Orwell feared a world ruled by force: surveillance cameras in every room, thought police hunting dissent, history rewritten daily by whoever held power. It was a tyranny you could see, name, and rage against. The boot on the face was terrible, but it was also legible, and legibility is what makes resistance possible.

Huxley feared something quieter. In his vision, no one burns the books because no one needs to; the desire to read them has already been engineered away. Citizens are kept comfortable, distracted, and endlessly entertained, surrendering their freedom not under threat but with a smile, in exchange for a life with no discomfort and nothing left to want.

Two of the greatest minds of the 20th century, watching the same forces unfold, arrived at completely different conclusions about how we would lose our freedom. One thought it would be taken from us. The other thought we would give it away. History, it turns out, had room for both.

6 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Orwell feared a world ruled by force: surveillance cameras in every room, thought police hunting dissent, history rewritten daily by whoever held power. It was a tyranny you could see, name, and rage against. The boot on the face was terrible, but it was also legible, and legibility is what makes resistance possible.

Huxley feared something quieter. In his vision, no one burns the books because no one needs to; the desire to read them has already been engineered away. Citizens are kept comfortable, distracted, and endlessly entertained, surrendering their freedom not under threat but with a smile, in exchange for a life with no discomfort and nothing left to want.

Two of the greatest minds of the 20th century, watching the same forces unfold, arrived at completely different conclusions about how we would lose our freedom. One thought it would be taken from us. The other thought we would give it away. History, it turns out, had room for both.

Exactly what Obama attempted to do his 12 years in office...okay 8 years as President and 4 years as the shadow govt during Biden's administration. I would say Biden was also complicit but he didn't know if he was in the basement, the oval office, or at the beach😉

And exactly what is happening in the EU.

Edited June 26Jun 26 by howlee101
added context

45 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

Exactly what Obama attempted to do his 12 years in office...okay 8 years as President and 4 years as the shadow govt during Biden's administration. I would say Biden was also complicit but he didn't know if he was in the basement, the oval office, or at the beach😉

And exactly what is happening in the EU.

And the U.S. is still suffering under the devastating shadow of the Obama administration by the left wing globalist Federal Judges appointed under Barack Hussein Obama II who seem to overrule every sane, patriotic, American loving legislation currently instituted. Old dementia Joe was a puppet for Obama as well as "word salad" Kamala.

This topic is too deep for me.

25 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

This topic is too deep for me.

Yeah, I'm going back to GG's bent fork. This one is too much for me to get my head around.

2 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Citizens are kept comfortable, distracted, and endlessly entertained, surrendering their freedom not under threat but with a smile, in exchange for a life with no discomfort and nothing left to want.

This sounds like the large social welfare you favor.

2 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Orwell feared a world ruled by force: surveillance cameras in every room, thought police hunting dissent, history rewritten daily by whoever held power. It was a tyranny you could see, name, and rage against. The boot on the face was terrible, but it was also legible, and legibility is what makes resistance possible.

Huxley feared something quieter. In his vision, no one burns the books because no one needs to; the desire to read them has already been engineered away. Citizens are kept comfortable, distracted, and endlessly entertained, surrendering their freedom not under threat but with a smile, in exchange for a life with no discomfort and nothing left to want.

Two of the greatest minds of the 20th century, watching the same forces unfold, arrived at completely different conclusions about how we would lose our freedom. One thought it would be taken from us. The other thought we would give it away. History, it turns out, had room for both.

Both Orwell and Huxley were right. Today it's "social media" to keep "the masses" contempt. The old Romans called it "Panem et Circenses".

Today the modern day Countries/States increase their national dept to keep their citizens "contempt".

Panem: Social security systems that we can not pay for in the long run.

Circenses: Endless entertainement avenues (internet) with the goal of detaching people from a "harsh world".

Just like the old Romans did. Eventually this magic concept imploded.

11 hours ago, swissie said:

Both Orwell and Huxley were right. Today it's "social media" to keep "the masses" contempt.

Social media is not "bread and circuses".

Well, some of it is. I guess if you watch cat videos all day.

Elon is on X .... you have access to tweets of some of the most important people on the planet.

Or anybody can tweet. If you got something interesting to say, you can get your message across.

It's never been easier in history to reach people and get your message across.

It's quick dissemination of information without having to buy books.

You don't need to go through gatekeepers (ie book publishers).

Edited June 27Jun 27 by save the frogs

Social media is brainwashing. We get bombarded 24 hours a day so there's no more time left to think for ourselves. We're always regurgitating others' opinions without even putting in our own. Smartphones were really a soft sell. As advertisers and other evildoers realised their potential, it was game on. And we did it to ourselves.

No publishing gatekeepers today when anyone can publish a book. The question is, how many people, including students of all ages actually read books for knowledge or pleasure. Personally, I find much deeper referential material in books. Not everything needs to be up-to-the-minute.

For me, the most important people on the planet are not the rich.

And I own an iPhone 5c. No apps, no Internet.

4 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

No publishing gatekeepers today when anyone can publish a book. The question is, how many people, including students of all ages actually read books for knowledge or pleasure. Personally, I find much deeper referential material in books. Not everything needs to be up-to-the-minute.

I don't read as much as I used to.

I will start getting back into books more and social media less.

22 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Orwell feared a world ruled by force: surveillance cameras in every room, thought police hunting dissent, history rewritten daily by whoever held power. It was a tyranny you could see, name, and rage against. The boot on the face was terrible, but it was also legible, and legibility is what makes resistance possible.

Huxley feared something quieter. In his vision, no one burns the books because no one needs to; the desire to read them has already been engineered away. Citizens are kept comfortable, distracted, and endlessly entertained, surrendering their freedom not under threat but with a smile, in exchange for a life with no discomfort and nothing left to want.

Two of the greatest minds of the 20th century, watching the same forces unfold, arrived at completely different conclusions about how we would lose our freedom. One thought it would be taken from us. The other thought we would give it away. History, it turns out, had room for both.

Depending on the day and the country, you can get either Orwell's or Huxley's vision.

The UK and the EU are gravitating toward Orwell's vision of "A boot stamping on a human face - forever."
The US is more a Huxley vision: "The perfect dictatorship would have the appearance of a democracy, but would basically be a prison without walls in which the prisoners would not even dream of escaping. It would essentially be a system of slavery where, through consumption and entertainment, the slaves would love their servitudes."

UFC at the White House anyone? Superbowl? Maximum T&A on a stage with a backup band breaking your ear-drums. Only-Fans?

15 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Social media is not "bread and circuses".

Well, some of it is. I guess if you watch cat videos all day.

Elon is on X .... you have access to tweets of some of the most important people on the planet.

Or anybody can tweet. If you got something interesting to say, you can get your message across.

It's never been easier in history to reach people and get your message across.

It's quick dissemination of information without having to buy books.

You don't need to go through gatekeepers (ie book publishers).

I am glad that you have found that social media has enriched the world.

My obsvervation:

• 30% of contributions I find valuable and interesting.

• 30% of contributions I qualify as "circenses" (catching attention as the main goal).

• 30% of contributions originates from people we formerly called "village idiots". Their "reach" was limited to the village. Today those "village idiots" can spread their mental disruptions across the globe in seconds.

Occasionally I think that those contributions must come from inhabitants of some mental institution. But no, there are not enough mental institutions to accomodate this many "keyboard basket cases".

Long live social media and especially long live AI.

4 hours ago, swissie said:

30% of contributions originates from people we formerly called "village idiots". Their "reach" was limited to the village. Today those "village idiots" can spread their mental disruptions across the globe in seconds.

Yes, ok.

But it's also a matter of perspective of who society puts on a pedestal.

George Orwell is a genius, right? But what if it's mostly mind control? There likely won't ever be that kind of oppressive lack of freedom described in that book.

So many books written by respected authors are garbage too. It's not just social media.

14 hours ago, connda said:

Depending on the day and the country, you can get either Orwell's or Huxley's vision.

The UK and the EU are gravitating toward Orwell's vision of "A boot stamping on a human face - forever."
The US is more a Huxley vision: "The perfect dictatorship would have the appearance of a democracy, but would basically be a prison without walls in which the prisoners would not even dream of escaping. It would essentially be a system of slavery where, through consumption and entertainment, the slaves would love their servitudes."

UFC at the White House anyone? Superbowl? Maximum T&A on a stage with a backup band breaking your ear-drums. Only-Fans?

I was thinking the US is more Animal Farm

Give me back my broken night
My mirrored room, my secret life
It's lonely here
There's no one left to torture

Give me absolute control
Over every living soul
And lie beside me, baby
That's an order

Give me crack and *** sex
Take the only tree that's left
Stuff it up the hole
In your culture

Give me back the Berlin wall
Give me Stalin and St. Paul
I've seen the future, brother
It is murder

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
Has crossed the threshold and it has overturned the order of the soul

Edited June 28Jun 28 by save the frogs

This guy argues that surveillance makes people behave better.

And I agree with him.

If there are AI face recognition cameras everywhere, you are less likely to get attacked.

The wrong wrong wrong dystopia.

This is the REAL dystopia.

Sperm counts are on track to hit zero by 2045. That means the median male will have no viable sperm in 19 years. Half of all men will be functionally infertile. Billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham, who has spent 27 years researching environmental toxicity, says this is the most underreported crisis in human history, and nobody wants to talk about it.

Is a dictator "dystopia" ?

Why dictators are sometimes necessary.

5 dictators who have outperformed every democracy.

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

The wrong wrong wrong dystopia.

This is the REAL dystopia.

Sperm counts are on track to hit zero by 2045. That means the median male will have no viable sperm in 19 years. Half of all men will be functionally infertile. Billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham, who has spent 27 years researching environmental toxicity, says this is the most underreported crisis in human history, and nobody wants to talk about it.

Fantastic, there's no hope for humans! I really thought there would be an extinction event: nuclear war, slowly poisoning ourselves, plastic, climate disaster but now we can just give up all those groundless fears. Mankind simply will not be able to clone itself anymore! Wonderful!

When I travel, say, Hong Kong or China or visit must-sees in other countries or sit in airports, I marvel t how many useless eaters there are. (I am one of them) It would be so great if most of us were gone. Perhaps if most the of greedheads were gone, the Earth could heal itself.

I have a friend who is partner in an IVF clinic here. He travels the world, selling babies to China, India, Bangladesh. All these women, and some men, whose life will never be complete until they look on the face of their little darling: oh, he looks like me! But he's got my nose! (Can you feel that little bit of throw-up in your mouth

I belonged to an long-defunct outfit called the Church of Euthanasia. The four pillars of the Church were: Abortion, Sodomy, Suicide and Cannibalism. They had some great slogans: The World Is My Ashtray; God is Coming, Stick Out Your Tongue; Eat People, Not Animals. We don't need more of us!

All three of my kids were accidents. Can't keep it in my pants, I guess. Consumerism consumes us all.

Edited June 28Jun 28 by unblocktheplanet
add

On 6/28/2026 at 6:52 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

Fantastic, there's no hope for humans! I really thought there would be an extinction event: nuclear war, slowly poisoning ourselves, plastic, climate disaster but now we can just give up all those groundless fears. Mankind simply will not be able to clone itself anymore! Wonderful!

When I travel, say, Hong Kong or China or visit must-sees in other countries or sit in airports, I marvel t how many useless eaters there are. (I am one of them) It would be so great if most of us were gone. Perhaps if most the of greedheads were gone, the Earth could heal itself.

I have a friend who is partner in an IVF clinic here. He travels the world, selling babies to China, India, Bangladesh. All these women, and some men, whose life will never be complete until they look on the face of their little darling: oh, he looks like me! But he's got my nose! (Can you feel that little bit of throw-up in your mouth

I belonged to an long-defunct outfit called the Church of Euthanasia. The four pillars of the Church were: Abortion, Sodomy, Suicide and Cannibalism. They had some great slogans: The World Is My Ashtray; God is Coming, Stick Out Your Tongue; Eat People, Not Animals. We don't need more of us!

All three of my kids were accidents. Can't keep it in my pants, I guess. Consumerism consumes us all.

There are so many things that will plague us earthlings in the future. Too numerous to mention. Our main problem is: There are too many of us. The earth can maybe support 3 billion, not 8 billion. This evolutionary "overshoot" will eventually be corrected. By "us" or mother nature.

Your passage: "I belonged to an long-defunct outfit called the Church of Euthanasia. The four pillars of the Church were: Abortion, Sodomy, Suicide and Cannibalism. They had some great slogans: The World Is My Ashtray; God is Coming, Stick Out Your Tongue; Eat People, Not Animals. We don't need more of us!" I found both amusing as well as interesting.

In my case, I found it always a waiste to bury our deaths to be eaten by the worms or to be burned (adding to the CO2 output). So I deposited my "last will", wishing that my remains should be converted to useful fertiliser and given to a local farmer.

A week later I was summond to the probate office, facing 4 death experts, making it clear to me that legally something like this is not possibe and the clergy would not allow for this. I went on the offensive: If this is not legal, I suggested that my remains may become a part of a bar-b-que party. Referring to olden missionaries in New Guinea that were told by the locals that human flesh tastes quite good. With or without ketchup. 😉

That was the time when the death experts eyes started to roll and meaningful murmerings ensued. A minute later I was basically thrown out of the probate office. End of story. It actually happened as told.

On 6/26/2026 at 6:01 PM, unblocktheplanet said:

Orwell feared a world ruled by force: surveillance cameras in every room, thought police hunting dissent, history rewritten daily by whoever held power. It was a tyranny you could see, name, and rage against. The boot on the face was terrible, but it was also legible, and legibility is what makes resistance possible.

Huxley feared something quieter. In his vision, no one burns the books because no one needs to; the desire to read them has already been engineered away. Citizens are kept comfortable, distracted, and endlessly entertained, surrendering their freedom not under threat but with a smile, in exchange for a life with no discomfort and nothing left to want.

Two of the greatest minds of the 20th century, watching the same forces unfold, arrived at completely different conclusions about how we would lose our freedom. One thought it would be taken from us. The other thought we would give it away. History, it turns out, had room for both.

NOT two, JUST one....

Orwell RULES....

Huxley played SECOND FIDDLE.....but....

I know that you know this.

Right?

Note: Just read the prose, and then one knows....

Edited June 29Jun 29 by GammaGlobulin

2 hours ago, swissie said:

There are so many things that will plague us earthlings in the future. Too numerous to mention. Our main problem is: There are too many of us. The earth can maybe support 3 billion, not 8 billion. This evolutionary "overshoot" will eventually be corrected. By "us" or mother nature.

Your passage: "I belonged to an long-defunct outfit called the Church of Euthanasia. The four pillars of the Church were: Abortion, Sodomy, Suicide and Cannibalism. They had some great slogans: The World Is My Ashtray; God is Coming, Stick Out Your Tongue; Eat People, Not Animals. We don't need more of us!" I found both amusing as well as interesting.

In my case, I found it always a waiste to bury our deaths to be eaten by the worms or to be burned (adding to the CO2 output). So I deposited my "last will", wishing that my remains should be converted to useful fertiliser and given to a local farmer.

A week later I was summond to the probate office, facing 4 death experts, making it clear to me that legally something like this is not possibe and the clergy would not allow for this. I went on the offensive: If this is not legal, I suggested that my remains may become a part of a bar-b-que party. Referring to olden missionaries in New Guinea that were told by the locals that human flesh tastes quite good. With or without ketchup. 😉

That was the time when the death experts eyes started to roll and meaningful murmerings ensued. A minute later I was basically thrown out of the probate office. End of story. It actually happened as told.

I have researched this thoroughly in Thai law. As long as a doctor declares you dead, anything is possible with your body. I'd like to be eaten by the birds I've fed in life.

35 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

NOT two, JUST one....

Orwell RULES....

Huxley played SECOND FIDDLE.....but....

I know that you know this.

Right?

Note: Just read the prose, and then one knows....

Huxley injected acid on his deathbed. Hard to choose, really.

3 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Huxley injected acid on his deathbed. Hard to choose, really.

On his deathbed, even?

So unfortunate that he never discovered his dream of SOMA....

On 6/29/2026 at 7:21 PM, unblocktheplanet said:

I have researched this thoroughly in Thai law. As long as a doctor declares you dead, anything is possible with your body. I'd like to be eaten by the birds I've fed in life.

Clearly, Thai law is more liberal than in my home country.

A little cred for Kurt Vonnegut.

He wrote a short story (for years his bread&butter was stories written for magazines) called Harrison Bergeron where reading books is a crime. Not long ago I met an expat fellow from a certain Commonwealth country who didn't like the sort of people who read books because (he sez) it is not social, implication that those who read are snobs and excluding others (like himself).

I'm making my way through a sci-fi called Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, which I read 30+ years ago when it came out. I'm not saying this to find fault, but I find it interesting to see what he didn't see coming, and what he did sort of foretell. And then there are the things he may have inspired, like "the metaverse." Yes, name and all, I wonder if he got some sort of royalty.

On 6/26/2026 at 8:27 AM, save the frogs said:

This topic is too deep for me.

No one can plumb the depths of human stupidity

Funny, isn't it, that people who read books are seen as antisocial. But those glued to their phones are normal.

Thanks for the pointer. I've downloaded the Vonnegut from Internet Archive: https://dn721501.ca.archive.org/0/items/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron.pdf

21 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Funny, isn't it, that people who read books are seen as antisocial. But those glued to their phones are normal.

Thanks for the pointer. I've downloaded the Vonnegut from Internet Archive: https://dn721501.ca.archive.org/0/items/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron.pdf

One of my fave reads is Sirens of Titan.

Welcome to the Monkey House has also rung true for me!