by Mary W Maxwell
Editor’s note: This was prompted by the long thread of Comments under the Trump article of January 14, 2017.
Was there ever a genuine hostility between the US and the USSR? I don’t think so. Why would Churchill give the kitchen sink away at Yalta, seconded by FDR, if Russia were the enemy? Or if “communism” were the enemy?
I go along with the thesis that the emergence of the Bolshies in 1917 was arranged by the two Warburg brothers, Max in America and Paul in Germany – or was it the other way around. See? it doesn’t even matter – they were both the servants of World Government. (I also accept Nesta Webster’s 1922 theory that the French Revolution was scripted).
Maybe today’s Russian chief, Vladimir Putin, exists outside the rule of the Bozos (as I like to call the cabal) — but I doubt it. The main reason I doubt it is Orwell’s 1984. I see George Orwell as having been, like HG Wells, a man who was allowed to drop some amazing insider information on the populace – as Dr Richard Day later did in 1969.
Why was he allowed to do it? Maybe 1984 was a trial balloon – to see which parts the people would declare unthinkable.
In the 1960s when I was in high school, Orwell’s book was required reading throughout the state (Assachusetts – or, at that time, Massachusetts) and possibly the whole nation. We all took it to be a book that showed how people live in slavery under communism.
When I re-read it a few years ago I noticed for the first time that the main character, Winston Smith, was enjoying a sneak peak at a sort of philosophy book. (Any books of value were, of course suppressed by the Ministry of Truth). In 1984 a dissident named Emanuel Goldstein had figured things out and his work had reached the eager hands of Winston.
So I now present the Goldstein theory below, much abridged. It seems to me that this is the way our “genius” cabal does actually behave. I see them today causing disease, destruction of families, dumbing-down of kids, making war, and anything else they can think of doing to keep themselves in power.
Goldstein says the purpose of war is to prevent the folks from noticing that the rich don’t deserve to be rich.
This extreme cynicism ties in with the way Winston Smith observed the constant war between the three superpowers, projected in 1949 when the book was written, to the far-off year 1984. (That would be like us in 2017 looking to 2052.)
Those powers, in Winston’s 1984 life, were Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. Naturally, we know that in the real year 1984 the two superpowers were the US and the USSR, “led” by the Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan and Yuri Andropov.
(L) Ronald Reagan and (R) Yuri Andropov
According to Winston Smith, who lived in Airstrip One — Orwell’s name for “the former Britain” – it did not seem to matter which of the three superpowers was winning at the moment and there didn’t seem to be much explanation given for the wars that the three frequently waged against one another. (As indeed there would not be if someone at the very top ran all three superpowers.)
So here is the shadowy intellectual of 1984, Emanuel Goldstein, telling his fellow sufferers in Airstrip One how it all works. (I quote directly):
What’s the Real Purpose of War? From George Orwell, 1984 (published in 1949)
The world of today [in 1984] 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. [It was assumed that science] 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….
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 … But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened 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 … the most obvious form of inequality would already have disappeared….
If it became general, wealth would confer no distinction … the great mass of human beings who are stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; once they had done this, they would 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 … was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world…
Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods… since the privations it inflicted [would be] obviously unnecessary, it [would make] opposition inevitable.
The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. … In practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.
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 … materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent….
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.
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.
In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, 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. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. 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…. 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 but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink.
Meanwhile no Inner Party [man] wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real… 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 standing still or going backwards. [Emphasis added]
— Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB, lives in Adelaide. She is the author of Morality among Nations (State University Press of New York, 1990)
Photo credit: Reaganlibrary.archives.gov and The Interpreter (Andropov)