Home | About | Donate

Campaign 2016’s Brave New World


Campaign 2016’s Brave New World

David Marks

In 1958, a quarter century after publishing Brave New World, Aldous Huxley wrote a reflective essay on the themes of his book that ring with prescient truth. His analysis delves into the rise of deceptive candidates who prioritize personal interests over supporting democracy.


This is wisely stated:

"Hillary Clinton promotes herself as the first female presidential candidate without embracing the pacifist foundations of feminism. She has supported many of the aggressive military actions of the United States in recent years. Her use of liberal rhetoric belies her ties to military and corporate interests and membership in the American oligarchy."

It's also why this mature female Feminist cannot vote for Mrs. Clinton. I suspect there are many who feel the way that I do. That's why the argument that so many mature women Feminists plan to vote for (or identify with Hillary) is one that I find potentially deceptive, and certainly problematic.

Unfortunately, in this materialistic epoch, many people do equate success--as a woman--with Feminism. But that's the corporate capitalist co-optation of Feminism. It's not the "brand" I was introduced to as an idealist college student back in the mid l970s.

Hillary's version of power is a salute to the MIC, and this formerly wholly masculine institution (armies, and such) by its very nature is anti-Feminist.

There's nothing humane or humanistic about spreading war, weapons, and the soldiers' ethos across the world like Sherman burning the South.

But then, The Democratic party forced to dance for the same Big Money Masters' donor dollars also lost its core values, or soul.

So much that had been authentic is now a false equivalent. Welcome to the age of semblances and "substantial equivalents," as the DNA engineers define it (as they defile all things natural).


"Candidate Clinton relies on more subtle techniques. She promotes conventional wisdom and the false premise that the U.S. is the arbiter of democracy in the world to justify military intervention. She makes her case for use of force citing “strategic” interests, omitting the corporate and financial motives that are the foundation of her policies. While her arguments appear more logical than her opponent’s, they are no less deceptive."

Another excellent description and characterization of Mrs. Clinton.

In the same way that Monsanto as well as Big Pharma argue the safety of NEVER publicly consumed products, Trump's C.D. fan base misses THIS entirely in their endorsement of this man's brand:

"Though candidate Trump criticizes Clinton’s penchant for “regime change,” he often suggests that forceful intervention or violence is a viable remedy in resolving international crises, stopping extremism, or punishing those who voice protest against him. This resonates with frustrated voters and encourages followers to act out personal anger against those who would doubt the supremacy of their leader. Trump’s arrogance and self-absorbed persona are catalysts for unchecked hostility both domestically and internationally."

To Trump's fans, it's immaterial that he's never been in a position to call for war or send troops on Kill Missions. For them, that's proof of his "innocence."


"Do we really wish to act upon our knowledge? Does a majority of the population think it worthwhile to take a good deal of trouble, in order to halt and, if possible, reverse the current drift toward totalitarian control of everything?"

i love Huxley's reference to "a good deal of trouble." That's entirely correct, and vastly understates the task at hand.

And voting; advocating about voting; endlessly arguing about voting; viciously denouncing each other about voting; are not anywhere near the "good deal of trouble" Huxley refers to.

We need to struggle - in our own lives and consciousness, in our families, in our communities, in our workplaces - to speak these truths, to act on these truths, and to get organized around addressing these truths. As we do so, we need to focus on fundamental changes in economics, politics, media, and social relations. In so doing, we come face-to-face with the entrenched, manipulative, self-interested power formations that absolutely rely on the falsehoods, distortions, and bullying that maintain their positions of power.

This involves very real personal risk. Are the stakes high enough? What are we willing to risk, on each side of our considering Huxley's question?

Also, the very fabric of the web of life on Earth itself is now unraveling. The risk on the "do nothing" side of the question is now so far beyond the mere personal, or even political, as to be civilizational, and ecological.

What "good deal of trouble" are we willing to take, if we see and understand these hard, real-world risks? Estrangement of family and friends? Loss of work, or stunting of career path? Humiliation and denunciation in the media? And then, if we do successfully organize in the face of these, violence from agents of the corporate state?

What are we willing to risk, on behalf of life itself? Do we prefer to continue down the road as manipulated, lied-to, dehumanized "consumers" on the fast train to destruction?

Ideally, the choice is clear. But we are each humans, individuals, manipulable, emotional, dividable, distractable.

Huxley's questions are not simply for rhetorical consideration. Please think about how you navigate these questions, and the course your life will take.


Many of us here on this site and among progressives everywhere see things much the same way as in this article. There is a sense of loss for democracy with either candidate. A sense of loss that the most popular candidate - Bernie Sanders - has been sidelined by the permanent government ruling elites and corporate oligarchy. What people fear most is that there will be last chance lost opportunity quality to this election. That things will have been lost permanently - things that define a free people and a free country.

Things lost that defined us once when yet we thought our elections honest and big money could not buy its way to an election.


This may be slightly off-topic but why are we not hearing anything about the results of the California primary and all of the uncounted votes. Are they being counted? If so, by whom? When will the results of the count be announced or maybe I should ask - will the results ever be announced? It would be nice to know what the real result actually was as opposed to the lie that was broadcast by almost every media outlet last week.


"Clinton’s deceptive techniques in gaining popularity rely mostly on
omission of truth. Except for a few grudging mistakes-were-made
formulations, she admits to no faults."

Stalin was good at that.

"Trump, the self-absorbed snake-oil salesman, may self-destruct as quickly as he has risen". That is what von Papen and his friends thought about Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

Trump does very well what Hitler did in his run-up to power.

USA; your choice!

No annihilation without representation!.


Check the LA Times.


from what i read on another thread (or somewhere i can't remember), as of now about 240,000 ballots have been counted (see http://www.inquisitr.com/3193693/california-counts-millions-of-provisional-and-mail-in-ballots-counties-flip-for-bernie-and-nine-more-superdelegates-drop-clinton/ for some info on this) of the 2 million+. Someone estimated they'd be done counting them (they being the Cali Sec. of State's office) by early July.

As for whether MSM (or anyone) will cover the story at that point (assuming there is a story to cover -though there must be!) is another question entirely.


With the loss of Bernie, we are now helplessly forced to realize, as David Marks points out, that "power has been handed to the economic elite". Scarier still, for the younger generation, that seems just fine.


Read this creepy thing:

In October of 1949, a few months after publication of George Orwell's dystopian masterpiece, Nineteen Eighty-Four, he received a letter from fellow author Aldous Huxley, a man who, 17 years previous, had seen his own nightmarish vision of society published in the form of Brave New World,
a book also now considered a classic. Having recently finished reading
Orwell’s novel, Huxley had a few words to say. What begins as a letter
of praise soon becomes a brief comparison of the two novels, and an
explanation as to why Huxley believes his own, earlier work to be a more
realistic prediction.

Trivia: In 1917, long before he wrote this letter, Aldous Huxley briefly taught Orwell French at Eton.

Letter taken from the More Letters of Note book. More info here.

(Image: George Orwell (via) & Aldous Huxley (via.)


Wrightwood. Cal.

21 October, 1949

Dear Mr. Orwell,

It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of
your book. It arrived as I was in the midst of a piece of work that
required much reading and consulting of references; and since poor sight
makes it necessary for me to ration my reading, I had to wait a long
time before being able to embark on Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not tell
you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is.
May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals --- the
ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate
revolution --- the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics,
and which aims at total subversion of the individual's psychology and
physiology --- are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded
himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf.
The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a
sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond
sex and denying it. 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. I have had occasion
recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism,
and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and
fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the
discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.

Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of
prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of
science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology
for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply
in the field of government. Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our
fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or
six generations. Another lucky accident was Freud's inability to
hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism.
This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at
least forty years. But now psycho-analysis is being combined with
hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible
through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible
state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will
discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient,
as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust
for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into
loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is
destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more
resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World. The change will
be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency.
Meanwhile, of course, there may be a large-scale biological and atomic
war --- in which case we shall have nightmares of other and scarcely
imaginable kinds.

Thank you once again for the book.

Yours sincerely,

Aldous Huxley

"The Advent of the Ultimate Revolution" by Huxley



Election night we were able to get to the CA Sec State page just fine..... now it's IFFY.


The power hasn't been "handed to the elite." From a number's standpoint the power is still with the people. We just need to realize that. Although Bernie is not still the force he was, his supporters are.
I suspect most were Bernie supporters rather than Democrats per se. That means a third party can
still make a significant difference especially if they can help finance Dr. Stein in a similar way. It's
almost a what have we got to lose situation. Now we just have to figure out how to increase voter's awareness of the possibility of someone other than the TWO being treated as the only choice.