Orwell Prize: Who Made the Cut

Orwell was a literary genius. Works like 1984 and Animal Farm were masterpieces, as was much of his other work, and they will stand for all time. However, his disillusionment with communism from Spain onwards led him along a path of McCarthyite cooperation and snooping with the Spook Agencies.

This is a pattern we have seen since – all the present day Neocohens are ex Trotskyists. You see the same in the UK – ex wannabe Revolutionaries like Aaronovitch turned arch reactionaries. Maybe what motivates them is a lust for power for its own sake, like 1984’s Ingsoc. A desire to control and exercise power over others. The ideology is purely secondary.

There may be a sadistic sexual element in this, though that’s one for the headshrinkers. They seem to derive a vicarious thrill from harming others, and causing death and suffering at a safe distance. Certainly people like Blair, Bush and Trump like to strut around like sawdust Caesars while taking great pains not to expose themselves to any danger.

People often say that medieval times were barbaric, but in a sense the opposite is true. Rulers had to put their life on the line in the thick of battle. In 1066, 3 men wanted to be King of England. The winner was literally the last man standing. He was nearly killed himself, and the other two were cut up into pieces the size of oxo cubes. James IV of Scotland was killed at Flodden in 1513, standing in front of his men holding a 16 foot pike. Or Richard III at Bosworth Field, amongst others. Or Frederick the Great in more modern times, leading his infantry on horseback from the front and taking three musket balls in one battle, one through his coat, one through his snuff box and one in the chest which had lost a lot of its energy, knocking him off his horse.

That is something worthy of respect. More than sending off kids from some crappy council estate to come back with their legs blown off. Maybe that’s the way they should choose the next leader of the Tory Party/ prime minister. Let Johnson, Gove and Hunt fight it out with their choice of spear, sword and axe. Last man standing the winner. If nothing else, it would be entertaining.

(resending as the DDOS seemed to block posting)

Orwell described a problem in a way that seemed to be some sort of sketching out of a dystopian trend – though his original title was ‘1948’ …
Doublespeak is the mind’s capacity to package toxic contradiction into narrative acceptance so as to avert, escape or mitigate ‘Room 101’.

Perhaps the elephant in the room regarding such masked and deceitful tyrannous thought, word and acted-out outcome is fear of pain of loss.

Orwell’s crucifiction of his protagonist is without any resurrection or redemption and so is a toxic message that SEEMS to impart privileged information to an actually controlled ‘opposition’.

Addressing the fears, hates and denials in our psyche as a willingness for healing instead of the persistence of an opposition to the conditioned and induced hatred, is to stop feeding the Troll and open to other ways of seeing, which includes uncovering and undoing self-contradictions in our thought and emotional investment.

Part of the issue I see is the attempt to morally coerce the mind set in fear and division or ‘evil’ towards ‘goodness’. For it is the same force that effects a state of division in the first place.

This signature pattern is pervasive to our thinking and so to our world, as a protection racket. That is it offers ‘protection’ in exchange for sacrifice of Life – but as a self-justified and necessary lesser evil, packaged as if a positive or a power in its own right.

How does one uncover, face and allow fear to be undone of its hidden role in the mind?
By watching the mind (our thought, emotional and physical reaction), instead of running it – or rather allowing it to run unwatched while diverted and distracted by a false flagged world.

It is the nature of denial to project away as an exclusion or rejection, by the same law that a positive appreciation automatically shares out or radiates. To know what we do, is to be awake and on purpose. That we can think we know when we are in fact sleepwalking is so self -evident as to need no other example than any moment of observation.

Part of the role of demons or terror symbols is of guarding the treasure. Fear of love’s intimacy generates diversionary drama to protect the fear from full exposure or transparency and accountability. And does so in the name or under the symbol, image or wish of love. Masked in the forms of what it is the denial of.

Love is the capacity to be with what is to the revealing of the recognition of truth.
What is a cage of starved and ravenous rats set about one’s head but the symbol of an inner conflict fleshed out? Enforced scarcity under deceit breeds controllable appetites or indeed golems for needs must and invested wants become socially inducted and accepted as needs and thus a social exclusion to be without. Social credit (carbon-guilt) or otherwise is a development of the idea of a rigged system of control. Those who comply and conform in allegiance to a god of sacrifice temporarily gain support in keeping their fears outside their bubble.

Who can call on truth while engaged in its denial as bubble of self-protection – excepting in imaged symbol or concepts that reinforce the bubble of separation from the feared or hated?

We assign to conditions the results of our own conditioning. To rewaken as presence is not an act of rebellion to a past made in anger but the freedom to walk out of a mind no longer spellbound under its own word.

As for the call to give attention to a substitute reality? Let the dead bury the dead is not an abandonment or judgement against the living, but rather a refusal to join in the reinforcement of false thinking or emotional coercion. No one actually IS the role they play in the world or in any particular relational context. But we all assign or cast others in the roles we give them.

The core elements or archetypes of myth or drama structure our psyche as the basis for the development of the personality construct. Prometheus’ room 101 was the flip side of stealing the ‘light of the Gods’.
But if we have it – is is freely given to the asking. We only run off with the guilt of a false light, by which to seem to become ‘as gods’ yet meet its flip side as a sense of subjection and powerlessness.
Our core separation fallacy re-enacts as the victim and the victimiser down through the millennia – as if the latter could ever become victorious over Life – as its usurper and replacement. Chasing a fantasy by which to evade or avert a feared self-revealing. “It’s life Jim, but not as can be truly known or shared”.

‘Zombie Apocalypse’ or’ Alien disclosure’ may be closer to home than ‘Out There’. Sleepwalking minds in blind bodies invoke an alien will – a power from ‘outside’ to save them from themselves. The demand for unconsciousness generates the conditions that support and maintain it – under some guise of passing off a placeholder instead of a living presence.

The ability to Call or Ask is not hardwired to a self-conflict, but having received it we cannot see any real choices. This is the same as saying we are free to deny our free will, so as to no longer recognise that its consequence is also an expression of freedom as power to accept. Whatever we accept as our self/reality we go forth from and multiply in our relational experience. The idea of the denial of the will by the limitation and division of mind, is an illusion of power that depends on what it attacks to seem to exist. Such self-contradictions do not bear exposure, and so secrets and lies operate notional security or ‘intelligence’ that makes sacrifice of the Living to keep a dead system ‘sustainable’.

‘Too big to fail’ means too invested in to allow willingness to re-evaluate. ‘The Show must go on!’ But are we a captive audience, or are we always inherently free to give attention, and thus value and meaning, to thought arising from wholeness absent coercion – instead of doublethink in support of a driven or compulsive re-action? For not all thought is a ‘blocking signal’, but only that which gnaws like rats at our mind in guise of ‘protecting us’ from a defencelessness against truth and freedom, as hidden agenda of pain masking as joy.

am sure hyde and moore et al will be chuffed with themselves now.champers all round eh girls? i hope you are pleased with your efforts.slimey bastards.

It is difficult to take these people seriously. They are just hacks; centrist extremists bought and paid for. There should be an O’Brien prize, Winston Smith’s interlocutor in room 101. ‘How many fingers am I holding up Winston’? Or perhaps and Emmanuel Goldstein prize, author of the forbidden book ‘The theory and practise of Oligarchic Collectivism.’

The thing that really stands out for me is the way the intelligence services are now embedded in and run the media. This was pointed out by Gekaufte Journalisten by Udo Ulfkotte a work which would rank alongside Goldstein’s subversive book. Shortly before his death Udo pointed out that almost all the journalists in Germany were on the CIA payroll. The German edition is available but the English language edition will cost you £299.99.

Yes, Operation Mockingbird is still in full swing and it seems that NATO intelligence services are beginning to merge into one global configuration.

Maybe rename it to the “1984’s – The Surveillance State Awards… ?

A motley crew, if ever there was one.