It's much more about "2+2=5" than about the Big Brother TV-show with the cameras. I myself thought the book was about surveillance before I read it, mostly because of the "Big Brother" TV show.
That has been achieved in hyperpartisan US politics already. A lot of people of people will change their opinion and perception of the real world immediately once it's convenient for "their" party.
Democrats mocked Romney's anti-Russia position in 2012. And remember the "reset button"? Now many think Putin controls American elections and the US President himself.
Which Republican politician says Russia is 'the good guys'?
Again, the point is that partisans willingly accept the same behavior from "their" guy that they would condemn from the "other" guy and they don't even notice how inconsistent this is.
As regards to trusting Putin over the CIA, what was he supposed to do? Call Putin a liar to his face? Not only is that unwise, it goes against his style of negotiation as I mentioned previously.
There was a conservative narrative in the circa 2013 timeframe that Russia had been a key ally in the war on terror by allowing military logistics for Afghanistan to travel by rail through their sphere of influence. Obama was said to have insulted our Russian friends and as a result we were forced to use unreliable roads in Pakistan instead.
IIRC, there was notion that we would be playing a 19th century style “great game” in Central Asia, basically paying off Russia to contain China’s ambitions for heavy rail service into the Middle East.
End of the day, there are lots of different policy positions floated out there as a result of our nearly two decades at war and the various stakeholders as alliances shift.
The difference in the current administration is the unbridled graft and influence peddling. Everything is transactional.
As with the above, this sounds like something from another dimension to me. Who exactly are you referring to? What words/actions?
"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
Edit: Personally, it's this self-awareness of their own real motives that make the Inner Party of Ingsoc so scary.
All of the Big Brother, Ministries of Whatever, censorship, and surveillance stuff was just window dressing for the love message.
Even Brave New World, to me, is about love. The society spurns familial love (like between John and his mother) and committed relationships (like between everyone and everyone) and pain or discomfort is a prerequisite for love and the pursuit of happiness has all but eliminated true love from the world. John kills himself because he hurt the woman he loved, he is humiliated for loving his mother, and is frustrated by the fact that the woman he loves can't love him because she is too busy pursuing simple, immediate, pleasures.
At least, that's my recollection of the two books.
That's...an interesting perspective, but I think the audience is expected to already view love with that importance, so that the love storyline instead underlines the power of the control of the state.
Similarly with BNW. I think you are reading things that the authors perceived and sought to leverage in their contemporary audience with as being instead the message of the work: neither is about love, but the effect the dystopia described has on love is a key part of painting the picture because of what readers are expected to already feel about love.
My takeaway was that love was the most important emotion yet the state has the power to control even love. I don't think we're supposed to believe his love for Big Brother is genuine, but rather manufactured much like revisions to history.
Except that she doesn't love him and she immediately and fully confesses everything and betrays him.
The book is about the political classes, while the majority of the population (the proles) are not discussed a lot, they seem to have simple lives and can love.
“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening” seems lifted straight out of 1984.
A few years ago I agreed with you. Now I’m not so sure.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-44959340/donald-...
Also see the five eyes network.
One of the most prescient things about 1984 that really stuck out to me at the time I read it, and which I think someone could VERY easily get away with actually creating today with few even batting an eye was the Youth Anti-Sex League. It only gets slight mention in the book, I believe Winston's neighbors children were teenaged members. Brave New World handled sexuality very differently, with its 'orgy porgys' and whatnot. That's certainly not the state we have today, where discussion of sex is fine so long as you're condemning anyone who is having or seeking it, especially if they're outside of their 20s or ugly, fat, disabled, etc.
Ultimately, both books are a product of their times and provide interesting insights nonetheless. I don't know what benefit there is in holding one up as 'more alike' the dystopia we've created.
It's called Xanax and it's handed out like candy
> The wholesale cost in the United States is less than US$0.03 per dose as of 2018.[15] In 2016, it was the 19th most prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 27 million prescriptions.[16]
Unfortunately this seems to incorrect. Consider already how public schooling works. How aware are most parents of the curriculum their kids consume?
"Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World."
The letter is very interesting and worth a read.
...taken from "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
If you ever feel anxious, unhappy or nervous just reach into your pocket and distract yourself with social media, a TV show, a game, or a podcast.
The fact that we can, at all times, be indefinitely distracted and stimulated means we never have to fully feel sad, lonely, or bored if we don't want to. How many people go home from work to binge watch a show until they fall asleep?
It's been a while since I've read the book but I remember soma being used as a way to regulate unwanted emotions. It seems like there's some parallels there, but obviously it's not a perfect analogy.
Arguably, 'hatchery and conditioning centers', represent mass production. Of people in the book, but we've certainly got an economy based on producing more houses, cars, appliances, digital gadgets, so more people can consume more, very much in line with BNW.
Arguably we have a stronger caste system than in generations, measured by inequality and immobility. Alphas = capital owners, Betas = service providers to capital owners, Deltas, Gammas, Epslions = labor here and in other countries.
On the surface, it just seems absurd and fascinating in a certain way that we can have video footage of the president saying one then and then he can just claim it's "fake news" and a sizable chunk of the populous seems to be cool with it.
Ah, not yet! Give it time!
- Soma, I'm sure you can imagine
- Conditioning centers... advertisement everywhere?
- Caste system... genetic engineering for the rich
China is actively working on one based on the citizen score.
They all reduce to tuning out discomfort, either through pleasure or storytelling. They paint pictures of different forms of self censorship.
You are either using pills, entertainment, religion, lies, propaganda, or marketing to achieve a nirvana of cognitive dissonance and safety.
They are not a zero sum game, they compliment each other nicely.
Another book that doesn't get mentioned enough in this category is Ira Levin's (Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives, The Boys from Brazil) This Perfect Day. It's a global AI super computer house sorting hat, like Captain Marvel or I Robot, mixed with Gattaca.
Regardless, I don't think any of these things are the "central concepts" of BNW. BNW is about how a society can oppress and degrade people in a subtle and sustainable manner, without being totalitarian, without hatred or fear or the will to dominate, with people by and large believing that they are contented and fulfilled. All this simply by the inevitable progression and continuation of certain principles, e.g. that it's good to maximise how happy people say they are, or that conflict should be avoided at any cost. This all has disturbingly close parallels with modern Western society.
But one does: the speaker and microphone on the wall that you can't turn off.
"Can't because you'll be imprisoned" and "choose not to because you might miss a message" are not the same thing.
This is one of the things that Orwell did not anticipate: there's no need to threaten people with prison. People will voluntarily set up the spying infrastructure in their homees if they perceive that it's cool or that it makes life a little more convenient for them. They'll even pay for it!
And every device has an off switch. At the very worst, you either unplug it or don't charge it or throw the damn thing out.
Where you're absolutely right is the voluntary aspect of modern surveillance. If we had a BB style telescreen, it would annoy people to the point of revolt, but package it with "content" and everyone is cool with it.
And it would be very easy to make the argument that America has a 'caste system'. Zuck, Bezos, Gates all went to schools almost none of us could even consider affording to attend.
And yeah, more than anything I think we have a caste system. Social mobility is decreasing, and we certainly don't interact with people of far-away economic classes unless it is required (usually). I don't think the poor like being poor the same way the Epsilons were pleased not to be burdened with responsibility.
That's enough to talk about Soma.
11% of children have ADHD [2]
We give them ritalin, which is meth.
Obviously not all of them, but quite a lot.
So 25% right there on anti-depressants, possibly ritalin. This doesn't factor in all the other legal and illegal drugs.
The Soma prediction is not unreasonable at all.
Also, 'the rich' in America generally do have the burden of responsibility. Wall Street lawyer earning $800K is not an easy field trip.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/one-6-americans-t...
[2] http://www.demarleinc.com/ADHD%20NY%20TIMES%20more-diagnoses...
I'm not trying to make an argument here, just pointing out some factual errors in case you wonder why you're being downvoted.
A very significant chunk of the population are taking drugs, legally or not legally, that materially affect our state of mind. This is a dystopian feature of 'A Brave New World'.