, and it's got everything
to do with hell. Stinging you, no matter what the cost, is just my nature."
So the next time you think you can explain
away why someone simply could not sell National Sovereignty or self defeating
military technology for another fix of power—or how on earth anyone could
have engineered MADD in the first place let alone a New World Order—remember
the turtle and the scorpion. And remember O'Brien's explanation to poor
Winston Smith, to a greater or lesser degree, the alter-ego of all of us
global "subjects" out here in the occupied regions.
"We are the priests
of power-do not forget this, Winston. Always there will be the intoxication
of power..."
|
