Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 63,017
- 68,474
- 3,605
In this video, at the very end, we see the question asked, is freedom necessary?
The video is a futuristic look in the 1950's, into a potential society that will forsake the virtues of democracy in favor of despotism.
Huxley concludes that democracy may be preserved in such a despotic regime, assuming you can bypass the tenants of democracy which is choice based upon reason and self-interest. But what if reason could be bypassed through such things as propaganda that work on the emotions of the voter rather then their reason? Or what if drugs were offered that would bypass their reason? Or what if technological devices could outthink you and strip you of your logic because AI may have a superior ability to reason than you? Huxley concludes that future elections will more than likely result in people voting on a level below their rational logic, a candidate that may not even be able to talk in complete sentences, like we saw with Fetterman after his stroke, or Joe Biden speaking gibberish. In such instances, people have bypassed their reason and embraced their emotions on who makes them feel better or worse instead. We also see this with a populace that now thinks men can have babies, and a Supreme Court justice that can no longer tell you what a woman is without a trained biologist by her side.
Yes my friends, we are here. Freedom is gone in favor of group think and propaganda that rules and reigns our votes.
But what now? At the end of the video, the question is asked, "Is freedom even necessary"? Mike Wallace pointed to the then former USSR where freedom was not embraced, yet they seemed to be doing well for themselves, at that time, not knowing that their entire financial state would tear them asunder due to their despotism in the 1990's as the empire broke up into the current Putin era of continued despotism.
So, is it necessary? Huxley seemed to think that freedom was needed for creativity. But is creativity needed? Huxley seemed to think that it was needed for advances in such things as science and technology, because the ruling class, whoever, they may be, will be interested in such things to increase their power. Huxley then pointed out that in the former USSR, the scientists were given extraordinary freedom in comparison to the average citizen, thus preserving their creative juices. Huxley then speculates that despotism may be able to be perpetual under such a system where freedom in society is all but crushed, aside from an oligarchial society that sits atop the impoverished and suffering society.
We see this in North Korea. Here you have a populace that is essentially starving to death, except in the Capital of North Korea where their dictator resides. It is there that people are given more food, more freedoms, and treated far better than the average citizen. That oligarchical bubble is a buffer against the rest of society that may want you dead, an army to fight for you, a group of scientists to bring you scientific breakthroughs, etc.
We all are beginning to see this in Washington DC, where real estate is the highest, a public transportation system that is spotless and unmatched, etc. These people are the richest in the United States, both in wealth and power.
Will the US eventually become North Korea as the rest of the populace is literally starving to death? Is it sustainable, assuming you have an army that to defend you that is treated better?
