Life comes at you fast!

After the Tea Party on Tuesday, I wrote the article about Rick Santorum. In my opinion, based on facts and common sense, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has the credentials necessary to lead this country and I endorse him for the presidency. Guys like Rick Santorum have no place in leading this country. Your political record stays with you forever, and his stinks!

After I posted the article on Wednesday, life caught up with me at breakneck speed. I have a draft post for an article on Glenn Beck and Israel. It is long and complicated. Basically; I do not believe we should pay any special interests to this UN mandated country which took over land formally held by Palestinians. Glenn talks about Israel being a bastion of democracy. But if anything it is a provoker of many of the wars in the Middle East, and does nothing to stabilize the region. I also find it very troubling that many of the presidential candidates are sponsored by the American Israel super pacs, all the while Israel and these Israel backed candidates are propping up and sponsoring the ideas of bombing Iran. As I have mentioned before, bombing Iran would be a very foolish thing to do, and could trigger WWIII, or simply a massive default on our currency.

There are many problems right now. And what troubles me is that Glenn may actually not be who we think he is. I see it as one of two ways; he is an agent of blatant misinformation, riding on the side of liberty while acting as its destroyer. Or he is simply and helplessly flawed in his thinking on the Middle East and the rationale behind supporting Israel and religious bigotry.

Like I said; the article I have drafted is long and needs a lot of work. But always keep in mind that the hero does often become the villain (read the hero with a thousand faces) and that many people can be wrong in some areas while right in many others.

I like Glenn’s exposure of progressives and all the links between those in power and the organizations and special interests that support them. But I find it troublesome that he supports special interests of his own.

Over the next week I will be extremely busy. I am designing a website and putting together an online store for a company I am helping to set up. Aside from Super Tuesday; where I’ll be gathering signatures for the Ohio Workplace Freedom Amendment, my time will be completely booked.

I’ll continue to contribute more blogs in the future, though not as many as previously at this point in time.

Always question everything around you. Never accept what others say simply because they are right on most issues. You never know for sure until you do the research for yourself.

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson

And Remember;

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” – Thomas Jefferson

Rick Santorum!

My jaw dropped in disbelief yesterday when the votes were read out at the local tea party gathering. 56% voted that the local tea party support Rick Santorum! Thank god we needed a 66% majority vote to actually endorse a candidate, otherwise I  may not have been able to bring myself back to another meeting. I honestly could not believe that over half of the people in that room were supporting Rick Santorum, a guy who stands for big government, and massive deficit spending.

Here was a group of people, who were for small limited government, and had done so many great things on the state and local level, but somehow managed to completely miss the point on the national level. Were they really so misguided? Were they really so misinformed? Or were they really crazy enough to believe that Rick Santoram is a fiscal conservative?

The sad conclusion I made after I got home, my head spinning, was the sad fact that many of these people were greatly misinformed, and most of whom probably watch fox news each night; which puts as much spin on the facts as any progressive channel.

For anyone who was at the Tea Party last night, who is reading this. Please look into each individual candidate’s past. Please look at what they really stand for.

I’m still completely stunned that so many people could get behind such a counterfeit conservative. Did they learn nothing from George W Bush’s term? Are they really so brainwashed to think that the republicans are the custodians of all freedom, and the democrats are the anti-Christ?

The sad truth is that many of them are simply misinformed and misguided. They’re not crazy kooks, they just want to do what is right and get our country back on track. That is why I challenge everyone and every group in this blog. It is not about left vs right, it is about liberty and freedom. That is why I point out all the flaws, and the strengths in everything I write about. We cannot move forward unless we study all the angles, and are willing to see others view points.

Last night was not all bad though, there were a couple of great speakers, two of whom I admired, and one of whom I will be voting for later this year. I’ll talk about them both later in the week. I simply had to get this article off my chest. Rick Santorum! Really? That’s what the majority of the room choose as a ‘fiscal conservative’ who stands for liberty and limited government? Wow! What a shocker, we really have our work cut out for us!

Education, education, education! Thank god that this tea party wants to educate its members and families on the constitution. Perhaps I can point out the strengths and weaknesses of candidates, on both national and local issues, so at least we can start digging away at the fundamental problems.

If Rick Santorum is what the majority of the room thinks is a good candidate for limited government, we’re in trouble.

It’s time to take a stance and stand up for principles, not the establishment.

Wake up people; do your own research and stop following the lamestream media. The ‘mainstream’ does not have our best interests at heart. You do.

Fuzzy logic: The case for bombing Iran

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going so well. So why not invade, sorry; ‘strategically bomb’ Iran?

If I had been the caller, I would have considered myself ‘schooled’ by George. What many people don’t realize is that its OK to be wrong sometimes. The caller believes that its OK to bomb a country because it is a ‘threat’ to us. When presented with the facts, he goes back on weaker and weaker knowledge and ‘facts’ to defend his view point. If I had been the caller, and was presented that information, I would have accepted it, and told George that I’d look more into the information he’d given me, and that I’d call him back later and talk more. People are often so wrapped up in themselves that they will defy all logic to make themselves feel better against being wrong. It is OK to be wrong. We learn from our mistakes. The honorable thing to do is to accept the schooling, and say ‘alright, you’ve got a fair point, let me look into it and I’ll get back to you’. That is a far more intelligent way to move forward, rather than to boldly argue in the case of stupidity, when new facts present themselves contrary to your current beliefs.

So why is it that the media goes along with all this new war propaganda? The drums of war were beating against Afghanistan and Iraq before invasion, but they ceased to beat when our young men began being blown to bloody bits, in countries that did not want them there. Only after the bombs fell, did we realize that perhaps it was not such a good idea. Only then did the media begin to review the wars negatively. So what is in it for the media? Are they really so inept to cover the news (the real news), that they will go along with almost any unfolding drama just for a ‘news story’?

WWIII is a planned event:

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” – President Harry S. Truman.

‘If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy’ – James Madison

War and Peace:

US prepares to annihilate Iran:

‘How fortunate that men to not think’ – Adolf Hitler

It is truly terrifying how similar our current candidates speak compared to Hitler. Preemptive strikes, protecting the homeland. Everything they say mirrors Hitler in an eerie way. That is why I say to those on the right; watch out for fascism.

Does it not trouble you that the media attacks the only candidate who is running on freedom and the Constitution?

Even the beloved ‘great great American’ Sean Hannity wants war. Even the infamous Bill O’Reilly panics when Ron Paul points out that we are the ones who are a threat to Iran. He shuts Ron Paul down when he tries to explain it to him. This is why I have no respect for any news network right now. Fox news is no better than CNN or MSNBC. They are all a poison on our conscious. Fox news might say that they are fair and balanced, they might say that they are pro-freedom, but they are simply puppets of the cronyism that is ruining this nation.

The media has an agenda, and each network pushes it from different angles. Fox news is no different. The special interests have poisoned every media organization, and anyone who speaks out against it, has been fired or marginalized.

Anyway, back to the case for bombing Iran:

Look how evil the Iranians are:

I mean just look at them! How evil! How dare they enjoy life! Bomb them, bomb them now!

Oh wait…they’re not evil. Sure their government is a little whacky; which is just like every other government in that case. Why in the hell are we talking about bombing them? If not to destroy their country for ‘our oil’? I’ve said it before, that Iran is not a threat to us, and that we have more than enough oil on our own land. I say leave the Iranians the hell alone, and if Israel wants to start a war, let them, but don’t involve us, let them have their war, and see what happens to them for starting it. Glenn Beck wonders why so many youth don’t practice religion right now, and yet he talks about how evil Iran is and how there is a prophecy and that Iran calls us big Satan and Israel little Satan. Well to Iran that is true…we are satanic in our actions toward them, with all our threats. And prophecies about wars and Jesus returning make you sound like a nut case. The youth are not stupid. Many are misguided, and many are mis-educated, and you can thank many of Glenn’s generation for that. Thank god he is doing something to correct that, but he really needs to wake up on his foreign policy stance. Glenn, not everyone is Christian, I know you say that you respect all religions, but its not coming off that way. Your book about George Washington heavily sided with divine providence. While that may be true, that doesn’t mean that everyone should be christian or that the founding fathers wanted this to be a christian nation.

Jesse Ventura is right, religion has caused most of the past wars, and continues to fuel new wars.

When are we going to stop naked wars of aggression and go back to defensive policy only?

Why are we busy protecting ‘holy sites’ and starting ‘holy wars’ and not respecting others ‘holy sites’ and cowering from their threats of ‘holy wars’? Don’t you see how stupid all this is? I’ll side with Charlie Chaplin, and say that ‘the kingdom of god is within man, not one man, nor a group of men, but in all men’ and in that case it should not matter where you practice religion, nor what historical buildings you have. Respect one another and let bygones be bygones.

Here are the consequences to expect if we do start a war with Iran, and bombing Iran is an act of war:

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/579-consequences-to-expect-if-the-us-invades-iran

Now I’ll bet I’ve done a great job alienating the few subscribers that I currently have. But I’m not in this for some popularity contest. I said from the very first post that I would expose the truth. And in this post, I’ll say this: Anyone who thinks that bombing Iran is a good idea, or that it is in our best national interests is NUTS!

The problem with the Republican Party

I’ve said it many times; that I’m libertarian and that I support Ron Paul. I just found a video from Judge Napolitano, that hits the nail directly on the head as to why the republican party is such a shambles right now:

And like I’ve said before, if you want the republican party to win this year; vote Ron Paul, and help get this country moving back toward liberty again.

Will the next presidents day become national monarch day? Or will we celebrate the beginning of one of the greatest presidencies in history? It’s up to you. Do you believe in real individual freedoms? Or are you as shallow as the other three candidates? You choose.

Why I am Libertarian

I believe that the current establishment of left vs right is a racket designed to steal our thoughts away from the truth.

Before Barack Obama came along, we were not talking about progessivism. Before Glenn Beck exposed it, we did not know about it. And why are were we not currently talking about all the ills from George W Bush’s term? Why did the democrats and the ‘left’ put down the wars until President Obama came along, and yet you do not hear about it so much now?

I believe that the left vs right is a stupid game that no-one wins.

I am libertarian because it is the only political course that makes sense. It is the course that the founders of this country took, and it worked well for them. As it will for us, if we return to our values.

What is libertarianism?

Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don’t harm the person and property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Liberty is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of free markets, civil liberties, and self-ownership.

Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.

We hope you will join us in embracing this ideal – and in taking a stand to personally bring about a world of liberty, abundance and peace.

There are many different views on libertarianism. I have attended Tea Parties in my local area, and I agree with all of the small government rhetoric, but I do have my reservations. I believe in small government and individual freedoms. If the tea party leans more toward libertarianism, I’m all for it. If it falls back toward stateism, it becomes a waste of time. What does your local Tea Party represent? And is there a way you can help steer them fully toward the tree of liberty?

The difference between republicans and democrats is a lot like two opposing football teams. They both have plenty of commentary, but their tactics are essentially the same, and their goal is to win. The trophy is almost never in the interests of the people.

Are you a libertarian? This video shows what libertarians believe in:

This is how I scored on the test:

How did you score? http://www.shanekillian.org/quiz.php

Libertarianism is the philosophy of liberty:

Libertarianism should be the goal of both democrats and republicans. To move up toward liberty, rather than down toward stateism and government control. Let us educate the world, so that we might build a future with freedom, rather than destroy the present, so that the future looks bleak.

I am a libertarian because I epitomize liberty. I believe in individual freedom for all mankind, no matter what creed, sexual orientation or beliefs. I don’t care what your habits are, or what you do with your life. If you ruin it, that is your fault, not mine nor the states. I only care if you harm others. If you do not, you should be free to do what you please.

What do you believe in? How did you score on the test? Are you libertarian, liberal, conservative, centrist or stateist? And what are you going to do about it?

Jesse Ventura the patriot

I love people like Jesse Ventura. He is not afraid to go after the truth. There are too many people who are worried that society will label them as a kook, that they will not look into ‘conspiracy theories’. Now many conspiracy theories are not true, but the disturbing fact is, that many of them are true.

I like Jessie Ventura because he is not afraid to look deeply into these problems, and when he discovers disturbing facts, he pushes on and digs deeper.

He is not afraid to get into arguments with big name figures, because he knows that he is doing his patriotic duty by standing up for liberty over the popular left vs right rhetoric.

Jessie Ventura has served his country, he is a hero of this nation, and he is not afraid to point out chicken hawks.

Jessie Ventura, like myself, like Ron Paul, and many other sane people in this world, is not afraid to point out that Iran is not a threat to this nation, but that we are indeed a threat to Iran.

If I were Iran, I’d probably be building nukes too, wouldn’t you? After all, we haven’t attacked North Korea for that very reason, and they are more of a threat to us than Iran. Oh but I forgot, Iran is sitting upon millions of barrels worth of oil.

Do not be afraid to look into conspiracies. Do not be afraid to go against the grain, to speak out against both liberals and conservatives.

Think about this: Many people my age voted for Obama because he spoke of ‘hope and change’, many people my age (and unfortunately many older people) didn’t realize that this was a hollow promise, that the hope and change was not the direction we all wanted to go in. After eight years of George W Bush, people were sick of the direction the country was heading in. We had two wars, massive debts and government spending, and our rights were being stripped away from us by such unconstitutional legislation as the patriot act. Of course we wanted hope and change. Many on the right are so quick to jump on the ‘blame the progressives’ bandwagon, that they marginalize the youth who voted for Obama, who so easily would have voted for someone else of the same caliber on the right (think Ronald Reagan). Obama gave nice speeches, personally I didn’t like the substance, but hey, many people lapped it up. They didn’t want a no-good progressive like McCain, who was a carbon copy of George W Bush, and quite accurately labeled by many as ‘McSame’. Of course people voted for Obama. It wasn’t because everyone of them was a radical lefty. It was because the other candidate offered nothing new or exciting. Those who voted for McCain did not realize how much of a progressive he was, they just wanted to have a republican in the house, so the evil left could not take over. They didn’t realize that the right was infested also. Do you really like all the things that George Bush did during his presidency? Do you actually like the patriot act? Have you read it? From the radical right (yes I’m going to call it that) we got Guantanamo Bay, which goes completely against everything this country stands for. What good is our country without the law and order that it stands upon? We got the patriot act, which is about as unpatriotic as any bill I’ve ever seen. We got two wars in the middle east from countries that were no threat to us. And we got huge deficit spending. So everyone voted for the guy who was shouting ‘hope’ and ‘change’. The landslide victory was not because everyone is a socialist. It was because everyone was tired of the crony capitalists from the radical right. I’ve spoken to so many people my age who regret that they voted for Obama. They are not socialists, they are not loopy liberals. Whenever I do hear them talk about the government helping them out in some way, I am very quick to point out that the government never does anything to really help you. I’ve helped to persuade many people to become more libertarian. They voted against conservatives because they were corrupt and crony, and now they will vote against liberals who are corrupt and crony also. That is why I admire people like Jessie Ventura, that is why I admire people in the Tea Parties. I admire anyone who stands up against government, because government is the cause of almost all problems, not the solution. My purpose with this blog is to help wake people up, and to let them see that a stage has been set, for them to fight amongst each other and tear each other down, rather than build each other up, so that they might take down the very framers who set this ugly stage for their own benefits.

Remember that the original definition of the word ‘conspiracy’ comes from the latin; ‘con’ which means; together, and ‘spiro’ which means; breathe.

And remember that people like Jessie Ventura, no matter how strange they seem, are patriots, and all patriots point out the truth, no matter how controversial and scary it might be.

Debt Slavery

I’ve mentioned debt slavery a few times now throughout my blog posts, but I’ve never gone into detail about it. I think it is an important subject you should know about, since many in the developed world, keep themselves locked up in the never ending rat race without ever realizing that they’ve sealed their own fate.

Debt slavery is not hard to get into. As soon as we reach adulthood, the expected culture is to go to college and get hooked up to massive student loans. After that we are hit with a barage of credit cards. Then we have new reliable cars to pay for, and of course the life mortgage of buying a house. After all is said and done, and we have kids, we have locked ourselves into a never ending cycle of paycheck to paycheck debt repayments for the rest of our working lives. Our whole life flashes before us as we carry our debt balance from one month to the next, never really getting far ahead in life.

Of course, certain loans can be beneficial, but why does it seem mandatory that to ‘get ahead’ in life, we are required to take a loan out on everything we do?

It seems like this process of taking out loans, having more money printed, and then paying back to the same people who print our money, devalue it, and then expect us to pay back with interest, all seems like a bit of a scam. And that’s because it is. Eventually a debt based society will collapse in on itself.

In one of my previous articles I talk about the gold standard. Our standards of living slip when we print more money. A return to values will ensure that our money has value, and everything we buy will be worth more. Loans may become harder to obtain, but our money will have more value, so we will not have to become so indebted to buy everything.

Debt slavery is a plague upon society, it helps to frame the farm that we live in, and keep us all in bondage. The only good thing about it, is that it is optional. The bad thing is, that so many people take the option to carry it. Personally, I will be debt free at the end of the year, and I plan never to return to it. I’d rather live out on the street and be free, than carry debt like a slave from month to month, paycheck to paycheck.

How much better would your life be without debt?

The left vs the right continued

After spending five days off work, the majority of it with my wife, and half of it with my parents, I got to relax and see the world again from outside the box. There is a lot of talk about progessivism on the left, and I do agree that it is a plague upon this nation. It should definitely be combated, put down and discarded. I think the main point of my previous post was to show that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to become heavily involved in ‘the lesser of two evils’ by going along with whatever the established right would like us to do.

I’ve written many times about my respect for Ron Paul, as he is a libertarian and beleives in the consistution, and my disrespect for the other republican candidates because their records are a joke.

I’m not so sure that the world is controlled (at least in the western world) so much as it is heavily manipulated. The mainstream media is wholey owned by a select few, and there are business owners and financiers in strategic places that are really pulling all the strings.

I watched a PBS documentary about the crash of 1929, and the environment for the crash almost directly mirrors that of todays economy. Except that today we are collectively involved in the market through various companies that do our bidding for us. It is important to read both yesterdays post, and Monday’s post to realize that history does repeat itself, and that the world is manipulated to suit the desires of a select few.

I do not doubt the shady nature of the president’s past and I do not doubt that progressivism has taken over in the united states, but I also believe that many on the right are being used also, and I believe that many do not realize it.

We often mistake those on the left for being stupid and naive. I do not think there is anything stupid about making calculated decisions. When the president came to power, gun sales rose. Those who put money in arms manufacturers made money. Whether they were interested in firearms or not. There are those on either side of the political spectrum that profiteer from the boom or bust of an economy.

England is essentially socialist, and throughout the middle of the 20th century, it was plagued so badly it was almost communism. But its capitalist nature did not destruct completely, and it did see a resurgence of strength througout the 1980’s. I beleive there are many who benefit through the collectivist system by manipulating it to their desires to profiteer through it. But they know that an element of capitalism must always survive so that the system does not collapse completely, and there must always be a good enough looking carrot at the end of the stick to keep the general populance over-producing goods, and maintaining their own debt slavery.

The looters and moochers can be found on both sides of the political spectrum, and I see that the conservatives have been poisoned too, though not as much as the liberals. It is less obvious, but corporate welfare on the right is as evil as general welfare on the left.

Why should I have to join and work for a company to receive affordable healthcare? This seems like a bit of a scam, does it not? I always thought it paid to be independant, but it seems that the forces that be want to prevent that from happening, so they can maintain their army of worker bees.

Wont you work harder if you think your job is at risk? If the economy is struggling and there is high unemployment, you will work harder than ever for less and less money just to get by. Many will cling harder to the left and the progressive taxation and benefits system, while others will cling to the right and cry out for more corporate welfare, for tax reductions and less restrictions on companies.

While I generally agree with lower taxes and less restrictions across the board. Why only do it for companies? Why does the individual need to be tied up? Is he not the master of his own destiny? Can he not be trusted? How much power can any one person really have? And if they cannot be trusted, what is to say that a company can? After all, a company is always owned or controlled by one person.

There are so many points to be made, and it is hard to keep track of them. But the main thing you must be aware of, is to stay on the course of liberty and independence. Not just for that of companies, and not for the welfare state and benefits programs. Make sure to vote for libertarian candidates who believe in the Constitution, and who provide a record to prove it. Don’t simply vote along party lines, because the MSM (main stream media) wants you to do that, so that the status quo can be maintained.

I think my main point about the left vs the right, is that the resurgence of liberty is mainly coming from the libertarians, from the middle, from the core of american values. I see that many on the left will not compromise, but that some are beginning to become more libertarian, and they see that the state cannot provide everything. I see many conservatives retaining and fighting for American values, but I also see some of them clinging toward stateism and corporatism. It is these things that I warn about. Work with each other toward liberty and independence from government. It matters not whether you are liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing. What matters is that we work together to lift the hands of government out and away from our lives, so that we may prosper once more. I do not care where you come from or what you believe in, if you are working toward liberty, you are a friend of mine.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The more we do to help wake others up, the more good we do in the world, the more people will start to wake up and begin to follow those of us leading the charge on the path back toward liberty. The more we make fun of and ridicule others, the more opposition we will generate.

Be careful not to make too much fun of those who are for more government, simply do what you need to do to combat it, and show them the light of day. Make friends with anyone who works toward freedom, do not discredit others because their beliefs are different. If you stand by those who seek liberty and find a mutual agreement in freedom; eventually everything will work out for the better.

Break the status quo and you free the world.

The Theory and Practice of Oligarchy

After writing Monday’s article, I started doing more research into oligarchies and the reasons behind our battles in society. I find that writing down ideas is a good way to find the truth; you begin to connect the dots, and one idea always leads to another. While writing, I did some research and came across this article, it is very long, and very interesting:

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM

Goldstein by Emmanuel Goldstein

(The ‘Book within a Book’ from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four)



Chapter 1 – Ignorance is Strength
Chapter 2 – Freedom is Slavery
Chapter 3 – War is Peace

<!–

The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism is not a book in it’s own right. It a book with a book from George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eghty-Four. Throught most of the Novel this “Book within a Book” is simply refered to as “Goldstein’s Book” — a reference to it’s supposed author, Emannuel Goldstein. Winston Smith aquires this book from O’Brien

–>




Chapter I
Ignorance is Strength

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim — for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives — is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

By the late nineteenth century the recurrence of this pattern had become obvious to many observers. There then rose schools of thinkers who interpreted history as a cyclical process and claimed to show that inequality was the unalterable law of human life. This doctrine, of course, had always had its adherents, but in the manner in which it was now put forward there was a significant change. In the past the need for a hierarchical form of society had been the doctrine specifically of the High. It had been preached by kings and aristocrats and by the priests, lawyers, and the like who were parasitical upon them, and it had generally been softened by promises of compensation in an imaginary world beyond the grave. The Middle, so long as it was struggling for power, had always made use of such terms as freedom, justice, and fraternity. Now, however, the concept of human brotherhood began to be assailed by people who were not yet in positions of command, but merely hoped to be so before long. In the past the Middle had made revolutions under the banner of equality, and then had established a fresh tyranny as soon as the old one was overthrown. The new Middle groups in effect proclaimed their tyranny beforehand. Socialism, a theory which appeared in the early nineteenth century and was the last link in a chain of thought stretching back to the slave rebellions of antiquity, was still deeply infected by the Utopianism of past ages. But in each variant of Socialism that appeared from about 1900 onwards the aim of establishing liberty and equality was more and more openly abandoned. The new movements which appeared in the middle years of the century, Ingsoc in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia, Death-Worship, as it is commonly called, in Eastasia, had the conscious aim of perpetuating unfreedom and inequality. These new movements, of course, grew out of the old ones and tended to keep their names and pay lip-service to their ideology. But the purpose of all of them was to arrest progress and freeze history at a chosen moment. The familiar pendulum swing was to happen once more, and then stop. As usual, the High were to be turned out by the Middle, who would then become the High; but this time, by conscious strategy, the High would be able to maintain their position permanently.

The new doctrines arose partly because of the accumulation of historical knowledge, and the growth of the historical sense, which had hardly existed before the nineteenth century. The cyclical movement of history was now intelligible, or appeared to be so; and if it was intelligible, then it was alterable. But the principal, underlying cause was that, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, human equality had become technically possible. It was still true that men were not equal in their native talents and that functions had to be specialized in ways that favoured some individuals against others; but there was no longer any real need for class distinctions or for large differences of wealth. In earlier ages, class distinctions had been not only inevitable but desirable. Inequality was the price of civilization. With the development of machine production, however, the case was altered. Even if it was still necessary for human beings to do different kinds of work, it was no longer necessary for them to live at different social or economic levels. Therefore, from the point of view of the new groups who were on the point of seizing power, human equality was no longer an ideal to be striven after, but a danger to be averted. In more primitive ages, when a just and peaceful society was in fact not possible, it had been fairly easy to believe it. The idea of an earthly paradise in which men should live together in a state of brotherhood, without laws and without brute labour, had haunted the human imagination for thousands of years. And this vision had had a certain hold even on the groups who actually profited by each historical change. The heirs of the French, English, and American revolutions had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and have even allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable. Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years — imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations-not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.

It was only after a decade of national wars, civil wars, revolutions, and counter-revolutions in all parts of the world that Ingsoc and its rivals emerged as fully worked-out political theories. But they had been foreshadowed by the various systems, generally called totalitarian, which had appeared earlier in the century, and the main outlines of the world which would emerge from the prevailing chaos had long been obvious. What kind of people would control this world had been equally obvious. The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition. This last difference was cardinal. By comparison with that existing today, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups were always infected to some extent by liberal ideas, and were content to leave loose ends everywhere, to regard only the overt act and to be uninterested in what their subjects were thinking. Even the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.

After the revolutionary period of the fifties and sixties, society regrouped itself, as always, into High, Middle, and Low. But the new High group, unlike all its forerunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what was needed to safeguard its position. It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called ‘abolition of private property’ which took place in the middle years of the century meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before: but with this difference, that the new owners were a group instead of a mass of individuals. Individually, no member of the Party owns anything, except petty personal belongings. Collectively, the Party owns everything in Oceania, because it controls everything, and disposes of the products as it thinks fit. In the years following the Revolution it was able to step into this commanding position almost unopposed, because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization. It had always been assumed that if the capitalist class were expropriated, Socialism must follow: and unquestionably the capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport — everything had been taken away from them: and since these things were no longer private property, it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc, which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist programme; with the result, foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.

But the problems of perpetuating a hierarchical society go deeper than this. There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and willingness to govern. These causes do not operate singly, and as a rule all four of them are present in some degree. A ruling class which could guard against all of them would remain in power permanently. Ultimately the determining factor is the mental attitude of the ruling class itself.

After the middle of the present century, the first danger had in reality disappeared. Each of the three powers which now divide the world is in fact unconquerable, and could only become conquerable through slow demographic changes which a government with wide powers can easily avert. The second danger, also, is only a theoretical one. The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed. The recurrent economic crises of past times were totally unnecessary and are not now permitted to happen, but other and equally large dislocations can and do happen without having political results, because there is no way in which discontent can become articulate. As for the problem of overproduction, which has been latent in our society since the development of machine technique, it is solved by the device of continuous warfare (see Chapter III), which is also useful in keying up public morale to the necessary pitch. From the point of view of our present rulers, therefore, the only genuine dangers are the splitting-off of a new group of able, underemployed, power-hungry people, and the growth of liberalism and scepticism in their own ranks. The problem, that is to say, is educational. It is a problem of continuously moulding the consciousness both of the directing group and of the larger executive group that lies immediately below it. The consciousness of the masses needs only to be influenced in a negative way.

Given this background, one could infer, if one did not know it already, the general structure of Oceanic society. At the apex of the pyramid comes Big Brother. Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration. Nobody has ever seen Big Brother. He is a face on the hoardings, a voice on the telescreen. We may be reasonably sure that he will never die, and there is already considerable uncertainty as to when he was born. Big Brother is the guise in which the Party chooses to exhibit itself to the world. His function is to act as a focusing point for love, fear, and reverence, emotions which are more easily felt towards an individual than towards an organization. Below Big Brother comes the Inner Party. Its numbers limited to six millions, or something less than 2 per cent of the population of Oceania. Below the Inner Party comes the Outer Party, which, if the Inner Party is described as the brain of the State, may be justly likened to the hands. Below that come the dumb masses whom we habitually refer to as ‘the proles’, numbering perhaps 85 per cent of the population. In the terms of our earlier classification, the proles are the Low: for the slave population of the equatorial lands who pass constantly from conqueror to conqueror, are not a permanent or necessary part of the structure.

In principle, membership of these three groups is not hereditary. The child of Inner Party parents is in theory not born into the Inner Party. Admission to either branch of the Party is by examination, taken at the age of sixteen. Nor is there any racial discrimination, or any marked domination of one province by another. Jews, Negroes, South Americans of pure Indian blood are to be found in the highest ranks of the Party, and the administrators of any area are always drawn from the inhabitants of that area. In no part of Oceania do the inhabitants have the feeling that they are a colonial population ruled from a distant capital. Oceania has no capital, and its titular head is a person whose whereabouts nobody knows. Except that English is its chief lingua franca and Newspeak its official language, it is not centralized in any way. Its rulers are not held together by blood-ties but by adherence to a common doctrine. It is true that our society is stratified, and very rigidly stratified, on what at first sight appear to be hereditary lines. There is far less to- and-fro movement between the different groups than happened under capitalism or even in the pre-industrial age. Between the two branches of the Party there is a certain amount of interchange, but only so much as will ensure that weaklings are excluded from the Inner Party and that ambitious members of the Outer Party are made harmless by allowing them to rise. Proletarians, in practice, are not allowed to graduate into the Party. The most gifted among them, who might possibly become nuclei of discontent, are simply marked down by the Thought Police and eliminated. But this state of affairs is not necessarily permanent, nor is it a matter of principle. The Party is not a class in the old sense of the word. It does not aim at transmitting power to its own children, as such; and if there were no other way of keeping the ablest people at the top, it would be perfectly prepared to recruit an entire new generation from the ranks of the proletariat. In the crucial years, the fact that the Party was not a hereditary body did a great deal to neutralize opposition. The older kind of Socialist, who had been trained to fight against something called ‘class privilege’ assumed that what is not hereditary cannot be permanent. He did not see that the continuity of an oligarchy need not be physical, nor did he pause to reflect that hereditary aristocracies have always been shortlived, whereas adoptive organizations such as the Catholic Church have sometimes lasted for hundreds or thousands of years. The essence of oligarchical rule is not father-to-son inheritance, but the persistence of a certain world-view and a certain way of life, imposed by the dead upon the living. A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same.

All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to sustain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature of present-day society from being perceived. Physical rebellion, or any preliminary move towards rebellion, is at present not possible. From the proletarians nothing is to be feared. Left to themselves, they will continue from generation to generation and from century to century, working, breeding, and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is. They could only become dangerous if the advance of industrial technique made it necessary to educate them more highly; but, since military and commercial rivalry are no longer important, the level of popular education is actually declining. What opinions the masses hold, or do not hold, is looked on as a matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual liberty because they have no intellect. In a Party member, on the other hand, not even the smallest deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated.

Though Police A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being inspected. Nothing that he does is indifferent. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristic movements of his body, are all jealously scrutinized. Not only any actual misdemeanour, but any eccentricity, however small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an inner struggle, is certain to be detected. He has no freedom of choice in any direction whatever. On the other hand his actions are not regulated by law or by any clearly formulated code of behaviour. In Oceania there is no law. Thoughts and actions which, when detected, mean certain death are not formally forbidden, and the endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations are not inflicted as punishment for crimes which have actually been committed, but are merely the wiping-out of persons who might perhaps commit a crime at some time in the future. A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts. Many of the beliefs and attitudes demanded of him are never plainly stated, and could not be stated without laying bare the contradictions inherent in Ingsoc. If he is a person naturally orthodox (in Newspeak a goodthinker), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion. But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.

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. The discontents produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline. The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one’s own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that 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 keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary. The subsidiary reason is that the Party member, like the proletarian, tolerates present-day conditions partly because he has no standards of comparison. He must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from foreign countries, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising. But by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all cases right. It is also that no change in doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted. For to change one’s mind, or even one’s policy, is a confession of weakness. If, for example, Eurasia or Eastasia (whichever it may be) is the enemy today, then that country must always have been the enemy. And if the facts say otherwise then the facts must be altered. Thus history is continuously rewritten. This day- to-day falsification of the past, carried out 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.

The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it never has been altered in any specific instance. For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version is the past, and no different past can ever have existed. This holds good even when, as often happens, the same event has to be altered out of recognition several times in the course of a year. At all times the Party is in possession of absolute truth, and clearly the absolute can never have been different from what it is now. It will be seen that the control of the past depends above all on the training of memory. To make sure that all written records agree with the orthodoxy of the moment is merely a mechanical act. But it is also necessary to remember that events happened in the desired manner. And if it is necessary to rearrange one’s memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to forget that one has done so. The trick of doing this can be learned like any other mental technique. It is learned by the majority of Party members, and certainly by all who are intelligent as well as orthodox. In Oldspeak it is called, quite frankly, ‘reality control’. In Newspeak it is called doublethink, though doublethink comprises much else as well.

Doublethink means 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. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of doublethink that the Party has been able — and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years — to arrest the course of history.

All past oligarchies have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft. Either they became stupid and arrogant, failed to adjust themselves to changing circumstances, and were overthrown; or they became liberal and cowardly, made concessions when they should have used force, and once again were overthrown. They fell, that is to say, either through consciousness or through unconsciousness. It is the achievement of the Party to have produced a system of thought in which both conditions can exist simultaneously. And upon no other intellectual basis could the dominion of the Party be made permanent. If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one’s own infallibility with the Power to learn from past mistakes.

It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane. One clear illustration of this is the fact that war hysteria increases in intensity as one rises in the social scale. Those whose attitude towards the war is most nearly rational are the subject peoples of the disputed territories. To these people the war is simply a continuous calamity which sweeps to and fro over their bodies like a tidal wave. Which side is winning is a matter of complete indifference to them. They are aware that a change of overlordship means simply that they will be doing the same work as before for new masters who treat them in the same manner as the old ones. The slightly more favoured workers whom we call ‘the proles’ are only intermittently conscious of the war. When it is necessary they can be prodded into frenzies of fear and hatred, but when left to themselves they are capable of forgetting for long periods that the war is happening. It is in the ranks of the Party, and above all of the Inner Party, that the true war enthusiasm is found. World-conquest is believed in most firmly by those who know it to be impossible. This peculiar linking-together of opposites — knowledge with ignorance, cynicism with fanaticism-is one of the chief distinguishing marks of Oceanic society. The official ideology abounds with contradictions even when there is no practical reason for them. Thus, the Party rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it chooses to do this in the name of Socialism. It preaches a contempt for the working class unexampled for centuries past, and it dresses its members in a uniform which was at one time peculiar to manual workers and was adopted for that reason. It systematically undermines the solidarity of the family, and it calls its leader by a name which is a direct appeal to the sentiment of family loyalty. Even the names of the four Ministries by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely. In no other way could the ancient cycle be broken. If human equality is to be for ever averted — if the High, as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently — then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity.

But there is one question which until this moment we have almost ignored. It is; why should human equality be averted? Supposing that the mechanics of the process have been rightly described, what is the motive for this huge, accurately planned effort to freeze history at a particular moment of time?

Here we reach the central secret. As we have seen. The mystique of the Party, and above all of the Inner Party, depends upon doublethink. But deeper than this lies the original motive, the never-questioned instinct that first led to the seizure of power and brought doublethink, the Thought Police, continuous warfare, and all the other necessary paraphernalia into existence afterwards. This motive really consists…

Stay Tuned


What is it we're shooting for? Chapter II
Freedom is Slavery

(Ommited from book)



Chapter III
War is Peace

The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.

The Three Superstates
The Superstates

In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one’s own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.

To understand the nature of the present war — for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war — one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defenses are too formidable. Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces. Oceania by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power. Between the frontiers of the super- states, and not permanently in the possession of any of them, there lies a rough quadrilateral with its corners at Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin, and Hong Kong, containing within it about a fifth of the population of the earth. It is for the possession of these thickly-populated regions, and of the northern ice-cap, that the three powers are constantly struggling. In practice no one power ever controls the whole of the disputed area. Portions of it are constantly changing hands, and it is the chance of seizing this or that fragment by a sudden stroke of treachery that dictates the endless changes of alignment.

All of the disputed territories contain valuable minerals, and some of them yield important vegetable products such as rubber which in colder climates it is necessary to synthesize by comparatively expensive methods. But above all they contain a bottomless reserve of cheap labour. Whichever power controls equatorial Africa, or the countries of the Middle East, or Southern India, or the Indonesian Archipelago, disposes also of the bodies of scores or hundreds of millions of ill-paid and hard-working coolies. The inhabitants of these areas, reduced more or less openly to the status of slaves, pass continually from conqueror to conqueror, and are expended like so much coal or oil in the race to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, to control more labour power, to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, and so on indefinitely. It should be noted that the fighting never really moves beyond the edges of the disputed areas. The frontiers of Eurasia flow back and forth between the basin of the Congo and the northern shore of the Mediterranean; the islands of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific are constantly being captured and recaptured by Oceania or by Eastasia; in Mongolia the dividing line between Eurasia and Eastasia is never stable; round the Pole all three powers lay claim to enormous territories which in fact are largely unihabited and unexplored: but the balance of power always remains roughly even, and the territory which forms the heartland of each super-state always remains inviolate. Moreover, the labour of the exploited peoples round the Equator is not really necessary to the world’s economy. They add nothing to the wealth of the world, since whatever they produce is used for purposes of war, and the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war. By their labour the slave populations allow the tempo of continuous warfare to be speeded up. But if they did not exist, the structure of world society, and the process by which it maintains itself, would not be essentially different.

The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. At present, when few human beings even have enough to eat, this problem is obviously not urgent, and it might not have become so, even if no artificial processes of destruction had been at work. The world of today is a bare, hungry, dilapidated place compared with the world that existed before 1914, and still more so if compared with the imaginary future to which the people of that period looked forward. In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly, and efficient — a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete — was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the impoverishment caused by a long series of wars and revolutions, partly because scientific and technical progress depended on the empirical habit of thought, which could not survive in a strictly regimented society. As a whole the world is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago. Certain backward areas have advanced, and various devices, always in some way connected with warfare and police espionage, have been developed, but experiment and invention have largely stopped, and the ravages of the atomic war of the nineteen- fifties have never been fully repaired. Nevertheless the dangers inherent in the machine are still there. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process — by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute — the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction — indeed, in some sense was the destruction — of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.

Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

What a Wonderful World The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter — set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call ‘the proles’. The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world.

All members of the Inner Party believe in this coming conquest as an article of faith. It is to be achieved either by gradually acquiring more and more territory and so building up an overwhelming preponderance of power, or by the discovery of some new and unanswerable weapon. The search for new weapons continues unceasingly, and is one of the very few remaining activities in which the inventive or speculative type of mind can find any outlet. In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for ‘Science’. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty. In all the useful arts the world is either standing still or going backwards. The fields are cultivated with horse-ploughs while books are written by machinery. But in matters of vital importance — meaning, in effect, war and police espionage — the empirical approach is still encouraged, or at least tolerated. The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand. In so far as scientific research still continues, this is its subject matter. The scientist of today is either a mixture of psychologist and inquisitor, studying with real ordinary minuteness the meaning of facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice, and testing the truth-producing effects of drugs, shock therapy, hypnosis, and physical torture; or he is chemist, physicist, or biologist concerned only with such branches of his special subject as are relevant to the taking of life. In the vast laboratories of the Ministry of Peace, and in the experimental stations hidden in the Brazilian forests, or in the Australian desert, or on lost islands of the Antarctic, the teams of experts are indefatigably at work. Some are concerned simply with planning the logistics of future wars; others devise larger and larger rocket bombs, more and more powerful explosives, and more and more impenetrable armour- plating; others search for new and deadlier gases, or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents, or for breeds of disease germs immunized against all possible antibodies; others strive to produce a vehicle that shall bore its way under the soil like a submarine under the water, or an aeroplane as independent of its base as a sailing-ship; others explore even remoter possibilities such as focusing the sun’s rays through lenses suspended thousands of kilometres away in space, or producing artificial earthquakes and tidal waves by tapping the heat at the earth’s centre.

But none of these projects ever comes anywhere near realization, and none of the three super-states ever gains a significant lead on the others. What is more remarkable is that all three powers already possess, in the atomic bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any that their present researches are likely to discover. Although the Party, according to its habit, claims the invention for itself, atomic bombs first appeared as early as the nineteen- forties, and were first used on a large scale about ten years later. At that time some hundreds of bombs were dropped on industrial centres, chiefly in European Russia, Western Europe, and North America. The effect was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although no formal agreement was ever made or hinted at, no more bombs were dropped. All three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believe will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for thirty or forty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the almost unsinkable Floating Fortress; but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated.

None of the three super-states ever attempts any maneuver which involves the risk of serious defeat. When any large operation is undertaken, it is usually a surprise attack against an ally. The strategy that all three powers are following, or pretend to themselves that they are following, is the same. The plan is, by a combination of fighting, bargaining, and well-timed strokes of treachery, to acquire a ring of bases completely encircling one or other of the rival states, and then to sign a pact of friendship with that rival and remain on peaceful terms for so many years as to lull suspicion to sleep. During this time rockets loaded with atomic bombs can be assembled at all the strategic spots; finally they will all be fired simultaneously, with effects so devastating as to make retaliation impossible. It will then be time to sign a pact of friendship with the remaining world-power, in preparation for another attack. This scheme, it is hardly necessary to say, is a mere daydream, impossible of realization. Moreover, no fighting ever occurs except in the disputed areas round the Equator and the Pole: no invasion of enemy territory is ever undertaken. This explains the fact that in some places the frontiers between the superstates are arbitrary. Eurasia, for example, could easily conquer the British Isles, which are geographically part of Europe, or on the other hand it would be possible for Oceania to push its frontiers to the Rhine or even to the Vistula. But this would violate the principle, followed on all sides though never formulated, of cultural integrity. If Oceania were to conquer the areas that used once to be known as France and Germany, it would be necessary either to exterminate the inhabitants, a task of great physical difficulty, or to assimilate a population of about a hundred million people, who, so far as technical development goes, are roughly on the Oceanic level. The problem is the same for all three super-states. It is absolutely necessary to their structure that there should be no contact with foreigners, except, to a limited extent, with war prisoners and coloured slaves. Even the official ally of the moment is always regarded with the darkest suspicion. War prisoners apart, the average citizen of Oceania never sets eyes on a citizen of either Eurasia or Eastasia, and he is forbidden the knowledge of foreign languages. If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies. The sealed world in which he lives would be broken, and the fear, hatred, and self-righteousness on which his morale depends might evaporate. It is therefore realized on all sides that however often Persia, or Egypt, or Java, or Ceylon may change hands, the main frontiers must never be crossed by anything except bombs.

What is it we're shooting for? Under this lies a fact never mentioned aloud, but tacitly understood and acted upon: namely, that the conditions of life in all three super-states are very much the same. In Oceania the prevailing philosophy is called Ingsoc, in Eurasia it is called Neo-Bolshevism, and in Eastasia it is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death- Worship, but perhaps better rendered as Obliteration of the Self. The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosophies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense. Actually the three philosophies are barely distinguishable, and the social systems which they support are not distinguishable at all. Everywhere there is the same pyramidal structure, the same worship of semi-divine leader, the same economy existing by and for continuous warfare. It follows that the three super-states not only cannot conquer one another, but would gain no advantage by doing so. On the contrary, so long as they remain in conflict they prop one another up, like three sheaves of corn. And, as usual, the ruling groups of all three powers are simultaneously aware and unaware of what they are doing. Their lives are dedicated to world conquest, but they also know that it is necessary that the war should continue everlastingly and without victory. Meanwhile the fact that there is no danger of conquest makes possible the denial of reality which is the special feature of Ingsoc and its rival systems of thought. Here it is necessary to repeat what has been said earlier, that by becoming continuous war has fundamentally changed its character.

In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions. Moreover, to be efficient it was necessary to be able to learn from the past, which meant having a fairly accurate idea of what had happened in the past. Newspapers and history books were, of course, always coloured and biased, but falsification of the kind that is practiced today would have been impossible. War was a sure safeguard of sanity, and so far as the ruling classes were concerned it was probably the most important of all safeguards. While wars could be won or lost, no ruling class could be completely irresponsible.

But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police. Since each of the three super-states is unconquerable, each is in effect a separate universe within which almost any perversion of thought can be safely practised. Reality only exerts its pressure through the needs of everyday life — the need to eat and drink, to get shelter and clothing, to avoid swallowing poison or stepping out of top-storey windows, and the like. Between life and death, and between physical pleasure and physical pain, there is still a distinction, but that is all. Cut off from contact with the outer world, and with the past, the citizen of Oceania is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This — although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense — is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: War is Peace.

Goldstein
Emmanuel Goldstein 

The theories behind that article are important for what I will talk about in Friday’s post, and will help connect why I feel the way that I do in Monday’s post. I feel that we are pitted against one another so that we can easily be divided and conquered. Most people are asleep, and those who are awake usually end up chasing short straws trying to find the truth.

Happy Hallmark; no

Saint Valentine’s Day, often simply Valentine’s Day,[1][2][3] is a holiday observed on February 14 honoring one or more early Christian martyrs named Valentinus. It was first established by Pope Gelasius I in 496 AD, and was later deleted from the General Roman Calendar of saints in 1969 by Pope Paul VI. It is celebrated in countries around the world, mostly in the West, although it remains a working day in all of them.

The day first became associated with romantic love in the circle of Geoffrey Chaucer in the High Middle Ages, when the tradition of courtly love flourished. By the 15th century, it had evolved into an occasion in which lovers expressed their love for each other by presenting flowers, offering confectionery, and sending greeting cards (known as “valentines“).[1][3]

Modern Valentine’s Day symbols include the heart-shaped outline, doves, and the figure of the winged Cupid. Since the 19th century, handwritten valentines have given way to mass-produced greeting cards.

Today is valentines day, and for some it is a day that they would rather ignore. For others it is a day to celebrate with your significant other. Some love it, others loath it. I’ve heard it called a ‘hallmark holiday’ because of the cards bought for wives and girlfriends. Personally I find it more important to show your love to your significant other, by cooking them a meal, watching a movie together, or reading something loving to them. For me, I do not need to spend a lot of money, or shower my wife with gifts. She is most happy when I show her attention, and show that I love her. I think that most women would rather have attention than gifts. Those who are shallow expect gifts instead of ‘time together’. This is where the understanding of ‘quality’ comes into play. People of quality understand that it is not the objects that should be desired, but time and knowledge. And with that, I will leave this post today, since you should get back to spending time with your significant other. And for those who are single; don’t worry, there really is someone out there for everyone. Just keep doing the things you love, and eventually that special person will come along. Live happy and love life. And Happy Valentines Day.