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.
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 his final book. 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), his final (and unfinished) book, 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.
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 his final novel and why, I would suggest, Orwell made Goldstein a victim and O’Brien a villain in his own final novel. 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.