Mucking About in the Great Scam
A review of Homage To Catalonia, by George Orwell
(Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1979; originally published Martin Secker & Warburg, 1938)
by Alaric
A chance to do something about Fascism came, and George Orwell went to Spain. He wrote a
book about it, his combat against Francoist forces in the Spanish Civil War. The book
tells us more about the man George Orwell than any other book, because it leads us to think
also about Orwell the symbol. And yet, even after this and the many bioscripts on him,
Orwell doesn't quite emerge from shadow. One reading his classic Homage To Catalonia,
but none of his other works, would still recognize that he was almost a useful political
analyst. Why almost? Because he stopped short. The question that follows is, Did he know
he was stopping short? This is the biggest issue an honest thinker will have with George
Orwell.
Orwell hated Capitalism, all forms of money grubbing and classism. The roots of this were
his experiences as a scholarship student at an expensive preparatory school, the time he
spent as an Imperial policeman, and living through the so-called Great Depression. These
affronted his sense of fairness and urged him to learn what money is and how it operates.
He augmented his curiousity with adventure, with going and doing and seeing for
himself.
The 1930s were an unsettling time. The ramifications of the Versailles Treaty were hanging
over Europe, in all the impressions they could make in the minds of intelligent citizens, a
ticking bomb. Capitalism, too, was in "crisis," and an ostensible solution to the seemingly
insoluble problems it caused was rising, like Neptune from his immense and impenetrable
vastness, in the Soviet Union. Depending on your economic point of view, the world was
either dropping into Hell like a lead brick, or a new dawn for Man was just beyond the
meridian.
Capitalism is wonderful as long as it is working for you. When it turns like a hyena, and
it inevitably will, it can demolish even its apostles. How many times have we read of the
rich man brought down to poverty, and a lifetime of disciplined saving obliterated, by
economic ambush? Thus it is that the middle classes in America now, and to some extent in
Europe, are beginning to feel Capitalism's fangs as it tears along its natural course to
maximum profits. I refer, of course, to the importation of cheap labor, and the export of
tangible industries, the effects of fiduciary currencies and rootless capital.
The problems of the 1930s are our problems too, but our version in its full heat will be
far worse. Capital moved then at the speed of teletype; now it moves at the speed of
light, and no respite does it give to the pious on Sunday. Stability is tenuous in a
cyber-capital economy, and they who own capital must constantly move it to maximum profit
centers under competitive pressure. Sometimes it is more profitable to move labor instead
of plant, as the White people of North America are now learning.
The issue in the 1930s among workers and the middle class was survival, and how to control
finance capital; how to deal with Capitalism's enforcement mechanisms: the courts, the
newspapers, and the security forces of the state. In the 1920s and '30s Socialists and
honest Communists (naïve people who thought Communism the answer) believed that the police
and the military were Capitalism's fists. They believed this to be fact and they were right.
In Orwell's memoir of the Spanish War, the police and military are central to power, but in
the obverse way: for a time they served Communism where before they served Capitalism.
And the story there twists even more grotesquely, as we shall learn. In more detail, they
ended up enforcing propaganda.
In the Great Depression the West was a steel and glass economy. Ordinary people could see
the factories and the products over which Capitalist competitors fought to control and
market. Today these industries are largely gone from the West; the tangible bases of
capital are less to be seen. Cyber money is a ghost. There is little to see and it is
difficult to fight over the invisible. The unemployed and the under-employed in the
Depression had objectives: the factory, the agribusiness's land, the shipyard, the
meatpacking plant, the railroad. Workers and peasants battled police and militias across
America and Europe, many of them hoping that the new USSR, defender of the worker and home
of the New Man, would step in somehow and win justice for them.
Another ideology, Fascism, arose in this period, first in Italy, then in Germany. Fascism
offered to protect the little man by another means: it supplanted the idea of Economic Man
with the National Man. Shared being would dilute the greed engendered by Capitalism, and
its power. Men united perforce by danger, and organized on the basis of natio, birth.
Fascism predicated its vision for the reorganization of society on common blood and soil.
Spiritual elements were part of this, and Fascist intellectuals injected elements of
Odinism and pre-Christian symbols to aid the breakaway from Economic Man thinking.
Like most creative people Orwell disliked the militaristic and racial aspects of Fascism.
It is not an ideology of hope, but of action, and one whose promise is safety through
discipline and national cohesion. Fascism's tenets opposed Communism's materialist and
environmentalist ordering of life and society.
Yet Orwell clearly recognized that emotion drives politics more than reason does. And one
sees in Homage that he failed to apply this to himself. His analysis of the
betrayal of Spain's anti-Fascists by "Soviet advisors" falters. Out of respect for this
great man we might attribute this to a problem that beset him and still besets us: media
blackout. A consequence of the near-monopoly control of the transmission of information is
that, as in Orwell's time, few of us today know what Communists were up to then, or know
that many top intellectuals supported Fascism until it became too dangerous to continue.
George Bernard Shaw and Ezra Pound were among them, and, inspecting the big picture from
here, it is by no means over the top to conclude that Fascism was the answer to the
problems predatory Capitalism caused. Communism, it is now clear, is merely the Zionist
back door to controlling wealth.
It soon became obvious that the two systems must show down. Fascism was polar negative,
Communism polar positive. The two could not get near each other. In the meantime
Judeo-Communism's greatest coup was not its conquest of Russia, but the idea its ideologues
managed to plant in the minds of decent people that Fascism is the fist of predatory
Capitalism. Thus, if you as a politically conscious person opposed foreign agitators
leading hungry mobs demanding the abolition of private property, you were a "fascist," and
"Capitalist lackey," and "reactionary," among other epithets. This verbal legerdemain
continues, with the devastating results we see all around.
The tension between the two systems became so great that any unstable ground was a possible
arena. Spain was the first serious combat. In that unfortunate country circumstances came
together in which Germany and Italy and the Soviet Union might test each other. Here it
is necessary to give some background.
By the early 1930s Spain's internal political divisions had paralyzed its government. The
effects of the Depression exacerbated Spain's existing instabilities. Forty percent of the
Spanish population was illiterate. The Spanish economy was primarily agricultural and 70
percent worked in agriculture. Yet 2 percent of the population owned 67 percent of the
land. Spanish exports declined and unemployment increased. Few of these people owned land
enough even to subsist on. The hungry unemployed streamed into the cities to find jobs that
were not there. The Left grew more powerful. King Alfonso XIII went into exile in 1931.
Pro-monarchist, pro-business, pro-Catholic political parties squared off against an
alliance of Anarchists, Communists, peasants and trade unions. A popularly-elected
government composed of Leftist parties took office. Public disorder increased. In July
1936 an army officer, Francisco Franco, led an army revolt against the Government. The
sides began arming, and civil war erupted. Franco's forces, pro-monarchist and -church,
were called the Nationalists. The Leftists, anti-monarchist, anti-Church, anti-Capitalist,
were called the Republicans. Franco sought to overthrow the government. The Leftist
forces defended the government. Property owners and the Catholic Church looked to the
Nationalists for protection from Republican forces and mobs confiscating land, burning
businesses, demolishing churches, raping nuns and murdering priests. The Nationalists
committed atrocities, too. The tremendous tensions in Spanish society, long building, came
out in terrible ways. We in the West should keep this in mind as our own conditions
deteriorate. As to territory, the Nationalists at the outset held the west and north of
Spain, Spanish Morocco, and the Canary and Balearic Islands. The Republicans held the
south and east. The Spanish Army and security forces divided; some officers remained loyal
to the government and some joined Franco. Likewise with the Navy; some ships put
themselves at the service of Franco and some to the Republican Government. The goal of
each side was to take and hold key cities, with Madrid being the plum. The Republican
government was forced to remove to the city of Valencia. Henceforth it was often called
the Valencia Government, or simply "the government."
Orwell arrived in the Republican stronghold city of Barcelona, in Catalonia, in December
1936, intending to write dispatches for English newspapers. He instead immediately
enlisted in a Communist militia, the POUM. Orwell writes vividly and insightfully of
conditions in Barcelona under "worker" control. Communist and Anarchist militias control
the streets. All forms of "bourgeois" social norms have been abolished. The middle and
upper classes are wearing worker's clothing to disguise themselves. Waiters and barbers
do not accept tips; the lexicon of class, such as "sir" and "ma'am," are not used.
Everybody has become equal. There is general enthusiasm for the revolution, but Orwell
doesn't realize until later that it is merely surface. There are no Nationalist forces
active in Barcelona. The civil war has given the Catalans an opportunity to exercise some
autonomy from their Castilian masters in Madrid. The militias on their way to the front
are cheered by the Barcelonans.
Thousands of foreign volunteers are pouring into Spain to fight Franco. Orwell describes
them. One Italian is obviously illiterate but parroting anti-Fascist slogans. He still
impresses Orwell as the salt of the earth and a reason to be optimistic for the future of
Man. Orwell does not mention the foreign volunteers for Franco.
Orwell makes it clear that everyone understood that a revolution had occurred, and the
great competing political systems were meeting in Spain, and the Fascists and "Soviets"
were contributing arms, supplies and advisors. Partisan spirits are soaring high. Orwell
himself is a member of the International Labor Party, as are most of the Englishmen. There
were many communists from all over Europe, some exiles from Nazi Germany. There are
Americans, Canadians, and Irishmen. Orwell rarely writes objectively of Francoist forces;
he does mention that he felt pity for them, seeing them in their dismal trenches on the
Zaragoza Front opposing his own. It is also clear that to Orwell Hitler was the ultimate
evil, a co-rider with Big Capital and Colonel Blimps.
Homage To Catalonia is composed of two parts: Homage, written late 1937, just
months after Orwell returned to England from Spain; and a brief supplement, Looking Back
On The Spanish War, written 1943 when he was working in London as a propagandist for
the BBC.
The White racialist understands, in this time of terminal Egalitarianism, that Egalitarians
always shortstop their thinking. That's how they remain egalitarians. Those who advocate
"equality" usually have in mind a complex bundle of ideas, but they cannot really believe
that ability can be purged as an organizing principle. Likewise, those who advocate the
abolition of political borders ("One World") do it because they have the means to avoid the
consequences -- or think they do. They refuse to imagine that this ideology might be a
religion -- hence irrational, really a Christianity gone off the rails, with the subtle hum
of consumerism to dull the edge of their nagging instincts. One Worlders and Egalitarians
don't like the fact that not only are there huge differences between members of the same
race, there are differences between the races themselves. The evidence is as big as the
sun. Their way out of this tar pit has been, so far, to shout down the opposition and deny
race exists. The "scientific" support for their faith rests on Boasian "environmentalism."
Their illusion would fade like a wisp of smoke without the artificial life support it
receives -- in overpowering, unending, ubiquitous doses -- courtesy of our Jewish friends
and their Goyim lackeys in "entertainment" and "news" media, "universities," and
the useful idiots in the general herd.
Orwell's stopping short is most evident with regard to the troubles caused by the "Soviet
advisors" in Spain. Similarly conspicuous is his failure to mention Stalin's crushing
brutality in the Soviet Union, let alone account for it. These are strange deficits in an
otherwise indefatigable political analyst.
I have in mind chiefly the Great Famine in the Ukraine devised by Uncle Joe and implemented
from 1932 to 1933. The affair was too big to miss, and it was reported very ably by some
of the West's best journalists. Yet in general, the Western press deliberately omitted
the news of this outrage.
The public mind belongs to the press. The press could have put the outrage there easily by
simple repetition. A "story a day" about the political famine would have done the trick,
just as it would later when the same people chose to promote the "Holocaust." We may lay
this to the Jewish lords of mass communications, who were protecting their great enterprise
in the USSR. How much of Soviet affairs was under Jewish control at that time is moot;
enough of it was; the worst of it is that the press broke its covenant with the public (and
still does). Had the press wanted the Ukrainian Genocide to be an issue it could have made
it one; it could have raised divisions and sent fleets to Odessa. However, the famine was
reported by correspondents on the scene, notably Malcolm Muggeridge, a reporter for the
Manchester Guardian. Muggeridge toured the Ukraine in the spring of 1933, evading
the secret police who were sealing the borders during the filthy business.
Muggeridge witnessed Ukrainian families being forced into cattle cars; he saw desolate
fields and abandoned villages. He heard rumors (he never ascertained their truth) of
cannibalism among the starving peasants. Years later he stated in an interview:
The novelty of this particular famine, what made it so diabolical, is that it was not
the result of some catastrophe like a drought or an epidemic. It was the deliberate
creation of a bureaucratic mind which demanded the collectivization of agriculture,
immediately, as a purely theoretical proposition, without any consideration whatever of the
consequences in human suffering.
Muggeridge is firing only on three cylinders here, but he is moving toward the point. How
many Ukrainians did Stalin murder? There are several estimates, from 3.5 million to 11
million. Many were shot or starved en locale; many died later in the camps Uncle
Joe set up for them near the Arctic Circle. Why did Uncle Joe do this? To crush Ukrainian
nationalism, and to take their grain to sell for "hard currency" and Western industrial
equipment. It is impossible to believe the West did not know of this situation in which
millions of people were being forcibly transported, when hundreds of thousands of armed
secret police, special police, and troops were cordoning off this vast region, and rumors
were flying thick in Moscow. It is impossible to accept that Western governments and
"intellectuals" did nothing, said nothing, for the reason that they thought Stalin's
Ukrainian genocide was necessary to bring forth the New Man. And yet, nothing else explains
it, unless one swings the finger toward the press, which presented the news in withered
form. But again, merely the seed planted -- the simple mentioning of the affair -- should
have sprung up in public opinion as outrage. Muggeridge even wrote a novel based on the
famine (Winter In Moscow). We might account for the inertia, then, only by invoking
the notorious White coma, which is far deeper now. Still, whatever the number of reports
of the famine that got into print on the street, nothing reverberated. The Liberal
intelligentsia and the press, in effect a Judeo-Communist fifth column, dismissed, ignored,
downplayed all. And this coalition penalized anyone who tried to pop its egalitarian
dream. Muggeridge could not find a job when he returned to England, and the British press
attacked him. So why didn't Orwell mention the Ukraine? Why did the facts of Communist
methods in the USSR not leaven his attitudes? The answer can only be that he was blind
with the Egalitarian's narcotic, "hope." It comes out encloaked in the term "equality"; it
is Orwell's mantra. Over and over in Homage he says it, and when Nature finally
reasserts herself in Barcelona, his tone is one of a disappointed schoolboy. Which
suggests, conversely, that he could not see the positive aspects of Fascism. The fact is,
Hitler gave work and bread to millions of workers and brought Capitalism in Germany under
control. More, the National Socialist government was making interest-free loans out of the
state treasury. Hitler did not destroy churches or murder archbishops and blind folk
singers, but Uncle Joe did -- to establish the "worker's paradise."
But back to the book. Orwell's first-person narrative brings out the energy of the upheaval,
and his prose is, as in all his works, diamond clear. He describes the "training" his POUM
militia unit receives, and is frank about the shortcomings of a "democratic" military
organization, in which rank and imperative have been abolished. And clearly, this Nordic
Englishman cannot get used to the Spanish way, which he encapsulates with the term,
"mañana, mañana." Sometimes trains arrive, and sometimes they depart within an hour
of their scheduled time -- an excellent show, that. One might get a general idea of
Orwell's impressions of the Spanish from the following excerpts:
The Spanish are good at many things, but not at making war. All foreigners alike are
appalled by their inefficiency, above all their maddening unpunctuality. A Spaniard's
generosity, in the ordinary sense of the word, is at times almost embarrassing. If you ask
him for a cigarette, he will force the whole packet on you. I have the most evil memories
of Spain, but I have very few bad memories of Spaniards. They have, there is no doubt, a
generosity, a species of nobility, that do not really belong to the twentieth
century.
Orwell was in Spain seven months. His military experiences themselves were not outstanding.
Homage's value lies in the lessons it offers on the behavior of economic classes,
propaganda, the "Soviets," and the press. Orwell was no soldier, and his knowledge of
weapons and other things martial, as reflected in this book, is so deficient it is
difficult to believe he once was a policeman. It will serve our purpose here to draw a
synopsis of Orwell's time in Spain:
1. After a few days of "training" Orwell's POUM unit, called a centuria, is taken by train
to the front, near the city of Zaragoza, in the Aragon hills. The situation is static; the
Republican trenches face Nationalist trenches a few hundred yards away. There are few
serious assaults. Orwell is so disappointed with the lack of aggressiveness he wonders how
seriously the Spanish are taking their war. Orwell's centuria is short of weapons
and basic equipment. Their Mauser rifles are in terrible condition, and sometimes misfire,
injuring soldiers. Ammunition is poor quality, as are their explosives. Food is plentiful
enough. Occasionally a sniper lets a shot fly, or a small sapper party from either side
throws a wild grenade, but nothing much happens. Most casualties are from accidental
discharges.
2. After three and one-half months Orwell's centuria is given leave and it returns
to Barcelona (April 1937). Orwell finds the city much changed. Gone is the enthusiasm for
the revolution, and now the bourgeoisie are out of the closet. Citizens are
indifferent to the war and the militiamen back from the front. Street fighting breaks out
between, on the one side, the Valencia government troops and security forces stationed in
Barcelona, and on the other the militias. This fighting amongst the "Left" has been
instigated by anti-militia propaganda disseminated by "Soviet advisors" behind the scenes
in Valencia, who want to neutralize the Anarchists, the most effective fighters. Orwell
begins to smell betrayal, but does not go far into it at this point.
3. In May Orwell's centuria is sent back to the Zaragoza front. Ten days later he
is shot by an enemy sniper. The bullet passes through his neck. He is evacuated, not
expected to live. Orwell describes the sensation of being shot with such objectivity it is
amusing. He is taken to several hospitals. His doctors tell him the bullet missed his
aorta by a millimeter and it is a "miracle" he is alive. He has sustained nerve damage and
cannot move his right arm, nor can he speak.
4. He is transferred to a hospital in Barcelona. His wife Sonia has been in the city some
time. She assists him, and informs him of political developments in the city. The Valencia
government has ordered all militias to surrender their arms. The militias refuse.
Valencia-controlled security forces begin hunting down Anarchists. Street fighting breaks
out again, more fiercely now.
5. The genuine, revolutionary Left is now disintegrating. Foreign volunteers begin fleeing
Spain. Many are arrested by the Soviet-controlled Popular Army, Assault Guards, Guardia
Civil or police and imprisoned. Some are shot. Orwell notices that these forces possess
arms far better than those the militias have.
6. Orwell is told by his doctors that he will never speak again. His arm is recovering.
Orwell is given a medical discharge. The Valencia government continues its cleanup of
Anarchists, whom it accuses in its press of being "Trotskyists." It is obvious that the
Valencia government is spending as much effort on the Anarchists as on Franco.
7. Barcelona is infested with spies and informers. Orwell is convinced now that the
"Soviet advisors" have deliberately sabotaged the workers' revolution. He is convinced
that the war against Franco is lost and begins making plans to escape Spain as the police
are closing in on him.
8. Orwell and Sonia are nearly arrested in Barcelona. A few days later, after trying to
help some comrades get out of jail, the two manage to cross into France by train.
The disintegration of honest Leftist Spanish opposition to Franco, and the hijacking of
these forces by the "Soviet advisors," badly disillusions Orwell. He realizes that
propaganda has neutralized armed force and mass will. He knows the "Soviet advisors" are
responsible for it. Homage is the chronicle in which one can see him emerge from
the campus Left. He devotes several chapters to the Spanish press, and the foreign press's
coverage of the war. Of the atmosphere in Barcelona the last few weeks he was there,
he writes, "[It was as if] some huge evil intelligence were brooding over the town. Everyone
noticed it and remarked on it." Orwell admits he could not figure out what was going on.
The street fighting involved everyone, and the coalitions dissolved and reformed, it seemed,
anew each day. Orwell understands that the "Soviet advisors" got a toehold in the Valencia
government because they were providing most of the Republicans' arms and supplies. What he
doesn't come around to examining closely enough is why they stopped the workers' revolution
in Spain. The best he can do is cite the ownership of Spanish assets by foreign companies --
implying that Capitalists intervened using the Valencia government as the mechanism. But
would that not have put Communists and Capitalists in bed together? It is far out of the
orbit of his imagination, however, to think that Communism is just a way of politicians
getting ahold of wealth. There was other evidence that this was so. Orwell talks of
weapons carried by government-controlled Assault Guards, the best troops:
All of them were armed with brand-new rifles of the type known as 'the Russian rifle'
(these rifles were sent to Spain by the U.S.S.R. but were, I believe, manufactured in
America).
Now, one would think that military rifles manufactured by a capitalist country, in the
hands of Capitalism's archenemy, would make Orwell pause. Could they possibly be colluding?
How on earth did those rifles go from a U.S. arsenal to the Soviet Union? But Orwell has
no more to say on the matter.
The actions of the "Soviet advisors" in Spain were part of a general strategy. In all
upheavals there is an apparent control and the actual control; there is scarecrow opposition
and real opposition. The "Soviet advisors," upon arriving, infiltrated those Spanish
organizations that would be useful to their goals, and propagandized against those that
were not. The press power the "Soviet advisors" had is wondrous. Immediately their
propaganda dominated the pro-Valencia press in Spain, and the foreign press, for the most
part, supported the Valencia line. Orwell writes extensively on this. Yet his reasoning
faltered. He did not really want to know. It may be that he lacked the cynicism, the hard
eye, that a deep dive requires. Indeed, this marks the fatal naiveté that infects the White
race more deeply than it does other races. That instinctive resistance against thinking
badly of people who apparently mean well; that characteristic assumption others have a good
heart and are honest. And Orwell was honest -- foolishly so, exemplified by an incident
near the end of his time in Spain when he was trying to free his POUM comrades from a
government prison. Orwell was indeed an odd man. ("I hate mountains, even from a
spectacular point of view.") His sensitive, decent nature consigned him to hope politics.
He was a mix of upper-middle-class mores and radical cures. One has reason to admire a man
this complex who manages to stay sane, sober and out of jail. But too many points Orwell
skips, and I suspect that had he seen the full aftermath of the Allied "victory" over
Fascism, he might have swung further to what we call "the Right." Clearly he was moving
toward that ground which is the only ground the awakened White man or woman can occupy.
"Right" and "Left" are exhausted, rotten scams, and any White person lingering in those
camps either sleeps, or makes a living there. In the end the "wrong" side in Orwell's mind
won anyway. The Third Reich flamed out in a shallow trench, and the Workers' Paradise
drank all its own blood, but Capitalism is more powerful and insidious than ever. But the
ostensible rescuers of the hungry, unemployed Spaniard -- the Communists -- turned quite
against him.
The Communists were working not to postpone the Spanish revolution till a more suitable
time, but to make sure that it never happened. This became more and more obvious as time
went on, as power was twisted more and more out of working-class hands, and as more and
more revolutionaries of every shade were flung into jail. Every move was made in the name
of military necessity, because this pretext was, so to speak, ready-made, but the effect
was to drive the workers back from an advantageous position and to a position in which,
when the war was over, they would find it impossible to resist the reintroduction of
capitalism.
White racialists should be wary of Orwell the novelist, and Orwell the analyst, and Orwell
the symbol all, for the simple reason that he has been published and the media likes him.
The media give exposure only to the useful. He has long been in the realm of the cliché.
The name "George Orwell" has become the padding for public malaise, for people justifiably
worried about the continuing diminution of the individual. They shriek and pound the walls
of their cell that it's all so "Orwellian," and then, spent, they return to their
televisions. And, taking a hard look at the whole thing, what does Orwell really teach us
except that words make "reality" and can be tuned to produce almost any particular effect,
even a deception of unbelievable proportions? He felt it himself, as he wrote in
Looking Back:
As to the Russians, their motives in the Spanish war are completely inscrutable. Did
they, as the pinks believed, intervene in Spain in order to defend Democracy and thwart the
Nazis? Then why did they intervene on such a niggardly scale and finally leave Spain in
the lurch? Or did they, as the Catholics maintained, intervene in order to foster
revolution in Spain? Then why did they do all in their power to crush the Spanish
revolutionary movements, defend private property and hand power to the middle class as
against the working class? Or did they, as the Trotskyists suggested, intervene simply in
order to prevent a Spanish revolution? Then why not have backed Franco? Indeed, their
actions are most easily explained if one assumes that they were acting on several
contradictory motives.
And one should keep in mind, above all things, that Orwell the anti-Fascist is not here
now. He was for equality and justice and the self-determination of peoples; he opposed
imperialism. And what's on now? Let me repeat: Orwell and his Republican comrades, and
all the anti-Nazis and newspaper Liberals and university Leftists of his day are not here
now. And we should ask, What would they think, what would they say, if they saw their
England now? London is but half White and sliding to all brown; Leicester has gone to
Pakistan and Islam. And the same for all the egalitarians and world-healers who started
this chain of destruction: Senator Sumner and Harriet Beecher Stowe are not here to see
the spawn of Uncle Tom turn righteous Yankee cities into savage pestholes. All leadership,
Labour and Conservative, Republican and Democrat, whores and step-'n-fetchits for Zion and
Big Capital, carry on while the West and the White race sink into consumerist nihilism and
demise.
Orwell's masterwork, 1984, is vague. He makes "power for its own sake" the heart of
the totalitarian drive. Sorry, George, that's not enough. That disappointed me years ago
when I first read it; now it angers me, when the West is being transformed, two steps
forward one step back, into an anthill. We need names and DNA roadmaps. We need the
smelly, greasy history the schoolma'm never taught us. We need answers; we need to
survive. It is time to leave Orwell behind. He is Survival Politics 451. Now it is time
for grad school.
|