Orwell,"Alternative Media" and the Loyal Opposition: "The NWO and their heresies will live for ever."

We shall abolish the orgasm.
Our neurologists are at work upon it now.

There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party.
There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.
There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy.
There will be no art, no literature, no science.

When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science.
There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness.
There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life.

All 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 every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.’


He paused as though he expected Winston to speak.

Winston had tried to shrink back into the surface of the bed again.
He could not say anything.
His heart seemed to be frozen.

O’Brien went on:

’And remember that it is for ever.
The face will always be there to be stamped upon.

The heretic, the enemy of society, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again.

Everything that you have undergone since you have been in our hands — all that will continue, and worse.

The espionage, the betrayals, the arrests, the tortures, the executions, the disappearances will never cease.

It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph.

The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant:
the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism.

Goldstein and his heresies will live for ever.

Every day, at every moment, they will be defeated, discredited, ridiculed, spat upon and yet they will always survive.

This drama that I have played out with you during seven years will be played out over and over again generation after generation, always in subtler forms.

Always we shall have the heretic here at our mercy, screaming with pain, broken up, contemptible — and in the end utterly penitent, saved from himself, crawling to our feet of his own accord.

That is the world that we are preparing, Winston.

A world of victory after victory, triumph after triumph after triumph: an endless pressing, pressing, pressing upon the nerve of power.

You are beginning, I can see, to realize what that world will be like.

But in the end you will do more than understand it.

You will accept it, welcome it, become part of it.’

Winston had recovered himself sufficiently to speak. ’You can’t!’ he said weakly.

’What do you mean by that remark, Winston?’

’You could not create such a world as you have just described. It is a dream. It is impossible.’

’Why?’

’It is impossible to found a civilization on fear and hatred and cruelty. It would never endure.’

’Why not?’

’It would have no vitality. It would disintegrate. It would commit suicide.’

’Nonsense. You are under the impression that hatred is more exhausting than love.

Why should it be? And if it were, what difference would that make?
Suppose that we choose to wear ourselves out faster.
Suppose that we quicken the tempo of human life till men are senile at thirty.
Still what difference would it make?
Can you not understand that the death of the individual is not death?

The party is immortal.’

George Orwell, 1984


(For the record, in the book, Julius Goldstein never existed.)

And the "New World Order" was a concept and long-term goal invented by the Nazis for a future Aryan-dominated world, free from Jewry.

Then, in 1991, it was a concept and a term picked up and espoused by fascist sympathiser, former CIA Director, international Cocaine Baron and distributor, illegal arms dealer and then-President George H.W. Bush in his 1991 State of the Union Address before Congress, describing a post-Communist Earth with only one military superpower. To great applause and adulation.

Of course, they didn't quite realise, given the vague emptiness of the term, exactly what he meant - what it meant, essentially amounted to a need for perpetual war in a world that now lacked a credible enemy.

The term was later used by the likes of fellow-fascist running dog Henry Kissineger, until it's Nazi overtones and parallels became too well-known.

By the late 1990s, it, it had been re-christened "The Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), and still later, "The War on (of) Terror".

To symltaneously suggest that progressive centrist leaders like Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are knowlingly or otherwise in league with or consciously forwarding a Far-Right Nazi totalitarian ideological goal, rather than minimising the preventable suffering of poor people and tackling income inequality, whilst denouncing them as Communistic Globalistic oppressors, rather than the TARGET of such counter-revolutionary far-right assualts and both political false-flag assaults accompanied by ACTUAL violent false-flag attacks on both them and their system of values is ludicrous.

Fascists are able to rally the populace around simple, vague positive-sounding universal symbols or phrases which are ultimately hollow.

"Freedom" doesn't really mean anything, unless you explain it;
it's wholly subjective.
Which freedom, the "Freedom To" or the "Freedom From"?
Do you mean to fight for freedom to steal or freedom from theft?

A flag is just a tribal symbol you identify with, it's merely physically manifest as a usually rectangular piece of brightly coloured cloth.

So, it's hardly surprising to find Winston Churchill, in 1946, lecturing on the need to build a "New Order" to exist between the nations of the Earth, following the (ostensible) defeat of Hitlerism; he was mainly talking about the need for an influential and authoritative forum for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, as was the orignal aim of the United Nations at that time to replace the failed and toothless League of Nations which had emerged out of the previous World War.

The Post-Imperial era that emerged out of the following decades of the Cold War probably wasn't *quite* the kind of global New Order he had in mind, however, but the whole point is that you surrender control of the arguement when you become unnecessarily vague your rhetoric begins becoming rather unspecific as to exactly what you might mean.

So, striving for "a New World Order" following the successful defeat of an expansionist and racially genocidal fascist dictatorship that the international community had been unprepared to cope with or oppose by peaceful means is something that at that point was clearly not only necessary and essential, it was desirable.

Likewise, when the Soviet system collapsed, a mainstay of global trade, vital to the US ecconmy and it's mainstay for almost 50 years, the need for a from-scratch re-assessment of some basic social and ecconomy values and home-truths was pretty much a no-brainer and going to absolutely take place regardless of what you chose to call it, whether or not you even acknowledged it.

The general aim here is to demonise and label anyone who advocates any kind of change, progressive positive and meaningful change as being a dangerous heretic with a sinister, hidden adgenda. They are therefore against the people and cannot possibly ever mean what they say, much less deliver on the promise they hold or the visions they espouse.

98% of climate scientists cannot possibly sincerely believe that man-made global warming is a reality, so they must all have a financial interest in clean energy technologies.

Democratic presidents cannot possibly believe that the coordination of rescue teams and resources is disaster areas subject to major catastrophes is helpful in saving lives and property and helping rescue and recovery efforts, so it must surely be a plot to enforce Federal Martial Law, violate personal, civil and state's rights and round up hapless US citizens for intenment in FEMA Concentration Camps.

(Which is of course exactly what Oliver North and Louis Geofreeda of the Reagan Administration planned to use FEMA for, beginning with Rex84 and the State Defence Forces and why FEMA grossly underperformed following Katrina - Bush's appointee as FEMA Director got the job as a sinecure and was totally ill-equipped, clueless, unpreapared and incapable; whereas Jimmy Carter ordered the establishment of FEMA in 1978 in order to ACTUALLY respond to major disasters, not just pretend to.

Don't believe the Hype - all political ideologies are not alike.

Neither are all professional politicans.

Not all of them ask what their country can do for them every time they get re-elected.

Motives matter.