Hacker News Reader

Comment by hairy_man674 | Hacker News Reader

"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial—but Democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit."

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (1958)

View on HN

If you would like to elevate your thinking on this subject in order to understand what's going on, I recommend:

1. Iron law of oligarchy (1911 - 1700 words on wikipedia): "all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies."

2. Dictator's handbook (2011) - Or CGP Grey's summary: rules for rulers (2016 - 18 minutes): "Bad behavior" is emergent from power structures rather than human weakness. From democracies to dictatorships, organizations select for Machiavellian and psychopathic behaviors.

I can't recommend these enough. This life altering perspective takes <30 minutes to go over - plus potentially several days of despair.

The problems with the world are not user error. How can technology help?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

I'm glad to see CGP Grey being noticed here. His YouTube channel[1] is highly addictive, and I'm glad he's taken a foray into longer form narratives as well as the fast paced.

His videos on elections are particularly relevant these days!

[1]: https://m.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey

"The problems with the world are not user error." - wow. This is why HN is mostly the only forum I hang around.

If you really want to go deep study game theory. IMHO it offers very satisfying hard mathematical explanations for at least some of these things.

I consider it and its related fields (evolutionary informatics, complexity) to be among the greatest intellectual achievements of the 20th century. These fields are grossly under-taught. You generally won't hit them unless you study economics, ecology, or evolutionary biology.

If there is an answer to any of these awful paradoxes, it is going to be found in these subjects rather than in any form of conventional or even unconventional politics, religion, philosophy, etc. These are just rearrangements of the deck chairs.

I am faving this comment. Huxley was a true visionary.

However I dont agree with the "...new kind of non-violent totalitarianism..." Our democracies are non-violent only if you obey. Otherwise they use violence and force to lock you up. Most people in prisons are there for victimless crimes like drugs. That is not a non-violent system in my opinion.

euh... Don't confuse Republics and democracies.

Letting the people vote is a not an equivalent statement to let the people rules.

Condorcet has shown how voting systems can be unfair, and a quick look to every elected assembly from the G20 is showing a clear non representation of the demography of the people in the assemblies.

We do not live under democratic systems, neither was USA in 1861. These are Republics. And Plato was firmly convinced that democracies were bad. After all he was sponsored by the wealthy ones that hated the people to have power.

Fair point, you are of course right.

However I used the word in the way how it is used nowadays by public. I am from Europe and people here will tell you we have "democracies".

Thats a fairly irrelevant objection. Both the NYT, Huxley and the GP are referring to the system still in place in the US and Europe today (and so were Churchill in the "worst system, except for all the others that has been tried" quote), whether correctly identified as 'democracy' or not.

I mean, of course we don't actually have democracy. That's the problem.

Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive... I think you are confused if you think they are. According to Wikipedia, "It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy."

Perhaps it's less of a democracy then we think it is, but it's not wrong to call the US a democracy.

It is often said that Huxley's Brave New World prediction was more accurate than Orwell's 1984, but Orwell actually got the boot-stomping-your-face prediction right: even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull. Police murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised. The mass imprisonment of citizens who's only committed what most people consider a minor offense.

Aldous Huxley vs George Orwell:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/huxley-or...

(The creator, Stuart McMillen, felt compelled to remove it from his own website. He explains: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours...)

> even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull

...except the police officers murdered in Dallas this year didn't wear riot gear on purpose and the violence started when a sniper started shooting officers. Some crazy person executed two officers in Iowa three days ago.

I'm not advocating riot gear, but there are holes in your narrative.

A police officer or two killed says nothing about police brutality.

It says a lot actually. Police officers are humans who want to go home to their kids. Hence the riot gear. We can blame them for being too fearful, but we can also recognize that they have reasons to be afraid.

These reasons don't fit into "because The Man" narratives without some explanation.

Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face.

They're not fighting a war, and acting like they are only increases popular resentment.

How does can an officer covered head to toe in riot gear, carrying military equipment, jumping out of an armored vehicle, engage with the community?

The police act almost as an occupying force in some communities. It does not surprise me in the few instances where they are resisted like they are an occupying force.

"A police officer or two killed" ...

"Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face"

Again, these are people who want to go home to their families.

"acting like they are only increases popular resentment"

Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails. Sniper fire appears to be a reaction to the riot gear...

"How does can an officer covered head to toe in riot gear, carrying military equipment, jumping out of an armored vehicle, engage with the community?"

Valid point. Lets ask a similar question. How can a protester throwing stones or shooting people engage with the institutions they are trying to change?

> "A police officer or two killed" ...

> "Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face"

> Again, these are people who want to go home to their families.

I said “or two” for a reason. Vastly more civilians are killed by police than vice-versa.

> Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails.

Reaction or not, it's not appropriate in many situations where it's deployed.

> How can a protester throwing stones or shooting people engage with the institutions they are trying to change?

They are a tiny minority of protestors.

"Vastly more civilians are killed by police than vice-versa"

Sure, but their job is literally go find the most dangerous people in the country, and make them give up their freedom.

Imagine yourself outside the headquarters of a gang of meth cooks, known to be armed and high. Unfortunately, yeah, people get shot. Lets not pretend like these are kind, innocent people. I know sometimes their relatives will say that on tv[1]. Imagine what its like to deal with hardcore criminals on a regular basis.

"it's not appropriate in many situations where it's deployed"

I agree. The problem is, how do you know in advance? Peaceful protests can turn violent in the blink of an eye. When they do need the gear, they needed it 5 minutes ago. I would love to hear a solution that doesnt involve the police running back to their cars, right at the moment that things get out of hand.

"They are a tiny minority of protestors"

Agreed. But again, how to know which ones? Now you can see why they want to monitor social media(not taking a position here). If 99 people are saying, "grab a coat and join us for a peaceful protest", and 1 is saying "grab rocks and head the park", well, now maybe we know who to watch.

1. http://wncn.com/2016/11/03/parents-of-pizza-hut-robbery-susp...

> even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull.

Is it more likely that a police baton ends the peace, or a protester's stone? Is riot gear offensive in nature, or do the police wear it to defend themselves from violent attack?

> Police murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised.

While that has certainly happened, you are referring to Michael Brown, who did not, in fact, have his arms raised and was, in fact, beating the police officer who shot him.

> The mass imprisonment of citizens who's only committed what most people consider a minor offense.

I suspect you blame Drug Prohibition (and I agree that it should end immediately), but that's not actually true: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/releasing-drug-offenders-...

Looking at what people actually go to prison for, it often seems like stuff we'd want to send people to prison for: murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud. Maybe we might look at why Americans commit so much murder, assault, theft, rape and fraud?

I was assuming he was talking about Philando Castile, who was shot to death while putting his hands up.

That is definitely a much greyer case at the moment; I'm looking forward to the results of the investigation. It definitely sounds bad.

Are you saying that peaceful protests in the US are met with baton-swings to the skull? That seems veritably untrue; there have been a large number of protests recently that have not ended in any violence.

The Dakota Pipeline protestors have been getting maced and tear gassed this past week. There are also reports of protestors being locked in dog cages[1].

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/0...

The Dakota Pipeline protesters were actually shooting at cops, and committed millions of dollars worth of arson.

The Sioux tribe and other protestors claim he was a plant by the oil company to intentionally turn public opinion against the protestors[1].

[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dakota-access-pipeline-s...

That, and the other incidences of protestors using firearms is something anyone managing a protest of this scale cannot control. As long as the leadership involved condemns the gun violence, and the protestors do what they can to stop people from escalating the situation, they cannot be themselves in the wrong.

It is a very common tactic to plant radicals in peaceful protests who will use violence as an attempt to ruin the reputation of the movement, mainly by distraction - "oh, someone shot at the police, they are all violent monstrous scum now, and nobody should listen to their grievances anymore" was used constantly during the occupy protests, and many of those offenders were later found to be plants by either private or even police agencies to break up the protests and destroy their message.

I wonder if you were this generous towards the Bundy Ranch protesters.

Sadly you have to have been a protester at least once to know that, otherwise you just cannot believe how prevalent (and effective) this tactic is.

It sure is odd how these evil tools of the Man are never identified and flushed out by the noble, gentle, peaceful protesters before they start committing arson and shooting cops. Nobody noticed that these agents provocateurs were carrying guns? Nobody went up to them while they were getting ready to burn millions of dollars of equipment -- something which requires a lot more effort than just tossing a match -- and said "hey, don't do that, we're all about peace"? The pipeline protesters knew damn well they had bad apples, and they did nothing about it.

This is indeed not how it works. Provocateurs, not perpetrators.

"Mom, he made me do it!" isn't going to save you in a court of law. Actual non-violent protesters, whom these people are not, would have taken someone advocating arson and murder and flung them out the door.

Yes, but there have been many other protests that did NOT end in violence.

I mean that's verifiably not true if you look at the statistics. A majority of prisoners are not in for drug crimes. The ones that are are overwhelmingly in for drug trafficking, which is violent (selling something that physically hurts people).

You can argue that consent should make the act legal, but that doesn't make it non-violent.

> drug trafficking, which is violent (selling something that physically hurts people).

Only if selling sugar, rifles or skateboards is violent.

Beat me to it! ;)

Distributors of those legal products are rarely gunning each other down over the monopoly on distribution on a particular street corner. Driving it underground and making it illegal forces people to return to older, more traditional forms of conflict resolution...

Sometimes they are driven to the internet where they use superior conflict resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration and other mechanisms that work in the absence of violence.

All of those things have non-violent uses much more important than their violent ones. Cigarettes are a better analogy--I think there is definitely a case to be made that is a violent activity.

What is the non-violent use of a rifle that is important? I sold pot in college in the 90s, and there was no violence. Perhaps it is the ilegalization of various plant materials that causes violence in the distribution process?

Hunting, pest control, etc. Pot isn't that harmful, but contrary to popular belief most people are not in prison for possessing or even distributing pot. Heroin, meth, etc. definitely are harmful and addictive, and destroy lives. Selling them would be violent even if those products were legal (like cigarettes).

> Heroin, meth, etc. definitely are harmful and addictive, and destroy lives. Selling them would be violent...

Unless you can personally claim ownership of those people, among other things you're claiming ownership* of, there is no aggression (initiation of violence) taken upon your person or things when someone is destroying their life.

If you can personally claim ownership of those people, and society as a whole, then you are correct and the selling of the drugs would be an act of aggression towards yourself.

* The act of withholding something from others.

Hunting and pest control are examples of non-violence? Is that your argument?

And most opiate addicts (heroin) get hooked from opiates supplied by their violent doctor and local pharmacies.

Not to mention if you are just protesting the wrong thing, you get arrested, pepper sprayed or worse. And somehow the media coverage is way less too.

Like the Dakota Access Pipeline protest right now. No mainstream network talks about it at prime time, despite it probably being the most significant US national political event right now next to the email leaks. Which they also ignore, beyond claiming they are Russia's fault.

> Like the Dakota Access Pipeline protest right now.

The one where they were shooting at cops, you mean? True, that part didn't get a lot of coverage.

Most people in prison are not there for victimless crimes. This is well studied, and what you just said is a canard.

Ranked, reasons for incarcerations go:

1. Violent crime

2. Property crime

3. Everything else

Where "violent crime" is comprised of those crimes we all agree are violent --- particularly: domestic violence, which accounts for a plurality of all incarcerations in major metro areas.

The overwhelming majority of incarcerated felons victimized somebody else. It's also worth considering that the majority of those incarcerated for property crimes victimized those people in society least able to absorb the harm: rich white people live in low-crime neighborhoods with 2x the police coverage.

Depends on your definition of "overwhelming" 1 in 5 convicts are in prison for drug related offenses[1]. Almost four hundred thousand US citizens behind bars for plant byproduct possession or distribution is heinous. There are around 320k prisoners for property crime, by comparison, so no, nonviolent drug offenses are #2 in terms of incarceration blocks, though the numbers are close, and violent offenses are over twice drug offenses.

[1] http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html

It is not my argument that because drugs account for only 15% of incarcerations, our drug policy is OK.

> "soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators"

Read "soldiers, policemen, lobbyists and advertisers"?

No, read "lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats". Making you afraid of mere advertisers (demanding evermore protection from - you guessed it! - lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats, with the help of their soldiers and policemen) is a great act of mind-manipulation that harks back to the aristocratic and academic disdain for trade.

Advertisers clearly have a big influence on the actions taken by those in power, as well as within the general public.

To give some examples, consider what happens within the news media. If you don't think news outlets that rely on advertising money to function tailor their messages to present a world view that lines up with the wishes of advertisers, perhaps you'll find this interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHa6NflkW3Y

As for the influence of advertisers on the general public, I'd argue the only reason its big business is because it works. However, I believe it works differently than just through the obvious ads we see around us, the most effective forms of advertising appear to be the ones that don't look like advertising at all, I'd put this under the category of 'cultural norms'. Advertisers have a large indirect influence on cultural norms, and (aside from the basic things we need to survive) it is often by aiming to meet those norms that we find ourselves spending money.

Indeed we should be afraid of modern advertisers. They exploit the nature of human mind, to manipulate us into decisions that are often not in our best interest.

Politicians then use advertisers to manipulate masses to ensure power for themselfs.

In my country people in last elections elected an Olygarch, multi billionair, who controls whole agriculture, all main media, medical and other industries and now he is writing laws that suits his needs and stealing billions in "donations" from us. How is this possible? How was he elected in democracy? How is it possible that he has support of majority of people? Because he has very good PR, advertisement and propaganda team.

Anyone who hasnt seen "The Century of Self" documentary, please watch it, it will open your eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

Which country are you referring to?

Czech republic

This is why we need a participatory democracy [1], rather than a representative democracy.

Also, we need better ways to keep our leaders in check, i.e., more transparency.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy

Lots of US states use ballot measures. They don't seem particularly hard to game in the same way elections can be gamed, especially when there are too many ballot measures for a typical citizen to filter through in detail.

I did a few research about voting methods and the best seems to be the Schulze method [1]. After reading its process I just saw that it is in fact widely used in Open Source projects!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#cite_note-Frenc...

You know, here at Brazil we are having some deep recent changes... And I just can not imagine anybody who could be interested in financing the mind-manipulating machine that would be creating this.

I'm still tending to think Huxley didn't have the full picture and populations still have some amount of free-will.

Another early prescient vision of thought-manufacturer and mind-manipulator culture, as well as a great read is the Frederick Pohl and Kornbluth story Gravy Planet, home of the great quote 'power ennobles, and absolute power ennobles absolutely'..

It's from the 50's but it's a shockingly accurate picture of our modern world with advanced propoganda, globalism etc .. and it's free here https://archive.org/details/galaxymagazine-1952-08 .. enjoy :)

Comrade Huxley probably knew his history, and had in mind how a certain Octavian Augustus kept swearing left and right that the Republic was functioning entirely properly, and he was just the poor ass charged with too many jobs.

But republics always were the favorites of savvy aristocrats to keep their collegial rule. If one looks closely at the English state, there's a Republic there since the days of the Magna Carta, whatever way they dress it up. Many a "monarch" terminated with extreme prejudice when getting too big for his britches ;-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com