Invoking the Beyond is a 7 part radio interview series of the Collins Brothers being interviewed by Vyzygoth on predictive programming in culture. Done in 2007.

I have added relevant pictures to the interviews and condensed them into a three part video series. This is part 3of3.

Topics include: 911, Neocons, Dune, ET, Prometheus, Science of Signs (semiotics), CS Lewis the author of Narnia, JRR Tolkien, Michael Moorcock, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Adam Weishaupt, BF Skinner, Metropolis, Space Odyssey 2001, CIA, Independence Day vs Semptember 11, Jericho, Lost, Buffy the Vampire Slayer; Aldous Huxley and the Brave New World, Children of the Sun, Lady Chatterley's Lover, Aleister Crowley, HG Wells, Timothy Leary, Drugs both legal and illegal, Cointelpro, Stormfront, Bill Cooper, David Duke, Crossdressing Giuliani....

NB: Due to Google Video categorically denying me to upload this particular video (the other preceding two parts were accepted without problems) I was forced to resort to finding an alternative upload facility. Hence I came across Revver. To suit Revver standards I was forced to cut the video into 9 subparts. The videos can be accessed by clicking on the associated thumbnails.

If you are interested in obtaining the video in crisp quality then you could do through the corresponding bittorrent file, downloadable here.

A Dice, desenvolvedora da famosa série Battlefield, apresentou melhor ao mundo na recente edição da E3, nos Estados Unidos, o que claramente pretende ser uma revolução no modo de encarar os jogos em primeira pessoa: Mirror's Edge, que chega para PC, PS3 e Xbox 360, com produção da EA, agora em Novembro, na plataforma Unreal Engine 3, que garante qualidade visual.

Apesar da premissa oferecida pelo jogo, que é ação em primeira pessoa não focada em armas de fogo, não ser totalmente inovadora ( já que outros títulos de peso como Elder Scrools IV: Oblivion e Breakdown oferecerem uma jogabilidade em primeira pessoa não completamente apoiada em armas de fogo, que incapacitam a definição FPS [First Person Shooting]) a Dice recentemente revelou informações que levam a crer que o jogo pode sim se tornar um clássico instantâneo em um momento que jogos originais estão fazendo falta. Entenda a seguir.

Os produtores queriam fazer o que eles chamavam de "Le Parkour em primeira pessoa". Para os mais desinformados, a atividade, inventada na frança por David Belle, consiste em chegar de um ponto a outro de maneira mais rápida e eficaz, transpondo todo tipo de obstáculos.

Na pele de Faith (que emportuguês significa Fé) uma “cocota” oriental de curvas sinuosas, look pós-moderno e integrante de uma organização chamada “Runners” (em alusão ao free runing, que também é sinônimo de Le Parkour) você literalmente corre contra o tempo e adversidades do cenário. Isso envolve também tomar decisões contra inimigos armados até os dentes, dos quais você pode simplesmente correr ou encarar de frente. Tudo isso acontecem em uma cidade dominada por um controle autoritário que monitora a tudo e todos, em troca de uma “cidade perfeita” para seus habitantes.

Faith corre justamente para enfrentar esse controle, circular informações de forma clandestina e paralelamente desvendar o mistério que envolve a acusação de sua irmã por um assassinato que ela alega não ter cometido. Rhianna Pratchet, que escreveu o enredo do jogo, afirmou que sua intenção era presentear os jogadores com "uma realidade em que as pessoas abriram mão de sua liberdade em troca de boas condições de vida". Se você já leu O admirável mundo novo, de Aldous Huxley, você se sentirá em casa, mas a proposta de mais de 70 anos, adaptada a um jogo, parece tentadora. Em contextos semelhantes como os do filme matrix Matrix e do livro 1984, de George Orwell, o desenrolar da história e seu desfecho não costumam ser felizes, o que sugere um possível final aberto e/ou trágico também para o jogo. Espero não ter dado spoilers.

Se não bastasse a história e ambientação do enredo o jogo promete fazer bonito na jogabilidade, dando ao jogador um campo de visão menos "claustrofóbico" em relação aos FPS convencionais, enfatizando a jogabilidade na corrida, saltos e desarmamentos, ao invés do combate, como costuma acontecer. Vendo as screenshots do jogo é possível notar alguns contadores de tempo e velocidade, que indicam que o jogo pretende ter um ritmo bem intenso. O produtor sênior do título, Owen O'Brien, disse que uma das inspirações da equipe foi o filme Corra Lola Corra, em que a protagonista passa a maior parte do tempo correndo contra o tempo.

O jogo ainda saiu da Games Convention, recentemente ocorrida em Leipzig, na Alemanha, com o prêmio de promessa mais original para o Xbox 360.

Se essa correria toda vai animar os jogadores, só saberemos no mês que vem.

Discuta esse artigo no Fórum Omega Geek

Ragtime, the book, is short and tight.  "Ragtime," the musical, is equally tight.  Not the best thing ever put on stage, but far from the worst.  It's a strong show without a low point.   One of the shortest, catchiest numbers in the show is "Henry Ford."    It was this song (and a printout of the lyrics) that I used in class today.  The activity was simple.  I provided the students with four or five texts (print and media) that had some sort of thematic connection to the first 25% of Brave New World. The students were then required to write a document-based question (sooner or later they'll have to answer it, but I didn't tell them that) on a minimum of three of the given texts, including Brave New World. Germane to this discussion was the inclusion of "Henry Ford" from "Ragtime."

The whole song could be used as a summary of the philosophy of the novel.  The full lyrics can be found here, but the most relevant portion, the portion most related to Brave New World,  as we discussed in class after the activity, was not the assembly line attitude or the worship of Henry Ford, but, as I was proud of one my students who picked up on the philosophy  of the Alphas in the novel, not just the physical realities of Brave New World:

Even people who ain't too clever
Can learn to tighten a nut forever,
Attach one pedal
Or pull one lever

Not only did "Ragtime" fail to mention Ford's notorious anti-Semitism, but the authors of the book also clearly forgot to mention that these not too clever workers were bitter & living in Pennsylvania.  ;)

It was also nice to hear some of the students pick up on the mechanical acoustics and progressional repetition (neither of which are actual musical terms) of the music.

Hopefully, I convinced a couple students to read the book. 

And the comment of the day (which, perhaps you DON'T have to be in my classroom to understand, but still...):

"Mr. J, do you have a song from a musical to play for EVERY situation?"

The answer is, of course, "Yes.  Yes I do."

O avanço da vulgaridade na televisão mundial aponta a desvalorização da democracia na aldeia global [conceito criado por Marshall McLuhan que se refere ao avanço tecnológico e dos meios de comunicação que faz com que as distâncias entre as pessoas sejam cada vez mais curtas, como se houvesse uma aldeia global].

"É um belo menino; tem os olhos do Duque", disse o médico que tirou Umberto Eco do ventre de sua mãe. E os pais do autor de "O pêndulo de Foucault", embora não fossem fascistas, sentiram-se orgulhosos, porque se tratava de um elogio. Afinal de contas, naquele momento a pequena burguesia italiana "tomava a ditadura como um evento meteorológico". Algo que simplesmente ocorre.

"Cada época tem seus mitos. A época em que nasci tinha como mito o Homem do Estado, e esta em que se nasce hoje tem como mito o Homem da Televisão", explicou o escritor e semiólogo. Nesse ensaio mostra um pensamento que conduz a uma conclusão inquietante: "as novas ditaduras serão mais midiáticas que políticas".

O mito dominante determina condutas e certezas com total naturalidade. O Homem do Estado poderia ser inteligente e humanamente virtuoso, mas também poderia ser tirânico e brutal; poderia representar a compaixão sensata ou o a supremacia exterminadora. O mito atual, ou seja, o ser televisivo pode, também, transbordar inteligência e humanidade, ou também baixeza e mediocridade. Nas primeiras décadas de sua existência, a televisão teve, em termos gerais, um efeito positivo. Quino explicou aos filhos da televisão o que, na verdade, constitui um tratado sociológico lúcido e profundo, através de Mafalda e seus amigos; uma geração de crianças inteligentes e curiosas em cujas perguntas e inquietudes naufragavam os pais ultrapassados.

Certamente, aquela televisão também tinha contradições, mas recorda-se dela como um bálsamo frente à tela de hoje, onde a violência, a mediocridade, o vulgar e a frivolidade conspiram na criação de um cidadão minguado.

Fenômeno global, resposta local

A "tinellização" [efeito relacionado a Marcelo Hugo Tinelli, famoso apresentador da TV argentina], o jornalismo transformado em show midiático, o êxito das pessoas sem graça que exibem escabrosas intimidades, a exaltação do abjeto etc, não é apenas um problema argentino, mas uma amostra local de um processo de vulgarização televisiva que está acontecendo em escala mundial.

Frente ao fenômeno global de vulgarização midiática, o governo do matrimônio Kirchner colocou em funcionamento uma televisão estatal livre de vulgaridades e com figuras respeitáveis na condução dos programas. Desde o humor até os programas de entretenimento, a proposta estatal é indubitavelmente mais saudável e até exibe exemplos de excelência. Em particular, o canal a cabo do Ministério da Educação brilha como uma contribuição original e ousada. Contudo, o modelo argentino de televisão estatal tem um aspecto negativo: o grosso dos documentários históricos do sinal a cabo e a oferta jornalística do canal aberto sintonizam-se totalmente com o discurso oficial sobre a atualidade e a história. A soma constitui uma visão tendenciosa, fortemente ideológica e decididamente doutrinadora. Tanto o histórico como o jornalístico bebem de um oficialismo aparentemente desinteressado, onde não há lugar para outras visões políticas nem para vozes opositoras.

Esta forte característica reduz a pretensão intelectual do conteúdo a uma mera aparência. O doutrinamento, o oficialismo permanente e o partidarismo histórico são incompatíveis com o pensamento crítico.

O contrário da vulgaridade não é o doutrinamento, mas o pensamento crítico. E é óbvio que este não pode existir onde um governo manipula as mídias estatais como se fossem suas.

Na Alemanha seria impensável que um governo fizesse oficialismo com a Deutsche Welle. O mesmo na Grã-Bretanha com a BBC e na Espanha com a TVE. Em matéria de mídias, o modelo argentino reflete o autoritarismo messiânico que caracteriza tanto a sua direita como a sua esquerda.

Advertências

Alguns pensadores e escritores alertaram, inclusive antes da era da televisão, sobre o obscuro processo de degradação humana insinuado na primeira parte do século 20. "A característica do momento é que a alma vulgar, sabendo-se vulgar, tem a audácia de afirmar o direito à vulgaridade e o impõe onde bem quer". Afirma Ortega y Gasset em "A rebelião das massas", livro escrito e publicado na década de 20 do século passado.

Mais explícito e aterrador foi Aldous Huxley em "Um mundo feliz". O nome original daquele livro escrito em 1932 é "Admirável Mundo Novo" e foi inspirado por "A Tempestade", obra de William Shakespeare na qual no quinto ato Miranda, o personagem, diz extasiado: "que maravilha; quantas criaturas belas existem aqui; quão bela é a humanidade. Ó mundo feliz no qual vive gente assim..."

Esse "mundo feliz" é o da ditadura perfeita, ou seja, uma sociedade onde a opressão se torna imperceptível, porque escraviza mediante um sistema de consumo e entretenimento.

A sociedade sobre a qual adverte Huxley utiliza a genética e a clonagem para a criação em série de indivíduos condicionados. Os alfas, que constituem a elite; os betas, que são os executores das determinações dos alfas, e finalmente os gamas, trabalhadores e mão-de-obra.

Neste mundo, a liberdade é uma aparência, porque se tratam de seres condicionados pelo consumo e o entretenimento. Este homem que consome e se entretém foi descrito em 1932 pelo autor britânico nascido em uma família de intelectuais e cientistas.

Ao ver que, junto à pornografia e à violência difundida na internet, a televisão se transformou durante a última década em um instrumento de mediocrização em grande escala e a nível mundial, Umberto Eco agregaria a seus exemplos da ditadura televisiva o reality show, onde se sacrifica a intimidade no altar do índice de audiência, sob o lema "sou visto, logo existo".

Peter Weir explicitou o reality como a face totalitária da televisão, descrevendo a vida de Truman Burbank na ilha de Seaheaven. Poucas argumentações contra o totalitarismo têm sido tão contundentes e inadvertidas como "O Show de Truman" [filme do ano de 1998].

Estes telespectadores de emoções tele-direcionadas, seguindo a vida de um homem criado pela televisão e capturado por uma perfeição artificial, se parecem ao homo videns que Giovanni Sartori descreveu. Na sua obra principal, o cientista político italiano adverte que o homo sapiens, um ser caracterizado por possuir pensamento e capacidade de abstração, está sendo substituído pelo homo videns, a criatura que olha mas não pensa, que vê mas não entende.

Ao humanóide sobre cujo advento adverte Sartori em seu livro "Homo Videns", o filósofo esloveno Slavoj Zizek o descreve como um homem que acredita que atua e crê que influi, mas, em realidade, tornou-se inativo e sem nenhuma incidência na realidade que o contém.

Tomás Abraham, argentino, mas nascido na Romênia, país próximo à Eslovênia, a pátria de Zizek, é um filósofo imprescindível por ser dos poucos que desprezam a linguagem crítica, e tão intelectualmente honesto que reconhece que é apaixonado por assistir televisão. Dela, sente saudades dos desaparecidos programas de humor, e aprecia as comédias norte-americanas atuais, nas quais o humor convive com uma ácida e devastadora crítica social e cultural, como o genial Seinfeld.

Com a mesma franqueza e lucidez, Tomás Abraham disparou em abundância suas críticas a este reino da vulgaridade e da violência, onde o medíocre vai perfurando o pensamento e a capacidade de abstração. O autor de "Fricções" adverte sobre os estragos que isto causa na sensibilidade e na inteligência das crianças.

O fenômeno que descreve não circunscreve-se à Argentina. Está acontecendo em escala mundial e sua conseqüência, na aldeia global, será a democracia desvalorizada na qual crê atuar e influir um ser, em realidade, inativo e sem incidência: o cidadão minguado.

Claudio Fantini

“California is a fine place to live – if you happen to be an orange.”
(Fred Allen, American humorist)

I'll link this jest to the sense of emptiness I perceived while staying for a while in Venice, Los Angeles (see picture above), a couple of years ago.

One of the social milieus I stumbled upon was this weird bunch of people who, while hoping to find a job in the entertainment industry, had this everybody-sleeping-with-everybody type of lifestyle who puzzled me because of its total nihilism and emptiness, or so it appeared to me.

Not that the writers that have lived in LA have greatly contributed to better this image of pointlessness and malaise, from Aldous Huxley, to Raymond Chandler (with his marvellously depressed Philip Marlowe) and the more recent James Ellroy (The Black Dahlia, The Big Nowhere etc.).

So maybe what Fred Allen said is kinda true.
Only if you happen to be an orange. Or a movie star.
(What about a porn star?)

Fresh Idealism

But I also keep the most beautiful souvenirs of San Francisco, northern California. I was in my twenties and I had never been to SF or America before, to tell the truth. Didn't have to. They simply materialised before me in Trastevere, Rome, in the years between the 60s-70s, with the cute face of a half-Mexican girl from SF, her name Mariza, who worked for an airline company there and who totally bewitched me and accepted to share a small and cheap flat in via della Lungara.

This place soon attracted a long series of eccentric individuals: a gay pianist from Kansas City (of German origin, his Bach was pure magic), a lesbian paintress from Santa Barbara, a Vietnam vet from SF as well, a bit spaced out and hopelessly addicted to alcohol, plus this intense actress from Chicago (the link tells about her) together with many other odd American characters.

Mariza was one of my sweetest experiences, intelligent, attractive and cultured. Those were the days of the hippies who had found in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district one of their homes.

And Trastevere (see below Piazza S. Maria) became our Haight-Ashbury. We felt all brothers, no matter the race, the religion or the country. Such an extraordinary place, Trastevere, not yet so trendy at that time and populated by these unconventional expatriates plus of course the locals, real Romans beyond belief. Oddly enough, on the stage of this ancient theatre I first met young America and its sparkling fresh mind. Not only my English began to improve.

But we were not hippies. Being not saints neither there was not much place though in our experiences for nihilism or malaise.

So full we were of our romantic dreams, whether our naïve ideals were guiding or misguiding, still remains to be seen.

From: "On the Margin"

The cœnobites of the Thebaid were subjected to the assaults of many demons.  Most of these evil spirits cam furtively with the coming of night.  But there was one, a fiend of deadly subtlety, who was not afraid to walk by day.  The holy men of the desert called him the dæmon meridianus; for his favourite hour of visitation was in the heat of the day.  He would lie in wait for monks grown weary with working in the oppressive heat, seizing a moment of weakness to force an entrance into their hearts.  And once installed there, what havoc he wrought!  For suddenly it would seem to the poor victim that the day was intolerably long and life desolatingly empty.  He would go to the door of his cell and look up at the sun and ask himself if a new Joshua had arrested it midway up the heavens.  Then he would go back into the sade and wonder what good he was doing in that cell or if there was any object in existence.  Then he would look at the sun again and find it indubitably stationary, and the hour of the communal repast of the evening as remote as ever.  And he would go back to his meditations, to sink, sink through disgust and lassitude into the black depths of despair and hopeless unbelief.  When that happened the demon smiled and took his departure, conscious that he had done a good morning’s work.

Throughout the Middle Ages this demon was known as Acedia, or, in English, Accidie.  Monks were still his favourite victims, but he made many conquests among the laity also.  Along with gastrimargia, fornicatio, philargyria, tristitia, cenodoxia, ira and superbia, acedia or tædium cordis is reckoned as one of the eight principle vices to which man is subject.  Inacccurate psychologists of evil are wont to speak of accidie as though it were plain sloth.  But sloth is only one of the numerous manifestations of the subtle and complicated vice of accidie.  Chaucer’s discourse on it in the “Parson’s Tale”  contains a very precise description of this disastrous vice of the spirit.  “Accidie,” he tells us, “makith a man hevy, thoughtful and wrawe.”  It paralyses  human will, “it forsloweth and forsluggeth” a man whenever he attempts to act.  From accidie comes dread to begin to work any good deeds, and finally wanhope, or despair.  On its way to ultimate wanhope, accidie produces a whole crop of minor sins, such as idleness, tardiness, lâchesse, coldness, undevotion and “the synne of worldly sorrow, such as is cleped tristitia, that sleth man, as seith seint Poule.”  Those who have sinned by accidie find their everlasting home in the fifth circle of the Inferno.  They are plunged in the same black bog with the Wrathful, and their sobs and words come bubbling up to the surface:

Fitti nel limo dicon: “Tristi fummo

nell’ aer dolce che dal sol s’ allegra,

portando dentro accidioso fummo;

Or ci attristiam nella belletta negra.”

Quest’ inno si gorgoglian nella strozza,

chè dir nol posson con parola integra.

[Fixed in the slime they say: “We were sullen in the sweet air that is gladdened by the sun, bearing in our hearts a sluggish smoke; now we are sullen in the black mire.” This hymn they gurgle in their throat, for they cannot get the words out plainly (Sinclair).]

Accidie did not disappear with the monasteries and the Middle Ages.  The Renaissance was also subject to it.  We find a copious description of the symptoms of acedia in Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy.  The results of the midday demon’s machinations are no known as the vapours or the spleen.  To the spleen amiable Mr. Matthew Green, of the Custom House, devoted those eight hundred octosyllables where are his claim to immortality.  For him it is a mere disease to be healed by temperate diet:

Hail! water gruel, healing power,

Of easy access to the poor;

by laughter, reading and the company of unaffected young ladies:

Mothers, and guardian aunts, forbear

Your impious pains to form the fair,

Nor lay out so much cost and art

But to deflower the virgin heart:

by the avoidance of party passion, drink, Dissenters and missionaries, especially missionaries: to whose undertakings Mr. Green always declined to subscribe:

I laugh off spleen and keep my pence

From spoiling Indian innocence;

by refraining from going to law, writing poetry and thinking about one’s future state.

The Spleen was published in the ‘thirties of the eighteenth century.  Accidie was still, if not a sin, at least a disease.  But a change was at hand.  “The sin of worldly sorrow, such as is cleped tristitia,” became a literary virtue, a spiritual mode.  The apostles of melancholy wound their faint horns, and the Men of Feeling wept. Then came the nineteenth century and romanticism; and with them the triumph of the meridian demon.  Accidie in its most complicated and most deadly form, a mixture of boredom, sorrow and despair, was no an inspiration to the greatest poets and novelists, and it has remained so to this day.  The Romantics called this horrible phenomenon the mal du siècle.  But the name made no difference; the thing was still the same. The meridian demon had good cause to be satisfied during the nineteenth century, for it was then, as Baudelaire puts it, that

L’Ennui, fruit de la morne incurioisitè,

Prit le proportions de l’immortalitè.

It is a very curious phenomenon, this progress of accidie from the position of being a deadly sin, deserving of damnation, to the position first of a disease and finally of an essentially lyrical emotion, fruitful in the inspiration of much of the most characteristic modern literature.  The sense of universal futility, the feelings of boredom and despair, with the complementary desire to be “anywhere, anwhere out of the world,” or at least out of the place in which one happens at the moment to be, have been the inspiration of poetry and the novel for a century or more.  It would have been inconceivable in Matthew Green’s day to have written a serious poem about ennui.  By Baudelaire’s time ennui was as suitable a subject for lyric poetry as love; and accidie is still with us as an inspiration, one of the most serious and poignant of literary themes.  What is the significance of this fact?  For clearly the progress of accidie is a spiritual event of considerable importance.  How is it to be explained?

It is not as though the nineteenth century invented accidie.  Boredom, hopelessness and despair have always existed, and have been felt as poignantly in the past as we feel them now.  Something has happened to make these emotions respectable and avowable; they are no longer sinful, no longer regarded as the mere symptoms of disease.  That something that has happened is surely simply history since 1789.  The failure of the French Revolution and the more spectacular downfall of Napoleon planted accidie in the heart of every youth of the Romantic generation—and not in France alone, but all over Europe—who believed in liberty or whose adolescence had been intoxicated by the ideas of glory and genius.  Then came industrial progress with its prodigious multiplication of filth, misery, and ill-gotten wealth; the defilement of nature by  modern industry was in itself enough to sadden many sensitive minds.  The discover that political enfranchisement, so long and stubbornly fought for, was the merest futility and vanity so long as industrial servitude remained in force was another of the century’s horrible disillusionments.

A more subtle cause of the prevalence of boredom was the disproportionate growth of the great towns.  Habituated to the feverish existence of these few centres of activity, men found that life outside them was intolerable insipid.  And at the same time they became so much exhausted by the restlessness of city life that they pined for the monotonous boredom of the provinces, for exotic islands, even for other worlds—any haven of rest.  And finally, to crown this vast structure of failures and disillusionments, there came the appalling catastrophe of the War of 1914.  Other epochs have witnessed disasters, have had to suffer disillusionment; but in no century have the disillusionments followed on one another’s heels with such unintermitted rapidity as in the twentieth, for the good reason that in no century has change been so rapid and so profound.  The mal du siècle was an inevitable evil; indeed, we can claim with a certain pride that we have a right to our accidie.  With us it is not a sin or a disease of the hypochondrias; it is a state of mind which fate has forced upon us.

   Nu hvor jeg har været igennem alle andre emner for min blog (og lidt til: valg i U.S.A.), når jeg så til det der egentlig er hovedemnet for den: Muren (bemærk det stor M) eller som Pink Floyd valgte at kalde den, the Wall.

   Jeg er sikker på at De, ærværdige læser, lige siden de fandt frem til min blog har spekuleret over hvorfor den hedder som den hedder. De har måske læst det første indlæg eller Om The Wall, og dog har De kun fundet små indikationer om hvad jeg egentlig overhovedet mener med udtrykket Murer, udover at der tale om en ordleg med en egentlig mur hvor man kan hænge ting op (som f. eks. indlæg). Lad os begynde fra begyndelsen.

   Som man læse om det på siden Lidt om mig, er der to bøger der i særdeleshed har markeret mig, så er det George Orwells 1984, og Aldous Huxleys Fagre Nye Verden. Da jeg læste dem gik det op for mig hvor meget samfundet virkelig kan påvirke selve den måde hvorpå vi tænker. Hvor megen indflydelse gruppens meninger kan have på vores handlinger. Det skræmte mig, for at være ærlig. I 1984 havde det siddende regime oppisket en stemning i befolkningen der gjorde at ikke bare samfundet som helhed kontrollerede ethvert individs handlinger, men også at ethvert individ virkede som en art tankepoliti på sig selv. I Fagre Nye Verden, så man hvordan et samfund uden nogen egentlig politisk struktur, udover en teknokratisk ledelse, ved hjælp af materiel rigdom og euforiserende stoffer skabte den opfattelse i sig selv at alle var lykkelige. Dermed havde man i realiteten afskaffet hele skønheden ved den menneskelige eksistens, for ikke at nævne individets frihed. Det var blevet gjort umuligt at tænke den tanke at man var ulykkelig, ved hjælp af hjernevaskning.

   Der er naturligvis blevet draget paralleller imellem de to bøger da de to beskrive lignende samfund. Det er blevet sagt at "hvor 1984 beskriver mennesket ødelagt af vore værste rædsler, beskriver Fagre Nye Verden menneskets ruin efter vore højeste ønskers realitet". Personligt tror jeg også at den sidste både er mere skræmmende, og bedre beskriver det samfund vi lever i i dag, selvom der ganske vist ikke står helt så slet til. Og dog.

   Min overbevisning er at vi gradvist vil nærme os den fagre nye verden mere og mere, uden nogensinde at nå den. Som når man føjer nitaller efter et komma, man nærmer sig mere og mere det højere tal uden dog nogensinde at nå det. Muren er den størrelse inde i vore hoveder og i gruppens fælles bevidsthed, der siger at der bare er nogle ting man gør og andre ting man ikke gør, der siger at noget er normalt og at man helst ikke skal være for langt fra det. Muren afgrænser det område vi skal holde os indenfor.

   Nogle vil mene at Muren slet ikke er så dårlig en ting endda, den norm Muren lægger er jo fin nok. Til dels er det rigtigt, Muren har jo helt ret i at man ikke bare går hen og dræber nogen, for derefter at stjæle en tyver. Mit problem er for det første at det burde vi have vores fornuft og menneskets universelle sans for etik til at fortælle os dette (moral er særegen for en tid og en kultur, etik er universel og gældende for alle mennesker), for det andet lægger Muren en hel del ting oven i. I Danmark er det f. eks. set som en god ting at få har for meget og færre har for lidt. Undskyld at jeg tillader mig at bemærke det, men hvordan kan det være dårligt at have for meget? Kan man overhovedet have for meget? Jeg mener, hvis nu man har det godt med at være rig og har tjent sine penge ærligt, hvorfor skulle man så skamme sig? For det tredje og sidste, så er der det åbenlyse: Muren fratager os vores frihed. Har vi nu ikke lov til at tænke selv? Har vi ikke lov til at have vore egne meninger? Hvorfor skulle samfundet pådutte os nogle meninger som vi slet ikke har? Hvis nu man selv tænker sig frem til at det er skammeligt at være ufatteligt rig, jamen så fint nok. Men den ret fratager Muren os. Derfor er muren farlig og derfor skal alle dens afskygninger bekæmpes til det sidste.

   Nogle gange bliver jeg bare så trist til mode, når jeg kommer i tanke om at Muren måske slet ikke kan bekæmpes. Måske ligger den så dybt i os, implementeret fra den allertidligste barndom, bygget højere, stærkere og tættere under skolegangen, og taget i brug så ofte ude i den virkelige verden at det måske er fuldkommen umuligt at slippe af med den. Det er en tanke jeg finder trist, og da den alligevel ikke nytter noget, ynder jeg at tænke det modsatte.

   Måske kan vi lære at se bort fra alle de regler vore over-jeg'er har vedtaget uden at spørge os først. Måske kan vi lære helt at overhøre de små stemmer der hvisker i baghovedet om at det her, det gør man bare ikke. Det ville være dejligt hvis man kunne. Jeg prøver ihærdigt hver eneste dag og hvis jeg nogensinde oplever at det lykkes vil De, ærværdige læser, være den første der får det at vide.

Economic Revolution:

The Money Trust

by

R.E. Prindle

     Now, the question is, who are the Money Trust and what do they want?  Obviously they want a currency corner and the want the world subservient to them a la Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World.'  It is quite possible that Huxley learned the plan c. 1930 and did a parody of it.  Read or reread Aldoux Huxley's 'Brave New World.'

     The engine for this plan seems to be the Federal Reserve.  Now, we are going to get into a lot of Jewish names here as was indicated by my piece Economic Revolution: The Global Work Force.  The Federal reserve is only a quasi-governmental agency being owned by private parties for their own benefit- obviously..  These men consider themselves the wisest and sharpest men around.  Nothing gets by them.  No one can put anything over on them, therefore the current financial fraud was planned by them for their own purposes. (See my Economic Revolution: The Matter Of Scale.)

     The bankers who own the Federal Reserve are:  (info from http://www.wvwnews.net/printer.php?id=5691 )

1. The Rothschild Family -London

2.  The Rothschild Family - Berlin

3.  Lazard Freres - Paris

4,Israel Seif - Italy

5.  Kuhn-Loeb - Germany

6.  Warburgs - Amsterdam

7.  Warburgs - Hamburg

8.  Lehman Bros. - New York

9.  Goldman-Sachs - New York

10.  Rockefeller - New York

     As you can see the moving forces with one exception are all Israelis.  Thus the monetary system of the United States, Europe and probably the world is in Jewish hands and has been since 1913 when the loony Red, Woodrow Wilson, signed the Federal Reserve Act into existence.

     To call attention to these facts is to incur the charge of anti-Semitism.  To ignore these facts is to be an actual suicidal dupe and fool.  Given a choice between the former and latter I denfinitely reject the latter.  You may do as you choose.

     Now Greenspan and Bernanke as well as Paulson are all Israeli citizens.  They have no loyalty to the United States although they will piously refer to it as 'our' country.  That means their country and excludes you.  It ain't all semantics, bub. 

     It becomes more clear everyday that all those so-called 'conspiracy theorists'  knew and know exactly what they're talking about.  They are not suicidal dupes and fools although it is very difficult to get your attention.

     So, now we have some idea of who the Global Money Trust is.  Their objectives are clear but let's enumerate them one more time.

Aldous Huxley

Personajes principales:

El director de Crianza y Acondicionamiento: Él es el encargado de explicar lo que sucede en Utopía al principio del libro, está a cargo de la reproducción y habla acerca del sistema que usan para hacer a los bebe. El hijo de este personaje es un salvaje (John) y el director trata de mantener todo en secreto.

Lenina Crown: Ella es una chica guapa, feliz y sigue las reglas. Tiene relaciones sexuales continuamente (esto es legal) y desea a John.

El Controlador: Él es uno de los 10 hombres que gobiernan Utopía, es un tipo listo que tiene mucho poder.

Bernard Marx: Él es un miembro de la clase Alfa ( la clase superior), pero sobresale porque no es como los otros. No es feliz y es un tanto solitario. Al final lo corren de Utopía.

Helmholtz Watson: Él también es un alfa. Es bueno en todo: sexo, deportes, etc. Es un tipo listo pero también lo corren de Utopía al final.

John (Salvaje): Él es el hijo del director. Cuando el director visitó la reservación, su chica se embarazó, se perdió y tuvo a John. John creció en la reservación salvaje. A pesar de ser un salvaje sabe mucho sobre Utopía porque su mamá le contó.

Linda: Ella es la mamá de John y la mujer que el director embarazó. Cuando visitó la reservación, se cayó y se perdió. El director regresó a Utopía sin ella. Ella dio a luz a John. Al final muere de una sobredosis de la droga llamada Soma.

Argumento:

Este libro no tiene realmente una trama lineal si no mas bien un montón de ideas diferentes de lo que una sociedad perfecta podría llegar a ser, de acuerdo con el autor.

El principio del libro describe el mundo en el que ellos viven, Utopía. El director de "Crianza y Acondicionamiento" habla acerca del funcionamiento de su mundo. Ellos fertilizan los huevos femeninos humanos, y los bebes crecen en botellas. La gente controla como nacen y de quien son los bebes. Hay cinco clases de personas. Los alfas son la clase superior. Los Epsilón son la clase más baja. Todos los bebés son regulados por el gobierno el cual controla lo que una persona debe pensar y que tan inteligente debe ser. Acondicionan a los bebés a vivir felices y disfrutar de su trabajo.

El controlador habla a cerca de Utopía. Él es uno de los los 10 individuos que gobiernan al mundo. Hay muchos principios en la sociedad. Algo importante es que los líderes no enseñan historia a la gente porque no quieren que el pasado influencie a las personas para cambiar el presente. Otro principio importante es que la gente no tenga emociones. Se les da una droga llamada Soma que los hace permanentemente felices. Finalmente, enamorarse es un crimen, pero tener relaciones sexuales está bien.

Entonces empieza una historia. Bernard Marx (el tipo principal) es de la clase alfa. Él esta enamorado de una chava que se llama Lenina Crown. Ella trabaja en el área de embriones y está saliendo con un científico. Tiene una amiga que se llama Fanny que la quiere convencer de que salga con otros hombres. A Lenina le gusta Bernard pero no lo ama. Pobre tipo. Ella sigue la regla de no amar. Bernard es un poco raro. Su rareza se debe a que es diferente a los otros alfas. Él tiene un amigo que se llama Helmholtz Watson que es buenísimo para todo pero odia su trabajo, se dedica a escribir propaganda.

Bernard lleva a Lenina a una reservación salvaje en Norte América. El director les cuenta sobre su viaje a la reservación. Les dice que llevo a una chava (Linda) que desapareció cuando estaban ahí. Después el director se enoja con Bernard por ser un inconforme (no hace todo lo que los demás hacen.) Bernard y Lenina van a la reservación. Conocen a un salvaje llamado John. Resulta que John es el hijo del director. Bernard se da cuenta de que la mujer que el director llevó a la reservación se embarazó. Embarazarse es contra la ley en Utopía así que el director no habla de ello. La mujer se perdió mientras estaba en la reservación por eso se tuvo que quedar y tuvo a su bebe ahí. John solo ha oído hablar de Utopía. A él le gusta leer a Shakespeare.

Bernard lleva a John y a su mamá de regreso a Utopía. El director trata de correr a Bernard, pero cuando él les presenta a la mujer que el director embarazó y a su hijo, todos se ríen del director. Las personas de Utopía sienten curiosidad por el salvaje (John.) Su mamá (Linda) entra en coma. John recorre diferentes lugares pero no le gusta Utopía.

Todos piensan que Lenina tiene relaciones con John el salvaje. Pero no es cierto. Aunque John se enamoró de Lenina es un romántico y no quiere tener relaciones tan pronto. Ella lo desea tremendamente así que va a su casa y se desnuda. Él la corre y la llama prostituta.

John descubre que su madre esta enferma. Va al hospital y se pone triste. A los tipos importantes de Utopía les disgusta que demuestre sus emociones porque ellos enseñan a todos a ser felices y que la muerte es un evento feliz. John, Bernard y el amigo de Bernard, Helmholtz, son arrestados. El controlador les explica la verdad sobre Utopía. A Bernard lo exilian en Iceland (entre Estados Unidos e Inglaterra), A Helmholtz lo mandan a las islas Falkland (en Sudamérica), Y a John lo dejan en Inglaterra. Lo condenan a vivir una vida de soledad. La gente de Utopía lo quiere matar. Lenina se les une y John se suicida.

Capítulos:

Capítulo 1

* El primer capítulo describe a Utopía a través de una cámara.

* El director de Crianza y Acondicionamiento explica las reglas de ese mundo a algunos estudiantes.

* Habla acerca del proceso de reproducción en el que ponen un óvulo femenino y esperma masculino dentro de una botella y producen a un bebe artificial.

* El director explica que todos los genes se manipulan para poder controlar las características de los bebes, así, controlan que tan inteligentes y hábiles van a ser los bebes.

* Lenina Crown es una chava que trabaja como técnico en el área de embriones.

* Utopía busca la perfección y control de la raza humana para crear el medio ambiente perfecto.

Capítulo 2

* El director les muestra a los alumnos como les lavan el cerebro a los bebes mostrándoles cosas que no quieren que les gusten. Cuando los bebes se acercan a ellas reciben una descarga eléctrica.

* Él quiere que todos los humanos sean eficientes. Para lograrlo entrenan a los humanos para que odien el arte, las flores y muchas cosas divertidas porque piensa que son distracciones.

* La religión en Utopía no se basa en Dios y la Biblia sino en Henry Ford (inventor del automóvil) y sus carros.

* Después el director les muestra a los alumnos como debe comportarse la gente. Les lavan el cerebro usando imágenes subliminales mientras duermen. A este proceso lo llaman Hypnopedia. El director dice que este método fue descubierto por un niño polaco.

* El director describe las diferentes clases sociales. En orden de superior a inferior son: Alfas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, y Épsilones (Estas son letras Griegas.)

* El director les dice que él utiliza las técnicas de lavado de cerebro para que cada cual acepte su posición en la sociedad y aprendan a no odiar a nadie.

Capítulo 3

* El director habla acerca del sexo que no solo se permite sino que se alienta a las personas para que tengan relaciones sexuales. El gobierno quiere que la gente tenga relaciones con diferentes personas porque es divertido, sin embargo no se permite que la gente se case o se enamore. Así que prostituirse es bueno.

* Aparece un tipo que se llama Mustafa Mond (él es el controlador residente.) Él les dice a los alumnos que la historia es una tontería. Ellos no quieren que la gente sepa sobre historia porque puede afectar lo que ellos hacen en el presente

* Después Mond dice que las familias (papas y mamas) son malignas y que el matrimonio es maligno también.

* La narración cambia y aparece Lenina. Ella está platicando con su amiga, Fanny. Sacan unas pastillas de hormonas (hormonas que sustituyen las que se producen durante el embarazo.) Nos enteramos de que Lenina esta durmiendo con un chavo que se llama Henry Foster.

* Entonces aparece Bernard Marx en la historia. Bernard es un rebelde, él cree en el amor (aunque sea ilegal). Está enamorado de Lenina.

* Bernard toma pastillas de Soma, que son las pastillas que producen felicidad. Él es un chavo chaparrito, demasiado bajito para ser un alfa. Es bajito porque alguien la regó durante el proceso de concepción científica.

* El controlador explica que las pastillas te hacen feliz y te permiten ser joven para siempre

Capítulo 4

* Este capítulo empieza cuando Lenina se le lanza a Bernard en el elevador. Ella es completamente promiscua, pero eso es lo correcto en Utopía.

* Bernard va a visitar a su amigo Helmholtz, quien es escritor. Los dos se parecen porque se sienten medio tristes aunque todos los demás sean felices.

* Helmholtz es una maravilla. Es buenísimo en todo.

* Los cuates se ponen a platicar y Bernard se pone paranoico. Cree que alguien los está viendo pero no encuentran a nadie.

Capítulo 5

* Lenina y Henry Foster se citan para jugar golf. Henry le dice que a los cadáveres los queman para que la gente pueda utilizar el fósforo de los cuerpos.

* Van al departamento de Foster y tienen relaciones. Lenina toma pastillas anticonceptivas porque el embarazo es ilegal en Utopía.

* Bernard va a una Iglesia de Utopía. Él odia ir porque todo el mundo es feliz menos él.

* Todos tienen relaciones durante el servicio religioso. Bernard no lo disfruta.

Capítulo 6

* Lenina y Bernard se preparan para ir a Norte América a visitar una reservación salvaje (donde viven los salvajes)

* Lenina piensa que Bernard es muy raro porque es un solitario y siempre esta triste.

* También piensa que es raro porque es un rebelde y no quiere seguir las reglas de Utopía.

* Bernard toma pastillas Soma (para elevarse) y después tiene relaciones con Lenina. Aunque solo se le permite tener relaciones con ella, Él le dice que quiere enamorarse de ella (esto es ilegal en Utopía)

* Se alistan para el viaje. El director le cuenta a Bernard que él llevó ahí a una chava 25 años antes. Que ella se perdió y nunca la encontraron. Él cree que murió. Después se enoja por haberle contado a Bernard tantas cosas de su pasado y amenaza a Bernard con mandarlo a Iceland.

Capítulo 7

* Bernard y Lenina se dan cuenta de que la reservación es muy diferente a Utopía. La reservación es un lugar muy desagradable y sin orden.

* Todas las personas en la reservación son nativas pero ahí se encuentran un chavo (John) rubio (no nativo)

* El chico rubio resulta ser el hijo del director. La chava que llevó 25 años atrás estaba embarazada y aún vive. El Director probablemente encubrió todo el asunto porque embarazarse es contra la ley.

* El chavo presenta a Bernard y Lenina con su mamá y los lleva su casa.

Capítulo 8

* John es mitad de Utopía y mitad salvaje. Les cuenta la historia de su vida.

* Les cuenta que sus primeros años fueron difíciles porque los nativos los trataban muy mal porque eran extranjeros. Tuvieron que pasar una serie de rituales para poder convertirse en nativos.

* John les dice que lo padre de eso es que pudo aprender muchas cosas que jamás podría haber aprendido en Utopía.

* Les dice que ha leído muchas cosas de Shakespeare y que así fue como aprendió Inglés. Bernard y Lenina realmente no saben nada de Shakespeare porque en Utopía está prohibido aprender cosas de la historia.

Capítulo 9

* Lenina se toma unas pastillas Soma porque se siente muy alterada después de visitar la reservación.

* Bernard llama a Londres para hablar con el controlador Mond. A él le cuenta la historia de John y le dice que es el hijo del director. Bernard lo hace porque quiere mas poder y un rango mas alto.

* John se enamora de Lenina. Pero aunque en la cultura de Lenina el sexo es algo bueno, John es un romántico y no quiere tener relaciones con ella... aún.

Capítulo 10

* Bernard, Lenina, John y su mamá (Linda) regresan a Londres, a Utopía.

* A su regreso, el director se está preparando para castigar a Bernard por ser un rebelde. Lo quiere mandar a Iceland (exiliado).

* Bernard le tiene una sorpresita al director. Le muestra a Linda y a su hijo.

* Linda y John se acercan al director y John lo llama papá. El director se avergüenza, se enoja y se sale corriendo de la oficina.

Capítulo 11

* Todos odian a Linda en Utopía por haberse embarazado ( lo que es un pecado y va contra la ley). Pero todos quieren conocer al salvaje.

* Bernard se vuelve muy popular porque cuida a John. Todas las mujeres se le avientan a Bernard. El se traiciona porque adora ser una celebridad.

* Bernard lleva a John a conocer diferentes lugares en Utopía. A John las películas le parecen muy desagradables porque promueven el sexo. El se considera un verdadero caballero porque espera para tener relaciones con Lenina aunque ella se muere de ganas.

Capítulo 12

* Bernard hace que gente importante visite a John el salvaje. John se vuelve necio y no quiere conocer a nadie.

* Mucha gente finge ser amiga de Bernard para poder acercarse a John. Ellos lo utilizan.

* Bernard vuelve a ser lo que era, otra vez le disgusta Utopía.

Capítulo 13

* Lenina se enoja porque John no quiere tener relaciones con ella.

* Va a buscarlo para convencerlo.

* John la ve y le dice que la ama. Le propone matrimonio (recuerda que es un salvaje y que no conoce la forma de ser de las personas en Utopía)

* Ella se desviste y trata de convencerlo de tener relaciones. John no quiere y la llama prostituta.

Capítulo 14

* La mamá de John está enferma en el hospital. Él va a visitarla.

* Algunos niños de la clase delta van a ver a Linda morir (esto es parte del acondicionamiento mental para que aprendan que morir no es malo). John se enoja de que la gente este viendo morir a su madre.

* Linda muere y John se pone muy molesto. Los niños ven un emoción muy natural (la tristeza cuando alguien muere). Pero la enfermera les dice que morir es un evento FELIZ.

Capítulo 15

* John trata de decirles a los niños que el Soma es una droga mala y trata de hacerlos entender lo que es la verdadera libertad. Tira al suelo un bonche de pastillas soma.

* Bernard y Helmholtz van al hospital a calmar a John. Hay un pequeño conflicto porque la gente está enojada porque John tiró las pastillas.

* Se restaura el orden.

Capítulo16

* John va a hablar con el controlador. El controlador le dice que Shakespeare es malo porque tiene ciertos sentimientos que podrían provocar que la gente se olvide de Utopía, o la devalúe.

* El controlador le habla acerca del sistema social. Le dice que debe haber Epsilones (la clase baja) porque ellos hacen todo el trabajo sucio (lavar toallas, lavar platos, etc.)

* El controlador se enoja con Bernard, John y Helmholtz porque desobedecieron la ley.

* Manda a Bernard a Iceland y a Helmholtz a las islas Falkland.

Capítulo 17

* El controlador castiga a John.

* John sigue argumentando que Utopía está privada del arte y la ciencia y que por eso es una porquería.

* John y el controlador discuten sobre Dios. John dice que la gente que está sola necesita a Dios, pero Mond (el controlador) dice que la gente en Utopía nunca está sola.

* John le dice que las personas de Utopía no son realmente personas porque no tienen emociones. John dice que vivir es experimentar la tristeza, infelicidad y todo.

Capítulo 18

* John vomita porque se siente muy mal de vivir en un lugar tan desagradable como Utopía

* John le pide al controlador que lo mande a una isla remota. El controlador lo detiene en Inglaterra para hacer experimentos con él.

* John se va a vivir a una bodega. La gente lo encuentra y lo hostigan porque tienen curiosidad.

* John empieza a sentir deseo por Lenina y se siente culpable porque está cediendo a la lujuria y perdiendo el romance.

* Algunos turistas van a ver a John. Lenina es uno de los turistas. John está llevando a cabo un ritual religioso salvaje en el que se da de latigazos.

* Después empieza a pegarle a Lenina con el Látigo. John se siente poseído por una emoción muy fuerte.

* Al día siguiente se siente culpable porque se está convirtiendo en un adicto sexual como los de Utopía y se suicida.

Aldous Huxley

On the free book shelf at the Bodhi Tree, I stumbled across a rare find.

I snapped up the pristine copy of the intriguing - "Doors of Perception" - by Aldous Huxley which chronicles the author's experimentation with the hallucinogenic drug, mescaline.

During that time span, Huxley fervently explored the inner workings of his mind at a quaint little house in Llano in the Mojave Desert.

The big thrust was on the topic of contemplation, mysticism, and a mind-expanding experiment that would lead him to conclude that both "mescaline" and the controversial drug "lysergic acid" (LSD) were "drugs of distinction" which should be exploited for what he referred to as their supernaturally "brilliant visionary experience".

The book went on to become a best-seller in the psychedelic 1960s and inspired the name of the legendary rock band "The Doors".

For those of you into trivia, Huxley appeared on the sleeve of a landmark Beatles album - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - which scholars and Beatle fans alike are quick to point out featured a surreal little ditty titled - "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" - which they assert refers to an LSD trip embarked on by the fab four.

In retrospect, the mind-bending adventure on the part of Huxley, appeared to be brought on by a lofty quest to go beyond this realm of existence.

The book is rife with colorful insightful text.

"The urge to transcend self-conscious self-hood is, as I have said, a principal appetite of the soul. When, for whatever reason, men and women fail to transcend themselves by means of worship, good works, and spiritual excesses, they are apt to resort to religion's chemical surrogates such as alcohol and "goof pills" in the modern West, alcohol and opium in the East, hashish in the Mohammedan world, alcohol and marijuana in Central America, alcohol and coca in the Andes, alcohol and the barbiturates in the more up-to-date regions of South America."

However, Huxley never deluded himself, if we are to believe his musings in one telling section of the cult classic.

"I am not so foolish as to equate what happens under the influence of mescaline or of any other drug, prepared or in the future preparable, with the realization of the end and ultimate purpose of human life: enlightenment, the beatific vision. All I am suggesting is that the mescaline experience is what Catholic theologians call a "gratuitous grace", not necessary to salvation but potentially helpful and to be accepted thankfully, if made available."

"To be shaken out of the ruts of ordinary perception, to be shown for a few timeless hours the outer and the inner world, not as they appear to an animal obsessed with survival or to a human being obsessed with words and notions, but as they are apprehended, directly and unconditionally, by "Mind at Large" - this is an experience of inestimable value to everyone and especially to the intellectual."

A number of the profound ponderings and other-worldly observations put forth here were undoubtedly triggered by the potent swagger of the mind-altering drug.

A worthwhile read, if you can find it in print.

He said what?

"An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex."

In a nutshell: "This classic French satire lampoons all things sacred — armies, churches, philosophers, even the doctrine of optimism itself."

Intriguing quote: "The effect is equal parts hilarious and shocking. (Imagine Monty Python circa 1759)."

In a nutshell: "Critics deemed Mark Twain's use of common vernacular (slang) demeaning and damaging."

Intriguing quote: "In an attempt to avoid controversy, CBS Television produced a made-for-TV adaptation of the book in 1955 that lacked a single mention of slavery, or even any African American cast members to portray the character of Jim."

In a nutshell:  "Huxley's 1932 work — about a drugged, dull and mass-produced society of the future — has been challenged for its themes of sexuality, drugs, and suicide."

Intriguing quote: "In Huxley's vision of the 26th century, Henry Ford is the new God (worshipers say "Our Ford" instead of "Our Lord,") and the car maker's concept of mass production has been applied to human reproduction."

In a nutshell: "[Nineteen Eighty-Four] chronicles the grim future of a society robbed of free will, privacy or truth."

Intriguing quote: "Oddly enough, parents in Jackson County, Fla. would challenge the book in 1981 for being "pro-Communist." (Did they even read it?)

In a nutshell: "Literary critics have both hailed and assailed the novel, which broke the literary mold with its focus on character development rather than plot. Holden Caulfield, the novel's protagonist, has since become a symbol of adolescent angst."

Intriguing quote: "The book introduced slang expressions like the term "screw up" (as in, "Boy, it really screws up my sex life something awful.")"

In a nutshell: "This 1955 novel explores the mind of a self-loathing and highly intelligent pedophile named Humbert Humbert, who narrates his life and the obsession that consumes it: his lust for "nymphets" like 12-year-old Dolores Haze."

Intriguing quote: "[Lolita was] first published in France by a pornographic press."

In a nutshell: "This 1970 memoir angered censors for its graphic depiction of racism and sex, especially the passages in which she recounts being raped by her mother's boyfriend as an eight-year-old child."

Intriguing quote: "The American Library Association ranked it the 5th most challenged book of the 21st century."

In a nutshell: "Powell was just 19 when he wrote this 1971 cult classic. The guerrilla how-to book managed to not only anger government officials, but anarchist groups as well."

Intriguing quote: "Other critics attacked the book for more practical reasons — some of the bomb-making recipes that Powell included turned out to be dangerously inaccurate."

In a nutshell: "This book sparked riots across the world for what some called a blasphemous treatment of the Islamic faith."

Intriguing quote: "Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini put a $1 million bounty on [Rushdie's] head; Venezuelan officials threatened anyone who owned or read the book with 15 months of prison; a Japanese translator was stabbed to death for his involvement with the book; Walden Books and Barnes & Noble removed the book from shelves after receiving death threats; under the protection of British authorities, Rushdie himself lived in hiding for nearly a decade.""

I'll leave the last book on the list as a surprise.

Looking back, it seems almost unbelievable that these books, many of which are now regarded as classics, were once banned or continue to be challenged.  Wondering where your favorite book is on the list?  Take a look at the ALA's list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000.  Want to know what modern-day books are causing a stir?  Check out part 2 of my post on Banned Books Week, featuring the 10 most challenged books of 2006, coming soon.

"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite." — William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), grandson of the famous Darwinist Thomas Huxley, published his novel Island in 1962. Huxley's Vedantist ethos influenced counterculture and the human potential movement that grew in the West during the 1960s. For example, Huxley’s 1954 essay The Doors to Perception was the inspiration for name of the rock band The Doors.

Island was Huxley’s reply to the nightmare vision he created in Brave New World. An island is an age-old symbol of alienation where an individual casts off his ego and undergoes a process of self-discovery. Huxley used the character of William Asquith Farnaby to explore his personal conception of a Utopian society. Farnaby begins as a cynical and selfish reporter with personal baggage who has seen the "maggots" that cover the earth. Farnaby claims he’s the "man that won’t take yes for an answer." However, by the novel’s conclusion, Farnaby is one with his Buddha nature.

Farnaby visits the forbidden tropical island of Pala. Colonel Dipa, the dictator of the nearby squalid island of Rendang, has planned to conquer Pala. Joe Aldehyde, a man with oil interests, wants to ensure that his company gets the contracts under the new regime and sends Farnaby out as a reporter to negotiate with those in Pala sympathetic to Dipa.

While Farnaby seeks out the Rani, he eventually discovers a young man entering adulthood named Murugan Mailendra, who will shortly become Pala’s new Raja. Murugan stands for everything that Huxley is against. Murugan is chaste, worldly, fascinated by technology, enjoys science fiction, and desires economic development — Huxley’s version of an authoritarian personality. Murugan’s conservative mother, the Rani, is on a spiritual crusade to spread her one-size-fits-all tradition around the world.

Why can’t Farnaby take yes for an answer? He thought the ultimate facts about spirit, love, sense, meaning, and achievement say no.  In contrast, the philosophy of Pala asserts all we need to do is know ourselves and stop living falsely, and reconcile the me and not-me. The Palanese reject ascetism since it excludes sensation; they reject abstraction since it excludes thought-- everything connects in the holistic Palanese philosophy. The Old Raja renounced belief itself, since seeking truth causes people to take words to seriously, and that can lead to mass movements and conflict. Faith, however, is good, since it is the "empirically justified confidence in our capacity to know who we are." Knowing who we are leads to good Being, which leads to good doing. So the theory goes.

Pala’s society is a Kropotkinesque co-operative. Preventive medicine is a way of life. Pala caps accumulated wealth, and educates every child with respect to their temperament. Industry is small scale. People are taught to respect the environment, see things as an interconnected whole, and learn that no one should feel superior and dominate others. Free birth control somehow keeps the size of the population stable. The reader will also notice a few evils from Brave New World, but this time around they have a good purpose behind them. Sexually, the Palanese practice free love, given sexual repression is believed to hurt authentic relationships. To avoid learning the neuroses of a single pair of parents, the Palanese raise all children collectively. Drug use is rampant for the purposes of recreation and enlightenment. Artificial insemination is common; many women choose to have children of good stock-- a progressive unity of feminism and eugenics. Trance states are used to help children learn.

Like the World State of Brave New World, human nature in Pala is highly malleable. The Palanese believe that those easily hypnotized constitute a large section of the population, but when given avenues to use their ability, they will be less prone to be led by a dictator. Dr. Robert MacPhail, a man Farnaby meets, explained how authoritarian personalities are avoided. Dreamy, young, shy "Peter Pans" that don’t want to compete or cooperate are prevented from growing into Hitlers by getting psychological treatment, meds, therapy, and love. Meanwhile, extroverted young Stalin types that trample all over everything are given appropriate physical outlets. Apparently global politics is an issue of therapy.

Farnaby is slowly and predictably transformed by his stay at Pala. He is first discovered after a fall when he saw a snake; a young girl gave him therapy and made him talk about his fear, and by doing so removed it. Susila MacPhail, a widow and daughter of Robert MacPhail, hypnotized Farnaby and gave him a sense of peace. She brought him to the surface the real and the imagined, between what comes from the outside and what comes within. Will Farnaby floated "along the sleeping river, irresistibly, into the wholeness of reconciliation."

By the end of the novel, after Farnaby gets unhappy memories of his dead wife, his dead dog, and his dead Aunt off his chest, he is asked by Susila to take the moksha-medicine, the transcendental shrooms! Farnaby gets stoned while listening to Bach’s fourth Brandenburg Concerto, entering a state of "luminous bliss." Farnaby then sees a lizard, and two praying mantes, and then freaks, abstracting from swarms of insects to armies, leading to an awareness of Infinite Suffering. Dr. MacPhail’s wife died peacefully earlier that night, and by the morning, Dipa and Murugan were leading military forces into Pala. The theme is reconciliation with and acceptance of one’s fate — Farnaby comes to terms with death in his life– he’ll never be the same, and Pala will not either.

While I’m supposed to feel sentimental, I 'm glad Huxley's deliberately defenseless do-gooder hippies were conquered by an aggressive power, since that is precisely what should and would happen in a real situation. Huxley’s individuals, subordinated to communal plan, are not the architects of their own lives. Instead accepting one's station in society with the stoicism of the Buddha himself, why not challenge your destiny like Beethoven, or perhaps in the style of Vincent in the 1997 film Gattaca?

At the sociological level, Huxley doesn’t understand that economic prosperity often is a result of size, since economies of scale can drastically reduce the price per unit of a commodity. Such reasoning falls on deaf ears upon the New Left, which rejects the economic mode of thought as calculating, selfish, and inauthentic. Modern tyrannies are almost always the product of socialist thinking, since collectivism makes Law arbitrary, diminishes individual autonomy, and makes it easy for someone ambitious to run the entire show. Rural, community-based small socialism, as was attempted in Cambodia by the Khmer Reds, in many respects is even more terrific than the big government of the Soviet Union which at least valued modernity and science.

Huxley found no harm in a child worshiping an idol, but Christianity, by teaching that God is Other and man is innately sinful, supposedly causes of all of the world’s ills. Huxley's doctrine flies in the face of the body count of atheist dictatorships during the last two hundred years. The Salem Witch trials, for example, killed 19 people. Mao Zedong killed millions upon millions of people, both directly through terror and indirectly by forcing people into worker cooperatives.  It isn't obvious that man's instincts incline toward the good.

Huxley frequently offended common sense. One can’t distort space-time with your mind. The theory of animal magnetism proposed by Franz Mesmer (the root of the word mesmerized) is a bad joke. Not believing that snakes will bite you has no impact on their actual behavior. Huxley believed otherwise because of his idealism, that is, his rejection of the difference between experience and the object experienced. Idealism even implies the non-existence of hallucinations --  by definition they imply a distinction between sensation and the external world.

In short, Island showcased Huxley’s vision of a perfect world. Unfortunately, we’ve put many of his ideas into practice over recent decades with undesirable results. Perhaps someday, military forces will roll into another island paradise run by Utopian revolutionaries: Cuba.

I can dream, can’t I?

Further reading:
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel Brave New World, which appeared in 1932, expressed a primitivist reaction against modernity.

Unlike Orwell, Huxley constructed a sweet and happy future; under the regime of the World State, everything is in a condition of merry equilibrium. After Huxley allocated considerable ink to creating his world, he introduced a new element-- literally a noble savage from one of the unspoiled reservations. Huxley prophesized what will be subtracted in the world of mass-man. While Orwell's novel brought out suffocating detail through a desperate individual's reactions to a totalitarian atmosphere, Huxley's narrative is clean, external, impersonal, and superficial -- exactly like the world he created.

In Huxley's cheerful civilization of the future, everyone's wants are satisfied. The frictionless World State mass produces human beings using a combination of genetic engineering and conditioning. The fabrication of genetic castes allows human beings to have fun in all stations in life, no matter how menial; as a result, few have any desire to change their social position. With free love being the norm, sexual frustration also does not exist. Everyone retains youth through old age. Recreational drug use is universal. Desensitization to death begins at an early age. This is an Americanized throw-away society in principle; human beings have no attachments to anything.

Not only is everyone self-satisfied. Everything is mechanized in Huxley's assembly-line world; Our Ford (one and same person with Our Freud) has the status of a god. Right down to the clothing, everything is standardized and uniform. There is no home, no family, and no privacy. Everyone belongs to everyone; an indistinguishable sameness seeps through every corner. The consciousness of man has become range-of-the-moment-- no one has any concern for history, nor any will to implement longterm plans. In contrast to Orwell's novel, the prevailing attitude of Huxley's book is not serious and grave, but frivolous and corny. "Was and will makes me ill!" People watch pornos at the theater and have orgies for fun.

Like all dystopias, not all accept the fate for what it is. One character, Bernard Marx, somehow became a runt of his social caste-- it is rumored there was alcohol in his blood-surrogate when he was created. Bernard's instinct is not to rebel, but to conform-- he ultimately wants the prestige (and the sex) that belongs to his intellectual caste. This ironically leads him to self-directed behavior.

Bernard, away from London on vacation at a reservation in New Mexico with his date Lenina, finds a young white man among the tribe of natives. On a similar trip many years ago, a woman named Linda from civilization was left behind. Without recourse to abortion, she had a son named John, an avid reader of Shakespeare. John never fit in with his peers, given they all hated his mother's improper sexual behavior with men of the tribe. Bernard takes both Linda and John the Savage back to London with the aim of embarrassing the person who happens to be John's father, the Director, into resignation. Being a parent is an obscenity.

With John on display, Bernard becomes a celebrity and obtains all he ever wanted. This did not last. When John refuses to put him self on display at one of Bernard's events, Bernard's acquaintances quickly desert him. It quickly sinks for Bernard that he has no friends; the fact that John bonds with Bernard's only close acquaintance, Helmholtz Watson, infuriates him.

For John, authentic and doomed, events can only go downhill. John lusts after Lenina, but is repulsed by her casual whore behavior. John's mother, still living under the forces of conditioning and engineering, does not want to live with the shame of being an old flabby mother; she deliberately decides to spend the remaining part of her life in a stoned stupor in an official hospital, knowing the high concentration of drugs will kill her. Linda's death drives John into sadness and grief, emotions which frighten and confuse everyone in John's surroundings. John ends up physically revolting against the wickedness he perceives in the world around him, attempting to rally citizens by destroying their soma rations. This only infuriates the crowd, getting John, Helmholtz, and Bernard into trouble as the police rush in.

Like 1984, Brave New World climaxes with a debate with a representative of the dystopia who articulates its principles-- in this case Mustapha Mond, one the few World Controllers. Mond, unlike Orwell's O'Brien, retains a well-rounded humanity, stoically explaining why conflict makes stability necessary, given the risk of Great Wars. Bernard and Helmholtz will be sent to the Falkland Islands, where they can be eccentric and happy. John claimed a different fate.

"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."

"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.

"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.

Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he said.

John did not get to leave London. Since he claimed unhappiness, Mond decided John must live with it. John tried to isolate himself, but could not-- he becomes a freak and a spectacle in the new world. John finally escaped from the nightmare of industrialized civilization by tragically hanging himself.

Was John's suicide appropriate? Brave New World suggests tragedy inheres in the good life. Passionate individuals will never fulfill all passions; it has been said men laugh and cry because we can see the gulf between the possible and the actual. When our world becomes reduced to the here and now, our stature becomes radically diminished. The eternal now has no tragedy.

It isn't enough for man to be happy; man must feel that he is worthy of his happiness. One requires skill, patience, courage, nobility, and perhaps even heroism to feel equal to life; otherwise one has bad faith, as if we are faking reality. We seek to be who we want to be, being happy in our own way as authors of our own destinies.

Further Reading:
George Orwell, 1984

Mundo no qual noções básicas da civilização ocidental, como liberdade e individualidade, são banidas e consideradas não apenas inconvenientes mas infamantes? Confere de novo.

Funcionário técnico que, no meio dessa hierarquia desumana, encontra mulher cujo amor será redenção e ruína ao mesmo tempo? Confere mais uma vez

Figura sinistra que oprime o povo enquanto exige ser chamado por um epíteto queridinho? Certo.

É 1984, de George Orwell?

Não, Bom palpite, mas não é essa a resposta.

Embora as frases escolhidas conscientemente sirvam para definir elementos do livro, foram colocadas aí com o intuito de sublinhar a dívida que o clássico de Orwell (e, por tabela, praticamente tudo o que se derivou dele, como sua adaptação cinematográfica, ou Brazil, de Terry Gilliam,  ou uma dezena de séries que vão de Logan's Run a Aeon Flux, por exemplo) tem com um precursor menos conhecido da literatura de ficção científica, o romance Nós, do russo Yevgeni Zamyatin, o cidadão da foto ao lado. O livro foi concluído em 1921 – mais de duas décadas antes de 1984, que é de 1948.

Narrada em primeira pessoa em uma prosa que vai gradualmente do patético iludido para o desencanto, Nós é contado por D-503, um engenheiro que vive em um mundo futurista no qual a liberdade foi abolida, a mecânica e a matemática regem a ideologia e as pessoas, chamadas "cifras" ou "números", têm nomes que mais parecem identificações de série. Controlando tudo, está uma figura sinistra que auto-intitula O Benfeitor, que forjou o UnEstado que domina aquele mundo remanescente de uma guerra de séculos. Funcionário do departamento responsável pela criação de um foguete destinado às estrelas, D-503 vai conhecer I-330, uma enigmática mulher parte de uma célula de resistência. E só aí perceberá o quanto o véu da alienação em que vivia, parte imposição do Estado e parte seu próprio conformismo, escondia as imperfeições daquele mundo que deveria ser de pura ordem. Como vocês vêem, quem leu 1984 ou mesmo viu o filme achou a trama de Nós bem mais do que vagamente familiar.

Zamyátin viveu de 1884 a 1937 e era um satirista. Seus livros eram visões humorísticas de seu tempo, que lhe granjearam uma reputação razoável no final dos anos 1910. Sim, esse é o primeiro choque de quem lê o livro: o modelo para o sombrio 1984 é um livro irônico, eivado de humor e poesia. Lançado menos de uma década depois do triunfo dos bolcheviques, Nós só poderia ter o destino que teve: foi banido. Aliado de primeira hora dos bolcheviques mas radicalmente contra a censura exercida por eles, Zamyátin logo caiu em desgraça e foi proibido de publicar não só esse como qualquer livro futuro. Devido a essa contingência, Nós, contrabandeado pela mulher do escritor para o exterior, foi levado para um amigo em Londres e veio a ser publicado primeiro em inglês, depois em francês e, finalmente, anos depois, em russo — numa tradução que, sem os originais, precisou se valer de uma segunda tradução da edição original inglesa (complicado, não?). Nós circulou bastante na Inglaterra, e, portanto, era conhecido por Orwell quando este começou a escrever sua própria distopia.  

Zamyátin conseguiu escapar do horror soviético por interferência de Górki, que conseguiu a permissão de Stálin para que ele fosse viver no exílio, em Paris, onde morreu na pobreza.

Nós teria também inspirado o Admirável Mundo Novo, de Huxley, mas o escritor inglês sempre negou esse fato. E no jogo eterno das influências literárias, é provável que o próprio Nós tenha resultado da leitura de Zamyátin do conto A Nova Cidade, de Jerome K. Jerome, publicado no fim do século 19 e que apresenta uma visão de mundo parecida: uma cidade em que todo mundo se veste igual, com uniformes cinzas e com o cabelo curto e pintado de preto, cercada por um muro e no qual o amor individual é perigoso para o avanço da utopia estatal totalitária.

Como, apesar de sua importância, o livro ainda não ganhou tradução no Brasil, compartilho com os leitores do Alerta uma tradução exclusiva do primeiro capítulo, feita com base no volume editado pela inglesa Penguin Books.

Bom proveito, folks. 

Registro 1

Proclamação

As Mais Sábias Linhas

Um Poema Épico

Eu estou tão-somente copiando aqui, palavra por palavra, o que foi impresso hoje na Gazeta Estatal:

Daqui a 120 dias, a construção do INTEGRAL será finalizada. Aproxima-se a grande, a histórica hora em que o primeiro INTEGRAL será lançado ao espaço. Mil anos atrás nossos heróicos ancestrais subjugaram o planeta inteiro ao poder do UnEstado. Cabe a vocês executar uma tarefa ainda mais gloriosa: concluir, por meio do vidro, da eletricidade, do hálito de fogo do INTEGRAL, a indefinida equação do universo. Cabe a vocês colocar o benéfico jugo da razão ao redor dos pescoços dos seres desconhecidos que habitam outros planetas – que ainda vivem, provavelmente, no estado primitivo conhecido como liberdade. Se não entenderem que estamos levando a eles uma felicidade matematicamente infalível, seremos obrigados a forçá-los a ser felizes. Mas antes de pegar em armas, devemos verificar o que as palavras podem fazer.

Em nome do Benfeitor, todos os Números do UnEstado, por meio deste, estejam informados do que segue:

Todos os que se sentirem capazes de fazê-lo são solicitados a compor tratados, poemas épicos, manifestos, odes, ou outras composições a respeito da beleza e da grandeza do UnEstado.

Esta será a primeira carga transportada pelo INTEGRAL

Vida longa ao UnEstado! Vida longa aos Números! Vida Longa ao Benfeitor!

Enquanto escrevo sinto as bochechas arderem. Sim: determinar completamente a integral da colossal equação do universo. Sim: desdobrar a parábola selvagem, planificá-la tangencialmente, aplainá-la em uma linha sem desvios. Porque a linha do UnEstado é uma linha reta. A grande, divina, precisa, sábia linha reta – a mais sábia de todas as linhas.

Eu, D-503, construtor do INTEGRAL, sou apenas um dos matemáticos do UnEstado. Minha caneta, acostumada a gráficos, é débil para criar a música da assonância e da rima. Devo tentar anotar – nada mais – o que eu vejo, o que eu penso – ou, para ser mais exato, o que nós pensamos (o que é o correto: nós, e que este NÓS seja o título destes registros). Mas isto, seguramente, derivará de nossas vidas, da vida matematicamente perfeita do UnEstado, e, se é assim, não será, de acordo com nossos parâmetros, não importa o que eu pense, um épico? Será; eu acredito e eu sei que será.

Sinto minhas bochechas arderem enquanto escrevo. Esta é provavelmente a sensação que tem uma mulher quando sente pela primeira vez em si o pulso de uma nova pessoinha, ainda minúscula e cega. Sou eu, e ao mesmo tempo não sou eu. E pelos longos meses seguintes ela terá de nutri-la com sua própria essência, seu próprio sangue, e então – tirá-la dolorosamente de si e deposita-lá ao pé do UnEstado.

Mas eu estou pronto. Como todos nós, ou quase. Eu estou pronto.

- Aldous Huxley

Gilbert Highet, writer (1906-1978)

History is a vast early warning system.

Norman Cousins, (1915-1990

The greatest part of a writer's time is spent in reading, in order to write; a man will turn over half a library to make one book.

Samuel Johnson, (1709-1784)

Without books the development of civilization would have been impossible. They are the engines of change, windows on the world, "Lighthouses" as the poet said "erected in the sea of time." They are companions, teachers, magicians, bankers of the treasures of the mind, Books are humanity in print.            Arthur Schopenhauer , philosopher (1788-1860

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Aldous Huxley, (1894-1963)

One glance at a book and you hear the voice of another person, perhaps someone dead for 1,000 years. To read is to voyage through time.         Carl Sagan, (1934-1996)

A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.

Salman Rushdie, (1947-

He also wrote on highly political and sensitive topics. His Brave New World has many things in common with George Orwells 1984 and the more recent movie called Idiocracy. The following is the first of 3 parts of an interview conducted by Mike Wallace on ABC on the 18th May 1958, about 5 years before Huxley's death.

Part 2 Part 3

The points Huxley is making are astonishing and very daring. Even though he wrote Enemies of Freedom during a time of widespread fear of communist Russia, they have never been more relevant than today. During this 30 minute interview, Mr. Huxley summarised his opinion of the greatest dangers to our personal freedom in the coming 25 - 100 years.

Overpopulation: The explosive growth of population. Have a look at the following graph demonstrating the world population growth since 10,000 BC.

The incredible advances we have made during the past century -medical and other- have mostly lead to one and the same result - prolonging lifespan, thus decreasing the rate at which we die. The number of births however has not been adjusted to compensate for this, further increasing the already steep upwards trend in the number of people crowded on this planet.

As Aldous pointed out, life needs balance. If an an ecosystem -be it our bodies, a backyard pond or our planet- is out of balance, the system will strive to find the equilibrium and seek to restore balance or perish.

We practise death control (medicine and technological advances), but we don't practise birth control. In fact, institutions such as the catholic church and many people associated with the "republican" and "conservative" political movement actively work against birth control, and people are still mindlessly reproducing like there is no tomorrow for no apparent good reason. It is easy for me to express these opinions today, but I imagine it required immense courage for Aldous Huxey in the 1950's to connect the catholic church with communism and robbing us of our personal freedom by countering birth control.

Overorganisation: The fact that such a provocative interview was given on ABC speaks for itself. Big Business and Big Government have seen an incredible growth in the 50 odd years since this interview. It is now very hard to distinguish between what is "Government" and what is "Business", these two sectors have blurred into each other in a perverse blend of free market capitalism and democracy run by what is lovingly called "special interest groups", lobbyists and the rich elite pulling the strings of greed in the background. Aldous Huxley pointed out that the increase in population brings with it "overorganisation", and this in turn results in hierarchy and a large proportion of the population caught up in in subordinance, government and bureacracy. This aspect was certainly very obvious at his time with communism looming over America, but it is also present in contemporary America, its just not as obvious this time round.

Mass Media: Television is perhaps the most important and effective tool to control and distract society. Hitler used the radio very effectively to spread his propaganda. Today, its no hate speeches, and there is nothing to parallel the choruses of "Heil Hitler!". Instead, we have a nation addicted to watching drama, gameshows, "news" broadcasts, talkshows, movies and music videos starved of intelligent thought and brimming with violence, sexism, superficialities and sexuality. Consider the following statistics taken from a study done by A.C. Nielsen Co.:

Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99
Number of TV sets in the average U.S. household: 2.24
Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes
Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 3.5
Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680
Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900 hours
Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500
Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000
Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000
Number of TV commercials seen by the average person by age 65: 2 million

Percentage of local TV news broadcast time devoted to advertising: 30
Percentage devoted to stories about crime, disaster and war: 53.8
Percentage devoted to public service announcements: 0.7

Even though the methods have changed, the public is still controlled by one of the strongest