Posts Tagged → utopian
1932, 451, 1984, and now 722
Numbers are an important part of advanced human cultures. Numbers are how we calculate things. Numbers give substance to the things that advanced cultures measure and value, like raw materials or produced widgets or dollars in your bank account. While numbers are often thought of as mere “math” and thus relegated to the world of nerdy geekdom, in many ways, a particular fixed number can come to symbolize or represent certain ideas or cultural markers, too.
One fixed number that has become common parlance in some political discussions, on both the intellectual left and the violent left, is “88.” Apparently, the number eight followed by another number eight can mean, to some people, the eighth letter of the English alphabet, H, followed by another H. In an apparent crypto secret language, this is supposed to mean “Heil Hitler.”
The number 1932 is the year that Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World was published. Huxley watched the rise of the racialist Nazi German state, coupled with the rise of modern science, and foresaw how such a diabolical mating could produce truly evil offspring. Like selecting which child with what genes to preserve alive, and which to kill off. To the point where the government (in the book) was allocating certain outcomes of intellectual and physical capacity to every human born under the government’s control. Most people (in the book) were designated as low intelligence physical workers, and had their embryo so tweaked while in utero, and a lucky few embryos were left alone to develop normally and live up to their full potential.
Brave New World is rightfully an important book because of its warning against too much government power, and against the use of science to artificially manipulate human outcomes from the embryo stage on through the end of life. For a book written almost a hundred years ago, it sure seems prescient! Human DNA, freaky and immoral experiments, coercive governments everywhere… our own 2026 does not seem too far removed from the bad world that Huxley foresaw in 1932.
The movie THX1138 is loosely based on Brave New World, as are many other futuristic, dystopian movies. Most of them have robots controlling human populations with extreme violence, many of them involve humans trying to escape their walled environment.
Another number that is used a lot in all kinds of political discussions is 1984, which is the title of a book by George Orwell. Published in 1949, after the Soviet Union’s Iron Curtain fell across Eastern Europe and the mask came off of the homicidal Russian socialists, the book 1984 refers to the then-far-off year of 1984, in which Orwell foresees the possibility of a “dystopian” state, where totalitarian government has its boot forever on the human face.
Dystopian is the opposite of utopian. Utopia being the promised land euphoric state of socialist bliss and abundance and easy living harmony absolutely danggummit guaranteed by all socialist dictators and genocidal mass murderers, like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, a few others. And it was the 1945 fall of Adolf Hitler’s racialist socialist thousand year utopia, coupled with the 1947 un-masked USSR socialist project’s oppressive dictatorship, that led Orwell to pen his warning to all who might follow in those same footsteps in the future.
So, the number 1984 has come to mean dystopian, totalitarian government, cruelty, mass surveillance, no individual rights. In a nutshell, socialism.
Another iconic number is 451, the number in the title of Ray Bradbury’s book about the temperature at which paper (books) burn. In Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury foresees a society where books are burned by the government, to prevent humans from accessing true knowledge. This is done to keep humans ignorant of truth and fact, to deprive them of access to knowledge, to make them dependent upon the government for all information. And in Bradbury’s book, if you have books, you had better hide them. Because the police will come and put you in jail, and burn all of your books.
Bradbury got a good dose of his fears from the famous Nazi book burnings in the 1930s and 1940s. Those were themselves based on the massive book burnings held by the Church in the 1300s through the 1700s across Europe. Because information control is everything…and ideas about individual freedom and individual rights can never be tolerated by a totalitarian government.
Given the past bout of official censorship that our planet did not enjoy over the 2020-2022 covid19 plandemic, it is impossible to argue with Bradbury’s fears. But that was merely about digital access and digital information. Literally today, we have Anthropic, the artificial intelligence company, digitizing rare books, and then shredding them and destroying them.
Now why would someone desire to make digital copies of books, but then destroy the actual physical book? Is it because they want to be the sole arbiter and source of what those original books actually said? What if the digital versions are edited or deleted or monkeyed with? Unless you have the actual physical book copy in your hands, you would have to rely on the digital version being presented to you.
Finally, I would like to introduce a new number to our list of politco-cultural numbers discussion: 722.
The number 722 is the important page number in my edition of the 1965 book Dune, that majestic and iconic sci-fi thriller that has spawned a bunch of movies (the 1984 version of Dune is the best, ironically, if we are talking about symbolic numbers).
On page 722 of my edition of Dune, readers are exposed to a purportedly dangerous and radical idea, at least in the current parlance of our brave new world of socialist academia and its attached totalitarian political functionaries: The human gender binary.
“Paul said: There is in each of us an ancient force that takes and an ancient force that gives. A man finds little difficulty facing that place within himself where the taking force dwells, but it’s almost impossible for him to see into the giving force without changing into something other than man. For a woman, the situation is reversed…..These things are so ancient within us, Paul said, that they’re ground into each separate cell of our bodies. We’re shaped by such forces. You can say to yourself Yes, I see how such a thing may be. But when you look inward and confront the raw force of your own life unshielded, you see your peril. You see that this could overwhelm you. The greatest peril to the Giver is the force that takes. The greatest peril to the Taker is the force that gives. It’s as easy to be overwhelmed by giving as by taking.”
It is interesting to see that the number twelve be shaped so strongly by the Taker today, when the other eleven were all Givers. For today the jury in the Lindsey Clancy trial was unable to come to a unanimous verdict. Lindsey Clancy admits to having strangled her three children to death. The jury was simply charged with finding her guilty of murder, or not. Accounts of those present in the court room say that the eleven women on the jury were openly in support of a Not Guilty verdict, and that the one man on the jury seemed to be the lone voice wanting her to be held accountable for murdering her children, with her hands, in their home.
You know, all these futuristic dystopian books that predicted an upside down world, where government has absolute control through censorship and violence against the population, and where basic truths are no longer accepted by those in power, these predictions or warnings all seem to have come to fruition in the Lindsey Clancy trial outcome today.
For almost a whole generation, school teachers and academics, and now elected officials, tell us the un-truth that humans are not binary. They say that there is no woman or man, that the gender lines are blurred and false, and that we each have our “own truth” that may deviate from the measurable and demonstrable truth that we can see, calculate, scientifically map.
We Americans are at profound risk right now. We have a culture where a woman can strangle her own small children, and not only be surrounded by adoring groupies dressed in pink, but where a jury of women, of motherhood and Givers, cannot find this murderous witch Guilty of the crime of murder. Of innocent, vulnerable little children, by their mommy.
This cultural shift away from basic justice might be a result of all the abortion-on-demand-up-until-age-ten stuff that has been pushed, or all the “my truth says I should murder you because I don’t like your politics” stuff that has been pushed. The whole “By any means necessary” socialist chanting stuff. The idea that wrong is right, and murder is justified if you feel OK with it that one time, because her gender is, at that moment, your biggest identity marker.
Moral relativism run amok. The natural outcome of moral relativism.
The number 722 and all that it stands for is going to be attacked, demonized, and Dune will become relegated to the heap of books to be burned, for stating the obvious, the scientifically proven, the basic binary of life on our planet. Get yourself a copy of Dune and hide it away in your attic, for future generations of prospective readers, along with copies of 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451. To know the truth, and how to arrive at right and not wrong decisions.
Screenshot
Screenshot
Happy Solstice Father’s Day
Father’s Day 2026 coincides with the longest day of the year, the Summer Solstice. In traditional societies, both winter and summer solstices are central to religion and culture, often gathering people together for initial crop harvests, or for winter-time prayers for a successful coming-year crop yield.
Is it not meaningful or symbolic that celebrating Fatherhood got the longest day of the year in 2026? After all, fatherhood, which is also stewardship, careful management, husbandry, a pile of other synonyms and principles for judicious oversight and watchfulness, is central to any successful family and enterprise?
Fathers have always been central to healthy families, and there is no reason to artificially exclude dads now from healthy families.
About twenty years ago, a dear old friend from Penn State emailed a photo of a single mom, tattooed and pierced, holding her young child. An early form of meme, the photo’s caption said something about how women don’t need no stinkin’ men in their lives and can do everything just fine themselves. It was an angry feminist attack on men in general, and on fatherhood specifically, summing up the then-spiraling and now-spiraled-and-disintegrated state of American society and family alike.
Boy, or man, did that meme age poorly! Nowadays, even the most ardently leftwing sociology professor is acknowledging the necessity of two-parent homes for having children grow up into healthy, adjusted, functioning adults. The data today is simply overwhelming: Men and women together build the soundest, most resilient families. Everything else is somewhere on a Bell Curve’s downhill slope toward failure.
Historically, Dad was both provider and defender. In a world of fang, claw, and tooth, the mighty arm of Dad could wield a spear, a knife, a sword, and keep hairy death at bay. And because both hunter-gatherer and agrarian societies are based on human muscle, Dad’s brawn was central to family survival.
Today, in the West, Dad has been re-invented, mostly against his will and against his interest, against the interest of happy and healthy families. Part class clown and all goof, Dad’s role in popular culture has taken a steady beating from the far-left anarchists running American academia and media. But nature has not changed, and human nature has not changed, and despite heavily promoted fuzzy notions of utopian lifestyles, do-it-all moms and super-women, Dad is still just as needed today as he was a thousand years ago, or a hundred thousand years ago.
If nothing else, a hundred thousand years of human evolution still wants, needs, the comfort of Dad’s words, his encouragement, his bravery, leadership, risk-taking, his steadfast commitment to his family. Not every Dad is up to the job at 100% all the time, but just showing up every day is about 75% of the job. And like in baseball, batting 75% is pretty damned good. Most kids will cut their own Dad some slack, if they believe that he has tried to do his best to be the father they needed.
Thanks, Dad and Dads everywhere. We all love you and we all appreciate you. You are the longest day in our lives, because you have the heaviest influence on us. Hopefully, Dad uses his influence for the good and health of his family. After all, that is being a Dad…
Screenshot
The morning after the morning after
One cannot help but wonder how liberals continue on with their destructive policies after such a thorough rejection by the voters of their icon and patron saint, Barack Hussein Obama.
I mean, my God, if JFK returned from the dead today he’d be a right-wing Republican on every count, on every policy.
JFK would not recognize his Democrat Party.
Where did this leftist madness come from?
I have some answers, but insufficient time to write about them, now. If you are politically interested enough to be reading this, then you are probably literate enough to imagine what any patriot might say.
Two words help us make this succinct: Marx, Utopia.
The psychology behind utopianism walks a fine line between religiously-inspired fervor and a self-destructive insanity that sees no reality in front of its face.
The idea of giving away gifts of free stuff to everyone who is some sort of a victim is psychologically gratifying. There are few bigger thrills than being generous to those in need. You just know it’s the right thing to do.
But government’s coercive theft of taxpayer money and redistributive policies are not charity.
And when those goals become entangled with a political party’s hunger for power, my goodness, the next thing you know a nation’s national security is thrown out the window so that millions of takers can walk in and vote themselves more gifts from the makers.
That is unsustainable insanity, and it will lead to a civil war and the end of our incredible nation.
So now that it is the morning after the morning after, and sane people, however deluded by a quest for power they may be, are wondering aloud about how this political earthquake happened, may I make a small request?
Ask this: What would JFK do?
It is likely that you will come to the conclusion that JFK would have done nothing that Obama has done, nor Harry Reid nor Nancy Pelosi. JFK would not have recognized these deceitful characters as Americans. And you shouldn’t either.
Their destructive, power-mad binge has damaged the Democrat label more than helped it, never mind what it has done to America.
Please come home, my dear Democrat friends. Please return to America, as it was founded, not as the “transformed” utopia you would have it be.