Aldous Huxley: The Ultimate Revolution

Aldous huxleyAldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, rated number one in the List Muse Top 100 Fiction books list, here discusses influence, controlling the public mind and government.

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”  Aldous Huxley

Aldous Huxley, The Ultimate Revolution (44:17): MP3

Transcript – The Ultimate Revolution

March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center – Speech Archive SA 0269


{garbled}Aldous Huxley, a renowned Essayist and Novelist who during the spring semester is residing at the university in his capacity of a Ford research professor. Mr Huxley has recently returned from a conference at the Institute for the study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara where the discussion focused on the development of new techniques by which to control and direct human behavior. Traditionally it has been possible to suppress individual freedom through the application of physical coercion through the appeal of ideologies through the manipulation of man’s physical and social environment and more recently through the techniques, the cruder techniques of psychological conditioning. The Ultimate Revolution, about which Mr. Huxley will speak today, concerns itself with the development of new behavioral controls, which operate directly on the psycho-physiological organisms of man. That is the capacity to replace external constraint by internal compulsions. As those of us who are familiar with Mr. Huxley’s works will know, this is a subject of which he has been concerned for quite a period of time. Mr. Huxley will make a presentation of approximately half an hour followed by some brief discussions and questions by the two panelists sitting to my left, Mrs. Lillian {garbled} and Mr. John Post. Now Mr. Huxley


Thank You.


Uh, First of all, the, I’d like to say, that the conference at Santa Barbara was not directly concerned with the control of the mind. That was a conference, there have been two of them now, at the University of California Medical center in San Francisco, one this year which I didn’t attend, and one two years ago where there was a considerable discussion on this subject. At Santa Barbara we were talking about technology in general and the effects it’s likely to have on society and the problems related to technological transplanting of technology into underdeveloped countries.

Well now in regard to this problem of the ultimate revolution, this has been very well summed up by the moderator. In the past we can say that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the environment in order to change the individual. I mean there’s been the political revolution, the economic revolution, in the time of the reformation, the religious revolution. All these aimed, not directly at the human being, but at his surroundings. So that by modifying the surroundings you did achieve, did one remove the effect of the human being.

Today we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the ultimate revolution, the final revolution, where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to say some kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time. But this has generally been of a violent nature. The Techniques of terrorism have been known from time immemorial and people have employed them with more or less ingenuity sometimes with the utmost cruelty, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired by a process of trial and error finding out what the best ways of using torture, imprisonment, constraints of various kinds.

But, as, I think it was (sounds like Mettenicht) said many years ago, you can do everything with {garbled} except sit on them. If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent, it’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them.

It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say, and this is a problem which has interested me many years and about which I wrote thirty years ago, a fable, Brave New World, which is an account of society making use of all the devices available and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system. Since then, I have continued to be extremely interested in this problem and I have noticed with increasing dismay a number of the predictions which were purely fantastic when I made them thirty years ago have come true or seem in process of coming true.

A number of techniques about which I talked seem to be here already. And there seems to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of ultimate revolution, a method of control by which a people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to enjoy. This, the enjoyment of servitude, Well this process is, as I say, has gone on for over the years, and I have become more and more interested in what is happening.

And here I would like briefly to compare the parable of Brave New World with another parable which was put forth more recently in George Orwell’s book, Nineteen Eighty- Four. Orwell wrote his book between, I think between 45 and 48 at the time when the Stalinist terror regime was still in Full swing and just after the collapse of the Hitlerian terror regime. And his book which I admire greatly, it’s a book of very great talent and extraordinary ingenuity, shows, so to say, a projection into the future of the immediate past, of what for him was the immediate past, and the immediate present, it was a projection into the future of a society where control was exercised wholly by terrorism and violent attacks upon the mind-body of individuals.

Whereas my own book which was written in 1932 when there was only a mild dictatorship in the form of Mussolini in existence, was not overshadowed by the idea of terrorism, and I was therefore free in a way in which Orwell was not free, to think about these other methods of control, these non-violent methods and my, I’m inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future, and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world, will be probably a good deal nearer to the brave new world pattern than to the 1984 pattern, they will a good deal nearer not because of any humanitarian qualms of the scientific dictators but simply because the BNW pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other.

That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they’re living. The state of servitude the state of being, having their differences ironed out, and being made amenable to mass production methods on the social level, if you can do this, then you have, you are likely, to have a much more stable and lasting society. Much more easily controllable society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs and firing squads and concentration camps. So that my own feeling is that the 1984 picture was tinged of course by the immediate past and present in which Orwell was living, but the past and present of those years does not reflect, I feel, the likely trend of what is going to happen, needless to say we shall never get rid of terrorism, it will always find its way to the surface.

But I think that insofar as dictators become more and more scientific, more and more concerned with the technically perfect, perfectly running society, they will be more and more interested in the kind of techniques which I imagined and described from existing realities in BNW. So that, it seems to me then, that this ultimate revolution is not really very far away, that we, already a number of techniques for bringing about this kind of control are here, and it remains to be seen when and where and by whom they will first be applied in any large scale.

And first let me talk about the, a little bit about the, improvement in the techniques of terrorism. I think there have been improvements. Pavlov after all made some extremely profound observations both on animals and on human beings. And he found among other things that conditioning techniques applied to animals or humans in a state either of psychological or physical stress sank in so to say, very deeply into the mind-body of the creature, and were extremely difficult to get rid of. That they seemed to be embedded more deeply than other forms of conditioning.

And this of course, this fact was discovered empirically in the past. People did make use of many of these techniques, but the difference between the old empirical intuitive methods and our own methods is the difference between the, a sort of, hit and miss craftsman’s point of view and the genuinely scientific point of view. I think there is a real difference between ourselves and say the inquisitors of the 16th century. We know much more precisely what we are doing, than they knew and we can extend because of our theoretical knowledge, we can extend what we are doing over a wider area with a greater assurance of being producing something that really works.

In this context I would like to mention the extremely interesting chapters in Dr. William (sounds like Seargent’s) Battle for the Mind where he points out how intuitively some of the great religious teachers/leaders of the past hit on the Pavlovian method, he speaks specifically of Wesley’s method of producing conversions which were essentially based on the technique of heightening psychological stress to the limit by talking about hellfire and so making people extremely vulnerable to suggestion and then suddenly releasing this stress by offering hopes of heaven and this is a very interesting chapter of showing how completely on purely intuitive and empirical grounds a skilled natural psychologist, as Wesley was, could discover these Pavlovian methods.

Well, as I say, we now know the reason why these techniques worked and there’s no doubt at all that we can if we wanted to, carry them much further than was possible in the past. And of course in the history of, recent history of brainwashing, both as applied to prisoners of war and to the lower personnel within the communist party in China, we see that the pavlovian methods have been applied systematically and with evidently with extraordinary efficacy. I think there can be no doubt that by the application of these methods a very large army of totally devoted people has been created. The conditioning has been driven in, so to say, by a kind of psychological iontophoresis into the very depths of the people’s being, and has got so deep that it’s very difficult to ever be rooted out, and these methods, I think, are a real refinement on the older methods of terror because they combine methods of terror with methods of acceptance that the person who is subjected to a form of terroristic stress but for the purpose of inducing a kind of voluntary quotes acceptance of the state the psychological state in which he has been driven and the state of affairs in which he finds himself.

So there is, as I say, there has been a definite improvement in the, even in the techniques of terrorism. But then we come to the consideration of other techniques, non-terroristic techniques, for inducing consent and inducing people to love their servitude. Here, I don’t think I can possibly go into all of them, because I don’t know all of them, but I mean I can mention the more obvious methods, which can now be used and are based on recent scientific findings. First of all there are the methods connected with straight suggestion and hypnosis.

I think we know much more about this subject than was known in the past. People of course, always have known about suggestion, and although they didn’t know the word ‘hypnosis’ they certainly practiced it in various ways. But we have, I think, a much greater knowledge of the subject than in the past, and we can make use of our knowledge in ways, which I think the past was never able to make use of it. For example, one of the things we now know for certain, that there is of course an enormous, I mean this has always been known a very great difference between individuals in regard to their suggestibility. But we now know pretty clearly the sort of statistical structure of a population in regard to its suggestibility. Its very interesting when you look at the findings of different fields, I mean the field of hypnosis, the field of administering placebos, for example, in the field of general suggestion in states of drowsiness or light sleep you will find the same sorts of orders of magnitude continually cropping up.

You’ll find for example that the experienced hypnotist will tell one that the number of people, the percentage of people who can be hypnotized with the utmost facility (snaps), just like that. is about 20%, and about a corresponding number at the other end of the scale are very, very difficult or almost impossible to hypnotize. But in between lies a large mass of people who can with more or less difficulty be hypnotized, that they can gradually be if you work hard enough at it be got into the hypnotic state, and in the same way the same sort of figures crop up again, for example in relation to the administration of placebos.

A big experiment was carried out three of four years ago in the general hospital in Boston on post-operative cases where several hundred men and woman suffering comparable kinds of pain after serious operations were allowed to, were given injections whenever they asked for them whenever the pain got bad, and the injections were 50% of the time were of morphine, and 50% of water. And about twenty percent of those who went through the experiment, about 20% of them got just as much relief from the distilled waters as from the morphea. About 20% got no relief from the distilled water, and in- between were those who got some relief or got relief occasionally.

So yet again, we see the same sort of distribution, and similarly in regard to what in BNW I called Hypnopedia, the sleep teaching, I was talking not long ago to a man who manufactures records which people can listen to in the, during the light part of sleep, I mean these are records for getting rich, for sexual satisfaction (crowd laughs), for confidence in salesmanship and so on, and he said that its very interesting that these are records sold on a money-back basis, and he says there is regularly between 15% and 20% of people who write indignantly saying the records don’t work at all, and he sends the money back at once. There are on the other hand, there are over 20% who write enthusiastically saying they are much richer, their sexual life is much better (laughter) etc, etc. And these of course are the dream clients and they buy more of these records. And in between there are those who don’t get much results and they have to have letters written to them saying “Go persist my dear, go on” (laughter) and you will get there, and they generally do get results in the long run.

Well, as I say, on the basis of this, I think we see quite clearly that the human populations can be categorized according to their suggestibility fairly clearly,. I suspect very strongly that this twenty percent is the same in all these cases, and I suspect also that it would not be at all difficult to recognize and {garbled} out who are those who are extremely suggestible and who are those extremely unsuggestible and who are those who occupy the intermediate space. Quite clearly, if everybody were extremely unsuggestible organized society would be quite impossible, and if everybody were extremely suggestible then a dictatorship would be absolutely inevitable. I mean it’s very fortunate that we have people who are moderately suggestible in the majority and who therefore preserve us from dictatorship but do permit organized society to be formed. But, once given the fact that there are these 20% of highly suggestible people, it becomes quite clear that this is a matter of enormous political importance, for example, any demagogue who is able to get hold of a large number of these 20% of suggestible people and to organize them is really in a position to overthrow any government in any country.

And I mean, I think this after all, we had the most incredible example in recent years by what can be done by efficient methods of suggestion and persuasion in the form of Hitler. Anyone who has read, for example, (Sounds like Bulloch’s) Life of Hitler, comes forth with this horrified admiration for this infernal genius, who really understood human weaknesses I think almost better than anybody and who exploited them with all the resources then available. I mean he knew everything, for example, he knew intuitively this pavlovian truth that condition installed in a state of stress or fatigue goes much deeper than conditioning installed at other times. This of course is why all his big speeches were organized at night. He speaks quite frankly, of course, in Mein Kampf, this is done solely because people are tired at night and therefore much less capable of resisting persuasion than they would be during the day. And in all his techniques he was using, he had discovered intuitively and by trial and error a great many of the weaknesses, which we now know about on a sort of scientific way I think much more clearly than he did.

But the fact remains that this differential of suggestibility this susceptibility to hypnosis I do think is something which has to be considered very carefully in relation to any kind of thought about democratic government . If there are 20% of the people who really can be suggested into believing almost anything, then we have to take extremely careful steps into prevent the rise of demagogues who will drive them on into extreme positions then organize them into very, very dangerous armies, private armies which may overthrow the government.

This is, I say, in this field of pure persuasion, I think we do know much more than we did in the past, and obviously we now have mechanisms for multiplying the demagogues voice and image in a quite hallucinatory way, I mean, the TV and radio, Hitler was making enormous use of the radio, he could speak to millions of people simultaneously. This alone creates an enormous gulf between the modern and the ancient demagogue. The ancient demagogue could only appeal to as many people as his voice could reach by yelling at his utmost, but the modern demagogue could touch literally millions at a time, and of course by the multiplication of his image he can produce this kind of hallucinatory effect which is of enormous hypnotic and suggestive importance.

But then there are the various other methods one can think of which, thank heaven, as yet have not be used, but which obviously could be used. There is for example, the pharmacological method, this is one of the things I talked about in BNW. I invented a hypothetical drug called SOMA, which of course could not exist as it stood there because it was simultaneously a stimulant, a narcotic, and a hallucinogen, which seems unlikely in one substance. But the point is, if you applied several different substances you could get almost all these results even now, and the really interesting things about the new chemical substances, the new mind-changing drugs is this, if you looking back into history its clear that man has always had a hankering after mind changing chemicals, he has always desired to take holidays from himself, but the, and, this is the most extraordinary effect of all that every natural occurring narcotic stimulant, sedative, or hallucinogen, was discovered before the dawn of history, I don’t think there is one single one of these naturally occurring ones which modern science has discovered.

Modern science has of course better ways of extracting the active principals of these drugs and of course has discovered numerous ways of synthesizing new substances of extreme power, but the actual discovery of these naturally occurring things was made by primitive man goodness knows how many centuries ago. There is for example, in the underneath the, lake dwellings of the early Neolithic that have been dug up in Switzerland we have found poppy-heads, which looks as though people were already using this most ancient and powerful and dangerous of narcotics, even before the days of the rise of agriculture. So that man was apparently a dope-bag addict before he was a farmer, which is a very curious comment on human nature.

But, the difference, as I say, between the ancient mind-changers, the traditional mind- changers, and the new substances is that they were extremely harmful and the new ones are not. I mean even the permissible mind-changer alcohol is not entirely harmless, as people may have noticed, and I mean the other ones, the non-permissible ones, such as opium and cocaine, opium and its derivatives, are very harmful indeed. They rapidly produce addiction, and in some cases lead at an extraordinary rate to physical degeneration and death.

Whereas these new substances, this is really very extraordinary, that a number of these new mind-changing substances can produce enormous revolutions within the mental side of our being, and yet do almost nothing to the physiological side. You can have an enormous revolution, for example, with LSD-25 or with the newly synthesized drug psilocybin, which is the active principal of the Mexican sacred mushroom. You can have this enormous mental revolution with no more physiological revolution than you would get from drinking two cocktails. And this is a really most extraordinary effect.

And it is of course true that pharmacologists are producing a great many new wonder drugs where the cure is almost worse than the disease. Every year the new edition of medical textbooks contains a longer and longer chapter of what are Iatrogenic diseases, that is to say diseases caused by doctors (laughter} And this is quite true, many of the wonder drugs are extremely dangerous. I mean they can produce extraordinary effects, and in critical conditions they should certainly be used, but they should be used with the utmost caution. But there is evidently a whole class of drugs effecting the CNS which can produce enormous changes in sedation in euphoria in energizing the whole mental process without doing any perceptible harm to the human body, and this presents to me the most extraordinary revolution. In the hands of a dictator these substances in one kind or the other could be used with, first of all, complete harmlessness, and the result would be, you can imagine a euphoric that would make people thoroughly happy even in the most abominable circumstances.

I mean these things are possible. This is the extraordinary thing, I mean after all this is even true with the crude old drugs. I mean, a housemate years ago remarked after reading Milton’s Paradise Lost, He Says “And beer does more than Milton can to justify God’s ways to man” (laughter). And beer is of course, an extremely crude drug compared to these ones. And you can certainly say that some of the psychic energizers and the new hallucinants could do incomparably more than Milton and all the Theologicians combined could possibly do to make the terrifying mystery of our existence seem more tolerable than it does. And here I think one has an enormous area in which the ultimate revolution could function very well indeed, an area in which a great deal of control could be used by not through terror, but by making life seem much more enjoyable than it normally does. Enjoyable to the point, where as I said before, Human beings come to love a state of things by which any reasonable and decent human standard they ought not to love and this I think is perfectly possible.

But then, very briefly, let me speak about one of the more recent developments in the sphere of neurology, about the implantation of electrodes in the brain. This of course has been done in the large scale in animals and in a few cases its been done in the cases of the hopelessly insane. And anybody who has watched the behavior of rats with electrodes placed in different centers must come away from this experience with the most extraordinary doubts about what on Earth is in store for us if this is got a hold of by a dictator. I saw not long ago some rats in the {garbled} laboratory at UCLA there were two sets of them, one with electrodes planted in the pleasure center, and the technique was they had a bar which they pressed which turned on a very small current for a short space of time which we had a wire connected with that electrode and which stimulated the pleasure center and was evidently absolutely ecstatic was these rats were pressing the bar 18,000 times a day (laughter). Apparently if you kept them from pressing the bar for a day, they’d press it 36,000 times on the following day and would until they fell down in complete exhaustion (laughter) And they would neither eat, nor be interested in the opposite sex but would just go on pressing this bar {pounds on podium}

Then the most extraordinary rats were those were the electrode was planted halfway between the pleasure and the pain center. The result was a kind of mixture of the most wonderful ecstasy and like being on the rack at the same time. And you would see the rats sort of looking at is bar and sort of saying “To be or not to be that is the question”. (Laughter) Finally it would approach {Pounds on podium} and go back with this awful I mean, the (sounds like franken huminizer anthropomorphizer), and he would wait some time before pressing the bar again, yet he would always press it again. This was the extraordinary thing.

I noticed in the most recent issue of Scientific American there’s a very interesting article on electrodes in the brains of chickens, where the technique is very ingenious, where you sink into their brains a little socket with a screw on it and the electrode can then be screwed deeper and deeper into the brainstem and you can test at any moment according to the depth, which goes at fractions of the mm, what you’re stimulating and these creatures are not merely stimulated by wire, they’re fitted with a miniature radio receiver which weighs less than an ounce which is attached to them so that they can be communicated with at a distance, I mean they can run about in the barnyard and you could press a button and this particular area of the brain to which the electrode has been screwed down to would be stimulated. You would get this fantastic phenomena, where a sleeping chicken would jump up and run about, or an active chicken would suddenly sit down and go to sleep, or a hen would sit down and act like she’s hatching out an egg, or a fighting rooster would go into depression.

The whole picture of the absolute control of the drives is terrifying, and in the few cases in which this has been done with very sick human beings, The effects are evidently very remarkable too, I was talking last summer in England to Grey Walter, who is the most eminent exponent of the EEG technique in England, and he was telling me that he’s seen hopeless inmates at asylums with these things in their heads, and these people were suffering from uncontrollable depression, and they had these electrodes inserted into the pleasure center in their brain, however when they felt too bad, they just pressed a button on the battery in their pocket and he said the results were fantastic, the mouth pointing down would suddenly turn up and they’d feel very cheerful and happy. So there again one sees the most extraordinary revolutionary techniques, which are now available to us.

Now, I think what is obviously perfectly clear is that for the present these techniques are not being used except in an experimental way, but I think it is important for us to realize what is happening to make ourselves acquainted with what has already happened, and then use a certain amount of imagination to extrapolate into the future the sort of things that might happen. What might happen if these fantastically powerful techniques were used by unscrupulous people in authority, what on Earth would happen, what sort of society would we get?

And I think it is peculiarly important because as one sees when looking back over history we have allowed in the past all those advances in technology which has profoundly changed our social and individual life to take us by surprise, I mean it seems to me that it was during the late 18 century early 19th century when the new machines were making possible the factory situation. It was not beyond the wit of man to see what was happening and project into the future and maybe forestall the really dreadful consequences which plagued England and most of western Europe and this country for sixty or seventy years, and the horrible abuses of the factory system and if a certain amount of forethought had been devoted to the problem at that time and if people had first of all found out what was happening and then used their imagination to see what might happen, and then had gone on to work out the means by which the worst applications of the techniques would not take place, well then I think western humanity might have been spared about three generations of utter misery which had been imposed on the poor at that time.

And the same way with various technological advances now, I mean we need to think about the problems with automation and more profoundly the problems, which may arise with these new techniques, which may contribute to this ultimate revolution. Our business is to be aware of what is happening, and then to use our imagination to see what might happen, how this might be abused, and then if possible to see that the enormous powers which we now possess thanks to these scientific and technological advances to be used for the benefit of human beings and not for their degradation.

Thank You


51 thoughts on “Aldous Huxley: The Ultimate Revolution

  1. There is at least one danger with the notion of thinking that the public loves servitude.

    I see a lot of “The Public Is Stupid” hate memes around the blogosphere, which is where logic downstream from that presumption is often found to end up.

    I am more inclined toward the concept advanced by the writers of the movie The Matrix. Which is that the public is fundamentally unaware of the parameters of their servitude. Denial also plays a part when they are exposed to some of it, but that is not fondness it is fear.

    There is a time worn response “I wouldn’t believe it even if it were true”, which I think is more from the realm of denial than from the realm of desire.

    1. gawd… if I see one more “the Marix is so visionary, MAN” comment I will puke. f’n entry-level hogwash by Hollywood. Remember Hollywood? those Wachowskis are both coked-up rich party-mongers that don’t have a real clue about how things really work. to follow their lead is to end up part of the system again.

      1. Entry level or not, it certainly represented an illustration of a concept many of us know about and made it main stream (for those willing to think about it), for others, its was just another Sci fi action movie.
        and for that, I believe it did a good thing in that it ‘wrang true’ with so many people who may not have previously been consciously aware of the situation

  2. I don’t think he said that people loved servitude, but said the aim was to try and make them love their servitude.

    I don’t think the public is stupid but they are certainly distracted, kept ignorant and are badly educated (although well schooled).

    1. The public are not stupid, but they aren’t intelligent in the ways of the past. They are quite skilled at regurgitating old stale information, but in the wake of time that needs radical thought and problem solving skills they are useless. Lambs taken out to slaughter if you will. They are3 kept asleep. Their main desires is to consume, obey, and reproduce.

      1. its not productive to have a stupid public. We need clever brilliant people to go about their daily jobs, applying logic, creativity and insight, as long as it serves the purpose which they have been told to do. Anything outside of that isn’t considered. Its almost as if a narrow beam of ‘innteligence’ is all that is required in order for them to ‘do their job’

  3. Pingback: 'child protection' anyone? - Home Education Forums

  4. Pingback: Huxley on Brave New World - Home Education Forums

  5. Pingback: ECM: Brave New World - Home Education Forums

  6. Huxley provides insight into how the views of the masses of society are manipulated. There is little doubt that the effectiveness of this process has increased in recent times. It raises a question about what will happen in the future as physical reality undermines the structure of civilization. It is not a common view but the reality is that all the operations of civilization entail irrevocably using up the limited natural material wealth. There are many components of that wealth. Oil is only one. That natural wealth is now becoming scarce. Society will have to learn how to power down, probably the hard way as they do not yet understand what has gone wrong. It is fascinating to speculate on how the oligarchs will cope with transition. Will they do better than the elders on Easter Island who build more idols as the life support system faded away.

  7. Pingback: March 22, 2010 « Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

    1. Could it be that this internet Blog medium asuays our fears … writing into the “Network” of other like minded persons gives us feeling that we are actively engaging and confronting the “servitude” aspect of our existence. We are dupes with a “panacea” that placates the anguish of being usurped, used and devalued.

  8. Don P makes an interesting point – Most of us “intellectuals” think we have a monopoly on understanding and can rise above the fray of loving our servitude. I ask you how many of us have amused others with the phase about our daily toil as proudly serving our masters?

    The last paragraph of 1984 – from memory and not perfect, but: “As Winston Smith was being escorted down the long white corridor of the Ministry of Love, he suddenly realized he had won a victory over himself, and that he really did love big brother.”

    As we watch our society in a disconnect and polarizing behavior most of are asking ourselves “What could the other side of this debate see that causes them to act in such utter contempt to what we believe! Is it the Soma-a-day causing a vacation from critical thought and a yearning for group think, or is it a mass hypnotic phase of Manchurian-like actions being focused on the rest of us as intimidation. I have no idea, but the disconnect is greater than “What’s wrong with Kansas.”

  9. On March 20, 1962, Aldous Huxley gave a speech before the Berkley Language Center titled “The Ultimate Revolution” in which he described a not too distant future where the public will be made to “love their servitude.” He went into a comparative description of his Book, “Brave New World” and Orwell’s book, “Nineteen Eighty Four” in which he believed that “the scientific dictatorships of the future… will be probably a good deal nearer to the brave new world pattern that to the 1984 pattern.”

    What Mr Huxley failed to acknowledge, or perhaps even to recognize, is that a dictatorship or an oligarchy is not necessary to produce the people’s love of servitude that he describes. What is necessary is for the public to not recognize it as servitude.

    All of the methods and tools that Huxley incorporated into his “Brave New World, his hierarchical society of clones, created and raised in nursery labs and programmed to perform within their strata. He wrote of Soma, a pleasure drug, producing a happy population that loved their servitude.

    Orwell’s “1984” also described a hierarchical society, this one of Englishmen and women, but not of clones. In his book they were divided into three groups, the Proles, the Party members and the Inner Party, and, as long as they docilely conformed, they all lived secure in the comfortable feeling that their work and their lives were meaningful.
    On the other hand the government Orwell described was concerned about deviants and watched the public closely to weed out any hint of deviancy. Huxley described this as terrorism:
    “…a society where control was exercised wholly by terrorism and violent attacks…”
    I don’t interpret it this way. Life in Oceania was not all that different from life in London, New York or Washington today. Yes, there were artificially produced shortages and propaganda such as Two Minutes Hate. But we like they are still experiencing continual war. “The search for new weapons continues unceasingly.” (Orwell)
    The point that I wish to make is that we all are presently happily experiencing a form of servitude, unconsciously and without animosity, because we feel we securely belong to the society in which we live.
    Winston Smith, the lead character in Orwell’s novel, had this veil of conformity stripped off. He fell into the chasm of anomie, the gulf that exists between blind conformity and individual autonomy. He saw his fellow workers continuing to live “normal” lives.. Everything seemed to be unchanged around him. How, he asked himself, how could everyone be wrong and he right? He began questioning his own sanity.
    Aldous Huxley’s theory that it would take a benevolent dictator to make the public “love their servitude” overlooks the natural inclination to conform to the social mores folks finds themselves in.

  10. Pingback: Oxford Professor Calls for Mass Drugging Population Through Water Supply | Dark Politricks

  11. Pingback: drugging water supply with flouride « Veritas Today

  12. Pingback: Oxford Professor Calls for Mass Drugging Population Through Water Supply | Hector Alvarez

  13. Pingback: Oxford professor calls for drugging water supply «

  14. Pingback: Oxford-Professor fordert Zwangsmedikation der gesamten Bevölkerung durch Trinkwasser « Info-Nachrichten


  16. Pingback: Health Authorities Want Depression-Causing Drugs Added To Water Supply | ClipsNewsNetwork

  17. Pingback: Health Authorities Want Depression-Causing Drugs Added To Water Supply |

  18. Pingback: News From Around The World In True Form

  19. Pingback: Scattered Brethren - Health Authorities Want Depression-Causing Drugs Added To Water Supply

  20. Pingback: Health Authorities Want Depression-Causing Drugs Added To Water Supply | Patriotpainter's Blog

  21. Pingback: Gefährliche neue Psychomedikamente sollen den Untertanen der Zukunft schaffen

  22. Here in Australia there is a typical hegelian ‘debate’ between Labor and Liberal parties as to ‘climate changes’ and what should be done about it. Labor of course want to tax us out of existence and Liberals want Monopoly Capitalism and the so-called ‘free market’ to reign. Notice that both parties favour more political, economic and financial control over us.

    We don’t hear about the future intention to monitor each individual’s ‘carbon foot print’ and where necessary ‘ration’ us. How? Through ‘smart meters’ installed in each and every home connected to the electric power grid. Nothing new in this idea. It was proposed earlier last century and by another Huxley – this time Julian.

    As to how a One-World Government could operate a Carbon Currency Rationing Future

    Please note the DATE in the following snippett from Julian Huxley’s “The Architectural Review”:
    International Power Monopoly Control: From the point of view of the industrial districts which are to receive the current, quite apart from the waste involved in transportation, it means that their homes and industries can be controlled from a source outside the influence of local feeling and action. This method, control by an international power monopoly through a transmission grid supplied from outside the zones in question, was in fact suggested for the control of the German people shortly after he War, by Harold G. Moulton (President of the Brookings Institution) and Louis Marlio, in their book “The Control of Germany and Japan”, and was shown to have many advantages over the more blatant military and police methods.

    The ultimate, and not at all remote, conclusion of the matter, if the intentions of ‘the Planners are carried out, is quite openly stated by Julian Huxley (later the first Secretary-General of U.N.E.S.C.O.) in “The Architectural Review”, as long ago as June, 1943, and quoted, with evident approval, by [David E.] Lilienthal, (T.V.A. Chairman of the Authority) in his book: “T.V.A.-Democracy on the March” (Penguin Edition 1944; p. 174):

    ” . . . Studies,” writes Huxley, “are being made of how a set-up of general T.V.A. type could be adapted to serve as an international instead of a national agency (thus among other things undercutting and transcending nationalist sovereignties, as the T.V.A. undercuts and transcends State rights and boundaries)…” That seems sufficiently clear!”

    The heading on the email I received about the article on your website read: “When predictions come true.” I would put it another way: When ‘predictions’ are made to come true. It all has to do with policies, control and planning. The centralisation of power has been the policy for the last hundred years! Nothing mysterious about this.

    What needs to be known are the answers to such centralisation of power through a social credit view of society. But I won’t hold my breath whilst waiting.

  23. Pingback: Aldous Huxley: The Ultimate Revolution « Quixotando

  24. Pingback: Quote of the Day | The Sound of Freedom

  25. Not a housemate , but houseman. English poet A. E. Houseman. He wrote (I quote from memory)

    “Ale man, Ale’s the drink
    For those who are afraid to think
    And malt does more than Milton can
    To justify god’s way to man.”

  26. Pingback: Cape Breton News and Views_World Alternative News Headlines_Updated « An Online Home For Cape Breton Islanders

  27. Pingback: Aldous Huxley: The Ultimate Revolution « Talesfromthelou's Blog

  28. Pingback: Big Brother Is Prism: NSA Is Watching All Communications Over Phones, Google, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Skype, Pal Talk, Facebook, AOL & You Tube | The Oldspeak Journal

  29. Pingback: Welcome to the Brave New World » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

  30. Pingback: Verichip , Brain Scanning and the religion of Transhumanism – A sign of the times – A Neo Luddite’s Perspective | We The People Will Not Be Chipped

  31. Pingback: Article: Verichip/Google, Brain Scanning and the Religion of Transhumanism — A Sign of the Times — A Neo Luddite’s Perspective | OpEdNews « The Progressive Mind

  32. Pingback: War-The Big Lie – What you’re not being told…

  33. Pingback: Episode 167 – Social Engineering and You : The Corbett Report

  34. Pingback: End Times Prophecy Headlines: October 20, 2015 | End Times Prophecy Report

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s