Reading '1984' Makes You An Extremist?

[Karl12]

I don't know what to say anymore.

It appears that anything that might make a person think about the nature of their world now has a danger of 'radicalizing' the reader. 

I'm sure they'd prefer everyone be immersed in counterfeit pseudo-realities mate (curated by behaviour change specialists) and before long we'll probably have seemingly intelligent members of society believing snow is black.

Anyway thought the author below raised an interesting point about the Tolkien, Lewis and Shakespeare additions.

Really did wonder why they were attempting to demonize such well loved authors of British literature.. and perhaps it is just as simple as their promotion of 'resistance to evil insanity'.

Really!? Lewis, Tolkien, Orwell, Conrad, Huxley, Hobbes, Locke, Burke, Carlyle, Smith, and even Shakespeare are now to be considered potential terrorist profile components!?

What, really, is going on here?


I strongly suspect that there is an underlying "current" or theme in the writings of all these men - particularly Tolkien and Lewis - that has triggered these woke wackos, and the theme is "resistance to evil insanity". It's hard to avoid the obvious message in Tolkien, for example, as a bunch of power hungry...er... "people" are literally hell bent on taking over the rest of their world and turning it into  a charnel house of unrelenting slaughter and ugliness, and many of these "people" are the "orcs", twisted creatures "created" by the torture and twisting of Tolkien's elves into the heartless cannibalistic monsters that they are in throughout The Hobbit  and The Lord of the Rings. 

One does not have to read very far into the works of Shakespeare to confront similar memes of the power-mad literally made insane by evil and their quest for power. MacBeth comes to mind, but there are many others. Orwell's warnings over the future direction of society at the hands of such people need no introduction nor reprise here.  And as for Huxley being on the list, perhaps he too was too dangerous for daring to write a book titled The Perennial Philosophy... how dare he write about a theme that had also preoccupied Lewis et al.?

Link