Everyone Belongs to Everyone Else
Orwell or Huxley? Get used to Orwell AND Huxley.
"Every one belongs to every one else.”
Sound familiar?
This is the voice that animates the dreams of the youth in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.
It is also the message of the global left today. You will own nothing, you will obey the technocrats, you will eat bugs to save the climate – and you will be happy.
Or else.
The “everyone belongs to everybody” is a constantly and persistently repeated mantra designed to discourage individuality in friendship and love, it is a form of mental conditioning designed to hypnotically mold every individual into an interchangeable part of society and in doing so, assure the entire of society runs smoothly. The children are told that individuality and uniqueness is uselessness and discord, but unity and conformity is bliss because above all, stability of society is the ultimate goal.
In BNW, Huxley accurately predicted the assault on individuality we are seeing today. The mission of the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning was to produce virtually identical humans as a means of eliminating individuality. Through something called “Bokanovsky's Process,” artificially arrested normal human development functioned to deprive human beings of their unique and individual natures.
Stripped of individuality, this process made overt processes for controlling people unnecessary.
Who needs jackbooted government thugs if people comply willingly?
Deliberate and careful poisoning of human embryos with alcohol produced "sub-human" people, capable of work but not of independent thought. For these lower-caste men and women, individuality is an impossibility because they never had that capacity to begin with. As a result, Huxley’s stable society was built on a large foundation of identical, easily manipulated people. While the goal of stability was achieved, but the desire and/or ability to be different, individuality in other words, was exterminated.
"When the individual feels, society reels," Lenina piously reminds Bernard.
Through the production of citizens in a human factory, sexual intercourse is no longer necessary for reproduction and has become a group based ritually recreational event, one designed to blur the distinctions among lovers and between emotions and urges through something called the "Orgy-Porgy."
Essentially, the difference between Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s BNW is the method of motivation and control. Where Orwell anticipated forced reeducation and punishment as the mechanism of control, Huxley proposed it would be willing submission to ritual pleasure used to control society.
Today’s authoritarians who wish for a “stable society” use a combination of Huxley and Orwell as their model.
I noted the other day that the Biden Administration’s actions looked like they were in the process of collecting enough Lego pieces to build the model of the Kremlin pictured on the box. Each collectivist or authoritarian policy is a Lego block and once they collect enough, they can finish the full-size model.
And they have collected a lot of pieces during the eight years of Obama and the last four of Biden. Trump walked in and smashed the model apart, but these leftists are not stupid. They always find ways to make the pieces stick together and no matter how much you break apart, those pieces still exist and simply need to be collected from under the couch so they can start building again.
What we need to understand is this: it doesn’t matter if they are using 1984 or BNW as instruction manuals, the goals are the same.



"Who needs jackbooted government thugs if people comply willingly?"
Exactly.
Definitely sharing.
I have long wondered at the complexity, in some senses, with which the Bible portrays truth about God and man's place in creation. I like the image of a mature maple tree, branches shooting every which way, every single leaf unique--but every cell maple-tree. Through all the universe's diversity and complexity, not apparently despite them, God brings every particle of creation through history to the eventual conclusion He has intended all along. In passing understanding of all this to the only creatures we know capable of even conceiving of the universe, God gives not a listing of salient points to know or to believe, but uses stories, of complexity comparable to that of the maple tree, and individuals some of whom are as corrupt as the dead branches maple trees will have, to tell us what we need to know. Eliminate or ignore individuality? Not a chance. Thank you for bringing us this message, Michael Smith.