Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2018, 07:49:09 PM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Brave New World & 1984: prescience, whistleblowing, public opinion probes?  (Read 304 times)
byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 33

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 04, 2018, 05:26:31 AM
Merited by suchmoon (7), NadiaHel (4), ETFbitcoin (1), DireWolfM14 (1)
 #1

What do you think about these two famous novels and their authors: Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley
and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) by George Orwell.
What were the purpose, main motivations, events leading to their writing?
Are they prophecies (or self-fulfilling prophecies) in the same sense as we may think about Biblical prophets?
Did authors observe the contemporaneous trends and extrapolated them? Did they get inspiration from above?

Or did they know something (especially Huxley, who was a member of the ruling elite) and decided to warn the masses,
becoming famous for that? Like Edward Snowden.
Or was it a psyop done by the ruling elite? Like Tavistock Institute's projects.
1540324149
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540324149

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540324149
Reply with quote  #2

1540324149
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1540324149
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540324149

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540324149
Reply with quote  #2

1540324149
Report to moderator
1540324149
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540324149

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540324149
Reply with quote  #2

1540324149
Report to moderator
NadiaHel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 157


1984 wasn't an instruction manual


View Profile
August 04, 2018, 04:37:05 PM
Merited by suchmoon (7), Foxpup (4), DarkStar_ (3), byteball (2), vapourminer (1)
 #2

What do you think about these two famous novels and their authors: Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley
and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) by George Orwell.
What were the purpose, main motivations, events leading to their writing?
Are they prophecies (or self-fulfilling prophecies) in the same sense as we may think about Biblical prophets?
Did authors observe the contemporaneous trends and extrapolated them? Did they get inspiration from above?

Or did they know something (especially Huxley, who was a member of the ruling elite) and decided to warn the masses,
becoming famous for that? Like Edward Snowden.
Or was it a psyop done by the ruling elite? Like Tavistock Institute's projects.

Hi there!! Well, you have mentioned two of my very favourites books, so, let`s analyze a bit them.
In the first place, George Orwell did had a really nice inside of what a dictatorial state meant. He described how, by manipulating the people by fear, a totalitarian government might be able to even destroy the people`s spirit. To me, "1984" is a book related to how the fear and the destruction of the minds of the people, through starvation, by having them in a continuous state of stress, even at the point of being able to destroy the capacity of falling in love. If you continuously keep the people under a thread, then the stress levels will be so high, then you can even manipulate their more profounds feelings, as O`Brien clarify while torturing Winston. Now, Orwell`s life was quite interesting: he was involved in the Spanish Civil War, where he realized how the press could absolutely cheat the people by fake news with the only goal of manipulating the masses into a whole new mindset. That horrified Orwell, like he stated on "Homage to Catalonia" (1938). Well, given the baggage of the writer, the characters of 1984 are based on historical ones, like the "Big Brother", an interpretation of Stalin, or Goldstein, the dramatic representation of Trotsky. So, from my perspective, George Orwell was describing, in a hyperbolic way, his own experience.

We must n`t forget that Huxley wrote "A brave new world" 17 years before Orwell`s "1984". In fact, Orwell sent a copy of his "1984" in 1949 to his master, Huxley, and they even had a debate about which one did have the better approximation. There is an interesting letter Huxley sent to Orwell:

Quote
Wrightwood. Cal.
21 October, 1949

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

(source:http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/1984-v-brave-new-world.html )

This is an amazing letter, and, even when it is quite long, I think this is one of the better analysis we can read about both authors mindset...

Now, their lives were really different. Huxley used to live in a high-society world and see how the nepotism, the classism and the appearances will lead humanity into a nightmare of entertainment. Orwell, on the contrary, was in the war and experienced in his own flesh horrors that Huxley could only imagine.

However they have true two different lives, I think both were absolutely right. We can see the Orwell´s nightmare having a place in undeveloped countries: fear, orchestrated wars, hunger, surveillance... And, also, Huxley`s nightmare is already happening also in a global state: cellphones, Facebook, Youtube, Healthy lifestyles, selfies, Instagram, "likes" as the new concept of "soma"...

Why do I think both were right? Well, precisely because they have two different approximations to the same problem. It can be mixed, it can happen at the same time, in the same place. Look at the US society, for instance: their government is always scaring their people with a new menace, as terrorism, as war, and, at the same time, they have TV programmes like "American Got Talent", they have to buy their very next app so one day they will be able to be thin and fit, etcetera.

Yes, that`s why both are so important. Because, due to their experiences, they were able to analyce, structured their present so well that they even were able to describe the future.

byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 33

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 04, 2018, 06:10:08 PM
 #3

(source:http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/1984-v-brave-new-world.html )

This is an amazing letter, and, even when it is quite long, I think this is one of the better analysis we can read about both authors mindset...
Indeed, thank you very much Nadia for introducing me to it!

It will take me time (maybe lifetime(s)) to digest completely, and let me note in passing that I'm a bit familiar with philosophy of Marquis d. S from a couple of his own books (boring) and from Victor Yerofeev's articles (less boring, but alas no English or Spanish translation found). Nevertheless I am posting the link in case it will be useful for you or for other readers: http://samlib.ru/v/victor_v_e/markiz_de_sad.shtml

I was fond of anthropology and sociobiology/ethology when I was young and I remember one non-mainstream author writing about the suggestive abilities of Neanderthal, coming with a disadvantage of vulnerability to hypnosis, and how Homo Sapiens developed resistance (which also decreased Sapiens' ability to induce hypnosis) under this evolutionary pressure.

In your paragraph how both visions came equally true I saw young H.G.Wells' (who was a friend of them both) prediction about Morlocks and Eloi. Indeed, the distant descendants of Orwell became Morlocks in Wells' vision, and those of Huxley generated Time Traveller's beloved Weena.
NadiaHel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 157


1984 wasn't an instruction manual


View Profile
August 05, 2018, 03:42:07 PM
 #4

Nevertheless I am posting the link in case it will be useful for you or for other readers: http://samlib.ru/v/victor_v_e/markiz_de_sad.shtml

I was fond of anthropology and sociobiology/ethology when I was young and I remember one non-mainstream author writing about the suggestive abilities of Neanderthal, coming with a disadvantage of vulnerability to hypnosis, and how Homo Sapiens developed resistance (which also decreased Sapiens' ability to induce hypnosis) under this evolutionary pressure.
Too bad I can`t read Russian, but thanks, I now have the author`s name so I can make a profound search and see if I can find any English version.

In your paragraph how both visions came equally true I saw young H.G.Wells' (who was a friend of them both) prediction about Morlocks and Eloi. Indeed, the distant descendants of Orwell became Morlocks in Wells' vision, and those of Huxley generated Time Traveller's beloved Weena.

It is kind of true. H.G. Wells vision was a big influence on Orwell, however, I think that hey didn`t share the first`s scientific point of view. While Wells was talking about how science will change the future, Orwell was more related to sociology. In fact, there is an essay, written by George Orwell (published in 1941) called: "Wells, Hitler and the World State". In there, he pointed out his own vision about Well`s work in lines like this one:
Quote
He was, and still is, quite incapable of understanding that nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than what he himself would describe as sanity. Creatures out of the Dark Ages have come marching into the present, and if they are ghosts they are at any rate ghosts which need a strong magic to lay them.

You can read the complete essay in here: http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/wells/english/e_whws

I will be looking and see if I can find the ones you recommended to me. It sounds amazing, thanks for that.
byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 33

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 07, 2018, 05:18:05 PM
 #5

...
In your paragraph how both visions came equally true I saw young H.G.Wells' (who was a friend of them both) prediction about Morlocks and Eloi. Indeed, the distant descendants of Orwell became Morlocks in Wells' vision, and those of Huxley generated Time Traveller's beloved Weena.

It is kind of true. H.G. Wells vision was a big influence on Orwell, however, I think that hey didn`t share the first`s scientific point of view. While Wells was talking about how science will change the future, Orwell was more related to sociology. In fact, there is an essay, written by George Orwell (published in 1941) called: "Wells, Hitler and the World State". In there, he pointed out his own vision about Well`s work in lines like this one:
Quote
He was, and still is, quite incapable of understanding that nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than what he himself would describe as sanity. Creatures out of the Dark Ages have come marching into the present, and if they are ghosts they are at any rate ghosts which need a strong magic to lay them.

You can read the complete essay in here: http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/wells/english/e_whws
...
In the closing paragraphs of Justine, Marquis de Sade makes the following remark: whatever Man does, he cannot harm Nature.
Thus, it doesn't really matter what Man does.
Marquis understands this narrowly: whatever atrocities humans commit against themselves or other beings, there will still be forests, beasts and birds singing (he literally mentions that).
But his scientific knowledge represents the bottom, the narrowest possible worldview in human history: gone is the magic, spirituality, everything religious, and the new-born science in times near the Great French Revolution is in its infancy.
This is materialist, reductionist science that is very far from what we have today: science and philosophy approaching the enigma of Consciousness and the innermost secrets of the Universe.
In that early scientific materialist philosophy (also called "vulgar materialism") humans are simple beasts with some tools, but their tools have negligible influence on the world around them.
What we know now is: we can start thermonuclear reaction in the atmosphere, after which only procaryots have a chance to survive; we may even be able to turn Earth into a Black Hole. There will still be exoplanets and other Suns, with their forests and birds, but they will not be our forests and birds.

I am not sure if he really means that, or if any French revolutionary does the same: maybe it's some kind of pretence, to pursue their political goals. Maybe they know in the depth of their souls that it's dangerous to tamper with the inherent Chaos of things.

Huxley, Wells and Orwell are closer to us on spiritual level: they are still materialists and followers of "scientism" to some degree, but not vulgar.
Huxley turned on himself with mescal and Wells had unique "sense of Wonder" that he conveyed to a perceptive reader in his fantasy stories and Orwell was a great novelist like Leo Tolstoy, shrewd social observer and master of words. We have much to learn from them.
byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 33

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 15, 2018, 09:29:09 AM
Merited by NadiaHel (1)
 #6

Reader reviews for
Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance – March 2, 2018
by F. William Engdahl

*1984 Updated (by David R. Griffin) https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RE8L8VECA0ZZN/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=3981723732

*U.S. covert efforts since the Cold War that have caused foreign regime changes (by Alan S. Glassman) https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3JRKWLSKKBDXD/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=3981723732

What's interesting is the story of Southern Rodesia, quite old and not covered in the book. Democracy won there (and immediately turned into dictatorship after utterly destroying the economy) but was it a blunder by "naïf" West (controlling the UN and having tools to interfere, before the white farmers were dispossessed) since there were no precedents then, or was it a conspiracy to destroy African largest food market?
NadiaHel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 157


1984 wasn't an instruction manual


View Profile
August 16, 2018, 03:37:25 PM
 #7


In the closing paragraphs of Justine, Marquis de Sade makes the following remark: whatever Man does, he cannot harm Nature.
Thus, it doesn't really matter what Man does.
Marquis understands this narrowly: whatever atrocities humans commit against themselves or other beings, there will still be forests, beasts and birds singing (he literally mentions that).

I totally agree with that. Even though geologists now consider that we are, in fact, in a new era called Anthropocene due to all the harm the humans have made to nature, I think this is quite a bit anthropocentric. We are just a specimen, yes, a bad one, with erratic natural behaviour, but, at the end of the day, I don`t think we are entitled to destroy something as huge as the earth.

But his scientific knowledge represents the bottom, the narrowest possible worldview in human history: gone is the magic, spirituality, everything religious, and the new-born science in times near the Great French Revolution is in its infancy.
This is materialist, reductionist science that is very far from what we have today: science and philosophy approaching the enigma of Consciousness and the innermost secrets of the Universe.
In that early scientific materialist philosophy (also called "vulgar materialism") humans are simple beasts with some tools, but their tools have negligible influence on the world around them.
What we know now is: we can start thermonuclear reaction in the atmosphere, after which only procaryots have a chance to survive; we may even be able to turn Earth into a Black Hole. There will still be exoplanets and other Suns, with their forests and birds, but they will not be our forests and birds.
Do you think it is actually going to happen any time soon? I rather believe that the feeling of "the end of the world" has been present in human history for long, though. There is a chance of humankind destroying earth, but I don`t consider this to be a real possibility. Ok, the massive destructive power we have can be something of bad consequence to our planet, but I don`t think that humanity has the power enough to destroy everything. Or maybe I just don`t want to believe this.

I am not sure if he really means that, or if any French revolutionary does the same: maybe it's some kind of pretence, to pursue their political goals. Maybe they know in the depth of their souls that it's dangerous to tamper with the inherent Chaos of things.

Huxley, Wells and Orwell are closer to us on spiritual level: they are still materialists and followers of "scientism" to some degree, but not vulgar.
Huxley turned on himself with mescal and Wells had unique "sense of Wonder" that he conveyed to a perceptive reader in his fantasy stories and Orwell was a great novelist like Leo Tolstoy, shrewd social observer and master of words. We have much to learn from them.

Well, of course. They taught us to observe our very social environment. This is curious, somehow, how those ones were able to foresee something that is already happening. But maybe this is something that has been there for a long time. I mean, in the times of those authors, things weren`t so different than now, despite all the technical achievements. Maybe they just were able to observe human nature in a really intrinsic way, so intrinsic that what they are actually speaking about is the human nature and not only a social environment.
Is part of humanity the necessity of controlling others? Is just part of the human brain an unnatural and "bacterial" way of actually being in this world? Were they just describing the most interious sickness of a whole specie?

byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 33

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 19, 2018, 04:32:16 PM
 #8

What we know now is: we can start thermonuclear reaction in the atmosphere, after which only procaryots have a chance to survive; we may even be able to turn Earth into a Black Hole. There will still be exoplanets and other Suns, with their forests and birds, but they will not be our forests and birds.
Do you think it is actually going to happen any time soon? I rather believe that the feeling of "the end of the world" has been present in human history for long, though. There is a chance of humankind destroying earth, but I don`t consider this to be a real possibility. Ok, the massive destructive power we have can be something of bad consequence to our planet, but I don`t think that humanity has the power enough to destroy everything. Or maybe I just don`t want to believe this.
This subject is not simple.
There are those who believe we are the first advanced civilization on this planet, and there are those who don't.
Judging from the "mythology" (which is proclaimed by the establishment to be "a bunch of granny's fairytales")
which is universal across the globe, there were powerful forces which/who caused nuclear explosions, construction of
megastructures (impossible or really difficult and expensive even with today's technology - and rather pointless in our "matrix")
and (umm) some genetic engineering, to name the few. Maybe some nanotech.
The question is, why they declined (Plato wrote: they ceased to wear their prosperity with humility).
And if they declined (and existed in the first place) why they managed to leave us inhabitable, even cosy planet.

In my own conspirology, both USSR with it's successor and Rothschilds have a "doomsday device" - one each - something which detonates
after let's say a decapitating strike, against leadership, or assassination of important persons - so we have at least 2 such devices
maintained in all readiness. This keeps a moderate balance. Such device must be of some important consequence, otherwise
what would be the point of creating and maintaining it.
Our planetary neighbours, e.g. insects, who represent almost all of multicellular animal biomass, would not vote for having such devices, but unfortunately we didn't consult with them. It's possible that they revolt once things will start getting really ugly (also a recurrent trope of many a dystopia) but right now they cohabit peacefully.
Philopolymath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524
Merit: 268

Walter Russell's Cosmogony is RIGHT!


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 12:49:09 AM
 #9

What most people don't realize is that Eric Arthur Blair (Orwell's REAL NAME)
Juxtaposed the numbers 1948 to be 1984
HE WROTE A CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT/COMMENTARY ON THE SITUATION AS IT EXISTED IN NINETEEN-FORTY-EIGHT!!!!
HE WAS AN EXPERT in PROPAGANDA, WORKING FOR THE BBC and was obviously repulsed and horrified to the extent he felt morally obligated to write about it. He gave many interviews before his death in which he plainly stated this.

It was NOT a PREDICTION
IT WAS NOT PRECIENT
IT WAS AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF THE EXISTING SITUATION OF HIS TIME...1948
HE WAS IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO KNOW AS A FAITHFUL SERVANT AND HIGH LEVEL DISPENSER OF IT!
byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 33

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 02:07:11 PM
 #10

It was NOT a PREDICTION
IT WAS NOT PRECIENT
IT WAS AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF THE EXISTING SITUATION OF HIS TIME...1948
HE WAS IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO KNOW AS A FAITHFUL SERVANT AND HIGH LEVEL DISPENSER OF IT!
Existing where? In USSR?
What was the point then of juxtaposing year number and moving events to "Oceania"?
Was he running away from Stalin's goons?
Philopolymath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524
Merit: 268

Walter Russell's Cosmogony is RIGHT!


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 08:42:36 PM
 #11

He was describing ....ENGLAND AS IT WAS IN 1948 and to a greater extent Europe/USA
He was a senior PROPAGANDIST for the BBC
NadiaHel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 157


1984 wasn't an instruction manual


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 11:04:16 PM
 #12

What most people don't realize is that Eric Arthur Blair (Orwell's REAL NAME)
Juxtaposed the numbers 1948 to be 1984
HE WROTE A CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT/COMMENTARY ON THE SITUATION AS IT EXISTED IN NINETEEN-FORTY-EIGHT!!!!
HE WAS AN EXPERT in PROPAGANDA, WORKING FOR THE BBC and was obviously repulsed and horrified to the extent he felt morally obligated to write about it. He gave many interviews before his death in which he plainly stated this.

It was NOT a PREDICTION
IT WAS NOT PRECIENT
IT WAS AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF THE EXISTING SITUATION OF HIS TIME...1948
HE WAS IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO KNOW AS A FAITHFUL SERVANT AND HIGH LEVEL DISPENSER OF IT!

Many people do realize that, for it is well-known for everyone just googling Orwell. If you read the previous quotes, you will realize that your point has been already discussed in my first one. We were precisely talking about how the two mentioned authors were defined by their social-historical-economical environment and describing the world based on their very own experiences. Just check the whole thread.
byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 33

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
August 31, 2018, 06:21:13 PM
 #13

I want to discuss the film that got Oscar for the best movie of the year 2018, Guillermo del Toro's The Shape of Water.

Somebody long ago called Hollywood "factory of dreams". So what has Guillermo del Toro and his crew manufactured this time?

My analisys follows in the vein of Klim Zhukov's (warfare historian) and Dmitry Puchkov's (famous translator of Western movies into Russian since the 1990-ies, former KGB officer or a sort of) review, which is probably only in Russian, and maybe isn't worth subtitling into other languages, since they use way too much cultural references unknown in the West.

I personally think The Shape of Water is one of the greatest cinematic masterpieces of all times. I can put The Matrix, The Avatar and Aki Kaurismäki movies on the same shelf with it. And some of Woodie Allen's as well.

First of all, Klim draws our attention to the fact that the antagonist's motivation is purely sadistic. There is nothing that Colonel Richard Strickland actually wants to get from the Creature. There is nothing to be achieved by vivisecting "it". Strickland uses electroshocker just for fun. And Strickland symbolizes Power.

And what does the revolt against Power look like? Oedipus revolt looked like killing the Father and having sex with Mother.
Elisa Esposito's (the protagonist) revolt is to make love to this Ichtyandros, having befriended and stolen him from the secret laboratory,
escaping death at the hands of Colonel Strickland.

Del Toro seems to be saying that Power can be eroded (if not overcome) by choosing more and more bizarre sexual preferences, and by indulging in them.
Is that the message we wanted to get from the great cinematic œuvres? Probably not.
Let's see what the Next Great Movie will look like.
NadiaHel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 157


1984 wasn't an instruction manual


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 06:08:12 PM
 #14

I want to discuss the film that got Oscar for the best movie of the year 2018, Guillermo del Toro's The Shape of Water.

This is totally off-topic for this initial thread. If you want to open a  new discussion, then create a whole new thread with a dedicated title leading for the thread's content.
byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 33

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
September 03, 2018, 06:25:00 AM
 #15

I want to discuss the film that got Oscar for the best movie of the year 2018, Guillermo del Toro's The Shape of Water.

This is totally off-topic for this initial thread. If you want to open a new discussion, then create a whole new thread with a dedicated title leading for the thread's content.
Quite the contrary. I see this film and it's potential discussion by crypto-anarchists as a direct continuation of Huxley's and Orwell's dialog. I don't want to open a new discussion, and I assume participants of Serious discussion section are broad-minded enough to grasp the connections.

I think I do not need to remind that one of ~5 important functions of Cinema is propaganda.
Propaganda (from Latin "things to be put on pages of parchment books") is a list of topics passed in a top-down chain of control with prescriptions on how to cover them. This list creates a desired narrative, and once it's established, the deviators are punished (in the Middle Ages, slightly more severely than now).
Common people tend to think "there is no Western propaganda to speak of" or "Hollywood is pure entertainment", but that is part of the established narrative.

My 2nd point is that Spanish cinematograph is important as it's not 100% owned by transnationals. Films like Damián Szifron's Relatos salvajes, Julio Médem's La ardilla roja, Manuel Martín Cuenca's La flaqueza del bolchevique, even del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth offer unique refreshing perspective unthinkable in the foamy stream of Hollywood imagery and tropes.

Finally, Newspeak controls consciousness by redefining things. "Freedom is slavery" - but isn't freedom of sexual preferences a kind of voluntary slavery? let me show that it is, and I will use Maslow's pyramid of needs for my explanation. If you don't like American psychology, you can reformulate my story into chakras, Grof's Basic Perinatal Matrices, Leary's 8-circuit consciousness theory or any other kind of staircase to Heaven that suits you.

The first rung of Maslow's system is needs of the body. Both US (with more success) and USSR (with less) solved them, so let's leave them for the discussion of the developing world. Let's concentrate on the developed one.
The second rung is need of security and predictable social order. This level is already destroyed in EU with the migrants from alien culture, but in US/most of exUSSR it is still stable. I mean, that in most Soviet republics the 1990-ies are now over.
So while middle- and low-income Europeans are thrown all the way down to the 1st rung, US is struggling against the destruction of family and sense of belonging to a human collective.
Trump's presidency, or rather reaction to it from TPTB, polarized US society, and now even Trump opponents are further polarized into "outraged" and "civil" ones. Identity politics and political correctness further divides people into races, genders, religions, political factions and so on. This undermines fulfilment of the 3rd rung (middle of pyramid) necessities.

So what the call to indulge in sexual perversion does? It destroys family, thus blocking the individual's progress to the 4th rung.
What TPTB are trying to do with Russia, where family and traditional religion still stand? They cannot allow individuals to progress to 4th level, as later those individuals will challenge them on the 5th.
So they create and spread the illusion that 2) and even 1) are catastrophic. That the social order in Russia will break tomorrow (because of sanctions), that there will be nothing to eat (because of sanctions), that Russia is under constant threat of World War III.
Actually, people at the 3rd rung (busy building family, raising children) are not very impressed. They do not become members of the Catastrophic cult. It is at the people who are yet to have families, the fierce propaganda is directed.
byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 33

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
October 06, 2018, 04:09:10 AM
 #16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqbsj3D_014 What Is Wrong With People? Polly St George

In short, scientists created neurons that are triggered only by "designer drugs", not by natural compounds.
These neurons in mice are widely publicated, human experiments less known. The drugs are some types of psychiatric medication.
Dr. Ford (Brett Kavanaugh's accuser) is deeply involved in that research activity, masquerading as "psychiatry".
Affecting these neurons places specialized members of the elite between common person's Ego and Free Will.
bluefirecorp_
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 53


View Profile
October 06, 2018, 06:39:22 PM
Merited by suchmoon (4)
 #17

sister1001
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 246
Merit: 33

Have a coin?


View Profile
October 10, 2018, 08:33:01 PM
 #18

He described how, by manipulating the people by fear, a totalitarian government might be able to even destroy the people`s spirit. To me, "1984" is a book related to how the fear and the destruction of the minds of the people, through starvation, by having them in a continuous state of stress, even at the point of being able to destroy the capacity of falling in love.

I have to say that, historically, regimes based on fear and state surveillance of the individuals have proven to be weaker and shorter lasting than those that at least pretend to make the individuals believe that their say means something.

The most recent experiments that western societies have undergone is the control based on The Shock Doctrine. It is not that new, but it has been taken to new heights after September-11 and the London, Madrid and Paris attacks, among others.

Apparently, it is more efficient to calm the masses providing apparent choices based on the materialism and the pseudo-democracies and then use the shock when required, inciting the hate to other civilisations, when draconian or impopular measures are desired by the controlling plutocracies. Ensure this is mixed with an acritical educational system and a continuous feed of instagram-uploaded celebs pictures to discourage any depth in the thinking of the mass.

The results are societies that do not need to massively detract resources from the economy to ensure a continuous surveillance of the individual nor have the social tensions that come from not letting any steam out of the boiler. Thus, the economy serves uninterrupted a continuous flow into the bags of the plutocrats, while the population is kept scared in an Just in Time fear production system, delivering shocks as needed in case greasing is required.
byteball
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 33

The rising tide lifts all boats


View Profile
October 11, 2018, 12:58:48 PM
 #19

...when draconian or impopular measures are desired by the controlling plutocracies. Ensure this is mixed with an acritical educational system...
I love your proper use of Latin/Greek words "impopular" and "acritical".
Inspired by this, I put
Quote
Ceterum censeo Civitatem Profunda esse delendam
to my signature (not displayed in this section of forum) which means "Furthermore, I propose that Deep State is to be destroyed".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ceterum_censeo
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!