The Huxleys

Not so long ago, a British friend, who knows of my high esteem for George Orwell, asked my opinion of Aldous Huxley. I often tell people that Orwell’s 1984 is the most important book of the last century. Huxley was also a British author. His major work, Brave New World (henceforth BNW), is also billed as a dystopian novel (a negative scenario of the future). BNW was published in 1932, only seventeen years before 1984. Orwell had a talent for logically developing and colorfully articulating his nightmares. Huxley did the same for his wishes. But that’s where their similarities end.

Brave New World is an alluring title, but it would more accurately be titled, “Cowardly and Monstrous Aggravation of the Present Unhappy World.” BNW, is, in my opinion, the most harmful and dangerous book of the last century because its author was a sick man with a lot of talent. I won’t say that it should be out of print. Its redeeming value should save it from oblivion. But the book is so pernicious, so potentially misleading and corrupting, that it should never be published without an introduction similar or identical to this one. If you haven’t read BNW and have no intention of doing so, great! Don’t trouble yourself with what follows. Sayounara.

For those of you that are still with me, we must start with a brief bio of Huxley’s famous grandfather, Sir Thomas Henry Huxley. Thomas was a biologist. He defended Darwin so staunchly as to earn the nickname, “Darwin’s Bulldog.” He was famous too in his own right. He penned an essay in which he allegorically compared human society to a horticulturalist’s garden within nature. The allegory climaxes with Thomas equating the ethical process with “the evolution of the feelings, out of which the primitive bonds of human society are so largely forged, into the organized and personified sympathy we call conscience.”[i] He credited Adam Smith and, still earlier, David Hartley with the identity of ethical behavior and the advance of human evolution.[ii] But Thomas Huxley’s garden allegory convincingly illustrated the point.

Thomas and Aldous were both keenly aware of the problem posed by over-population, but no one could hope to comprehend its complexity prior to my articulation of the K and R Class Struggle in 1991. Aldous discussed it ineffectively.[iii] Thomas colorfully defined it: “...the unlimited increase of the population over a limited area must, sooner or later, reintroduce into the colony that struggle for the means of existence between the colonists, which it was the primary object of the administrator to exclude, insomuch as it is fatal to the mutual peace which is the prime condition of the union of men in society.”[iv]

Yet one and four paragraphs later, Thomas denied even the possibility of direct selection, after the fashion of the horticulturalist, “because I do not see how such selection could be practiced without a serious weakening, it may be the destruction, of the bonds that hold society together.” The only possibility that he conceived for population control was the “extirpation [weeding out] of the poor.” In his place and time, Britain of the 1880s, any rational and realistic proposals for population control would have cost him his knighthood and earned him a permanent place in the London Tower (prison).

Aldous Huxley had every reason to be proud of his famous grandfather, and apparently he was. Aldous avidly studied biology and planned, as a young man, to become a doctor. Aldous was a thoroughly homosexual man. He had two brothers, a half brother and no sisters.

We all love our siblings. That’s natural and inevitable and no one should ever be ashamed of loving his siblings or his own sex. (If mom has a partner and doesn’t stay too long available to us in fact or fantasy, then our siblings determine our sexual orientations.)

Homophobia started to develop at the beginning of the Neolithic (Stone Age of agriculture) due to our inept and incompetent transition to monogamy. Monogamy puts homosexual folks in a terrible double bind. It forces them to choose between having love and having children. Aldous was one of the folks who couldn’t cope with his homosexuality. (In his time, 1894 -1963, very few people could and of these few almost nobody dared to come out due to the then-universal prejudice against homosexual and bisexual people.)

However, as Orwell showed us in his characterization of “Big Brother,” one’s inability to accept one’s sexual orientation condemns one to a loveless life and warps the personality in predictable ways. It tends to produce people who are mad at the world, malicious and reflexively reactionary (because they unconsciously associate all change with the change they cannot and dare not accomplish, the removal of the mask that hides homosexuality). Latent homosexuals also tend to be accomplished liars. After all, if you can lie about your third most basic characteristic, what, other than your species and gender can you not lie about? (In Big Brother’s world, even one of these last two redoubts for honesty is under attack and starting to fall!)

I have no doubt of what inspired Aldous to combine his admiration for and identification with Gramps with his (Aldous’) sinister personality proclivities. It was a passage in Thomas’ famous essay. That passage and Aldous’ sinister proclivities combined to produce the pernicious book, BNW, that would make Aldous famous (or, properly understood, infamous). Here’s the passage:

[Unlike bees that are born very different to become workers, drones or the queen] “Among mankind, on the contrary, there is no predestination to a sharply defined place in the social organism. However much men may differ in the quality of their intellects, the intensity of their passions, and the delicacy of their sensations, it cannot be said that one is fitted by his organization to be an agricultural labourer and nothing else, and another to be a landowner and nothing else. Moreover, with all their enormous differences in natural endowment, men agree in one thing, and that is their innate desire to enjoy the pleasures and to escape the pains of life; and, in short, to do nothing but that which it pleases them to do, without the least reference to the welfare of the society into which they are born.”[v]

When Aldous read this, the malicious latent homosexual within him that dreads social change and cherishes social stability asked, How can we accomplish this predestination among men and condition those assigned to the most drudgerous and least creative roles to like what they do?

The answer became the major premise for BNW: produce everyone invitro; retard embryonic development to varying degrees by depriving the vessels of oxygen or nutrients or contaminating them with alcohol; make the workers of each type clones of one another; traumatize them as babies when they are removed from the safe environment that simulates the one they’ll be working in; and brainwash them, as infants, with hypnotic messages, during their sleep. Huxley also believed that genes were of inherently different quality, but like all the latent homosexual, K scoundrels that want to believe this, he offered no evidence for it.

Sex, in BNW, is freely available to everyone but is invariably of a promiscuous and loveless variety because, “Everyone belongs to everyone else.” No one in his right mind, latent homosexual or otherwise, has any reason to envy others for enjoying it.

By design, passions do not arise among the people; but when passions do arise or when people need to be rewarded, they are sedated with “Soma.” Soma is a drug that has all the effects of alcohol except the hangover.

People are not allowed to engage in creative thinking, to develop their higher faculties, to create science or art and acquire the human dignity that results from development. The most elite, male, latent homosexuals are an exception to this dumbing down. They get to choose between either working as controllers or retiring to an island exclusively for creative people whose output is screened by the controllers.

The story ends with Huxley’s innermost, secret wish fulfillment. His alter ego, “Bernard Marx,” and Marx’ silent love, “Helmholtz Watson,” are sent off together to live on the island. The one character who is neither a New Worlder nor a latent homosexual, “the savage,” hangs himself.

Huxley seemed to have made some progress, over the years, in learning to live with himself. In 1937, five years after BNWs publication, he moved to Hollywood with his wife Maria, his son Matthew and his friend Gerald Hurd. Even before this, in the 1920s, he had formed a close relationship with D. H. Lawrence with whom he had traveled around France and Italy. But even in 1958, at the writing of “BNW Revisited,” he had not become conscious enough of homophobia and latent homosexuality to see that 1984 was all about them. Huxley associated Orwell’s “Big Brother” only with Joe Stalin.[vi] Orwell’s 1984 is a thousand times more insightful and explosive than BNW, which is why Orwell had to give his life after its publication rather than risk the chance of Big Brother’s identity being pried out of him and his book banned. Had Orwell dared to live on, after 1949 and 1984’s publication, he would have had to remain silent, to not answer Huxley’s mistaken evaluation of his work.

In BNW Revisited (1958), a nonfiction essay, Aldous took a shot at prescribing a civilized world. He was able to see the worst mistake of BNW. But instead of rewriting BNW so as to clearly and unequivocally condemn social predestination, as he should have done, he only condemns it in this essay, in what amounts to another introduction that latent homosexual publishers and readers are at liberty to read or ignore.

In this most poignant passage of “BNW Revisited,” Huxley said,

“We see, then, that modern technology has led to the concentration of economic and political power, and to the development of a society controlled (ruthlessly in the totalitarian states, politely and inconspicuously in the democracies) by Big Business and Big Government. But societies are composed of individuals and are good only insofar as they help individuals to realize their potentialities and to lead a happy and creative life (H emphasis mine).”

Again, what’s worst about Huxley is that even after getting over his homophobia and latent homosexual malice enough to realize what is in italics above, he DIDN’T revise BNW. Nowhere within BNW do any of the characters refute the claims of the “Resident World Controller for Western Europe, Mustapha Mond” that art and science and the creative development and dignity (the highest form of happiness) of the majority must be sacrificed for stability (the supreme good for latent homosexuals because they unconsciously associate all change with the big change they can’t make, removal of their 3rd Masks, the mask that hides homosexuality).[vii] This malicious, latent homosexual and morally-criminal K attitude turns reality on its head and heralds the most horrendous aspect of the K and R Class Struggle as a virtue!

Regarding social stability to be the supreme societal value is not only monstrous in its political immorality. It is also suicidal. (Latent homosexuals, incapable of adult love, are motivated mostly by fear and all tend to be suicidal.) Social stability can’t be valued over social dynamism because the larger universe is not stable. Gamma rays fan out in all directions from supernovae explosions, travel for thousands of light years and routinely wipe out life wherever it evolves. We are probing ever-further out into space for signs or sounds of other life and not finding any. Earthly life appears to be a fluke. Our best chance of preserving life – of any kind -- on this planet is to maximize the pace of human evolution so as to maximize our chances of learning how to shield Earth from gamma rays before another supernovae explosion snuffs out our biosphere, as one nearly did 440 million years ago. Maximizing the pace of human evolution means maximizing human cooperation and learning and minimizing the K and R class struggle and not doing the reverse per the insane fears of homophobic latent homosexuals.

No doubt, Huxley didn’t revise BNW to clearly condemn social predestination (and only condemned it per the italicized passage above, within a nonfiction essay) because the immorality of the class struggle and the hardening of the classes into predestined castes or different species continues to appeal to sick latent homosexuals, who are disproportionately Ks, affluent and influential. BNW, confused and bad book that it is, continued and still continues to earn big royalties for the author and his estate. Huxley’s illnesses, especially his cancer of the larynx, were inevitable consequences of his own immorality and self-hatred.

I’m not suggesting that BNW should go out of print. It is imaginative and logical in its own, perverse way. But editors and publishers that have anything to do with it should clearly identify it for what it is: a Bible for loveless, lying, malicious, reactionary and suicidal latent homosexuals.

Thomas Henry, Aldous’ grandfather, vigorous defender of Darwin and the philosopher that most clearly identified ethical behavior as that which advances human evolution, would have been deeply ashamed of Aldous and his work. What can possibly be more immoral than permanently stunting the development of the vast majority of mankind! What could possibly have a more damaging impact upon human evolution and be more unethical? Yet that is what his grandson’s famous novel, BNW, proposes in the name of (the ultimate good for latent homosexuals) stability.

Since writing about Aldous for the New Yorker in 2003, Clive James has had the last word on him. Clive summarized his article by indirectly calling Aldous a “clever dick.”[viii] But let’s not end on a negative note.

We can maximize population control and maximize equal opportunity. The two processes are mutually inclusive and amount to minimizing the K and R Class Struggle. Doing so will mold humanity into one virtual and loving family, civilize the world, eliminate every form of violence, encourage the full flowering of every individual and maximize the pace of human evolution. (E.g. A world without surplus population and with equal opportunity will also have a powerful incentive to automate or eliminate all the most drudgerous and unsafe jobs.)

We can -- once we eliminate homophobia and religious ignorance and commit ourselves to the above -- adopt a new, standardized and simplified form of the nuclear family that will make heterosexuals of all our children and guarantee them love with the perfect partner.

Latent homosexuals will continue to do their best to stop the spread of the New Social Science, but its spread, public education, is the key to improving our world. Topia fans, folks who enjoy reading about u-, dys- and mis-topias can help to turn the best of these dreams into reality. Navigate to PeaceLoveAndProgressParty.org and start reading. The books of the New Social Science are all FREE to download, and the blogs are FREE to read online.

Thanking you,

David Huttner, Peace Love and Progress Party Founder

June 20, 2019

[i] Huxley, Thomas Henry, “Evolution and Ethics,” (1893), Part XI.

[ii] Hartley, David, “Observations on Man,” (1749), vol. ii, p. 281.

[iii] Huxley, Aldous, “BNW Revisited,” (1958), Part I, https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/index.html.

[iv] Huxley, Thomas Henry, “Evolution and Ethics,” (1893), Part XII, paragraph 2.

[v] Op. cit. Part V, paragraph 3.

[vi] Huxley, Aldous, “BNW Revisited,” (1958), Part I, https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/index.html.

[vii] Huxley, Aldous, (1932), BNW, Chapter XVI.

[viii] James, Clive, “Short of Sight,” New Yorker, March 9, 2003.