- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
Some real creative genius took a lecture by Huxley, the Author of "Brave New World" and animated it. I've always maintained we should be more afraid of huxley's dystopia over Orwells. This is some spicy eye opening stuff.
An animated lecture by Aldous Huxley - The current state of our politics explained.
- Thread starter mindlessobserver
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
I like when they do stuff like this.
Thanks.
Thanks.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2019
Don't get me wrong, I like Huxley, but him bringing up Hitler is almost comically ironic since Uncle Schlomo outright bragged about doing this kind of shit, and people just completely ignored it.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
...I always felt Huxley made the more valid point then Orwell...
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2021
While it is true that the greater folly of man lies in the cultural and political application of pleasure rather than pain, the greater fact is that man is a creature of will and meaning. He got the essential facts wrong, Hitler far from being the mastermind he envisioned was the product of Germany's early surrender believing the goal lost and the method wrong. This, along with the SPD's stomping on the KPD, allowed a great man such as Hitler to ascend from the follies not merely of Versailles but of Hyperinflation and the onset of the depression in the United States of America which produced a severe economic shock in Germany and was further made worse by the bankruptcy of the Austrian Creditanstalt bank. He rose not from the rational understanding of man's unconscious but by intense feeling and intuition of man's condition and faculties.
Whatever Hitler's qualities or characteristics, today's folly is not one of sustained pain by economic setback, but one of sustained pleasure by technological breakthrough. Pavlovian Conditioning by both Women's sexuality and form being grossly admired by historically unattainable numbers and Man's intellect and curiosity being ranked by even Kiwi Farm's 'like' system. Of course the 20% margins are largely true, I oppose the exact figure preferring 1/6 being xenophilic before all else + 1/3 being xenophilic behind other considerations + 1/3 being xenophobic behind other considerations +1/6 being xenophobic before all else. However as 20% allows a more visually appealing display, I understand the choice although not the hypocrisy.
Evolution placed us alone among the creatures of this earth as to be aware of our situation. Stress forcing deeper commitment is not a surprise therefore. What I have a problem with is the idea that we should be able to arrange our society by some other way. We are animals. What hyper-rationality would you have of us? One of no pleasure to permit only the clearest thought? Anything else is a regression on the commitment to total truth and free rational thought. David Hume would of course interject mightily to the notion that reason be anything other than a slave of feelings and intuition. The truth is that passion without reason is mania, yet reason without passion is depression. The only honest answer is to pursue higher meaning, feeling, and intuition lest you be swallowed by the Zeitgeist of our times. Yet he derides both Church and State, as if purpose can be spontaneous generated outside of our culture. Obviously culture might sit outside both political and religious morals, but normally cultural generates political and religious morals.
Humanity must be educated from an early age of its follies, only then may it maximally escape its fate. Otherwise Oswald Spengler will be proven right.
Whatever Hitler's qualities or characteristics, today's folly is not one of sustained pain by economic setback, but one of sustained pleasure by technological breakthrough. Pavlovian Conditioning by both Women's sexuality and form being grossly admired by historically unattainable numbers and Man's intellect and curiosity being ranked by even Kiwi Farm's 'like' system. Of course the 20% margins are largely true, I oppose the exact figure preferring 1/6 being xenophilic before all else + 1/3 being xenophilic behind other considerations + 1/3 being xenophobic behind other considerations +1/6 being xenophobic before all else. However as 20% allows a more visually appealing display, I understand the choice although not the hypocrisy.
Evolution placed us alone among the creatures of this earth as to be aware of our situation. Stress forcing deeper commitment is not a surprise therefore. What I have a problem with is the idea that we should be able to arrange our society by some other way. We are animals. What hyper-rationality would you have of us? One of no pleasure to permit only the clearest thought? Anything else is a regression on the commitment to total truth and free rational thought. David Hume would of course interject mightily to the notion that reason be anything other than a slave of feelings and intuition. The truth is that passion without reason is mania, yet reason without passion is depression. The only honest answer is to pursue higher meaning, feeling, and intuition lest you be swallowed by the Zeitgeist of our times. Yet he derides both Church and State, as if purpose can be spontaneous generated outside of our culture. Obviously culture might sit outside both political and religious morals, but normally cultural generates political and religious morals.
Humanity must be educated from an early age of its follies, only then may it maximally escape its fate. Otherwise Oswald Spengler will be proven right.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
Also more valid if we look at how things played out.
Huxley was also Orwell's french teacher in younger years and sent him this letter in later years:
Dear Mr. Orwell,
It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book.
It arrived as I was in the midst of a piece of work that required much reading and consulting of references; and since poor sight makes it necessary for me to ration my reading, I had to wait a long time before being able to embark on Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not tell you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is.
May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution?
The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf.
The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it.
Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful.
My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World.
I have had occasion recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.
Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply in the field of government.
Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or six generations.
Another lucky accident was Freud’s inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism.
This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years.
But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.
Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World.
The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency.
Meanwhile, of course, there may be a large scale biological and atomic war — in which case we shall have nightmares of other and scarcely imaginable kinds.
Thank you once again for the book.
Yours sincerely,
Aldous Huxley
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
I've always felt Huxley had hit on something profound. When I read 1984, i was baffled why anyone thought this could possibly be our future. Brave New World on the other hand filled me with unspeakable horror. Because it was so believable. Keep in mind Huxley wrote about a future where women gave up motherhood to the State in exchange for sexual and personal "freedom" decades before the contraception pill was invented.
I never knew Huxley was a teacher of Orwells. Much like I never ran into his lecture about his fear of the ruling class in democracies discovering the principles of hypnotic control.
As a mild powerlevel, yesterday my employer introduced a cloth corporate branded mask for us all to wear. I refused to wear it. I am still wearing the bullshit temporary masks in the office and I very loudly said i would not wear corporate branded tyranny on my face. Boss has not thus far not pushed the issue. But everyone else in the office casts envious glances at my throw away mask even though they are wearing the corporate branded permanent ones.
It really seems arrogant to claim I am one of the 20% that refuses to go along, but increasingly I feel I have a moral imperative to be as loud and obnoxious as possible. Because everyone else around me is too afraid to say anything and just wants to get along to keep along.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
I believe this is the kind of courage we need in this age. Good for you.
Small bit of advice. I truly believe the key really being is to be loud and empathic. When you start thinking of yourself as obnoxious, you're surrendering terrain as if you're the unreasonable one.
---
I think part of the reason of Orwell's success is the fact that he was an ardent socialist. We know even then there were elements in academia in print media that took every opportunity to boost that kind of message.
And of course Orwell fell into exactly that trap; he thought of sex as liberation. In 1984, to have sex was an act of rebellion. Whereas I consider E Michael Jones to be correct in it being (potentially) a form of control. But Huxley preceded him by half a century, though perhaps his criticism was more that it was bereft of all meaning and humanity.
The result in any case is that Orwell orients you towards sex-as-solution, among other things, whereas Huxley orients one as meaninglessness-as-danger, including meaningless sex.
As such I consider it Orwell's take on sex at least to be satanic. I need to elaborate on what I mean by that, because I'm not coming at it from a christian angle.
I've often thought about a category of concepts that I've called "satanic teachings". I think it is a poor word, for I'm neither christian and it repels non-christians, but I've no better term for supreme evil. I'm open to suggestions of better names as I explain the concept.
---
Our current culture seems to be completely filled with satanic teachings. I'm trying to describe a type of perverse positive feedback loop.
Take for example transgenderism. If you take the official narrative, then transgenders are a natural phenomenon and some people are born that way. They have terrible mental health, happiness and suicide stats. How are these explained in the official narrative? Well the problem is that people are too unaccepting, too sexist, transmisogynist and so on. The unacceptance is what leads to their terrible health. Someone who accepts that paradigm ends up thinking that we have to criticise those who want to step on the brakes of the transgender project.
I consider it fairly obvious if you look at the nitty gritty that the paradigm is wrong. Some of the reasons why I think this is because I've known a rather considerable amount of transgenders in very nurturing and kind environments, both friends and professionally, and they were still considerably more depressed than the people who I know are right-wing in left-wing friendship and professional circles, facing daily ridicule and verbal attacks, if not incitement to defriend or be violent against them in media. That's more the political angle, and thus polarizing.
More important perhaps is to look at the suppressed science. Like the study where pimazide (anti-schizo meds) were used as succesful treatment of someone who was considering transgender surgery (and afterwards felt no desire to do so). It was far from sufficient study, but as an exploratory study, worth doing more. But of course these don't get funded and don't get through the ethics committees.
Suppressed science doesn't tell you the truth; but it tells you the agenda at the least, what is verboten.
And it is much easier to have a lighthearted and interesting conversation with someone skeptical of transgenderism on the plusses and minusses of each side than it is to have with someone convinced of the transgenderist project, who tend to be screeching, aggressive and unreasonable. That is rather telling, too.
But look at what the result of this perverse positive feedback loop is. Someone who hasn't studied it because they're not an obsessive nerd about these things, will assume (reasonably) that the paradigm is correct. That the way to deal with transgenderism is to treat them as an endangered animal, lash out against what you consider predators. But knowing that most transgenders end up being deeply unhappy, regretful of surgery, committing suicide, or like a kind of doomsday cult follower, ever more fanatical supporters in the hope that the hole in their life gets filled if they just collect another scalp.... the only way to save people from that deathmarch is to voice reasonable objections to the transgender project. But those precisely are regarded as to why transgenders are unhappy.
It's kind of like sitting in a car, speeding toward a ravine. It's still miles away and you're worried you're going to drive off the cliff. But you're confused about which pedal is the brake and which is the gas. Because your paradigm is wrong. It's inversed. It's a satanic teaching. So in an attempt to not drive off the cliff, you start going faster and faster.
There are so many of these paradigms in our current culture.
* The transgender project
* The homosexual project (satanic paradigm: people that have criticism of things surrounding homosexuality like STD's, promiscuity, pedophilia are secretly gay)
* Mass immigration project (satanic paradigm: the problem of culture clash is racism of the natives)
* The psych meds project (satanic paradigm: people that are unhappy have brain imbalances and must take meds to solve them perpetually, including meds that cause chronic depression)
* The covid mask project (satanic paradigm: civilians have to wear masks to prevent covid which attacks the lungs, when wearing masks leads to increased lung infections)
I really need to make a full list sometime.
Anyways, if someone has suggestions of a more secular term than "satanic paradgim" or "satanic teaching", I'd love to hear it, perhaps to use interchangeable depending on audience.
Let's end it with another nice visualisation of Huxley interview:
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
It all boils down to the freedom to choose. To choose to be good or evil. For humanity ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and became more then the beasts of the field. What makes things satanic is the hope of ruin that once given free choice we will choose destruction.
Satan never considered the covenant grace however. Where god would give man the freedom too choose divinity. As a christian I do not believe the mental prison being constructed for the soul of man will hold. God will bring to account those who in their arrogance would put chains on the soul of man. The longer this debt is postponed, the greater its ultimate cost.
I pray silicon valley, and the people who live and work there, never have to face the horror that is the Butlerian Jihad made real. Because if things got to that point we would write a chapter of human history in blood, where once was written in mere speculation. But I see no effort being made to avoid this ultimate conclusion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2019
Idiocracy is starting to appear optimistic.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2021
Lost me at all the 5G shit and vaccines, like motherfucker its just a new telco standard, you know whats really fucking you over? that amazon/google/apple "smart" speaker you bought like a retard and its now recording everything you say 24/7
