Aldous Huxley was correct not George Orwell

Orwell actually sort of described Huxley's world as a subset of Orwell's society. Read 1984 again and focus on the Proles.

The uber surveillance and control were for the the more intelligent people, who worked for the Party. The proles merely needed to be kept distracted.

Good find, Alaskan man! But Orwell's version is in effect still. Both systems exist in our society, and they are protecting or feeding the other.

It just comes down to the "stick and carrot" power. Orwell's system of repressive and oppressive control would be the backbone, the ordinary terrorism, the "stick" needed so that the system based on spectacle and entertainment, the "carrot" would take all its legitimacy. And you can inverse the formula as well.

This is why a modern State has this "nanny" part (the welfare programs and public services, mainly), while having a violent Police State preying on every aspect of your life. Without the nanny part, the masses would simply revolt against the oppression and the lies of the power elite. But without the murderous, repressive part, the people would stop taking the State seriously, and all their profiteers would lose their gain!

It is humbling to observe and appreciate that these two authors (who are by no means alone in their message) could be so acutely capable of conveying the unvarying self-destructive nature of the relationship between society and social order.

I can't even dream of rising to their level of art. And art is what they used to make reality available to those who insisted on making the effort to see, experience, and comprehend what was going on in the world around them.

I believe art is the final component of humanity's potential salvation. It is among the few remaining forms of language that can be forged into something transcending the political and ideological, in deference to the truth.

But off-topic as that assertion may seem, it is also to say that among the crucial elements of that language is the perceived audience of each author, for they did not engineer their message in a vacuum. Each had their own share of human experience from which to draw. And each had a unique vocabulary at their disposal.

I think both described, in essence, the proverbial 'two side of a single coin.'

We are, in all depressing earnestness, fast approaching the dawn of a new age. Expedience, the principle tool of political action, will attempt to guide us according to it's proponents' bias. Justice, the hallmark of the ideological, will be the pressure that will cause us to fret and strain against natural order. Neither alone can accomplish what only humans can achieve. Balance.

I would recommend that any who wish to make their lives meaningful in light of the inevitable choices that must be made must harken to the message behind the works of both these authors.

Principles, without the context of history, is a double-edged sword. As Orwellian imagery demonstrates, even the most refined 'just' and 'righteous' of intentions can lead to a prison-like world of oppressive servitude. Huxley, has shown that for society there is a line between what is right and what is good, and one does not necessarily guarantee the other.

I have no formula for resolving the differences between the two. I find no contradiction in their message.

Perhaps we do need an underground to serve and protect that which is truly human. But pride and vainglory seem far too important to the immature and half-awake. I would venture to say that both authors have shown us that being 'half-awake' is potentially more damning than being completely asleep.

During the dark ages, mystics attempted to protect humanity by enshrouding the truth in symbols and rituals. But as if in affirmation of Orwell and Huxley's collective works, it only gave rise to 'orders' and 'fellowships' which became prey to the same failings as society at large. Fear. Fear which led to isolationism, hermetic philosophies, and in the end, the willingness to suffer lies and aloofness, for the sake of maintaining the purity of the 'order.'

But evidently, I ramble...

Maybe you're right. I'm just going to go have some medically prescribed Soma, or whatever else is medically prescribed by my loving and caring doctor, who only cares for the best, as I enjoy whatever pleasant effect the drug will give to dull me into enjoying anything I do.

i can understand the message delivered in the original post. it is quite clear to me that the aldous huxley or brave new world version of the new world order is exactly what is happening in america.

however in other parts of the world, the use of the george orwell tactics are being used just as well, if not better.

for instance north korea

of course the further we go back into history the more we see that the western world has ALWAYS prefered the george orwell version of control over the population. such as the dark ages, before and after, when reading and education among common man did not exist. sometimes it doesn't have to be outlawed, it's (education, reading, information) just made so difficult to obtain that it simply IS NOT obtainable by the masses.

i'd like to point out that these systems of control, though they have evolved and been perfected over time through trial and error and use of new technology, these systems of control have existed since man has existed. all the way back to the summerians.

these systems of control have existed since man has existed. all the way back to the summerians.

reply to post by indigothefish


Important to point out that man existed long before civilization existed. As a matter of fact, very, very long before. Civilization represents a tiny fraction of the time man has existed. And we're talking about modern humans as currently defined, hunting and gathering, egalitarian and free. Not trying to derail the thread, I just think it important to correct this.

reply to post by joechip


what exactly are you correcting or trying to correct?

i said that since the time of the summerians mankind has been under control, summerian civilization is usually agreed apon as the first civilization, i don't beleive i've made any error.

David Icke said since they both were insiders in the Fabian Society, they were both well-versed on long-term Illuminati plans for the society control-systems and wrote from their awareness of what the plans were. (or something to that effect)

reply to post by Alaskan Man


A book writen by Neil postman in 1985 discusses this.Well worth a read.

Excellent illustration. Combination of both is dooming us, not one or another. Orwell's version is running 1984 aka China/East, while itself is also creating the fuel needed for Huxley's "brave new world" aka US/West. They are in a symbiotic relationship needed for a perfect new world order.

Its both, I don't know why it was necessary to turn it into a this vs that wrong vs right. Both are useful information.

reply to post by SassyCat


nice elaboration, i couldn't have said it better myself!

in my words, the new world order is not ONE single order of control that the whole world is under, it is the two polar opposite methods of control that not only seem to create each other but ensure the other's growth!!

Both so right! And yet so wrong.

Where is room 101? Where are the delta-epsilons? And why aren't the drugs free?

Sad joke aside, I think Huxley's metaphore focuses more on the elitist's victorious experience of a post class-war dystopia whereas Orwell described life under the totalitarian elitist oppression of the defeated proletariate.

Neither fully anticipated the advent and impact of the mass migrations and this is reflected in each of western-centric dystopias depicted.

Overall, I agree with the content of the cartoon. Techno enhanced western lifestyles are current, the cartoon is relevant to today and so in that sense, Huxley was 'right'.

I don't see Orwell and Huxley as having contradictory outlooks.It seems to me that while there is an illusion of polarity to them,they are both correct and both distopias exist today in different places and in varying measures.

They are like 'yin and yang'.Combined, they form a pretty comprehensive picture of today's world.

It's worth noting also, that Orwell was a student of Huxley at one point.

But if we live happily till the very end, what does it matter?

If we get to eat what we want and play on our iPhones, then why should something else prevent me from being distracted?


I think what we fear most is the "transition" from the Brave New World to Nineteen-Eighty Four.

People's feeble minds won't be able to take it so they are left in a catatonic state.

I have a question for you...

Does it matter which one of these guys were 1st in what? Really think about it, we didnt listen to a damn thing they said..

So either one can be 1st but both were right and we didnt listen..

Can you guess who it sucks to be, I will give you a hint.. Go look in a mirror and ask who it sucks to be and then look real close to the mirror..

reply to post by Alaskan Man

It was bread, and circuses for the masses and crucifixion for enemies of the state in Rome.
But it was also alien slavery (1/3 the population) and warfare.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Welcome to the fall,
again.

Excellent post - best I've seen in AGES.

Originally posted by XPLodER
star and flag op
i think that both systems are in effect
one is self enslaving the other takes a bit more effort
lol

nice bro we do it to ourselfs mostly

xploder

I believe your correct, they are using the Brave New World scenario for us. So that we enslave ourselves, but on the outskirts of the plan there lays the 1984 scenario being positioned so when they get ready to stop the bread and circuses, we will be to late to do anything.

reply to post by Alaskan Man


glad to hear you're working alaskan man. takes a giant load off the shoulders and the mind to have a steady and reliable income. great post, one of my professors was remarking on both Huxley and Orwell about 2 weeks ago, though not in the same context. this is a great little illustrated short, and does a good job of comparing and contrasting the 2 men's horrific vision of the future.

you've really got to ponder who's vision of the future has come to fruition, and I believe both have in their own way. I would agree that if you had to pick one, Huxley was more spot on. I do, however, agree with others on here who state that its a vicious combination of the two.

good to have you back, brotha. hope your career goes well and I look forward to seeing some more of your .02 around.