Ten Ways the Democratic Northern Hemisphere Nations Became the Orwellian West

Ten Ways the Democratic Northern Hemisphere Nations Became the Orwellian West

June 5, 2018

by Doug “Uncola” Lynn:

In his book, “1984”, George Orwell envisioned a future crushed by the iron grip of a collectivist oligarchy. The narrative told of the INGSOC Party which maintained power through a system of surveillance and brutality designed to monitor and control every aspect of society.  From the time of the book’s release in 1949, any ensuing vision of a dark dystopia depicting variations of jackboots stomping on human faces, forever, has been referenced as being “Orwellian”.  This is because Orwell’s narrative illustrated various disturbing and unjust conceptualizations of control, crime, and punishment.

For example, “Newspeak” represented the language of mind control, whereas “crimethink”, “thoughtcrime”, and “crimeface” manifested as transgressions against the state.  Guilty citizens were captured by the “Thought Police”, and the ultimate punishment consisted of “vaporization”; which eliminated every last vestige of a person’s existence.

In the horrifying world of 1984, the nation of Oceania was divided into three concentric groups:  The Inner Party, the Outer Party, and the Proles, or proletariat.  The Proles constituted 85% of the population and lived in extreme privation.  The Inner Party represented the elite powerbrokers who led lives of comprehensive luxury compared to the minions in the Outer Party.

But in the real world of today, it is the globalist billionaires who own multiple mansions, fly private jets and ride in eight-cylinder limousines to climate-change conferences where policies are decreed to lower the carbon footprint of the proletariat.  It is the wealthy elite of the westernized nations who have sacrificed individual freedom upon the altar of Collectivism as political correctness has stifled free speech and enslaved citizens drown under oceans of debt.

At the same time, megalithic multi-national corporations like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, have become the eyes and ears of Big Brother; always watching and ever listening.

Indeed, Orwell was near prophetic in describing the proliferation of listening devices in both public and private settings as well as “telescreens”, which simultaneously broadcast propaganda while relaying live video feeds back to the Party watchers.  And just as free will and individuality were sacrificed to the extreme demands of Collectivism in the fictional nation of Oceania, so do the globalists and corporate oligarchs of the twenty-first-century desire a new world government fused together by technology and the circular, magnetic dynamism of the hive-mind.

Orwell sublimely illustrated the practicality, and twisted morality, of the state’s utilization of contrived wars and political scapegoats to subvert and shape society by means of circular logic and cycling causation.

And, certainly, life does imitate art.

On January 12, 2009, Dr. Henry Kissinger said in his New York Times editorial entitled “The Chance for a New World Order”:


The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a common strategy reinforced by the realization that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.


Given that Kissinger’s vision was to “shape the common concern” of the nations by “economic crisis” and the “fear of Jihadist terrorism” into a “common strategy” towards globalism, it makes one wonder if everything was planned after all.

Pursuant to 911 came the Patriot Act, the War on Terror, widespread electronic surveillance, eight years of Obama and Cloward-Piven-driven welfare spending, burgeoning sovereign debts, pervasive political correctness, and the weaponization of government agencies.  America was definitely fundamentally changed by the Obama administration; and that goes to show, if the Inner Party ever wanted to turn a constitutional republic into a banana republic, they were geniuses to install a Marxist of Kenyan descent.

As a result of the Hegelian Dialectic, central banking, pay-to-play politics, and collectivist orthodoxies, here are ten ways the democratic northern hemisphere nations became the Orwellian West:

1.) Continuous War

In the 17 years after 911, if anything has become perfectly clear it is this:  The U.S. wars abroad were not meant to be won. Instead, as Orwell once intimated, they were meant to be continuous.  Orwell identified war as the means by which a collectivist oligarchy could maintain a hierarchical society by purging the excess production of material goods from the economy; thus, keeping the masses impoverished and ignorant by denying them the surplus “spare time” afforded by the convenience of modern technology:


The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.

Emmanuel Goldstein, ”1984”: part 2, chapter 9


In the novel, 1984, the wars alternated between the three nation-states of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. In the western nations of the new millennium, however, middle-eastern wars destabilized those populations which, in turn, created a mass migration crisis that is now subverting the former wealthy societies of the northern hemisphere.

By way of burgeoning domestic welfare programs, ever-increasing deficit spending, economic malfeasance, open borders, and wars abroad; the global elite powerbrokers have bankrupted the United States and destabilized other nations around the world.  At the same time, it was revealed that Inner Party members, like George Soros, have subsidized color revolutions around the globe.

The goal? Order out of chaos.

Moreover, it is highly likely the near two decades of modern and urban warfare in the middle-east served as practice for the Orwellian technocracy’s New World Order; for a time when drones will deliver peace, like doves, from on high.

2.) Widespread Surveillance

Although statutes prohibiting telegraph wiretapping date back as far as 1862, and the first person convicted was a stock broker named D.C. Williams in 1864, it wasn’t until Watergate before public concerns over government spying became widespread. In the wake of 911, however, as well as the passing of the Patriot Act, and the revelations of former government contractor, Edward Snowden, the concerns of Americans reached entirely new levels; especially regarding violations to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Snowden previously worked for Dell Computers and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) before his employment with Booz Allen Hamilton, a National Security Agency (NSA) contractor.  Hailed by some as a hero and whistle blower, and others as a traitor, Snowden released to the press hundreds of thousands of files related to the American NSA as well as other intelligence agencies from Australia and Britain.

The revelations were stunning.

As result of what became known as Edward Snowden’s 2013 Global Surveillance Disclosures, American and British initiatives were exposed including PRISM and Tempora that revealed cooperation with governments around the world working in connection with multi-national corporations including Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Google, British Telecommunications, and Verizon.  Furthermore, backdoor data-gathering programs such as XKeyscore were unveiled along with other various ways by which government spooks could intercept phone calls, text messages, and private data from commonly used internet platforms like Yahoo.



Just as technological breakthroughs in computing and the proliferation of “smart” communication and entertainment devices gave rise to government spying, it was not a very large leap of understanding to see how easy it would be too blackmail and control not only citizens, but government administrators, politicians, officials, and even judges, around the world:


 Germany had reacted with outrage when information leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed in 2013 that US agents were carrying out widespread tapping worldwide, including of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone.

Merkel, who grew up in communist East Germany where state spying on citizens was rampant, declared repeatedly that ‘spying among friends is not on’ while acknowledging Germany’s reliance on the US in security matters.

But to the great embarrassment of Germany, it later emerged that the [German spy agency] BND helped the NSA spy on European allies.


Is it any wonder why border laws are not enforced throughout the wealthy “democratic” nations of the world?  Or why U.S. politicians pass legislation against the will of those who voted for them?  Or why Chief Justice John Roberts passed the unconstitutional Obamacare mandate by calling it a tax?

No wonder Senator Chuck Schumer said the following in an MSNBC interview on January 3rd, 2017:


Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.


This likely explains why Florida Senator, Marco Rubio, recently asserted the FBI was not spying on Trump, but the agents were, instead, “doing their jobs to protect America”; and why, in apparent accord with former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s previous statements, South Carolina Republican, Trey Gowdy, claimed the “FBI acted properly” and denied any evidence that the “FBI planted spies” in Trump’s 2016 Presidential Campaign.

3.) Propaganda-Style Fake News

On the Sunday before Thanksgiving 2016 I wrote a sardonic “Thank You” piece in the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential election victory.  The article was, in turn, picked up by a website called “Zero Hedge”.  Imagine my surprise, on Thanksgiving Day, when I read in The Washington Post, that Zero Hedge was guilty of spreading disinformation by the Russians, according to some obscure, and likely CIA subsidized, entity named “Prop or Not”.

Just as the “Ministry of Truth”, in 1984, served as the propaganda machine for Big Brother and the INGSOC regime, so do the handful of corporations, comprising 90% of the mainstream media today,  who serve as the propaganda machine for the globalists.

Although the main purpose of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth was to rewrite history in order to realign it with Party doctrine and make the Party look infallible, it also promoted war hysteria designed to manufacture consensus; and unite the citizens of Oceania against whatever, or whomever, the Party deemed culpable.


Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.


So, too, do the Masters and Messengers of the new millennium march in lockstep toward a predetermined future.  By way of the Hegelian Dialectic they progress.  First they create a problem; then they sow seeds of discord before finally demanding solutions designed to augment and centralize their political power.

Today’s modern manifestation of the INGSOC party, led here by loyal U.S. Democrats, have sought to control private lives, consolidate power, and restrict personal freedoms by weaponizing healthcare, welfare, FISA Courts, illegal immigration, anti-gun initiatives, and even turn Vladimir Putin into a modern day incarnation of Orwell’s imaginary and infamous scapegoat, Emmanuel Goldstein.

Certainly, the Collectivists would have had much more difficulty fundamentally transforming America and rest of the world, except for the never ending propagandic spin spewed forth by the mainstream media as the modern day Ministry of Truth.   Using Orwellian terms like Election Hacking, Black Lives Matter, No Justice No Peace, Hands Up Don’t Shoot, #MeToo, #OneLess, and No More Guns, the Messengers ceaselessly promulgate their divisive bullshit around the world twice while the truth ties its shoes and gets slandered as fake news.

In one of the century’s greatest ironies, liberals and the press have labeled Trump as Hitler and his supporters as Nazis while employing the exact techniques used by Hitler’s henchman, Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda:


If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.


4.) Acceptance of Politically Correct Orthodoxies via Newspeak

For anyone born even as late as the mid twentieth-century, it would have been difficult imagining a time when a U.S. President would advocate for cross-dressing males to share the bathrooms of our daughters in schools.  But that’s what the Obama Administration pulled off and it was the weaponization of words that allowed it to happen.


The Obama administration issued guidance Friday directing public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms matching their gender identity.

A joint letter from the Departments of Education and Justice went to schools Friday with guidelines to ensure that ‘transgender students enjoy a supportive and nondiscriminatory school environment,’ the Obama administration said…

…..This guidance gives administrators, teachers and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies.


Identity politics and implementation of social justice policies have stifled the rights of free speech and freedom of association throughout the democratic nations of the western world. They materialized as the result of language manipulation.  Remember when gender used to represent male or female?  Yet in the above example, the word “identity” was added after “gender” thus opening a verifiable Pandora’s Box of Orwellian Newspeak.

Today in the formerly free societies of the northern hemisphere, men and women are forced to navigate Genderqueer and Non-Binary Identities, consisting of an entirely new lexicon including neo-designations such as Agender, CisgenderCeterosexual, Ceteroromantic, Demigender, Enby, and Epicene; just to name a few.



And, with the “guidance” of our government and corporate masters, “administrators, teachers and parents”-  transgender students can be “protected” from “peer harassment” and “unjust school policies”.

See how that works?

It is the magic of Newspeak by which today’s children are protected from a multitude of great sins all deriving from the three evil societal pillars of sexism, homophobism, and racism.

To accept the world order in Orwell’s dark narrative, the protagonist, Winston Smith, was forced into believing that 2 + 2 = 5.

To accept the New World Order in 2018, one must believe that Black Lives Matter more than “all lives” and that gender is fluid based upon personal desire or plastic surgery.

Just as Newspeak manifested as thought control in 1984, so too has the language of political correctness today given rise to the strange new orthodoxies of a New World Order; and all for the inclusivity and unification of mankind; or rather “peoplekind” according to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

5.) Dumbing Down and Doublethink

Over the past four decades, and as a result of global academia’s embrace of the Frankfort School and Fabian Socialism, the U.S. Department of Education has dumbed down a majority of Americans while vastly increasing their taxpayer funded budgets over that time. Moreover, whereas emphasis was once placed on critical thinking, logic, classic literature, science, and math, today’s schools have instead prioritized the social sciences while cultivating into young minds attitudes of conformity and political correctness. Now universities around the world offer majors such as global studies, gender studies, and women studies, in order to prepare young people for career government jobs, positions in progressive non-profits, or to move back into their old bedrooms at Mom and Dad’s house.

This is why, in a recent Rasmussen Poll of 1,000 U.S. voters, forty-six percent favored government guaranteed jobs for all, why a Los Angeles Antifa group hung President Donald Trump in effigy and called for revolution against the capitalist state, why millennial candidates have embraced Socialism, and why four socialist-backed candidates recently won Pennsylvania legislative primaries.

Orwell defined “doublethink” as:


the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them

Emmanuel Goldstein, ”1984”: part 2, chapter 9


These people realize their utopian dreams have been tried before in history; like the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, the People’s Republic of China under Mao Tse-tung, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

Even so, forward, they march.


war is peace

freedom is slavery

ignorance is strength


In the modern democratic nations of the world, what is called diversity is actually enforced as unity. In the name of tolerance, Muslim hordes are flooding through borders of the wealthy western Christian nations as oligarchical intolerance rains down upon any who dare question the catastrophic consequences of failed immigration policies.  In the U.S., and most of Europe, people are condemned for any criticism of Islam.

Are the governments tolerant or intolerant? Obviously, they are both.

Recently, Donald Trump referred to violent MS-13 gang members as “animals” causing Democrat Party Leader, Nancy Pelosi, to question if the President didn’t believe that we are all God’s children”.  Evidently, Pelosi, advocates for the humanity of MS-13 gang members while touting the benefits of both Catholicism and abortion.

Furthermore, Doublethink occurs when the Party of the Klu Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws believes only they can righteously defend against racism; when Roseanne Barr is a bigot and Ivanka Trump a “feckless cunt”, when informants aren’t spies, and when the Party insanely fears Trump’s America as a real-life dystopian embodiment of “The Handmaid’s Tale” while, simultaneously, marching on Washington D.C. for gun confiscation.

Even more fantastic is how special counsel, Robert Mueller, expects to convict President Trump of obstruction of justice in an investigation of which Robert Mueller says Trump is not a target.

Obviously moral relativity and dissimulation are the hot air that gives flight to the amazing magic carpet ride of Collectivism’s Doublethink.

6.) Censorship

In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 Presidential Election, alternative-news websites were labeled fake news as the mainstream media propagated actual fake news regarding Russian collusion and election hacking.  But that was just the beginning.  Within a week after the general election, two of the world’s largest internet companies, Google and Facebook, announced their plans for outright censorship.

In Orwell’s 1984, books were outlawed and news was fabricated to align with the agenda of the INGSOC Party.  The Party decided what was true and what was false on behalf of the people.

On December 15, 2016 Facebook announced a series of measures designed to address what they branded as “fake news and hoaxes”.  In effect, the measures made one of the largest news sources in the world a last line of defense in the online information wars.

The efforts have continued.

Just last month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a system to rank news organizations based on “trustworthiness” in an effort to suppress content based on that metric and eliminate hate speech.

What could go wrong with a company who, also last month, was accused of conducting mass surveillance through its apps and whose ad censors demanded the home address and driver’s license of a conservative author who wrote an Obama exposé book?

Evidently, all of the large internet news hubs are operated by the Party.

Earlier this year, the social media platform, Twitter, was revealed to be shadow-banning conservatives and President Trump’s son, Donald Jr., has more recently claimed conservatives were being shadow-banned on Instagram.

The country of France has just drafted legislation to stop what the government has called “manipulation of information” that opponents claim could be used to silence critics and, most recently, Apple has announced plans for the company’s own editorial team to soon be selecting the top news stories on Apple News.

In response to the outright censorship initiatives imposed by online media companies, sixty-three conservative leaders recently issued a joint statement demanding fairer social media policies.

Additionally, Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, along with Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, have written a letter calling for the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter to address concerns over conservative censorship ahead of the 2020 election, as well as a call for transparency.

7.) Two Minutes of Hate against Political Scapegoats and Strawmen

In all likelihood, the Obama Administration’s spying on its political opposition will one day be known as the largest political scandal in the history of the United States.  The Russian Election Hacking Lie, however, which was initiated in an attempt to concurrently conceal the misdeeds of the guilty government coconspirators and derail the incoming administration, will go down in history as one of America’s greatest frauds.

Of course, to best deflect and divert the attention away from what must not be seen is to provide the citizens with other, more suitable, narratives and targets.

In 1984, war and the dissident scapegoat Emmanuel Goldstein served that purpose to such an extent the citizens would publically vent their collective anger toward both in what was called the “Two Minutes of Hate”.

In America today, the real live Two Minutes of Hate occurs in succession over the course of every day on cable TV networks like CNN and MSNBC.  It is there where the political pundits and the media talking-heads prosecute and convict guns for killing school children or Las Vegas concert attendees.  Or, whenever the frenzy of the latest mass shooting wanes from a boil into a simmer, Vladimir Putin of Russia remains a primary scapegoat; even causing Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein to seem more loveable than the Pillsbury Doughboy by comparison:

8.) Harassment and Arrest of Dissidents

Recently, President Trump pardoned conservative filmmaker, Dinesh D’Souza, which caused those in the Inner Party to speak out against such heresy.   D’Souza was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to eight months of confinement by Obama’s Department of Justice (DoJ) for campaign finance violations that normally would have been settled with probation and community service.

The filmmaker was also subjected to what he said was reeducation by way of a court-ordered psychologist and targeted as a conservative in his DoJ file. His real crimes, of course, consisted of writing a book and making a documentary that were both critical of then president Barack Obama.

Of course none of D’Souza’s treatment should have come as a surprise from a petty tyrant who sued the state of Arizona for defending its southern border, spied on reporter Sharyl Atkinson, misused U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct a counterintelligence operation against political opposition and, previous to that, weaponized the IRS against the Tea Party.

Furthermore, just thirty-eight days after Trump was elected president, the Executive Lame Duck signed into law the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” resulting in the expulsion of Russian diplomats  “spies” from their homes “compounds” where non-existent crimes against the state never took place.

Additionally, and most recently in the U.K., conservative activist and founder of the English Defense League, Tommy Robinson, was arrested for “breaching the peace” while reporting on an Islamic pedophile gang.  Amidst a court-ordered media blackout, Robinson was later sentenced to 13 months on a contempt-of-court charge.

At the same time, conservative Canadian psychologist, Jordon Peterson, has been targeted by the left-wing smear machine:


The Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work and/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it…


Before long, like Winston Smith in 1984, even writing down personal thoughts in a diary could result in a first class ticket to Room 101; where individuality and personality succumbs to the Borg.

This is very likely why the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is shopping contractors to compile a database of journalists and bloggers in order to identify “media influencers”.  According to the DHS, today’s diaries consist of “online, print, broadcast, cable, radio, trade and industry publications, local sources, national/international outlets, traditional news sources, and social media.”

9.)  #MeToo Sexual Purges

As mentioned before, in the novel, 1984, the members of the Outer Party were denied sex, other than for procreation.  This was how sexual repression was channeled into enthusiasm for the State. In the eponymously named film (which was actually released in the year 1984), the actors John Hurt and Suzanna Hamilton played Winston Smith and Julia, respectively, engaging in a secret love affair as a form of political rebellion.

Although the storyline of the film corresponds to that of the book, the viewer witnesses full frontal nudity onscreen as well as public confessions of captured dissidents in the background admitting forced proclamations of moral depravity.  The manufactured sex crimes consisted of participation in orgies, homosexual seductions, and the purposeful proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases.   These visual parallels in the 1984 film create a sense of foreboding in the mind of the viewer as the lovers persist in their rebellion against the Party with certain fatalism.

Inevitably, just before Winston and Julia are captured and stand naked before the militant, jackbooted INGSOC Party authoritarians, he told her “we are the dead”; to which she replied the same words back to him.

Today, sex is also wielded as a political weapon and, just like the dime store magazines of yore, nothing will titillate and tantalize the minds of readers and viewers alike, more than scurrilous headlines and stimulating suggestions of scandalously salacious crimes of fornication.



Although sex scandals have plagued the rich and famous around the globe, over the ages, and across all sides of the political spectrum, the consequences have varied.  Chappaquiddick may have prevented Teddy Kennedy from becoming president but it did not prevent him from being a senator.  Sexual impropriety ended the political career of Democratic Presidential Candidate Gary Hart in 1988, but Bill Clinton’s presidency survived an even worse sexual imbroglio a decade later.

Political Leftists, in the past, have been particularly forgiving of sexual improprieties.  However, after the election of Donald Trump, liberals around the world seem to have decided it was time to clean house with the #MeToo movement which has brought about the demise of former Hollywood producer and democratic bundler, Harvey Weinstein, as well as other notable figures around the world.

In February of this year, President Donald Trump lamented the lack of “due process” behind the #MeToo movement but his own daughter Ivanka, two weeks later, praised the movement and with “credible evidence” as being sufficient for the accusations.

In the case of Donald Trump, is it possible all of the #MeToo sex crime victims are now given their day in the sun because the political opposition believes all roads lead to impeachment by way of Stormy Daniels?  Or is the Trump Administration partially behind the take down of political opponents like Harvey Weinstein and others?

Either way, like in 1984, when it comes to sex crimes in today’s political theater, an arbitrary morality is hypocritically wielded as a double-edged sword, on the basis of convenience, and with one overriding premise: The accused are guilty until proven innocent.

In today’s surveillance society, therefore, there can be no doubt of sex crimes being used to control political and corporate leaders all throughout the Democratic nations in their long descent into Orwellian hell.

The question remains:  Who will watch the watchers?

10.) Historical Revisionism

The “memory hole” in 1984 was a chute connected to an incinerator and served as the mechanism by which the Ministry of Truth would abolish historical archives as if they never existed.

Had the establishment’s candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the U.S. Presidency in 2016, would any of the Orwellian revelations behind SPYGATE ever have seen the light of day?  Of course not.  Just like in 1984, the “Memory Hole” would have been utilized to make The Party appear infallible.

In reference to the (Orwellian) Obrien-like CIA and FBI mole, Steven Halper, who infiltrated and entrapped members of Donald Trump’s campaign, “The American Spectator” has written of it thusly:


Halper — who tried to get a position in the campaign, spent over a year shadowing Carter Page, and tried to entrap George Papadopoulos — ‘wasn’t spying.’ Halper was just ‘observing,’ ‘assisting an FBI investigation’ (as the Washington Post desperately put it), or, in the words of John Brennan, seeking ‘insight.’

George Orwell would have laughed at that one. ‘Political language,’ Orwell said, ‘is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.’  In this case, it is an all-hands-on-deck propaganda effort to make spying on political opponents respectable — a ruination of reputations, careers, and bank accounts of Trump campaign officials undertaken ‘for their own good,’ we’re told. Liberalism claims a monopoly on everything, particularly language, and liberals will let us know when we can and can’t use ‘spying’ to describe obtaining information secretly.


Indeed. The writings of George Orwell sublimely revealed how “political language” and the Memory Hole are used in combination by the Collectivists to move forward toward their final agenda of ultimate control.

It is why the Media Messengers have recently reported on “Trump Supporter” Roseanne Barr, but have never once referenced Harvey Weinstein as the “Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Bundler”.

Did you catch that?

Roseanne Barr’s recent allegations of racism and intolerance against Obama’s advisor, Valarie Jarrett, are tied to Trump while tainted Harvey Weinstein’s liberalism and support for both Obama and Jarrett are disappeared right down into the Memory Hole.

This is the exact same way the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 was later blamed on a YouTube video, why the Obama Administration was never held to account for its IRS harassment of the Tea Party, how a British judge could ban press coverage of Islamic pedophiles, and how the two lawyers responsible for covering up the crimes of Hillary Clinton were allowed to openly collude in a coup against a sitting president.



Think lawlessness like this could never occur in the Democratic nations of the Northern Hemisphere?

Too late.


Whether history and headlines rhyme, or repeat, or whether life merely imitates art – in the end, the stories rarely vary.  Civilizations rise and societies fall.  And, in the long term, entropy never ceases to run its course on the crumbling road to tyranny.

Obviously, the road to hell is paved with bad intentions, but under the guise of good intentions.  Of course, the slide toward the slough will continue and those feigning the love of peoplekind will persist in their lies.

Soon, as George Orwell envisioned, the Party may become more honest and figure out the final solution.  As Oceania’s Inner Party member, “Obrien” admitted while torturing Winston Smith in Room 101 of The Ministry of Love:


The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power….

We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that.

– Obrien, ”1984”: part 3, chapter 3,


Although, as we draw nearer to Orwell’s perfect vision of hell on earth, to acquiesce to orthodoxies of political correctness in the meantime, is nothing short of suicide by cowardice. It would be akin to acknowledging the state’s embezzled power as god; and to bow down before those holding nothing sacred themselves, except power.

Even so, with the technological capabilities at the disposal of those in control today, the key for the Party to continually centralize its power becomes no more difficult than game of Whack-a-mole.  And, sadly, most of peoplekind won’t fight as the dominoes fall.  Instead they will slip on their electronic collars for slices of bread and learn to love their new “necklaces”.

Of course, it could have been different.  But in looking at government administrations, the entertainment industry, the press, the media, politics, football, the Boy Scouts, and now even coffee shops:  There is nothing the Party has ever touched that it didn’t cause to wilt like a flower in the fall.

In the once-free, and previously Christian, nations of the Northern Hemisphere hope has become a luxury we can no longer afford.

51 thoughts on “Ten Ways the Democratic Northern Hemisphere Nations Became the Orwellian West

  1. You did it again: a brilliant interpretation of a brilliant work of literature. What a solace to think that there are still people like you out there. Voices in the wilderness from a dying breed…



    On another blog that featured my above essay, some of the readers lamented that I was “hanging my vitriol on the Democrats” while not acknowledging the Republican contributions on the long descent into Orwellian hell; namely, the Patriot Act, intervention in the Middle East, and spending.

    I responded thusly:

    The point was this: If Republicans are a deadly flu, then Democrats are terminal cancer.

    I am not advocating for the two-party system or the Republican Party per se, but rather the superiority of common-sense conservative values over the strange orthodoxies of Collectivism.

    Even if it wasn’t made clear enough in the above essay for some, the Orwellian “Party” is the establishment and RINOS are the establishment, as most everyone realizes by now; especially since the election of Trump.

    “In name only” doesn’t count any longer. By their actions, they are known. And this is why I called out both Marco Rubio and Trey Gowdy in the piece.

    Just wanted to place that for posterity here.

    On another note, this article was most recently featured over at All News Pipeline :

    Thank you for visiting TheTollOnline.com and to those who have taken the time to comment.

    Doug / Uncola


    1. Also – I noticed on still another blog where this piece was posted – some of the commenters there argued the West is more comparable to Huxley’s “Brave New World”; as opposed to Orwell’s “1984”.

      Both Huxley and Orwell were compared on this blog in April, 2017, here:


      The above link/piece, in fact, has become this blog’s most popular essay. It’s been translated into 4 or 5 languages on various sites around the world, posted on two large university forums, and continues to grow each month via search engines and social media.

      Doug / Uncola


  3. “Political Leftists, in the past, have been particularly forgiving of sexual improprieties.”

    What utter b*******!

    Did you even read the book, past the first chapter?


    1. Wait. A 5,000+ word article and that’s all you got to bitch about? Dang! I must be good.

      But seriously, Peter, read for comprehension. Liberals forgave the likes of Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, et al, until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. The point was how the Left wields morality like a weapon, hypocritically, and in an arbitrary manner; like the INGSOC Party in 1984.

      In Orwell’s dystopia, promiscuous sex was encouraged among the proletariat and the Ministry of Truth even had a pornography division called “Pornosec”, which distributed obscene media for consumption by the Proles alone. Conversely, the members of Outer Party were required to abstain from sex; except for married couples attempting to procreate solely on behalf of the government.

      Does that seem familiar to you?

      Doug / Uncola


      1. “But seriously, Peter, read for comprehension.”

        Oh the irony!

        Firstly, I did read your article in it’s entirety, even though it was painfully tedious and repetitious in its simplic and specious reasoning.
        However, that moronic statement I quoted back at you, regarding “liberals” giving succour to sexual predators, is just absurd and doesn’t square with reality.

        In the past, it’s been those on the left, who have crusaded against sexual predators.

        But let me guess, you are an American, with a raging confirmation bias?
        Nevermind, rhetorical question.

        So again, valid this comment of yours (“Political Leftists, in the past, have been particularly forgiving of sexual improprieties.”) with some real life examples.
        And remember, there is a bigger world, than just that giant goldfish bowl you live in, better known as the United States of America.

        “Dang! I must be good.”

        No, as we say in Australia, you’re just the colossal wanker.


      2. “In Orwell’s dystopia, promiscuous sex was encouraged among the proletariat and the Ministry of Truth even had a pornography division called “Pornosec”, which distributed obscene media for consumption by the Proles alone. Conversely, the members of Outer Party were required to abstain from sex; except for married couples attempting to procreate solely on behalf of the government.”

        Oh, and I forgot to mention, but are you drawing a parallel between modern-day leftists and the proletariat in 1984?
        If so, you’re unhinged.

        Today, despite the make believe world in 1984, many men (and some woman), from all walks of life and all strata of socioeconomic groupings are consumers of pornography, both soft and hard.

        Again, what is your point!?


        1. The point is your all twisted, Peter. Let me set you straight: Leftists claim Republicans desire to set back the cause of women by 50 years while advocating for mass immigration of muslims who want to set back the cause of women 1,500 years. See the doublethink?

          Dazzle me with your contorted nuance as to how that makes sense.

          Who has deified Stormy Daniels as the next Mother Teresa?


          While calling Ivanka Trump a “feckless cunt”


          The Political LEFT.

          Who gave blessing to a presidential predator who stained a young intern’s blue dress?

          Who gave Harvey Weinstein big fat hugs all around the world?

          Why did Bill Clinton fly 26 times on the “Lolita Express” to Jeffrey Epstein’s “Orgy Island” knowing Epstein was registered sex offender?


          Tell us more about the Left’s crusades against sexual predators. That’s the saddest shit I’ve heard in a long time.

          Thanks for posting here. You have validated this piece on Orwell wonderfully.

          Doug / Uncola


  4. Oooh… I see now…

    It’s one if the neolithic alt-right talking points, which is their twisted and bias view of Islam’s treatment of women.

    I live in the biggest Muslim country in the world, which is Indonesia, and women are not oppressed here, quite the contrary.

    But of course, what has reality got to do with your sick and twisted bias and ignorance on an industrial scale, as long as you continue to hold the dual thoughts that somehow leftists who promote Islam, are at the same time (double-think) supporting female inequality.

    I say reality, because the fact is, that the misanthropes on your side of politics are nothing more than knuckle draggers and morons who rely on the limbic system to evaluate the world around them.

    Couple with the fact, that you are an American, the dumbest white race in the history of western culture, you have absolutely no concept of what goes on outside your echo chamber, in the real world.

    And as for the rest of your examples, it is a masterful display (maybe I’m being too generous with the word “masterful”) of cherry picking and Olympic level bias.

    I can only laugh, when you use Fox News as your source of rebuttal.
    Fox News… the greatest fake news organisation in the history of journalism.

    Because you’re a typical gormless and feckless American, just let me point out to you, that sexual predatory behaviour perpetrated on women, comes from all levels of society and socioeconomic groupings, including those on the left and the right…
    But somehow, the alt Right in their race to the bottom of the barrel in the human gene pool, can only find fault with the left of politics.

    “Thanks for posting here. You have validated this piece on Orwell wonderfully.”

    Thanks for proving once again, that the poor white trash of this world, better known as “middle class” Americans, continue to besmirched western culture, and make us all look foolish and utterly ignorant.


    1. Obviously, Peter, you are the epitomic exemplification of “triggered”. If this online debate, in the commentary of this Orwell piece, were to be compared to boxing – then you are flailing about in the ring and throwing wild punches in the second round.

      I have provided facts supported by link-attribution. What counter-arguments have you made? None, other than ad hominem attacks on this blogger, Fox News, and the United States of America.

      If you were intellectually honest, Peter, you would have acknowledged the fact that Ivanka Trump being called a “feckless cunt” was widely reported; and not just on Fox News. Of course, it’s because it actually happened. But you didn’t care about that, did you? Instead, you resorted to “echo chamber talking points, name calling, cherry picking, and Olympic level bias” in a vain attempt to conceal your doublethink from yourself.

      Your self-deceit is obvious to all but you, Peter.

      First you say you’re from Australia but now, Indonesia. OK, that’s fine. Perhaps you are from both. But to say women in Indonesia are not oppressed? Puh-leeeze. If that is the case, why then would Newsweek have recently reported about women in Indonesia’s armed forces having to prove their virginity before serving their country?


      Or why the New York Times has reported on women in Indonesia facing an epidemic of street harassment?

      Or, according to your own unacknowledged bias, are these not (as you say) the “greatest fake news organizations in the history of journalism”?

      Even so, when it comes to Islamic oppression of women, why did you pick Indonesia, Peter? Were you cherry-picking?

      Can you see your doublethink now?

      In this debate, who really looks “foolish and utterly ignorant”? Be honest. If you can.

      Doug / Uncola


      1. “Obviously, Peter, you are the epitomic exemplification of “triggered”. If this online debate, in the commentary of this Orwell piece, were to be compared to boxing – then you are flailing about in the ring and throwing wild punches in the second round.”

        Of course, more alt-right talking points.
        If I dare disagree with your nonsense, and point out the fatal flaws in your infantile argument, I’m accused of being “triggered”.
        And what’s with your boxing analogy?
        To extend that one step further, I’m fighting somebody who’s not playing by the rules and steps outside the ring for cheap shots…
        Which I’ll point out just a few here now…

        “I have provided facts supported by link-attribution.”

        Specious nonsense.
        You have provided cherry-picked facts, that don’t square with the broader argument, and reality.

        “What counter-arguments have you made? None, other than ad hominem attacks on this blogger, Fox News, and the United States of America.”

        Point out to me the ad hominem?
        Calling you stupid/moronic and other similar names?
        It’s not ad hominem, if it’s accurate and proportionary.
        Here are some examples of your sheer bloody ignorance and stupidity.

        Fox News, as everybody knows, is marketed towards poorly educated and ignorant white Americans, who relie on their emotions to judge the world around them.
        Which in turn, feeds their confirmation bias.



        “If you were intellectually honest, Peter, you would have acknowledged the fact that Ivanka Trump being called a “feckless cunt” was widely reported; and not just on Fox News. Of course, it’s because it actually happened. But you didn’t care about that, did you?”

        Again, wilful ignorance on your part.
        I’ll just repeat, and that I have acknowledged, that there is outrageous and inappropriate insults on both sides of politics.. have you got it now?

        “First you say you’re from Australia but now, Indonesia. OK, that’s fine. Perhaps you are from both.”

        Of course, you would try and find fault with a simple concept like this.
        I was born in Australia, and currently living in Indonesia…why is that so difficult to understand??
        Which brings me to another question, how far have you travelled outside of your echo bubble, better known as the United States of America? Have you experienced other cultures, that is contrary to White middle class western culture?
        I guess not.

        “But to say women in Indonesia are not oppressed?”

        And like all the limbic driven simpletons such as yourself, you misdirect the argument away from the original debating point, in a desperate attempt to try and stay relevant in the discussion, by taking the discussion off track.

        Remember, in your long rambling and incomprehensible thesis on Orwell’s 1984, you were making some specious connection with the treatment of women inside Islam.

        And so typical of your type, you compare apples with golf balls.

        The virginity testing within some branches of the armed forces in the Indonesian military, has nothing to do with Islam.

        Likewise, your irrelevant discussion point, regarding women being sexually harassed on public transport in Indonesia, again, there is no connection with Islam.

        From my experience, the country that harasses their female population on public transport, more than any other country in the world, has to be Japan.

        People like you on the far right, have to use a little common sense (Sharc), and realise that there is a wide gap between what happens, not only in Islam, but other religious traditions, and the prevailing culture practiced in a particular country.

        In other words, causation does not always mean correlation… in this case, a country’s religious practices and their cultural practices.
        Comparing apples with golf balls.

        Another Epic Fail from your side of politics, is when you accuse Islam of encouraging and perpetuating FGM.
        FGM predates Islam by around 1500 years, and is practiced mostly in North Africa, and where, in many cases, Christian churches dominate the religious landscape.
        Example, Ethiopia where FGM is practiced, has its own Orthodox Church.

        Educate yourself, and you’ll realise, that there are vast differences between a country’s culture, and the type of religious dictates that are practiced by their population.

        “Even so, when it comes to Islamic oppression of women, why did you pick Indonesia, Peter? Were you cherry-picking?”

        Again, infantile misdirection and simplistic thinking on your behalf.

        I was merely pointing out, that I live in a country, where Islam is the majority religion.
        I have spent time in other Asian countries too, and there are many problems in their societies, which has no connection with the various religions practiced in these countries.

        “Can you see your doublethink now?”


        Do you have the intestinal fortitude, and intellectual rigour, to ask yourself the same question?


        1. And you think I am “long rambling and incomprehensible” and making “specious connections”? Seriously, Peter, your Intelligence Quotient appears to be approximately one-fourth of what you believe it to be.

          You completely missed the point about Fox News and Islam and instead, have responded with inane ramblings regarding your arrogant perceptions of my politics and worldly sophistication; of which you know nothing.

          Your hubris seems solely outmatched by your incomprehension.

          This is fun. Tell me, Peter, for what would you be willing to give your life? In other words, would you say you put more faith into your faux-feminist virtue signaling? Or do you more favor Islamic orthodoxy?

          Doug / Uncola


          1. “You completely missed the point…”

            “In other words, would you say you put more faith into your faux-feminist virtue signaling? Or do you more favor Islamic orthodoxy?”



            I am merely defending Islam, from the neolithic knuckle-draggers such as yourself, who have contrived some simplistic, shallow and utterly ignorant understanding of religious/cultural/ social norms, which is outside your little echo chamber of middle class white culture.

            Again, have you read George Orwell’s 1984, in it’s entirety??
            And have you visited/ lived in other cultures, other than your own?

            I asked you, at the end of my previous post, do you have the guts and the intellectual rigour, to address my points and scrutinize your own claptrap.

            Clearly, the answer is no, and you just regurgitate more simplistic alt-right cliches and talking points.

            “This is fun.”

            Making yourself look stupid and ignorant?
            In that case, please continue.


          2. LOL! “Pot-Kettle” and “Oops”; “neolithic-knuckle-dragging (regurgitated again), “echo chambers” (regurgitated again), and more hate speech against those with lighter skin pigmentation (regurgitated again).

            My, what a proud one is Peter; self-enthralled by his frail hauteur. With some additional assistance in conjugating his incoherent contemplations, he could publish a book and entitle it: “The Impotence of Relative Thinking”.

            Why are you so proud, Peter? Why do you hate? And what’s with all your bigotry and racism?

            Doug / Uncola


  5. “LOL! “Pot-Kettle” and “Oops”; “neolithic-knuckle-dragging (regurgitated again), “echo chambers” (regurgitated again)…”

    So it is fun, after all?


    Speaking of regurgitating…

    I see that you’ve completely abandoned your superficial sophistry, rather, now just quoting my words back at me.
    And for the rest of your diatribe of a post, focusing on me, rather than the argument.

    So again, have you read George Orwell’s 1984 in it’s entirety??
    And have you visited any other countries, outside of your echo chamber??


  6. “Why are you so proud, Peter? Why do you hate? And what’s with all your bigotry and racism?”

    Misdirection, again…

    Point out to me, my bigotry and racism?


    1. Yes to both. Have you not read either the above piece or all of the comments in this thread? If not, just Google “prisons of pleasure or pain” and read that piece and tell me if you think I could have written it without reading 1984 cover to cover.

      Now you’re getting boring, Peter.

      Doug / Uncola


      1. Really??
        Which country was it, and how long did you stay??

        “Now you’re getting boring, Peter.”

        I thought you said it was “fun?”
        Like your type, you do suffer from a little bit of ADHD.


    2. “simplistic, shallow and utterly ignorant understanding of religious/cultural/ social norms, which is outside your little echo chamber of middle class white culture.”

      You know if I said the same back to you along with “black culture”, you would call me a racist, right? Why the double-standard? Read this thread again and see who is name calling. Why Peter? Have you been hurt before?

      Doug / Uncola


  7. “simplistic, shallow and utterly ignorant understanding of religious/cultural/ social norms, which is outside your little echo chamber of middle class white culture.”

    I’m starting to feel sorry for your sad little ass.

    Still no answer to your accusation.
    Again, for the second time, point out my racism in bigotry?


  8. “Boring.”

    No prefrontal cortex to answer any of my questions??
    No surprise, people such as yourself eventually run into an intellectual cul-de-sac of your own making.

    And I guess it’s preferable to portray yourself as a coward, by just replying with one word, than to actually answer questions.


  9. “What other tricks can you do?”

    Nothing special, just insisting you answer my questions… still too difficult for you?

    But wait, you’ll come back with some gormless off topic flim-flam.


  10. Mr. Lynn,

    Greetings from Canada! My husband forwarded me your article from Zero Hedge. It’s fantastic! Your dissection and analysis of Peter the mental midget here in the comment sections was masterful. Thank you. Please add my e-mail to your list.


      1. “Your dissection and analysis of Peter the mental midget here in the comment sections was masterful.”


        So typical of the cowardly fools and intellectual “midgets of the alt-right, you just have enough guile to create false ghost-writing accounts, or enlist friends to troll people you don’t agree with.

        So please show me where is your “masterful” display of “dissection” of my comments?


        1. Watching Peter comment at this point is like watching a little sparrow threatened by its reflection in a dark window. Don’t listen to the whispers in your mind, Peter, that are telling you to seek validation here. You won’t receive it.

          But, if you wish to do so, please feel free to comment away like a fluttering bird banging its bony head and spewing your feeble feculence behind for all to see.

          Remember, the internet is forever and I could not have asked for a better representation of the “flock”, Orwellian doublethink, and collectivist anima mundi here.

          To be sure, there is a black hole deep in the heart of any good progressive that seeks to be filled with good intentions and dreams of utopia. Because of an overwhelming sense of self-loathing, however, utopia to them is suicide.

          Previous civilizations have been overthrown from without by the incursion of barbarian hordes; ours has dreamed up its own dissolution in the minds of own intellectual elite. It has carefully nurtured its own barbarians—all reared on the best Dr. Spock lines, sent to progressive schools and colleges, fitted with contraceptives or fed birth pills at puberty; mixing D.H. Lawrence with their Coca-Cola, and imbibing the headier stuff (Marcuse, Chairman Mao, Malcolm X) in evening libations of hot chocolate. Not Bolshevism, which Stalin liquidated along with all the old Bolsheviks; not Nazism, which perished along with Hitler in his Berlin bunker; not Fascism, which was left hanging upside down, along with Mussolini and his mistress, from a lamp-post—none of these, history will record, was responsible for bringing down the darkness on our civilization, but liberalism. A solvent rather than a precipitate, a sedative rather than a stimulant, a slough rather than a precipice; blurring the edges of truth, the definition of virtue, the shape of beauty; a cracked bell, a mist, a death wish.

          – Malcolm Muggeridge

          Godspeed, Peter. Good luck and good night.


          1. Of course, no answer of substance.
            No answer at all.
            Rather, just quoting some irrelevant prolix, in order to try and pass oneself off as a pseudo sophist.

            “…there is a black hole deep…”

            The only reference to a black hole deep here, is the fact that your honesty, integrity and morality, has already well past the event horizon.


          2. “Peter, that are telling you to seek validation here. You won’t receive it.”

            Oh the hilarious irony!
            Says the fool, who’s desperately trying to validate his misanthropic rubbish, with his own pissy little blog.


          3. Ha, Ha! Says Peter who doesn’t even have a blog! Let alone one with readership in 112 nations of the world. What a little girl you are, Peter. An empty suit. A cloud with no rain. It is no wonder your obvious self-contempt and hypocrisy are so….. epic.

            Will you please keep commenting? I may, in fact, do a whole column on you. Thanks in advance…


          4. “…self-contempt and hypocrisy…”

            Where and where?
            Or is it just more piss and wind from you?


          5. “What a little girl you are, Peter. An empty suit. A cloud with no rain.”

            Again, the template used by the knuckle dragging at-lright troglodyte is on display.
            Firstly, the ad hominem. You were squealing like a stuck Pig, that I was using ad hominem, and here you are, with your own “epic” hypocrisy.

            And secondly, your type love to just argue on a personal level alone, rather than on the topic.
            It’s a display of your inherent violence and desire for conflict.
            And it’s also evidence of your lack of intellectual rigour.

            And who needs a Blog??
            So you think I’m less of a person, because I don’t have a Blog such as yours??
            Again, more infantile points scoring and ego-boosting nonsense from a troglodyte.


          6. At least you are admitting your ad hominem attacks now. Because you denied them earlier.

            Here is the difference: Calling me a “troglodyte”, or “neolithic”, or “knuckle-dragging”, et al, all demonstrate the primary definition of ad hominem:

            ad ho·mi·nem
            ˌad ˈhämənəm/

            adverb & adjective

            1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
            “vicious ad hominem attacks”

            You have made NO real arguments or intelligent refutations of the above Orwell piece, Peter. Conversely, on various blogs others intelligently commented that I did not adequately acknowledge the contributions of political conservatives “on the long descent into Orwellian hell; namely, the Patriot Act, intervention in the Middle East, and spending” (of which I posted my rejoinder to their opinions in the above commentary).

            On still another blog where this piece was posted – some of the commenters there astutely argued that “the West is more comparable to Huxley’s “Brave New World”; as opposed to Orwell’s “1984” (of which I posted above my response to their opinions by linking my past “Prisons” article where Huxley was addressed).

            I respected both of those critiques.

            You, Peter, have offered NOTHING other than (as I pointed out above) faux feminist virtue signaling, defense of Islamic Orthodoxy (i.e. Doublethink); and ad hominem name-calling; “like a little girl; an empty suit; a cloud with no rain”.

            And when you couldn’t respond to my questions that were relevant to this discussion, you diverted the conversation by way of inane inquiries like if I read “1984” in toto and the places I’ve been; and more ad hominem name-calling “like a little girl; an empty suit; a cloud with no rain”.

            And, then, while knowing full well you lack the intellectual acuity, and discipline, to create your own blog, you instead chose to call this one “pissy”; “like a little girl; an empty suit; a cloud with no rain”.

            Can you see it now?

            Regardless, do please keep commenting here. Although you apparently believe you are “special”, you are in fact very typical; a clichéd demonstration of the ideological and intellectual impotency of the progressive left. Thank you again.


  11. My word, I have triggered the poor white trash in you.

    And so typical of your type, you respond with a disingenuous rant that has no connection to our discussions.
    Or as my grandmother would say… “you’re all over the place, like a mad woman’s spit.”


    “At least you are admitting your ad hominem attacks now. Because you denied them earlier.”

    No, I was accusing you of ad hominem, that doesn’t mean that I was conducting ad hominem arguments.
    Your types just love confusing the argument with your own oxymoronic and neolithic thinking.

    Which brings me to my next point…

    “Here is the difference: Calling me a “troglodyte”, or “neolithic”, or “knuckle-dragging”, et al, all demonstrate the primary definition of ad hominem:”

    Let me explain something to you, because clearly, you don’t have any education in the basic understanding of Science.

    I describe you as neolithic and a troglodyte, because early Hominids had a vastly under-developed brain, compared to the human brain of today.
    Put simply, they only had their limbic system to control their basic behaviour.
    And today, it’s evident in modern humans, such as the poor white trash of America, still rely on their limbic system to evaluate the world around them, and judge responses to environmental stimuli.

    “You have made NO real arguments or intelligent refutations of the above Orwell piece, Peter.”

    What, other than to destroy your argument, and to point out, that it is riven with bias, bigotry and racism?

    “…faux feminist virtue signaling, defense of Islamic Orthodoxy…”

    Point out to me, this faux feminist virtue signalling you accuse me of?

    And I have to laugh, you complaining about my defence of Islam, when it was you, that created some completely ignorant and erroneous argument regarding the treatment of women on public transport in Indonesia, and Islam, when it’s clearly a cultural problem, and nothing to do with Islam, such as the example I cited in Japan.

    “And when you couldn’t respond to my questions that were relevant to this discussion…”

    Really, where?
    I’m happy to answer any of your loaded questions, because they are so easy to refute and put down.
    If you have the courage, repost your questions here again now.

    “On still another blog where this piece was posted – some of the commenters there astutely argued that…”

    Oh, those commentators that agree with your simplistic black and white view of the world?
    Of course, you would say that wouldn’t you.

    All in all, your post was just a desperate attempt to boost your own flailing ego, by trying to suggest that other commentators agree with your bigoted, dumb and incredibly ignorant view of the world.

    “Can you see it now?”

    Yes, I can see that once again, my suspicions are confirmed, that some Americans, like yourself, are regressing the human gene pool back to the neolithic era.

    But as I said, we can get back on topic, and discuss Orwell’s view of the world, and how you believe it somehow applies to your understanding of global politics/society and religion.

    “Let alone one with readership in 112 nations of the world…”

    Oh, and I forgot, more of your sad and pathetic braggings. But of course, this to is completely false too, because you haven’t provided a list of those countries.

    Again, we can get back on topic if you wish, but I suspect that you would want to continue down this path of gromless knot tying, and disingenuous claptrap, because you somehow derive comfort that you are some sort of intellectual commentator by doing so.

    I get back to my earlier question, which is, what other country have you lived, and for how long?


  12. Really?
    Like other examples of your poor judgement?
    No, just deconstructing your racist, bigoted and ignorant views of the world.

    Again, for about the 5th or 6th time, which country have you lived in, which is contrary to your western culture, and for how long?

    “Ha, Ha! You seem so…. emotional.”

    And is that the only response you can muster up?
    As I said, you’re an intellectual nobody.


    1. If I told you, you would say I was “bragging”.

      But I will say there is this one commenter on my blog, who was born in Indonesia, also experienced some Asian culture, and now lives in Australia. Although he writes like an effeminate British man, he considers himself the epitome of worldly sophistication and intellectual prowess. I’m just fortunate I guess. Things always work out for me.


      1. “Although he writes like an effeminate British man…”

        Another characteristic, of the male species of the poor white trash.
        It’s all about bravado, hubris and who’s got the bigger dick.
        But based on your infantile ramblings, it’s no surprise that you feel inadequate with your family tackle.

        However, I’m willing to end your personal jibes, and get back to the subject at hand.
        But you being poor white trash, I’m sure you’ll insist with the continued school yard ad hominems.


          1. Before you posted your latest monosyllabic and infantile reply, I said this… “But you being poor white trash, I’m sure you’ll insist with the continued school yard ad hominems.”

            And because the poor white trash, fall into the category of, ‘too stupid to realise they’re too stupid,’ they just go ahead and reinforce your comments and beliefs.

            And you wonder why I make the general observation, that you are just so stupid.

            And the really funny part??
            You kept that fortune cookie for yourself, and the aphorism connected, so what does that say about you?
            Did you keep it, as a gentle reminder, of your own many inadequacies???

            Oh, and one other thing, the American “fortune” cookie, has been dumbed down and stripped of its original philosophical intent, for obvious reasons, to appeal to, and make it understandable to the uneducated white American.


          2. Good night, sweet Peter!

            I bid thee adieu

            For whatever it meant, it mattered

            And most of it was true

            They weren’t all your best moments

            But all of them were you


          3. Where I am, my day is just beginning.
            However, when you wake up, perhaps we can renew this discussion in a more dignified way.


          4. Peter,

            According to Merriam-Webster, to “troll” is to:

            to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts

            As I’ve pointed out heretofore, you’ve added nothing of substance to this post. Keep in mind, I only humored you long enough to make my points. Again, thank you.

            Perhaps we’ll meet again

            Who knows when?

            But even then

            I’ll just bitch-slap you again

            And again

            And again…

            Besides, how could you ever get in the last word here when you live in tomorrow? Indeed. The future is yours. And you will, no doubt, inherit the wind.


Leave a Reply to H. VanCuren Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s