We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The story of Brave New World preceded 1984 and other dystopian totalitarian/collective novels. It also provides a counterpoint - the idea that there might be a way to accomplish the collective through positive interaction and genuine agreement. Huxley realized this was a seductive approach, but one fraught with problems, all of which eventually bubble up over time. Collectives require some form of force, or provision to derive agreement, to survive over longer periods of time. Widespread collective agreement, even on a small scale, can only be temporary. Huxley saw the value of propaganda, drugs, and psychological manipulation...as well as genetic engineering...to help achieve that "provision to derive agreement" and achieve a means to a presumed end.
There is, of course, no end that is always utopian and happy. That's the farce of our 'science-based' leaders and protesters out there - believing society can be, somehow, manipulated (or forced) into happiness and perfection. Huxley knew that. The critical flaw in Brave New World is the technological advancement and wealth this 'collective' creates. As we know, that is literally impossible. None has ever achieved it, none ever will. Despite that, Brave New World provides a cautionary tale on falling for seductive ideas that run against human nature. And, oddly enough, it aligns very well with the 'science' of the current covid political management...the willingness of people to fall in line to 'save' society.
The collectivists know perfectly well that utopias are impossible to achieve, let alone maintain. So they sell the dream of total social harmony & justice as a means of acquiring power over other people for themselves. The collectivists need to be resisted, forcefully when necessary.
It's important to recognize that they do know how to maintain the collective, in order to distinguish theirs from other efforts that should be supported. A society will enforce collective action when faced with an existential threat, and the collectivists use that willingness to convince people their programs are justified. That's why you see constant references to threats like 'climate change' and 'systemic racism' as justification for sweeping collective changes.
There is, of course, no end that is always utopian and happy.
The refrain is always, "This time we will achieve utopia because we have smarter people to administer the programs." but of course they don't and never will.
The flaw in their thinking is their belief that they can control human wants and desires. They can't, but it doesn't stop them from trying.
Reading this right now! And watched the above series not too long ago. There are definitely a lot of thematic tie-ins between the two, not to mention parallels with current events and cultural characteristics.
Two or more individuals can relate to one another in one of two ways:
(a) by mutual agreement for mutual benefit or
(b) by force.
Mutual agreement for mutual benefit means that if I want something from someone else I have to propose that something to them and expect that they agree or move on.
If they agree, we collaborate and everybody wins.
If they don’t agree all those who don’t agree can go on with their lives undisturbed.
Force is what so many have been used since before we were humans and so many continue to use.
Brute, raw aggression. Violence.
You approach someone and the well known “yo!! . . . you do (x) or I’ll bash your skull in!!” and you follow suit.
Or, if your intention is to take something from them you just bash their skull in without warning and take what you want.
You can take stuff, slaves, sex, whatever.
Force puts you in the position of achieving the opposite effect since there’s a probability, unlikely to be zero, that the skull bashed in will be your own.
And then people have to live in a perpetual state of close to war, always ready, always armed to the teeth with full kit and ready to use it.
After countless attempts, deaths and genocides and disasters we seemed to choose option (a) and established the notion of rights.
And then on to individual rights equal for all.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This notion puts it that if you are human and you breathe, you have rights.
Inalienable rights meaning that nobody can take them away from you and you can’t renounce them voluntarily.
If somebody tries to use aggression, force, to take your rights away that body should be punished.
Rights are like a bubble that protects an individual from aggression.
As long as everybody lives within the sphere his your own rights everything is fine.
You can’t aggress against somebody else’s rights unless you first abandon the sphere of your own rights to go mess with the rights of another.
Since the spheres don’t touch you can’t do that if you stay within the sphere of YOUR rights.
The purpose of government OUGHT to be the punishment of those who would aggress against the rights of others by first abandoning their own rights.
And that SHOULD end the actions of government.
And that is very important because if we extend the actions of government to something else then we HAVE to use aggression and the system crumbles.
We have never truly had THAT.
The closest we came are the United States of America.
But it was never ACTUALLY THAT because from the get go we mixed systems and people started to come up with cute ideas galore of spending other people’s money in never ending “wouldn’t it be great” projects that immediately brought about “EVERYBODY has to put (some) money for the great idea!!! . . . or force WILL be used against you”
So we had and we have, (a) and (b) trying to coexist.
Things degenerated to where we are today.
The US is a socialist / communist / collectivist / progressive ./ leftoxenomorph country were the government takes away 60% of your earnings so nancy peelousy can go do her hair violating the rules she and other leftoxenomorphs set up for others, a feudal system.
One rule for me, a different rule for the peasants and all of it under the permanent rule of governmental aggression.
Old style!!
And now the leftoxenomorphs are trying to go full feudal, back to the medieval Dark Ages, with full (b), full collectivism, full governmental juggernaut, New World Order, One World Government, everybody an ant, no individuals, no rights, no freedom.
The US has been the most (a) ever that we ever got.
The facts are clear that (a) seems to work quite well and our achievements are notorious . . . if you are rational and decent.
Morality plays a big part.
The (b)s are coming strong.
The (a)s . . . so far? Pitiful.
There isn’t all that much else.
Details? Plenty.
But those are the basics.
No need for aggression.
But, boy! Isn’t it tempting?!!
So, either the (a)s defend ourselves from the (b)s or the (b)s win, kill some, enslave the rest and bye, bye freedom, bye, bye US and bye, bye Western civilization.
I say he (a)s kill all the (b)s and enjoy life.
Nice won’t do it.
Voting won’t do it.
The Federal Bureau of Incompetents, a 100% leftoxenomorph, won’t do it. Those are all (b)s.
Actually, Brave New World was not the first dystopian novel. It was preceeded by Jack London's The Iron Heel (published 1908) and Yevgeny Zamyatin's We (published 1921).
