November 09, 2012

Orwell Or Huxley?

Who was right?

Have a butchers at this.

I'm not sure if it will work. The preview is not helpful.  Click for embigulationing.



Dioclese said...

IMHO it will make no difference who was right. Human nature will ensure that we are all fucked anyway...

George Speller said...

I'd love to read it but the embigulated copy was even smaller. . .

F***W*T TW****R said...

It inembigulated. :-(

Anonymous said...

Hello Captain,

A better embigulation is here.

It's a good one to ponder; in one sense, you can look at it as six of one and half a dozen of the other.

- Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information
- Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism

- Orwell feared the truth would be concealed from us
- Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance

Those two are quite similar, and each couplet can be said to reflect two sides of the same thing. Truth being drowned is truth being concealed. Giving too much is the same as deprivation, because it can seem too massive to assimilate especially when you don't know what's true and what isn't, so many stop bothering. What better way to conceal truth than to drown it in a "sea of irrelevance"? How many times do we see this with the pied pipers?

- Orwell feared we would become a captive culture
- Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with... etc

This again can be looked at as the same, just viewed from different angles. "A trivial culture, preoccupied" is a captive culture.

You can apply it to the others too.

I do think it falls down by saying "Huxley feared" - he didn't "fear"; it is very interesting to read what he said outside of BNW; read/listen to his Berkeley address entitled "The Ultimate Revolution". There are various links showing a transcription, e.g. here and it is available at the Web Archive here, as well as on YT. He compares BNW with 1984 at one point.

Another one of his is an oft-quoted snippet from an address to California Medical School in 1961, which is along the same lines.

There's a text file of the Berkeley speech at GlobalistAgenda here, and a little bit further down there is a comparison with 1984:

"Since we know that fiction is used as predictive programming (use of fiction to acclimatize the public the future so they will accept and adapt to it), it is important to read Brave New World in 1984 both written by elite insiders - George Orwell as a propagandist for the British Government and Aldous Huxley, brother of Julian Huxley, founder of the Eugenics Society and the World Health Organization. As insiders they were privy to the elite's agenda and communicated it through these fictional works either as predictive programming or as a warning. The astonishing novel Brave New World, originally published in 1932, presents Aldous Huxley's vision of the future -- of a world utterly transformed. Through the most efficient scientific and psychological engineering, people are genetically designed to be passive and therefore consistently useful to the ruling class. 1984, Orwell's classic, continues to deliver its horrible vision of totalitarian society. Once considered futuristic, it now conjures fear because of how closely it fits the reality of contemporary times. Orwell was not writing of the evils of surveillance technology, he was writing about the very real threat that, in the control of a psychopathic system of government, such technology will be used to stamp out any trace of humanity. Normal people will once again be forced to play-act a life without meaning. We should take both of these warnings very seriously since we know we are in the grips of a sociopathic elite determined on a world of totalitarian control."




nisakiman said...

Yeah, same as GS. Tried zooming, but just lost sharpness to the point where it was a blur.

Anonymous said...

Embigulating or emsmallulating?
Paris Claims.
By the way, this is an outrage.

Anonymous said...


Too small, even when opened. However on the topic of Huxley vs Orwell, well, both books were social engineering and humanity reprogramming vehicles. The Huxley family were HUGE players in the NWO and Orwell was (?) also, considering that he based Winston's life on parts of his own shows he was one of the chosen. However to rally to his defence, his ethos was changed when he went to fight in the Spanish civil war which drastically changed his views on socialism. This was a big turning point in his life.

Both books portray an inevitable future. Huxley's is one of genetically engineered, test tube grown offspring within a world whose people are controlled by drugs with a scientific elite who are the new religion while Orwell portrays a totalitarian, socialist elite, who control the establisments, totally program people through a lying media and promote a society where man and woman are not viewed as different nor can have sexual relations.

Both books promote total control over humanity by an elite minority. It is a hell and nothing more. Both books are already part of 21st century society. As I continually say, the elites, although they can be stopped, will not. A totalitarian dystopia is decades away.



Anonymous said...


I was writing mine as you posted TSL's very good summation above. The most important thing to note here is that both were players in the creation of a totalitarian world society. I am however still unsure as to whether Orwelll still was when he wrote 1984 in 1948.



pitano1 said...

hi capt.
harby`seems some took their inspiration from orwell.l.o.l

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and accompanying codes of practice

Anonymous said...


It wasn't that some took their inspiration from Orwell; they already knew what the agenda was which Orwell let out of the bag ( on purpose???). We are dealing with Fabian socialism which looks at reality as water on a stone. It's an agenda that's been in operation for well over 140+ years, very possibly far more.



James Higham said...

Can't see it - too small. The text was small too.