Orwell vs. Huxley (Big Tech Update)

George Orwell’s fictionalized world where Big Brother reigns supreme is no longer a figment of the imagination, but a prophetic vision of present-day threats. Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, explains how and why Big Tech is making Orwell’s 1984 a 21st century reality.

OLDER POST…. (1/2016)

Someone recently said:

  • Why is it that the left loves to rewrite history? My theory is that to them the end justifies the means ironically in history that has led to genocide here and there.

To which I replied, “I agree.” (And I continued, as I am wont-to-do):


Another reason is that history is a giant mirror reflecting their failed paths to equality. From the French Revolution, to segregation and eventually the Civil War, to their terrorist arm of the Party (the KKK), to pouring water and oil into a pot and calling it a “melting pot” (multiculturalism in leftist terms is really segregation all over again). From the Fabian Socialists to Bernie Sander “types,” from the founder of Planned Parenthood having guest columns in her newsletter by NAZI doctors to allowing gender abortions and legislating to make it legal to leave a baby on a table to die from the environment… it is all an embarrassing mirror that they need to change and obfuscate. (And, there is nothing analogous.)

In reading an excellent book, early on there was this nugget:

We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another—slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. 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 egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture….  As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

Joshua Charles, Liberty’s Secrets: The Lost Wisdom of America’s Founders (Washington, DC: WND Books, 2015), XIV; that is a large quote itself from Neil Postuman’s book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2006), XIX-XX.

While Charles and Neil take the “Brave New World” route… I think we can split the horns of the dilemma a bit (so-to-speak) and say yes… a small percentage of dedicated persons (to their faith or ethos) are feeling the boot mentioned in Orwell’s epic tale. From fining people out of business by taking their bank accounts because they refuse to make cakes for celebrations they wish not to support, to $250,000 for people who wish to call people by their real gender.

However, outside of this smaller percentage who is feeling the [sarcasm] equality of State [/sarcasm], there is a much larger percentage who do not want to be bothered as they amuse themselves to death (totalitarian bents ignored in political theories).

They do not want to be bothered by what would have in our history brought people to arms. All they care about is the next text on their iPhone or another round online with friends playing Call of Duty, or who got injured in the last NFL game that impacts the chances of their team winning. THESE people who have replaced worldviews with entertainment will one-day get a rood awakening when their toys are gone.

Liberals — especially — want this amusement to curtail knowing about history so they can get another radical candidate in office who likewise thinks the Constitution is a living/breathing document.

Sorry for the rant… but you got me thinking.

The BBC Has Killed Comedy ~ John Cleese and 1984

JoNova notes:

Cleese on political correctness:

“Political correctness is a bit like granny or your maiden aunt arriving at a party when you’re all having a good time,” John Cleese said.

“She comes in and they all start buttoning up and becoming self conscious and behaving properly and then when she leaves you can have fun again.

“Well a lot of humour is just about enjoying life, it’s spontaneity. We’re always teasing each other. It’s with affection. It’s nasty teasing we don’t want. There’s certain jokes that are mean and actually not funny.”

Vishnal Mangalwadi Quotes George Orwell

This was a great quote from a book I am currently reading. The quote from Orwell comes from his letter/notes entitled “A Patriot After All: 1940-1941 (The Complete Works of George Orwell, Vol. 12)“:

India-born British author George Orwell (1903-50) was a socialist, inclined toward atheism. The horrors of Fascism, Nazism, Commu­nism, and the two World Wars forced him to face the consequences of the “amputation of the soul.” In his “Notes on the Way,” Orwell wrote that the writers who sawed off the West’s soul included “Gibbon, Vol­taire, Rousseau, Shelley, Byron, Dickens, Stendahl, Samuel Butler, Ibsen, Zola, Flaubert, Shaw, Joyce—in one way or another they are all of them destroyers, wreckers, saboteurs.” These “Enlightenment” writers led the West into its present darkness.

In his essay Orwell was reflecting on Malcolm Muggeridge’s book The Thirties, which describes the damage these writers had done to Europe. Muggeridge, then still an atheist, was astute enough to per­ceive that

we are living in a nightmare precisely because we have tried to set up an earthly paradise. We have believed in “progress.” Trusted to human leadership, rendered unto Caesar the things that are God’s. . . . There is no wisdom except in the fear of God; but no one fears God; therefore there is no wisdom. Man’s history reduces itself to the rise and fall of material civilizations, one Tower of Babel after another . . . downwards into abysses which are horrible to contemplate.

I first discovered the Bible as a student in India. It transformed me as an individual and I soon learned that, contrary to what my uni­versity taught, the Bible was the force that had created modern India. Let me, therefore, begin our study of the book that built our world by telling you my own story.

Vishnal Mangalwadi, The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization (Nashville TN: Thomas Nelson, 2011), 22-23.

“Illegal” the New “N” Word? ~ Orwell Would Be Proud

This incredible story comes via The Blaze:

Progressive commentator Sally Kohn took aim at a word she deemed derogatory and dehumanizing in a CNN column published on July 4.

She compared the term to “n*****” and “f*****” and called for an end to its public usage.

The word: “illegal.”

Here’s how she opened her column:

During the civil rights era, Alabama Gov. George Wallace was asked by a supporter why he was fixated on the politics of race. Wallace replied, ‘You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about n*ggers, and they stomped the floor.’

In the 1980s, during the rise of the gay rights movement, North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms accused a political opponent for supporting ‘f*ggots, perverts [and] sexual deviates of this nation.’

Today, opponents of immigration reform attack undocumented immigrants as ‘illegal immigrants.’ Even worse, like anti-immigration extremists, some prominent elected officials use the term ‘illegals.’ Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, said, ‘I urge all Mainers to tell your city councilors and selectmen to stop handing out your money to illegals.’

Not the same thing? Of course it is.

She goes on to call for the elimination of the term “illegal” from public discourse, essentially arguing that social pressure should be employed to rid American parlance of the adjective.

Walter Hudson (PJ Media) explains what we are not going to do… and that is, dilute real evil, real meaning, to terms that are TRULY offensive:

  • “We’re not changing our language to suit your agenda. We’re not going to stop categorizing people objectively as illegal immigrants. We’re not going to dilute the gravity of truly derogatory terms by conflating them with one that is not.

Even the MMA guys/gals get it… but don’t hold your breath for the cultural Marxists to do anything else thean want to change and control language — to suit their purposes.

Guess Who Obamas Minister of Truth Is? Husband of Gal Who Helped Make MoveOn.orgs~General Betray Us~Ad

Ministry of Truth? Hmmmm…. seems like I heard that somewhere before…. oh, yeah:

The Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue, in Newspeak) is one of the four ministries that govern Oceania in George Orwell‘s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. As with the other Ministries in the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a misnomer and in reality serves an opposing purpose to that which its name would imply, being responsible for the falsification of historical events; and yet is aptly named in a deeper sense, in that it creates/manufactures “truth” in the newspeak sense of the word.

(click poster for larger-fuller version of it)

BigGovernment has this on who this Minister of Truth is:

This week President Obama revealed his latest attempt to control the media, the Internet, and the information revealed to the people of the United States by creating a new “press” office of sorts, an Obama ministry of truth, if you will. Obama’s grandiose name for this new office is the Progressive Media & Online Response department. Also named was its new director, Jesse Lee. Lee, it turns out, has an interesting connection to one of the most outrageous anti-American, anti-military media efforts in recent memory.

Jesse Lee, you see, is married to Nita Chaudhary, one of the people responsible for the 2007 MoveOn.org newspaper ad that maligned General David Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”

That’s right, the guy that President Obama has chosen to “correct” the Internet and media and to relay the president’s “truth” is connected to one of the most anti-American, anti-military, left-wing activist groups in America. Lee and his wife are typical, hardcore, leftist extremists yet now they are in the People’s House with Lee responsible to “correct” the people themselves when they dare to question The One.

As David Steinberg notes, “Lee’s relationship with Chaudhary was not a negative for his White House career.” On the contrary, the man married to the woman that helped head an attack on the very general Obama himself has given greater duties has found her baleful influence to have either helped him reach a position inside the White House, or at the very least been a non-factor.

Shouldn’t it have been a factor, though? Shouldn’t Obama have shied away from hiring a man for his ministry of truth who is cozy with someone who stands against the very country he leads? One would think that being married to someone who belongs to one of the leading anti-American activist groups in the country would be a draw back. Apparently, Obama sees it as a plus. And need we be reminded that Moveon.org is funded by George Soros? Now we have a guy who can be directly influenced by George Soros in a new position right in the White House.

The Washington Post critiqued the ad by MoveOn.org, saying this:

However, MoveOn.org does not provide adequate factual support for its larger assertion that Petraeus is “constantly at war with the facts” and is “cooking the books” for the White House. In the absence of fresh evidence, we award MoveOn.org three Pinocchios [out of four].


 

And to catch those up on this controversy — if you hadn’t known about it — this deceitful ad was removed from MoveOn’s site after Obama appointed Petraeus to a position. Newsbusters reported this, then:

In a classic example of liberal hypocrisy, the far-left leaning, George Soros-funded group MoveOn.org has removed its controversial “General Betray Us” ad from its website.

For those that have forgotten, shortly after General David Petraeus issued his report to Congress in September 2007 concerning the condition of the war in Iraq and the success of that March’s troop surge, MoveOn placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

This created quite a firestorm with media outlets on both sides of the aisle circling the wagons to either defend or berate both the Times and MoveOn.

Now that President Obama has appointed Petraeus to replace the outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the war effort in Afghanistan, the folks on the far-left that castigated Petraeus when he worked for George W. Bush have to sing a different tune.

With that in mind, the ad, which has been at MoveOn’s website for years, was unceremoniously removed on Wednesday as reported by our friends at Weasel Zippers:

It was there the last time Google cache took a screen shot of it (June 18th), so it was scrubbed sometime between then and today. If you try the link now (http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.htm) it goes to MoveOn’s default page.

I guess MoveOn couldn’t possibly bash this General now that he’s working for Obama.

To give readers an idea of the firestorm this created at the time, here are some NewsBusters articles published after this ad hit:

With Petraeus now part of the Obama administration, it’s going to be fascinating watching all of the media members and outlets that supported MoveOn’s ad now backtrack and gush over the General they once despised.