. . . . . . Who is “they?” In a very real way YOU is ‘they’ … You will find yourself here as one of the ‘Apparatchik’, or a ‘service intellectual’,
an active agent of agitprop:

It is very interesting, is it not? How one’s book and reading choices reflect our biases. Of course what is considered “just normal politics” to Machiavellian “Might is Right” enthusiasts would certainly be categorized as a `Systemic Conspiracy”. It is a matter of Systems Science more than simple `Political Science” and is a matter of defining the `Architecture of Modern Political Power’. Which as it is for the general population a totally unknown paradigm.

Those stuck in the manufactured daydream of Lollipop History, simply haven’t a clue as to what is really going on. Naturally, bold frank statements such as the one beginning this paragraph are inevitably met with derision by the TVZombies, the vast majority of the population.

Oh yes, my language is too inventive and has no “official place” in the modern lexicon of Newspeak, which of course deplores any word coinage but that which is approved by the Ministry of Truth. Just my language is doubleplusbad to Big Brother.

Who is Big Brother really??

Emmanuel Goldstein is Big Brother.

He started The Party. (See: The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.)

And this allegory of 1984 I am framing this in… is the perfect Meta4 and doubleplusgood! The tyrant’s ultimate system is described in eloquent detail. Any who grasp the Hegelian Dialectic can see the machinery at work in the Pubic Relations Regime (Airstrip One)
There are even some here who actually think that George Orwell was writing `science fiction’. And I pity the proles, as I pity the Party Apparatchik – who are the deepest indoctrinated and brainwashed of all. The System is not a man. Goldstien is a metaphor.
It is 1984 forever and ever, until some apocalypse brings a new ending to begin with.

Then why know? If it is futile why care? As Orwell reveals, it is simply remaining sane that keeps the system from utterly overwhelming the spirit of man. Those who remain sane have their own understanding as reward. Those who remain sane touch others from time to time. Enough to keep the seed of individuality and spirit of Liberty alive.

It is the utter biased dismissal of human instincts, what is often referred to as “intuition” by lucid thinking beings, that I find sad and discouraging in these days of Technocracy.

I would offer two, rather difficult – but essential books, by the authors Julian Jaynes and Jacques Ellul to disabuse these arrogant statist technocrats of their jejune attitudes toward their self professed analogs of human deity.

> The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind – Julian Jaynes (1976)

Click to access Julian-Jaynes-Origin-of-Consciousness-Breakdown-of-Bicameral-Mind.pdf

> The Technological Society – Jacques Ellul (1964)

Click to access TheTechnologicalSociety.pdf


The Master and his Emissary
By Iain McGilchrist

This book argues that the division of the brain into two hemispheres is essential to human existence, making possible incompatible versions of the world, with quite different priorities and values.

Most scientists long ago abandoned the attempt to understand why nature has so carefully segregated the hemispheres, or how to make coherent the large, and expanding, body of evidence about their differences. In fact to talk about the topic is to invite dismissal. Yet no one who knows anything about the area would dispute for an instant that there are significant differences: it’s just that no-one seems to know why. And we now know that every type of function – including reason, emotion, language and imagery – is subserved not by one hemisphere alone, but by both.

This book argues that the differences lie not, as has been supposed, in the `what’ – which skills each hemisphere possesses – but in the `how’, the way in which each uses them, and to what end. But, like the brain itself, the relationship between the hemispheres is not symmetrical. The left hemisphere, though unaware of its dependence, could be thought of as an ’emissary’ of the right hemisphere, valuable for taking on a role that the right hemisphere – the `Master’ – cannot itself afford to undertake. However it turns out that the emissary has his own will, and secretly believes himself to be superior to the Master. And he has the means to betray him. What he doesn’t realize is that in doing so he will also betray himself.

The book begins by looking at the structure and function of the brain, and at the differences between the hemispheres, not only in attention and flexibility, but in attitudes to the implicit, the unique, and the personal, as well as the body, time, depth, music, metaphor, empathy, morality, certainty and the self. It suggests that the drive to language was not principally to do with communication or thought, but manipulation, the main aim of the left hemisphere, which manipulates the right hand. It shows the hemispheres as no mere machines with functions, but underwriting whole, self-consistent, versions of the world. Through an examination of Western philosophy, art and literature, it reveals the uneasy relationship of the hemispheres being played out in the history of ideas, from ancient times until the present. It ends by suggesting that we may be about to witness the final triumph of the left hemisphere – at the expense of us all.


Did the important semantic speech centres of the brain simply end up in the left hemisphere by accident? And if it’s so important to keep a complex function such as language all in one place, then why does language also depend on the right hemisphere? Is music really just a useless spin-off from language, or something more profound? Why do we have language anyway? For communicating? For thinking? If not, for what purpose, then? Why are we right-handed (or lefthanded), rather than ambidextrous? Is the body essential to our way of being, or just a useful fueling and locomotor system for the brain? Is emotion really just an aid to cognition, helping us to weigh our decisions correctly, or is it something a bit more fundamental than that? Why does it matter if one hemisphere tends to see things in their context, while the other as carefully removes them from it?
One of the more durable generalisations about the hemispheres has been the finding that the left hemisphere tends to deal more with pieces of information in isolation, and the right hemisphere with the entity as a whole, the so-called Gestalt – possibly underlying and helping to explain the apparent verbal/visual dichotomy, since words are processed serially, while pictures are taken in all at once. But even here the potential significance of this distinction has been overlooked. Anyone would think that we were simply talking about another relatively trivial difference of limited use or interest, a bit like finding that cats like to have their meat chopped up into small bits, whereas dogs like to wolf their meat in slabs. At most it is seen as helpful in making predictions about the sort of tasks that each hemisphere may preferentially carry out, a difference in `information processing’, but of no broader significance. But if it is true, the importance of the distinction is hard to over-estimate. And if it should turn out that one hemisphere understands metaphor, where the other does not, this is not a small matter of a quaint literary function having to find a place somewhere in the brain. Not a bit. It goes to the core of how we understand our world, even our selves, as I hope to be able to demonstrate.

Click to access The_Master_and_his_Emissary_by_McGilchrist.pdf

“And if it should turn out that one hemisphere understands metaphor, where the other does not, this is not a small matter of a quaint literary function having to find a place somewhere in the brain. Not a bit. It goes to the core of how we understand our world, even our selves, as I hope to be able to demonstrate.”~Iain McGilchrist

“Like is not” – an ancient Taoist kōan.