Doublethink In The Days Of The Comet

The very nature of being social is coming together as a physical group.  The concept of "social distancing" is thus one of the most Orwellian Doublethink terms I have ever seen.  It's right up there with "peacekeeper missile".

Social distancing, to my mind, is even more distasteful than the term "social media," in which no one has physical proximity, and thus cannot be "social" in any normal sense of the word.

While I find the term "herd immunity" disgustingly distasteful when referring to human beings, I nevertheless can't help but see the inherent contradiction of promoting group shared immunity while forcing people to avoid groups.  More of that wonderful Doublethink.

For those dwindling few who still have not read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Google oracle defines Doublethink as "the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination."  If the current Fauci Flu Plandemic isn't a glaring example of this phenomenon, then none can be found.

Even as recently as when I was parenting, the practice of putting all the kids in a room with one who had chicken pox or mumps was a common practice.  The children would thus exchange the viruses and develop life-long immunity to those relatively common childhood maladies.  This was also done with influenza and other seasonal discomforts.

Many people are under the mistaken belief that the practice of immunology began with the creation of the polio vaccine by Jonas Salk, in the 1950s.  The concept of inoculation has a long and storied history using some distasteful methods to our modern minds, but effective nevertheless.

The practice of inoculation, or variolation as it is referred to now, came to the attention of the Anglosphere in the 1800s, when British doctors brought the practice back from India, and added it to Edward Jenner's own work in this area.

Inoculation involved rubbing the pus from smallpox sores into pin pricks in the skin of healthy people to generate antibodies to the disease.  Louis Pasteur had the bright idea of using a relatively harmless virus called cowpox to achieve the same result.  To Westerners, the concept is just 200 years old, but in India, the practice had been used for at least a millennium, and not just for smallpox.

The idea of "herd immunity," or what I prefer to call "community immunity," is an ancient idea.  One imagines the practice evolving out of animal husbandry and inoculating one's farm animals by placing them all in the same barn and letting Darwinism run its course.

What was new to the 19th century was the idea of microbes being the cause of disease.  Humans intuitively understood that proximity spread disease, but thanks to Aristotle, could not conceive of an unseen creature jumping person to person.  It wasn't until Zacharias Janssen developed the microscope in the 16th century that humans could conceive of anything smaller than the width of a hair.

Janssen's fellow Dutchman Antonie van Leeuwenhoek ran with the microscope's new revelations and created the entire science of microbiology.  He was the first to posit that these tiny creatures were the culprits in spreading disease, and not the mythical unbalanced humours that required bleeding out patients.  It seemed logical, he thought, that inoculating healthy people with the pus of sick people was in fact using these tiny creatures against themselves.

The idea of quarantining sick people is far older.  The use of leper colonies dates back thousands of years, and was also used for a number of diseases in both farm animals and humans.  Isolating the sick is probaably one of the oldest forms of medical practices and seems almost intuitive or instinctual.

All this being said, the idea of isolating the entire population of the planet to fight what amounts to a severe cold or flu was developed in AD2020.  Never in the history of humanity has anyone thought to quarantine every single human being on Earth in order to fight a disease.  In fact, the very idea flies in the face of common sense - though certainly no one ever accused the political classes of possessing such innate reasoning capabilities.

First off, someone needs to produce the necessities that maintain both the sick and the well in society - an idea that seems to have escaped the Powers That Were.

Furthermore, having those individuals who aren't sick roaming around would seem to spread whatever immunity they naturally possess, even if that immunity is little more than good fortune.  After all, they are apparently doing something right and should be emulated, insofar as they don't later become ill themselves.  Either way, it's a learning experience for all of us.


The very idea of global social and economic shutdown as a means to fight an illness is itself the most vile example of Doublethink ever devised.  The whole concept places the entire human race at risk of starvation and economic ruin in order to prevent some small fraction of humanity from getting sick.

Even more absurd is the notion that isolating those who have survived the virus, thus depriving the rest of us from sharing their immunity.

Immune systems develop and harden through contact with the outer world.  We pick up viruses and bacteria by the millions in just an average day, rubbing them into our eyes, sinuses and mouths with completely automatic motions.  It's almost as if our deeper minds are trying to ingest as many pathogens as possible for target practice.

Those of us who still consume the Geezer Media are literally being conditioned to deny our common sense and thousands of years of human experience.  We are being told that vaccines are cures, which they most definitely are not.  We are being told that we must wait in isolation for community immunity to kick in, which defies logic.  We are being flooded with insane ideas that we know are wrong, but that we must believe at the point of a gun.

Classic Doublethink.

When what we instinctively know to be true is contradicted by the politically motivated messaging of our supposed authorities, it is our sacred duty - both to ourselves and our species - to ignore those edicts en masse and get back to the business of living.

We are each given a finite time in this life and we are literally being robbed of it by actors who are self-serving liars.  We know that in our hearts, but we must elevate that knowledge to our conscious minds and take action based on it.

If one prefers to live in fear and huddle in one's cave until madness or starvation takes the only real possession we have, then so be it.  But to inflict fear on others in order to rob them of their lives is a crime so heinous, so despicable, so egregious that to not fight back is itself a crime - one of acquiescence to evil.

Doublethink is a cognitive virus that has infected us all at some level.  Like any other virus, we must isolate it  and mobilize antibodies against it.

The real threat to our health is in our minds, not our bodies.

Authority Is A Virus

One of the most iconic and enduring scenes from George Orwell's famous book Nineteen Eighty-Four is the one in which main character Winston Smith finally capitulates in Room 101 and actually sees five fingers, when O'Brien is only holding up four.  To be more accurate, Smith admits he doesn't know how many fingers there are without being told, regardless of what his own senses are telling him.

A similar scene takes place in the "Chain of Command" episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation.  Captain Picard is tortured by an alien and repeatedly told that he sees five lights, when there are in fact only four.  Picard later admits, after being rescued, that he could in fact see five.

Both these well-known scenes depict the power of authority to control the perceptions of those it considers under its sway.  In an authoritarian State, the State assumes the power to dictate reality itself to the masses, and by either coersion or capitulation, the masses accept.

Because science is the study of reality, it is important that the authoritarian State control the results of scientific investigation.  In our current society, the State dictates its chosen narrative in the guise of science, controls the education of sciene, and through funding controls who will and won't be allowed access to the gliziest toys and to publish their findings.

Through this mechanism, the State controls what is perceived as "settled science" and the interpretation of the results.  In this way, the authoritarian State controls reality itself.

After years of indoctrination at the hands of the State's schools and media, the world is populated with people who literally deny the evidence of their own eyes and common sense, in favor of the official narrative.  In other words, they willingly choose not to know how many fingers or lights there are until told by someone in "authority"/

The Star Trek example here dramatizes the brute force approach.  The State is aware that it is foisting a false narrative on the masses, and uses pain and suffering to force the masses to accept the dictated reality.

Orwell's Smith and O'Brien are much more subtle and closer to what we really experience.  In this scene, O'Brien - the representative of State authority, has already been indoctrinated/  While he is aware at some level that there are other ways to view reality, he cannot see them.  He only manipulates their symbols in order to force Smith to accept the dictated narrative.  O'Brien reads from a script, as it were.  As representative of authority, he is full a part of the authoritarianism.  He is not above or outside it, or he could not "teach" it to Smith.

In the modern authoritarian State, it is hard to tell whether any of the heirarchy have a larger picture or context.  It seems to have become a self-perpetuating illusion that every member of the Inner Party fervently believes, and is incapable of seeing objective reality, even though it can manipulate the trappings of it, for the purposes of shutting down and endoctrinating those who see beyond the ruse.

There are many examples of this, but things like "gravitational waves" or the "Higgs boson: are perfect examples.  The State has spent billions of our hard-earned dollars on things like the CERN "atom smasher" and the LIGO "gravitational wave" detectors as props to reinforce how "serious" the Stat'e's narrative is.  Only fully indoctrinated individuals are allowed to use these contraptions, and only those "findings" that match the official narrative are allowed to be published. 

Since the individual's income and years of work are dependent on "finding" the approved answers, they willfully view reality through "warped glasses" and will fervently defend whatever results they are allowed to publish, while ignoring any other results that don't match the bespoke narrative.

Thus, through an intricate system of rewards and punishments, people rise through the ranks of the authoritarian structure until everyone, from top to bottom, is fully incapable of seeing objective reality.  They advance and are rewarded with perks for toeing the State's line, and those who do not are marginalized and discarded if they can't be "re-educated".

Science was envisioned as a means to filter out the authoritarian bias, but the method was conscripted by the authorities and bent to their will.  We must realize, though, that the original authorities actually believed their own narrative and willfully prevented themselves from seeing any other possibilities.

In the end, O'Brien can indoctrinate Smith because he IS the system - he fully embraces and believes in the the system, he can see nothing other than the system.  He can manipulate objective reality, and Smith's mind, only to the extent that it serves the authoritarian purpose.  It is as if he has a virus that has invaded his entire body, and at that point becomes a carrier who then can infect others.

It is a strange and all-encompassing phenomenon that is active throughout our daily lives.  Even those of us who consider ourselves "awake" are infected with the virus of authoritarianism, and it is very difficult to let go of the illness, since we must function in the world that has been created for us.  It is still an open question.  The disease is pervasive, both within and without.  Even those who are recovering from the disease are highly prone to relapse.

We must constantly check whether we see five lights or four, and whatever the answer, discover some way to objectively check the answer.  Even then, it is not a matter of how many lights we see, but whether we require an authority to tell us what to see.

MiniTrue Strikes Again

If you are one of the three people in the educated world that have not yet read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, then you should probably drop everything you are doing and rush out to get a copy and curl up this weekend with a good bottle of single-malt scotch and put it in your brain.

It is not just to finally grok the true meaning of Big Brother, MiniTrue, Newspeak, IngSoc, and other now-cultural terms, but to send shivers of recognition down your spine as you see words written in 1949, can seem so prescient in 2016.

There are hundreds of reasons to read this book, but the one that has always remained foremost for me is the look at "free speech" and manipulation of language.

If you are not in the know, then the protagonist, Winston Smith, is employed at the Ministry of Truth (MiniTrue), where he spends his days modifying historical records and dictionary entries.  The ultimate goal of this exercise is to completely eliminate factual history and to reduce the common vocabulary to the point where it is completely impossible to express ideas that are contrary to the ruling elites' interests.

Having absorbed this book in high school, I have watched the world march unceasingly towards those very goals.  We call them "political correctness" and other euphemisms, but the concepts and the results are the same.

We are often treated to a certain group of left wing polemicists harping on "free speech," while simultaneously ridiculing anyone expressing ideas and concepts that are outside their carefully crafted narrative. For instance, we might hear Noam Chomsky wax philosphical about linguistics and the control of language (or through language), but turn right around and attackurn  someone promoting a boycott of Israel for the Palestinian attrocities.  This is a textbook example of Double Think - holding two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time and believing both of them with fervor.

The thing about free speech is that it involves the right of everyone to say anything they believe, and even to try and convince you of the value of their position.  To repeat - ANYONE to say ANYTHING they believe, no matter what the topic or viewpoint.

There have been multiple legal boundaries put up over the centuries since the Enlightenment.  The US Supreme Court ruled that free speech does not include the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.  The reasoning was that to incite a panic for no reason that can lead to grievous bodily harm is not permitted.  This makes sense, until you expand it to mean that someone advocating revolution is also outside the protection of free speech, when in fact, it is that person's speech that is the most protected.

The thing is that free speech protects the presentation and argumentation of ideas and concepts.  If one person is free to present the argument that the Nazis committed a racial holocaust against a certain segment of society, then someone else is must be allowed to present the opposing view.  The two sides battle it out on the basis of evidence and persuasion, not on who can slam the door the hardest on the opposition.

In fact, in the above example, laws have been passed in a number of countries making it a crime to question the "mainstream" narrative of the Nazi holocaust.  To my mind, any argument that requires that extreme to protect it is weak on its face.  If, in fact, the entirety of the story were true in every detail, there would be no need to use the deadly force of law to protect it, as it would stand on its own merits.

Another example is the recent banning by Amazon of a book called Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.  The fact that the book had to be banned shows the weakness in the "mainstream" narrative and the fear on the part of the elite that their carefully woven fabric might be undone by pulling on the wrong strings.

At this point, some readers will accuse me of being a "conspiracy theorist," and I admit that I am open to reinterpretations of history.  It is a fact that history is created by conspiracies and that historical events and persons are open to new data.  Even in the "mainstream," history is being rewritten all the time.  A new discovery at CERN or the publication of Planned Parenthood videos allows the public to reconsider their understanding of things.  If respected researchers build documented arguments that turn common beliefs on their ears, I am all for a fair listen and reserve the right to change my own opinions based on that information if I so choose.

In other words, if I have to choose between a protected species and the survival of me and my family, the protected species loses.  End of story.  In the same way, if a protected story deeply affects the ability of me and my family to function because the narrative has come at a social price, then I am all for re-examining that story to ensure what I have been asked to give up is worth the price.  The Nazi holocaust being used to jail and shame people, Sandy Hook being used to limit my right to self-defense, 911 being used to rein in civil liberties, and religion being used to fence my right to reason mean that these things (and so much more) are open to review and criticism and revision until we are all satisfied that the truth is known and it justifies the sacrifices being foisted on us.

The moment someone wants to take something from you based on some event or argument is the moment that free speech is most valuable and necessary.  If the food safety board declares that cherries are no longer healthy and must be eradicated from my diet, then I want to see the evidence and arguments to the contrary before I surrender my warm slice of pie with a heap of vanilla ice cream on top.

In criminal law in most Western countries, a person must be proved guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt" before being convicted of a crime.  To remove ANY of my liberties and freedoms is effectively the same as convicting me of a crime beyond a "reasonable doubt."  Therefore, I want to examine the evidence from all sides.  I want to hear all the witnesses.  I want to see all the forensic research.  I want to question every detail before I surrender my freedom.  To abridge my right to free speech and access to information, to limit what and how much I can ingest of any substance, to hide any facts or alternatives is to convict me (or anyone) without trial.

So, what does all this mean?  What is "free speech?"

Does it mean we can question the right of Jews to claim a "homeland" called Israel?  Absolutely.  Despite 150 years of feverish digging in the Sinai and Egypt, there is yet to come to light any hard evidence to support the Biblical narrative of Exodus, and thus the claim of ancient homeland is suspect.  That the holocaust has been used to justify the political state of Israel, even with the paucity of evidence for the claim, and the use of lethal force (government and law) to enforce it, makes the entire thing suspect and open to critical review.  If the facts later support it, no problem.  But...

Does this mean we have the right to question 911, 77, and other acts of terrorism?  Absolutely.  Because those events have been used to justify indicting and convicting (removing civil rights) from the entire populace of nations, then we have the right to investigate thoroughly and ensure that the foundations of our collective conviction is justified and factual.

Does this mean we have the inalienable (in-a-LIEN-able) right to say whatever we want, no matter how offensive to others or the elite.  Absolutely.  We must be allowed to speak our minds and cast our opinions into the marketplace to allow others to judge their worthiness.  If we abridge a single word, then we have opened the floodgate, no matter how small, to further incursions on our liberty, and even the wholesale editing and control of history and what/how we think (a la Nineteen Eighty-Four).  None of us has a "right" to not be offended, but we all have the right to change the channel or move to another seat.

Does this mean there is an inalienable right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?  Absolutely. It is not the act of yelling "fire," but the reaction of the crowd.  If anyone is injured or property destroyed, there are remedies under the law if the intent of the person yelling "fire" can be shown to have been less than honorable.

Free speech is a huge right, and one that all other rights are founded on.  It is also the foundation of a republican (not the party) form of government to preserve and protect fundamental rights for all members of society, no matter how many heads can be counted in each camp.  It is the classic case of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, and lamb is off the menu.

"I disagree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it," is often attributed to Voltaire, but it was more likely expressed by Evelyn Beatrice Hall.  Thank goodness for historical revisionists.  It is not that Voltaire did not think this way, or even say something quite like it, but rather the fact that it was his biographer who expressed it in those particular words.

There is always room for new information, new ideas and revision of old concepts.  To limit any speech or deny anyone the right to put forth an argument on any topic is to set back human advancement if even an imperceptible amount.  It is vital that we protect the right of ALL people to express ANY argument, no matter how offensive we may personally find it.  If the argument has no merit (some genders/races are inferior to others), it is easily dismissed and eventually the speaker will have no audience.  If the argument is valid, then no matter how ridiculous or offensive it may seem, it deserves to be examined by a free society.  Any idea that requires deadly force (government and law) to enforce it is by definition unworthy of publication.  QED

An Huxwellian Distopia

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't.

—William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act V, Scene I, ll. 203–206

I am hereby and forthwith declaring a new English adjective: Huxwellian©.  The current global distopia has exceeded the bounds of either Huxley's or Orwell's most shocking nightmares with elements of both in evidence, and so one must combine the two into something of a superlative to either alone.

Yes, the world has become an Huxwellian phantasm.  A la Huxley, we have populations unable to deal with daily life without the aid of pharmaceuticals.  In addition, we are on the verge (publicly at any rate) of being able to dispense human beings from bottles made to order.  It is not long before we will have Alphas and Betas running roughshod over Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons, and the latter enjoying it.  Certainly, the sharp class divisions and strict population controls are on the table for discussion if not already being implemented via GMOs and virus manipulation.

A la Orwell, we have a fascist security state with highly controlled economy, endless wars and Room 101 "rendition" centers.  Rationing is not overt, but rather is achieved by Inner Party Members shifting resources around and creating artificial shortages to control pricing.  And without a doubt, the MiniTruth is in full force changing history before our very eyes.  Witness nothing else beside the Boston Marathon bombings.

I believe that Huxley's world is probably the ultimate goal, with Orwell's vision the intermediate step to achieving it.  With 'unnecessary' history erased and culture severed from any connection with the past, the World State would be free to manipulate society in its own image, ultimately achieving the tranquil slavery and ultimate control of the brave new world.

Both writers envisioned a class of 'natural' people who exist outside the bounds of the State apparatus.  Orwell's proles and Huxley's savages are dying breeds of humans who neither fit into the Grand Vision, nor present much of a threat, as they consume their time with basic survival.

Both writers envision people incapable of thinking, much less expressing, ideas beyond the scope of their societal function.  Huxley's world has chemically modified worker classes that are dumbed down both in vitro and educationally.  They are unable to formulate ideas or desires that exceed their status in society.  In Orwell's world, the ever-shrinking vocabulary and constant manipulation of information prevents anyone outside the Inner Party from thinking outside the box.  Without words, there can be no thoughts.

In so many overt and covert ways, both visions of the future are in the process of being realized.

Entire populations are addicted to pharmaceutical euphoria - Huxley's soma.  These people are unable and/or unwilling to deal with reality and must chemically subdue their natural abhorrence to the world we are creating.  Millions if not billions of people are accepting GMO foods with nary a whimper of protest.  Our educational systems have already bifurcated into those dispensing the knowledge to run the world, and those offering just enough to push buttons and pull levers on command.

On the Orwellian side, the State has become all pervasive.  It invades our most private places and watches our every move with computerized precision.  Peace has become war and truth has become a lie.  Justice serves only the State and those found lacking are duly rendered into subservient drones.  Permanent war is the ends which justify the means.

Without a doubt, we live in an Huxwellian world.  Take your double-plus good soma and go back to sleep.

Is it too late to change our course?

The answer begins with the realization of what course we are on.  I therefore present my new adjective to the world in order to define the problem - a necessary step before we can remedy it.  Without proper diagnosis there can be no cure.

At this moment, the only reason we proles and savages are protected is because there is a war at the top for ultimate control.  The Inner Party members - alphas and betas - are fighting among themselves to be King of the Hill.  This buys us a bit of time, but it is a situation that can not last forever.  The key to victory is education, not by buying it from the hypnopaedic centers, but by greedily reading the wealth of information in the cultural classics of civilization that have been carefully marginalized by so-called 'education'.

My choice of Huxwellian as a new adjective serves a double purpose.  It highlights two of the most influential novels/writers of the 20th century, as well as points out the fact that real knowledge does not come from single sources, but rather is a connecting of dots across multiple sources.  The single greatest failure of our educational systems today is the lack of true liberal arts curricula.  We must read theology, science, philosophy, economics, and especially history.  We must study music and art and absorb literature before we can not only make sense of where we are, but alter the course we are on.

Furthermore, we must decide whether we hold an Aristotelian or Platonic weltanschauung.  If none of this means something to you, then you have a lot of work ahead of you.  Are you a materialist or metaphysicist?  Even deeper than that, we must formulate a new weltanschauung, one that encompasses a whole new way to describe the Universe we experience.  The materialists are hopelessly inadequate to the task, but by the same token, the metaphysicists are unable to cope with the true scope of reality.  However, the only way we can create new fertile ground for thought and growth is to thoroughly understand where we stand at this moment.

We can not do that without standing on the shoulders of giants, and those shoulders are in books, in reasoning and in focused effort.  Without these things, then the new weltanschauung may indeed be Huxwellian.  We may come to accept a materialist world of chemical processes, controlled information and deprivation as normal and be unable to formulate any other view.  We may forget the spiritual and metaphysical, and doom ourselves to servitude without even being aware of it.

We have a bit of breathing space right now while the Inner Party member/Alphas and Betas duel it out for dominance, but our opportunity is limited and slipping away.  With resources such as gutenberg.org and others literally at our fingertips, there is no excuse for us to avoid educating ourselves.  In a way never before available to nearly every human being on Earth, we have a tool called the internet which has the potential to profoundly change our world and our selves.  But, we must seize the chance, because it will not last forever without our direct action.

You, dear reader, have the ability where you sit right now to receive as good an education as any Oxford or Cambridge graduate.  All they do is read and discuss, and the keyboard and screen in front of you is every bit as effective.  All you have to do is start using it.

How much time do you throw away wandering aimlessly through the mall or vegetating in front of the TeeVee?  How much of your life do you piss away watching YouTube lip-synchs and stupid people tricks?  How much richer would your life be if you spent that time standing on the shoulders of giants?  How much less susceptible to fraud and control would you be with a solid background in history and philosophy?

The revolution is literally at hand.  It is all those buttons your fingers are resting on this minute.

Steer them.

The only reason we need an adjective like Huxwellian is because we have done nothing to stop those worlds from manifesting.  You might begin by reading two books: Brave New World and Nineteen Eight-Four.  Be prepared, though:

The future is here.