Why why why?

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.


On R4 this evening they were asking:

Why is there still a migrant crisis in Europe?

Well part of the problem is organisations like the BBC that do their best to encourage these people to try their luck.  The BBC is partly responsible for their deaths as they traverse the varied dangers of the routes from the traffickers themselves to desert, war zones and overladen, unseaworthy boats.

The programme tells us these are nearly all economic migrants, most of whom are in fact not poor but the relatively well off and educated…so we are stripping developing countries of the very people they need to succeed and to grow as they head to Europe not for sanctuary but merely for a better life…ie more money.  They do so because it has been made clear to them that once in Europe they will be able to stay there regardless of their actual status and that they will not be sent back or stopped at the borders.

With NGO’s acting as taxi services for the people traffickers [and so many of the women ending up as unwilling prostitutes] and the BBC sending out film crews to make tear-jerking sentimental, guilt-trip films about the migrants and always ready to condemn anyone who seeks to control the flow of migrants as inhumane and lacking compassion is there any wonder there is still a migrant crisis and an endless flow of people thinking they will get a warm welcome, a job or weelfare, housing, schooling and health services on tap because that is what they are lead to believe.

It is remarkable that the BBC can admit so many truths such as that these are economic migrants and have no claim to asylum in Europe and indeed that many end up in a dire state once they get to Europe and yet they still propagate the message that they are ‘desperate’ migrants in need of sanctuary…..without mentioning the huge pressures such migrants put on infrastructure and the fabric of society itself…leading eventually to instability, conflict and breakdown.

It is what Orwell called ‘Doublethink’…the ability to believe in their own lies when knowing them to be lies…

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. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… 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 as 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; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Polish news is less untruthful…..

Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Why why why?

  1. Edward says:

    “…to use logic against logic…”

    Probably the most important 5 words in those 2 paragraphs!

    Q: How does one logically explain away a fact as fiction?
    A: By introducing logical scenarios that cannot be disproven.

    The Apollo moon landings were filmed in a studio.
    The Earth is flat. (Not as mad as it might seem)
    God did it! (Not logical, but for many people good enough)
    Government conspiracy.

    The ‘Government conspiracy’ relates to doublethink. There’s no doubting the science, the methodology, the reasoning, the methods… it’s just that the government are lying to us.

    Sounds familiar? It should do to most regulars here.


    • sanitycheck2 says:

      I have never understood the Apollo conspiracy theory since there have been numerous missions/flybys to the moon since Apollo, which missions/flybys photographed the moon in close up, and if Russia and China had photographs of the Apollo landing sites which showed these sites free from the remnants of the Apollo mission it would have been the greatest PR coup for Soviet Russia and/or Communist China to release pictures stating that the Americans were lying.

      Just think how this would have played out in the cold war: Americans, your Government are lying to you, here is the proof

      The absence of the release of any photographs taken by the Russians and/or Chinese showing the Apollo sites, strongly suggests that the Apollo missions were successful in that a lunar lander reached the moon and took off leaving its launch base behind.


  2. petebogtrott says:

    The powers at be are shit scared of muslimes, they know they are untouchable just look at Rotherham etc. Until the non muslimes stand up and be counted and the tide of PC turns then it will continue. I for one think its too late as the youngsters of today have been brain washed and can’t see whats happening,also most are like sheep unable to think for themselves and question things. As said in Dads army ” were doomed “


  3. lojolondon says:

    1984 is a truly great book – shamefully ignored by the main subject of that book – the ‘envy of the world’ – BBC.


  4. Nibor says:

    Newspeak + Gramscians = destruction .
    Destruction of the judiciary , destruction of the police , destruction of the church , destruction of the civil service , destruction of the MSM , destruction of the teaching profession , destruction of the charities .

    Destruction of the BBC .

    Destruction of the culture and history of the nation . Destruction of the nation , and it’s people .

    In their place are hollowed out institutions and organisations peopled by the Gramscian s professing loyalty to those institutions . Many are sincere about that , because the Newspeak means they can’t think otherwise .


  5. Lucy Pevensey says:

    ” I have very seldom met a convinced Socialist who could grasp that thinking people may be repelled by the objective towards which Socialism appears to be moving. The Marxist, especially, dismisses this kind of thing as bourgeois sentimentality. Marxists as a rule are not very good at reading the minds of their adversaries; if they were, the situation in Europe might be less desperate than it is at present. Possessing a technique which seems to explain everything, they do not often bother to discover what is going on inside other people’s heads. ”

    The above paragraph could have easily been written yesterday couldn’t it?
    From Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Pier essay 1937


  6. Zelazek says:

    “Possessing a technique which seems to explain everything” captures exactly the way they think. But Marxists have also stopped thinking. They’re not interested in learning more about the world. Marxist theory prevents them from developing any real curiosity about people. I quite like watching lefties approach a new idea that might subvert their world-view and then watch them draw back in horror and disdain. I saw something in The Guardian by Nick Cohen – an intelligent guy who is not quite humble enough to consider the possibility that everything he has learned might be wrong – about Anne Marie Waters. He dismisses her an “anti-Muslim bigot”. Cohen would be wise to consider the possibility of becoming an “anti-Muslim bigot” himself. He seems to me to be a Marxist frog who has completely failed to understand the nature of the Muslim scorpion.