Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (BNW)

[Razmear]

Huxley definitely saw the writing on the wall and was at least as visionary as Orwell.

A quote from 1959 that seems to have come true:
On psychological totalitarianism [14] (1959): "And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing ... a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

From Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley

Also, Huxley died the same day as JFK, I was checking Wiki to see if he was killed or died of natural causes but there was no info there. I seem to recall him being killed tho. Just some candy for the conspiracy folks to chew on.

eb

 

[NewEnd]

Dammit, I hate being surrounded by prozac zombies. X(

 

[Optatron]

Watch Idiocracy and tell me you'd rather not have NWO, eugenics instead.

 

[rajibo]

Also, Huxley died the same day as JFK, I was checking Wiki to see if he was killed or died of natural causes but there was no info there. I seem to recall him being killed tho. Just some candy for the conspiracy folks to chew on.

eb

Huxley died of cancer, but had his wife inject him with LSD to send him off. Brilliant way to go if you ask me.

 

[ramallamamama]

Huxley family line are reptilians. And the issue is?

j/k. (maybe not)

Good thread IP.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

This is a joke. So first he is a member of the elite because his brother believed in conservation evolution and happened to be an internationalist, and his grandfather was a bit controversial.

You know, maybe Rand Paul is a servant of the elite. After all, his father Ron Paul is considered quite controversial and almost revolutionary. He is describing libertarian ideals because he is trying to get us used to minarchal dystopia where man loses all order and collapses to the Stone Age at the benefit of the elite.

After all, its the same principle at play.

Or you know, we could go with what is much more plausible. Aldous Huxley could have just had an open-mind...

So, should I assume that you've read Galton Darwin's Next Million Years and rejected his thesis. And should I also assume that you are a student of the various techniques of propaganda and information management, but somehow think that Huxley has opted not to employ those techniques even though he traveled in circles that did? Or, am I to assume that you're intimately familiar with Erwin Cameron's work and have concluded that that work was isolated from any of the concepts that Huxley espouses? Finally, am I to conclude that you have trained yourself in double speak and determined that Huxley was not employing this technique in his writing.

I'm simply attempting to come to terms with where you find the joke.... specifically. I mean, someone wouldn't claims that all of this is just a joke without having researched the full spectrum of doctrines and concepts available to someone like Huxley, then bouncing that against the larger framework of techniques and goals espoused by other significant thought leaders in the elite movement, now would they?

Perhaps this thread maybe of value, it is currently very short.

 

[NewEnd]

So, should I assume that you've read Galton Darwin's Next Million Years and rejected his thesis. And should I also assume that you are a student of the various techniques of propaganda and information management, but somehow think that Huxley has opted not to employ those techniques even though he traveled in circles that did? Or, am I to assume that you're intimately familiar with Erwin Cameron's work and have concluded that that work was isolated from any of the concepts that Huxley espouses? Finally, am I to conclude that you have trained yourself in double speak and determined that Huxley was not employing this technique in his writing.

I'm simply attempting to come to terms with where you find the joke.... specifically. I mean, someone wouldn't claims that all of this is just a joke without having researched the full spectrum of doctrines and concepts available to someone like Huxley, then bouncing that against the larger framework of techniques and goals espoused by other significant thought leaders in the elite movement, now would they?

Perhaps this thread maybe of value, it is currently very short.

you got Huxley confused with Wells, dude... do you really have any clue what you are talking about?

 

[Imperial]

I claimed it was a joke because of how it seemed to be described at first. From your first post, you basically claimed two points: A) His family had nefarious connections that I must assume were passed on to Huxley and B) His work could indoctrinate someone into being ready for a major paradigm shift and governmental shift so it didn't seem so far-fetched.

The first point is simply a guilt by association and the second point is only provable when you know the motives. I am assuming you claim to know Huxley's motives based on his familial connections, which is a guilt by association. Too many weak links in the argument.

 

[ramallamamama]

Keep up the good info, IP.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

you got Huxley confused with Wells, dude... do you really have any clue what you are talking about?

Where was this confusion? Please be specific, point it out.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

I claimed it was a joke because of how it seemed to be described at first. From your first post, you basically claimed two points: A) His family had nefarious connections that I must assume were passed on to Huxley and B) His work could indoctrinate someone into being ready for a major paradigm shift and governmental shift so it didn't seem so far-fetched.

The first point is simply a guilt by association and the second point is only provable when you know the motives. I am assuming you claim to know Huxley's motives based on his familial connections, which is a guilt by association. Too many weak links in the argument.

A member of the elite establishment does not write dystopian pieces to warn the public, nor do they do this as mere mental jumping jacks.

If you have a different opinion, why don't you simply state it with some supporting notions. I'd be very interested to learn what you think about Huxley, what he was attempting to do with this work and why he wrote it. Any support you have for your opinions would be appreciated.

 

[NewEnd]

A member of the elite establishment does not write dystopian pieces to warn the public, nor do they do this as mere mental jumping jacks.

Whatever, dude. People are creative because they want to be, and sci-fi writers in general like to put warnings in their writings, it's basically essential to the definition of sci-fi.


Or are you going to try and peddle that it wasn't even written by Huxley, but a bunch of marionette puppeteers?

 

[InterestedParticipant]

you got Huxley confused with Wells, dude... do you really have any clue what you are talking about?

You said I confused Huxley with Wells. Where did I do that?

Whatever, dude. People are creative because they want to be, and sci-fi writers in general like to put warnings in their writings, it's basically essential to the definition of sci-fi.


Or are you going to try and peddle that it wasn't even written by Huxley, but a bunch of marionette puppeteers?

What are you afraid of?

 

[NewEnd]

You said I confused Huxley with Wells. Where did I do that?

Mah bat

What are you afraid of?

I am afraid of nothing, son. I am not afraid to die, and I am certainly not afraid of a book I just read. I am not afraid it is going to make me into some zombie, or change my thoughts, because I bank a helluva a lot more on what I observe in life, then what I read in a book.

Your warnings are nothing but paranoid nonsense. Huxley was no agent, and if he was, sign me up for his agenda... because his book was fucking good. It was written in that puerile 1930's language, but the overall idea, (and I am not even sure exactly what that idea was) was thought provoking, to say the least.

Seeing a puppetmaster behind every creator, and warning about books to me is not thought provoking, it's just annoying and a form of severe paranoid jack-assery. Capice? I am pretty sure you have tons of posts on these forums warning everybody is an elite stand in. I have lived long enough to tell an honest man when I meet one (and there are not many), I don't need your stupid warnings that they are actually some kind of puppet. It's just stupid and a waste of time.

 

[Razmear]

Post #4 confused Wells with Huxley, not the OP.
That being said, just because Huxley's brother was pro-eugenics doesn't mean that he was too. Same with the rest of the family tree. Perhaps his arguments with his brother helped to shape his philosophy in the opposite direction?
A. Huxley was a vegetarian, drug using sci-fi author, so it's a fair chance that he disagreed with his 'establishment' family on many issues.

eb

 

[ramallamamama]

Your warnings are nothing but paranoid nonsense

Keep drinkin the koolaid, brother.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

I want to make sure this thread does not get derailed.

Hence, I want to make sure people get that this recent movie version of BNW was directed at the elite's technocracy just as must as it was directed at the public.

I believe the primary messages for the technocracy is reflected in this quoted post:

I saw the BNW movie that was mentioned in this thread, and one of my biggest takeaways was the messages that it sent to the elite's technocracy (ie. the people that carry out the elite's objectives):

1. "Savages" (ie. the people who rebuke "civilization" and live in no-mans land outside of the elite's "Habitat" areas) must NOT posses books or any other cultural symbols or sources of information.
   
2. Savages can NEVER be re-introduced into "Society," even on an experimental basis.
   
3. Savages must be totally oppressed... all elements of humanity, including history, must be kept from them.
   
4. One Savage with a few books can wreak havoc on "Society" at some later date

What I am trying to point out is that these dystopic stories not only serve as warnings for the public, they also serve as predictive programming for the public (preparing the public to accept a given future) as well as instruction manual for the elite's technocracy.

 

[Optatron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm
Human species 'may split in two'

that's why we need technology, if we can use robots to replace humans, we not only don't need slaves, we don't need to work ourselves!

 

[InterestedParticipant]

--- double post ---

 

[InterestedParticipant]

Post #4 confused Wells with Huxley, not the OP.
That being said, just because Huxley's brother was pro-eugenics doesn't mean that he was too. Same with the rest of the family tree. Perhaps his arguments with his brother helped to shape his philosophy in the opposite direction?
A. Huxley was a vegetarian, drug using sci-fi author, so it's a fair chance that he disagreed with his 'establishment' family on many issues.

eb

Who introduced LSD into society and tested it on human subjects for its mind control value? Which part of society was interested in this subject matter?

What do you think Timothy Leary was? Who funded him and his promotion of LSD?

Why was A. Huxley experimenting with LSD? Who was interested in the knowledge from that experimentation?

Finally, what is imperative here, and what is missing from the discussion, is the art of double speak and how this art form is employed in all elite writings, especially writing designed for the public. The exoteric is designed to remain hidden to all but the elite and their technocracy.