1984. Some thoughts

 I have been reading Orwell's novel, '1984'. At times it was though I was not reading a novel but a collection of essays on the tenet of 'ingsoc' or the imaginary world of the author's creation.

The idea that the geopolitical world consisted of three main bodies, Eastasia, Euroasia and Oceania reminded me of my previous thoughts on the 'Rule of Two'. See:  https://www.kevilldavies.com/2009/12/rule-of-two.html

From a planet divided into over two hundred and fifty countries, the 'Rule of Two' predicts that nature demands that over time by whatever means, coalescence will occur until only two Countries remain. Probably East (Communist, Authoritarianistic) and West (Capitalist, Democratic). In Orwell's scheme the world is now down to three blocs and as in nature the final step is too difficult to achieve in the cosmological short term.

In chapter two of part three, O'Brien asks Winston: 'Is it your opinion Winston, that the past has real existence?' and then again: 'Then where does the past exist, if at all?'

His questions remind one of the deductions of the Davies Hypothesis which suggests that the past does not exist in reality; it is in another dimension. The hypothesis argues that time in our universe is three-dimensional equating to the past, present and the future. Whereas the future never exists, the past was once the present and therefore real and as a consequence could be recalled by memory. Orwell seems to have sense of this reality.

We are introduced at an early stage to the three mantras:

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

Their contrarianism, is an echo of Ecclesiastes 3 with its: 'A time for war and a time for peace etc etc'.

This is, to my mind, a natural consequence of nature's edict that the square root of one has TWO, not one value, plus AND minus one, thereby introducing more uncertainty into the universe than Heisenberg. Again, Orwell seems to be aware of this.

Through my book, 'Spiritualman: An introduction to Negative Dimensions', I have tried to persuade the world of an alternative cosmology based on this fact of nature. It is so obvious and yet few people assume its importance. Orwell is one of them.

Cruel to be kind

The Pope has admitted that he fears greater catastrophies ahead for the earth and all mankind. It would be unkind to suggest that he's fearing the bleedin' obvious but he has a point. Everywhere in the world one looks we see disharmony whether as a result of natural events such as volcano's erupting, earthquakes, weather phenomena, or political manoeuvres such as the Russian war in Ukraine and the Chinese threat to Taiwan. Add to that the religious divides almost everywhere resulting in massive diasporas of mainly women and children fleeing terror. Of course, this has always gone on but today, with the ease of travel, better roads etc and the ambition of the dispossessed fueled by visions of a social media inspired utopia just beyond the horizon, people are tempted to abandon their historic homes.

What do Governments do? Sadly nothing. Most sensible people in the world have no respect for politics and politicians. They say a lot, promise more and deliver little. Most sensible people just want to be governed well and justly. Leaving aside for the moment the authoritarian Governments such as China and Russia, the problems of Democracy are increasingly laid bare. In the UK a Conservative Government in power with a huge majority have achieved almost none of their manifesto promises. Illegal immigration is rampant, houses not built, civil service is enlarging, taxes rising etc etc..

The manifesto should be a statement of intent listing a realistic programme of ways to improve the life of its citizens. Instead Party manifestos are a bribe promising a utopia paid for by hypothetical money trees. When in office Governments are too frightened of upsetting the electorate to do the right thing, remembering the old adage that sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind. Now to suggest that people should exercise self discipline is to attract vilification from those to whom anarchy appeals. Worse, Governmental decisions could lead to their losing power at the next General Election. Should democracy mean a 'race to the bottom', voting for those who promise everything, squander public money on drivel and achieve nothing.

The alternative is a one party, authoritarian state where the ignorant plebeian public, excused voting, are to be run by a ruling elite that serves in the best interests of the Country. (not the populace). In a perfect world, where the politicians are honest, hard working and loyal, this would be great but sadly, as in the current case of Russia, this is seldom if ever likely to happen.

So! What does the future hold? As the Pope suggests more chaos, more disasters, greater unhappiness to more people escaping a living hell on earth. In the background the superpowers are developing ever more powerful weapons in line with more scrabbling for the earth's diminishing resources. Is this what the Pope means? 

Hereditary Peers

 In todays Mail the well respected journalist Peter Hitchins bemoans the passing of a House of Lords filled with hereditary peers of the realm.

see: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11524385/PETER-HITCHENS-arrogance-folly-Ukraine-send-nuclear-catastrophe.html

Your twelve years late, Peter. This blog has always regretted the changes that allowed the chamber to be filled with people, (almost a thousand, at £400 per day), totally unsuitable to monitor the laws of the land.

I will not repeat my arguments again but point to my original blog of 2011:-

https://www.kevilldavies.com/2011/01/house-of-lords.html

Lady Susan Hussey

Eighty-three year old Lady Susan Hussey, for many years lady in waiting to the late Queen has been accused of racial abuse by Ngozi Fulani. Miss Fulani claims she was violated and interrogated by lady Susan during a palace reception for the 'Safe Life' charity which aims to combat domestic abuse.

What caused this rumpus? Did Lady Susan call miss Fulani 'a b...k b.....d' or a 'n....r'? No she simply asked the lady where she was from? On being told she was British she again enquired, innocently, about Fulani's origins. That was it! Racial abuse, pure and simple. 

Not so, surely. It's a reasonable question between strangers trying to strike up a conversation. Had Miss Fulani replied, 'I'm British but my family originally came from Nigeria, the Ivory Coast or wherever Lady Susan might well have said something like,'I visited there with the queen in seventy-one', or something similar. But no, Fulani wanted her fifteen minutes of fame identifying a second question on her background as interrogation, feigning hurt. It's pathetic and sadly all too symptomatic of the Country's decline at the hands of people who hate the British for alleged historical malpractices.

Is it a calculated distraction aimed at sabotaging the Prince & Princess of Wales' visit to the United States at the same time as Meghan and Harry's Netflix programme is about to be aired? Who knows but clearly it will not help to diffuse the totally undeserved taint of institutionalised racism in the British royal family.

To lady Susan, I say this: you have done nothing wrong; you have served your Country and monarch well. No need to apologise and be proud.