Conspiracy theorists have sounded off for decades that there is definitely something “not quite right” in the world today when politicians pontificate their ideas and plans for the common good of the people.
Well, “blow me down and call me dusty”!………maybe the conspiracy theorists were right all along!
Have you noticed how absolutely insane and out of touch with reality politicians from all stripes have become lately?
Do you remember last week when Obama called “Carbon Pollution” the biggest threat to humankind? How he said that if African peoples had cars and air conditioning the planet would boil over?
We’ve all heard thousands of references from all mass media sources about “sustainable development, moving forward, renewable energy, tar sands, global warming, climate change, growing our economy and on and on……….ENOUGH!
What the hell do all these buzz-words really mean? They are what is called in George Orwell’s nightmarish book “1984”, “NEWSPEAK”!
Where in hell did these political mandarins get their ideas and plans that have driven this world to the brink of bankruptcy and possibly all out war?
Did they all read and re-read George’s book and then say to themselves “let’s see if this can work”?
OR are the bingo-callers (leaders) of the world being spoon feed buzz-words and idiotic speeches by “think tanks” that operate behind the scenes with a common anti-human agenda that starts right at the beginning of their education selection in their youth?
We know where most of the Green Proponents come from. Several Universities in Canada are renowned for churning out eco-whacked out quasi-religious idiots who think wind and solar power will REPLACE fossil fuels for electrical generation. It doesn’t matter that this Green Energy agenda is a fraud or a hoax, the only thing that matters to these idiots is that the world will be transformed forever into a 1984 scenario where everyone has to choke down the bile and hideous dictates from some self appointed elitist group of miscreants!
Before any politician is elected into a position of power from now on they should be forced to announce what “reading material” they keep beside their beds and judge them for what they think the REAL WORLD looks like in their mind’s eye.
That should eliminate most present day candidates!
Edward Snowden is no Winston Smith, but George Orwell would immediately recognize sustainable development and the comprehensive demonization of climate as Newspeak
The ongoing kerfuffle over the leaking of surveillance details by U.S. National Security Agency consultant Edward Snowden, and the fate of Mr. Snowden himself, is proving stranger than tabloid. Russian president Vladimir Putin has said that he will give Mr. Snowden asylum as long as he stops spilling the secrets of Russia’s great friend and ally the United States. Various South American caudillos are offering safe haven as an opportunity for denouncing Yanqui imperialists. This week a group of Hollywood has-beens signed a petition asking Ecuadorian strongman Rafael Correa – a well known persecutor of journalists — to give Mr. Snowden shelter.
One intriguing sidelight of the Snowden affair has been a surge in references to – and sales of — George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. According to Elmar Brok, the German chair of the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, when it comes to spying , the U.S. has “lost all balance — George Orwell is nothing by comparison.”’ One suspects that Herr Brok has not actually read Nineteen Eighty-Four. Either that, or he’s just being, well, Orwellian.
Outrage over state spying ranks with that scene in Casablanca where Captain Renault is shocked – shocked! – to discover that gambling is going on in Rick’s casino. Meanwhile if one were seeking parallels between current affairs and Orwell’s insights on justifying power by promoting false fears, the “War on Terror” is hardly the leading, or even an appropriate, example. Radical Islamists are not a manufactured threat, even if one may well argue about the war’s strategy, tactics and implications.
Certainly, technology has made some aspects of Orwell’s dystopia more possible. CCTV really is “watching you.” Digital data brings the “Memory Hole” much closer to hand. But the main danger remains not so much in technology as in human nature’s willingness to trust in “authority” and join in braying condemnation of those who refuse to toe the official “party line.”
Orwell’s main themes – the psychology of power, the use of propaganda, the dumbing down of language to restrict the scope of thought, the perversion of history, using children as propagandists and “spies” – are all still very relevant.
Anti-capitalism, which Orwell identifies as a critical propaganda prop for the tyrants of Ingsoc (the English Socialist Party), has not disappeared, but it has certainly morphed since the collapse of Communism. The new rationale for seeking unprecedented power is the threat of catastrophic man-made climate change.
Jul 05, 2013 08:00 am by Henry Hazlitt
In 1884, Herbert Spencer wrote what quickly became a celebrated book, The Man Versus The State. The book is seldom referred to now, and gathers dust on library shelves — if, in fact, it is still stocked by many libraries. Spencer’s political views are regarded by most present-day writers, who bother to mention him at all, as “extreme laissez faire,” and hence “discredited.”
But any open-minded person who takes the trouble today to read or reread The Man Versus The State will probably be startled by two things. The first is the uncanny clairvoyance with which Spencer foresaw what the future encroachments of the State were likely to be on individual liberty, above all in the economic realm. The second is the extent to which these encroachments had already occurred in 1884, the year in which he was writing.
The present generation has been brought up to believe that government concern for “social justice” and for the plight of the needy was something that did not even exist until the New Deal came along in 1933. The ages prior to that have been pictured as periods when no one “cared,” when laissez faire was rampant, when everybody who did not succeed in the cutthroat competition that was euphemistically called free enterprise — but was simply a system of dog-eat-dog and the-devil-take-the-hindmost — was allowed to starve. And if the present generation thinks this is true even of the 1920s, it is absolutely convinced that this was so in the 1880s, which it would probably regard as the very peak of the prevalence of laissez faire.
Yet the new reader’s initial astonishment when he starts Spencer’s book may begin to wear off before he is halfway through, because one cause for surprise explains the other. All that Spencer was doing was to project or extrapolate the legislative tendencies existing in the 1880s into the future. It was because he was so clearsightedly appalled by these tendencies that he recognized them so much more sharply than his contemporaries, and saw so much more clearly where they would lead if left unchecked.
Even in his Preface to The Man Versus The State he pointed out how “increase of freedom in form” was being followed by “decrease of freedom in fact….
Regulations have been made in yearly growing numbers, restraining the citizen in directions where his actions were previously unchecked, and compelling actions which previously he might perform or not as he liked; and at the same time heavier public burdens … have further restricted his freedom, by lessening that portion of his earnings which he can spend as he pleases, and augmenting the portion taken from him to be spent as public agents please.