The Paper Rebellion: Part III

A delayed follow up to parts I and II detailing the ramifications of the current Hate Speech bill on paper ownership.

The Paper Rebellion: I
The Paper Rebellion: Part II

In the first two parts of this series of sorts, I theorised on the possibility of the eventual prohibition or licensing of the use of paper and the possession of print media. I demonstrated to the reader the actual existence of such ideas within the various ministries that George Orwell himself was an employee within and the willingness to implement them against the masses. I finished up part two by trying to paint a picture of Orwell now looking to us, in our more advanced position in the timeline, and asking us what can we see. In both the first two pieces I feel that I have got a few of my own theories across on the matter and backed them up with real world historical and current examples of the mission creep we need to be concerned with. In this piece, I want to now draw attention to the credulity of the masses, and how they will be led by the nose into this mass revisionist event.

Some of the greatest tools we have as humans are complex, descriptive language, Natural common sense and morality that has been passed down unbroken since the start of time and a paper trail of humanity’s history from which we glean the collective knowledge of our people. These defensive weapons stand in the way of the absurd designs of the self appointed social engineers. The Combine, as John Waters calls it, is attempting to sell us Technocracy under the false illusion of progress and democracy. This illusion requires a ceremony of manufactured consent with each step the goose takes forward. These ceremonies, sometimes lasting months or years, have to be curated in the media in such a way that consent is stifled and dissenting voices are muzzled, leaving only the village idiots to represent the opposing view. Every now and then a dissenting voice breaks through with a Shakespearian deconstruction of the narrative and months of their hard work gets destroyed. This capacity among the general population to express themselves in the same vernacular as the ruling class threatens them.

Syme, 1984

The common man has become far too empowered with language and information and therefore we are being dumbed down. Orwell predicted the dumbing down of the masses through language apartheid or Newspeak in 1984. In Michael Radford’s version of 1984, the main character Winston engages with Syme, a member of the Newspeak Committee tasked with the destruction of words and language, insincerely showing interest in how their work is progressing. Syme explains to Winston that he is destroying adjectives, which function as modifiers and descriptive words, in his quest to revise the 10th edition of their approved dictionary. He explains the goal is get the words to come from the voicebox only and not the brain, all the while boasting about the reduction in size of the new edition of the Newspeak dictionary. The pair are then joined by Parsons, who champions the logical conclusion of the endeavor, which is the complete destruction of peer-to-peer conversationism.

Watch the scene here

“Its a beautiful thing, the destruction of words”

”The revolution will be complete when the language is perfect”

”It’s an encouraging thought that by 2050, not a single person will be able to have a conversation like this”

Syme, Winston and Parsons - 1984

Over the course of the Trump administration big tech was instructed to roll out the beta for their desired digital Newspeak dictionary. They banned these dissenters from communicating with the worker bees, starting firstly with the more explicit content, dipping their toe ever further until they reached singular words. During Covid in particular, mass censorship almost entirely separated the Thought criminals from the compliant masses. Even including the term vaccine in a post or Youtube video would flag your content, shadow-banning it or banning the individual entirely. “fact checking” become an overnight feature on the digital town squares essentially infantilising people by making them speak only positively about “The Party” or risk expulsion from the in group. The Newspeak dictionary Beta was tested on you between 2016 and 2021. This was extremely evident on the popular app Twitter, now known as X. CEO at the time, Jack Dorsey couldn’t be more like Syme if he tried. He implemented the 10th edition of the Newspeak Dictionary and still got removed from existence by the powers that be because like Syme, he too read too many books

Under the stewardship of Dorsey, Zuckerberg and Wojcicki, the various online social media platforms cloned the essence of Syme, altering him and making him anew, in the form of AI driven algorithms. Syme AI now has the power to revise his dictionary in real time and has passed his testing phase with flying colours. The masses are already self censoring their posts having been trained by Syme, not to go within a metre of the electric fence. The vast majority of the general public, without realising it, are now fitted with an invisible shock collar, having fully accepted behavioral change science in exchange for digital pacification and in-group participation. Like the retards in 1984, they don’t even realise they are tyrannised. The yet to be passed Hatespeech bill, that we have all fought so valiantly, has also had a pre-emptive chilling effect on the normies. Some of them are already prepping themselves for the new software update. Others are apathetic to it despite, just like Winston in 1984, knowing full well the repercussions this will have on their lives.

This brings me nicely back full circle on the hate speech bill and the medium of paper. Firstly, I need to quote the text of the proposed bill in order to allow you the benefit of voluntarily accepting this is real before I make some stark assumptions on the ramifications of the text, and also the future viability of having paper in your home.

Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022

Offence of preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics

10.

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 11, a person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if the person—
(a) prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics with a view to the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public, whether by himself or herself or another person, and
(b) prepares or possesses such material with intent to incite violence or hatred against such a person or group of persons on account of those characteristics or any of those characteristics or being reckless as to whether such violence or hatred is thereby incited.
(2) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that the material concerned consisted solely of—
(a) a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse,
(b) a statement that is the subject of the defence of absolute privilege, or
(c) material that is necessary for any other lawful purpose, including law enforcement or the investigation or prosecution of an offence.
(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, where it is proved that the accused person was in possession of material such as is referred to in subsection (1) and it is reasonable to assume that the material was not intended for the personal use of the person, the person shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been in possession of the material in contravention of subsection (1).

I know most of you reading this will have a decent grasp on the ramifications of the above section of the bill, which is just one of many Orwellian sections, but I want to spell it out and have it on record here that I told ye. This bill makes it a criminal offense to prepare or possess material that the state finds offensive, or that anyone else finds offensive. It applies the presumption of guilt prejudicially, destroying the concept of innocent until proven guilty. What does this mean? Well if I have a copy of Mark Twain’s 1884 masterpiece, “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” in my house, on a bookshelf, and a black person enters my home, or any vindictive prick for that matter, as a guest and takes offense to it, I am liable to go to jail should a criminal complaint be made. Yes, simply possessing a mildly offensive, in context paperback meets the new criteria for a criminal complaint. In fact, the mere assumption that I might have that book could be grounds for a search even with no complaint from the pubic. Effectively, owning a copy of any book, magazine, notepad or even a sheet of paper that may be offensive to anyone for any reason will now be a warrantable offense. Try to tell me that when Oisín and Fintan read the first Irish times article of a house being raided to seize a book collection, that they will not immediately inventory their entire house in a Covid like hygiene sweep. Try to tell me that RTE doesn’t already have some Literary equivalent of Luke O’Neill lined up for a “how to guide on making your home more inclusive”. Are you ready for morning shows with INAR approved lists of new novels that will keep the authorities away from your door?

If this law passes, that is where we are headed. Every unaccounted for piece of paper in your house is litigious. Every book shelf will be treated like an undeclared gun collection by the state. Like Winston in 1984, you will have to live inside your own head or risk keeping a secret diary to document your invasive thoughts. When our liberty can be taken away this easily for these reasons, we are THIS close to total, mass induced papyrophobia and nobody fucking realises it yet.