How H. G. Wells, A. Huxley, G. Orwell Saw the Social Future.

[Sleyor Wellhuxwell]

How H. G. Wells, A. Huxley, G. Orwell saw the social future. A comparison.

Concerning the future of the western, indeed of the whole society, of mankind, the descriptions of the future of these three writers could be of importance.

Don't you think so too?
How would you assess these three authors and their different descriptions of the future?
Are there any similarities?
Where are the differences?

[Sculptor]

This sounds like you need some help with your Lit. homework.

I suggest you start by reading The Time Machine, The Sleeper Awakes, Brave New World, and 1984

[Sleyor Wellhuxwell]

Think first before you claim such nonsense a second time!

[Sculptor]

Think first before you claim such nonsense a second time!

Read a book!

Think before you ask a dumb question.

[obsrvr524]

How H. G. Wells, A. Huxley, G. Orwell saw the social future. A comparison.

Concerning the future of the western, indeed of the whole society, of mankind, the descriptions of the future of these three writers could be of importance.

Don't you think so too?
How would you assess these three authors and their different descriptions of the future?
Are there any similarities?
Where are the differences?

Interesting that you should mention that.

I had been wondering how James S Saint here knew so much about what was happening years before it happened but as the reality of the Orwellian state came into being, I started investigating Orwell, London, Bradbury, and others. Now I am not quite as impressed with James' prognostications because it seems that several had seen this kind of thing happening as much as 100 years ago.

I realized that history has had a top level pattern of the rise and fall of authoritarianism (day and dark ages). So it is reasonable that people paying attention to those patterns, their current trend, and cause could see upcoming peaks. Then by seeing what new social manipulation techniques had come around (such as tele and social influence formulas - and now social media platform monopolies) narratives of future events could be easily imagined - and were.

Of course we have to keep in mind that many such prognosticators have been wrong - we just don't hear about them.

I reviewed two versions of the movie Nineteen Eighty-Four and a debate about whether that narrative or the Brave New World narrative was more applicable (held at \(IQ^2\)). I watched the movie Time Machine in two versions - the original and the newest retelling (have to be careful of rewriting history scams). And that one, despite the science fiction aspect seemed very appropriate in revealing the social class divide (more of a reductionist perspective).

I haven't had time to watch or reread the Brave New World narrative to see for myself how it stands to scrutiny but I will soon (especially now that you brought it up ).

So far it appears to me that each, along with others (The Iron Heel, We, Fahrenheit 451,....), exposes a different set of techniques that are currently in play. With them combined it gets hard to even discuss which is having greater effect here or there. And I'm sketchy as to the worth of picking at it.

Currently I am getting more focused on James' farther distant - beyond this new dark age "final solution" to see if it is fully viable and necessarily the best path to endure (hoping not because he speculates global dystopia and it breaking down before anyone realizes how easy it could have been).

And James foresaw the use of diseases, food additives, and genetic manipulations which I haven't seen being exposed in the others. Unfortunately for the world, Mr Trump wasn't sufficiently informed.

[Sleyor Wellhuxwell]

Think first before you claim such nonsense a second time!

Read a book!
Think before you ask a dumb question.

Troll, there was no "dumb question" at all.

Also, there are no dumb questions, but there are many, too many dumb answers. You have already given two dumb answers here. That's enough now!

If you have nothing to contribute to this thread, then try to find another thread. There are enough threads in this forum.

I suggest that as a beginner you should read the threads "What's for breakfast?", "What's for lunch? ", "What's for dinner? ", "What are you doing?", "What is your most recent purchase? - pics required", "Post a Picture of Yourself", "Post a Number of Yourself ". The last one could be "Post Yourself". Try to find it.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How H. G. Wells, A. Huxley, G. Orwell saw the social future. A comparison.
Concerning the future of the western, indeed of the whole society, of mankind, the descriptions of the future of these three writers could be of importance.
Don't you think so too?
How would you assess these three authors and their different descriptions of the future?
Are there any similarities?
Where are the differences?

Interesting that you should mention that.
I had been wondering how James S Saint here knew so much about what was happening years before it happened but as the reality of the Orwellian state came into being, I started investigating Orwell, London, Bradbury, and others. Now I am not quite as impressed with James' prognostications because it seems that several had seen this kind of thing happening as much as 100 years ago.
I realized that history has had a top level pattern of the rise and fall of authoritarianism (day and dark ages). So it is reasonable that people paying attention to those patterns, their current trend, and cause could see upcoming peaks. Then by seeing what new social manipulation techniques had come around (such as tele and social influence formulas - and now social media platform monopolies) narratives of future events could be easily imagined - and were.
Of course we have to keep in mind that many such prognosticators have been wrong - we just don't hear about them.
I reviewed two versions of the movie Nineteen Eighty-Four and a debate about whether that narrative or the Brave New World narrative was more applicable (held at \(IQ^2\)). I watched the movie Time Machine in two versions - the original and the newest retelling (have to be careful of rewriting history scams). And that one, despite the science fiction aspect seemed very appropriate in revealing the social class divide (more of a reductionist perspective).
I haven't had time to watch or reread the Brave New World narrative to see for myself how it stands to scrutiny but I will soon (especially now that you brought it up ).
So far it appears to me that each, along with others (The Iron Heel, We, Fahrenheit 451,....), exposes a different set of techniques that are currently in play. With them combined it gets hard to even discuss which is having greater effect here or there. And I'm sketchy as to the worth of picking at it.
Currently I am getting more focused on James' farther distant - beyond this new dark age "final solution" to see if it is fully viable and necessarily the best path to endure (hoping not because he speculates global dystopia and it breaking down before anyone realizes how easy it could have been).
And James foresaw the use of diseases, food additives, and genetic manipulations which I haven't seen being exposed in the others. Unfortunately for the world, Mr Trump wasn't sufficiently informed.

Thank you for your interesting contribution.

I guess, you know the following film (unfortunately, Wells' "Time Machine" is missing there):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31CcclqEiZw .

[obsrvr524]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31CcclqEiZw&feature=emb_logo .

Yes that is the one I watched. I will have to find the time to watch again in order to get into the details.

The Time Machine (1895) narrative is pretty simple - "everything, after a very long time, becomes a socialist/communist style hard class division". The only interesting strategy involved was the "underground" (hidden) manipulation of the surface population - feeding on the "sheeple" - all very much like modern media and politicians versus the much distracted populations being hypnotized and gaslighted into compliance.

Unfortunately Mr Wells didn't display much imagination concerning exactly how it got that way (I think it was either 300,000 or 800,000 years in the future) or even more importantly how it was defeated in that future. The hero just blows up the entire underground vampiric oligarchy race at once (the Morlocks). Then the sheeple (the Eloi) just start listening to the hero's history lectures - end of story.

There was more recently a movie They Live that I saw clips of years ago referring to that same kind of metaphor but placed in modern times using aliens as the "Morlocks" - the population oblivious to the subtle manipulation that had been going on for a long time because the aliens used a type of hypnosis to appear like normal people (like a cancer invasion - much like current government subversion). Then there was the long standing Body Snatchers narrative (I can't identify the first telling of that narrative) - another cancer like invasion even more metaphorically revealing of exactly how the recent coup overtaking the USA was accomplished.

In the 1984 narrative the subtle hypnosis concept involved detailed revelation on how words were being altered and cancelled so as to reform populous thought.

There are obviously many strategies involved - a list should be constructed perhaps starting with that one strategy of restricting and modifying speech (exposed in almost all such dystopic narratives). But there is also economic money scams, political scams, advertising scams, distraction scams, and other scams to ensure the rise of the few powerful and the demise of all others - that two class socialist structure at the base of all of them (apparently an ancient idea from thousands of years ago - the basis of Satanism and Holy/Unholy Priesthoods of every kind).

So I would say first on the list should be -

• Subtle Speech Control - signaling forbidden, good, and evil thought control - "virtue signaling"

[obsrvr524]

Another thought came to memory of when I was reviewing the narratives of Huxley and Orwell is whether they were being prescient or instructive.

I can see how someone trying to write a scary dystopian novel could merely imagine how all of the bad being sought by his clever imagination could somewhat realistically come about - "perhaps they could just do this... and possibly that too...". There has to be a back story to every future story line. And as he tells his fictional account, he is either inadvertently or intentionally revealing pathways to ultimate dystopian authoritarianism.

Both Huxley and Orwell wrote what could have been simple instructive manuals to be read by power lusting people on how to obtain the power they crave. It is factual that those who very cleverly seek power as their highest goal will achieve greater power than those with other priorities. I think the issue has always been one of their cleverness. So having someone else, more innocent of such a blinding lust, plot out the potential means to cleverly acquire power over large masses, affords those more blinded by their lusts to simply intellectually steal their method for victory.

Both the CCP and Israel do that very thing (as well as many others I'm sure). Both seek absolute power and both much prefer stealing ideas from others. Living in an orthodox mind controlled environment doesn't allow for imaginative and creative thinking and clever realistic strategizing. So stealing is really their only option. And they are very experienced at that.

Basically all of the strategies revealed in both novels are currently in play. So did Huxley and Orwell actually predict the future? Or did they inadvertently cause this future?

Explain to a money manager or power seeker how to gain more -- and they will gain more. And the more they gain, the more easily they gain even more - toward an ultimate singularity of authoritarianism.

The question - Did either of them know what they were actually doing/causing?

Or were they, as most, merely blindly inattentive and ignorant of those lurking in the dark and surveilling from a distance seeking any opportunity for more and more and more?

[Urwrongx1000]

It's both, prescient and instructive.

The Commucrats used 1984 as an instruction-book to implement their Fascism and Nazism.

[obsrvr524]

It's both, prescient and instructive.

The Commucrats used 1984 as an instruction-book to implement their Fascism and Nazism.

It sure looks that way, doesn't it.

But did Orwell intend that it be a projection of a possible future or to be used to create one? I suspect the former. Power seekers are always lurking about for methods and means.

[Urwrongx1000]

Oh I'm sure he's rolling in his grave.

At least it makes a good t-shirt: "Make Orwell Fiction Again"

[obsrvr524]

Oh I'm sure he's rolling in his grave.

At least it makes a good t-shirt: "Make Orwell Fiction Again"

[MagsJ]

But did Orwell intend that it be a projection of a possible future or to be used to create one? I suspect the former. Power seekers are always lurking about for methods and means.

I think it always the former, for the reasons you’ve stated, for seeking methods and means.

[obsrvr524]

After a high speed replay of the \(IQ^2\) debate (much to the annoyance of my wife & co.) my analysis is the following –

The unreduced strategies mentioned concerning The Brave New World were -

• Identity political structure
• Psychological conditioning thru obfuscation
• Distractive consumerism
• Sexual mandates
• Elimination of the family unite
• Genetic engineering
• Love only for the state
• Morality in a bottle
• Subtle extermination of the uncontrolled – "pests"
• Mood altering drugs

And concerning Nineteen Eight-Four –

• Subtle speech control
• Hypocrisy
• Artificial antagonists
• Power lust
• Thought crime
• Rewriting of history
• No need to think
• Authoritarian discourse
• Authoritarian logic
• Power of hatred – divisiveness
• Subjective reality
• Psychological conditioning thru suffering
• Power thru suffering
• Hatred, fear, triumph, self abasement - only

I think for decades the Brave New World scenario was in play – techniques to subtly and gently enslave the population without them realizing they were enslaved. Huxley didn't get into the more fascist methods.

But then what no one expected – Mr Trump became US President.

Mr Trump was/is sort of a crude Jesus figure – standing up for the masses, tearing the curtain on the establishment, turning over the money changing tables… The Jewish coalition had to be thinking – "OH HELL – here we go AGAIN!"

So they sent the Devil after him (the Muller team) who found nothing to convict. And now they are headed for the Pontious Pilat trial. Mr Trump intends to remain silent. And after which they are already planning the crucifixion.

Throughout Rome the Christians were then persecuted – the current effort to ban all conservatives from society – even jail them merely for being associated with Mr Trump or conservative ideas.

And I think that is when the Huxley narrative switched to the Orwell narrative – fascist enforcement of "unity" to the state.

Orwell saw society not merely being tricked into compliance (mostly through language manipulation and mind control techniques) but also by authoritarian intimidation and forced submission (fascism) – not caring that the population now know they are enslaved.

A question is why did Orwell think that force would be necessary?

Actually James answered why it would be necessary but I suspect Orwell was probably just going by Nazi experience.

The Brave New World tactics would require absolute but hidden control over media and the economy (James' "Media, Money, and Medicine"). And realistically that is always partially exposed – never truly absolutely hidden. That implies a potential for "tearing the curtain" – which is exactly what happened.

So we can see from Rome-Judaea history that eventually tyrannical fascism is a historical reality and with history repeating itself and at a weak state – what else could really be expected? – Authoritarian control over speech, enhanced surveillance, persecution of dissidents, banning of any means for the population to resist, and open abandonment of civil rights – no more US Constitution silliness.

The Brave New World narrative was just a little too weak to last. The Orwellian narrative was an inevitable backstop.

Huxley was a dreamer of a utopia through obfuscation – no need for the ugly extortion. Orwell was more realistic – some subterfuge but reinforced by fascism until all resistance was simply forgotten – relegated to the "black hole of forgetfulness" – the Abyss.

And of course following history – Welcome to the fall of Rome and The New Dark Age.

It has all been done before.

Huxley dreamt of French socialism.
Orwell remembered Nazi socialism - the inevitable consequent

I wonder if either thought about the Christians and the Fall of Rome.

[obsrvr524]

Oh - please forgive me Mr Wellhuxwell - I forgot to welcome you to the water board (stick around and you will not really be drowning in muck and issues - you just feel like you are - an interesting experience. )

[Sleyor Wellhuxwell]

Oh - please forgive me Mr Wellhuxwell - I forgot to welcome you to the water board (stick around and you will not really be drowning in muck and issues - you just feel like you are - an interesting experience. )

Thank you very much.
_________________________

@ ALL.

We should deal with the fact that many "social" (a magic word) and other phenomena and events belong together.

Examples: the deregulation and thus the increase of power of high finance to an unprecedented extent; the wars, whether local, regional, global or universal; the fear mongering (e.g. of catastrophes, allegedly e.g. by climate or/and epidemics (last: "Covid-19")); the non-governmental organizations; the support of selected states (last the Chinese, whose rise became possible also by it); the key positions in the most important states; the westernal technology threatening the nature of the living beings (especially e.g. nano-, gene-, robot technology, AI); the eugenics for 0.0001%, the dysgenics for 99.9999% of the people; the racism (e.g. which has been waged against the white race for decades now); mass migration (immigration into the Occident: abolition of the Occident); the extermination of the middle class, the civil society (since it exclusively concerns the Occidentals: extermination of Occidentals); the abolition of Occidental national states (in favor of privatization); Occidental nihilism (annihilation of Occidental values) and deconstructionism in general; Occidental fashion as a substitute for origin, genealogy, tradition, history, past, family, children (since exclusively concerning Occidentals: extermination of the Occidentals); feminism (since exclusively concerning the Occidentals: extermination of the Occidentals); genderism, although the gender affiliation is clearly recognizable by the organs; plutocracy disguised as democracy resp. kleptocracy; the mafiotic corporatism practiced above and the downward dictated ecologism and communism; the deliberate confusion of truth and lie; the probably not coincidental similarity of many conditions with those described e.g. by Wells, Huxley, Orwell. The implementation of the strategy points means a giant profit, that is a giant increase of power for a dwarfed group of people.

[Otto]

But the greatest danger has not even been mentioned: How, if one day the class struggle and the race struggle unite to make an end with the white world? This is in the nature of things, and neither revolution will spurn the aid of the other simply because it despises its bearer. Common hatred extinguishes mutual contempt. And how, if at their And how if a white adventurer, such as we have seen in many a case, puts himself at the head of them, one whose wild soul could not breathe in the hothouse of civilization and tried to sate himself on dangers in daring colonial enterprises, among pirates, in the Foreign Legion, until he suddenly sees here a great goal before his eyes? With such natures history prepares its great surprises. The disgust of deep and strong people at our conditions and the hatred of deeply disappointed people could already increase to a revolt that wants destruction. This, too, was not foreign to Caesar's time. In any case, when the white proletariat breaks loose in the United States, the Negro will be on the spot, and behind him Indians and Japanese will be waiting for their hour. Black France, in such a case, would have no hesitation in surpassing the Paris scenes of 1792 and 1871. And would the white leaders of the class struggle ever be embarrassed if colored riots opened the way for them? They have never been choosy in their means. Nothing would change if Moscow fell silent as a commander. It has done its work. The work continues itself. We have waged our wars and class struggles before the eyes of the colored people, humiliated and betrayed ourselves among ourselves; we have invited them to join in. Would it be a miracle if they finally did the same for themselves?

(Oswald Spengler, Years of Decision - Germany and the World Historical Development, 1933, pp. 164-165 - the official translation of the title is: The Hour of Decision).

Here the coming history rises high above economic hardships and domestic ideals. Here the elementary powers of life itself enter into the struggle which is about everything or nothing. The prefiguration of Caesarism will very soon become more definite, more conscious, more undisguised. The masks from the age of parliamentary intermediate states will fall completely. All attempts to absorb the content of the future in parties will be quickly forgotten. The fascist forms of these decades will pass into new, unforeseeable forms, and nationalism of today will also disappear. Only the warlike, »Prussian« spirit will remain as a form-giving power, everywhere, not only in Germany. Fate, once concentrated in meaningful forms and great traditions, will make history in the form of formless individual powers. Caesar's legions are waking up again.

(Oswald Spengler, Years of Decision - Germany and the World Historical Development, 1933, pp. 164 - the official translation of the book title is: The Hour of Decision).

And also Caesar had to prefer foreign soldiers (e.g. from Germany and Gaul), because they were more combative, braver, more reliable, more alive than the overprotected and too much spoiled ancient Roman cowards.

The time of the majority of Western people is over (for the second time, if we consider the ancient time as well). This majority has become overprotected and too much spoiled cowards.

[Urwrongx1000]

The time of the majority of Western people is over (for the second time, if we consider the ancient time as well). This majority has become overprotected and too much spoiled cowards.

Absolutely this

This is why these cowards need to threaten violence here on this philosophy forum, because they have nothing left in terms of conviction, argument, debate, and rationality.

[Sleyor Wellhuxwell]

The time of the majority of Western people is over (for the second time, if we consider the ancient time as well). This majority has become overprotected and too much spoiled cowards.

Absolutely this

This is why these cowards need to threaten violence here on this philosophy forum, because they have nothing left in terms of conviction, argument, debate, and rationality.

Will the "cowards" get another chance to do better? Or are they all fateful victims, hopeless cases?

[obsrvr524]

Will the "cowards" get another chance to do better? Or are they all fateful victims, hopeless cases?

To actually get into the real I think they have to get into the feel - they have to personally face an enemy on their own - and get used to winning. Having others do all of your fighting for you just encourages the cowardice. That is why you want experienced fighters making the decisions - not just experienced users.

[Sleyor Wellhuxwell]

Will the "cowards" get another chance to do better? Or are they all fateful victims, hopeless cases?

To actually get into the real I think they have to get into the feel - they have to personally face an enemy on their own - and get used to winning. Having others do all of your fighting for you just encourages the cowardice. That is why you want experienced fighters making the decisions - not just experienced users.

Or they will die out.

Thesis.

The people will slowly die out, namely on the following way: They will become demented (their memory is already reduced by censorship). They will have no more memory, i.e. history and history narrations will be no more possible, because the memory for it is missing. They will become communistic, whatever that may mean in reality, because they will be machinized at the same time, become cyborgs. They will be fought and defeated by the androids and the pure machines, so that at the end of this fight no human will be left.

Note and take into account that this is a thesis.

Orwell studied totalitarianism, especially communism, also in terms of forgetting. He did not yet know the technical possibilities that exist today, but he was already betting that people's memory would be taken away by communism, which he himself experienced at times (he was temporarily a communist himself).

As for the criticism of modern technology, let us recall Heidegger:

Gestell (or sometimes Ge-stell) is a German word used by twentieth-century German philosopher Martin Heidegger to describe what lies behind or beneath modern technology.[1] Heidegger introduced the term in 1954 in The Question Concerning Technology, a text based on the lecture "The Framework" ("Das Gestell") first presented on December 1, 1949, in Bremen.[2] It was derived from the root word stellen, which means "to put" or "to place" and combined with the German prefix Ge-, which denotes a form of "gathering" or "collection".[3] The term encompasses all types of entities and orders them in a certain way.[3]

Heidegger applied the concept of Gestell to his exposition of the essence of technology.[4] He concluded that technology is fundamentally Enframing (Gestell).[5] As such, the essence of technology is Gestell. Indeed, "Gestell, literally 'framing', is an all-encompassing view of technology, not as a means to an end, but rather a mode of human existence".[6] Heidegger further explained that in a more comprehensive sense, the concept is the final mode of the historical self-concealment of primordial φύσις.[4]

In defining the essence of technology as Gestell, Heidegger indicated that all that has come to presence in the world has been enframed. Such enframing pertains to the manner reality appears or unveils itself in the period of modern technology and people born into this "mode of ordering" are always embedded into the Gestell (enframing).[7] Thus what is revealed in the world, what has shown itself as itself (the truth of itself) required first an Enframing, literally a way to exist in the world, to be able to be seen and understood. Concerning the essence of technology and how we see things in our technological age, the world has been framed as the "standing-reserve." Heidegger writes,

[list]Enframing means the gathering together of that setting-upon which sets upon man, i.e., challenges him forth, to reveal the real, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve. Enframing means that way of revealing which holds sway in the essence of modern technology and which is itself nothing technological.[8]list]

Furthermore, Heidegger uses the word in a way that is uncommon by giving Gestell an active role. In ordinary usage the word would signify simply a display apparatus of some sort, like a book rack, or picture frame; but for Heidegger, Gestell is literally a challenging forth, or performative "gathering together", for the purpose of revealing or presentation. If applied to science and modern technology, "standing reserve" is active in the case of a river once it generates electricity or the earth if revealed as a coal-mining district or the soil as a mineral deposit.[9]

For some scholars, Gestell effectively explains the violence of technology. This is attributed to Heidegger's explanation that, when Gestell holds sway, "it drives out every other possibility of revealing" and that it "conceals that revealing which, in the sense of poiesis, lets what presences come forth into appearance."[10]

"Only a God can save us." - Martin Heidegger.

"The humans will only be used in the way they are needed." - Martin Heidegger.

So, if they will not be needed at all anymore, then ... (see above).