Right behind your eyes. That’s where you’ll find the most complex thing in the known universe. And right before your eyes is where you’ll presently find the second-most complex thing in the known universe. What are those things? Well, the most complex thing in the known universe is the human brain. And the most second-complex thing is language, as created and processed by the human brain. A single, simple sentence like this is, in some ways, much more complex than a star. A longer text, like a short story or novel, is more complex than a galaxy or even an entire universe of non-biological phenomena.

Geniuses of language

That gap in complexity is why human beings have made so much progress in astronomy and physics and so little progress in linguistics. Of course, physics has attracted geniuses for centuries and linguistics hasn’t, but that’s because physics is a much simpler science. A genius can make progress in physics but not in linguistics in rather the way that a good athlete can swim across the Mississippi but not across the Atlantic. Problems in physics are river-crossings; problems in linguistics are ocean-crossings. How did language evolve? How is it encoded in our genes and instantiated in the brain? Those are much tougher questions than, say: How does the sun shine? When it comes to language, we human beings are like spiders spinning webs or bees building hives. We can do amazing things with words, but we don’t know how. Like spiders and bees, we do it by instinct. We speak, we listen; we write, we read. But how? What’s going on in that warm, wet, sticky mass behind our eyes and between our ears?

Over Sea, Under Stone: a wonderwork of verbal magic

You can ask that question of the simplest conversation or simplest text, but it becomes even more compelling when you ask it of great literature. We don’t have geniuses of linguistics, but we do have geniuses of language. Obvious names spring to mind: Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe. Here’s a less obvious name: Susan Cooper (born 1935), an English-American writer most famous for a five-book series of children’s fantasy called The Dark Is Rising (1965—77). Perhaps I’m wrong to bring her into the illustrious company of that male triumvirate. I’m not sure that she is a genius, but I am sure that she is more than simply an excellent writer. Like the late Rosemary Sutcliff (1920—92), another female writer of children’s fiction, Cooper is a verbal magician or alphabetic alchemist, able to conjure reality with words, to turn the dross of black ink on white paper into the gold of stories that glow and glisten in your mind for life. Two of the most powerful books I’ve read in recent years have been Sutcliff’s The Eagle of the Ninth (1954), set in Roman Britain, and Cooper’s Over Sea, Under Stone (1965), set in modern Britain but incorporating themes and characters from Arthurian legend and Celtic myth.

The might of Mystic Wales

As someone once said, reading is like dreaming with your eyes open. And reading those two books was like dreaming in full color with sound and scent and sensation all thrown in. Which was a pleasant surprise, because I first read those books as a child and returning to childhood favorites is often a disappointment. Not in this case. But one of Cooper’s books did once cause me big disappointment. It wasn’t that the book was weak — quite the opposite. The book was in fact too strong for the reality that it drew upon. When I read Cooper’s The Grey King (1975) I was initiated into Mystic Wales, because the book is set in Wales and draws on the special power of Arthurian legend and the unique beauty and mystery of Celtic mythology. For example, one of the chief characters is Bran Davies, an albino boy with golden eyes who is named after a Celtic crow-god and who owns a white dog that can literally see the wind. Bran has a mysterious father, is far older than he first appears, and takes part in a quest for a golden harp amid wild mountains and dark lakes.

Pwyll Pendeuic Dyuet a oed yn arglwyd ar seith cantref Dyuet. A threigylgweith yd oed yn Arberth, prif lys idaw, a dyuot yn y uryt ac yn y uedwl uynet y hela. Sef kyueir o’y gyuoeth a uynnei y hela, Glynn Cuch. Ac ef a gychwynnwys y nos honno o Arberth, ac a doeth hyt ym Penn Llwyn Diarwya, ac yno y bu y nos honno. A thrannoeth yn ieuengtit y dyd kyuodi a oruc, a dyuot y Lynn Cuch i ellwng e gwn dan y coet. A chanu y gorn a dechreu dygyuor yr hela, a cherdet yn ol y cwn, ac ymgolli a’y gydymdeithon. Ac ual y byd yn ymwarandaw a llef yr erchwys, ef a glywei llef erchwys arall, ac nit oedynt unllef, a hynny yn dyuot yn erbyn y erchwys ef. Ac ef a welei lannerch yn y coet o uaes guastat; ac ual yd oed y erchwys ef yn ymgael ac ystlys y llannerch, ef a welei carw o ulaen yr erchwys arall. A pharth a pherued y llannerch, llyma yr erchwys a oed yn y ol yn ymordiwes ac ef, ac yn y uwrw y’r llawr.

The Mabinogion: sample lines in Welsh and cover of an English translation

Alas, it was a disappointment to visit the real Wales after experiencing the Mystic Wales conjured by the word-magic of Cooper and other story-tellers. In the real Wales, there are exhaust-spewing cars, not fire-breathing dragons. In the real Wales, there are fat women eating fish’n’chips, not beautiful maidens created from flowers like Blodeuwedd in The Mabinogion (12th century).

Real Wales can’t live up to Mystic Wales, and nor can real Welsh people. The Welsh rock-band Super Furry Animals have experienced the disappointment in reverse: they said in one interview that their Welshness made audiences in Europe expect them to be druids with mist in their beards. The fantasy of Wales has become more powerful than the reality, but that’s another tribute to the magic of language and of the stories created in Welsh and other branches of the Celtic family. And in one way, real Wales isn’t a disappointment. Not when you visit an area where Welsh is a living language, still flowering after centuries of withering wind blown in from England. Welsh is a special and seductive language, as strange and subtle as the stories that have used it in collections like The Mabinogion.

Deeper, richer, stranger

And many millions more people have experienced the magic of Welsh than have ever spoken it, because it was one of the linguistic ingredients mixed by J.R.R. Tolkien into his mighty epic Lord of the Rings (1954—55). Welsh and Finnish were the bases of Elvish, the language (or languages) of Tolkien’s immortal Elves, who are tall and beautiful warriors, poets and artisans, lovers of flowers and gems and moonlight, haters of evil and ugliness and cruelty. Like Susan Cooper, Tolkien drew on Celtic mythology to create his stories. But although he was undoubtedly the greater scholar, I think she is the better writer, more adept at word-magic and better able to conjure on paper the beauty of the Light and the foulness of the Dark. Compare the verses that lie at the heart of both writers’ most famous stories. Here are Tolkien’s:

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all. One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. (The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 1, ch. 2)

And here are Cooper’s:

When the Dark comes rising, six shall turn it back,
Three from the circle, three from the track;
Wood, bronze, iron; water, fire, stone;
Five will return, and one go alone. (The Dark Is Rising, ch. 3)

Tolkien’s verses can still make the hair rise on the back of my neck decades after I first began reading and re-reading Lord of the Rings. But I think Cooper’s are deeper, richer, and stranger, saying more with fewer words. Either way, it’s clear that Tolkien and Cooper are both lovers of the Light and the haters of the Dark. In Christian terms, they serve God and reject Satan, which is why I am sure that Tolkien would have hated what is happening in the real Wales that so inspired him. And I hope that Susan Cooper, who is still alive as I write this in mid-November 2022, does hate what is happening in Wales too, if she knows about it.

Labour is hostile to ordinary Whites

Yes, the Dark is certainly rising in 21st-century Wales. Or rather, it’s rising faster, because Wales has been ruled for decades by traitors who hate the Welsh people and the Welsh language, despite all their posturing and protestations to the contrary. I call them traitors because they are themselves Welsh and work under the banners of Llafur Cymru, Welsh Labour, and Plaid Cymru, the Party of Wales. I’ve often quoted the words of Maurice Glasman, a Jewish Labour peer who saw from the inside how his party had betrayed the group that inspired its own name. Here again is what Glasman admitted in 2011: “In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters … were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.”

In other words, Labour hates ordinary Whites. And what’s true of Labour in England is also true of Labour in Wales: Llafur Cymru hates the White Welsh working-class and is working hard to destroy its future. Like leftists around the world, Welsh leftists have recruited and trained mercenaries against those whom their party was founded to serve and protect. That is, Welsh leftists are using non-White outsiders to wage war on the White Welsh. And they’ve set out their vision of a totalitarian future Wales, where their own power is secure, their non-White servants rewarded with permanent privilege, and their White enemies degraded and stripped of power. They want something utterly contradictory: Cymru Wrth-hiliol, or “An Anti-Racist Wales.” That’s the title of Welsh Labour’s “Race Equality Action Plan for Wales.”

Crumbs of creation

And it’s an ominous title, especially for those familiar with Critical Race Theory (CRT), the branch of cultural Marxism dedicated to waging war on Whiteness. CRT preaches the eternal villainy of Whites and the eternal virtue of Blacks and other non-Whites. One of its leading theologians is the high-status, wealthy, low-IQ Ibram X. Kendi (born 1982), who teaches that every crumb of creation participates in the struggle between wicked Whiteness and virtuous Blackness. For Kendi, you are inescapably racist if you aren’t actively anti-racist. And that’s what the title of Welsh Labour’s Race-Equality Plan refers to: a permanent war on racism. In the ominous words of the traitorous Siân Gwenllian, deputy leader of the supposedly Wales-loving Plaid Cymru: “We are absolutely committed to celebrating diversity and will move to eliminate inequality in all its forms.” Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have a virtuous vision of an Anti-Racist Wales where nothing escapes the baleful gaze of anti-racist commissars, who will monitor and interfere in all aspects of life and culture. A more honest title for the Plan would be “An Anti-Welsh Wales,” because the Plan is intended to lay waste to the ancient White nation of Wales, raise non-Whites far above ordinary Welsh Whites, and ensure the power of leftists in perpetuity.

Man with a Plan: the physically degenerate Mark Drakeford, so-called First Minister of Wales

Naturally enough, the Plan has a foreword by the traitorous Mark Drakeford (born 1954), the leader of Welsh Labour and so-called First Minister of Wales. He’s someone whose flaccid, unhealthy features remind me strongly of a passage in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Winston Smith, the protagonist of the novel, is sitting in a canteen at the Ministry of Truth and musing on the physiological effects of IngSoc, the totalitarian leftism that controls the British Isles:

He looked round the canteen again. Nearly everyone was ugly, and would still have been ugly even if dressed otherwise than in the uniform blue overalls. On the far side of the room, sitting at a table alone, a small, curiously beetle-like man was drinking a cup of coffee, his little eyes darting suspicious glances from side to side. How easy it was, thought Winston, if you did not look about you, to believe that the physical type set up by the Party as an ideal — tall muscular youths and deep-bosomed maidens, blond-haired, vital, sunburnt, carefree — existed and even predominated. Actually, so far as he could judge, the majority of people in Airstrip One were small, dark, and ill-favoured. It was curious how that beetle-like type proliferated in the Ministries: little dumpy men, growing stout very early in life, with short legs, swift scuttling movements, and fat inscrutable faces with very small eyes. It was the type that seemed to flourish best under the dominion of the Party. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Book 1, ch. 4)

That passage reminds me of Mark Drakeford, although he’s more like an amphibian than a beetle. He’s the type that flourishes best under Welsh leftism, an intellectual and ethical non-entity devoted to the service of leftism, the pursuit of power, and the destruction of his own nation. Not being a masochist, I haven’t read the entire 142 pages and 50,000 words of the Race-Equality Plan overseen by Drakeford. In fact, I’ve found it difficult to read as much as one page and fifty words. But I can confidently say that every last bit of the Plan oozes repulsively with what Sam Francis called the managerial state and Bruce Charlton has so aptly called “The Cancer of Bureaucracy”:

Everyone in modernizing ‘Western’ societies (roughly the USA, UK, Western and Central Europe) will, no doubt, have noticed that there has been a long-term, progressive growth and spread of bureaucracy. Except during major war; this has not been a matter of pendulum swings, with sometimes less and sometimes more bureaucracy, but instead of relentless overall expansion — albeit sometimes faster and at other times slower.

The bureaucratic takeover applies to science, medicine, education, law, police, the media — indeed to almost all social functions. Such unrelenting growth implies either that 1. Bureaucracy is vital to societal functioning and the more bureaucracy we have the better for us; or that 2. Bureaucracy is parasitic and its growth is uncontrollable. Since the first alternative has become obviously absurd, I am assuming the second alternative is correct: that bureaucracy is like a cancer of modernizing societies — i.e., its expansion is malignant and its effect is first parasitic, then eventually fatal. (“The Cancer of Bureaucracy,” Charlton’s Notions, 31st October 2013)

Welsh Labour’s “Race Equality Action Plan” will feed the cancer of bureaucracy in Wales, but will not bring about “race equality” there. Equality is an impossible objective and the Plan isn’t intended to pursue it in any case. Instead, the Plan will pursue inequality: it will further increase the privilege of non-Whites, further encourage their grievances, further incite them to harm Whites, further hasten the transfer of wealth from productive Whites to unproductive non-Whites, and further advance the cause of leftists around the world. Leftists want to wreck Western civilization and rule the ruins. In this case, Welsh Labour want to lay waste to Wales.

An Anti-Welsh Wales: the cover of Welsh Labour’s Race-Equality Action Plan

Not white, not Welsh, warmly welcomed by Welsh Labour: typical images from the Race Equality Plan

And they’ve proclaimed that aim by saying that they want Wales to become “an Anti-Racist Nation.” The concept of an anti-racist nation is as absurd as the concept of a square circle. The word “nation” comes ultimately from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” That is, a nation is formed by birth and blood, by the natural process of unification that takes place among people who have a common ancestry, history, language, and culture. Nationhood is a question of ethnography, not geography. For example, down the centuries Jews were a supreme example of a nation without a homeland. They wandered and settled, were uprooted and expelled, but they never lost their sense of racial, religious and cultural separateness, and they never ceased to be a nation.

Blanking the blonde: a Black teacher turns her face away from a passive White girl towards active Black children

In other words, a true nation has to be “racist”: it has to discriminate between racial insiders and outsiders, between those who belong and those who don’t. If a nation ceases to discriminate between insiders and outsiders — that is, if it ceases to be “racist” — it also ceases to be a nation. But that national negation is what Welsh Labour want to happen in Wales. They want to destroy the true nation of Wales and replace it with a pseudo-nation of privileged non-Whites and parasitized Whites, all overseen by power-hungry leftists like Mark Drakeford. Leftists like Drakeford understand perfectly that the quickest way to destroy a White nation is to open its borders to non-Whites who aren’t and never will be part of the nation. That’s why those non-Whites don’t care about the most precious parts of nationhood, like language and tradition. This story from Scotland also applies to Wales, because non-White immigration will be just as bad for the Welsh language as it is for Gaelic:

Funding for Gaelic “discriminates against Muslims”

A former SNP [Scottish National Party] Holyrood candidate has claimed “anti-Muslim racism” is seeping into Scottish education because language policies treat ethnic minorities as inferior to white Scots. Nighet Riaz, an academic at the University of the West of Scotland, said Gaelic was promoted and given millions of pounds in ring-fenced public funding while the traditional languages of non-white groups were sidelined in schools. She said that there was a lack of Urdu teachers, with schools unable to meet the needs of large Pakistani communities, particularly in Glasgow.

Dr Riaz was a regional list candidate for the SNP at the 2016 Holyrood election, endorsed by Alex Salmond, the former party leader, and Robin Sturgeon, Nicola Sturgeon’s father, but was not elected. She is an SNP equalities officer for Pollokshields and the first minister’s Glasgow Southside constituency.

She said the SNP narrative of Scotland being a “more tolerant, welcoming nation” clashed with the experiences of ethnic minority communities and described lack of provision for Urdu as “a form of anti-Muslim racism being played out by the state”.

She added: “The reality is that no new funding is being diverted to minority languages other than Gaelic which is ring-fenced by the Gaelic School Capital Fund and protected by legislation, as it is seen as the ‘Scottish’ language. We cannot ignore that Gaelic is spoken by white Scots, whilst Urdu is spoken predominantly by brown Muslims. This suggests that ethnic minorities, Muslims in particular, are not considered equally Scottish as white ‘native’ Scots.”

According to the most recent census Urdu is the fourth-most commonly-spoken language in Scottish homes, after English, Scots and Polish, while Punjabi is the fifth most common. Gaelic is eighth. (Funding for Gaelic “discriminates against Muslims,” The Times of London, 6th October 2018)

Not White, not Scottish: the anti-Gaelic Muslim invader Nighet Riaz

You can’t blame Nighet Riaz for not caring about Gaelic. She’s not Scottish, has no roots in Scotland, and plainly feels nothing for Scotland’s unique history and traditions. All that interests her is the promotion of her own non-White group and its culture. She was stupid, of course, to make her disdain for Gaelic so obvious, but you can be sure that what she said openly is thought privately by countless other non-Whites. As for me, I’m not Scottish either, but I am White and I recognize the immense importance of Scotland in Western history. It is a small nation that has made an outsize contribution to Western civilization.

Hungry cats and rats

But even if Scotland were small and obscure, I would still be saddened to see that Scots Gaelic is the eighth-most commonly spoken language in its only homeland. Urdu and Punjabi shouldn’t be spoken by large numbers of people in Scotland, because speakers of those languages have homelands of their own. Their presence in Scotland harms ordinary Whites there and increases the power of the leftists in the so-called Scottish National Party or SNP. Urdu and Punjabi are bad for Gaelic in Scotland just as they are for Welsh in Wales. They’re invasive languages, like hungry cats and rats introduced to a small island with a unique — and very tasty — flora and fauna. Over the years I’ve studied all of these languages, and I know that, alphabets aside, the Celtic languages are more difficult and more unusual than the Indian ones. They’re also much more fragile. Native speakers of Gaelic and Welsh are numbered in thousands and grow fewer by the year; native speakers of Urdu and Punjabi are numbered in millions and grow more numerous by the minute.

Nicola Sturgeon (right), the Giftzwerg or poison-dwarf of Scottish politics, takes part in minority-worship

But the Scottish National Party wants more and more speakers of Urdu and Punjabi to enter Scotland and have children there. The party is led by the power-hungry poison-dwarf Nicola Sturgeon (born 1970), a dedicated high-priestess in the cult of minority-worship. For example, Sturgeon became “the only serving prime minister or first minister in the UK to have led a [Gay] Pride event” when she marched at the head of “Scotland’s largest ever LGBT event” in 2018. She was wearing a rainbow “Choose Love” T-shirt, a slogan that’s as insincere as it is saccharine and smarmy. But next to Sturgeon marched another female poison-dwarf in a T-shirt bearing words that were much more honest. They ran like this: “WHY BE RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC OR TRANSPHOBIC WHEN YOU CAN JUST BE QUIET?” The threat is obvious and the message is clear. Evil folk have a simple choice under leftism: either keep their mouths shut or spew their vile hate and be crushed.

Satanic inspiration and intent

Nicola Sturgeon does not believe in free speech and free enquiry, only in power for herself and punishment for her enemies. As a leftist, she has the same enemies as Labour in England and Wales: the ordinary Whites of her nation. The Scottish National Party should really be called the Scottish Negation Party, because like Llafur Cymru in Wales it is dedicated to the destruction of the nation over which it presently rules. The concept of negation is the key to understanding leftists like Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford. They can’t create: they can only destroy. The German writer Goethe, whom I named above as one of a triumvirate of White geniuses, may have best captured the psychology of leftism in a famous speech by Mephistopheles in Faust (1775 onward). Indeed, Goethe may have captured the literally Satanic inspiration and intent of poison-dwarfs like Sturgeon and cancerous bureaucrats like Drakeford:

Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint!
Unde das mit Recht; denn alles was entsteht
ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht;
Drum besser wär’s daß nichts entstünde.
So ist denn alles was ihr Sünde,
Zerstörung, kurz das Böse nennt,
Mein eigentliches Element. (Faust: Eine Tragödie, Part 1)

I am the spirit that negates!
And rightly so, for all that comes to be
Deserves to perish wretchedly;
’Twere better nothing would begin.
Thus everything that your terms, sin,
Destruction, evil represent —
That is my proper element. (Faust, translation by Walter Kaufmann)

Another possible Englishing of Mephistopheles’ opening line is “I am the spirit that ever denies!” Both translations provide key insights into leftism. It is the ideology that ever negates Truth, Beauty and Goodness, that ever denies reality and pursues ugliness, evil and lies. When I say that Welsh Labour and the SNP are hell-bent on the destruction of Wales and Scotland, I mean literally that: Hell is where their lies and lunacies will take these ancient White nations. The anti-woke writer Irish Savant has chronicled the same national negation in Ireland, whose traitorous leftists are eagerly importing Somalis and Syrians to destroy a third Celtic homeland.

And if small White nations like Wales, Scotland and Ireland are led to destruction, the rest of the White West would inevitably follow. However, just as Susan Cooper and J.R.R. Tolkien prophesied in their books, that will not happen. The Dark is indeed rising, but the Dark will be thrown back. Leftism will not triumph and the West will not perish. The struggle will be hard and long, just as it was for the Servants of Light described by Cooper and the Company of the Ring described by Tolkien, but it will end in victory. The malevolent and mendacious word-magic of leftism — “Race Does Not Exist,” “Choose Love,” “An Anti-Racist Wales” — will not hold back reality for much longer. As the Roman poet Virgil, another genius of language, said long ago: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret — “You can drive Nature out with a pitch-fork, but she’ll be back.” And Nature is not a poison-dwarf like Nicola Sturgeon, but a giantess of joy.

When I wrote this, six full days after the 2022 midterm election, the situation was still undecided.  The Senate is apparently in Democrat hands again, and the House was “leaning” Republican , although some 19 (!) races are still undetermined.  [Editor’s note: The Democrats have indeed held the Senate, and the Republicans now have been assured of a very slim majority in the House.] But in any case, what we have witnessed here are multiple systemic failures at multiple levels.  The simple fact that so many races have no results even now, over a week after the fact, is itself an indictment of “American democracy.”  But the problems go much deeper than that.  If it wasn’t already obvious, the system is broken beyond repair.  The house is rotten.  New siding or new paint won’t do it.  Down it must come.

But before I get to that, let’s look at a few details of the results.  Even a basic analysis at this point is helpful.  Obviously the anticipated Red Wave never materialized, but there were still a few bright points.  At the moment, according to the Cook Report, Republicans have earned 5 million more votes than Dems in House races (out of about 100 million cast).  This gives them a 51.7% to 46.8% edge in terms of total votes—a significant margin.  If this margin is reflected in the final tally, Reps will hold 225 House seats and Dems 210.  We will see what comes.

Strangely enough, in the 2010 “Obama backlash” midterm, Republicans won by a very similar margin in terms of total votes (51.7% to 45.0%), and yet held 242 seats—a full 17 more than expected this time.  This is an astonishing difference; clearly, new district maps have favored Democrats.  They clearly have profited from the many redistricting initiatives out there.

Also, the current split in the House races is almost the exact mirror image of the last presidential election, where (officially, at least) Biden took 51.3% and Trump 46.9%.  To me, that indeed counts as a ‘Red wave,’ even if it is something less than expected.

In terms of racial categories, as Kevin MacDonald emphasizes, Whites voted 58% Republican, whereas non-Whites went 68% Democrat.  (Among non-Whites, Asians voted 58% Dem, Latinos 60% Dem, and Blacks a whopping 86% Dem).  This is highly revealing.  By significant majorities, Whites see Republicans as their party, and non-Whites see Democrats as theirs.  Bottom line: When Democrats win, non-Whites win.  And when Republicans win, Whites…well, they don’t win (we never really win these days), but at least White grievances can be heard.

And then a few other interesting statistics:  Voters who had a least one gun in their household voted 66% for Republicans—unsurprising, and potentially good news down the road.  And this was some 53 million voters!  Second, a surprising (to me) 27% of voters said abortion was their #1 issue.  (Really?  With all the problems in the country and the world, with your economy a mess, a doddering senile president, and a planet facing potential nuclear war, abortion is #1?)  These were largely incensed liberal women, and they voted 76% Dem.  Third, 53% of voters said immigrants “help the nation” and just 39% said they “hurt the nation.”  (Obviously, the relevant issue at the moment is illegal immigration, but cleverly, the question did not specify.)

What about election fraud?  Was this election, too, “stolen”?  I must admit that I have yet to see compelling evidence for fraud in 2020, but I remain open to the possibility.  And there are already hints of problems now in 2022, but it remains to be seen if these amount to enough to account for the difference in outcomes.  Also, as Tucker Carlson has pointed out, it is highly suspicious that, of the longest-delayed results, Democrats seem to win most of the time—the figure he cited was 77%.  It’s almost like, “Keep counting until the Dem is ahead, and then stop.”  Again, we’ll see where the longest-delayed and closest races shake out this time.  But the example of the Senate is not encouraging.  Of eight tight races there, Dems won four, Reps won three, and Georgia is in a runoff, almost certainly to go Democrat.  That will give Dems five of eight (63%) close races in a national environment that was supposedly pro-Republican.

But my main takeaway from the current situation is this:  Whether there was fraud or not, either way, the outcome is very bad.  If there was sufficient fraud to tip the outcomes, then the system obviously has zero credibility and something approaching a revolution is immediately required.  On the other hand, if all reported votes are legitimate, then that tells us that far too many people were willing to reward the current administration; that they are not terribly upset about record inflation caused, in part, by record federal spending; that they don’t mind funding wars in Europe; that they were not all that concerned with the Covid fiasco that allegedly killed over 1 million Americans and destroyed thousands of small businesses.  (Republican candidates should have repeated over and over: “vaccine mandates,” “mask mandates,” “shutdowns,” “school closures,” “Anthony Fauci,” “Rochelle Walensky,” etc., etc.  Remember those?)  In short, either we have (1) a fraudulent democracy that is literally worthless, or (2) an electorate so bamboozled by the Jewish media machine—and Jewish porn, and Jewish legalized pot—that they can hardly think straight.  Both alternatives are bad news indeed.

The bit of good news, again, is that a strong majority of Whites (58%) could see through the nonsense and propaganda.  This is certainly cause for hope.  But even at that, a Republican vote was really nothing more than “sending a message.”  Even with a true Red Wave, even with a Republican House and Senate, virtually nothing was going to change anyway—partly because of Biden, but mostly because the same corrupting forces hold sway in both parties.

As we know, Jewish donors are dominant funders of both parties.  One recent Jewish study admits that “Jews donate as much as 50 percent of the funds raised by Democrats and 25 percent of the funds raised by Republicans.”  Other sources give higher estimates.[1]  But even these figures are appalling.  Think of it: Of the hundreds of lobbies and special interests out there, a quarter to a half or more of all campaign funds come from a single lobby: the Jewish Lobby.  Guess who calls the shots.  Politicians just don’t pass on that kind of money because, quite obviously, they understand that they can’t be elected by alienating Jewish money. The Democrats are totally and completely sold to the Jews, and the Republicans are only slightly less sold-out.  No matter who won, the Jews win—and Whites lose.

That is the definition of a rigged system: a small, wealthy, corrupt minority wins out over a large majority of the people.  Until that changes, nothing of substance will change.  Even if Trump or DeSantis miraculously wins in 2024, nothing of substance will change.  In fact, the Jews love nothing more than masses of people getting all worked up about “Democrats versus Republicans” or “Trump versus Biden” or “pro-life versus pro-choice” or “pro and con LGBT rights.”  Such issues are wonderful distractions.  They take everyone’s eyes off the ball—the Jewish ball—and put them on relatively trivial side issues.  The main issue, and the only issue that really matters at this point, is:  How will a given candidate address the Jewish dominance and Jewish corruption of our nation?  At every town hall, at every candidate panel and forum, people should be hammering away at their candidates:  What will you do to stop the Jewish Lobby?  Virtually nothing else matters at this point.  And how often did that question come up in the 2022 cycle?  Case closed.

As it is, the situation is hopelessly corrupt.  The system has completely failed.  ‘Representative democracy’ is utterly discredited and worthless.  ‘America’ as a functional nation is dead.  The lowest and most pernicious criminals hold sway at the top, and the nation drowns in Democrat-voting Third-World immigrants at the bottom.  Which party holds the Senate or House is irrelevant.  With anything short of revolutionary action, the nation will sink ever further into the abyss:  economic decline, rising crime, moral degradation at every turn—a wonderful future for your children and grandchildren.

The Only Option

Fortunately, we do have a revolutionary option: secession.  As MacDonald and others are openly stating, secession is now perhaps our only viable alternative.  For myself, I have been advocating such a thing for literally 30 years now; it was clear to me, long ago, that no nation as large and diverse as the USA could be rationally governed.  And worse, that the size and complexity of modern America ensured that malevolent actors would inevitably gain the upper hand—as indeed they have.  I argued this position long ago, and nothing since has made me alter my view.  A breakup of the USA is the only option if we want accountable, responsible, and reasonably non-corrupt government.

In theory, almost any subgroup of people, of almost any size, has the right to secede from their existing forms of government.  If there is any truly inherent human right, it is the right to self-government.  Just as no one is born a slave, no one is born enslaved to their local nation-state.  All people have the right to re-form and re-create their own government—even if it involves violent action.

Here, states are the obvious candidates for secession.  Not only do they have well-defined boundaries, they (some of them, at least) have a long history of independence—in some cases, older than the US itself.  In fact, secessionist movements exist now, and have existed, for a long time; if we can believe Wikipedia, there are at least 14 active organizations: 7 regional groups, 6 states, and Puerto Rico.

This is a good start, but it’s not enough.  There is no reason why all 25 Red States (per the 2020 election) shouldn’t immediately create active secessionist parties.  Red-Staters: you have no good alternatives.  You will continue to lose.  Trump won’t save you.  “MAGA” won’t save you.  You deserve better, and you can have better, but not within the current “America.”  You need to go it alone—or with a few other like-minded states.

For practical reasons, the most viable movements will be in border states; it would be tough for landlocked Kansas, for example, to become an independent, self-governing country.  There is a reason that, for centuries, nations have fought for access to oceans and waterways.  Free access to trade routes is vital.

Of the 2020 Red States, 12 are border states (I am including Indiana and Ohio, which have access to the Great Lakes).  Here’s a list of them, along with percent voting for Trump:

• North Dakota (65.5% Trump in 2020)
• Idaho (63.9%)
• Alabama (62.2%)
• Louisiana (58.5%)
• Mississippi (57.6%)
• Indiana (57.1%)
• Montana (56.9%)
• South Carolina (55.1%)
• Ohio (53.5%)
• Texas (52.1%)
• Florida (51.2%)
• North Carolina (50.1%)

Of these, only Texas has an active secessionist movement.  We need all the others to get on board, immediately.  (Unfortunately I do not reside in any of these states, but I would be happy to move, once a serious movement gets going.)  And again, it need not be individual states.  Consortia of states would be more powerful, obviously.  One can envision the power of a unified block cutting right down the middle of the US, if the two Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas all got together to form a single union.  It would be a dagger to the heart of the American Judeocracy.

This last point bears emphasis:  Secession of one or a group of states has a huge, double benefit.  It would bring true freedom and autonomy to the secessionists, and second, it would dramatically weaken the power of the Jewish Lobby to wreak havoc here and abroad.  American Jews rely on the wealth, tax revenue, and labor of a nation of 330 million.  This is where they draw their power.  Secession directly impacts their power in a way that nothing else can.  It would be like chopping off a finger or two from a professional athlete—devastating.

But could it really work?  Would secessionists have a reasonable chance of success?  We can already hear the scare-mongering reply:  “Oh, that will never work!  The army will come down on you in a flash.  They’ll nuke your ass!”  So wait—which army was that?  Oh, right, our LGBTQ+, pregnant-women, trans-Army.  Seriously—our military is so degraded, and our Congress sufficiently conflicted, that they would hardly be able to conduct a significant counterattack.  There would be a lot of bluff and bluster, and nothing to show for it, especially if the secessionist states had their own “well-regulated militia” (remember that silly Constitution?).  Recall those 53 million voters with at least one gun.  That’s a lot of guns.  All the militaries in the world, combined, can’t match that.

“But now you’re talking violence.  No one will go for that.”  Okay—except, every national struggle in history has involved some level of violence.  You don’t get something for nothing in this world.  If you’re happy to be a slave to the Judeocracy, then stay home.  If you want to “live free or die,” then take action.  So far, all action has taken place in the voting booth, and Republicans, and Whites, have been losing badly.  That will only get worse in the future.  The problem is that we are playing on the enemy’s turf.  It’s “home field advantage” for the Jews and the leftist liberals when we rely on elections to solve our problems.  That’s a losing strategy every time.  Now is the time to turn the tables and play on our field: the battlefield.  That’s where we win.

Never forget:  This nation was born in ‘revolution’ and secession.  It’s in our DNA.  Now is the time to reawaken those inborn feelings, and act.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His latest work is the anthology Classic Essays on the Jewish Question: 1850 to 1945.  He has also recently published the definitive critique Unmasking Anne Frank, and a new edition of political cartoons, Pan-Judah! Volume Two. All these books are available at www.clemensandblair.com.  See also his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

---

[1] For Democrats, estimates include “as much as 60%” (Washington Post, 13 Mar 2003), “over 60%” (Jewish Power in America, R. Feingold, 2008, p. 4), “as much as 2/3” (JTA, 7 Jun 2011), “80% to 90%” (Passionate Attachment, Ball and Ball, 1992, p. 218).  For Republicans: “nearly 60%” (Passionate Attachment), “over 60%” for Richard Nixon (Israel Lobby, Mearsheimer and Walt, 2007, p. 407).

When it was first published in 1949, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was a dystopian satire aimed at the left. In 2022, the novel seems to have become an instruction manual used by the left. For example, in Orwell’s satire the worst of all offences is thoughtcrime, the denial of official ideology and rebellion against the self-proclaimed wisdom and virtue of the state. The modern left have invented many forms of thoughtcrime to justify censorship and their own control. And the supreme form of thoughtcrime today is racism. In Britain, leftists have concealed and even collaborated with decades of organized rape and child-prostitution because the criminals are brown-skinned Muslims and their victims are White.

Oppressed Jew Is Watching You: the sinister American Attorney-General Merrick Garland

Rape is merely a crime against the body, after all. Accepting that Muslims – and other non-Whites – are much more likely to commit rape would be a crime against the central leftist principle of racial equality. But in fact that principle is routinely betrayed by leftists themselves, because they use what Orwell called doublethink, the “holding of two opinions” that cancel out, “knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.” It’s a central principle of leftism that there’s only one race – the Human Race. We’re all the same under the skin, capable of exactly the same high achievements and exactly the same misdeeds. At the same time, leftism clearly acts on the belief that Whites are innately vicious and non-Whites are innately virtuous. Critical Race Theory demands, inter alia, that Whites be stripped of power and punished in perpetuity for enslaving Blacks, despite the fact that all races have practised slavery and only one race – Whites – ever sought to abolish it.

Labour now hates the working-class

Meanwhile, the Labour Party in Britain seems to have modelled itself on the ministries overseen by IngSoc in Nineteen Eighty-Four, where “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.” By name, the Labour Party in Britain is still the dedicated champion of the working-class. By nature, however, it is now the vicious enemy of the working-class, as the Jewish Labour peer Maurice Glasman admitted in 2011: “In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.”

So Labour now hates laborers just as the Ministry of Truth hated truth. But Orwell could have gone further in explaining the roots of leftism’s hatred of truth and love of power. I believe he made one big mistake in the book: he assigned the wrong names and races to two of its most important characters. The chief villain is a gentile called O’Brien and the chief heretic is a Jew called Goldstein. If it had been the other way around, Nineteen Eighty-Four would have been much closer to reality, both back then and right now. Jews are not heretics in the modern West, but hunters of heretics. If Orwell had made Goldstein the villain and O’Brien the heretic, he would have created an uncannily accurate prophecy of twenty-first century America, where Jews wield hugely disproportionate power in a government resolutely committed to harming and demeaning the White majority. The sinister Jew Merrick Garland oversees the corrupt American legal system and hunts down White dissidents even as the sinister Jew Alejandro Mayorkas oversees “Homeland Security” and allows illegal migrants to flood across the southern border.

Information Is Power

And if Goldstein had been the villain, Orwell would also have prophesied the central Jewish involvement in the surveillance state. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Party spies incessantly on its own members, determined to detect and punish the slightest challenge to its power. As Winston Smith thinks to himself: “You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” In the real twenty-first century, Western intelligence-agencies and web-companies are doing their best to bring Orwell’s dystopian visions of omni-surveillance to life. And Jews have always been at the center of this spying, as a recent investigation by independent media has once again confirmed: “A MintPress study has found that hundreds of former agents of the notorious Israeli spying organization, Unit 8200, have attained positions of influence in many of the world’s biggest tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.”

Information is power and spying allows Israel to blackmail or subvert politicians, steal military and technological secrets, and profit from advance knowledge of movements in the financial markets. The jailed Jewish sex-predator Harvey Weinstein employed Jewish spies against his victims, including some recommended by the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak. The late Jewish sex-predator Jeffrey Epstein very likely worked for Israeli intelligence, filming and blackmailing corrupt goyim like Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. Epstein collaborated with the jailed Jewish sex-predator Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the Jewish mega-fraudster Robert Maxwell (né Binyamin Hoch), who sold software with hidden access for Israeli intelligence to governments around the world.

“Vile prejudice against the despised Hebrew”

Spying is as Jewish as lox on bagel, but Nineteen Eighty-Four, the world’s greatest satire on the surveillance state, makes the Jewish Goldstein the opponent of totalitarianism and the goy O’Brien its cruel embodiment. So why did Orwell get the names and races the wrong way round? I think he’d succumbed the same pressure as Charles Dickens (1812-70), a great White writer from an earlier era who portrayed Jews accurately as villains in his early work, was made to feel guilty for it by aggrieved Jews, and mistakenly tried to make amends in one of his final books. A Jewish master-criminal called Fagin was the central villain of Dickens’ Oliver Twist (1839) and was called “the Jew” over three hundred times in early editions. I’ve also argued in “Minority Malice: The Curious Case of Daniel Quilp” that Dickens secretly intended Quilp, the demonic dwarf of The Old Curiosity Shop (1841), to be a Jewish villain too. Dickens would have felt the need for secrecy because he’d been strongly criticized for his accurate portrayal of Jewish criminality in Oliver Twist. One Jewish critic said that Fagin “encouraged a vile prejudice against the despised Hebrew.” The guilt-tripping worked: Dickens softened the references to Fagin’s Jewishness in later editions of Oliver Twist and in Our Mutual Friend (1865), one of his final books, he created a highly positive Jewish character called Riah, which is Hebrew for “friend”.

George Orwell underwent the same rehabilitation as Dickens. In his early work, he succumbed to the virus of anti-Semitism, was heavily criticized for it, and has been criticized ever since. As the Jewish journalist Raymond S. Solomon complained in the Jerusalem Post in 2019: “To be aware that Orwell had an antisemitic streak, you only have to read Down and Out in Paris and London, in which the term ‘the Jew’ is used many times.” But what critics like Solomon call “anti-Semitism” is better described as accuracy and honesty. Here are three examples of “anti-Semitism” from Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), Orwell’s chronicle of his time living in poverty in those two cities:

I had to do what I could on thirty-six francs a week from the English lessons. Being inexperienced, I handled the money badly, and sometimes I was a day without food. When this happened I used to sell a few of my clothes, smuggling them out of the hotel in small packets and taking them to a secondhand shop in the rue de la Montagne St Geneviève. The shopman was a red-haired Jew, an extraordinary disagreeable man, who used to fall into furious rages at the sight of a client. From his manner one would have supposed that we had done him some injury by coming to him. “Merde!” he used to shout, “you here again? What do you think this is? A soup kitchen?” And he paid incredibly low prices. For a hat which I had bought for twenty-five shillings and scarcely worn he gave five francs; for a good pair of shoes, five francs; for shirts, a franc each. He always preferred to exchange rather than buy, and he had a trick of thrusting some useless article into one’s hand and then pretending that one had accepted it. Once I saw him take a good overcoat from an old woman, put two white billiard-balls into her hand, and then push her rapidly out of the shop before she could protest. It would have been a pleasure to flatten the Jew’s nose, if only one could have afforded it. (Part 1, ch. 3)

On some mornings Boris [a Russian friend of Orwell’s] collapsed in the most utter despair. He would lie in bed almost weeping, cursing the Jew with whom he lived. Of late the Jew had become restive about paying the daily two francs, and, what was worse, had begun putting on intolerable airs of patronage. Boris said that I, as an Englishman, could not conceive what torture it was to a Russian of family to be at the mercy of a Jew.

“A Jew, mon ami, a veritable Jew! And he hasn’t even the decency to be ashamed of it. To think that I, a captain in the Russian Army — have I ever told you, mon ami, that I was a captain in the Second Siberian Rifles? Yes, a captain, and my father was a colonel. And here I am, eating the bread of a Jew. A Jew…

“I will tell you what Jews are like. Once, in the early months of the war, we were on the march, and we had halted at a village for the night. A horrible old Jew, with a red beard like Judas Iscariot, came sneaking up to my billet. I asked him what he wanted. ‘Your honour,’ he said, ‘I have brought a girl for you, a beautiful young girl only seventeen. It will only be fifty francs.’ ‘Thank you,’ I said, ‘you can take her away again. I don’t want to catch any diseases.’ ‘Diseases!’ cried the Jew, ‘mais, monsieur le capitaine, there’s no fear of that. It’s my own daughter!’ That is the Jewish national character for you.

“Have I ever told you, mon ami, that in the old Russian Army it was considered bad form to spit on a Jew? Yes, we thought a Russian officer’s spittle was too precious to be wasted on Jews…” etc. etc. (Part 1. ch. 6)

Like many misers, Roucolle came to a bad end through putting his money into a wildcat scheme. One day a Jew appeared in the quarter, an alert, business-like young chap who had a first-rate plan for smuggling cocaine into England. … The old man was half frantic between greed and fear. His bowels yearned at the thought of getting, perhaps, fifty thousand francs’ profit, and yet he could not bring himself to risk the money. He used to sit in a comer with his head in his hands, groaning and sometimes yelling out in agony, and often he would kneel down (he was very pious) and pray for strength, but still he couldn’t do it. But at last, more from exhaustion than anything else, he gave in quite suddenly; he slit open the mattress where his money was concealed and handed over six thousand francs to the Jew.

The Jew delivered the cocaine the same day, and promptly vanished. And meanwhile, as was not surprising after the fuss Roucolle had made, the affair had been noised all over the quarter. The very next morning the hotel was raided and searched by the police. … At the station, Roucolle and [his Polish collaborator] were interrogated by the Commissaire while a tin of the cocaine was sent away to be analysed. … After an hour a policeman came back with the tin of cocaine and a note from the analyst. He was laughing.

“This is not cocaine, monsieur,” he said.

“What, not cocaine?” said the Commissaire. “Mais, alors — what is it, then?”

“It is face-powder.”

Roucolle and the Pole were released at once, entirely exonerated but very angry. The Jew had double-crossed them. Afterwards, when the excitement was over, it turned out that he had played the same trick on two other people in the quarter. (Part 1, ch. 23)

One Jewish reader of the first edition of Down and Out immediately wrote a letter to its Jewish publisher Victor Gollancz, complaining about Orwell’s “insulting and odious remarks about Jews” and even threatened legal action. Such critics didn’t object, for example, to Orwell calling the shopkeeper “an extraordinary disagreeable man” and recording the way he abused and exploited his customers, but they thought Orwell should have suppressed or goywashed the shopkeeper’s Jewishness. That’s part of minority-worship, which insists that minorities are always virtuous victims of the cruel and oppressive majority. But minority-worship is a lie, because minorities often behave badly and harm the majority. And, as Steve Sailer has often asked, if minorities, and Jews in particular, cannot be criticized, shamed or mocked for behaving badly, when will they mend their ways? The obvious answer is: Never.

Jewish journalist Anshell Pfeffer thinks that George Orwell had an ugly side

As things are, it’s honest writers like Orwell, Dickens, and Sailer who are shamed and mocked for telling the truth about minority misbehavior. That’s why Dickens capitulated to his Jewish critics and created such a positive Jewish character for one of his final books and why, I would suggest, Orwell made Goldstein a victim and O’Brien a villain in his own final book. O’Brien is, in fact, intended to be a hidden portrait of a Catholic priest, a Jesuit intellectual overseeing a new Inquisition, because Orwell was attacking and satirizing both communism and Catholicism in the novel. He thought both ideologies were totalitarian and tyrannical. Yet he saw degrees of deplorability within Catholicism and gave this shocking remark to one of the characters in his novel A Clergyman’s Daughter (1935): “For the beastliest type the world has yet produced give me the Roman Catholic Jew.” The remark was suppressed by the publisher and never saw print, but it raises the same question as Orwell’s alleged bigotry in Down and Out. Was it anti-Semitism or accuracy and honesty? The Jewish journalist Anshell Pfeffer is in no doubt that it was anti-Semitism:

Other contemporaries record Orwell, at late stages of his life, remarking to them about the preponderance of Jews working for the Observer newspaper for which he wrote, and indeed in his diaries he refers to the control of Jews over vast swathes of the media. … Even in his last years (he died in 1950) Orwell was always quick to identify people, gratuitously, as Jews, in a way in which their Jewishness is seen an explanation to their situation, actions or appearance. … Hearing a rumor in 1940 that “Jews greatly predominate among the people sheltering in the Tube [underground station],” Orwell notes: “Must try and verify this.” Ten days later, he is down in the depths of the transport system to examine “the crowds sheltering in Chancery Lane, Oxford Circus and Baker Street stations. Not all Jews, but, I think, a higher proportion of Jews than one would normally see in a crowd of this size.” He goes on, with almost cold objectivity, to note that Jews have a way of making themselves conspicuous. (Was Orwell an anti-Semite?, Haaretz, 3rd August 2012)

The headline of the article asks “Was Orwell an anti-Semite?” and Pfeffer answers that Orwell definitely was. I think Pfeffer is wrong – or rather, I think that he’s accusing Orwell of thoughtcrime for being accurate and honest about reality. It’s not “gratuitous” to record the race of a human being, because race is often central to explaining human behavior. Orwell wanted to understand the world, which is why his writing now falls foul of that core commandment of modern leftism: “Thou shalt not recognize patterns.” The leftist Patrick Cockburn condemned Orwell for writing a “list of notable writers and other people he considered to be unsuitable as possible writers for the anti-communist propaganda activities of the Information Research Department, a secret propaganda organisation of the British state under the Foreign Office.” To Cockburn’s disgust, Orwell thought that the race and sexual orientation of people on the list were worth recording. In other words, Orwell was trying to recognize patterns and understand why some groups were more attracted to the murderous tyranny of communism than others.

Minorities committing mass murder

For leftists, Orwell was being “racist” and “homophobic.” He was refusing to bow in the cult of minority-worship and suppress the very obvious fact that minorities can behave badly and harm the majority. Indeed, communism is a glaring example of the way that minorities can tyrannize the majority and commit mass murder against it. As I pointed out in “Minority Rites: Modern Lessons from the Bolshevik Revolution,” the slaughter of millions of Russians and Ukrainians under communism was overseen by ethnic outsiders like Jews, Georgians, and Latvians. The most important of those outsiders were Jews, who played a necessary, if not sufficient, part in the triumph of communism.

Criticizing minorities like that is thoughtcrime to modern leftists. As Timothy Garton-Ash, another leftist commentator, said of Orwell’s list: “One aspect … that shocks our contemporary sensibility is his ethnic labeling of people, especially the eight variations of ‘Jewish?’ (Charlie Chaplin), ‘Polish Jew,’ ‘English Jew,’ or ‘Jewess.’” Garton-Ash is right: “contemporary sensibility” – that is, leftist sensibility – is indeed shocked by any attempt to be accurate and honest about racial reality. Jews were central to the mass-murdering tyranny of communism and Orwell’s private list seems to have brought that uncomfortable fact before the eyes of a few officials. It’s just a pity that his public novel Nineteen Eighty-Four didn’t bring the same uncomfortable fact before the eyes of millions of his readers.