EXCLUSIVE: Huxley and Orwell predicted two different NWOs — who was right?; Washington vs parties

JdN: It was on the eve of the illegal 2003 US invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which, as we know, did NOT have any “WMDs” program (=NO “weapons of mass destruction”) — things which, of course, the US and IsraHell did and do possess, whole mountains of WMDs……. when I heard a radio show, just before we attacked, saying

“according to statistics by the American Booksellers Association, the average American does not read one single book a year.”

My second wife (2002-05), Brigitte, who was French, and lived with me in New England (and actually really, really liked America and Americans, btw), a petite lady standing just 5’2″, suffered emotionally at lot from the French-bashing that George W. Bush, FOX News Channel, but also the liberal Washington Post and NY Times churned out.

But evne worse, she was physically attacked (elbowed twice in the back) by some media-hypnotized, French-bashing, freedom-fries/freedom-toast-scarfing male zombie patriotard as she leafed through a French magazine, Paris Match, at a Borders bookstore in liberal downtown Boston — all just for being French.

It was an example of the almost absolute power of the jewsmedia over the minds of very young souls, incarnationwise.

 

……Thought piece by a British writer

Philosophical Debate: Are we amused or are we pained by the effects of Establishment brainwashing and the entertainment industry?

In a 1985 book by Neil Postman, “Amusing Ourselves to Death”, the author reviews the effects of modern forms of “entertainment” on individuals and society,

….using references from George Orwell’s futuristic novel, “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” to elaborate on his theory.

George Orwell (real name: Eric Blair)

 

*** Wiki: One of Postman’s most influential works is Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.

In Amusing, Postman argued that by expressing ideas through visual imagery, television reduces politics, news, history and other serious topics to entertainment.^[3] 

He worried that culture would decline if the people became an audience and their public business a “vaudeville act”.

He also argued that television is destroying the “serious and rational public conversation” that was sustained for centuries by the printing press.

Rather than the restricted information in George Orwell‘s 1984, he claimed the flow of distraction we experience is [the major problem now, and more] akin to Aldous Huxley‘s [vision of the future] in A Brave New World.

***

Postman said in his book what Orwell feared most was that books would be banned – sounds eerily familiar!

But what Huxley feared in his novel was that there would not even be any reason to ban a book, for there would be no one by then that wanted to read one! B-O-R-I-N-G! 😉

Aldous Huxley

Do the masses nowadays read avidly? Of course not!

Orwell feared that those with information would keep it hidden from us, whilst Huxley feared we would have access to so much information that we would become passive and egotistical.

I do wonder if it has not turned out to be a combination of both due to 1) the advancement of technology in our lives and 2) the recent spurt in the growth of left-wing, woke ideology?

Remember also that both these books from which Postman quotes were published a long time ago – Aldous Huxley’s in 1932 and George Orwell’s in 1949.

Consider the significance of 1930s life in England, pre-WWII, and how it would have affected and shaped the opinions of Huxley.

Orwell published his work in the post-WWII period and that would have significantly influenced his writings, especially as Eastern Europe was now completely under the iron hand of a Soviet/Communist regime after WWII [hence “Big Brother,” a Stalin-like, personality-cult dictator].

Later in the article, I will discuss in what way the history of those two periods would have left its mark on the two writers.

Orwell rightfully predicted that the truth would be hidden from the people, and they would be subjected to a barrage of lies on a daily basis.

Huxley thought the truth, even if it got out, would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

Orwell suspected we might become a captured, obedient culture just like the ‘sheeple’ in Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, whereas Huxley thought our culture would be trivialised and we would become softened and addicted to every sort of mumbo-jumbo.

Huxley remarked that civil libertarians who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”

Postman added that in “1984” people are controlled by inflicting pain and fear [including the threat to the protagonist that a hungry rat would slowly gnaw his face off!] ] and in “Brave New World” they are controlled by inflicting distracting pleasures.

The author of “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Neil Postman, was chairman of the department of communication arts at New York University. He passed away in 2003. I think if he had lived during the Obama era and then Creepy Joe’s Administration, he would have never come to the conclusion that Orwell was completely wrong. Orwell’s predictions are so on the mark, it is uncanny!

*** JdN: “Bluestack” — proud to censor

“Bluestack” (and, nota bene, blue is the Israeli color, here seen projected onto the Brandenburg Gate in downtown Berlin…) is the informal working group of huge media corporations (Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon). They all agreed in 2017 — in the wake of Donald Trump’s election to the US presidency and at the urging of the Jew York Times —  to begin censoring anything traditional, heterosexual, pro-white, MAGA, rightwing, etc.

 

***

Originally published in 1985, Postman’s book was a ground-breaking, critical analysis of the corrosive effects of television on politics and public discourse, and has been hailed as a twenty-first-century book published in the twentieth century.

Now, with television joined by even more sophisticated electronic media — from the Internet to mobile phones to DVDs –it has taken on even greater significance.

Amusing Us to Death is a prophetic look at what happens when politics, journalism, education, and even religion become subject to the demands of the time. It depicts, in other words, a rather terrifying transformation of our society into one that is wholly governed and shaped by technology and our exposure to the “entertain-me” mindset which the superficial world of entertainment and the media engender in us.

 

*** JdN: The rulers have always provided some “bread and circuses” for the masses

*** life in no-media 1820

Washing dishes peacefully with no radio, tv, internet or phone going, just focus on doing it right:

Hubby brings home two rabbits and a duck he shot:

In that pre-info-technology world, there was no “instant” anything, and no phone either — no 911 to dial if you cut your finger off with the meat cleaver, or if the Indians attacked. Every task, including hunting, became a spiritual exercise and a way to learn to concentrate, focus and clear the mind of distracting “thought-crud.” (Rifles fired just one round every 45 seconds; if you missed that rabbit, or deer, or goose, he would scamper/fly off and be long, long gone, and your family would go hungry because you missed.)

***

Postman discusses how discourse worked when America was strictly a print culture. Because form has an effect on content, and print is a rational form of communication, print culture was more rational. Debates were longer and more thoughtful, and the monopoly of print produced a highly literate society.

*** See, right after this article by the British writer, President George Washington’s “Farewell Address” of 1796….and note the elevated vocabulary, not dumbed-down at all. Washington did not go down to the common people’s level; he wanted to raise them up to HIS!

***

With the invention of the telegraph and the photograph, however, print lost its monopoly. Now people had ways of getting information instantaneously—information that was often irrelevant, and incapable of difficult interpretations.

This set the stage for television. Once television became more widespread and commonplace, says Postman, the decline of cultural discourse rapidly became apparent. Because TV is a form of entertainment media, all information has now become entertainment. Politics, news, religion, education, economics—all of it is subject to the rule that entertainment is king.

Postman concludes his book by acknowledging that television cannot and should not be simply eradicated. Rather, he believes that Americans can save themselves by becoming aware of the potential television has to permanently stymie rational discussion. Once we recognize that forms of media wield this kind of power, we will be able to resist the urge to “entertain ourselves to death.”

In 1985, 15 years before the Internet joined tv and movies, and became widespread, Postman could not have envisaged how much influence and control the media would acquire and administer to an often unsuspecting audience. And governments throughout the world have used the major media as a tool for their own ambitions, agendas, and lusts for power, wealth, sex, retribution, and fame.

Actually, by basing his predictions of what our future society would look like on two major authors of dystopian fiction, Postman demonstrates hw strongly he  believes in the power and value of literature and the practice of sustained reading.

*** JdN Hervé Ryssen and the power of a four-hundred-page book

French WN author Hervé was a noble friend of me and Margaret, and even took Margi on a tour of the Versailles palace outside Paris. (Quite the gentleman, he and his sweet girlfriend gallantly slept on the couch to let Margi rest in their bed!)

His books are incredible brilliant and often humorous as well.

He said to me: “If I can have your mind for four hundred pages, not some quick blog or video, I can transform you. It will expand in your brain, and you will never be the same person again.”

Ryssen books (HIGHLY reocmmmended) in English: https://barnesreview.org/?s=ryssen&post_type=product&type_aws=true&aws_id=1&aws_filter=1

***

Neil Postman also, like Orwell and Huxley, wishes to promote his vision of the probable future on the reader.

Postman points out that these authors, Huxley and Orwell, though they both imagined a grim future, didn’t “prophesy” the same thing at all.

Orwell predicted that we will be oppressed—not just in our actions but in our very thoughts—by the external forces of governmental control. Huxley, on the other hand, imagined a world where our internal and personal weaknesses and desires to be entertained and pleasured drive us to laziness, stupidity, and intellectual incompetence.

“In short, Orwell feared that what we hate [JdN: and there is even a mandatory daily “Hate Minute” for the masses, when all work stops, in 1984] will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.”

Postman concludes with a provocative and slightly enigmatic contention: “This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.”

I, however, am of the opinion that Orwell was more on the nail than Huxley. How often have you heard recently the remark, “Big Brother is watching you”?

At the same time, it is definitely true that our desire to be entertained and be in need of help from others, instead of helping ourselves, has led to a proliferation of lazy, stupid people who no longer use their brains.

Postman, in his book, recounts various instances, even in the 1980s, that illustrate that American thinking had become trivial. Politicians were being praised for their looks or physique. TV advertising had the effect of preying on our decreasing attention spans, making us hungry for entertaining anecdotes rather than substantive information and knowledge.

But the fact that we are discussing the relevance of a book that is almost 40 years old, alongside the dystopian works of English authors, Huxley and Orwell, demonstrates the wisdom of our forbears and how we may derive from their ideas a blueprint for a solution to our current societal problems.

The 1930s when Huxley wrote “Brave New World” were a period of acute economic and psychological depression in many countries, and it is possible that Huxley desired to uplift his readers into a state of wellbeing and pleasured feelings in amongst all the hardship. He must have also considered himself a prophet of things to come, and with the enormous success of his science fiction novel he must surely have congratulated himself on attaining such a prominent place in English literature. His novel is, after all, one of futuristic fantasy – modern-day science fiction – where the reader can forget the problems of his life and submit to an imaginary world of a more pleasurable existence.

The post-war period was the calm after the storm, but for many, forced to tolerate the rigidity of Communist rule in Eastern Europe, it was a constant struggle for freedom. Orwell in 1949, when he wrote “1984,” recognised the dangers of Communism, and in his novels he demonstrates the unfeeling cruelty of powerful rulers in their treatment of the people. How eerily accurate were his predictions as he could see first-hand how oppressed the people were under such an authoritarian form of government.

I believe Orwell wanted to warn the human race in graphic detail of things to come, if we were to allow authoritarianism to become too widespread. He had an uncanny vision based on his experiences in Europe at that time.

Finally, I imagine Postman set out with his book “Amusing ourselves to Death” to explain for posterity in historical terms why our culture looked the way it did in 1985 – a dominance of visual culture, the adverse effects of a torrent of advertising on the public – and the ever-decreasing supply of real news and information that can make us think seriously and take action.

.

…..but it was already bad in the days of Edward de Vere (Lord High Chamberlain, 17th Earl of Oxford, and IMO the real “Shakespeare”)

.

https://archive.org/details/shakespearebyano00ande

And this de Vere was a fierce antisemite. Margi got me to read his “The Merchant of Venice,” and once I got into it and the mindset of the vengeful, hateful, greedy Shylock, it was like a horror movie!

And, for context, his queen, Elizabeth I, had nearly been poisoned by her jewish doctor, Rodrigo Lopes!

Wiki:

The Earl of Essex accused Lopes of conspiring to poison the Queen in January 1594. Insisting on his innocence, the doctor was convicted of high treason in February and hanged, drawn and quartered in June, reportedly after averring from the scaffold that “he loved the Queen as well as he loved Jesus Christ”[1]—a statement that, from a Jew, prompted mocking and laughter from the furious crowd.

An engraving has a Spanish agent on the left proposing that Rodrigo poison the Queen. He asks in Latin “Quid dabitis?” (=”How much will you give?”) In the lower right the jew is hanging from a gallows, with the Latin phrase hovering over him:  “Proditorum finis funis” (“A traitor’s end is nasty”)

.

See also:

The antisemitic Edward de Vere was the TRUE “Shakespeare”!

 

……JdN: Washington denounced the existence of ALL political parties!

Photo: the First Baptist Church of Providence, Rhode Island, which my ancestor via both parents, Thomas Angell, gave orchard land for in the 1600’s. The current church, very much larger, was built in 1775.