Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Marijuana will be legalized no doubt about it. That will shift enforcement to fentanyl.
Which democrats will immediately demand be legalized.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Marijuana will be legalized no doubt about it. That will shift enforcement to fentanyl.
True. The goal is to kill people.Which democrats will immediately demand be legalized.
Being stupid and ugly is no way to go thru life. I certainly hope you are not ugly.How about the environment? The millions of tons of plastic used in the baggies needed to carry the grass around? Or how about the millions of tons of CO2 produced when said grass is burning?
Well, no, no its not. They are actually 100 percent counter to each other and it hurts to even see someone equate the two. Granted, they are both dystopian novels on extremes however Orwell's 1984 was a direct statement on soviet Russia. He was critiquing communism. A brave New World, OTOH, is directly aimed at capitalism. It is a dystopian critique on capitalism. The soma is equitable to a continuous flow of disposable luxury goods,Corrected it. Huxley. Same beat, different work.
Meh. It should have happened years ago but the issue is to the point it no longer matters. The feds have given up on enforcement and most states have already moved forward with legalizing it on their own.When are they planning on doing this alledged legalization?
The year’s almost over.
Well-parsed~Well, no, no its not. They are actually 100 percent counter to each other and it hurts to even see someone equate the two. Granted, they are both dystopian novels on extremes however Orwell's 1984 was a direct statement on soviet Russia. He was critiquing communism. A brave New World, OTOH, is directly aimed at capitalism. It is a dystopian critique on capitalism. The soma is equitable to a continuous flow of disposable luxury goods,
Well, no, no its not. They are actually 100 percent counter to each other and it hurts to even see someone equate the two. Granted, they are both dystopian novels on extremes however Orwell's 1984 was a direct statement on soviet Russia. He was critiquing communism. A brave New World, OTOH, is directly aimed at capitalism. It is a dystopian critique on capitalism. The soma is equitable to a continuous flow of disposable luxury goods,
Well-parsed~
How about the environment? The millions of tons of plastic used in the baggies needed to carry the grass around? Or how about the millions of tons of CO2 produced when said grass is burning?
Yes I have. You seem to have missed the entire premise of the book. Henry Ford was Huxley's prime focus of the novel itself and a direct statement on US capitalism of the time. There are many direct references to Ford in the novel.What the hell are you talking about?
Idiocy.
"A Brave New World" explores a society where individualism is utterly crushed by the totalitarian state. Mustapha Mond is the "world controller." Though his society is far more egalitarian than the living hell of "1984" it was still a rigid and absolute dictatorship where caste was genetically enforce (Alpha, Beta, Epsilon). A one world socialist dictatorship which Huxley actually called the "World State" rules the globe with an iron fist. Even ones body is property of the state and sex is compulsory for women (as it was under Lenin) to any man of equal or higher class who desires it. One "savage reservation" provides the protagonist with a glimpse of individualism and liberty, leading to bringing the "savage" John back to London and the socialist "utopia."
Have you even read the book?
I'm doubting it.
Yeah, all they need on top of everything else is more drugs to make them dumber.I'm sure the Bible-belching conservatives will recoil in horror, but the truth is, marijuana is a far better, and safer, alternative to alcohol.
Minorities have always been most impacted by marijuana laws, ruining far too many lives for nothing. This is the first step, the next would be expungement.
The only people without weed are those who don't want it or don't want it if they have to break a law.Yeah, all they need on top of everything else is more drugs to make them dumber.
It's exactly like burning fossil fuels.......what do you think makes oil?The baggies can be reused, but many people use different containers, like tobacco cans.
Burning pot produces no emissions because that is only releasing the carbon sequestered when the plant was growing.
It is zero sum.
It is not like fossil fuel, where the carbon was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago, underground.
Yes I have. You seem to have missed the entire premise of the book. Henry Ford was Huxley's prime focus of the novel itself and a direct statement on US capitalism of the time. There are many direct references to Ford in the novel.
HOW were those strict caste systems enforced in a Brave New World? It was through consumerism and keeping the masses contented with it. This was what Huxley thought the dystopian extreme of capitalism would come to, people turned into perfect machines on an infinite number of assembly lines to feed the ever constant consumer need. He mentions over and over again that the people are contented with everything they could want. The wealthy elites controlling them through those goods and grooming them to be that perfect fit. None of that makes a lick of sense in a communistic worldview where the goal really is not working or producing. You will note that in 1984 there is not even an inkling about production or goods in that novel. They are not relevent to the party control in that model.
I was looking for another conversation I remembered in the novel that does this better but this section is very good as well:
From Ch. 16:Brave New World by Aldous Huxley : chapter sixteen
chapter sixteen of Brave New World by Aldous Huxleywww.huxley.net
"Almost nobody. I'm one of the very few. It's prohibited, you see. But as I make the laws here, I can also break them. With impunity, Mr. Marx," he added, turning to Bernard. "Which I'm afraid you can't do."
Bernard sank into a yet more hopeless misery.
"But why is it prohibited?" asked the Savage. In the excitement of meeting a man who had read Shakespeare he had momentarily forgotten everything else.
The Controller shrugged his shoulders. "Because it's old; that's the chief reason. We haven't any use for old things here."
"Even when they're beautiful?"
"Particularly when they're beautiful. Beauty's attractive, and we don't want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones."
"But the new ones are so stupid and horrible. Those plays, where there's nothing but helicopters flying about and you feel the people kissing." He made a grimace. "Goats and monkeys!" Only in Othello's word could he find an adequate vehicle for his contempt and hatred.
"Nice tame animals, anyhow," the Controller murmured parenthetically.
"Why don't you let them see Othello instead?"
"I've told you; it's old. Besides, they couldn't understand it."
Yes, that was true. He remembered how Helmholtz had laughed at Romeo and Juliet. "Well then," he said, after a pause, "something new that's like Othello, and that they could understand."
"That's what we've all been wanting to write," said Helmholtz, breaking a long silence.
"And it's what you never will write," said the Controller. "Because, if it were really like Othello nobody could understand it, however new it might be. And if were new, it couldn't possibly be like Othello."
"Why not?"
"Yes, why not?" Helmholtz repeated. He too was forgetting the unpleasant realities of the situation. Green with anxiety and apprehension, only Bernard remembered them; the others ignored him. "Why not?"
"Because our world is not the same as Othello's world. You can't make flivvers without steel–and you can't make tragedies without social instability. The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they're plagued with no mothers or fathers; they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there's soma. Which you go and chuck out of the window in the name of liberty, Mr. Savage. Liberty!" He laughed. "Expecting Deltas to know what liberty is! And now expecting them to understand Othello! My good boy!"
The Savage was silent for a little. "All the same," he insisted obstinately, "Othello's good, Othello's better than those feelies."
"Of course it is," the Controller agreed. "But that's the price we have to pay for stability. You've got to choose between happiness and what people used to call high art. We've sacrificed the high art. We have the feelies and the scent organ instead."
"But they don't mean anything."
"They mean themselves; they mean a lot of agreeable sensations to the audience."
"But they're … they're told by an idiot."
The Controller laughed. "You're not being very polite to your friend, Mr. Watson. One of our most distinguished Emotional Engineers …"
"But he's right," said Helmholtz gloomily. "Because it is idiotic. Writing when there's nothing to say …"
"Precisely. But that requires the most enormous ingenuity. You're making flivvers out of the absolute minimum of steel–works of art out of practically nothing but pure sensation."
The Savage shook his head. "It all seems to me quite horrible."
"Of course it does. Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand."
The line here is also good:
"[The Savage] picked it up and opened it. MY LIFE AND WORK, BY OUR FORD. The book had been published at Detroit by the Society for the Propagation of Fordian Knowledge.
Direct reference to Henry Ford and it directly ties the basis of the world to him. He is framed as a religious tenant for the worlds foundation.
So, Mr. I Don't Think You Read the Book, I certainly have read it and if you did read it you utterly missed the entire concept of the book itself. Considering this is one of my favorite genres and this book is one of the best in it, how could I not.
... then you do not understand Marxism. Marxism is utterly unconcerned with production and the point is NOT to produce a continuous flow of disposable goods. That is one of the core thins that Marxism was railing against. Once again, this is why 1984 did not even mention production. It is not an issue under soviet style Marxism. Likely one of the things that helped mass deprivation along.Ford was also a hero to Joseph Stalin.
Huxley himself wrote that the novel was a dystopian critique of SOCIALIST utopias.
About 3 years about I read this and 1984 back to back on vacation (they're free on Kindle) so the story is pretty fresh to me.
Perhaps you read it in high school and have simply forgotten what it's about. But even the reference you cite to support your misinterpretation of this classic refutes you;
{ People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they're plagued with no mothers or fathers; they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there's soma.}
Marxism in a nutshell - though Huxley was aiming more at the Fabians of England.
... then you do not understand Marxism. Marxism is utterly unconcerned with production and the point is NOT to produce a continuous flow of disposable goods. That is one of the core thins that Marxism was railing against. Once again, this is why 1984 did not even mention production. It is not an issue under soviet style Marxism. Likely one of the things that helped mass deprivation along.
The ENTIRE book, ALL OF IT, is centered around the continuous production and consumption of goods. Period. THAT is the point of Brave New World. Every societal structure is established to ensure consumption. They engineer the deltas to hate nature because nature does not allow for production, no one can make it. That is counter to socialism where consumption should be controlled to be evenly distributed. They are programmed to love sports that take place in nature though in order to prop up the transportation industry. They do not nationalize the transportation industry. There is no government cab - that is socialism. That is what you see in 1984, a chocolate ration card to get your chocolate ration from the government chocolate supply. That is not Marxism in any shape or form, it is crony capitalism.
If you think Marxism is an economic model based on consumption then I do not know what to tell you. You misunderstand the book because you misunderstand the political underpinnings in the first place.
No, the key element is that central planning would allow for a more just distribution. The overall production is not relevant, should it decrease that is not an issue. You will note that the debate, according to your source, was over:Yer kidding, right?
Industrialization Debate
Texts Images Visual Essays Other Resources Subject essay: Lewis Siegelbaum The industrialization debate of the mid-1920s was a key turning point in the history of the Soviet Union…soviethistory.msu.edu
Industrialization and production were obsessions of the USSR, both under Lenin and Stalin.
The key element of the Communists was that central state planning would provide a more efficient system of mass production.