By: Jackson K. Eskew, Esq.
Today's neopagan crusade for homosexual "marriage" and all the rest of it brings to mind two famous dystopian novels which have seemingly been blended and brought to life; namely, George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
Most readers will be familiar with the “boot in the face” totalitarianism of 1984. Orwell, an ardent student of both language and modern politics, understood very well that to control language is to a great extent to control mass thought. A key aspect of 1984's totalitarianism therefore involves the regime's control of thought via linguistic manipulation. In Orwellian terms, this processing involves the propagation and normalization of
incoherent newspeak and doublethink. The insufficiently processed are subject to punishment by the omnipresent Big Brother for thoughtcrime.
Huxley's dystopia, while also thoroughly statist, is yet very different from Orwell's. Instead of boot in the face totalitarianism, denizens of Huxley's regime are given everything needed – drugs, pornography, televisions, etc. - to truncate their horizons and amuse themselves to death. Pleasure, pleasure, unending sensual gratification and permanent adolescence unto death are the means of assuring stability in Huxley's Brave New World.
Does any of this sound familiar? Surely. But even if limited space didn't prevent me from closely drawing out the parallels, I'd hesitate to do so. For those with eyes to see, it need not be explained; for the processed, it would only be an exercise in futility.
Instead I'll simply offer the following recently overheard conversation – which, most happily for our purposes, contains just about everything Orwellian and Huxleyan mentioned above – between an architect and a triangle. I'll even give it a title.
The Architect and the Triangles
A triangle approached its architect and said:
"I'm tired of being limited to three sides. I want four sides. I demand another."
Architect: "Do you yet want to remain what you are, a triangle?"
Triangle: "Yes. And I want four sides."
Architect: "You want to be a four-sided triangle?"
Triangle: "I do."
Architect: "But you'll then cease being a triangle, as a triangle by definition has only three sides."
Triangle: "No. And I speak for the rest of us. We'll endure no more discrimination. We want to be free and fulfilled. We're tolerant. We're flexible. We're open-minded. We're compassionate. We're up-to-date. We're enlightened. We're not bound by your rigid, ignorant old dogmas! We shall be four-sided triangles if we wish, the first four-sided triangles in the history of the world. And henceforth the class of triangles shall forever include the four-sided."
The architect shook his head and sighed.
Today's neopagan crusade for homosexual "marriage" and all the rest of it brings to mind two famous dystopian novels which have seemingly been blended and brought to life; namely, George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
Most readers will be familiar with the “boot in the face” totalitarianism of 1984. Orwell, an ardent student of both language and modern politics, understood very well that to control language is to a great extent to control mass thought. A key aspect of 1984's totalitarianism therefore involves the regime's control of thought via linguistic manipulation. In Orwellian terms, this processing involves the propagation and normalization of
incoherent newspeak and doublethink. The insufficiently processed are subject to punishment by the omnipresent Big Brother for thoughtcrime.
Huxley's dystopia, while also thoroughly statist, is yet very different from Orwell's. Instead of boot in the face totalitarianism, denizens of Huxley's regime are given everything needed – drugs, pornography, televisions, etc. - to truncate their horizons and amuse themselves to death. Pleasure, pleasure, unending sensual gratification and permanent adolescence unto death are the means of assuring stability in Huxley's Brave New World.
Does any of this sound familiar? Surely. But even if limited space didn't prevent me from closely drawing out the parallels, I'd hesitate to do so. For those with eyes to see, it need not be explained; for the processed, it would only be an exercise in futility.
Instead I'll simply offer the following recently overheard conversation – which, most happily for our purposes, contains just about everything Orwellian and Huxleyan mentioned above – between an architect and a triangle. I'll even give it a title.
The Architect and the Triangles
A triangle approached its architect and said:
"I'm tired of being limited to three sides. I want four sides. I demand another."
Architect: "Do you yet want to remain what you are, a triangle?"
Triangle: "Yes. And I want four sides."
Architect: "You want to be a four-sided triangle?"
Triangle: "I do."
Architect: "But you'll then cease being a triangle, as a triangle by definition has only three sides."
Triangle: "No. And I speak for the rest of us. We'll endure no more discrimination. We want to be free and fulfilled. We're tolerant. We're flexible. We're open-minded. We're compassionate. We're up-to-date. We're enlightened. We're not bound by your rigid, ignorant old dogmas! We shall be four-sided triangles if we wish, the first four-sided triangles in the history of the world. And henceforth the class of triangles shall forever include the four-sided."
The architect shook his head and sighed.
Jackson K. Eskew, Esq. is a California lawyer and Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) contributor. He also holds Bachelors and Masters degrees in political philosophy. Reach him at [email protected].
RSS Feed
