The MINISTRY of
TRUTH and MINISTRY of LOVE are NOT what YOU THINK in BLAIRLAND.
With the recent event in the Labour Conference Hall where
an 82-year -old activist Walter Wolfgang was man-handled from his seat because he had the
effrontery to dissent to the opinion of the speaker our own MAN of STRAW and
the curse of political correctness which has grown in magnitude so that there
is no place in society, which this corruption has not affected.
The
following passages have been taken from The Meaning of Freedom by
Philip Drew -Aberdeen University Press -1982 from the chapter dealing
with Fictions of the Prison State.
…The Party’s apparatus for
shaping opinion is described with careful detail: members of the general public are never allowed to learn the true
facts, while members of the Party are required to develop the technique of doublethink.
(a)
Alexis
de Tocqueville (1805-59)
‘A Party member is expected to have no private emotions
and no respites from enthusiasm. He is
supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and
internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self- abasement before the power
and wisdom of the Party. . . .Oceanic society [Blairland] rests
ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and the Party is
infallible, but 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 Party thus maintains its power partly by CONTROL over the minds of its
members (b) and partly by physical coercion (as with the experience suffered by Mr Wolfgang and
Mr Steve Forrest -Labour Conference -28th September-2005)
‘This day-to-day falsification of
the past, carried by the Ministry of Truth, is as necessary to the stability of
the regime as the work of repression and espionage carried out by the Ministry
of Love.’
When the Thought-Police or the telescreens discover
disloyal thoughts or actions the offender is handed over to the Ministry of
Love, whose operations are also described in detail.
ITS MEANS ARE VIOLENCE,
TORTURE AND DEGRADATION.
The systematic distortion of fact, the corruption of
language and logic, the propaganda against imaginary enemy states and internal
traitors, and the ruthless torture and extermination are in combination
sufficient to secure the Party almost total domination over the lives of the
people of Oceania [Blairland]
An exception is the hero of the novel, Winston Smith,© who
begins to question the ways of the regime, to understand them and ultimately to
resist them. He reflects that
In
the end the Party would announce that two and two make five [as we had shown to be the
case in response to an article in the Daily Telegraph-on our bulletin board] and you would have to
believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or
later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of
experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by
their philosophy. The heresies of
heresies was common sense.
In his private diary he writes,
‘Freedom is the Freedom to
say that two and two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.’
He works for the Ministry of Truth, at ‘Reality Control’,
rewriting history to accord with the Party’s current needs: Unlike the other citizens of Oceania he
knows how consistently the facts are falsified.
He writes in his diary
‘I understand HOW; I do not
understand WHY’
This is where 1984 goes beyond Orwell’s earlier
book Animal Farm a bluntly satirical account of the processes by which a
democratic revolution may be converted to a Tyranny, for the story of 1984 is
largely the story of how Winston comes to learn the reasons for the actions of
the leaders of the Party.
As well as keeping a diary, which is a crime
, he falls in love with another Party member called Julia. They form a brotherhood; a secret
organization dedicated to overthrowing the regime, but discover that everything
that they have been doing is known to the Party.
Julia is dragged away and Winston is taken to the
Ministry of Love, where his chief interrogator is a senior party member called
O’Brien speaks candidly to Winston about the Party’s purpose. First he explains
why the Party exacts total obedience:
‘Did
I not tell you just now that we are different from the persecutors of the
past? We are not content with negative
obedience [As
was shown at the Labour Conference] , nor with abject
submission. When finally you surrender
to us, it must be of your own free will.
We do not destroy the heretic because he
resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind,
we reshape him.
We
burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not
in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul.
We
make him one of ourselves before we kill him.
It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist [In
Blairland] anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even
in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation.
He goes on
What
happens to you here is forever.
Understand that in advance. We shall crush you down to a point from
which there is no coming back. Things
will happen to you from which you could never recover, if you lived a thousand
years. Never again will you be capable
of ordinary human feeling. Everything
will be dead inside you.
Never again will you be capable of love, or
friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or
integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we
shall fill you with ourselves.
The speech is set in the context of brutal and
unremitting torture. The implication is plain that in the last analysis the source
of sovereign authority is physical [as experienced by Mr Wolfgang and Mr Forrest in the Conference hall of
the Labour Conference on 28th September -2005]
O’Brien asks Winston, by this time emaciated and
battered, if he can conjecture the reason why the Party should want power of
this kind.
‘You
are ruling over us for our own good,’
he
said feebly. ‘ You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves
and therefore -‘
He
started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O’Brien
had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.
‘That
was stupid, Winston, stupid! He said. ‘You should know better than to say a
thing like that.’
‘Now
I will tell you the answer to your question. It is this. The Party seeks power
entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are
interested solely in POWER, PURE POWER.
In the speeches which are crucial to the argument of the
book O’Brien makes it plain that ‘POWER is not the means, it is the END,’ and
then proceeds to define the nature of POWER.
‘The
real POWER we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things
but over MEN.’ He paused, and for a
moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil:
‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
Winston
thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
Exactly.
By making him suffer,’ he said. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure
that he is obeying your will and not his own?
POWER is in inflicting pain and
humiliation.
POWER is in tearing human minds
to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own
choosing. Do you begin to see, then,
what kind of world we are creating? It
is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic UTOPIAS that the old reformers
imagined. A world of fear and treachery
and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will
grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.
PROGRESS
in our world will be progress towards more pain…. All the competing pleasures
will be destroyed. BUT always - do not
forget this, Winston -always there will be the intoxication of POWER,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at any moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the
sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
[Well we all know about the
hounding to death of a patriot of our country Dr David Kelly while the POWER
lobby are rewarded as John Scarlett in his promotion to MI6 with many other
cronies in places of influence and POWER in our society.
The above account is fiction
-OR IS IT? Only the constant vigilance
to maintain the rights of the Individual will we be sure that we are not on the
path to (d) Tyranny.
Notes
(a) Defined as the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
The
Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered: he
therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink
he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated.
(b)
One
of Orwell’s more telling inventions is that of Newspeak, the official
language designed to make disloyal thoughts impossible to express - ‘every year
fewer and fewer words and the range of consciousness a little smaller.’ [Sounds
familiar]
(c)
Possibly
so named in memory of Lancelot Smith, the hero of Kingsley’s social novel
Yeast.
(d)
It is of course Alexis Charles Henry de Tocqueville (1805-59) a French statesman and writer
-who most forcefully reminds us that the rights of the Individual, tenuous as
they are, must be guarded not just against Hereditary power or the naked
oppression of a dictator but even more carefully against the undifferentiated
popular mass of democracy.
In particular, he perceives, like
Edmund Burke, the possibility of a despotism, which will operate with
unprecedented thoroughness precisely because it does so in the name of
the people as a whole:
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59)
‘It would seem that, if despotism were to be
established amongst the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a
different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade
men without tormenting them….
Above this race of men stands an immense and
tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications,
and to watch over their fate. That
power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild.
It would be like the
authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men
for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood:
[Hence the spread of benefits
to almost everyone in society by New Labour]
It
is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing
but rejoicing.
For their happiness such a government willingly labours,
but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it
provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities,
facilitates their pleasures
[24- hour drinking-drugs-gambling-no moral restraint-
no prison for persistent offenders -but certainly prison for Pensioners who are
asked to pay for inane politically correct schemes that put up their Council
Tax by over 8 percent-which they cannot afford to pay…]
-manages their principle concerns,
directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their
inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking
and all the trouble of living?
Thus, it every day renders the exercise of free
agency of man less useful and less frequent: it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and
gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it
has predisposed men to endure them. And oftentimes to look on them as benefits.’
[WE MUST REMIND YOU THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN OVER 150 YEARS
AGO BUT IT DOES SOUND FAMILIAR IN SEPTEMBER -2005]
To continue:
‘After having thus successively taken each member of
the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned him at will, the supreme
power then extends its arm over the whole community.
It covers the surface of society with a network of small-complicated
rules, minute and uniform [Family credit and whatever else] through which the most
original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise
above the crowd.
The will of man is not shattered, but softened,
bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly
restrained from acting: such a power
does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it
compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation
is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of
which the Government [Blairland] is the shepherd…
[The remarkable incident at
the Labour Conference on 28th September 2005 when an 82-year -old
activist was man-handled out of the hall and not allowed re -entry because he
had been detained under Section 44 of the Terrorism Bill -simply because
the man had shouted ‘NONSENCE’ at our MAN of STRAW. WE hope this is a start to a fight-back
to reclaim each of us our right to be the Master in our Constitution and remind
Tony Blair of his comment in 1997 that he was a
‘SERVANT of the People.
To continue:
‘Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two
conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either the one or the
other of these contrary propensities they strive to satisfy them both at once.
They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form
of government, but elected by the people.
They combine the principle of centralisation and that of popular
sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being
in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians.
Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings,
because he sees that it is not a person or class of persons but the people at
large, who hold the end of his chain.
By this system, the people shake off their state of
dependence just long enough to select their master [WE in England only tolerate
a SERVANT of the PEOPLE], and
then relapse into it again. A great
many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of
compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people;
and think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when
they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies
less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.’
[Democracy in America,tr. Henry Reeve, Pt.2,
Bk. IV, ch.6]
We have the Tory leader hopefuls talking about being in
close contact with the People a trait they and their successors have ignored for
decades whether it was Europe -Immigration- Law &Order -Iraq and many other
issues.
Every time a politician looks for means to please the
voter it is ‘shall we pass this or that legislation’ when in
reality it is LESS LEGISLATION needed there are enough laws on the Statute Book
-in fact over the past eight years over 1000 new laws have been enacted many
coming from the despotic EU.
In fact we need to repeal many laws, which should never
have been placed on the Statute Book in the first place because many have
created more problems, which has necessitated even more law.
Every new law means more interference with the individual
and this is as shown in Blairland means CONTROL.
Children are told not to
accept sweets from strangers. Well
grown ups should not accept sweetened promises from politicians which as proved
in the past will make one very sick indeed.
What we want
Is to be out of the EU
-Control Immigration-
Leave Iraq and Impeach Tony
Blair and all other Ministers responsible for the illegal war.
And much more
*
There are two
conceptions of human ethics, and they are at opposite poles.
One of them is Christian and
humane, declares the Individual to be sacrosanct, and asserts the rules of
arithmetic are not to be applied to human units.
The other starts from the
basic principle that a collective aim justifies all means, and not only allows,
but demands, that the Individual should in every way be subordinated and
sacrificed to the community - which may dispose of it as an experimentation
rabbit or a sacrificial lamb… [This
sounds exactly like New Labour -does it not?]
Whoever is burdened with
POWER and RESPONSIBILITY finds out on the first occasion that he has to choose;
and he is fatally driven to the second alternative.
Arthur Koestler’s -Darkness
at Noon
*
Late News from the Daily
Mail -Friday 30th September-2005
Andrew Alexander- Column
THE ABSURDLY
strained epithet ‘nasty’ attached to the Conservative Party by some Tory grumblers,
may now without the remotest hesitation be attach to [New] Labour.
I have seen many
unpleasant things at conferences of all parties - lying, cheating and shameless
stage management.
BUT
There has never been anything to match the brutal
ejection of the 82-year-old and a local party chairman who was calling for
restraint. It was vile, just vile. And
the stewards, remember are party workers.
Just think about
these moments. The stewards descended because Walter wolfgang had uttered a
one-word heckle at the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who was dealing - but oh so
briefly! -with [the illegal invasion] of Iraq.
Did none of the
stewards insist: ‘Oh come on, this is an old man, we can’t use force’?
Did not one of
them say of the other protester:
‘He was only
calling for restraint’ NO, they descended on the pair like nightclub bouncers.
Labour has
apologised. Well it could hardly do anything less. But even then the apologies were qualified. Ian Mc Cartney, party
chairman declared that the stewards did , however have a job to do [prevent
FREE SPEECH]
Tony Blair himself
qualified his apology by insisting that the stewards’ job was difficult [Well
preventing Free Speech we hope will always be so].
No it isn’t. they are supposed to deal with serious
disorder , not with hecklers.
He also claimed when asked why proper time had not been
devoted to the big question that that , ‘we have debates on debates on Iraq all
the time ‘. But not at the Labour conference apparently…(To be continued)
[Font altered-bolding and
underlining used -comments in brackets]
* * *
SEP/05
*
|
THE PEOPLE
HAVE SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?
*
Ditch the EU TREATY after
IRISH REJECTION
SAY
VOTERS
by
Daniel
Martin
Political
Reporter
[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June
18,2008]
MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain
should drop the controversial European Treaty in the wake of
its rejection in last week's
IRISH REFERENDUM'
The poll comes as the Tories launch a
last-ditch bid in the
HOUSE of LORDS
today to delay the
RATIFICATION
OF THE TREATY.
And
10,000 people
have signed a
PETITION
on the
DOWNING
STREET- WEBSITE
within the past few days
JUNE16-2008
, calling on the
GOVERNMENT
NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL
[WHY DON'T
YOU?]
Downing Street
website is
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/
*
JUNE 18-2008
|
*
*
13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE
RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout
Details from petition creator
With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the
people of Britain were given
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
-both
EUROPEAN and BRITISH
The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon
the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge.
The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed
the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The
GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with
BRITISH DOCUMENTATION
-only such as British (not EU) passports,
driving licences and other national documents.
EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who
HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER
08]
*
www.noliberties.com
[Latest Addition - June07]
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION
to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
VOTE
MAY -2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
www.ukip.org
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE
FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
Home
Rule for
Scotland
WHY NOT
HOME
RULE
for
ENGLAND
*
MAY/07
[All underlined words have a
separate bulletin