Which is it, /pol/?

File: brave new world.jpg (1MB, 1191x1684px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1191x1684px

>>130185175
>“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”

>>130185175
Ayn Rand was jewish and I haven't read Aldous Huxley, so I have to say 1984

>>130185815
BNW has more parallels to our modern world imo. Switch the world controller in there with the Elders of Zion and you have a match.

File: atlas shrugged statue.jpg (188KB, 762x867px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 762x867px

>>130185809
>Then she saw the answer; she saw the secret premise behind their words. With all of their noisy devotion to the age of science, their hysterically technological jargon, their cyclotrons, their sound rays, these men were moved forward, not by the image of an industrial skyline, but by the vision of that form of existence which the industrialists had swept away—the vision of a fat, unhygienic rajah of India, with vacant eyes staring in indolent stupor out of stagnant layers of flesh, with nothing to do but run precious gems through his fingers and, once in a while, stick a knife into the body of a starved, toil-dazed, germ-eaten creature, as a claim to a few grains of the creature’s rice, then claim it from hundreds of millions of such creatures and thus let the rice grains gather into gems.
>She had thought that industrial production was a value not to be questioned by anyone; she had thought that these men’s urge to expropriate the factories of others was their acknowledgment of the factories’ value. She, born of the industrial revolution, had not held as conceivable, had forgotten along with the tales of astrology and alchemy, what these men knew in their secret, furtive souls, knew not by means of thought, but by means of that nameless muck which they called their instincts and emotions: that so long as men struggle to stay alive, they’ll never produce so little but that the man with the club won’t be able to seize it and leave them still less, provided millions of them are willing to submit—that the harder their work and the less their gain, the more submissive the fiber of their spirit—that men who live by pulling levers at an electric switchboard, are not easily ruled, but men who live by digging the soil with their naked fingers, are—that the feudal baron did not need electronic factories in order to drink his brains away out of jeweled goblets, and neither did the rajahs of the People’s State of India.

File: ingsoc.jpg (198KB, 526x800px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 526x800px

>>130186176
>Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self- abasement. Everything else we shall destroy everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.'

>>130185815
The question is which is more prophetic, not which is the better book. Rand being Jewish doesn't mean she's wrong

File: 4threvwar.jpg (158KB, 540x400px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 540x400px

>>130185175
Those are all major bluepills. Read the Fourth Political Theory.

>>130185809
This
1984 is a meme book with a meme method of control. Brave new World is the most logical in the dystopian genre

>>130187503
BNW is innovative, but you can't call 1984 a meme. The method of control it describes actually happened in the USSR and ruled hundreds of millions.
1984 has historical example. BNW is the most weird and possibly the most terrifying. The modern world does look very like AS though in the direction it's moving.

>>130187282
Dugin: “Today’s liberalism is so rotten within that it’s easy enough to throw out now, because it itself has recognized progress, freedom, and development to be absolute fictions. Liberalism has recognized that it is a kind of particular totalitarian approach. Behind all these ideas of liberation, freedom, equality, individualism, etc., stands none other than the will to power. The last generation of philosophical thinkers of the liberal West feel within themselves despair, the exhaustion of all the possibilities of modernity, and they have finally showed that this is all a play – progress and development, perfection, and all these so-called moral aspects of modernity were all nothing other than simply a form of political spin doctoring, propaganda, advertising, and sale of some kind of defective product in order to realize the will to power of the greedy, cowardly, cynical, totally racist global elites. And it is not us saying this as conservatives who only need our own and defend traditional values, but the bearers of the Western world, from within this world, who perfectly understand its internal mechanics and who are doing the work of dismantling and decoding these patterns in post-modernism… Today, yes today, what is happening is that the post-modernist who looks at tomorrow from the position of liberalism says that all of these myths by which modernity lived are absolutely unworkable. So they throw their hands up and say there is simply nothing more. They don’t believe in an alternative, in a fourth political theory, but say: ‘It’s horrible that we live so disgustingly. Well, let’s just perish in this liberalism together with all of its not working, unattractive, inoperative myths.’ These myths have become obsolete, but these myths are not traditional, sacred ones, but the post-sacred, anti-traditional myths of modernity.”

>>130185175
Of those three, brave new world.

>progress, freedom, and development to be absolute fictions.
How? I'd be the first to acknowledge that modern 'liberal' governments are utterly power-hungry shitholes doomed to failure. But my problem with them is that they want to take away freedom, thus bringing progress and development to a halt.
How can you say freedom is a fiction? It demonstrably existed in the liberal countries of the 19th century, and still exists, as a decaying, foundationless tradition, today. And insofar as a country is free, it produces economic advancement. Anyone who thinks getting richer is a BAD thing is unironically retarded. Living in mud huts is not a requirement for having good, conservative values. Just as it isn't guns that kill people, but people, it isn't social media and synthetic drugs as such that create degeneracy, but the moral degradation of people. Blame philosophy, not technology and wealth.

>>130189024
The main issue is that we moved on from the nation or species building philosophies to just indulgence
A simple example is gay marriage
How marriage relates to progress of humanity is not discussed at all; in favour of buzzwords such as equality, love and discrimination
>sidenote: there are paths to make gay marriage work (and marriage in general), but the current one is really superficial

>>130187867
>>130187503
1984 was Orwell bitching about Stalinism.

>>130185175
combination of 1984 and brave new world

>>130189955
Yeah, I agree, things like gay marriage, anti-discrimination, the whole 'universal love' ideology, are utter cancer. But the cause is philosophical, not material. Only a Marxist could believe that machines are the cause of thoughts, not the other way around.
I just don't get why those opposed to liberalism, from Evola to Dugin, always seem to target its PROSPERITY - they call it 'materialism' or 'individual selfishness'. Why can't we be rich and traditionalist?

File: love the poor.jpg (118KB, 1980x550px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1980x550px

>>130190138
>t. Commie
Into the trash it goes

>>130190698
What did he mean by this?

>>130190823
Flag is ironic?
Anyway, it's still a fantastic book. I do think the tyrants of the future will be subtler though