I read both 1984 and Brave New World at the great Bishop McGuinness High School in Oklahoma City for my AP English classes. They had a major effect on my philosophy.
Fun fact: George Orwell was Aldous Huxley’s student. That’s a pretty remarkable thing when you ponder that these two soothsaying authors predicted two parallel views of future dystopia.
In our Kardashian-obsessed, corrupted media, liberalism-is-the-cultural-status-quo, increasingly globalist world, one rarely finds a John the Savage. In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, this flawed hero was a man pure in individuality and spirit, who rejects the world as it had become—a never-ending assault on the senses through technology, drugs, rejection of family or religious bonds, and the belief that perfection lies in stifling free thought and free speech while surrendering Self to the larger global elite. (Sound familiar? It should.)
In George Orwell’s oft-cited 1984, the dystopian future is more of an overtly controlling, authoritarian, centralized government that has the ability to spy on its citizens at will. It forces its citizens to submit to its demands. It sees a globalist vision that forcefully stifles free speech and free thinking with Newspeak: collective thought is good; language is changed to more politically correct parlance; for example, what’s bad is not bad, but “ungood.” Doublespeak are slogans that on their faces are contradictory; for example, “Slavery is Freedom and Freedom is Slavery.” Telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. (Sound familiar? It should.)
Let’s break down just a few examples of how both novels have proven prophetic, and how the visions of both dystopias can, in fact, live in dysfunctional harmony.
One basic premise of Brave New World is that society had evolved to such a place where parents and family life were obsolete—in fact they were rejected. People were created in labs and raised in test tubes. People who had genetic traits worthy of reproduction were chosen for eggs and sperm. Women who were considered inferior were used as birthing units. There were no mothers and fathers.
Consider our increasingly “designer baby” society in which people choose what genetic characteristics to impart to their offspring—basically, high-tech eugenics. A sameness and perfunctory assignment of traits like one chooses a frozen yogurt flavor—and if a baby is found to have an abnormality, it can be aborted without a tinge of conscience.
Now–counter this eugenics, this sameness, this wanting of perfection, with the Newspeak of 1984 when it comes to “diversity.” It is odd that the same people who seek to make a perfect child who has no problems, yet will immediately drug a “problem child” with Ritalin—instead of actually parenting said child. A drug for every problem is a very Brave New World concept.
Also consider the reality that our government and government-run public education system are promoting the idea that married, two parent, mommy and daddy families are pretty much obsolete and old-fashioned. And, if you promote such a family, you are often accused of “shoving your morality” down someone’s throat—when it’s been proven time and again that these types of actual, functioning (i.e., in a loving, non-abusive marriage) families are what provide the most stability for children. That’s not to say a child or parents can control all of life’s circumstances or that this is the only situation a child can thrive—that’s utter nonsense. But to deny that a stable, mother and father, two-parent household isn’t an ideal situation for a child is ludicrous.
Some more Brave New World parallels—wherein the government–the State–provides all, and the citizens are placated by drugs and constant technology, consider the pervasive nature of our government and how liberalism truly is the status-quo.
Turn on an episode of Jerry Springer or Maury Povich (if you must) and you’ll see one screeching, mind-numbing stereotype after another on display. Wait for the commercials and you’ll hear—usually from a black actor or actress–all about the government “free” (i.e. taxpayer-subsidized) programs that the target audience members, who just happen to be sitting on their asses at home in the middle of the day, can receive. You will witness the failure of liberalism and liberal policies on a daily basis just by watching daytime television.
Turn on any media outlet and you’re bombarded with almost total liberal, progressive, statist thought on display at all times. Morality is out the window. I’m no prude, but what passes for entertainment aimed at teenagers and the typical low-information consumer today is simply ridiculous.
Aggressively banal, Kardashian-esque reality TV, normalization of extremely active sex lives (and believing teen abstinence unrealistic and abnormal), teen moms, transgenderism, abortion, normalization of drug and alcohol use, permissive “friend” parents, the Grievance Industry, Safe Spaces, constant celebrations of “coming out”, hipster conformity, and a push of ALL liberal causes is de rigueur.
The “vagina staging” of the Rio Olympics Opening Ceremony, with its obvious homage to radical feminists and statism in general, was basically a love letter to globalism and liberal thought. They celebrated Muslim refugees, big government, open borders, and “intersex” non-gender conforming (it never ends!) athletes and castigated ALL YOU RACISTS (i.e., conservatives living in the United States) who disagree with this never-ending push of “progressive” thought.
Want some 1984 Thoughtcrime, Newspeak, or Doublespeak? If you disagree with any of the Social Justice Warrior snowflakes pushing this radical agenda, it’s not they who are intolerant–it’s YOU. And by God, you better get with the program.
Here’s some great examples of liberal Doublespeak and Thoughtcrime you’ll encounter on a daily basis.
To a liberal, diversity means collective conformity and homogeneous thought. Sounds counterintuitive (very Doublespeak!) but it’s true. Try walking into a public school today and discussing the traditional American ideals of hard work, a melting pot instead of cultural balkanization (multiculturalism), smaller government, the rule of law, securing borders, or anything that promotes common sense and individualism. You’re branded a racist and insensitive to other cultures.
America, to liberals, is an evil place founded by evil white men. Homogenous thought—not diverse thought—is the rule. You MUST agree with liberals about gay marriage and the normalization of transgenderism or you’re a homophobe. You MUST agree that illegal aliens get amnesty and taxpayer benefits or you’re a racist. You MUST believe in extensive welfare, big government, and taxing the rich or you hate the poor. You MUST agree with abortion on demand and radical feminism or you hate women. You MUST agree with Affirmative Action or you’re a bigot. You MUST celebrate racialist groups like Black Lives Matter or you hate black people. You MUST agree that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism or you’re an Islamophobe. You MUST deny Christianity and Judaism are the bedrock of Western Civilization or you’re a hick Bible thumper. You MUST subscribe to everything liberalism or you’re a “hater.” The list goes on forever. Liberalism is forever esteemed and conservatism is endlessly mocked.
Daily government intrusion and pervasive, overarching technology are more ways 1984 and Brave New World collide. The government has access to your banking activity, every transaction at a store, every walk down a city sidewalk, every click of your computer mouse, every posting of your Facebook and Twitter—all of it.
Some of this is necessary considering the massive amounts of technology criminals and terrorists can utilize; I’m not one to say our government, in the furtherance of legitimate public safety, should not be able to access anything. But using an ostensibly free speech platform like Facebook or Twitter shouldn’t set you up to be fired or “banned” simply because you espouse an opinion contrary to liberal Newspeak. Unless, of course, you’re Milo Yiannopolous, the gay conservative activist/journalist banned from Twitter over non-existent racism towards a black Ghostbusters actress.
We are the proverbial frog in the gradually boiling water—our reliance on technology, social media, Netflix, iPhones, etc. have made us more far susceptible to 1984–style government intrusion. But like the good citizens in Brave New World who are placated with some Soma, casual sex, and Feelies, we accept this intrusion because at the end of the day we get to watch The Bachelorette and get spoon-fed our collated, progressive, censored information from CNN, Yahoo News, and our Facebook feed.
Depressing, isn’t it? Like the doomed John the Savage in Brave New World, I’m not sure the civilized world is going to make it. But there are a few of us who’ll be damned if we go out without a fight—because 1984 has got nothing on 2016.
“O Brave New World! That has such people in it!”
