1984 v. Brave New World

[John F Kennedy III]

1984 v. Brave New World

Letters Of Note
Thursday, March 8, 2012


In October of 1949, a few months after the release of George Orwell‘sdystopian masterpiece, Nineteen Eighty-Four, he received a fascinating 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. 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.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5-VVpL9MhDs/TSaIHBBPlvI/AAAAAAAAAIY/ggm2nExKtJw/s320/huxley_orwell.gif

Fantastic.

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

(Source: Letters of Aldous Huxley; 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


article here:
http://www.infowars.com/1984-v-brave-new-world/

originally here:
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/1984-v-brave-new-world.html

[John F Kennedy III]

Bump so more people can read.

[RiseAgainst]

Writers quarrel, lol.

I believe we can see a mix of both around us. I don't think that one is necessarily superior to the other in controlling masses, but rather individuals repsond differently to each, thus the need for at least partial application of each.

[Kylie]

Sounds like he understood the future to be a mix of MKUltra-type control and straight jack-booted thuggery.

Which kind of sounds like what we have, doesn't it?

[donnay]

Sounds like he understood the future to be a mix of MKUltra-type control and straight jack-booted thuggery.

Which kind of sounds like what we have, doesn't it?

Yes, indeed!

[PierzStyx]

I've read these. They're are the end of "Brave New World-Revisited", or at least the copy I have.

I have to say I disagree with Huxley on one thing. I don't think its an either/or scenario. The regimes are rising to power on the threat of violence, with violence being their primary language AND the masses are drugged for every reason possible. I'd throw in that Fahrenheit 451 as also being accurate as the media is lulling the masses into idiocy with feeding a steady diet of entertainment to distract from the bitter after taste.

[iGGz]

]][[

[NoOneButPaul]

I've always felt like 1984 was the Prequel to Brave New World...

[heavenlyboy34]

Sounds like he understood the future to be a mix of MKUltra-type control and straight jack-booted thuggery.

Which kind of sounds like what we have, doesn't it?
He and Orwell both got the concept for their respective novels from "We", which was based on the reality of Soviet Socialist statism. It isn't a magic prediction-it's documented history repeating itself in rhyme here in the "free" world.

ETA: IMO, "We" gives a more accurate portrayal of life in the future (it was written in the 30s) than 1984. (I haven't read BNW yet, so can't speak about very intelligently)

[sevin]

I've always felt like 1984 was the Prequel to Brave New World...

I tend to think it's the other way around. I think we're currently in the Brave New World stage. Look how easy life is for most Americans, the constant eating, drinking and entertainment they enjoy, not to mention all the prescription drugs. Meanwhile, the government takes half of everything away from the productive, and only a small percentage of the population complains.

[osan]

Huxley was dead on. His vision of the future has, in fact, come to pass. Orwell's vision, while more overtly frightening, is not the way things have worked on the broader terrain... at least not in the "west". The Soviets and Chinese followed the Orwellian pattern and failed. The Huxley pattern is indeed far and away more effective.

What is surprising to me, however, is the departure from Brave New World in the USA toward that of 1984. I see the optimal tyrannical efficacy being found in a mix of the two - a carrot and stick approach. What I find surprising is the fact that the heavy handed Big Bro' approach seems to be gaining a disproportionate level of favor these days, especially in the USA. It seems as if the globalists are losing patience and, being so close to achieving the greater goal, are getting sloppy in their discipline. Or perhaps they are so far along that they no longer need to be as careful as I would be, were I trying to take over the world.

Thoughts?

[Titus]

I think it is a mixture of both. We use a lot of high tech technology to criminalize behavior without the opportunity to confront our accusers nor hold those in power accountable. Yet, we have a lot of toxic substances that give us highs and a lot of parasites on production.

Osan, +rep. I agree totally.

[heavenlyboy34]

Huxley was dead on. His vision of the future has, in fact, come to pass. Orwell's vision, while more overtly frightening, is not the way things have worked on the broader terrain... at least not in the "west". The Soviets and Chinese followed the Orwellian pattern and failed. The Huxley pattern is indeed far and away more effective.

What is surprising to me, however, is the departure from Brave New World in the USA toward that of 1984. I see the optimal tyrannical efficacy being found in a mix of the two - a carrot and stick approach. What I find surprising is the fact that the heavy handed Big Bro' approach seems to be gaining a disproportionate level of favor these days, especially in the USA. It seems as if the globalists are losing patience and, being so close to achieving the greater goal, are getting sloppy in their discipline. Or perhaps they are so far along that they no longer need to be as careful as I would be, were I trying to take over the world.

Thoughts?
I would argue that Orwell's vision has come to pass, except it's more subtle than the way he depicted it. Basically, the propaganda here is more effective and less obvious to the untrained observer than in Oceania. JMO

[NoOneButPaul]

He and Orwell both got the concept for their respective novels from "We", which was based on the reality of Soviet Socialist statism. It isn't a magic prediction-it's documented history repeating itself in rhyme here in the "free" world.

ETA: IMO, "We" gives a more accurate portrayal of life in the future (it was written in the 30s) than 1984. (I haven't read BNW yet, so can't speak about very intelligently)

Yea you should read BNW...

The entire population is created in labs in scientifically perfect ways (for their own class) and then children are brought up in an environment that conditions them for their roles (They all worship Henry Ford as a God as they use his assembly line method to create classes of humans).

Brave New World to me, was the perfect blue print for science's perfect society... 1984 is the beginning of the tyranny that leads to the power that creates the highly controlled enviroment for BNW. I really think we are entering the 1984 stage and we'll be long dead before we actually get to the BNW stage...

Also the drugs and sex are waaaaaay more prevalent in the book than they actually are in today's world. The way they brainwash the children is also waaay worse than today's world. I really think we are aways away from BNW (Infact I think the book takes place about 600 years in the future where 1984 was only 36 years into the future- interesting note, the only reason he named it 1984 is because he couldn't come up with a title and he wrote the book in 1948 so he just switched the last two numbers)

You should read BNW, it's a fantastic look at where we are headed, but I doubt any of us we'll be around to see it.



What i've always gotten a kick out of is that even if Huxley and Orwell end up being right, no one will ever know- both environments feature worlds without books.

[Jtorsella]

He and Orwell both got the concept for their respective novels from "We", which was based on the reality of Soviet Socialist statism. It isn't a magic prediction-it's documented history repeating itself in rhyme here in the "free" world.

ETA: IMO, "We" gives a more accurate portrayal of life in the future (it was written in the 30s) than 1984. (I haven't read BNW yet, so can't speak about very intelligently)
"We" also influenced "Anthem", which really gets collectivism across by having the first person banned and "we" used in place of "I". I thought that was pretty ingenious.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yea you should read BNW...

The entire population is created in labs in scientifically perfect ways (for their own class) and then children are brought up in an environment that conditions them for their roles (They all worship Henry Ford as a God as they use his assembly line method to create classes of humans).

Brave New World to me, was the perfect blue print for science's perfect society... 1984 is the beginning of the tyranny that leads to the power that creates the highly controlled enviroment for BNW. I really think we are entering the 1984 stage and we'll be long dead before we actually get to the BNW stage...

Also the drugs and sex are waaaaaay more prevalent in the book than they actually are in today's world. The way they brainwash the children is also waaay worse than today's world. I really think we are aways away from BNW (Infact I think the book takes place about 600 years in the future where 1984 was only 36 years into the future- interesting note, the only reason he named it 1984 is because he couldn't come up with a title and he wrote the book in 1948 so he just switched the last two numbers)

You should read BNW, it's a fantastic look at where we are headed, but I doubt any of us we'll be around to see it.



What i've always gotten a kick out of is that even if Huxley and Orwell end up being right, no one will ever know- both environments feature worlds without books.
Wow, BNW sounds so much like "We" it's kind of amazing. I'll definitely have to read it when I finish 1984. I suggest you check out "We"-it's available free at Mises.org and other places if you search the webbernet for "'We' by Yevgeney Zamyatin".

[heavenlyboy34]

"We" also influenced "Anthem", which really gets collectivism across by having the first person banned and "we" used in place of "I". I thought that was pretty ingenious.
Yeah, I got a copy of Anthem recently and noticed that when browsing through the first few chapters. Kind of ironic that rand loathed "stealing" ideas but blatantly did it herself. ;)

[Jtorsella]

Yeah, I got a copy of Anthem recently and noticed that when browsing through the first few chapters. Kind of ironic that rand loathed "stealing" ideas but blatantly did it herself. ;)
Yeah I find that Rand was pretty hypocritical, though it doesn't change that Anthem and her books are awesome.

[NoOneButPaul]

Wow, BNW sounds so much like "We" it's kind of amazing. I'll definitely have to read it when I finish 1984. I suggest you check out "We"-it's available free at Mises.org and other places if you search the webbernet for "'We' by Yevgeney Zamyatin".
I'll have to check it out. I loved BNW.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll have to check it out. I loved BNW.
Here's the freebie version: http://mises.org/books/we_zamiatin.pdf I think the Ginsberg translation is superior to this one, but you'll get the gist of the story.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah I find that Rand was pretty hypocritical, though it doesn't change that Anthem and her books are awesome.
True that.

[Shorty Dawkins]

A person can be turned into a willing slave, if he/she continues to believe they are free while accepting slavery. Think about that. Edward Bernays understood the collective mind. It is the difference between the collective mind and the individual mind that makes all the difference. The collective mind accepts slavery, even though the individual mind rejects it. Thus we have the great dichotomy that is destroying us.

Shorty Dawkins

[RiseAgainst]

A person can be turned into a willing slave, if he/she continues to believe they are free while accepting slavery. Think about that. Edward Bernays understood the collective mind. It is the difference between the collective mind and the individual mind that makes all the difference. The collective mind accepts slavery, even though the individual mind rejects it. Thus we have the great dichotomy that is destroying us.

Shorty Dawkins


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

[PierzStyx]

Farenheit 451 folks-the glue that holds 1984 and Brave New World together.

"Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us. .... Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines"- 2 Nephi 28:7,9

[PierzStyx]

Huxley was dead on. His vision of the future has, in fact, come to pass. Orwell's vision, while more overtly frightening, is not the way things have worked on the broader terrain... at least not in the "west". The Soviets and Chinese followed the Orwellian pattern and failed. The Huxley pattern is indeed far and away more effective.

What is surprising to me, however, is the departure from Brave New World in the USA toward that of 1984. I see the optimal tyrannical efficacy being found in a mix of the two - a carrot and stick approach. What I find surprising is the fact that the heavy handed Big Bro' approach seems to be gaining a disproportionate level of favor these days, especially in the USA. It seems as if the globalists are losing patience and, being so close to achieving the greater goal, are getting sloppy in their discipline. Or perhaps they are so far along that they no longer need to be as careful as I would be, were I trying to take over the world.

Thoughts?

I see it Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 as precursors to 1984. Drug the masses, lull them into idiocy, then assert the right of overwhelming force when they are to stupid to think for themselves or have no drive to do so. My reading of 1984 seems to imply the first two books already happened. 1984 talks about the average person, the proles, as being so obsessed with their beer and distractions that they willingly allowed themselves to be dominated. They in fact wanted it.

[otherone]

Mankind is not a recent creation. The trick is not getting a slave to think he isn't a slave. The trick is getting the slaver to believe that he isn't a slaver.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

[osan]

I see it Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 as precursors to 1984. Drug the masses, lull them into idiocy, then assert the right of overwhelming force when they are to stupid to think for themselves or have no drive to do so. My reading of 1984 seems to imply the first two books already happened. 1984 talks about the average person, the proles, as being so obsessed with their beer and distractions that they willingly allowed themselves to be dominated. They in fact wanted it.

Precursors? Perhaps, if I read you correctly that you mean they are the bait to the trap and 1984 is what you get after you are rendered powerless to do anything against more bald-faced tyranny as we see in 1984. To my thinking, the question may turn on knowing the true intentions of those cultivating the long-term power scheme, assuming such a "conspiracy" is indeed afoot, which by all appearances it is. If the ultimate goal is to gain effective control over the entire global human population yet allow the general status quo of human life to continue, then I would have to disagree because the hegemony is then largely benign. But what if, as the documents and comments of so many governments, NGOs, and the various personalities indicate that there is a sincere belief not only in the severely overpopulated condition of the planet, but in the unquestionable need to reduce that population by large proportions, but as quickly as possible.

I have read calls for population reductions that have implied time frames that were uncomfortably short. Most people perhaps do not notice just how little time a century is where such goals are concerned, but when one applies an adept analysis to the question, the scary truth becomes quite apparent. One can, in fact, apply the precise same formulas used in financial analysis to get a general idea of what is needed to go from population X to population X' where X >> X', over a time interval T. The formulae are simple and easy to use. Once can use either a present value formula that works "backwards" or a future value calculation using a negative interest figure. The latter is simpler. The formula for future value is: FV=PV(1+ r)^n where PV = the present value (current population), r = the rate of yearly population diminution, and n = the number of years in which to reach the goal. Open Excel and plop these in somewhere:



A B C D
A FV PV Rate (r) Term (n)
B =B7*((1+C2)^D2) [Current population] [rate of decline] [# years to achieve goal ]



If we use the example suggested by the Georgia Guide Stones of 500 millions and give a full century to achieve the goal, which according to many prognosticators is way overly generous and optimistic, to get from today's approximately 7 billions the population would have to IMMEDIATELY begin dropping by a shade over 2.6% every year for the coming century. The enormity of such a task is somewhat difficult to put into words, barring a global cataclysmic event such as a meteor strike. Consider the nature of human beings, which in the respect of the drive to reproduce is very similar to most other life on the planet. The bottom line is that people are NOT going to simply stop the trend of exponentially increasing their numbers and adopt an instant linear decrease of 2.6%. It has never been and shall never be because to do this is NOT HUMAN. If this be the case, then the ONLY way to achieve the goal is through murder, whether through the violence of war (generally a big time loser in the longer term) or through catastrophe. Waiting around for a comet to hit the earth is and iffy-at-best path to the goal. Therefore, other means such as disease and the poisoning of the food chain in order, perhaps, to render the larger population sterile appear to be the only alternatives remaining that are viable from both the technical and political perspectives. If a new disease arises and begins killing off huge masses of humanity, barring very direct evidence that the circumstance arose as the result of direct and intentional human action by "government", humans stand even odds of banding together to find a cure and in the final days, to huddle and shiver in dimly lit corners as they wait to die "together". This is, IMO, to be the path of choice. Sudden globally reaching sterility would have too much the scent of human contrivance upon it and would therefore result in strong action taken against an ostensibly identifiable enemy.

That aside, as one brings better sophistication to the analysis including adding a deceleration curve from positive growth to negative (slowing the ship before heading in reverse), we see that things only get worse. Far worse in fact. For example, if we grossly oversimplify by saying it will take 20 years to stop growth and bring it BACK DOWN to today's 7 billions, leaving only 80 years to get to 500 millions, the population would have to shrink an average of 3.35% per year. Again, this may not sound like much, but it is in fact a STAGGERING rate of decline that cannot be met without "assistance", so far as I can see.

Add to all of this the as-yet unconsidered and often perhaps unpredicted, unpredictable, and unintended consequences of such sharp declines in population and what emerges may rightfully be termed "nightmarish".

If those who believe we are "over populated" are correct, humanity is screwed no matter how you slice the future. If they are wrong but so-called government acts on a sincere belief that they are correct, no holds barred, we are equally hosed, likely in more ways than methinks some are giving thought to. When one thinks about it, the only real bright spot here lies in the event that the prognosticators are utterly wrong and government and other organizations take to precipitous action to the contrary. Given the official rhetoric of organizations such as the U.N. on the question, one is at best left with a large corpus of very uncomfortable questions regarding paths going forward. Given the record of human governance in the twentieth century alone, does anyone in their right mind have any basis for warm and fuzzy feelings here?

Are we having fun yet? Well, are we?

[John F Kennedy III]

Mankind is not a recent creation. The trick is not getting a slave to think he isn't a slave. The trick is getting the slaver to believe that he isn't a slaver.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Possibly the best quote ever on RPF.

[MikeStanart]

Perhaps we're controlled by Fear AND Pleasure?

[Galileo Galilei]

Fantastic.

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

(Source: Letters of Aldous Huxley; Image: George Orwell (via) & Aldous Huxley (via).)




Here is some even more amazing trivia;

On November 22, 1963, Aldous Huxley, John F. Kennedy, and C.S. Lewis died.

[John F Kennedy III]

Here is some even more amazing trivia;

On November 22, 1963, Aldous Huxley, John F. Kennedy, and C.S. Lewis died.

That's insane.

[Galileo Galilei]

That's insane.

batsh** insane!

[heavenlyboy34]

Here is some even more amazing trivia;

On November 22, 1963, Aldous Huxley, John F. Kennedy, and C.S. Lewis died. :eek:

[osan]

I would argue that Orwell's vision has come to pass, except it's more subtle than the way he depicted it. Basically, the propaganda here is more effective and less obvious to the untrained observer than in Oceania. JMO

I did fail to mention that bit, but yes I agree, though would point out that it is only marginally so and the margin appears to be narrowing rapidly. We are so deep in it now that it is hard to see just how close to BNW we really are.

If you have seen the movie Robocop, do you recall the news and TV ads depicted there? For those of us who are a bit older, we came up n a time such that when the movie was first released, one of the things that stood out about it was the utterly comical and extremely ridiculous nature of the media. That is the single thing that I took away with me and that sticks to this day. As I saw the various clips of newsmen delivering their wares I could not help but be immediately seized with the impulse to think "how ridiculous" precisely because it seemed superficially unlikely - certainly impossible for that time, that anything of the sort could become real. I also recall that I put the brakes on the impulse and put my reasoning and experience into gear, such as it may have been at the time, and immediately thought that perhaps it was not quite so far-fetched as my gut response was suggesting.

I recall how things were then and even earler, for example back in the mid-60s when Chet Huntley and David Brinkley were ushered in and out of America's living rooms to the strains of Beethoven's Ninth and everything was conducted with such outward professionalism, grace, and respect not only for the news but for their audience. At the time when Robocop was in theaters, TV news already showed a steep fall from those earlier standards of decorum with newsmen behaving in childish and often embarrassingly graceless, even imbecilic fashion, not as freakish rarities to be followed by abject apologies to the public and loss of position, but on a daily basis as they joked and ho-ho-ho'd their way through the news hours with ever shrinking respect for the public and the truth. By that time I had realized there was no basis for rejecting the vision that Robocop depicted, which has turned out to have been prophetic almost to the letter not only in character of depiction of advertising, but of the general state of the culture, how it operated, and the frightful position of the individual therein.

My point here is that things have changed to a degree that few, if any of us can fully appreciate. I am particularly tuned in to this sort of thing and consider myself to be far more sensitive and aware of this shift, yet even I cannot really quite recall the way things were at the gut level. What I mean is that time has greatly mitigated the internalized and living sense of the past. I strongly suspect that were I somehow taken back in time as if the past 40 years had never happened, psychologically and emotionally speaking, that the sudden immersion in today's reality would make me physically ill from the mental stress and shock. That is how I feel we have devolved in terms of behavioral norms. The same might be the case were we to be suddenly thrust 40 years into a future where a leisurely stroll would expose one to adults raping and mutilating infants and then perhaps roasting them over a charcoal fire. It would make any decent person ill, but in those times "decent" will have been redefined from what it is today, just as today's sense is so radically altered from that of 1970.

Because of this inability to hold fast to an emotional standard and avoid being inured to an environment in which one marinades, I think it is difficult for most to see and appreciate just how vacuously inane hug populations really are. I watch people very carefully and the fall has been duly noted in my thoughts and the precipice where we once stood is way the hell up there in the clouds, now obscured to our senses. In BNW one of the qualities that stood out was the utterly childish nature of physical adults - wholly dependent on "government" for even the simplest of things, utterly self-absorbed and preoccupied with tough decisions such as choosing which sex partner was most "pneumatic", not to mention the strict cadences of their daily dosing with contraceptives and "soma". BNW failed ever so slightly in its depiction, but if you blur the lines of scheduling a bit what do we get that is significantly different from what we have right now? Nothing worth the mention.

We are there. Right here. Right now. The only thing left is to reign in that small minority that refuse to get on the train with everyone else. Just as the gentle but steady pull of the starfish defeats the enormous power of the clam in time, so the steady pressure of the greater culture defeats the greater immediate power of human decency. It is easier to go with the current than it is to fight it, especially when carrot and stick are employed in such effective fashion. I do, however, stand by my suspicion that we are witnessing a breakdown in patience and discipline in the ranks of the oligopoly as indicated by the ever increasing use of the club to achieve compliance. But that could all be part of a greater plan as well. The avenue of potential strategies and tactics along these lines of conquest are pretty broad, and for all we know those at the top are perhaps having a little fun as they use the world as their 7th grade science project.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

One need not read fiction to see where we are headed. History bears the fruit of where we are headed. Whether it be the Romans, the French, the Bolsheviks, the Third Reich or any other tyranny to have existed. They always use the same techniques. The only determining factor whether it succeeds or not is the determination and education of those individuals to resist. Let the US burn. I'll take my oasis free from the tyrant. Hence, the importance of the FSP and other movements like it. Nothing is set in stone -- let's shape it for ourselves.

[Barrex]

My 4 favorite books:
Animal farm (ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS).. This one I read when I was really young and it started to open my eyes about society and how people can be good and bad and everything in between (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRUGvArWXLk).
Brave New World ("Expecting Deltas to know what liberty is! And now expecting them to understand Othello! My good boy!")
1984 ("Big brother is watching you")and ("But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.")...after reading second quote I was full of negative emotions...sad, mad, angry, depressed etc.

I was always curious how will the future look like. In elementary school I read "Animal farm" and in gymnasium "BNW" and "1984". All 3 I read in different time of my life and all 3 had different impact on me. Animal farm is when I started journey Some mention Fahrenheit 451, Anthem etc. all good books but for me not good as my favorite 3.