This is a huge topic which is fundamental to our lives. I’m not puritanical. I want to share some of the evidence for social engineering and cultural manipulation. I hope that everyone thinks it through themselves about the consequences and end results of different attitudes and dogmas–positive and negative.
. . . To us, pop stories of romance are very entertaining–and I think many of us would find it distasteful to consider the idea that we are being observed like domesticated animals and manipulated in a clinical way–via entertainment–by other classes of society who are counting the number of children we produce. . . .
Chapter 5: The residents are gathered round looking at a sow nurse her fourteen young. Henry Wimbush wants to slaughter the other one who had only five and also the boar who was getting old. Anne thought it was cruel, but Mr. Scogan praises the practicality of it. He compares the farm to a model of sound government, and so we get an idea of the line of thought Huxley encountered in his circles:
Make them breed, make them work, and when they’re past . . . , slaughter them.
The character Gombauld, who Denis sees as a rival for Anne’s affections, speaks up in favor of everyone having as many children as possible:
Lots of life: that’s what we want. . . .
The author explains Gombauld’s thoughts:
Sterility was odious, unnatural, a sin against life. Life, life, and still more life.
Mary is angry at this because she was a “convinced birth-controller” . . .
Scogan starts in on how love is now dissociated from “propagation” and “Eros” is now an “entirely free god” and eventually humans will succeed in separating reproduction from sex:
An impersonal generation will take the place of Nature’s hideous system.
The he talks about “state incubators” and “gravid [pregnant] bottles” (producing bottle babies or what we eventually call test-tube babies, or maybe we can call them incuba-tots), which produce the population that the world “requires” as if the world thinks as a collective all-knowing entity–like a fake AI or H. G. Wells’s “World Brain”–that decides how many is too many. It’s just a genocidal and imperial attitude of domination dressing up its culling decisions in scientific/technological garb.
The family system will disappear; society, sapped at its very base, will have to find new foundations; and Eros
Eros . . .will flit like a gay butterfly from flower to flower . . .
And this is very similar to major aspects of Huxley’s later novel Brave New World. Anne thinks it sounds “lovely.” Mary is astonished about the “bottles.”
All of the points about Eros in Crome Yellow or sexual “freedom” fit with the points made by Aldous Huxley in his novel Brave New World which includes the policy of sexual freedom as a fundamental component of it scientific dictatorship.
I think Huxley’s use of this Russell-like Scogan character–a sociable extremist–is an example of a media technique for introducing the public to controversial ideas. The Gombauld character, whose view I tend to agree with, is presented as the opposite extreme, and I bet many readers have tended to adopt a position–like Mary’s–somewhere between Gombauld and Scogan.
. . .
Chapter 9: Mr. Bodiham is studying a pamphlet he had presented as a sermon four years earlier during the War (World War I) about Bible prophecy and the Second Coming in relation to world events–for example the capture of Jerusalem by the British and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire.
. . .
Also, Mrs. Bodiham complains about the village of Crome becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah. So Huxley manages to caricature those who are opposed to the lifestyle of this circle as a bitter couple obsessed with interpreting prophecies. I think that sexual activity is left out of the novel to make it more palatable and to escape censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Ottoline_Morrell mentions her affair with Bertrand Russell and attendance by D. H. Lawrence, whose writings were famously censored.
. . .
Do WE plan this system being built around us? No, but Christian or not, many of us have been involved in building and supporting it to various degrees–by contributing to the technology or just by accepting it. Maybe it’s time to stop. Technology is supposed to be morally neutral–it could be used for good or bad we say–OK, but on the other hand, are Christian values determining the direction? No. Many of us got involved in technological development and it made a lot of people prosperous. Money can be used to push agendas forward.
Historically, the cable networks started streaming pornography and then the Internet eventually was streaming free pornography. Technology. Couldn’t there be a better situation if people cared enough to stop it? What about in your own home and with your own family?
Was our technology designed only by good people with good intentions? Where do the wars come from? What about World War I mentioned in the novel? The same government-media-corporate complex also promotes the wars–and if you send your children–male and female!–into these wars-what happens to them? Damaged bodies, damaged spirits, damaged families. None of this is pro-family, pro-human or pro-life.
. . .
Chapter 15: “Havelock Ellis” is suddenly mentioned in this chapter, who seems to have been a significant promoter of the sexually permissive society.
Henry Havelock Ellis, known as Havelock Ellis (2 February 1859 – 8 July 1939), was an English physician, writer, progressive intellectual and social reformer who studied human sexuality. He co-wrote the first medical textbook in English on homosexuality in 1897, and also published works on a variety of sexual practices and inclinations, as well as on transgender psychology. . . . Ellis was among the pioneering investigators of psychedelic drugs and the author of one of the first written reports to the public about an experience with mescaline, which he conducted on himself in 1896. He supported eugenics . . .
Ellis’ 1933 book, Psychology of Sex, is one of the many manifestations of his interest in human sexuality. . . .
The Wikipedia article explains that this book goes into detail about children. As with Alfred Kinsey’s later publications, this kind of research should always be examined for its moral appropriateness.
In Brave New World, sexual “freedom” (conditioned from an early age in Huxley’s novel) –along with drugs and propaganda–is used to make people compliant to scientific dictatorship. So much for social reform.
. . .
Chapter 18: . . .
Wimbush reflects that the Puritans had stamped out the older culture of Sunday activities that kept the young men busy in past times–such as archery and dancing–as “members of a conscious community [older expression than I realized].” Now they had “nothing” except the Boys’ Club along with rare dances and concerts. So it is either boredom or city pleasures (a long bike trip). You can get a sense of what Huxley focuses on in these types of observations his characters make.
Manningham’s Diary for 1600 had mentioned a scandal of men and women dancing naked in the hills at night. The Puritan horsemen rode into the crowd. They were arrested, whipped, jailed and put in the stocks. Wimbush thought this type of party had been a good thing, perhaps an ancient tradition that had been snuffed out by the magistrates. Maybe he is leaving out a darker side to it. Were they just dancing or was it an orgy–which can lead to abuses?
I think this passage portrays two extremes and life would be happier somewhere in the middle—yes, more archery and dancing, more community, but leave out the orgies. In our world, unfortunately, I think a lot of young people are already being dragged into behaviors that go way beyond the experiences of most parents and which aren’t going to benefit them at all.
The generations are divided intentionally so that younger people are isolated from whatever wisdom their elders have (if any). Because of their energy, they sometimes feel that they are invulnerable, so they are victimized heavily by half-truths – by propaganda that only gives them part of the story—they are victimized by sexual propaganda and by war propaganda. When I say victimized, I mean it in the full sense. They are sold a pack of lies—and it’s not to help them. They are flattered and seduced by Pied Pipers—told constantly that they are special and know more than their parents and offered education and special status.
And older generations are intimidated by the made-up idea that the young are “progressing,” that they know what they’re doing—or they just believe that they should follow the system into the latest war. All generations are fooled into thinking that new attitudes and behaviors just come out of nowhere, that they just appear-that we’re evolving and “progressing” in some unplanned, spontaneous way—even though the education system and the media-entertainment complex is sitting right there in front of them all day every day indoctrinating everyone.
There is an end in mind and it’s not freedom, and what we have isn’t freedom either. It’s entertainment and flattery and conditioning and pats on the back as the young proceed over the cliff of what life they are presented with. Again, the answer is to stop going along with everything. You don’t have to go along. We don’t have to. The young don’t have to if you can talk them out of whatever mistake it is, maybe you should warn them about the mistakes they’re already making that you haven’t even imagined yet. Assumptions and complacency and ignorance in a sea of propaganda. Young people are unaware and immature. Older people are unaware and complacent beyond any sense.
If I suggest turning off your TV for a week or longer to see what happens, to see if your own thoughts get a chance to go anywhere new on their own–to see if you can get your mind free, some people will tell me “that’s not freedom!” But if you are unable to turn off the TV (or cancel your cable service) and are unwilling to see the toxic nature of its propaganda, what kind of freedom–or free will–do you have?
. . .
Peanuts and Charlie Brown
. . .
https://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1983/11/29 – “FlashBeagle”
https://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1978/10/18 – Snoopy and disco. It’s one thing for a real dog to love people, but Snoopy comes across as an adult, male, human-like character, so I think his attempts at flirting with girls are questionable.
https://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1974/06/12 – “PlayBeagle”: I think that mainstream references to published articles in Play Boy was an effort to make pornography more acceptable to the public. Children everywhere were being exposed to pornography back in the 70s and ever since. In itself this could be argued as violating the Canadian Criminal Code. However, Judith Reisman has pointed out that pornography was associated early on with worse images [link]. I would point out that the public does not select and produce the content. It is not consumer-driven or market-driven at all. The idea of “free market” (which has a lot going for it as a concept within limits) is a cover ideology to explain objectionable products just as “deregulation” was used to introduce genetically modified food [link]. The details of the actual production (subsidies? motivations?) could be researched further. Who is paying for and distributing the “free” pornography on the Internet? The growth of illegal pornography [research]–instead of it being stopped–also shows that we are not living in a real democracy where supposedly normal, law-abiding people would help influence laws and policies.
. . .
Eros and sexual freedom
*Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World describes a scientific dictatorship that uses “sexual freedom” or promiscuity as a policy: http://canadianliberty.com/commentary-on-brave-new-world-by-aldous-huxley-part-8/ and
*Aldous Huxley explains the policy of sexual freedom in his novel’s scientific dictatorship in his non-fiction work Brave New World Revisited: http://canadianliberty.com/commentary-on-aldous-huxleys-brave-new-world-revisited-part-7/
*Also relating to “Eros”: Havelock Ellis info is quoted as accessed August 21, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havelock_Ellis – further research should include his books.
*Eros: Online copy of The Authoritarian Personality, Studies in Prejudice Series, Volume 1
by T.W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford, Harper & Brothers, Copyright American Jewish Committee, 1950: http://www.ajcarchives.org/main.php?GroupingId=6490.
Go to Chapter 23: http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/AP26.CV01.pdf. The last two lines of the book state the following:
. . . Thus, we need not suppose that appeal to emotion belongs to those who strive in the direction of fascism, while democratic propaganda must limit itself to reason and restraint. If fear and destructiveness are the major emotional sources of fascism, eros belongs mainly to democracy.
The point is to use “eros” (sexual freedom and pornography) to neutralize protective, family-generating behaviors characterized as “authoritarian.”
Another copy of this book by the Frankfurt School’s Theodor Adorno–who, along with his Marxist colleagues, has had a pervasive influence in Western universities: https://archive.org/details/THEAUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY.Adorno.
*Eros: Another Frankfurt School Marxist, Herbert Marcuse, wrote Eros and Civilization in 1955. This is a copy of his 1966 Political Preface: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/eros-civilisation/preface.htm:
. . . “Polymorphous sexuality” was the term which I used to indicate that the new direction of progress would depend completely on the opportunity to activate repressed or arrested organic, biological needs: to make the human body an instrument of pleasure rather than labor. . . .
The documentary The Net touches on Adorno and his Authoritarian Personality project and how it seems to fit into a bigger agenda. See my summary: http://canadianliberty.com/the-net-the-unabomber-lsd-and-the-internet-control-control-control/. Related info: http://canadianliberty.com/movie-thoughts-on-ghost-in-the-shell/
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/index.htm – this page includes links to more information about Theodor Adorno and his writings along with other members of the Frankfurt School: Max Horkheimer, Leo Lowenthal, Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen Habermas and Georg Lukacs.
. . .
. . .
B.4. And the general point of demoralization:
As the Vietnam War continued inconclusively and became more unpopular with the American public, morale declined and disciplinary problems grew among American enlisted men and junior, non-career officers. Drug use, racial tensions, and the growing incidence of fragging—attempting to kill unpopular officers and non-commissioned officers with grenades or other weapons—created severe problems for the U.S. military and impacted its capability of undertaking combat operations. By 1971, a U.S. Army colonel writing in the Armed Forces Journal declared: “By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous….The morale, discipline, and battle-worthiness of the U.S. Armed Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at any time in this century and possibly in the history of the United States.” [471: Heinl, Jr., Col. Robert D. (1971), “The Collapse of the Armed Forces”, Armed Forces Journal, 7 June 1971]
B.5. And the effect by the war on the Vietnamese:
Gabriel García Márquez, a Nobel Prize winning writer, described South Vietnam as a “False paradise” after the war, when he visited in 1980: “The cost of this delirium was stupefying: 360,000 people mutilated, a million widows, 500,000 prostitutes, 500,000 drug addicts, a million tuberculous and more than a million soldiers of the old regime, impossible to completely rehabilitate into a new society. Ten percent of the population of Ho Chi Minh City was suffering from serious venereal diseases when the war ended, and there were 4 million illiterates throughout the South.”
. . .