Home Society A Comment on "Doublethink" and "Newspeak"

A Comment on "Doublethink" and "Newspeak"


 Jonathan Barnett, former Professor in fire safety engineering and mechanical engineering, consulted on Building 7

by Dee McLachlan

I had a meeting in the city the other night, and caught an Uber home. The driver, a pleasant fellow in his early 30s, had arrived in Australia from Pakistan in 2007, then worked as a chef. From what I could gauge, his family back in Pakistan are doing okay — and are exporting medical equipment here.

I always talk to taxi (and Uber) drivers to get their view of the world, and our conversation quickly migrated from job opportunities to terrorism, and 9-11. He was at first cautious until I mentioned Building 7 — and he disclosed that he did not believe the official narrative.

I asked, “When you were living in Pakistan in 2001, did you believe 19 Arabs attacked New York?”

He replied, “No, no one I knew believed that bin Laden had done it. We were all aware, after a short time, that the American government had somehow done it — and were blaming terrorists.”

He went on (and I paraphrase here), that everyone there understood that the Mujahideen (al Qaeda) were armed by US to fight Russia. The knew that Iraq was a false war, and they understood the a plan to destroy Iran. As Pakistan has nuclear weapons, they feared that America was trying to “do something” to Pakistan.

After 14 minutes, my ride was over, and I was left wondering why I could have such an intelligent and open debate with an Australian (from Pakistan) — yet the same conversation with another educated Australian would be impossible.

The Power of Doublethink

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

Could this be called a mental condition of controlled insanity?

It seems that one has to rearrange memories and beliefs to allow one opinion to dominate. I experienced this when I interviewed Professor Jonathan Barnett. He had been a consultant for FEMA on the collapse of Building 7, and seemed to have two contradictory belief systems with regard to how it collapsed.

We had spent over an hour discussing the building’s collapse, when I said, “Building 7’s collapse looked like a demolition, should you have not at least tested the rubble for explosives?” His mind was unable to grasp that point of view — even though they allegedly had a demolition expert on the team. Barnett said with great sincerity, There was no need to investigate for explosives“. Why not I asked. His answer became repetitive. He reluctantly agreed that, yes, the building did collapse and behave like a building being demolished — BUT, “There was no need to investigate for explosives…” (I paraphrase) — because it was not brought down by explosives. How do know? Because we just knew.

The whole investigating team had rubbed “explosives” off the white board — even though it LOOKED like a demolition.

The one side of his thought process could not contemplate the complication to the “Arab story”, if it was demolished. His mind was trapped into believing that fire had damaged column 79. Even though it looks like a perfect uniform demolition, he is unable to see the uniformity, and produced the most complicated hypothetical to explain the building’s collapse.

George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, describes it:

“…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…”

One needs to rearrange one’s memories and then forget one has done so.

Politicians have to create a reality that fits the belief of control. Anything that endangers control, would probably automatically become a distortion of reality. And there is surely a “rule” when joining these groups, that anyone disrupting this reality is expelled from the group. That explains why Canberra acts as one body — unable to challenge the most basic of concepts.

Newspeak and Opposites

The key here is to be able to claim black is actually white — and believe it. And there is the opposite speak: To keep you safe, we must control you. Or the Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war.

How do we deal with politicians that are trapped by system that is devoid of logic?

The problem is, “doublethink” is a survival strategy for those in Canberra in Washington. It seems there is really no other way for them to operate.




  1. What is double think?
    My simple suspicion is that when indoctrinated education/ingrained beliefs are challenged by reality (be it even scientific fact) or opposing education/ingrained beliefs the believers in their singular education/ingrained beliefs simply cannot cope and mentally close down and shun any alternative opposing concept of their education/ingrained beliefs.
    Thus ‘they’; controlling, promoting and endorsing the conflicted education/ingrained belief systems sit back, promote and conduct the contradictions for their own benefit and empire whilst aughing at humanity’s delema and thieving all whilst humanity is distracted within its concocted falsities.
    Plato, from recollection, exposed the game somewhere in his missives.
    Do we not have a member in Canberra who is not imprisoned by their education/ingrained beliefs stuffing up the world?
    Of course not.
    They are in on using the system for their own benefits, as is the msm.
    They all profit from the planned concocted conflict within their constituencies and in the world as designated by ‘they’ the psychopats dictating the world order who could not give a shit about educated/ingrained bs belief systems as it is created by them and superflous to them.
    Such concepts are for their controlled peasants, slaves and useful village idiots.

    • On Plato’s missive.
      Going back in recollection; for a king to get there and remain,
      paraphrased and in summary.
      Promise anything to get there.
      When there, invent/cause discord and war.
      Sit back and watch and be ‘necessary’ to keep everyone safe.
      Then stay there.
      Ring a bell, Malcolm?

      • Updating Plato to present times.
        Just control the invented money and create debt, then you have all the governments and the peasants, by the testicals.


          Ned dear, your speling made me think of the song “walks with personality” (as in “walks with testicality”), so I googled for “walks with personality” and here is what I got:

          Maybe Dee could film all Gumshoe writers’ gait, and hide their identity, to see if the audience could guess.

          (Sorry, I’m so tired from the hustings me mind is blown).

  2. I know of no other way to deal with these types than to ignore them. It’s my feeling they deserve to become irrelevant.

    • Getting into an argument is futile and just plain draining: worse than trying to get a 4 year-old to see reason re junk toys & food.

    • Whoops. I should say, Dee your article and Terry’s comment on cog-dis says it all.

      Dee, maybe go back to the Neil Haritt 2-hour interview with BBC and decide what stage of cog-dis the newsman was at.

      I was determined to imitate Haritt’s clever move in video-ing the same interview on his own camera to see what got cut, (when I was interviewed the other day), but being gadget-challenged I did not do so.

      Am dying to find out how my words will be taken out of context.

  3. To put it succinctly: There have been a number of high rise fires, some complete infernos, and in fact one just two days ago since 9/11, none have fallen over, or collapsed in upon themselves as the Twin Towers and Building Seven did. The question to that ‘professor’ should have been why did the Twin Towers and Building Seven come down when all the evidence now available since then and from around the world does not support ‘their’ story.

      • Dee, when I was in the ‘job’ and I came up against a brick wall like that nutty professor when interviewing a suspect, I always made sure I had a different angle with which to attack the suspect’s narrative – and believe me many criminals are very good at lying – for some its pathological.

        Showing that professor an engineers report that refuted the standard narrative, would soon indicate how good a liar he was.

      • Dee, I mentioned this phenomena before in another post. I couldn’t understand how some people could not see what was right in front of them. That question led me to look into how the human mind worked – and the issue of ‘cognitive dissonance’.

        Essentially, the brain has its pathways and intersections. Once a belief is established it works as a filter to other information. The new facts which run counter to the belief can’t get past the ‘belief’, (cognitive dissonance) so the mind tries using another pathway that has the closest analogy to the belief. In other words, the information/message gets scrambled. The person ‘just doesn’t get it’. They are incapable of processing the information.

        If the person is pressed hard enough, the cognitive dissonance becomes strong enough that the person’s ego kicks in and goes into ‘fight or flight’. Thus, we often get the aggressive responses or the ‘I don’t want to know’ (Berry’s subconscious fear response).

        The main way I’ve seen to get around this phenomena is through a ‘group’ interaction. When such a person is within a large enough group the peer pressure can make it OK to consider the information. However, with the general population still getting its information from the MSM, the largest peer group is controlled by the MSM narrative, repetitively, day after day, constantly reinforcing the ‘belief’.

        Thankfully, the internet has allowed small groups to start forming that have taken the ‘red pill’ in regards to different issues. Webpages such as Gumshoes and other forums are making some headway in this process of freeing people’s minds. Congratulations on your efforts and the success you are having.

  4. “Doublethink” is really nothing more than knowledge/evidence being over-ruled by belief/faith. Julia Gillard’s “I believe in the Science” oxymoron re “climate change” stands out as a classic example but there’s a lot more to the problem than political manipulation. If you can’t get a grip on the fact that it’s part of the human condition you’re bound to succumb one way or another.

    When I was 11 I used to race down to a public swimming pool as soon as school was out. One morning I heard, via a couple of other kids, that a boy had drowned there a few days earlier. I immediately imagined that he was round the same age as me,that he’d been found in the left hand corner of the deep end, and that steering clear of said patch would keep me safe from ????? Some deep unconscious fear of dying? Something over which I had no control?

    One day it dawned on me that I’d concocted the entire scenario.

    A few days ago I heard one woman say that the “extra security” at a certain airport made her feel safe. The problem is that most folk never question such “feelings”.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion