Huxley was a seer. Blair was a propagandist (UK military intelligence for certain). BNW was written to enlighten and very clearly identify the fundamental issues that were and remain in dispute between the thinking set regarding collective human development. (Ch. 2-3 are required reading.) 1984 (and its companion volume, AF) are designed to confuse and ultimately crush the Human spirit. The former effectively says "resistance is futile". I hate that fucking book. "Not even Love". "Do you believe in God, Vincent?". AF is such a mind-fuck, but a true description of world economic structure. Who are the "farmers", b_b, and why are they categorically different than the "animals"? (They want you to focus on the Pigs -- the Left-Right ideologues, but ultimately Mr. Blair subscribed to the notion of the Exceptionalism of the Aristocracy.) > a Brave New World is unstoppable so long as there are plenty of attractive women an entertainment options. http://i.imgur.com/gtrLq.jpg No doubt. Why do you think they flood the internets with pornography?
Did you ever read the companion to BNW that Huxley wrote years later, "Brave New World Revisited"? Its more a long form essay (http://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/). Init he describes how his predictions in BNW weren't some god-given visions that happen to be coming true, but rather a methodical and logical set of conclusions based on the direction the world seemed to be headed in the 30s. It really is a must read for anyone who is a fan of BNW. It puts the story, which is already amazing, in a much brighter light.
> a methodical and logical set of conclusions based on the direction the world seemed to be headed Hasn't really changed that much as far as I can see. The surveillance society -- the most extreme and egregious example being the one hoisted on the land of Magna Carta (alas!) -- is Orwellian, but the social engineering that is going on globally is straight out of BNW.
http://www.orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/epfc... I also felt that AF was the more effective book. So... who are the farmers?
> So... who are the farmers? You tell me! Per above elaboration in the preface you cited, Humans are, one would think, the "West[ern privileged class]". The "Farm" before "[Marxist/Fasicst/Islamic ;)] revolution" is like goold old England: "Yet one must remember that England is not completely democratic. It is also a capitalist country with great class privileges and (even now, after a war that has tended to equalise everybody) with great differences in wealth. But nevertheless it is a country in which people have lived together for several hundred years without major conflict, in which the laws are relatively just and official news and statistics can almost invariably be believed, and, last but not least, in which to hold and to voice minority views does not involve any mortal danger." He worked for the crown of England and this book is simply making the case for that system: flawed but practically/"relatively" just. Rather regrettably, he chose a metaphor that directly evokes notions of natural order for some readers. (He wants to pin on Marx, so be it. But you don't have to take his word for it.) He also has a whopper hidden in his " several hundred years without major conflict", unless he means starting with England after the Orange Revolution of 1688, which immediately led, among other things, to the establishment of The Bank of England. As far I can tell, England was the first country overthrown by certain European Royal families (most importantly the Dutch), the Bankster Order (Jews and Italians), and their allied (but a notch lower) Mercantile Families (which were join stock holders in their "companies"). Does this look familiar to you?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Flag_of_... (1801. Strange business, all this.) Meet the farmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London Meet the Neo-Feudal Lords: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange-Nassau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/former-steering-committee-... (Godverdomme) In my mind, it is entirely clear, that Mr. Blair was arguing in favor of the established neo-feudalist order that has been waging war since 17th century, seeking global domination. Herr Marx was and remains a "Red" herring.
The farmers did really get to me, and the pigs looking like them at the end was an interesting statement. I won't argue with the farmers being the financiers, and that is what makes AF so very interesting. It could be rewritten today, for our 'capitalist' countries. It's ostensibly an anti-communist book, but it's bigger than that. I think, in part, AF addresses 's take on BNW: A 1984 world is doomed to revolution, a Brave New World is unstoppable so long as there are plenty of attractive women an entertainment options. -The agreed form of government is not the actual form of government. Communism's biggest problem was that it wasn't well-tolerated, and actual governance couldn't proceed. 1984 had an intolerable apparent form of government. So, I think we largely agree.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/10/hidden_louis_vuitton_ad... A closer look: http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/print/2009/1/louis_vuitt... Always loved that caption. He really must have needed the cash to pose for that. (What is in that bag? A big cash bonus? I usually put mine in the trunk .. ;) One can write a book just based on that one advert. That is one thing to admire about BNW societies: everything is in plain sight. http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/196056.... > I think, in part, AF addresses b_b's take on BNW: A 1984 world is doomed to revolution, a Brave New World is unstoppable so long as there are plenty of attractive women an entertainment options. The link b_b provided is an interesting read. (That is what Huxley is arguing.) The crux of the matter (npi) is materialism and its attendant moral dilemmas for the right minded materialist who worry about "ends" and "means". BNWs seem to follow after 1984s where the society in question has strong non-rational/trans-rational/spiritual (take your pick) characteristics, typically after upturning of the ancient regime (in the full sense and in every dimension and not merely political). I am specifically referencing France, Russia, and China. The pattern appears to be the destruction of "non-rational" thought and delegitimization of galvanizing dissent to allow for the emergence of the "rational" technocratic governance. Once both "God" and "Idea" are debunked and put behind, what remains a problem for those who seek to control and shape societies is biology and psychology. http://www.phombo.com/art-photography/chen-zhun-photography-... http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_488fb2ea0100o94t.html << for the Spring Festival 2012 with direct reference to the migrant workers' transportation. (I am fully expecting to see the Iranian version of this after the so called "Islamic Republic" of Iran has performed its designated task. Sure would love to be proven wrong. I trust this being a reddit diaspora I do not have to mention what happened to Russia and Eastern Europe in context of hyper objectification of women dressed up in guise of "empowerment".) > attractive women I noticed neither of you mentioned attractive men and the sexual titillation of the female in the BNW. Surely emasculated men can not be that attractive to women? But that is what they (mostly) get in BNW societies. Another huge topic.
That, is it. I noticed neither of you mentioned attractive men and the sexual titillation of the female in the BNW. Surely emasculated men can not be that attractive to women? But that is what they (mostly) get in BNW societies. Another huge topic. Interesting. Maybe a work in progress for the new BNWs? Facebook?
I assert that America remains a spiritual nation. We haven't had our 1984 yet. Not fully (thus "Patriot" Act/NDAA/etc -- these are 1984-ish 'doublespeak' documents). Plenty of people believe in God in this country and European intellectuals will never fail to note this characteristic in their "provincial" cousins, and, (one remains hopeful that) equally large portions strongly believe in the ideas that are foundation of this nation (which also directly reference God). Both are vehemently under attack. Or look at this other "obstinate" hold-out folk among the "developed" world: http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/101/ani1.html [preamble] http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/1/101.en.pdf [pdf - full] (Lovely document, btw. Should be required reading.)
Here is a clue: http://photo.blog.sina.com.cn/list/blogpic.php?pid=488fb2eat... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/J20_riotc...
His linkedin page: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/anurup-bhattacharya/11/1a6/865 Apparently they are not -- not even the children -- are citizens of Norway. That's a bit creepy.