Brussels: the Empire of Fake News

 

Below is the translation of my lecture delivered at a literature conference in Lille, France, on March 9, 2018. The event was sponsored by the publishing house Le Retour aux  Source and Edition  Bios. Other speakers included authors, journalists, and publishers Robert SteuckersAlessandro Sansoni and Pierre- Antoine  Plaquevent. Next day, just a block away, Le Front National held its congress at which Steve Bannon spoke. Speeches from our event will be posted shortly.    

*   *   *

It is necessary in our speeches to first decipher the language of the subject under examination as well as social conditions where this language is spoken. I will focus in my speech on language manipulation by the Brussels Empire, or as I prefer to call it, the Brussels System, and how this system keeps subjecting us to semantic manipulations. There have been already many critical works published on Brussels as a European capital and on its huge administration. It would be therefore useless to harp for the umpteenth time on the cases of incompetence and corruption, or on the absence of common foreign policy of the Brussels bureaucracy. The un-political (“inpolitique”) is the main feature of this Europeanist structure whose pompous name “the European Union” is being marketed as the best of all worlds. In terms of its foreign policy it suffices to recall the failure of the European Union, after being launched in Maastricht in 1992, to halt the war in former Yugoslavia. More recently, there has been a complete absence of a common Brussels policy regarding the regulation of extra-European migrations that are changing the face of Europe now.

As far as the expression “fake news” is concerned, it should be noted that this is a recent American expression whose meaning needs to be examined in Europe. Here is an example of “fake news” in today’s politics of Europe. The choice of the term “refugees” by the Brussels ruling class and by the mainstream media in Europe when depicting non-European mass migrations carries a sentimental value which is supposed to trigger, right at the outset, altruistic feelings among European citizens, while at the same time forcing them to perform expiatory mea culpas, and ultimately adopt the rites of political suicide. The first observation we could make is that a good or a bad choice of political language will affect good or bad political decision making. If the European Union had agreed a few years ago on the choice of the term “migrants,” instead of the self-pitying term “refugees”, the governments of Europe would perhaps have subsequently adopted a more realistic policy towards non-European migrants. In any case most non-European migrants are not refugees but people or vagabonds from desolate and distant countries responding to the call of false or fake imagery projected by the hyperreal Europe, which, in turn, is perceived by them as a location for a life on an equal footing with Europeans. In its ecumenical and pseudo-Good Samaritan endeavor, overflowing with self-hatred, and through the recital of  words of the so-called welcoming culture, the European political class, with its center in Brussels, is allotting itself with good conscience without however being able or willing to meet migrants’ hyperreal demands or match their phantasies.

The expression “fake news” refers to the classical game of simulacra and simulations interacting with each other. It is commendable to reread Jean Baudrillard in order to grasp the full meaning of “fake news” which now happens to be the main pillar of the language of the political class in Brussels and Washington. Let us quote Baudrillard:

We live in the illusion that it is the real that is missing most. On the contrary; the reality has reached its apex. By means of technical performance we have reached a degree of reality and objectification to the point that we can now talk about the surplus of reality, thus becoming more anxiety-prone and more bewildered. (The Perfect Crime, 1996).

Fake News and the Hyperreal

The loss of the sense of the tragic among our politicians is bound to result in their construction of false empires with no popular legitimacy. It suffices to substitute the term “technical performance,” used by Baudrillard, with the noun “Facebook” or “Twitter” in order to acquire an illusion of “fake news”. This overkill of falsity, being part of “fake news” in Brussels and Washington now, cannot, however, last forever. In the wake of the uncontrolled arrival of the masses of migrants, the issue of security all over Europe will be further compromised to the point that fatal consequences must be expected in the months and years to come.

In order to understand the “fake news” empire, we may have to make a brief comparative study of political terms fashionable in the mainstream media in America and Europe today. The study of the etymology of new words, along with their semantic shifts, will help us to better understand the catastrophes lying ahead. The American expression “fake news”, as well as many other American expressions that have sneaked into European languages, seems to be in vogue in the political and media circles. Why do we avoid the use of more precise French expressions that better mirror the concept of fake news, such as “la langue de bois” (“wooden language”) and “la pensée unique ( “the uniform mindset”)? These very specific French expressions reflect far better the phenomenon of “fake news”, namely the lies spread out by the media and the political class of the System.

A trademark of the tyrannical system, which we call today “totalitarian”, is its misleading use of a flowery language, on the one hand, and on the other, the use of a demonic language teeming with abstract and vague words and expressions, such as “democracy”, “human rights”, “tolerance”, “humanism” “diversity”, “integration”, etc. The American expression “fake news”, which contains a high dose of irony, is a compound noun that can mean everything and nothing, and that can therefore be used anytime by anybody on in order to smear somebody. This expression has recently been popularized by US President Donald Trump in own responses to invectives launched against him by the mainstream media. Not surprisingly the System in America and its counterpart in Brussels are inclined to brand its critics with the “fake news” label. In order to better cover up its political fragility, the System—perhaps we should call it “the Empire”—has recently passed a law in Germany against anonymous distributors of “fake news,” that is to say against Facebook wrong-thinkers (“ mal-pensants”) labeled in the German media lingo as “hate preachers” (“Hass-Redner”). Once again, we must emphasize the need for a good study of the disinformation techniques emanating from the System, or rather, the new “langue de bois” (aka newspeak) used by the System and its scribes. It should also be noted that the English expression “hate speech,” is part of the fake news vocabulary. “Hate speech” is an additional lexical barbarism that originated in America some thirty years ago and which can mean everything and nothing at the same time, while shutting up the mouth of a political opponent. My freedom of speech will always be tagged by my opponent as “hate speech”.

In America the expression “fake news” belongs more to a colloquial language than to a sophisticated academic vocabulary. In the American language, the term “fake” can be used as a verb, as a noun and as an adjective, thereby providing a speaker with a margin of maneuvering much larger and wider than the synonyms and adjectives “false” or “phony.” The French translation of “fake news” with  the French expression “fausses nouvelles”, that is,  “false news”, although correct, does not carry the same disdainful tone toward a disliked politician or toward some despised media outlet to which the term “fake” is addressed. The word “fake” makes up a universe of social simulacrum and not just a small world of political lies. In France one might just as well use the French translation “factitious news” (nouvelles  factices)  when talking about “fake news.” To fully grasp the derisory and hyper-real meaning of the American expression “fake news”, one could also resort to the French slang-tainted  expression “les nouvelles  bidon”, the word “bidon” having a far stronger and more colloquial meaning than the English word “fake.” We seem to have made a full circle now, landing back at the very rich and unique French political expression “langue de bois” which, when translated into English does not carry at all the same sarcastic meaning.

For their part, the Germans have also begun using the borrowed American expression “fake news” — albeit always within quotation marks. They often replace this word with their own word from the same semantic family, i.e.  “Lügenpresse” which means literally “the lying press.” This German compound noun is far more explicit, although having an unsavory scent inherited from the Third Reich. “Lügenpresse” means in French “la presse mensongère,” or in English the “lying press.” This compound noun rhymes perfectly with the word “Judenpresse” (the Jew-Press), which was very popular during the National Socialist era in Germany.

In France, instead of “fake news”, it would be more appropriate to use a down to earth expression, such as “intox” (“toxic”) for example, or a more refined term such as “désinformation — or simply the word “propaganda”. Anyway, with the expression “fake news”, we are not reinventing the wheel given that many books have already been published on fake news and political propaganda in the Liberal System and also written in a very clear and more understandable language. We can mention here the well-known writer George Orwell, who in a simple and readable language, long ago, wrote about the danger of the “newspeak” — or the “novlangue” in French.

It goes without saying that we cannot go beyond legal limits of the so-called free speech whose sermons our ears are forced to be attuned to on the daily basis. Neither are we allowed to tackle the modern taboos that make up the edifice of the Brussels Empire and its counterpart, the Liberal System. Not only are we submerged with the language of “fake news” by the mainstream media in politics, we are also victimized by fake victimologies at colleges and universities where we are forced to study “fake victimhood stories.” (“fausses histoires victimaires “).These lies, propagated by the mainstream media and government agencies, also carry the weight of legal repression against  “bad-thinkers” ( mal-pensants).

However, fake news dissemination can easily become a double-edged sword that can turn against its promoters, as observed daily with the rising loss of credibility of the mainstream media in the United States. This phenomenon is quite unique and revolutionary in its scope in view of the fact that the so-called free press is the foundation stone of the Liberal System. Hence the reason that we must never overestimate the stability of the System. Miracles can be worked with our own coded language.

In order to become aware of the increasing instability of the System and its fake news techniques, be it in Brussels, be it Washington, we should draw some parallels with the former communist universe in Eastern Europe and take a look at its political vocabulary. Many books in France have covered semantic aberrations in the ex-communist world. We could cite some authors who had a good understanding of the lexical manipulation in the communist world, as for example Alain de Benoist and other connoisseurs of the communist language, such as the French Alain Besançon, or the Russian novelist Alexander Zinoviev. I myself have written a few annotated articles on the communist language in ex-communist Yugoslavia, both in French and English. What strikes the eye is that there are many similarities between the official language in the West and the official language of the ex-communist East. The first conclusion one must make is that these similarities appear more glaring today because, following the fall of its communist Double in Eastern Europe, the Liberal Empire, or the Liberal System in the West, or, simply put, Liberalism, has been laid bare. The System can no longer hide behind old, false, or “fake” anti-communist narrative that used to be its main baggage during the Cold War. Essentially both Liberalism and Communism are twin brothers and the reason for the fall of Communism must be sought in the fact that Western Liberalism has been far more successful in building  the empire of falsity and fakeness than the former communist universe. Moreover, in today’s Eastern Europe, the ruling class is largely made up of old recycled communist apparatchiks using almost the same old communist language, albeit embellished this time around with less aggressive Western-imported qualifiers and epithets, and therefore rendered more digestible for the public.

Deconstructing the Liberal Newspeak

Similar to “fake news” in the Liberal System today, the communist lexicon of yesteryear also resorted to heavenly and demonic words respectively. Terms like “democracy” and “living together”, or “brotherhood and unity” were repeated on all wave lengths in the communist universe. On the other hand, expressions such as “enemy of the working class” or “enemy of the people” belonged to the demonic lexicon, intended to silence anti-communist opponents. However, the eternal muzzling word in the communist speech, “the fascist enemy”, which is today witnessing a remarkable renaissance in the West and whose purpose is also the criminalization of the adversary, was the main ingredient in official documents of Eastern Europe. In former Yugoslavia, even a simple primary school certificate carried the phrase at the bottom of the page: “Death to Fascism and Freedom to the People!”  Of course, this is not the moment now to enter into analyses of the communist language. Suffices it to say that the criminalizing terms in the communist vocabulary, such as “fascist,” “neo-Nazi” or “racist” have now been taken over, as well as taken for granted  by the mainstream media in Western Europe and America in an effort to catalogue all “wrong- thinkers” i.e. all heretics.

To conclude on a positive note, it can be said that thanks to this surplus of “fake news” the demonizing term “fascism,” which was formerly on the daily menu of the communist propaganda, is now losing its original meaning and becoming instead a badge of honor for those for whom this demonic term was originally intended. This was recently the case with the movement the Alt- Right in America, also subjected to the surplus of criminalizing epithets. And that’s good news. Even President Donald Trump, or Chancellor Angela Merkel, or the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, or even the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, each in his own way, is often described by detractors as “fascist.” There is a nice French proverb stating “on est toujours le con de quelqu’un d’autre” (“everybody is someone else’s asshole”). In the fake news language of today’s System, every free thinker must be someone’s “fascist.”

Sunic’ latest book, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, is a novel and a collection of essays, Titans are in Town, (Arktos, 2017).

39 replies
  1. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    The mainstream media has always been dishonest. From the “yellow journalism” of the late 1800s and early 1900s to today’s “fake news”, journalism has shown its true (communist) roots.
    From the lies about the Spanish-American war to the New York Times’ walter duranty hiding the truth about and denying the artificially engineered and forced communist “famine” in the Ukraine, to the lies about the 1968 Viet Nam communist Tet offensive (a military victory for the South Vietnamese and American troops) reported by walter cronkite as a military defeat, cronkite and his ilk were successful in prolonging the Viet Nam war for years, giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy, who bragged about being supported by the U S media.
    Look at NBCs doctoring of GMC truck gas tanks, rigging them to explode, and the deliberate mischaracterization of George Zimmerman’s conversation withe the 911 dispatcher, deleting a key phrase, as well as showing Trayvon Martin as a 12-year-old rather than his more recent “thug” facebook picture.
    The media has become a “fifth column” of the government and is not to be trusted. The CIA has had its hooks in the media since the 1950s. In fact, Hollywood script writers were paid to insert anti-drug messages in their scripts during the “drug hysteria” period of the 1980s through 2000s. Today, we have “crisis actors” embedded in our government and media, the same “crisis actors” who keep showing up, being used in every (fake) “crisis”. The mainstream media keeps parroting these impostors, thinking that we are stupid, not being able to see through their lies and deceptions.
    To our advantage, we now have the internet, which gives the ordinary citizen the ability to see through the deceptions and lies, and the capability to be real “journalists”, quite often getting and reporting the story TRUTHFULLY before the mainstream media.
    In fact, there are calls by “mainstream media” to “license” journalists, in an attempt to keep these “citizen journalists” out…twenty years ago, any journalist suggesting such a scheme would have been thrown out, but nowadays…

    • Jett Rucker
      Jett Rucker says:

      Upvote.

      Inevitably, the Internet (starting with Google, Facebook) is becoming more and more the object of censorship. It starts with suppressing “hate speech” …

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        re internet censorship, which certainly is increasing, but the internet is becoming controlled by tech companies perhaps too late from the point of view of the left, as their control is coming after the seeds have been sown, so it is too late for the left to make people ‘unlearn’ what they already know.

        Most people had no idea about the JQ before the internet, even though WWII is taught incessantly throughout every history course.This is because the (restricted) level we have now is still 1000x what it was pre-internet.

  2. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    ‘In the fake news language of today’s System, every free thinker must be someone’s “fascist.” ‘

    Are you sure, Dr Sunic? In democratic (bolshie/MSM/Lügenpresse) parlance, ‘free thinker’ is an unknown concept because the System has killed it and its natural-language signals. So where there was once ‘free thinker’ there is now ‘holocaust denier’ and ‘antisemite’. They are the fulcrums of all thought, and subsume ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ and ‘nazi’. That is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know.’ (Oh, all right: Someone said something rather like that about ‘Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty’. But yah boo! Whose ‘truth’, man, yeah?)

    • Harold Rosen
      Harold Rosen says:

      At least the communists spoke of it and had a name for it.
      If such a wall were built in the EU today for whatever purpose, the media would just ignore or deny it’s existence denigrating any that noticed it as fascists or whatever term they could think up.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        re the wall – the Berlin wall is actually never mentioned in the MSM media that I can recall as if it was insignificant or not worth mentioning. Eg there are regular Nazi stories in the DM, about one a fortnight, but never any ones about what happened to E Germany, and the wall is most likely never mentioned in schools in the West, despite their obsession with WWII. I have no info and I am just guessing but I expect they stop ‘history’ just at the point of the end of the war, with the climax of all history being that event that you can go to prison for doubting. So, no coverage of the wall, meanwhile get ‘wall to wall’ coverage of the life and times and achievements of Saint Mandela and slavery by whites (ignoring current slavery)

    • Harold Ruddick
      Harold Ruddick says:

      At least the communists spoke of it and had a name for it.
      If such a wall were built in the EU today for whatever purpose, the media would just ignore or deny it’s existence denigrating any that noticed it as fascists or whatever term they could think up.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        What a wonderful coincidence. Same first name; same initial for the surname; same text; one minute apart.

        What’s your fee for suggesting winning lotto numbers ?

    • T
      T says:

      That stamp is so ridiculous I would be tempted to think it was something out of the Onion, though it is apparently real.

      Celebrating a wall designed to keep people locked in with a stamp illustrated with border guards (being presented with flowers no less) whose job is to shoot down people fleeing the ‘worker’s paradise’ is over the top. There’s something deeply anti-life about that; the same as a whole is the case with Marxism, Capitalism, and their ‘convergance’ Multi-culturalism.

  3. Irene
    Irene says:

    We can only agree with Dr Sunic and add that the repression is gonna get much worse, until it reachs russian style debauchery, as evidenced e.g. during the Chechen war, when dozens of journalists who were reporting the atrocities against the civilian population were murdered, or simply disapeared. That’s the next stage when the globalist elites in the West start killing people, KGB Putin’s style, then denying it.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      I wonder where you get your animus for everything Russian.

      Even at a comparatively young age, when I specifically studied as a future Cold Warrior against Communism, I never felt the impetus to include the Russian people in my Feindbild or schematic of the enemy.

      Sitting on the kitchen-chair on which Stalin’s agent pick-axed Trotsky to imminent death, in the latter’s compound in Mexico City, though memorable in itself, was overshadowed by picking up a beautiful Russian co-ed in the Hermitage and taking her to watch Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and dinner: as early as fall 63.

      It’s not for me to refer to their superb cultural achievements in all possible spheres.

      UNLIKE US CURRENTLY, overfed and well-housed, they only succumbed after a protracted, bitter, bloody and costly Civil War with the Bolsheviks.

      When the rubber hits the road and leaves its long, ugly streak on the pavement, I hope they will yet be on our side: despite having been robbed blind by us: twice in a hundred years.

      All the present smears are solely designed, in their aggregate, to rob them yet a third time. Unlimited capital of often dubious origin, is not happy sitting in bank accounts. It prefers tangible assets, preferably in the ever more important energy sector, such as in the possession of Russia.

      What better way to blackmail and totally finally control an admirably prepared, entirely energy-dependent, intact Europe ?

      You write as if Putin alone ever ordered somebody snuffed. Mitterand had a list as did US Presidents. Haaretz recently disclosed that Sharon ordered an entire commercial airliner downed to merely snuff Arafat. There were 30 sick children on board, accompanied by Arafat’s younger, pediatrician- look-alike brother, erroneously identified, accompanying these children from Athens to Cairo.

      The valiant, ” most honorable Air Force in the world ” determined where this airliner would be off the radar of adjacent countries, and over very deep water. The order was given, but deliberately scuttled by wiser heads in the IDF, skeptical of the PLO’s Arafat’s ” professional ” identification at the Athens airport and aware of the uncontainable reaction of the entire world: with the exception of Haley.

      Lack of radar-tracking and deep water. How does that differ from the actions of our western elites, who have never given a damn for any life, including that of their cat in their drives.

      Litvinenko’s death, allegedly occasioned by polonium, could more easily be attributed to the person present during his last breaths, who also purportedly took Litvinenko’s very last statement accusing Putin.

      This alleged dictation was exceedingly verbose, in a sing-song cadence, entirely out of character with that of a staccato police/agent reporter. This conveniently present notation taker was allegedly a lawyer, but was later said to be a scientist who had worked at the Weizmann Institute in Israel, while a similar polonium poisoning accident cost one life. His name was also identified as that of a person in the employ of Soros.

      Litvinenko’s father, living in Italy, was not of the opinion that Putin was at the wheel.

      Am I even reasonably certain ? Nowadays ? Don’t be daft !

      But the answer to the question as to who benefitted is clear !
      We can be sure the genius Bolton knows just what to do in their further interest.

      • Irene
        Irene says:

        Well, I’m just envious of them and can’t accept the fact that Russians are so rich, successful, everything is great about them, while I’m so ugly and poor. Why can’t I be one of them?
        This is a list of the world’s 10 most expensive yachts – 6 of them belong to Russians, 4 to Arabs. Russians are winners!

        Yacht Owner Value
        1.Eclipse. R. Abramovich. U$1,9 B
        2.Superyacht. A. Melnichenko. U$600M
        3.Azzam. Sheikh Khalifa. U$540M
        4.Serene. Yuri Scheffler. U$400M
        5.Dubai. Sheikh Moham. U$350M
        6.Pelorus. R. Abramovich. U$330M
        7.Al Said. Sultan of Oman. U$300M
        8.Dilbar. Alisher Usmanov U$283M
        9.Lady Moura Prince Rashid. U$260M
        10. The O. V. Victor Rashmkov U$250M

        • Franklin Ryckaert
          Franklin Ryckaert says:

          Of those 6 “Russians”, Alisher Usmanov is an Uzbek (Central Asian Muslim), R. Abramovich (2x) is certainly a Jew, and the last names of the rest (Rashnikov, Melnichenko and Schefler) all can be found on the list of Jewish surnames at Avotaynu ( http://www.avotaynu.com/ ). So probably none of these people is a real Russian.

        • Curmudgeon
          Curmudgeon says:

          Abramovich is listed twice. He’s as much a Russian as I am.
          Given that the other “Russians” on the list ended up with former state assets, I suspect there are others that are as “Russian” as Abramovich .

        • Karen T
          Karen T says:

          The five ‘Russian’ billionaires (you mentioned Roman Abramovich twice) are all Jewish, not Russians, with the exception of Alisher Usmanov a Muslim married to a Jewess.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Since when would anyone consider your above a ‘ reply ‘ ?

          Surely, by now, you should know which of the above-listed mariners are Russians, and which are [[[ Russians ]]].

          Several of the latter fled prosecution for massive tax and other frauds and now live openly in non-extradition Israel, while most of their remainder have established a new, prohibitively expensive shopping district in London.

          The four mentioned Arab boating enthusiasts are behaving as expected; but at least they are profiting off their countries’ own oil and gas, as opposed to the [[[ Russians ]]], who simply stole it through the able Harvard Economics Department’s privatization expertise, USAID, the federally funded, ” private “, CIA-affiliated NGOs or National Endowments for Democracy, and, de rigueur, Wall Street; including their election-fixer-team imported from NYC to assure their straw-man Yeltsin’s election win. An alcoholic of Russian magnitude, suffering from the onset of Alzheimer: their ideal accountant.

          Putin sharpened his teeth in the middle of this milieu and, if anything, might have garnered his expertise while observing this American business model.

          The Salisbury nonsense is yet to follow.

      • Lucy
        Lucy says:

        @Dr Sunic. You are brilliant as usual.
        There however must have occurred an error in printing when it comes to the French term for “uniform mindset”.
        “Why do we avoid the use of more precise French expressions that better mirror the concept of fake news, such as “la langue de bois” (“wooden language”) and “la pensée unique ( “the uniform mindset”)? Even though I probably have lost my fluency in French (understandable after many decades in Sweden), I reacted at once to the expression “pensée unique” instead of “pensée uniforme”.

  4. Peter Baggins, PhD
    Peter Baggins, PhD says:

    This excellent article by Tom Sunic and his invocation of Orwell’s term “Newspeak” invited a personal reminiscence of my favorite author of the 20th century, Eric Arthur Blair, who used the “nom de plume” George Orwell. The term Orwellian—descriptive of totalitarian or authoritarian social practices—has entered the language together with many of his neologisms, including cold war, big brother, thought police, doublethink, newspeak, and thoughtcrime.

    A thoughtcrime is an occurrence of controversial or socially unacceptable thoughts. The term was popularized in the work “1984”, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or even doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party.

    Orwell’s Thought Police and their pursuit of thoughtcrime were based on Orwell’s observations of the methods used by leftist totalitarian states and ideologies of the 20th century. While we may think of 1984 as a work of fiction, countless people were executed, or imprisoned for thoughtcrime during the 20th century in leftwing totalitarian regimes, such as Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

    Today the concept of thoughtcrime is much in evidence in the US – in government, the MSM, the entertainment industry, and on American campuses – where people are routinely prevented from voicing opinions which are deemed politically incorrect or which others may potentially be offended by.

    The Thought Police are the secret police of the novel 1984. It is their job to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who challenge the party’s ideology. Sound familiar?

    Technology played a significant part in the detection of thoughtcrime in “1984”—with the ubiquitous telescreens which could at once inform the government, and misinform citizens. The citizens of Oceania are watched by the Thought Police through the telescreens. Every movement, reflex, facial expression, and reaction is measured by this system, monitored by the Ministry of Love. Because of this constant surveillance, the Thought Police and the Ministry of Love become universally feared by any member of the Outer Party or any one of the ‘Proles’ who is capable (or felt by the Party to be capable) of thoughtcrime.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Modern “Orwellian” terms are : “hate-speech”, “hate-crime” (or simply : “hate”), “anti-Semitism” (which is always “increasing”), “Islamo-phobia”, (i.e. refusing to believe that Islam is a “religion of peace”), “homo-phobia”, “trans-phobia”, “racism”, “systemic-racism”, “white privilege”, “white-supremacism” (i.e. refusing to accept white dispossession or genocide) and “micro-aggressions”. A “micro-aggression” is for example asking a POC (“person of color”) “Where are you from?”, or saying “You speak English very well”. Treating a POC slightly or even benevolently differently is “racism”, but pretending to be “color-blind” is also “racism”, so you never can win. The newest form of “crime” is insisting that there are only two genders, while “gender-fluidity” is the new norm. Facebook suggests no less than 71 genders. Relevant terms are “trans-gender”, “cis-gender”, “non-binary” or “gender-queer”. Therefore the terms “father” or “mother” are now verboten and the personal pronouns “he” and “she” should be replaced with “ze” and “xe”. We are living under conditions far worse than Orwell could even imagine.

    • T
      T says:

      This excellent article by Tom Sunic and his invocation of Orwell’s term “Newspeak” invited a personal reminiscence of my favorite author of the 20th century, Eric Arthur Blair, who used the “nom de plume” George Orwell.

      1984 is a fascinating book. The color film version starring W Hurt and S Hamilton which was actually filmed in and around London during the year 1984 was particularly well done.

      Technology played a significant part in the detection of thoughtcrime in “1984”

      I recall reading some years back about plans being made to place wireless CCTV cameras attached to trees in the English countryside. Orwell only foresaw audio microphones in the forests.

      Poor Airstrip One…err England.

      “Because if you look at CCTV alone, at least [Winston Smith in Orwell’s novel] was able to go out in the countryside and go under a tree and expect there wouldn’t be any screen, as it was called.

      …’for how long can you laugh it off as a joke?’

      British surveillance state ‘worse than Orwell’s 1984’ – UN privacy chief

      UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy Joseph Cannataci has described Britain’s oversight of surveillance as a “bad joke” and said the situation is worse than anything author George Orwell imagined in his dystopian novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Cannataci said the UK has the weakest oversight of surveillance in the western world. He called for a Geneva Convention-style law for the internet to safeguard privacy and combat the threat of digital surveillance.

      Speaking to The Guardian, the Professor of Technology Law at University of Groningen in the Netherlands said he does not use Facebook or Twitter because of privacy concerns.

      Cannataci singled out the UK over even the US as the worst country in the west for regulating state surveillance. He said: “That is precisely one of the problems we have to tackle. That if your oversight mechanism’s a joke, and a rather bad joke at its citizens’ expense, for how long can you laugh it off as a joke?”

      https://www.rt.com/uk/313367-un-surveillance-orwell-privacy/

  5. Tom
    Tom says:

    Sure, the Left is expert in using nice-sounding euphemisms to mask its anti-freedom and anti-nation agenda. And for this reason, barring a miracle, the Left will likely continue to win the culture wars in the Anglosphere and with Northern Europids – southern Europids being too stupid and weak to advance their own interests. Why is this inevitable? Because conservatives and rightists are simply reactionary in their politics relative to the Left. The Left wins because it is always pushing an agenda and the Right merely reacts. It reacts usually too late and mostly in the form of fantastic incontrovertible rational arguments that no one outside of academia reads. Unless the Right starts pushing its own common-sense morality-based slogans to counter the Left’s disingenuousness, battles will be continually lost. The slogans are out there, by the way, or they can easily be constructed.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Tom: “The Left wins because it is always pushing an agenda and the Right merely reacts.”

      The post above is a good summary. To add to this analysis, the left are political beings in their brain-wiring, and the right/conservatives/normal people are not generally political in their wiring (readers here are not representative of the majority, as we ARE political in our thinking). The latter – the non-lefties – are wired to be interested in other things, not politics.

      In prehistoric times, the ‘right’ would toil on the land, and the left would sit around, plotting how to take what the others had, and part of the psyche to enable them to pull this off, was that they needed the following characteristics from their wiring/genes: (a) no morals, as they are about to rape and pillage and steal, and remorse and a sense of justice are only a hindrance to this (b) a hatred of the superior helps also as it spurs them on and gives them a motive.

      Hence the lefty gene developed in the population with a sort of parasite/host relationship within the population between the different behaviour types – makers and takers.

      When it comes to the left, their entire lives are devoted to their politics, which are all based on a hatred of the superior, and a desire to bring down the superior, and even if the superior have given them a cabin in a luxury liner, their hatred is stronger than self-interest, so they still seek to sink the liner even knowing they and their children will be worse off when the liner sinks. In this respect, most people are, in my opinion, wrong when they assume the left are after only power and money and control – they are not, they really do want to sink the liner that gives them a luxury life, as their hatred of the better is stronger than self-interest. The example in S.Africa demonstrates this – If the left get their way there, there will be no power or money or control for them (just tribal anarchy) – so their only motive is to destroy the superior, with no gain for themselves.

      The way the left are wired to be political (whereas the right/normal are interested in other things), is why they are attracted to education and local government and the media.

      The left today, due to this wiring from their genes, still hate the superior, even when the same lefty now is part of the wealthy lefty elite.

      Another characteristic to observe in the left is how a hatred of the better has a corollary of also making the same lefty individual side with the lowest types, the most inferior – the criminal underclass. This explains why on ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ where the film ‘Death Wish’ is rated by reviewers, all the liberal/lefty critics give bad reviews, as this film is anti-criminal, resulting in a review score of 18% by the mostly lefty ‘professional’ critics, whereas the audience give the same film 81% . This also shows how the left have gravitated to the media/film industry and taken it over. As many of the audience reviews said, they are surprised this film was even made as it is so politically incorrect.

  6. Mike
    Mike says:

    The ” complete absence of a common Brussels policy regarding the regulation of extra-European migrations” is an active policy of inciting Third World invasion.
    Merkel told them to come. They did. She got away with it. Brussels is suing the Hungarian government because it will not allow alien hordes to defile their land. That is policy. That is treason. That is ethic fouling. That is Genocide – and a prime case for the International Criminal Court.

  7. Anna
    Anna says:

    Thank you, Dr Sunic, for the excellent article. As I have attracted a diversity of invectives on the account of my “ignorance”, it is a sight for sore eyes, especially the passus below:

    “What strikes the eye is that there are many similarities between the official language in the West and the official language of the ex-communist East. The first conclusion one must make is that these similarities appear more glaring today because, following the fall of its communist Double in Eastern Europe, the Liberal Empire, or the Liberal System in the West, or, simply put, Liberalism, has been laid bare. The System can no longer hide behind old, false, or “fake” anti-communist narrative that used to be its main baggage during the Cold War. Essentially both Liberalism and Communism are twin brothers and the reason for the fall of Communism must be sought in the fact that Western Liberalism has been far more successful in building the empire of falsity and fakeness than the former communist universe. Moreover, in today’s Eastern Europe, the ruling class is largely made up of old recycled communist apparatchiks using almost the same old communist language, albeit embellished this time around with less aggressive Western-imported qualifiers and epithets, and therefore rendered more digestible for the public.”

    As I grew up in Poland under the era of the “Dictatorship of the proletariat”, which meant swallowing without hesitation the freedom propaganda that Radio Free Europe so graciously bestowed on us, the poor creatures behind the Iron Curtain, I was given the miserable privilege to see for myself that you are absolutely correct.

    Not quite surprisingly, the brainwash in my adopted land, Sweden, has proved itself more efficient than the communist propaganda behind the Curtain. What I mean is that most Swedes, unlike the then Poles, are observing the decalogue of political correctness not only in public, but also in private.

  8. John
    John says:

    Israel, UN Reach Deal on Deportation of African Migrants to Europe – Reports

    The deal effectively cancels an Israeli plan to deport some African migrants back to Africa, The Jerusalem Post newspaper said, citing a statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      John, that signed DEAL, to settle 16,000 Ethiopians and Eritreans in Europe BUT ALSO 16,000 IN ISRAEL was unilaterally abrogated by Netanyahu after his walkabout in south Tel Aviv, where he caught hell. His Right jubilantly supported the deal-breaking. ALL OF THESE 32,000
      ” INFILTRAITORS “, as they term them, will go to…

      AIPAC, for their Washington, March, 2017 Policy Conference, had invited the mass murderer [ 800,000 ] Kagame of Rwanda and featured him as a speaker.

      They later claimed, rightly or wrongly, that he would accept all of Israel’s deportees. He did so with thousands but dumped them on neighbors through porous borders, from where, in turn, they were sluiced to Mediterranean embarkation points, en route to Western Europe.

      That arrangement must have also fallen apart, perhaps lacking suitable inducements, resulting in the Deal with the UN; where Haley reigns for the US and its ” Allies “.

      Just an additional verboten ” pattern recognition ” !

  9. T
    T says:

    Essentially both Liberalism and Communism are twin brothers…

    Very much so.

    Capitalistic Liberalism and Marxists Communism, the children of the 1776 and 1789 American and French Revolutions respectively, are mirror images of each other, with the exception that the former revolution has historically emphasized what is ultimately an extreme artificial individualism and the latter a similarly extreme artificial collectivism. However, with the as intended ‘no win’ globally encompassing ‘Cold War’ between the US/UK and USSR/Red China blocs following WWII which manifest itself in Korea, the Cuban Missile crises, and Vietnam, etc, the hard edges of those individualists and collectivists orientated revolutions has worn down and they can now ‘converge’ with each other in what constitutes a new third revolution. This convergance (in theory) will give rise to a new man to repopulate the earth, the New Multi-Cultural Man.

    This all follows the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis (ie problem, reaction, solution) which is presented in the history books as all having occured ‘just naturally’ since 1776, though I don’t think anyone can be blamed for questioning just how natural the events of the past almost two and half centuries have been.

    • T
      T says:

      If Capitalism, Marxism, and their convergence, ie Multiculturalism was not a natural occurence, how might that have come about?

      The fellow excerpted and linked below presents a fascinating thesis regarding the 1776 American and 1789 French Revolutions in an article entitled The Trilateral Center: Benjamin Franklin and the New World Order. ‘Trilateral Center’ is simply a reference to the ideal placement of North America to project power globally, ie towards Europe and towards Asia. He’s an apparent distant relation of one of the most historically powerful families of British colonial North America, the Belchers. It was a member of this family, Jonathan Belcher, which was the first ‘native’ North American born Freemason, not to mention founder of Princeton University as well as a colonial governor.

      The writer indicates that the continental Freemasonry which many believe gave rise to the 1789 French Revolution may not have been as separated from the UK based masonry as some have suggested and that these branches did indeed work together to an extent. The writer of this article appears to be all for it.

      As soon as America gained her independence from Great Britain (with substantial French assistance), first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders, one of whom was Marie Joseph Paul Ives Gilbert du Motier Marquis de Lafayette…

      This study proposes that the end effects of France aiding the American Revolution were both practical and ideological: That to some French philosophes, America literally was to serve as the training ground for future French republicans, and ultimately, to serve as the Great Exemplar of Utopia, Acadia, the New Atlantis–the New World Order–the republican world that France could become once revolution overturned the Ancien Regime. And the American Revolution was a prelude to that French Revolution that was to launch a world-wide revolutionary campaign to free oppressed peoples throughout the world by bringing them republican or democratic government, beginning with a stable, consolidated Concert of Europe, with America as its guiding force, its ideological inspiration–its Trilateral Center.

      During the 1770’s-80’s, certain Enlightened French noblemen and bourgeoisie assisted in the creation of, and then used, the United States of America as France’s revolutionary outpost (and conversely, Americans like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were ready and willing to assist France in achieving its goal). The intertwining of French and American foreign affairs occurred with the blessings of prominent Enlightened Americans–particulary Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson–who enlisted the aid of the government of French King Louis XVI (specifically, the Enlightened foreign minister, the Comte de Vergennes) to gain independence for America’s future Republic.

      However, unknown to Louis XVI, creation of the United States was only a prelude to a chain reaction that resulted in a new French polity. Franklin and the ideological example of the American Revolution simultaneously prepared the substrate for the French Revolution that ultimately overthrew Louis XVI and crystallized into a sister republic. As soon as America gained her independence from Great Britain (with substantial French assistance), first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders, one of whom was Marie Joseph Paul Ives Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, who, after fighting in the American Revolution, imported revolutionary ideology into his native France under Jefferson’s guidance and inspiration. Products of the European Enlightenment, Franklin and Jefferson were station masters of France’s American depot, as Lafayette was an agent of the French central station trained on the American revolutionary training ground. Seeding the revolutionary cloud was not a one-sided French venture, however. On the contrary: the seedtime of the French Revolution was during Benjamin Franklin’s ministry to France–and that American was the seed-planter.

      http://www.belcherfoundation.org/trilateral_center.htm

      https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/royal_governor_jonathan_belcher_1682_1757

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        Given that the Illuminati were established in 1771 to promote world wide revolution, and that complaints from the American colonies already existed prior to that, it is more likely than not, Franklin and Jefferson were bit players in the French Revolution, at best. France and Britain (the Bank of England) had always taken every opportunity to weaken each other colonially, whether in the Americas, India, or the Far East. The Illuminati, on the other hand, were interested in violent destruction of any existing order. The American Revolution was virtually bloodless compared to the French and Russian Revolutions. Franklin and Jefferson do not fit that paradigm.

        • T
          T says:

          Given that the Illuminati were established in 1771

          Hmmm..IIRC it was 1776.

          to promote world wide revolution

          While, the Illuminati was real enough at the time from what I’ve read it was largely crushed by the time the French Revolution came around. Since then, it seems it’s had the effect of keeping people on ‘a wild goose chase’ looking for these ever elusive and not to mention nebulous ‘Illuminati’. Meanwhile, people’s eyes and minds have been kept off of other groups and forces with a lot more substance to them.

          The American Revolution was virtually bloodless compared to the French and Russian Revolutions. Franklin and Jefferson do not fit that paradigm.

          The 1776 American Revolution had an apparent different mission from the 1789 French Revolution. 1776 was the revolution of the self, ie man the individual and his place in the universe. Being the anti-thesis, the 1789 Revolution emphasised the collective, ie man as he expressed his identity as part of a group. Something that’s an anti-thesis might tend to a bit more negative by nature, hence perhaps explaining some of the bloodshed. Though, when I think about it, I think the best explanation for less bloodshed on the part of the 1776 Revolution compared to 1789 was that there was far heavier involvement of the Anglo-Saxon elite on both sides of the Atlantic, possibly including some royalty, on the side of the Americans as compared to French elite involvement with 1789. There’s likely other aspects as well. Regarding 1776, the Whig party in Britain adopted the colors of Washington’s army, ie buff and blue, as its party colors. Members of the British aristocracy as Whig party supporters, such as the Duchess of Devonshire, openly wore these colors in support of the American Revolution and received no serious penalties.

          It ought to be noted that unlike in France and Russia, the homeland of England was not (not allowed to be?) ravaged and the royalty overthrown by the 1776 Revolution. Had that occurred there likely would have been far greater bloodshed. Why that happened in France and Russia could in part be explained by greater alien elites involvement (ie powerful elements of the elites of the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish peoples) in those revolutions and their having less concern for these people than one’s own would.

          I tend to think the Fon Belcher fellow has something of value to say as his site linked to below had another article which said exactly the same thing as the 1853 book The New Rome by Theodore Poesche, namely that the center of power of the British Empire was to move from England to the US and that this had been long planned. The Belcher fellow elaborates on this in that it was Whig party members which were supposed to have pushed for this during the first half of the 18th century, one of the major reasons being that North America is ideally positioned to project power globally, both towards Europe and Asia. That same article also states that it was decided well prior to the 1776 Revolution that the British North American colonists would act as the ‘reserve force’ for the Empire in emergency situations which is exactly what the US was in WWI and WWII.

          http://www.belcherfoundation.org/camerica.htm

          https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_belcher_papers_camerica_trilateral_center_of_the_new_world_order

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          And much of the spilled blood in the American Revolution had belonged to Hessian mercenaries, rented to GB through the ‘ good offices ‘ of a Court Jew, ingratiatingly making a little on the side for his then sovereign Ruler of Hessen.

          • T
            T says:

            And much of the spilled blood in the American Revolution had belonged to Hessian mercenaries, rented to GB…

            Yes, the British Empire has had something of a history of ‘buying’ with gold foreign armies to augment its own forces in its wars. The Napoleonic wars fought across Europe were no different in that regard, wars which unhappily for the French resulted in France and its Empire ever since in effect being reduced to the status of a satellite state of the British Empire.

            Regarding Germany, the Belcher site has an article which lambast Germany for seeing itself as the ‘chosen people’. To the extent that’s true or not true regarding Germany I can’t say and as a general principal I suppose I don’t care much for the concept of ‘choseness’, but the Anglo-Saxon elites and hangers on in both the US and UK with their respective American and British Israelism also saw themselves as being ‘Chosen’, let alone those powerful elements of the elites of the Jewish people that have been involved in these things seeing themselves that way as well.

            The pot calling the kettle black…

            …Germans were the “chosen people”, the only Europeans whose language was their pure native tongue, and the German nation was invested with a mission: German national “salvation” and with it, a total renewal of humanity.

            In contrast, nationalism–whether based on cultural, linguistic, or political factors–inevitably leads to disputes between rival nationalities. European nationalism in its eighteenth to twentieth-century forms has proven to be a failure because each time it served as a motivating force–in France, Germany, and Russia–it resulted in dictatorship, regardless of political theory At the end of the French Revolution, French invocation of “love of the fatherland” resulted in the autocracy of Napoleon Bonaparte’s empire, against which Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) reacted by claiming “love of the fatherland” as an exclusive German characteristic. Author of Addresses to the German Nation (1807-1808), Fichte motivated Germans into feeling a sense of German cultural superiority. He zealously proclaimed that Germans must consider their nation to be the center of their existence–an attitude that facilitated the rise of a dictatorship in Germany during the 1930’s-1940’s. Furthermore, according to Fichte’s view of nationalism (which owed its view of human nature to Romanticism), Germans were the “chosen people”, the only Europeans whose language was their pure native tongue, and the German nation was invested with a mission: German national “salvation” and with it, a total renewal of humanity. He, too, magnified the State itself as an entity higher than democracy: “love of the fatherland”, he said, must rule as the ultimate authority, and to achieve this end, he called for placing limitations on individual rights and freedoms. However, such anti-democratic nationalism has already failed to bring peace to Europe.

            http://www.belcherfoundation.org/international_trilateral_center.htm

            http://www.belcherfoundation.org/site_index.htm

  10. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    “This compound noun rhymes perfectly with the word “Judenpresse” (the Jew-Press), which was very popular during the National Socialist era in Germany.”
    Just why would this be unsavoury, Dr. Sunic? It is no secret that the press has long been in control of Jews, even at the time of NS Germany. That vicious anti-Semite Henry Ford, you know the one that used Jewish architect to design his plants, commented pre NS Germany, that it didn’t matter whether the Protocols were fake, it fit what was happening. Didn’t Benjamin Freedman, almost 70 years ago reveal how the press, virtually overnight, became anti-German during WWI?
    “Judenpresse” is more fitting today than it ever was, and it isn’t unsavoury. The media owners and controllers decided to turn news into entertainment. In North America, it was merged almost seamlessly with Hollywood. Even so-called “alternate” media like RT cannot shake the same mis-information patterns of the MSM, by leaving out important words like “alleged” from their reporting. The pattern is well ingrained in all (((Western))) media.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Curmudgeon, Dr. Sunic lives in Europe, and travels. Consider the long list of renowned people from our side, who have been barred and often jailed or driven into exile, by most European nations, sometimes on a mere whim.

      Some things need to be avoided: with spokespersons relying on the knowledge of the audience, and on what is NOT said.

  11. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “the System—perhaps we should call it “the Empire”—has recently passed a law in Germany against anonymous distributors of “fake news,” that is to say against Facebook wrong-thinkers ”

    Just to point out that their control of the legal system was their main triumph. This makes everyone wary of what they say, which they would not be if there were no legal consequences. And this applies to newspapers being wary of what they publish.

    The effect of this is to make people submissive in their thinking, as they decide (including newspapers) to go with the flow and repeat the lies (‘refugees’) rather than say the truth (‘immigrants’). People do not think about what is ‘true’ or ‘honourable’, instead they put out their radar, pick up the dominant culture, and submit.

    The control of the legal profession has the consequence that in London they have 900 officers dedicated to ‘hate crimes’. This was the boast of a police spokesman in a recent article in the DM recently where a drunk white man said some mildly racist comments to a black man on a bus, who was filming the white drunk and egging him on to say something racist, which he did, then the DM willingly published the full video showing his face in the online DM and acting all horrified and outraged, and invited (censored) comments, where the only ones they allowed were ones condemning the white ‘racist’ and fully approving of the hate crime laws that would now be applied to this white man (with the police saying it was a priority for them). Meanwhile, a gang of blacks killed a fair-skinned girl on a bus by attacking her and the same DM pixellated out the attackers and never referred to their race. The point is that in the comments where the white man was captured on film being racist, the people were fully supportive of the hate crime laws, as the left managed to find a respectable and non-violent black being called names. This shows how willingly the people embrace the oppression of their own nation – thinking they can position themselves on the winning side.

    So the main triumph of the left in the West is the way the legal profession, like the education profession, has been gradually taken over by the Left plus allies. They never fully took over the MSM until recently, which only happened when their control of the legal profession reached its current level.

    “even a simple primary school certificate carried the phrase at the bottom of the page: “Death to Fascism and Freedom to the People!”

    One aspect of this is that surely you are not supposed to actually think the Party supported the ‘Freedom of the People’?

    This begs the question, why they could not simply say:

    ‘Death to Fascism and anyone who challenges the Communist Party will be punished’

    Tom Sunic always gives us insights into the way the people accept their own oppression – in his previous article telling us how in the communist countries the people did not admire the dissidents.

    Why is it that humans seem to be able to accept the lying version of the quoted slogan above, even though everyone knows it is a lie, but for some reason they would not be able to accept the truthful version?

    It is as if everything humans do in a conflict situation has to be couched in terms where the villain is justified, and then at this point logical thought is suppressed. This also applies to sport, for example if a player in Team A fouls a player from team B, all the supporters of A will say it was not a foul, or it was accidental, or it was justified, and on the other hand, all the supporters of team B will say it was not justified, was not accidental etc. In other words, supporters from both sides are perfectly at ease with twisting what happened to suit their agenda with NO attempt at fairness and feeling NO NEED to apply fairness. All that matters is loyalty to your side, and the truth is unimportant, or rather lies become the new truth, they are turned into truth, and they are perfectly relaxed about this process. In the end they will even persuade themselves that they are right. So at one level they internally know it is a lie that their team did not foul, but they never visit this level, they push it down so it does not appear, and in the end internally suppress it.

    In other words, it is part of the human psyche that people feel compelled to present what they do in terms of them ‘being right’ and justified. We have a metaphorical ‘notice board’ in our thinking and on the notice board of their minds the people pinned up ‘death to fascists’ and they pinned up ‘Freedom to the people’ and because both are pinned up there, they have both been accepted as valid. As to checking the validity, they do not go there. They are on the board so they are right. The part of their thinking that says ‘this is on the boards so it is right’ is very large. The part that ponders on the validity is very small. In other words most people do not mind deception and falseness, but one thing they do insist on is that the side they submit to is in the right, which means put in the category of ‘right’.

Comments are closed.