The Thought Police work overtime on the same sex marriage debate

PIERS AKERMAN, The Sunday Telegraph
FANS of the prescient George Orwell would well know that Big Brother’s Thought Police demanded that the proles — the working class — must be made to believe that 2 + 2 = 5.

His classic 1984, written in 1948, warned that the great superstate would be controlled by a minority privileged elite that would persecute individualism and independent thinking as thought crime — detected and punished by the Thought Police.

Today, in modern Australia, 33 years after 1984, Big Brother is alive and well and the Thought Police has never been more active.

It is utterly unimaginable to a sane adult that Western thought and civilisation would actually need defending while the horrors of totalitarian Marxism and fascism remain in living memories.

Yet in our debased universities and debauched public service there is rooted a nihilistic cult determined to teach our children that the great advances of the Enlightenment were either false or never existed and that those who dare think otherwise, or even think for themselves and hold different beliefs need state-enforced punishment.

Orwell foresaw this in both 1984 and Animal Farm. Lewis Carroll would possibly say we are living evidence that Humpty Dumpty was quite correct when he said: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. The question is which is to be master — that’s all.”

There is a bullying clique at large today that insists it wants the word marriage to mean the union of people of the same sex, or no sex or of some other thing called LGBTIQ — add a letter as you see fit at the moment.

These people have largely already changed dramatically the popular and well understood definitions of the words queer and gay and co-opted the iconography of the rainbow to be a symbol of their movement, forever altering the experiments with paints and crayons for millions of little children.

They are bullies, flying in the face of every cultural norm the world has witnessed. Not one religion or mainstream philosophy has ever embraced the notion of homosexual marriage.

On Friday however at schools across Australia pupils were encouraged to wear a purple item of apparel to show support for the self-proclaimed victims of homophobia and discrimination and some were even warned that to not display solidarity with this minority would lead to mental distress.

This nonsense is rampant in some areas of the private sector, the public service, even in the military, where, we are told, that support for these apparently mentally unstable gender fluid individuals is essential for the defence of the nation.

The homosexual lobby group has employed every emotional ploy and, with the assistance of slick public relations, has attempted to portray the question of homosexual marriage as one of equality. It sounds softer but it is meaningless. The union of two people of the same sex can only be called marriage if one embraces Humpty Dumpty’s view of the world.

The author of a recent letter in The Australian reflected the absurdity and lack of substance for the case of redefining words to suit the user, penning: “Penny Wong should be legally allowed to marry her partner and the mother of her children.”

Senator Wong may well have a partner and that partner may well have borne children but that partner is not “the mother” of Ms Wong’s children. Unless every biologist in the world is wrong, the partner is the mother of those children and while they may have been adopted by Ms Wong they were fathered by a male.

Yes, while I hate to shatter the illusions of the sisterhood, a chap is still involved in procreation, even as a donor — in the procreation of the children Ms Wong’s partner indubitably gave birth to.

The soft-sell through children’s books of the notion that someone has two mothers or two fathers flies in the face of the truth.

Should the homosexual lobby ever succeed in changing the definition of marriage, it is quite likely that expressing such an obvious fact will become illegal.

As the disgraced former Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs said last week, we are in an era of “post-truth” politics. She should know. Her claims relating to the pursuit of the late cartoonist Bill Leak were shown to be false, as was her claim that the The Australian’s commentator Chris Kenny didn’t approach her for comment.

Orwell would have loved the term post-truth. It reeks of newspeak. The language with which he imagined Big Brother would replace English when history was erased and past events written out of the books (as Stalin and Mao attempted to do) and disposed of in memory holes.

Where are the adults today, the intellects like Samuel Johnson who wrote his dictionary of the English language in 1755, and notably said: “You may have a reason why two and two should make five, but they will still make but four.”

Or as Orwell wrote in 1984: “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.

“It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy.

“The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable?

“If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable — what then?”

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow us Facebookrss