Why does Alex hate Orwell, Huxley and Wells?

reply to post by spaniard

you're spot on -- Alex does bring up some really good points, he also ignores some really important ones and i feel he is confused by what he wants -the lines on a map were invented by elites to control the populations, it's like penning us in and claiming ownership of all livestock reared on the farm. Yet AJ tirelessly defends the national system, is he still asleep to the real freedom we as humans should have or is he working for the natiionlist/rightwing government/christians to keep the 'control grid' in place.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by NatureBoy]

reply to post by NatureBoy


Your posts are very long but you've ignored the info I've dropped twice now. I spend a lot of time on ATS reading, and I always read other people's posts and links before speaking.

1) If H.G. Wells is not a supporter of the New World Order, why did he write a book called the New World Order?

2) If Aldous Huxley is against authoritarian rule, totalitarianism, slavery, control and servitude why did he say this:

Aldous Huxley - Forward to 1946 printing of Brave New World

"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. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.... The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth."

It is not a black and white issue, I know. I know members of the Huxley family have done good things. I stated clearly in my post that I have read many books by them and enjoyed them all. The writers you mentioned have done both good and bad. Anyway, this thread will go round and round in circles until you read some of the info that people are providing.

You have ass-umed a lot of stuff about me. I'm not American, and not a proponent of violent revolution.

-wildly claiming they are part of a plan to enslave the world is insane, ignoring the wise and informative things they have to say is just stupid.

I have never done this either. I just know some facts about them that you are obviously unaware of.

PROTIP: If you consistently ignore points people bring up and rely on bluster instead of facts, debating becomes unproductive and tedious. We are here trying to arrive at a middle ground instead of facing each other down...



[edit on 000.563f20090am by HiAliens]

reply to post by HiAliens


ok, i read your posts the first time you wrote them, some of the reply i made was directed at other people, not just you

Why did he write a book about 'the first man in the moon' 'the crystal ball' or super smart ants? oh, he was a science fiction author! Seems simple enough, why did they make the film 'batmat' or 'x-men' or 'spidermen' are they all part of a conspiracy to install superheros? no, they're talking about possible events and the result of them -i.e. fiction.

HG Wells lived in a time when flight went from being sci-fi to reality, atomic energy was being understood and science was advancing at te fastest pace ever -he could see the world was about to change dramatically, maybe into a dynamicly new type of system - what with the upsurge of totalitarian states shortly after his time he was proved very right indeed, Wells was denying ignorance just like we all should, he was thinking about what #might# be.

When people, political types, stand up and say 'we need a new world order' they probably aren't thinking we need THE NWO, they're saying that the world as it is needs CHANGE -in which they agree with a huge majority of the current world.

Huxley wrote a book about how well ordered and effective a totalitarian state would be, the moral of the book was that this doesn't matter because the human spirit is actually the only thing with real value, what good is order if we no longer enjoy life or really experience it? Yes it is true a totalitarian state would from a practical point of view offer many advantages over a more chaotic world, this has been clearly proven time and time again, however those advantages aren't as important as being human, just ask john savage. To lie and brainwash the masses gives the state an advantage, hence why they still try and do it, huxley was showing that these advantages are out weighed by the disadvantages.

When i was talking about violent revolution i was talking more about Alex and crews desire to relive 1775 - if you don't want to have a revolution at all thn you must support the powers that be and are fighting to keep the queen of england as ruler of the empire. if you want a non-violent gradual revolution then surely you want some form of 'original global system' or 'modern earth government' or you could say, a new world order as the outcome? I think we all agree that we need a pragmatic solution to the world problems, with the advent of nukes and climate change (even if it's not real now it is possible that with our advanced tech we ruin the planet for everyone) we can't go on like we did before.

So which is it do you support the queen of england and her elites system or a new world order?

as for post ignoring, remeber saying this?

Wells wrote a book called THE NEW WORLD ORDER.
Huxley had a brother at the U.N and he talked about getting people to "love their servitude"

Then i wrote a long essay about Julian Huxley, his brother who started the WWF? remember that happening?

Your posts are very long but you've ignored the info I've dropped twice now.

apparently not. I covered in detail how wells is seen as a enemy of the class system, very revolutionary for his day. I didn't write about new world order because i was going to get my copy and post some quotes, only it's under my brothers bed (with the complete collection of wells) and i didn't get round to it yet.

You seem to think that you have all the facts on these guys, i'm not so sure that you do, how much of their work have you read? -I don't think anyone that read 'Eyeless in Gaza' or 'Doors of perception' could call huxley a NWO conspiracy Globalist, or someone that read 'history of mr polly' or 'first man in the moon' could call wells it either. Are you just going by what infowars told you? You say you've listened to almost every show in the last year, well that means i've heard a fair bit more of AJ, bob & co than you and i should tell you, they get carried away sometimes and forget to clearly and honestly display the facts -i know, i know, most of what he says is true[ish] however sometimes certain things get blown up in his mind to epic scale, he also doesn't have a english lit upbringing, he is a cowpoke hick from the south lands -this doesn't mean he isn't every bit as smart and clever as anyone else but as 'man in the moon' shows us people are good at different things, alex isn't an authority on english literature.


[edit on 1-3-2009 by NatureBoy]

Originally posted by HiAliens
reply to post by NatureBoy

 

"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. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.... The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth."

[edit on 000.563f20090am by HiAliens]

This doesn't really show anything, you could take that either way in my opinion, as either an instruction on how to make a totalitarian state, or as a warning or description of how it can happen.

Without more context I don't know which he was doing, however, based on the rest of his works, it would seem more likely that it's a warning or analysis of how it can happen.

My main comment on Mr Jones is that he very rarely appears to look below the surface, or just jumps to faulty conclusions. If someone writes a book called "New World Order", he will just assume they are for it, or they were a whistleblower who had secret inside knowledge. For Mr Jones, most issues are Black or While, Right vs Wrong, Good vs Evil. While we could debate if that is a good or bad attribute, I think we can be certain that a person thinking in that frame of mind will not get the most from philosophical works, which very often will be examining the gray, or playing devils advocate in order to explore complex issues that cannot often be simply dismissed with "That's Evil!"

Originally posted by NatureBoy with emphasis by m0r1arty
Anyway Alex and many of his buddies really, really hate three of the best, most positive authors in history

I think there might be access issues between the words on the pages of these books, and his ability to process said words.

In the cutting edge world of video blogging, sound bytes and loudspeaker hysteria it's not always a good thing to have your audience educate themselves with notions that have existed from over half a century ago.

Kind of steals your thunder.

-m0r