As you press him, you will find this kindliness evaporating from his resistance altogether. He is now concerned about the general beauty and loveliness of the world. He will protest that this new Magna Carta will reduce all the world to "a dead level of uniformity". You will ask him why must a world of free-men be uniform and at a dead level? You will get no adequate reply. It is an assumption of vital importance to him and he must cling to it. He has been accustomed to associate "free" and "equal", and has never been bright-minded enough to take these two words apart and have a good look at them separately. He is likely to fall back at this stage upon that Bible of the impotent genteel, Huxley’s Brave New World, and implore you to read it. You brush that disagreeable fantasy aside and continue to press him. He says that nature has made men unequal, and you reply that that is no reason for exaggerating the fact. The more unequal and various their gifts, the greater is the necessity for a Magna Carta to protect them from one another. Then he will talk of robbing life of the picturesque and the romantic and you will have some difficulty in getting these words defined.
The theme of Brave New World is not the advancement of science as such; it is the advancement of science as it affects human individuals. The triumphs of physics, chemistry and engineering are tacitly taken for granted. The only scientific advances to be specifically described are those involving the application to human beings of the results of future research in biology, physiology and psychology. It is only by means of the sciences of life that the quality of life can be radically changed. The sciences of matter can be applied in such a way that they will destroy life or make the living of it impossibly complex and uncomfortable; but, unless used as instruments by the biologists and psychologists, they can do nothing to modify the natural forms and expressions of life itself. The release of atomic energy marks a great revolution in human history, but not (unless we blow ourselves to bits and so put an end to history) the final and most searching revolution.
The most revolutionary revolution is to be achieved, not in the external world, but in the souls and flesh of human beings. Living as he did in a revolutionary period, the Marquis de Sade very naturally made use of this theory of revolutions in order to rationalize his peculiar brand of insanity. Robespierre had achieved the most superficial kind of revolution: the political. Going a little deeper, Babeuf had attempted the economic revolution. Sade regarded himself as the apostle of the truly revolutionary revolution, beyond mere politics and economics: the revolution of individual men, women and children, whose bodies were henceforward to become the property of all and whose minds were to be purged of natural decencies, all the laboriously acquired inhibitions of traditional civilization. Between Sadism and the really revolutionary revolution there is, of course, no necessary or inevitable connexion. Sade was a lunatic and the more or less conscious goal of his revolution was universal chaos and destruction. The people who govern the Brave New World may not be sane (in what may be called the absolute sense of that word); but they are not madmen and their aim is not anarchy but social stability. It is in order to achieve stability they carry out, by scientific means, the ultimate, personal, really revolutionary revolution.
-Aldous Huxley, in the foreword to the 1946 edition of BNW.
He may have been a Fabian, like Orwell was, but like 1984, BNW is not meant as a manual: It's a warning.
This has always been an inherent belief underlying society at an unspoken level. (to use a leftist term, it's systemic) One reason you see so much division and conflict in the culture today is because we are now openly talking about ideological beliefs so much. (well that and "diversity") But there has always been a large segment that thinks that way, and when we didn't push it, everyone kinda just assumed that everyone else agreed with them on the basics. When we used words like "community", "neighborhood", "nation", the words meant different things to different people.
Now we know that half the population or more doesn't agree on fundamental issues of freedom. The genie is not going back in the bottle. Either one side "wins", one side is exterminated, or there is a divorce.
That specific belief isn't limited to leftists. Tradcons and national socialists (though you might call them leftists) are the same way but perhaps not as extreme. And I'm not necessarily opposed to a "tribe" running their society the way they see fit and sharing the wealth, but it can't work in America. It's a matter of scale and homogeneity.
By the way u/FBoysInc I know a lot of people hate libertarianism and I understand the reasons, but one belief of Anarcho-Capitalists is that private property and yourself are one and the same. (everything is reducible to property rights)
Huxley, in Brave New World
The New World Order, HG Wells also a Fabian
Imagine believing that socialists are not parasites.
His brother Julian in a few books explained how Brave New World was them exposing their actual plans for humanity.
Huxley's Brave New World is REAL - Jay Dyer
Philosophy of Globalism - Julian Huxley, UNESCO & The Final Revolution - Jay Dyer
-Aldous Huxley, in the foreword to the 1946 edition of BNW.
He may have been a Fabian, like Orwell was, but like 1984, BNW is not meant as a manual: It's a warning.
This has always been an inherent belief underlying society at an unspoken level. (to use a leftist term, it's systemic) One reason you see so much division and conflict in the culture today is because we are now openly talking about ideological beliefs so much. (well that and "diversity") But there has always been a large segment that thinks that way, and when we didn't push it, everyone kinda just assumed that everyone else agreed with them on the basics. When we used words like "community", "neighborhood", "nation", the words meant different things to different people.
Now we know that half the population or more doesn't agree on fundamental issues of freedom. The genie is not going back in the bottle. Either one side "wins", one side is exterminated, or there is a divorce.
That specific belief isn't limited to leftists. Tradcons and national socialists (though you might call them leftists) are the same way but perhaps not as extreme. And I'm not necessarily opposed to a "tribe" running their society the way they see fit and sharing the wealth, but it can't work in America. It's a matter of scale and homogeneity.
By the way u/FBoysInc I know a lot of people hate libertarianism and I understand the reasons, but one belief of Anarcho-Capitalists is that private property and yourself are one and the same. (everything is reducible to property rights)