Holy shit. This is straight-up the world we live in...

Holy shit. This is straight-up the world we live in. Replace soma with entertainment and internet access and this book is nonfiction.

Attached: 51K6hPJ0buL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (330x499, 26K)

Other urls found in this thread:

discord.gg/P4ENU37
youtube.com/watch?v=VjuHYvieJlw
liveleak.com/view?t=87d_1429098205
orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Thanks for this original take that no one knew thought of before you

Okay, but what the fuck do we do? What can be done? This is horrifying.

>don't say things that have already been said it makaa me angwyy!!

I made the same post in 2017, and got this answer too. Not everyone have read the same books as you.
yes, the world is really cringe rn

Get lost, you underage snob

Stfu you fucking faggot

at least there was a happy ending

you seem like the type that is better suited for Yea Forums - please find your way there posthaste

I've never read it, but just read 1984. Do you recommend user?

not OP--it's not stellar but you should read it just to be familiar with it, it gets referenced fairly often

The description of a guy who did nothing but watch M.A.S.H. from Infinite Jest will blow your mind op. Replace MASH with The Office and Infinite Jest is nonfiction.

>What can be done?
Unironically fascism. While every political option tries to convince the masses that it is the cure for 1984 (which is some fantasy shit anyway), only certain groups of fascists and other far-righters (in the terms of philosophical beliefs, not necessarily prefered government views) point out the obvious dangers of BNW and give you the solutions.

Don't ask what can be done just yet. Only try to understand. You're still very very early.

Yea Forums for this?

Fascists pretty much offer 1984 as a solution. To totality of meaninglesness they offer totality of meaning and instead of comfortable existence they offer violent struggle.

>they offer violent struggle
Such is nature

Not him, but try Junger. Technically not fascist but has a mainly fascist cult following

> not replacing soma with PROZAC

Attached: IMG_20190805_013756.jpg (512x512, 37K)

I also think the oversaturation of shitty pseudo-intellectual video essays about trivial aspects of pop culture is analogous to the Infinite Jest essay about the influence of Miami Vice

>Fascists pretty much offer 1984 as a solution.
Thats pretty ironic, since orwell likes too show the ugly side of socialist and commiecucks.

Attached: 1443474947746.jpg (539x476, 25K)

Orwell was a socialist.
>Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism as I understand it.

Nature knows both comfort and violent struggle.

He was self-aware Trotskist. In his view Stalin's eseser was perversion of socialist ideal. For fascism 1984 was both resembling it's earthly manifestation and it's ideal form.

of course it is, it's a blue print for today's society. who is aldous? the huxley familly?

who is julian huxley? what is the cia? what is cybernetics? I swear you guys DESERVE to be treated like cattle

Read it for the ideas and so that you know what posts like the OP are talking about, but the prose is shit.

>Orwell was a socialist.
Yes so?

Stop trying to dodge your personal responsibilities

ride the tiger

More like a brave new hell.
discord.gg/P4ENU37

We know how it ended for poor John.

haha commicecuckss epic!

Attached: 1512075132568.jpg (2448x3264, 426K)

the 90s are dead, jim

Found the commiecuck. Whats the matter little fella did the meanies of /pol/ make fun of you again is that why come to these blueboards and spout ur garbage ideology..

Attached: 1563822496223.png (434x300, 24K)

haha meanies! such epic wow lol!

Attached: f3591e8dfdb8d537b29ce66dc17fd2fdd9b4609be6d8e4d23be8a2703a0cd49d.jpg (1776x1184, 342K)

Attached: 1445960587043.jpg (382x308, 23K)

niggers! am I triggering them yet mom?

Attached: altright.png (434x428, 239K)

Attached: 1566233712657.jpg (381x308, 46K)

he posted it again

Attached: discourse.png (1056x869, 56K)

Uh, if you read the book correctly you’d get the if no “fixing” the predicament, it’s accepting that you aren’t a fixed point in history. You can cling to you lit and shit moralistic values but the world has no need of that or you. Why not go enjoy the sex that we all have access to in our Brave New world, and realize suffering is the passion of mediocre people, true Helmhetz fuck their way to enlightenment, and is much the better for it.

And soma is marijuana, entertainment is covered in the book as “Feelies” which is progressively closer to reality as well. Stop being a cuck and embrace the new world and strangers people you’ll meet.

fascism either falls into or actively resorts to the same dangers of BNW even more than our current society

You know what else is nonfiction? Your mom giving me a blowjob

Attached: 1542548621413.jpg (699x485, 60K)

>niggers!

Lmao. It is unironically the most fun word ever created and always brings me joy

Attached: 1564826205568.jpg (399x225, 23K)

Cringe take, you didn't read Huxley's essay

Now read The Wanting Seed

Attached: n4254.jpg (316x467, 16K)

You're correct that the book criticizes neoliberal values, but your assumption that fascism is the solution is ridiculous. The narrative of the book is that the excesses of capitalism will eventually lead to a degeneration of culture, as more and more people become content with cheap, approachable thrills, constantly being put out by those only in search of a profit. However, the belief that right wing ideology is the only way to combat the cultural excesses of capitalism is absolutely incorrect. Instead of resolving the structures that put us in this situation, fascism instead seeks to return us to "more virtuous" forms of pleasure, and only challenges the actual structures that create our current horseshit through censoring "degeneracy," despite censorship being something the far right falsely claims to oppose.

>censorship being something the far right falsely claims to oppose
You're conflating the libertarianism aspects of the "right wing" (which is a loosely defined, nebulous concept) with its authoritarian aspects. The laissez-faire libertarian capitalists don't believe in censorship. If anything, they're more "degenerate" than the left because they don't believe in things like the illegalization of methamphetamine or fentanyl. However, the authoritarians will gladly relinquish their right to consume narcotics if it means it benefits the overall collective.

>fascism instead seeks to return us to "more virtuous" forms of pleasure
You need to read Starship Troopers. There's no pleasure. Only conquest.

lol fag

You seem like a conflict avoidant faggot to me

Which one? I assume you're not referring to 'The Doors of Perception', yes?

>he says anonymously

Christ, go home, redd*t.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

Even the authright uses "muh free speech" as a ploy to strawman to get people to stop telling them to shut the fuck up. Regardless of whether or not it's genuine, it's still a point you all make, and a weak point at that.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this with anything other than calling you a LARPer

>"muh free speech" as a ploy to strawman
Or maybe it's just a constitutional right. Have you ever thought of that?

I'm not arguing that it's not a right, I'm arguing that the fascist advocation for it is hypocritical.

Some of it is hypocritical because they would outlaw it if they got into power, but some people genuinely believe that free speech allows better arguments to win out. That is one of central attractions of Yea Forums

>Some of it is hypocritical because they would outlaw it if they got into power
I would voluntarily relinquish my right to marry a man if it meant we could make gay marriage illegal again. The same principle applies for free speech. I would voluntarily relinquish my right to discuss certain topics in public if it meant others would do the same.

that's highly arbitrary though isn't it, which things are being outlawed? Youre coming at this from the right or what?

Make sure you read Brave New World Revisited.

>gorilla warfare
gang wars?

Attached: Tuug.jpg (1350x928, 128K)

>highly arbitrary
I think there are certain expectations that should be met concerning public behavior. People should wear clothing, for instance. Do you really think it's arbitrary to suggest that people should wear clothing in public? If you sincerely believe there's nothing wrong with public nudity, then why don't you walk around naked everywhere?

Midwit take.

/socialistbro/ here, the comment you're replying to is exactly what I'm talking about regarding the far right's rejection of free speech

It's a personal sacrifice of freedom that benefits the collective. For instance, I would gladly relinquish my right to openly discuss transsexualism in public if it meant I could save confused and vulnerable children from being exposed to concepts like Hormone Replacement Therapy and Neovaginal Dilation.

Good thread.

Why does that make him a snob?

Huxley was far superior to Orwell in terms of understanding the social trajectory. I read Brave New World first and recall being somewhat disappointed with 1984.

Based

This. Very important information in there.

Be your own master instead of seeking one, moron. Fascism is never the answer.

>Be your own master
Dude just be alpha bro!

>Fascism is never the answer.
Citation needed. Do you have peer-reviewed evidence for that claim?

>personal responsibilities

Attached: 1435920041068.jpg (180x255, 33K)

No way. They are the only people with interest in human expansion.

>Even the authright uses "muh free speech" as a ploy to strawman to get people to stop telling them to shut the fuck up
Umm, we are in a situation where nobody should be able to shut down political discussion. The current (claimed) value paradigm claims free speech is guaranteed - however, this is not the case as fascism, religion, nationalism, national socialism are straight up opposed - despite the fact that according to the current cosmology they are but opinions.
The other guy - as well as you - forgot about the right wing populists who claim to want democracy.

Hungary is a pretty good example of what right wing is. Germany, France, UK, Sweden - which one of them falls to civil war first?

youtube.com/watch?v=VjuHYvieJlw
There is only violent struggle

Why are you denying the obvious truth?

Do you think that baby impala experienced any comfort?

Why do people opposed to the right always do this? They say "oh what are you some type of faggot who can't control themself" even though they know full well that self control was never the issue. I am confident I can live my life at least somewhat decently, but I'm not everyone. I can control myself. I cannot control the 400 million other people who live in my country. I can ensure I live decently. I cannot ensure that the people crowding the welfare center live decently. I can stop myself from loading myself up with heroin. I cannot stop the ever-growing number of druggies in my state from doing heroin. See the picture? Authoritarianism isn't begging daddy government to set you personally in line, but to rein in the weakest link. I'm not even a fascist but you people are either disingenuous or retarded.

>I can control myself.
>I cannot control the 400 million other people who live in my country.
This is a key aspect of the libertarian to national socialist pipeline.

?

If all impalas were eaten immedietly after birth, there would be no impalas.

But if no impalas were eaten immediately after birth, the impala population would grow too rapidly. They would consume too much vegetation and start to die out. Then the predators would run out of prey. Do you see how that works?

You don't see how it works. If there was only violence, then there would be no impalas, if there was only comfort there would be too many impala. Nature knows both comfort and violent struggle. Or rather should I say that we strive for comfort through violent struggle.

It's pseudovaginal dilation, user. Get your terminology straight.

No, Return to Brave New World

>we strive for comfort through violent struggle
The violent struggle comes first. Comfort is simply the absence of violent struggle. But comfort breeds complacency, which opens you up to violent struggle from other groups looking to take your spot.

despots will prey on your cynical lack of faith in your fellow man and wield you as a weapon against them.

>lack of faith in your fellow man
liveleak.com/view?t=87d_1429098205

>Orwell a Trot
Uwotm8, he was clearly a socdem or demsoc, as evidenced by his support of the EU. In his earlier life he was probably more radical, owing more to youthful idealism. But at no point could Orwell be called a Trot

>The violent struggle comes first.
No. Comfort comes first, we need safety and comfort to develop our skills and only then engage in battle, else we fail like that poor little impala. Well unless you are shark that is, then you would be correct.

>But comfort breeds complacency
And violence causes exertion, exertion is weakness and the weak get defeated.

Exertion in an apex predator (like humans) isn't the fatal death sentence you describe

Did you read 1984? Who do you think Goldstein is? Or Snowball from animal farm? It's clear that Orwell identified Stalin with the brutality of Soviet regime and saw Trotski as the pure one.

also:
>orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
(iii) Trotskyism. This word is used so loosely as to include Anarchists, democratic Socialists and even Liberals. I use it here to mean a doctrinaire Marxist whose main motive is hostility to the Stalin regime. Trotskyism can be better studied in obscure pamphlets or in papers like the Socialist Appeal than in the works of Trotsky himself, who was by no means a man of one idea. Although in some places, for instance in the United States, Trotskyism is able to attract a fairly large number of adherents and develop into an organised movement with a petty fuerher of its own, its inspiration is essentially negative. The Trotskyist is against Stalin just as the Communist is for him, and, like the majority of Communists, he wants not so much to alter the external world as to feel that the battle for prestige is going in his own favour. In each case there is the same obsessive fixation on a single subject, the same inability to form a genuinely rational opinion based on probabilities. The fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i. e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is obviously false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to Communism; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference. The most typical Trotskyists, in any case, are ex-Communists, and no one arrives at Trotskyism except via one of the left-wing movements. No Communist, unless tethered to his party by years of habit, is secure against a sudden lapse into Trotskyism. The opposite process does not seem to happen equally often, though there is no clear reason why it should not.

>Who do you think Goldstein is?
A Jew

Attached: ✡.jpg (474x632, 45K)

I take it you haven't spend much of your childhood years watching documentaries on animals like I did. Exertion is not a death sentence, but it is significantly more dangerous than "complacency".

So we are not that different from livestock in the end...
I think there are three main things to try: reform the system, escape from it or become a parasite. When we accept we are more or less pawns of historical processes and systems evolve and change in a struggle for power and existence, conscious reform is hopeless. Escaping from our brave new world is comparively easy. Just pick a how and degree, have the balls to do it and off you go. Parasitism might be the more interesting option. Finding opportunities to profit is doable, but protecting your sanity seems taxing.

>WHAT DO YOU MEAN IM NOT SPESHUL????

His was the only solution.

Why is every science fiction """classic""" written like a kids book?
First I got memed into reading The Man In The High Castle, Roadside Picnic, Neuromancer and now this piece of trash
Atleast Burroughs, Roussel and Ballard knew how to write