|Agonia.Net | Policy | Mission||Contact | Participate|
|Article Communities Contest Essay Multimedia Personals Poetry Press Prose _QUOTE Screenplay Special|
￭ Escape Gates
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2008-03-01 | |
Time has grown dimmer as I closed the cover following the last page of Orwell’s “1984”.
A sense of creeping uneasiness, something of a threat, the menace of more 1985s, 1986s, 1997s, 2008s and so on, blurred the breath I was pushing down my lungs as the coronation of my “surely this can’t be true” desires. Why did I wish to start reading right-away Plato’s “Politeia-The Republic”, was a question yet to be answered. Maybe the surging memory of some high-school teachings about what the state as a nation’s governing body should be, from where the grim statement according to which “the state is not the nation”, rang the threat-bells of something having gone utterly wrong in this worn-out world.
What initially shocked me somewhere on the 71st page of a Penguin Book edition of “1984”, was a statement most probably unnoticed by the creationists of public education’s battlefields:
“But this was concrete evidence; it was a fragment of the abolished
past, like a fossil bone which turns up in the wrong stratum, and
destroys a geological theory.”
It would be useless to present the whole narrative’s momentum now, having therefore decided for expediency’s sake to rhetorically ask only about the reasons why such a well-known writer as Orwell, unknown anyways for his either evolutionist or creationist stands, would have written such a creationist jewel? I guess some hints of these reasons would be offered by Orwell’s clear sight concerning the utter dangers of truth, for those making a bountiful living from manipulating truths about the past:
“It was enough to blow the party to atoms, if in some way it
[the abolished past] could have been published to the
world, and its significance made known.”
Having thought for a while about our common 2008, I couldn’t help not see the dreadful similitude between the Orwellian Party’s all-detail effort to pervert the truth about the past, and modern secular science, with its army of evolution promoting “inner Party” members, busy with blotting out from every school and every textbook any references to a past determined by God and the Bible, surely because of fearing that even an honestly sceptic, comparative study of the evidences for creation against those of evolution, should give a deadly blow to this falsely-scientific world’s ruling elite. Unfortunately for evolutionism, not only geological strata are loaded with misplaced “evolution proofs”, but all found fossils are clear evidences for a never-happened transitional development.
What follows? The crystal-clear evidence for the existence of a now global society long-stripped of anything would even resemble to what democracy was supposed to be. A reading of 1984’s pages 182 and 183 should open the eyes of all freedom loving people:
“The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon.
And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally
full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is
whatever the Party chooses to make it.”
If we would dare replace “state” for “Party”, the result is so shocking, that it would cause as thought-pattern earthquake even in the mind of any staunch anti-conspiracy-theory citizen. Why would a modern society’s state, called according to all democratic constitutions to defend the well-being of a country’s all citizens, force a real-past independent, unsupported theory, down the acceptability threshold of a vast majority of people? Because while practically all state-controlled secularized educational boards claim to rely on evolution exactly for neutrality’s sake, it would remain cunningly unnoticed that the theory of evolution has been purposefully designed in order to discredit a long-established, well working creationism, making thus evolutionism a profoundly (anti)-religious matter.
What are then the means through which such a sordid dictatorship would achieve its brain-washing ends? Orwell thoughtfully coined what is being otherwise commonly known as post-modern pragmatism:
“Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of
the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of
purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while
genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient,
[…] to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account
of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary.”
Regardless for the time given of what Ingsoc was all about, how would it be possible not to observe what such a state, under the disguise of its care for the people, really does? History, the unfaked one, would witness for the citizens of Rome reduced to a level of brutish carelessness for which the sight of wild beasts fighting against each other in the Coliseum would make no difference against that of gladiators killing each other, or the lions furiously killing entire families of innocent Christians, as long as the state provided enough bread besides the bloody circus. According to Orwell’s apocalyptic vision:
“What opinion the masses hold, or do not hold, is looked on
as a matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual
liberty because they have no intellect.”
What has become of a state which while calling itself “democratically elected” does reduce its country’s citizens to a thoughtless mass?
Plato has devised a wise answer to this question by the end of his Politeia’s “338 e” chapter, where he states that all governments will impose laws and rules suiting themselves, and not those in whose name they are supposed to govern, enforcing them harshly against anyone daring not to comply. Such a governing model is actually hidden dictatorship, which allows as in the case of the theory of evolution, a state sponsored and dictated brain-washing educational model, which would only fit the dark purposes of a godless elite, having only one purpose in mind, the ultimate control of those created by God unto a perfect and blessed harmony with Himself.
And what is the lethal danger of allowing such a mentality to lure our God-given freedom’s senses into a tragic slumber? 1984’s Winston Smith has learned the “gin-scented” answer to this question:
“O cruel needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile
from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides
of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle
was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved the
Unfortunately though, when one arrives at the point of “loving” the teachings of a system which does everything to suppress God and His Word from public life, his or her devoted love for God would grow painfully cold. Because:
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one,
and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise
the other.” Mat 6:24
|Home of Literature, Poetry and Culture. Write and enjoy articles, essays, prose, classic poetry and contests.|