GEORGE ORWELL

Eric Arthur Blair [George Orwell] (1903–1950)
Photographed by Felix H. Man, c. 1947

George Orwell was the pseudonym of Eric Arthur Blair, born in Motihari, Bengal, India, in 1903, to a family which he described in The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) as ‘lower-upper middle class’: ‘upper-middle class without money’. According to his biographer Bernard Crick, Orwell used a pseudonym ‘partly to avoid embarrassing his parents, partly as a hedge against failure, and partly because he disliked the name Eric, which reminded him of a prig in a Victorian boys’ story’.

He worked hard and won a place at Eton but while there dedicated himself more to reading widely than passing exams. Rather than going on to University, he took the Indian Civil Service exams and became a policeman in Burma in 1921 – he was probably the first and only old Etonian to attend the Burmese police training academy. His experiences inspired his first novel, Burmese Days, which was published in New York in 1934 (British publishers feared libel cases). His first book, however, was the non-fictional Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), and was based on his experiences after he left the police. The critic Bernard Crick tells us that during this time, he took to making journeys among tramps, and spent time living amongst the poor and homeless in London and around the hop fields of Kent, writing that he wanted to see if the English poor were treated in their country in the same way as the Burmese were in theirs. Orwell then moved to Paris in 1928, where in his own words, he lived for about a year and a half in Paris, writing novels and short stories which no one would publish. "After my money came to an end I had several years of fairly severe poverty during which I was, among other things, a dishwasher, a private tutor and a teacher in cheap private schools." ~ British Library
https://www.bl.uk/people/george-orwell

"Orwell collapsed with tuberculosis with only a first draft of his long-planned new novel finished, which as always 'to me is only ever halfway through'. In a Scottish hospital the new drug streptomycin, obtained from America with the help of David Astor and Aneurin Bevan, was tested on him. Gruesome side-effects resulted, not then controllable, and the treatment was unhappily abandoned. Rested, at least, he returned to Jura, but drove himself hard again and, when his agent and his publisher failed to find a typist who would go to Jura, he sat up in bed and typed the second version of his novel himself. He collapsed again when he had finished.

The resulting novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, published in 1949, immediately elicited diverse interpretations. Critics have seen it as a pessimistic and deterministic prophecy; an allegory on the impossibility of staying human without belief in God; an anti-Catholic diatribe, in which the inquisitor, O'Brien, and the inner party are really the church; a world-hating act of nihilistic misanthropy; a deathbed renunciation of any kind of socialism; or a humanistic and libertarian socialist (almost anarchist) satire against totalitarian tendencies in both his own and other contemporary societies. Isaac Rosenfeld saw it as 'mysticism of cruelty, utter pessimism'; and Anthony Burgess as 'a comic novel', or one that 'allows' humour.

Certainly it is the most complex piece of writing Orwell attempted. Jenni Calder in a lecture called it 'a well-crafted novel', perhaps over-crafted; and part of the craft was dramatising dilemmas and fears of humanity, and not offering easy solutions. But biographically it is clear at least, contrary to much facile opinion, what it is not: it is not a work of unnatural, almost psychotic intensity dashed off by a dying man with a death wish for civilization and regressing to memories of childhood traumas. In fact it was long planned and coolly premeditated, and was neither a conscious nor an unconscious repudiation of Orwell's democratic socialism. Czesaw Miłosz in 1953 reported that in Poland some of his old Communist Party colleagues had read smuggled copies as a manual of power, but that the freer minds had seen it as 'a Swiftian satire': 'The fact that there are writers in the West who understand the functioning of the unusually constructed machine of which they are themselves a part, astounds them and argues against “the stupidity” of the West'.

It is arguable whether Nineteen Eighty-Four was Orwell's greatest achievement; most critics, and Orwell himself, see Animal Farm as his unquestioned literary masterpiece. 'What I have most wanted to do is to make political writing into an art,' he said in his essay of 1946 'Why I write'. He was both a great polemical and a speculative writer: 'Liberty is telling people what they do not want to hear.' He challenges his readers' assumptions in direct terms of homely common sense, forces them to think, but mostly leaves them to reach their own conclusions. He may argue fiercely but never as if authoritatively, which perhaps accounts for his continued popularity.

If seen as Swiftian satire then a lot falls into place: grotesque exaggeration, humour but also deadly seriousness. Orwell raged against the division of the world into spheres of influence by the great powers at the wartime meetings at Yalta and Potsdam; power-hunger and totalitarian impulses wherever they occurred; intellectuals for turning into bureaucrats and betraying the common people; the debasement of language by governments and politicians; the rewriting of history for ideological purposes; James Burnham's thesis in his Managerial Revolution that the managers and technocrats are going to take over the world; the existence of a permanent cold war because of the impossibility of a deliberate atomic war; and, not least, the debasement of popular culture by the mass press. He pictured the ministry of truth in Nineteen Eighty-Four as producing for the proles not propaganda but 'rubbishy newspapers containing almost nothing but sport, crime and astrology, sensational five-cent novelettes, films oozing with sex, and sentimental songs composed entirely by mechanical means'. Plainly he was getting at the British press of his day. It is doubtful if he had even heard of the Frankfurt school of Marxism which held that social control was maintained in capitalist society by the degradation of literacy rather than by terrorism, but in homely terms Orwell makes the same point.

Rarely has a more private and simple man become more famous. Orwell's very name has entered the English language. The word ‘Orwellian’ conveys the fear of a future for humanity governed by rival totalitarian regimes who rule through suffering, deprivation, deceit, and fear, and who debase language and people equally. But ‘Orwell-like’ conveys something quite different: a lover of nature, proto-environmentalist, advocate of plain language and plain speaking, humorist, eccentric, polemicist, and someone who could meditate, almost mystically, almost pietistically, on the pleasure and wonder of ordinary things—as in the small, great essay 'Some thoughts on the common toad'.

Even before Orwell's death [21 January1950] political battle broke out and has long continued to annex his reputation." ~ More detail of the controversy which rages until today is worth reading from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography:
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-31915

----0----

I like to think that Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) had his metaphorical finger on the pulse of the fat wealthy world controllers.

Now I ask you, was he warning us or programming us to manifest the totalitarian global empire?

If we research his friends and contacts I think it may have been a bit of both.

We all know that Orwell was keeping manipulative company, but was he warning or actively programming future generations to manifest the NWO?
Surely the fact that his narrative has manifested quite accurately suggests that psychologically, both motives would lead to the same outcome.
A literary warning could become instrumental to programme speculative fear into the reader, as opposed to it being an act of truth and compassion for the good of the masses.

A genuine act of truth and compassion should be delivered in an entirely different way. It should be an exposé of the conspirators' plans without elaborate artifice, disguised as a work of futuristic science fiction.

But, of course, he would have risked the ideas he wanted to convey disappearing into obscurity. He might also risk his life for exposing these darkest of totalitarian intentions.
There is no doubt that he had taken pains to plan and think through his project by meditating and isolating himself in the North West Scottish Isle of Jura.

So we will never know, definitively, if Orwell was trying to out manoeuvre the conspirators and sadly, failed because he did not understand the enormous power of generations of human thought which 1984 triggered.

Do you think he knew that, by planting his ugly vision into the minds of billions, he was bringing it to fruition?
Or was he a minion, shocked by what he witnessed and, in ignorance of the forces he was unleashing, an unwitting but useful tool?

So now we come to the crux of the matter I wish to raise.

Do you believe in the power of manifestation?

The aristocrats of the Black Nobility do and that is one of their most precious, almost magical weapons!
They know that we are powerful.
They have no doubt that all thought has power.
They never want us to know this.

So they confuse us with division and multiple crass false narratives to ensure that we never access the truth and coalesce or combine our intent against them.

They tell us that revelation of their plans is an inherent and necessary feature of their 'Babylonian mysteries'.

The mystery is not so mysterious though, is it?

It is another lie with which they obscure their manipulations.
All they do is place ideas in people's heads & sit back to watch us engage our unrecognised power of manifestation to deliver their plan!
It doesn't matter how they deliver the dirt, it reaches the same destination! The people will be frightened, shocked, disturbed and aroused into speculation. When a narrative is bad, it triggers fearful thoughts, maybe for years or with repetition for lifetimes!

All thought has the power to manifest, but people don't deeply know or believe it because they have been indoctrinated away from it by a constant bombardment of mind control since they left the womb.

Now imagine how many people were terrorised from a young age by 1984, the book, TV film and the many others of its type.

It occurs to me that -

Revelation, the final cryptic book in the New Testament, did similar damage to Christian innocents for 2,000 years.

It is a late addition, supposedly written by John of Patmos during his incarceration. It is the only biblical book which threatens hell and damnation if it is removed or tampered with. It reads like a wicked depopulation plan and I have frequently suggested that it is a clever Roman psychological operation, harvesting the power of manifestation from all who have ever read and attempted to understand it. It is a blueprint for a global totalitarian empire.

The most famous literature always has layers of meaning which depend on the reader to detect or discern.
Shakespeare was an expert.
In Othello & the Merchant of Venice he conveyed simple tales of morality to the masses but, simultaneously, delivered warnings to the aristocracy about the tricks employed by the devious Venetian Black Nobility agents infesting Queen Elizabeth I's court.

So how do we see this skilful use of narrative being used today?

Put simply:
The controllers decide a plan.
They convey it in all forms of media repeatedly.
The people worry and think about or even fear the plan.
The plan is manifested by humanity's collective consciousness which has responded to the heightened cerebral activity.
This is how propaganda works against us.

We can use the same method to achieve positive outcomes, even disempower controllers!

The trick is to finely tune the thinking of billions - not towards vague & individually contrived visions - but precisely towards a clear agreed mutually beneficial objective.

We are capable of using the same power to achieve much greater & more beneficial intentions.

----0----

Prof. Mattias Desmet and the psychology of the origins of totalitarianism - he calls it MASS FORMATION in this video.
https://odysee.com/@MartaGB:2/MattiasDesmet:5

----0----

You can find me on
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/franceselaineleader
Twitter: https://twitter.com/DorsetGrannie
Minds: https://www.minds.com/francesleader
Odysee: https://odysee.com/@FrancesLeader:b?&sunset=lbrytv
Email - [email protected]
Contact me for access to my Discord server.