He remembered how once he had been walking down a crowded street when a tremendous shout of hundreds of voices women's voices -- had burst from a side-street a little way ahead. It was a great formidable cry of anger and despair, a deep, loud 'Oh-o-o-o-oh!' that went humming on like the reverberation of a bell.
His heart had leapt. It's started! he had thought. A riot! The proles are breaking loose at last!
When he had reached the spot it was to see a mob of two or three hundred women crowding round the stalls of a street market, with faces as tragic as though they had been the doomed passengers on a sinking ship. But at this moment the general despair broke down into a multitude of individual quarrels.
There was a fresh outburst of yells. Two bloated women, one of them with her hair coming down, had got hold of the same saucepan and were trying to tear it out of one another's hands. For a moment they were both tugging, and then the handle came off. Winston watched them disgustedly.
And yet, just for a moment, what almost frightening power had sounded in that cry from only a few hundred throats!
Why was it that they could never shout like that about anything that mattered?
He wrote:
Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.
That, he reflected, might almost have been a transcription from one of the Party textbooks. The Party claimed, of course, to have liberated the proles from bondage.
Before the Revolution they had been hideously oppressed by the capitalists, they had been starved and flogged, women had been forced to work in the coal mines (women still did work in the coal mines, as a matter of fact), children had been sold into the factories at the age of six. But simultaneously, true to the Principles of doublethink, the Party taught that the proles were natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals, by the application of a few simple rules.
In reality very little was known about the proles. It was not necessary to know much. So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern.
They were born, they grew up in the gutters, they went to work at twelve, they passed through a brief blossoming-period of beauty and sexual desire, they married at twenty, they were middle-aged at thirty, they died, for the most part, at sixty.
Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbours, films, football, beer, and above all, gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds.
To keep them in control was not difficult. A few agents of the Thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous; but no attempt was made to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the Party.
It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working-hours or shorter rations.
And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances.
The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.
There was a vast amount of criminality in London, a whole world-within-a-world of thieves, bandits, prostitutes, drug-peddlers, and racketeers of every description; but since it all happened among the proles themselves, it was of no importance. In all questions of morals they were allowed to follow their ancestral code.
The sexual puritanism of the Party was not imposed upon them. Promiscuity went unpunished, divorce was permitted. For that matter, even religious worship would have been permitted if the proles had shown any sign of needing or wanting it. They were beneath suspicion. As the Party slogan put it: 'Proles and animals are free.'
The following words were an extract from '1984' by George Orwell Part 1 Chapter 6 Publication 8th June 1948 - The Images are from various media and date from the present.
Edited and Presented by Zan Minsh..
Clips are by George Carlin and Bill Hicks who are no longer with us.
Orwell, Carlin, Hicks came to shine a light on the future and the dangers we all face at the hands of financial global institutions- it will be at our peril to not take heed and spread this love.
Stay free
love
Zan Minsh
PS. Please read, reread 1984 it is breathtakingly far-sighted novel. It was written for OUR emancipation and not as THEIR blueprint. Fight the power.
While these intelligence failures suggest at least the reasonable possibility of U.S. government complicity in 9/11, there is a mountain of physical evidence that directly implicates high-level government knowledge and participation in the planning and execution of September 11. Perhaps the most damning evidence lies in the bizarre collapse of WTC7 Anyone familiar with the story of 9/11 knows about the collapse of the WTC North and South Twin-Towers. But a third high rise also fell that day. At 5:20 p.m., the massive 47-story steel frame Building 7, untouched by the hijacked airplanes, imploded in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition - at near free-fall speed, straight down, and with scientific precision into a compact pile of rubble, barely damaging any of the surrounding buildings.
The official explanation for the collapse is fire - as in fire weakened the building's structural support steel to the point where it could no longer hold its own weight upright. The magazine Popular Mechanics has tried to posit the theory of lethal structural damage caused by the falling debris of the North Tower as reason for Building 7's collapse. But no existing public photographs, nor videos, show anything near their claim that 1/3 of Building 7's façade was gouged out. Furthermore, even if structural damage was significant, this would not account for Building 7's eventual symmetrical, box-like collapse, where all four corners, and all four facades of the building fell simultaneously straight to the ground. And most significantly, the official government explanation is still fire. So this essay will stay with fire as the stated cause.
Flames were visible on 3-4 floors of the building, having been apparently ignited by falling debris and ruptured diesel tanks at the base of the structure. And while relatively minor in severity, these fires were apparently responsible for the building's demise. But fire as the cause for collapse poses a number of significant problems - problems that break fundamental laws of nature. Firstly, fire from diesel fuel and building debris does not remotely approach the necessary temperature required to weaken and melt steel. Steel is melted and forged in sophisticated blast furnaces at incredibly high temperatures. Secondly, even if fire did cause the necessary weakening of the buildings steel support beams, each of those more than 50 beams would have had to weaken and fail at the exact same time to account for the symmetrical downward trajectory of the collapse. A wildly contentious scenario. Dr. Steven Jones, Professor of Physics at BYU who specializes in the fusion of metals, has comprehensively and scientifically debunked the possibility of Building 7 collapsing due to fire (or the minor damage to the building's façade from the falling debris of the North Tower).
In the spring of 2007, Professor Jones published his second major paper on 9/11 -
Professor Jones' meticulous research explains why no other steel frame building has ever suffered a total collapse anywhere on the planet before or after 9/11 due to fire (remember, Building 7 was NOT hit by an aircraft). Including WTC 4, 5, and 6, which were more intensely pelted by debris from the Twin Towers' collapse, and had fires of equal intensity burning for many more hours than the adjacent Building 7. (For more examples of other intense high-rise building fires that did not cause collapse, which did not result in total structural collapse. This 32-story high rise burned fiercely for 20 hours, with flames shooting hundreds of feet into the air, gutting the entire building. And while significantly more severe than the fires of Building 7, which burned for only a few hours on only a few floors, the Windsor Building flames did not bring the building down. The damage from the fire did produce a partial collapse, and this collapse behaved exactly in line with the laws of physics and nature. Part of the building fell in an isolated collapse into the street below, leaving a huge, gaping wound in the middle of the high-rise with exposed rebar and debris hanging hundreds of feet into the air. The inferno did not produce a symmetrical, straight down, box-like, virtual free-fall total collapse witnessed in the fall of Building 7. Strategically planted, well-timed explosive devices are what weaken steel symmetrically and create coordinated downward implosions. Not random fires scattered throughout a building.
Another, and perhaps stronger, piece of evidence for controlled demolition of Building 7 is the speed at which the structure fell. It was a 576-foot tall building, and a conservative estimate of available video evidence shows that it fell in 6.5 seconds. A marble, with nothing but wind resistance in its path, would fall to the ground from the same height in roughly 6 seconds. Somehow, the top of this building fell to the ground in a perfectly symmetrical downward trajectory, with 47 floors of steel, concrete, and thousands of tons of upright standing debris in its path providing huge amounts of vertical resistance, at virtually free-fall speed. Allegedly because of random fires on a few floors. .
It is important to note that even if Popular Mechanics is right in its assertion that damage to Building 7 from falling debris of the Towers caused its collapse, this still does nothing to explain the impossible speed at which it fell. Only controlled demolition, as Dr. Kuttler states at the end of his computation, resolves the observed rate of collapse. Because in a controlled demolition, waves of progressive explosions from the top down would remove sections of resistant columns and supports, providing the vacuum-like pocket needed to account for the 6.5-second collapse. No other hypothesis, including the premise narrated in the 'official story', accounts for this speed.
Because all available evidence points to this controlled demolition as the most logical reason for Building 7's particular collapse pattern, serious questions now need answering. To wire a building of that size for implosion requires weeks of careful study and planning. Which means whoever wired the explosives knew far in advance of the September 11 plot. So who? And why? Perhaps Larry Silverstein has an answer. In July of 2001, 2 months before the attack, the new leaseholder of the Twin Towers and Building 7 took out a huge insurance policy on his buildings. In it, there was a special clause 'in case of terrorist attack'. For the collapse of the Twin Towers, which he also owned, Silverstein argued in court that he should be compensated twice because two separate airplanes flew into his two separate buildings. And this, according to his argument, constituted two terrorist attacks. He won this argument, and was awarded $7 Billion for the Towers' collapse, quite a return for his initial investment.
A short time after September 11, Silverstein further implicated himself when he made a grave verbal blunder in an interview for a PBS special where he admitted that he and the fire authorities decided to 'pull' (implode) Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11 as a way to avoid incurring more loss of life. But a last minute decision to 'pull' by Silverstein and the authorities would have been flatly impossible because of the weeks required in the planning and planting of explosives. When asked to explain these strange, incriminating comments, Silverstein refused, for two years, to clarify. Until finally his office released a statement claiming that what Silverstein meant by 'pull' was to pull the firefighters out of the building before it collapsed. But this is another in a long line of nonsensical statements made by principals in the 9/11 debacle. Silverstein and the 'officials' to whom he was speaking knew that firefighters had been evacuated hours before the alleged conversation and subsequent collapse took place. For further analysis on this subject. It is worth noting that on the morning of 9/11, all of the buildings making up the WTC complex not owned by Larry Silverstein managed to remain upright, despite equally heavy fire and structural damage.
Perhaps a government official from the CIA, Department of Defense, the IRS, the SEC branch investigating the infamous Wall Street corporate fraud cases, the Secret Service, or New York City's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) knows something about Building 7's odd collapse. All of those agencies strangely had offices in building7 The presence of OEM is particularly disturbing. They occupied a recently reinforced bunker-like space on the 23rd floor. Equipped with bulletproof windows, bomb-proof walls, and hurricane resistant windows, the office housed a sophisticated command center with top of the line military communication and logistical equipment. Perhaps Building 7 was a command center of a different kind, used as the true Ground Zero for the operation carried out on 9/11. A command center that became a crime scene after 8:46 a.m. that morning. A command center that needed to be destroyed.
Perhaps this OEM department could also explain the miraculously coincidental fact that on September 10, FEMA officials, in conjunction with NYC authorities, had arrived in the city and set up a command post near the World Trade Center for an extensive simulated terrorist attack operation to be carried out on September 12. Perhaps Mayor Rudolph Giuliani could shed some light on this subject. He confirmed this miraculous coincidence in his own testimony to the 9/11 Commission, all of which, unsurprisingly, never made it into their 'official' Report. "... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."
How in the world is this wild coincidence not front-page news of every newspaper in the country? Why in the world was FEMA in NYC, down on Pier 92 near the WTC, on the night of September 10th ready to 'go into action' on the morning of September 11th? Did certain leaders in the U.S. government know full well what was about to happen? Can this 'terror drill' possibly be a random coincidence? Did they send in good men and women from FEMA and other emergency services under the guise of a prospective 'terror drill' to be at the ready to quickly clean up their mess? Did they orchestrate the entire operation, and then swoop in, fully armed and prepped, to prove and prop themselves up as the ready saviors they have spent the last five years reminding us they are? And if Giuliani becomes President, what grounds, what lasting image do we suppose he will be using to bolster his campaign?
Perhaps this is just wild conjecture. Perhaps there is a simpler answer to the questions raised by Building 7's collapse. But ultimately these questions are not an investigator's responsibility to answer. They are the responsibility of the investigator to raise. The responsibility in answering those questions lies with the official storytellers. They are responsible for plugging any holes in their narrative. Questions that arise regarding Building 7 are simply part of the natural speculation inevitably aroused by its suspicious collapse. They are important questions. They are the type of questions that, as stated before, the 9/11 Commission was formed to answer. But, incredibly, the Commission did not even allude to the existence, nor the absurd collapse, of Building 7.
It would seem logical that the collapse of a massive 47-story building (which is as big as the Bank of America Building in San Francisco), the first steel frame high rise in history to collapse solely from fire, which also housed the offices of important government agencies in downtown Manhattan, would warrant an investigation. Or at least a citation by the government commission assigned to thoroughly investigate the events of 9/11. It would seem logical to think that structural engineers, chefs, and wood-burning stove owners around the world would be interested to know that steel has suddenly become susceptible to fire. It would be logical to think that the tell-tale shock wave, 'squibs', internal box-like implosion, freefall speed, and neat footprint rubble pile clearly pointing to a controlled demolition of Building 7 would interest those investigating its collapse. But the 9/11 Commission Report does not even mention its existence. Nor does NIST, the government agency assigned to investigate the collapse of the Twin Towers. Like the 9/11 Commission, they did not mention its existence, its collapse, nor the bizarre specifics of that collapse - which so contradict official accounts.
Only FEMA has officially reported on Building 7's demise. And while their report hints at fire as the cause of the building's fall, even they admit the inherent weakness of that premise. "That the necessary evidence to further investigate Building 7's collapse, (i.e. the steel beams, trusses, and support girders) was quickly and illegally cleared, shipped overseas, and recycled - before photographs could be taken or qualified investigators and explosives experts could be called in to sift through the evidence - only deepens the efficacy of the hypothesis that a well-planned, high-level intentional demolition caused the collapse of WTC Building 7.
It should again be noted here that Popular Mechanics magazine has tried to debunk some of the issues raised by the 9/11 Truth community - both in a feature article in March of 2005, and a recent 2006 book. Besides the inherent absurdity of a magazine tackling the research that should be undertaken by Congress and an independent Special Prosecutor with full subpoena power, their work is riddled with the same inconsistencies and conveniently isolated and selected bullet points they claim undermines the very research they are attempting to debunk. For a comprehensive and specific critique of their work,
Update: In an extraordinary development, a 9/11 blogger has uncovered live BBC news video footage from the afternoon of 9/11 showing its reporters detailing the collapse of WTC7 (the Salomon Brothers Building) 23 minutes before that building actually collapsed. The following video is a recap of some of that footage. Notice the extraordinary fact that as the female reporter speaks, the scrolling text at the bottom of the screen confirms what the male lead reporter had been saying for the first 15 minutes of the broadcast, namely that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) had collapsed, and that very building is standing wholly upright directly over the reporter's shoulder!
How is this possible? Who knew what when? "We might reasonably guess that before making its way to the BBC by whatever means, the information originated among the authorities in New York. And that is the question here: Who was the original source of the information? Did the source also phrase the event in the past tense? How was the source certain the building would collapse?" This is not a suggestion that the BBC was 'in' on the conspiracy. They are just passing on a report. So where did that report originate? And how could the sources of that report possibly know a giant building with some peripheral fires was about to fall? There is no historical precedent for that. It is a clairvoyance beyond any reasonable explanation.
For a more detailed, written analysis of this story, It should be noted that the BBC has given an absurd response to 911truth.org in regards to this strange string of events. And to no one's surprise, the archival video library in which this massive blunder was discovered has removed the clip in question from its stacks.
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
The Tunnel.
Just past the station at Dore, Into the toad green rocks It slips – silver and red hot and virginal- Bang on time, running like pistons, Out of the light that showered
the bending trees, swaying With god or nothing. They shall be forgotten In time, by the grass and the wind. I feel someone is watching,
By the river where we sat- The tree’s foot, bare roots – arms beknotted. It zips by, clinging to the track, To gravity and with it, I once Held you. Love, we prayed at the time, drowning in. The river’s rush. Its heart begins To beat anew, clucking. The Rocks have some memory of us stored. I held that moment there until The train entered the tunnel And a magician’s veil of black; A cloak.
It was only then I realised The lights were on in the Carriage. 'It’s strange,' she once said, 'when eyes Adjust and see anew.'
There is nothing Out there now But unending black; no Light to see the impenetrable mist. Just my reflection in the new mirror; A portrait of our Dorian years; And memory drowned – leaving Sheffield and you at last. I am Drunk on tunnel fumes;
And on your gods.
How did we get here? Suddenly Scared of adventure; feeling The cold, cat-black; Air that seeps through the window. It feels like the night, years before, when I pushed you away. November was
Rustling the trees and the Rain ached from mine to the bus stop. We held hands – knowing – it was for nothing. And then that kiss; no tongues. Your Hair crying, me dark and winded. The tunnel’s air is breathless and sodden Full of black walls and lightless creatures. God was watching.
We move so fast now, trusting, That the tunnel will end. That a crown of new peaks Will rise unbothered around the edge of some reservoir; A million baths to wash away the past. I have counted the days; my head to the glass; I have watched the blackness; heard the waves of an engine trapped. I have faith that the Tunnel is outside, still, after All this time; and that the dead walls weep and that we could have fought on.
But we did not. I know if I believe, it will be so. And then, unannounced, I See a wall of square cut Stone, growing brighter by the Yard. I feel the air and its radiance swell And passengers wake from silence – they feel That something beautiful is near. and then a sky explodes and a flash into brilliance; Grindleford Bamford and Hope. Someone is watching.
They say a week is a long time in politics but if you are a dictator; a year is a life time. Here we see a picture taken a year ago of the smiling, confident and reigning despots but after the Arab spring life has taken on a whole new colour.
Mubarak lies on a hospital bed charged with crimes against the people of Egypt and cuts a pitiful character and instead of being waited on hand and foot he is slopping out with the rest of the inmates.
Gadaffi is in hiding, possibly in a basement in Libya and instead of a throne has to use a bucket in the corner like the rest of his halve starved compatriots.
Both these oil rich countries have suffered years of underinvestment and underachievement and the emphasis must be now on serving the people. Let the people benefit from the oil wealth but the truth seems that the only people that will benefit are, as ever, Anglo-American corporate oil interests that are faceless, nameless, antihuman organisations that seem more powerful than sovereign states.
Which other tyrants will fall next?
One can live in hope.
Peace. In the MiddleEast, as Tupac was fond of saying.
At around on 9th August 2011 as the waning summer sun began to falter over the Mancunian skyline, the atmosphere changed. At first, it seemed to the regular shoppers and returning home workers that out of the sewers a terrible force was emerging. Be-hooded and running or riding bikes, they wove skilfully in-between the people appearing at first as blurs in the peripheral sight of shoppers no more than a wisp of danger at first.
Of no particular hue the Zombies were; white, black, brown and ginger but they all shared one trait; cloth, of varying design, wrapped tightly around their hideous complexions and hoods to protect them from the remaining sun of a bloodshot sky. Only visible, the dead Zombie eyes stared out across the awaiting street; cold and calculating.
Their targets seemed strange to the now fleeing people; who were at once trying to snaffle up the remaining modes of transport out of the apocalyptic city. Buses had stopped; trams and taxies avoiding the city centre to which the Zombies headed. All had deserted a city descending into madness. All that is, but the city dwellers, the curious bystanders and the press.
The Zombies headed in their hundreds, in small, full cars, carrying black bin-bags in which to collect their plunder or on bicycles that whizzed through narrow streets from target to target like guided missiles locked in and locked on. They all seemed to have the latest communication devises to which they constantly, BBM’d, MSN’d twittered and chatted to one another, updating one another on their prey.
The people were not the targets however, even if they had assumed that they were in the panic to flee; no; tonight the Zombies dine not upon flesh but on goods. Their prey tonight was THINGS not just any THINGS but Luxury THINGS;THINGS that have been made insatiable to them from the interpellation of Television Ad men and billboards that adorn their run down streets; perfume, trainers, clothes, makeup, alcohol; THINGS now behind glass and up until now, unavailable and sacred.
Until now.
But suddenly, with a smash of a window and the roar of a crowd like the breaking of a spell, all the promise that is associated with these THINGS in magazines and celebrity culture, is unlocked.
And crazed and drooling the looting began in the full glare of the press and the police. The Police at first, taken by surprised, weighed up their options. The mood was as dark as the police themselves. Was this a legitimate demo? There was not a badge, placard or ideology between them. Were they the dispossessed? The possessed more likely, by the way they attacked shop-fronts with a feral rage; egging each other on to greater and greater quarry and like chicken-coup foxes, destroying all that they could not consume or carry themselves.
So began, in the pit of the maze that is the streets of ancient Manchester, the cat and mouse game that lasted the night. Bikes and track-suits made the Zombies more nimble and speedy than the storm-troopers who followed them from crime to crime, fire to fire, moving them on andcapturing the odd one. Although, like a herd of springboks, lightening quick, darting down alleys and over barriers only the weak or the most drunken got picked off by the police, leaving the herd strong and resilient. Hour after hour, shops were stripped in minutes like a bleeding carcass tossed into a piranha infested stream. All seem lost, until a chink of morning light heralded the Zombies retreat into the gloom.
In the morning, the light had dispersed and with it, the last of the Zombies. The last few had slithered off groaning into the night to find darkness of a room, a bed and a new pair of trainers; the shoe asylum. They had gone home to convince parents how they had acquired a new wardrobe from just going round to mates.
In Manchester, the smouldering buildings and a carpet of glass was left as a reminder of the terror of the night before. And then the questions, always questions; at first unanswerable but there in the boarded up windows and puddles of vomit were questions, quietly putting up their hands in a silent stunned city, even if none could be mouthed in that moment.
Who were the Zombies? Where had they come from? And when night comes again; will they return? The consensus of ‘no excuses’ was now emerging, like the Zombies once had and the smell of these ideas were now permeating through the streets.
‘They were only thugs who wanted THINGS and didn’t want to work for them,’ some said. ‘No excuses for mindless violence’, others declared – ‘the zombies had to be caged – like the animals they were.’
Then, Zombies always do get a bad press. You never see a positive Zombie story- do you? They are lost permanently and can never be returned to the loved one, brother or sister they had once been. They are always blamed for the bad that they do and treated as inhuman for the things they desire, flesh or THINGS, a desire that they initially never courted or wanted and one which is almost impossible to slake.
Admittedly, if the Zombies are not human, it makes it easy for us to bash them with spades, blow out their brains or decapitate them. It would seem a simple program to eradicate this ‘Feral vermin’ seems to be afoot. The language of persecution abounds and has a new and urgent legitimacy.
Twitter resounds with the cries of ‘rats’, ‘cockroaches’ and ‘scum’, all of which are to be mercilessly destroyed. There are renewed callsto blow them off the street with rubber bullets, wash them down the drains with water cannon and to cage them excessively and, it would seem, few have the nerve to look in the mirror and see the Zombie’s we’ve all become in our thirst for revenge.
And yet it was we as a society, not them, that allowed advertisers to reduce us to slaves for THINGS that in a richer world, we would never need. We never, during our busy lives, stop to consider how every shop glistens in the promise of a better life and the extraction from a world, for these young people, of meaningless chatter, unfettered boredom and terrible role models.Who would not want to escape Zombie life?
We could cut off their heads, decapitation being one of the best ways to eradicate Zombies but haven’t we done that already?With Children's services being cut by 26%, or £45.1m in Manchester; we have penalised the most vulnerable amongst us because of the actions of the very rich. Cuts, yes, they’ve already had the cuts.
Many of these young people have seen ‘the little’ that they perceive society gives them, taken away or about to be taken away. How can we expect them to be reasonable and respectful humans, if they no longer feel connected to their communities or feel apart of the broader society? We cannot condone individual acts and yet it is essential we ask questions. We cannot, noses in the trough, wonder at the anger of the hungry.
And the questions do remain, larger than ever.Refusing to look at the underlying issues, and jailing these young people, however vile their actions won’t prevent what happened in Manchester, London, and Birmingham and as a society we must accept this, before we can rebuild our communities and regain the trust that seems to be lacking. As any teacher worth his salt knows, it is often the most difficult student at the beginning of the term that brings us most reward; given patience and perseverance.
We must also collectively decide whether a society that functions solely on the acquisition of THINGS and the advertisement of THINGS is a healthy one.
Zombies love to feed on brains, this much we know. However, you can feed brains to someone without opening a skull. Let’s give our young people the education and wisdom that so many seem to be lacking and reawaken them from their living dead state. If we invest in education and children’s services for the most vulnerable we may come to understand the Zombies we have living among us and eventually they will assimilate into our towns and cities and we can all avoid another apocalypse.
Posts
The sexual puritanism of the Party was not imposed upon them. Promiscuity went unpunished, divorce was permitted. For that matter, even religious worship would have been permitted if the proles had shown any sign of needing or wanting it. They were beneath suspicion. As the Party slogan put it: 'Proles and animals are free.' 
