A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (Books to Read #3)

I had read this dystopian novel years ago, and it was time to refresh my memory with another reading. Interestingly, Huxley’s family was deeply involved in social engineering—his brother Julian Huxley, for example, worked with multiple government organizations and think tanks exploring transhumanism and technocracy (source). His father was also big name that pops up when you look for The New World Order.

Aldous Huxley’s writings might be seen as a fictional projection of the direction in which social engineers have been moving humanity for decades (if not longer).

The Brave New World of Today

In A Brave New World, technology allows humans to be bred into five distinct classes, each fulfilling different societal roles and, crucially, each content with their position.

  • Alphas, the most intelligent class, rule society and could not imagine finding happiness in any other role.
  • Epsilons, the lowest class, cannot read or write, nor do they wish to. Their tasks are so simple that even a “cretin” could perform them, as it’s said in the book. Low-skilled labor satisfies them, while the responsibilities of an Alpha terrify them.
  • The other groups fall somewhat in-between, but are all bread to enjoy their group specific tasks and hate everything that goes beyond.

Whenever anyone feels discontent, there is always a drug called Soma that can deliver instant happiness. Those who cannot conform are exiled to islands—for their own safety and that of society. Anyone challenging the idea that this technocratic future is ideal simply does not fit in.

All of this bears a striking resemblance to the Western world today: drug use is skyrocketing, escapism is widely pursued as the highest form of happiness, one’s upbringing heavily influences life outcomes, and dissenters are often labeled extremists who then get censored, de-platformed, or worse.

The final version of this technocratic future is still centuries away. In Huxley’s world, humans are fully bred in laboratories; nobody gives natural birth anymore to children. We haven’t reached that stage yet. However, many of his predictions were uncannily precise: the indoctrination of infants and the normalization of promiscuity in society echo strikingly in modern times.

What Huxley Missed

The current technocrats’ plans are flexible. Their ultimate goal is total control over a population of humans who not only accept but embrace their own enslavement. The specific methods don’t matter; what matters is that society progresses toward the goal of total state-run control year by year, election by election.

Since Huxley wrote his novel, the techniques of control have evolved. One area he overlooked is the intersexual power dynamic. In A Brave New World, men and women are nearly identical—coming together solely for frequent, promiscuous sex, otherwise performing the same societal tasks.

In reality, technocrats have leveraged feminism to undermine the foundations of the Western world:

  1. Freedom
  2. Reason
  3. Individuality

Feminism serves as a tool because men and women have inherently different reproductive strategies—in simple terms: women seek quality, men seek quantity (simplified). While breeding humans in a lab could render these strategies irrelevant, once reproduction becomes obsolete, one can ask: why would social engineers even need two sexes?

The push toward androgyny has already begun. Men are encouraged to be more emotional, women more aggressive and assertive. Meanwhile gender is declared a social construct anyway. The ultimate goal may be the creation of a genderless human—a final stage resembling Huxley’s vision in a one-gendered species: an asexual, non-reproductive human worker drone.

A Brave New World TV-Show

The 9-part series from 2020 was cancelled after just one season. Reviews on IMDb are mixed (Brave New World on IMDb). I can understand why. The first few episodes are mediocre at best, but around episode three, the show becomes genuinely interesting. Unfortunately, the finale falls flat again.

The main issue is that the series wasn’t designed as a limited run with a clear ending. Instead, it left the storyline open with a cliffhanger, presumably to set up another season—which never materialized.

The set design is solid, directing is competent, and the acting is generally good. The production budget shows. Overall, I would rate the show 6 out of 10. It’s not a must-watch, but it’s not a complete waste of time either. If a second season ever appears, I’d consider returning.

A Brave New World Show (Spoilers Included)

The first half of the series largely follows the novel. The writers extended the story slightly to fill six episodes, but the additions were fair and respected the source material.

The bigger problem is the invention of a “mastermind” behind the dystopian society—a figure absent from the novel. The character’s background and motivations are poorly developed, and the lead-up to the story’s resolution feels unconvincing.

The show also takes a problematic turn by reinterpreting the novel’s core message. It suggests that if human nature could be “fixed,” a peaceful technocratic society might be possible. Essentially, human nature becomes the problem preventing utopia in the show. This flips Huxley’s original premise on its head: in the novel, it is society—under technocratic control—that destroys human nature, not the other way around.

Conclusion

A Brave New World is a compelling read that adds crucial pieces to the puzzle of why the world is structured as it is. While 1984 focuses on individual brainwashing, A Brave New World examines the collective impact of systemic control. Both are essential reads.

The tv-show is a nice addition to watch when you get it for free. But it’s not a must watch, and you should read the book beforehand to see the moral inversion the show runners pulled with their interpretation of the source material.

Btw, here is free audiobook version to check out: A Brave New World Audiobook

Link Out to Others

Before social media took over, everyone was chasing backlinks. Bloggers spammed the comment sections of bigger websites just to drop a link. Hustlers built entire networks of small “satellite” sites pointing to their main ones. You could even submit your site to directories just to get a mention with a link.

At some point, an entire industry grew around this — selling backlinks on sketchy (often Indian) websites for $5 on Fiverr.

Today, nobody really talks about backlinks anymore. As social media exploded, influencer shoutouts became the new gold. “Hit like and subscribe—and if you can, share my stuff on social media.” That’s how countless YouTubers end their videos. And it’s also the moment when many viewers click away, because they already know what’s coming.

I still believe links matter—not necessarily to get backlinks and please Google’s algorithm to climb higher in search results, but because links have a genuine human value.

Here’s a blog I enjoy: Chris Guillebeau – The Art of Non-Conformity
And here’s a YouTube channel I like: Nerdwriter

Both creators are far too big for me to expect anything in return for linking to them. They very likely will never share this post, give me a shoutout, or even notice my little blog. But what I gain from it is recommending something great to my readers.

I like reading Guillebeau’s blog, and I enjoy Nerdwriter’s video essays. I’m sure that some of my readers will too. Of course, many may already know them, but some might not—and for them, I’ve just shared two excellent links that make my site a bit more valuable.

Linking out also helps shape your online identity. The things you enjoy consuming reflect the kind of things you enjoy creating. These two links give my readers a clearer sense of who I am and what kind of content they can expect from me. It helps them decide whether they want to stick around.

So, if you want my advice: Link out to others as often as you can. Don’t expect anything in return. Don’t hope for a shoutout or a backlink. Do it for your readers—to offer value and share something worth their time.

Writing a Blog Will Improve Your Writing

Everyone I’ve ever talked to says they could write a book. Many people even have an idea for a novel. Yet, whenever I talk to them again after some time, they haven’t made much progress—if they’ve started at all.

The main reason most people never write a book is because it requires delayed gratification. You can’t write a book in a day. Only the truly obsessed finish one in a week, rarely is a book completed in a month. Usually, it takes many months to shape your idea into something polished enough to publish—and most people don’t want to wait that long for the gratification of holding the finished book in their hands.

Blogs are different. You can write something in an hour, click “publish,” and enjoy your reward immediately.

If you keep at it long enough, you might even build an audience to interact with—and maybe even earn some money from it. But what you’ll definitely gain is the daily satisfaction of creating something.

Even though blogging is different from writing a book, it still follows the same principles.

In my case, blogging isn’t just a daily exercise in honing my craft; it’s also a way to improve my English. Sure, my English is far from perfect, but I’ve become much better thanks to this blog.

If English is your native language, blogging will still expand your communication skills. It makes you think about how to express your ideas and arguments more clearly. It pushes you to broaden your vocabulary and experiment with phrasing. It also strengthens your storytelling muscle, since every blog post follows a structure similar to a story scene:

  • Grab the reader’s attention.
  • Keep them engaged so they stay with you.
  • End with a clear, satisfying conclusion that makes your post (or scene) feel complete.

Do you feel like you could write a book?

Start by writing a blog for a month or two—you’ll train your brain well enough to start tackling that 300-page novel, and succeed this time.

Monster: Season 1 – Dahmer (Movie/Show Review #4)

Over the past couple of weeks, I watched Monster on Netflix—one episode a day. It was a tough watch, especially the first season about Jeffrey Dahmer. I couldn’t watch more than one episode per day, as the story is genuinely disturbing.

What I found particularly frustrating, on top of the main Dahmer storyline, was the constant portrayal of racism. It seemed to suggest that white men in general were to blame for what happened to Dahmer’s victims. Every Black character is depicted as a moral pillar, while the white cops are portrayed as either indifferent or complicit, supposedly because Dahmer was white as well.

Jesse Jackson is almost elevated to a heroic status in the final episodes, portrayed as a brave social justice warrior fighting systemic racism. The fact that Jackson may have used the case to further his own public image—capitalizing on a story that stirred outrage—is never even hinted at.

Dahmer was undoubtedly a monster, but his story is not one of hidden racism against “people of color,” as the show implies. He lived in a predominantly minority neighborhood, where Black residents were the majority. His specific apartment complex was known for poorly maintained housing for the poor and unemployed.

Interestingly, many of Dahmer’s victims were found in gay bars, suggesting his actions were motivated by sexual desire. He later admitted that he killed some victims because he “didn’t want them to leave.”

So he was a racist who intentionally lived in a black area to find black lovers to have gay sex with whom he didn’t want to leave – doesn’t sound convincing to me.

As for the systemic racism that is not just implied but openly pointed at: I would have loved to see the general conviction rates of homicide and murder in that neighborhood for that specific time frame by race and ethnicity.

Dahmer was clearly a sick man, but race was not a factor in his crimes, contrary to how the show and figures like Jesse Jackson seem to spin it. That the case caused massive public outrage despite lots of black on white murder happening at the same time without comparable media attention is actually a counter argument to any accusations of systemic racism against blacks in the Dahmer case.

In terms of quality, the show is well-made, though. Ryan Murphy knows how to produce this type of series. The acting is solid, the cinematography and music are good, yet the pacing can be slow at times.

Overall, it’s a difficult watch, even without the racial undertones. But it’s also worth it, if you can stomach such stories.

Protocol Twilight Available For FREE This Week (STORY52 No. 8/52)

I finally got around releasing the next book in my short story series STORY52. It’s number 8 of 52 and it’s called “Protocol Twilight”.

At the end of the world, the machines stand alone.
Designation-7 and Unit-E3 – the last bio-mechanical beings – meet in the dying light of humanity. Amid the ruins of a civilization that sought perfection and lost its humanity in the process, they confront the ultimate question: What remains when the machine has no place left for the organic?

A quiet post-apocalyptic short story by Michael Brig – approx. 1,000 words.

US Version | https://amazon.com/dp/B0FXSJNGRF
German Version | https://amazon.de/dp/B0FXS9YM9N

The book will be free until Friday as a digital download. So grab a copy now. If you liked the story, please leave me a review on Amazon, thanks.