Two out of three. That’s what I think most people would get. Try it for yourself: What were the three ominous slogans at the heart of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)? Two of them are punchy and easy to remember: WAR IS PEACE and FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. But what is the third? It’s the unmemorable IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. That third slogan just doesn’t work. It isn’t punchy and it doesn’t condense and capture the ideology of the ruling party like the first two. Orwell could have done much better than that.
“Carefully constructed lies”
So what should he have used instead? I suggest: DEMOCRACY IS TYRANNY. That is punchy and perverse like the first two slogans. It captures the ideology of the ruling party and the most important concept in the novel. Here’s the novel’s protagonist musing on that concept:
Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 1, chapter 3)
Doublethink rules the modern West, because doublethink is at the heart of leftism and leftism controls every aspect of cultural and political life in the modern West. For example, race relations are governed by two contradictory principles: first, that all racial groups are equal in every way; second, that Whites are innately villainous and non-Whites innately virtuous. If non-Whites like Blacks fail in the West, it’s because of White racism. If non-Whites like Indians succeed, it’s despite White racism. Leftists preach equality and practise hierarchy. Those at the top of the leftist hierarchy, like non-Whites and homosexuals, are privileged over those at the bottom, like Whites and straights.
Boasting about betrayal
This explains why, in leftist eyes, transgenderism is sacred and transracialism is sickening. The male perverts who absurdly claim to be women are at the top of the hierarchy, which is why the left agrees with their claims and condemns all opposition as bigoted, hateful, and “transphobic.” But the Whites who claim with no more absurdity to be Black are at the bottom of the hierarchy, which is why the left rejects their claims with contempt. It’s also why leftists forbid White actors to take non-White roles, but applaud when non-White actors take White roles, from Achilles to David Copperfield, from Guinevere to Anne Boleyn. On the one hand, yes, all races are entirely equal, but on the other hand Whites are demons and non-Whites are saints. That’s doublethink. And it means that a superior group can invade and occupy the territory of an inferior group. Perverted men can become “transwomen” and civilization-wrecking non-Whites can become what I call “trans-Westerners.” Neither the perverted men nor the civilization-wrecking non-Whites have a genuine claim to the identity bestowed on them by the left, but that’s precisely why the left bestows it on them.
How are politicians to behave when, having listened, they find themselves in fundamental disagreement with what they have heard? Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted: the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants? [His answer: “Not in a million years.”] (Politics should be guided by principles, not populism, The Guardian, 5th May 2013) … For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist Sparkbrook’s demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union. (Ideology’s our life, Esther, The Guardian, 31st July 2013)
It’s no coincidence that Hattersley is now a rich man who sits in the House of Lords as Baron Hattersley. In 2013, he married the woman responsible for his wealth, the Jewish literary agent Maggie Pearlstine. The current Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, also has a Jewish wife. When he becomes prime minister, as seems likely to happen very soon, he will betray the White working-class just as thoroughly and enthusiastically as Roy Hattersley did. And he will be just as richly rewarded. The Conservative party is also led by traitors and doublethinkers. They posture about “democracy” and pour billions of pounds into defending the borders of Ukraine. At the same time, they refuse to defend the borders of Britain, as the Telegraph’s Sam Ashworth-Hayes has pointed out in an excellent article at Substack:
For 13 years and counting, the British electorate has voted at every opportunity given to it for immigration to come down. Politicians have solemnly nodded, pledged to deliver reductions, and proceeded to design a system which saw 745,000 people added to the UK’s population last year.
The question of “why” this happened can wait for another time. Today’s point is a much simpler one: there is no political consent for this, the economic benefits are negligible, the cultural downsides are not, and it is making Britain a worse country to live in. (“Our immigration system is making Britain a worse country to live in,” 26th November 2023)
The same is true of all other Western nations. America and Britain, France and Germany, Italy and Spain — they’re all being invaded by non-Whites from the world’s most violent, corrupt, and unproductive regions. Those non-Whites will always consume far more in taxes than they contribute and will never excel at anything but crime, corruption, and ethnic nepotism. The White majority have never wanted this to happen and have voted against it “at every opportunity.” But the democracy-loving elites of all Western nations have just as consistently ignored their votes. As Orwell should have written: DEMOCRACY IS TYRANNY.
Naming the Jew has been taboo
Sam Ashworth-Hayes says that the question of “why” the non-White invasion has happened “can wait for another time.” Unfortunately, he can’t address that question honestly, because he’d lose his job and reputation if he did so. And why has it happened? It’s happened because the rich Jews who control Western politics have wanted it to happen. Like America, Britain is a Judeocracy, not a democracy. That’s why the Conservative and Labour parties are united on the need to defend the borders of Ukraine and to demolish the borders of Britain. It’s also why no-one in the mainstream can talk about Jewish control. Naming the Jew has been taboo.
But that taboo is beginning to slip. Israel’s vicious war on Gaza is adding to the pressure on Clown World’s crumbling wall of lies. When the wall finally collapses, Western politics will be invaded by something the Clown-elite won’t welcome at all: truth and racial reality.
By Tobias Langdon