View Full Version : Orwellian Orwell

23rd April 2017, 12:36
George Orwell's '1984' was Cold War Propaganda (https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/04/1984-was-cold-war-propaganda%20.html)

(henrymakow.com) April 22, 2017


Liberals compared Trump's victory to some Orwellian nightmare when in fact totalitarianism has been the policy of the deep state for many decades.

Here, John Hamer traces the source of Orwell's "success" to the Cold War and the CIA's desire to tar Communism.

Ironically, Orwell's accurate prophecy of human servitude was a product of the Ministry of Truth.

The Cold War was a false dialectic; Freemasonry was/is behind both East and West. Despite 1984-style mass surveillance, people don't appreciate that Orwell's vision has come true. The West has transitioned to Communism without the fuss and bother of a revolution, but the downside is that no one has noticed.


by John Hamer

Many are now comparing the Trump administration to 'Big Brother' and his cohorts in George Orwell's dystopian vision of the future, '1984.'

Ironically, Trump, despite originally being seen as a 'new broom' to sweep clean the filthy Augean stables known as American politics, has in fact turned out to be simply the latest in a long line of 'puppet' Presidents whose election promises were immediately discarded. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

The truth is that far from being a democratic society, what we have in place is a situation akin to that of Orwell's '1984,' whereby politicians are not elected, but selected and represent only the Elite powers who operate clandestinely, anonymously behind the scenes.


'1984,' a grim novel of future totalitarianism and Orwell's satirical novel, 'Animal Farm,' described state oppression succinctly. But ironically, Orwell had unknowingly fallen into the clutches of the very propagandists and distorters of truth he vilified. His publisher, Fredric Warburg, was a secret CIA asset who later produced the CIA propaganda magazine 'Encounter,' for one of the CIA's countless 'front' organizations, Congress for Cultural Freedom.

'Animal Farm' was published in the same month of the German surrender, May 1945, the perfect moment to launch a concerted attack on Soviet policies. The Cold War propaganda campaign embraced Animal Farm, which rapidly became a best-seller.

In 1948, the Information Research Department (IRD) was formed by the British Foreign Office, as an adjunct to MI6. 'Animal Farm' was in fact a core IRD project. It was broadcast on 'Voice of America,' and Orwell helped the IRD strategize its vast worldwide circulation.

Orwell died of tuberculosis. But four months earlier, he had married Sonia Brownell, fifteen years his junior and subsequently, Warburg persuaded his widow to unwittingly sell the movie rights of 1984 and Animal Farm to the CIA's Office of Policy Coordination (OPC,) a creation of Allen Dulles. Sonia allegedly ceded the film rights to Animal Farm only upon the promise of a 'date' with Clark Gable. CIA official Joe Bryan made the arrangements, 'as a measure of thanks.'

The head of OPC was none other than E. Howard Hunt, future member of the Watergate gang of criminals who was also involved in the assassination of JFK.

A British animation company, Halas and Batchelor, who during WW2 were heavily involved with government training and propaganda films, were awarded the contract to create the film and it was completed by a team of eighty animators, in April 1954.


It was in order to meet the CIA's objectives, the film ended with other animals mounting a successful revolt against their rulers. There was no mention of the humans in the film's conclusion. Had he lived to see it, Orwell would no doubt have been horrified at the way his ideas had been twisted to make political capital.

The film was a box office 'hit' but much of the book's original intentions had been omitted. It was later distributed around the world by the United States Information Agency through their overseas libraries. They then produced 1984 in Britain in 1956. Inevitably, Orwell's message was distorted and perverted again by the CIA. The CIA's ironically 'Orwellian' sabotage of two of the most powerful political works in literature was a masterstroke.

By sabotaging the books' real messages in the movie versions, the CIA effectively prevented the vast majority of people from ever learning of the true relevance of Orwell's writings, to their own situations.

1984 has had a profound effect all around the world. Since its first publication many of its concepts have entered modern day parlance, 'Big Brother,' 'Doublethink,' 'Thoughtcrime,' 'Newspeak' and 'Room 101' are all derived from its pages. And perhaps even more significantly, 'Orwellian' has now become a term that describes official deception and manipulation by a totalitarian state. Orwell's vain hope was that by writing 1984 he would help stop such a state ever coming to pass. Oh, the irony.


However, 1984 is more than just a story, it is a prophecy and vision of what is planned for all of us. The invisible yet 'all-powerful' 'Big Brother,' is now representative of the planned New World Order, of which Trump is the incumbent stooge.

'Newspeak,' as Orwell referred to it, is the authoritarian government's weapon of choice for deceit and it works by placing a different meaning, or 'spin,' on events by altering words and replacing them with something which softens them and evades the truth. Modern politicians are without doubt trained in this facility and indeed have become thoroughly expert in its utilization, President Trump included.

The corporate state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the mainstream media, the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the materialism, devours us from the inside, out. It owes no allegiance to us or our nations and it feeds greedily upon us.

But now the façade is crumbling and as Trump's rapid, dramatic 'fall from grace' has demonstrated, more and more people are reaching the conclusion that they have been systematically duped and robbed, and realize that we are moving swiftly towards the world depicted in '1984.'

Ironically, the fact that we were given 1984 in the first place, was part of the process it describes.
John Hamer is a British researcher and author. Twitter: @johnhamerauthor
Web ste: http://falsificationofhistory.co.uk/onecoin/ (http://falsificationofhistory.co.uk/onecoin/)
Books: http://www.amazon.co.uk/John%20Hamer/e/B00B8X4CB6/ref=la_B00B8X4CB6_af?rh=n:266239,p_82:B00B8X4CB6&sort=author-pages-popularity-rank (http://www.amazon.co.uk/John%20Hamer/e/B00B8X4CB6/ref=la_B00B8X4CB6_af?rh=n:266239,p_82:B00B8X4CB6&sort=author-pages-popularity-rank)


First Comment from C-
It's highly debatable whether Orwell's participation in Cold War dialectics was all that "unknowing". He made it quite clear in published letters that he strongly favoured the Anglo-American side in this largely manufactured 45-year stand-off .

Plus - and this is rarely acknowledged - Orwell was an ardent Anglo-supremacist, as his friends the writers Malcolm Muggeridge and Christopher Hollis testified. As Muggeridge wrote in his diary, Orwell's heart was much more with the [British Imperial] Raj than his heart was with India. He frequently waxed lyrical about the "gentleness" of English culture, but when sceptics pointed to elements of British imperial behaviour that were less than gentle, he became quite angry.

23rd April 2017, 12:46
'Newspeak,' as Orwell referred to it, is the authoritarian government's weapon of choice for deceit and it works by placing a different meaning, or 'spin,' on events by altering words and replacing them with something which softens them and evades the truth. Modern politicians are without doubt trained in this facility and indeed have become thoroughly expert in its utilization, President Trump included.Current example of the above:

BBC shows its faith in al-Qaeda after terror attack kills 126 in Aleppo (https://www.sott.net/article/348935-BBC-shows-its-faith-in-al-Qaeda-after-terror-attack-kills-126-in-Aleppo#)

Paul Mansfield Sott.net (https://www.sott.net/article/348935-BBC-shows-its-faith-in-al-Qaeda-after-terror-attack-kills-126-in-Aleppo#)
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:00 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s19/391471/large/Syria_bus_attack.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s19/391471/full/Syria_bus_attack.jpg)

The BBC truly outdid itself with a vile piece of fake journalism on the occasion of the recent horrific deaths of 126 people (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39613313), including 68 children, on buses taking people out of the US-backed jihadi-besieged towns of Foua and Kefraya in Syria.

The very first thing to be said is that the BBC in the above-linked article makes absolutely no reference to terrorism. It doesn't use the words 'terrorists' or 'terrorism' even once. The only thing we get is "bomb attack", "attack" or "bus attack". We should all justifiably be outraged that the innocent civilians of this henious act aren't even afforded the dignity of being named victims of terrorism.

The article makes no comments on the horror of children's suffering who made up over 50% of the deaths. Apart from the description of 68 killed, the only reference to this attack being unconscionable is a quote from Pope Francis, saying it was a "vile attack on fleeing refugees".

This is what you call 'de-weaponising propaganda'. The natural reaction of most people to this event is that it is likely the work of the "Syrian rebels," and such a huge loss of life would draw quick criticism of the West's support for these jihadi mercenaries. So to protect Western government assets in Syria, the BBC attempts to obfuscate the truth with innocuous descriptions, while pursuing other angles that subtly shift responsibility from the US-backed terrorists to the Syrian government.

To take the heat out of public rage towards the 'rebels', the BBC report states that "no group has claimed responsibility for the bus attack." But by saying no "group" the BBC is muddying the waters. We can say there are only two groups who could be responsible; forces under the control of Bashar Al-Assad and the opposition forces. But there are many different groups that make up the 'opposition forces'.

While it may be conjecture at the moment to categorically point the finger of blame, it can be said with confidence that it was very likely some element of 'the opposition'. While the BBC casually points out with a one liner that no one has stepped forward to claim responsibility, it coincidentally forgets that we are in the midst of an epic public relations battle being waged in the war on Syria (http://www.globalresearch.ca/voices-from-syria-refute-western-propaganda-us-nato-supported-terrorists-involved-in-countless-atrocities/5556777). What opposition individual militia, let alone alliance of fighters are going to confess to gruesomely murdering 68 children?

Idlib governorate, in which the attack took place, has been under the control of Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham (Al-Nusra) led Salafi-Jihadists since early 2015 (https://jamestown.org/program/the-rise-of-jaysh-al-fateh-in-northern-syria/), who have imposed a virtual Islamist emirate in the province. The extremist ideology prevailing in the region only hardened after the agreement for hard line opposition fighters to relocate to Idlib following the liberation of Aleppo.

Space is at a premium in any article by the BBC, but given their scant coverage of the deaths of children, surely they have space to devote to exposing the extremist nature of the "rebels" who are likely responsible.

They could have told us that Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) a hardline Salafist coalition emerged from the infighting that plagued the Jihadists (https://southfront.org/rebel-civil-war-jabhat-fatah-al-sham-defeated-one-of-biggest-rebel-factions-in-less-than-24-hours/) in early 2017. HTS is ostensibly led by Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham and includes the infamous Nour Al-Din Al-Zenki who beheaded a 12 year old boy who was unfortunate enough to fall into their clutches. Al-Zenki has emerged as one of the names alleged to be behind the terrorist attack (https://www.facebook.com/syrianmilitary/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED). The BBC could have mentioned Al-Zenki, but instead opted for vague non committed statements in the face of an event which would, if the truth were told, elicit great outrage and emotion. Obviously only attacks instantly blamed on Bashar Al-Assad, such as the chemical weapons incident at Khan Shekhoun, are written in a way to draw out our outrage.

Or they could have kept it simple: 'The "rebels" are led by Al-Qaeda, the group that murdered 3000 people on 9/11'.

Having done its best to nullify our senses and obfuscate responsibility for this truly grotesque act of terrorism, the BBC amazingly begins the game of blame shifting.

The BBC tells us that their Middle East correspondent, Lina Sinjab "said it was not clear how the vehicle could have reached the area without government permission."

This single sentence is a real contender for the 2017 award for insulting everyone's intelligence. The buses were evacuating people from "rebel" controlled areas. The only permission required for vehicles, or anything else for that matter, to be in the area comes from the terrorists who almost certainly are responsible for this atrocity. Apparently the BBC has also forgotten the many incidences of "ISIS" and other 'rebel' groups in Syria killing people who attempted to flee their areas of control.

Next the article says:
"But there is also no evidence that rebels were involved in the attack, as the government claims." We should all be overjoyed that the BBC has discovered that evidence is required before accusations are made. It is a pity they didn't discover this basic principle on 3 April. If so, they, like virtually all mainstream media and western politicians wouldn't have accused Assad of gassing civilians in Khan Shekhoun on 4 April, without any evidence whatsoever (http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/syrian-gas-attack-is-lie-stop-your.html).

Finally, to steer the reader's thoughts towards the possibility of this being a government attack the article says:
"It would not be in the rebels' interest, our correspondent says, as they were waiting for their own supporters to be evacuated from the other towns." But the BBC's insightful journalist then pulls the rug out from under her own argument by saying the "exchange later resumed, with coaches reaching safety on both sides."

If the government perpetrated the attack to blame the opposition, we might expect it would refuse to continue the evacuation of the towns it has besieged, Madaya and Al-Zabadani. But it did not.

The demolition of the argument is complete when we are told:
"A previous attempt at mutual evacuations failed in December when rebels burnt coaches due to be sent to the towns" So the "rebels" have done this before. Not in a different situation in another location, but in the very same location when they jubilantly sang and shouted as they burned buses (https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201612181048711533-fuah-kafarya-rebels-buses/) that were due to evacuate people from these long suffering towns.

I and many others would strongly argue this was in the interests of the terrorists. As far as the Western press and the NATO/Israel/Gulf state backers of the terrorist groups in Syria are concerned, if blame can't be falsely apportioned to Assad, then attacks against civilians in Syria aren't really worth condemning.

On the other hand, it would be a disaster for Assad, already beleaguered over accusations on Khan Shekhoun - despite no concrete evidence- if the attack was blamed on him. The pressure on him to step down, already immense, would reach fever pitch. So a false flag may very well be in the "rebels interest."

In a sane, rational world, to carry this off successfully as a false flag would have little chance of success. However, the protagonists seeking regime change are far from sane and rational. The propaganda is ubiquitous. The terrorists and their backers know they have a compliant western media, all too willing to please in acting as government propaganda mouth pieces. This attack is likely to be a precursor however, with another false flag involving chemical weapons to come. (https://www.rt.com/news/384333-putin-idlib-attack-provocation/)


20th July 2017, 14:38
Ten things you may not know about Orwell's '1984' (http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/1984-10-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-it)

Anna Mathews Intellectual Takeout (http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/1984-10-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-it)
Thu, 06 Jul 2017 12:28 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s20/408270/large/1984_0.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s20/408270/full/1984_0.jpg)

Some argue Orwell's dystopian vision has finally arrived.

George Orwell's novel 1984 was incredibly popular at the time it was published, and it remains incredibly popular to this day. With multiple stars citing the book as one of their favorites - including Stephen King, David Bowie, Mel Gibson, and Kit Harrington - 1984 has been growing in popularity in recent years. The book reappeared on best-seller lists in early 2017, as some argued Orwell's dystopian vision had finally arrived.

Below are 10 facts you might not know about Orwell's dark novel.

1. Before he wrote 1984, Orwell worked for the British government during World War II as a propagandist at the BBC. (Perhaps seeing the propaganda industry up close led to his critical portrait in 1984.)

2. Orwell initially named the novel 1980, and then 1982 before settling on 1984. Since it was written in 1948, some think that Orwell devised the title by inverting the year the book was written. Additionally, he thought about naming the novel The Last Man in Europe.

3. While writing the novel, Orwell fought tuberculosis. The disease ultimately consumed him and he died seven months after 1984 was published, with tuberculosis as the sole cause of death.

4. In addition to fighting tuberculosis, Orwell almost died while writing the novel. On a recreational boating trip with his children, he went overboard. Fortunately, neither this episode nor the tuberculosis prevented him from finishing his novel.

5. On an ironic note, Orwell himself was under government surveillance while writing his novel warning about government surveillance. The British government was watching Orwell because they believed he held socialist opinions. This surveillance started after he published The Road to Wigan Pier, a true story about poverty and the lower class in England.

6. The slogan "2 + 2 = 5" originated from Russia, where the Communist regime used it as a motto of sorts in an effort to help them accomplish the goals of their five-year plan in only four years. Though the slogan is still used to point out the ills of totalitarian brainwashing today, it was not coined by Orwell.

7. In addition to borrowing a piece of Russian propaganda, Orwell also borrowed some Japanese propaganda for his novel. The "Thought Police" are based on the Japanese wartime secret police who literally arrested Japanese citizens for having "unpatriotic thoughts." Their official name was the Kempeitai, and they officially named their pursuit the "Thought War."

8. When Orwell worked as a propagandist for the BBC, there was a conference room there numbered 101. This room was the room of which he based the location for some of his more horrifying scenes, making the scenes themselves all the more horrifying.

9. According to Orwell's friends and families, his second wife Sonia Brownell was the model off of which he based the love interest (Julia) of the book's main character, Winston Smith.

10. Though his book may be popular, Orwell's novel also makes the list of the world's top ten most frequently banned books. Some ban it for what they claim are pro-communist points of view, and others have banned it because it is anti-communist. Regardless, it is ironic that a book warning against totalitarianism is often an item for censorship.