I had to read this book in school and didn’t like it. I thought I should give it a second shot as an adult, especially since so much of what the story warns about seems to have become reality. But after reading it again, my verdict is the same: I still don’t like it very much. But I still think that it’s a must read.

The novel depicts a dystopian future in which firemen exist to burn books. Only controlled mass media is considered acceptable for the public to consume, because books contain dangerous ideas that might cause people to question their systematic sedation.

“Book burning stretched into 200 pages” might be the simplest way to sum it up.

Fahrenheit 451 in Modern Times

Getting people banned on Twitter, removing their videos from YouTube, or making websites unsearchable on Google is the modern equivalent of book burning. Books are just one medium for transferring ideas from one human to another—social media posts and websites serve the same purpose.

Guy Montag is the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451. He works as a fireman but slowly begins to question his role. After sparing a book from being burned, he gets caught in a spiral that pulls him down the rabbit hole of self-discovery. The more books he saves and reads, the more he questions the system he was born into. Naturally, the authorities push back.

It sounds a lot like people encountering alternative ideas on social media and beginning to question what they see in mainstream news.

Why I Don’t Like The Book

The story itself isn’t the issue. It’s a quick read, moving from A to B in a straightforward way, and the pacing is solid. The message isn’t a problem either—I enjoy dystopian novels that try to wake readers from a state-induced slumber.

However, there’s something about Bradbury’s writing style that I simply don’t enjoy. His metaphors are overly colorful, and he often uses five sentences to express what could be said in one. I’ve always had this issue with Bradbury, which is why I stopped reading his work long before picking up Fahrenheit 451 again.

Bradbury is celebrated as one of the greatest sci-fi authors of all time, with plenty of awards and millions in royalties. So perhaps it’s just my personal taste getting in the way.

Even though it wasn’t to my liking, it remains a dystopian classic that everyone should read at least once. It’s not 1984 or A Brave New World, but it’s still an important book.

Btw, if you don’t like reading, there is also a movie adaption from 1966.

A remake was done in 2018 that I completely missed. It seems to have a big budget, as it could attract Michael B. Jordan and Michael Shannon, but the reviews aren’t promising.

I watched the movie about 20 years ago. It’s not Kubrick’s best, but it’s still an excellent film – I highly recommend watching it. The book is also a worthwhile read.

Burgess’s take on dystopian fiction focuses primarily on language, violence, and morality. The story follows Alex, a young gang leader who ends up in prison for various crimes. A new experimental method is tested on him, designed to make humans incapable of violence. However, the conditioning has unexpected consequences: once Alex is released, he becomes the victim of the very violence he once inflicted.

The totalitarian state in which the story takes place resembles a futuristic version of 1990s Great Britain. Most people are glued to their televisions, parents are detached from their children, and the youth have no vision beyond short-term pleasure.

Much like in 1984, A Clockwork Orange shows how language can be used to control not only thought but emotion. The protagonist is morally “bad,” yet he doesn’t truly understand the difference between good and evil because he lacks the language to express these concepts. His passion for classical music hints at an inner longing for beauty and, through it, a kind of moral guidance. But neither his parents, his friends, the state, nor even the only beauty he knows – classical music – can offer that guidance.

The world Burgess portrays is one devoid of any morality. Even the government’s conditioning program, which aims to produce moral citizens, fails to reach the essence of morality – that which comes from reason and empathy.

The invented slang of the characters makes the book difficult to read at first, but once you get used to it, the rhythm of the language becomes engaging. If you’re not much of a reader, the movie is your go to piece of entertainment– it stays relatively close to the novel’s story and delivers the basic talking points while also giving us Kubrick’s trademark filmmaking aesthetics.

A Clockwork Orange on Goodreads

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

Everyone has heard of the book. Whenever those in power see their influence waning, they claim the other side is trying to create an Orwellian state.

The former Green Party minister of economics in Deutschland actually wrote the foreword for the latest German translation of Orwell’s timeless classic. This is a textbook example of what Orwell wrote about: the inversion of reality. As it was (and is) mostly the Sozialist Green Parties in Germany that are building a state of totalitarian censorship — as exemplified by the same Green Party minister having a German citizen arrested just for calling him a dimwit on Twitter at the beginning of the year. Crazy times.

Anyway — most people know about 1984. But how many have actually read it? Some are forced to in school. And when you are forced to do something, you’re unlikely to enjoy it — which means you’ll probably learn very little.

So the real question is: how many people have read the book because they wanted to? I would assume not many. Because the book opens your eyes to state power and how the media inverts reality to keep that power running, and I see millions in every Western country not understanding that at all.

Orwell’s absolute genius shines through when he dissects how Big Brother uses language to destroy people’s ability to think: can you think about freedom when the state has censored the word “freedom” so much that nobody even remembers that the word existed?

Cognitive dissonance is another brilliant aspect of the story — explained in the final torture scene, where the protagonist Winston must deny reality before his very eyes in order to end the suffering inflicted by the personification of the state: O’Brien.

What Orwell missed, though: the deconstruction of gender and race that has been happening for the last 50 years. But what he unveiled more than anyone else was how wars are used to keep people in check. There is always a war going on since forever and the reason why is shown in 1984.

Today, the so-called debt-based economy and the resulting never-ending materialistic consumption have somewhat replaced the need for large conventional wars. But Orwell couldn’t foresee that, because it was Nixon who detached the U.S. dollar from the gold standard in 1971, long after Orwell’s death.

However, if you add an understanding of the debt-based economy, gender deconstruction, and mass migration to what 1984 teaches you, the current “clown world” suddenly makes total sense.

By the way: you can check out a free audiobook of 1984 here.

One type of blog post I want to establish here is a book recommendation series. While I currently don’t have the time to read a book every week, there were years when I finished nearly 100 books in 365 days. I’ve never compiled the best ones into a single list — so why not start right here?

The first book I want to write about is my all-time favorite: The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand.

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead is my favorite book of all time. Reading it sparked my philosophical journey and ignited a passion for learning and reading that continues to this day. My hope in writing this post is to inspire new readers to discover this classic work of philosophical fiction by Ayn Rand.

The Author

Ayn Rand remains a controversial figure. Her work has been dismissed through ad hominem attacks — and, as is often the case, such attacks suggest that her ideas are indeed worth examining.

Rand fled socialism in the Soviet Union, emigrated to the United States, and encountered capitalism — its complete opposite. After seeing how much wealth, prosperity, and freedom capitalism created, she developed a philosophy that challenges the moral foundation of socialism (altruism) by proposing its opposite: a philosophy based on rational self-interest.

Today, we live in a world that increasingly leans toward socialism everywhere. But our educational, political, and mainstream media institutions often blame capitalism for society’s problems which are actually caused by socialism, which pushes Western civilization even further down what Rand would call a “socialist death spiral.”

Here’s one of Rand’s earliest interviews (1959):

The Novel

The Fountainhead presents the ideal man according to Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.

The protagonist, Howard Roark, embodies the traits every person should strive to develop on their journey toward a happy and fulfilling life.

Set in 1940s America, the story depicts a world being swallowed by socialism — its ideas slowly infiltrating private life, business, and art. Roark refuses to conform to the prevailing collectivist culture and faces fierce opposition for his independence. Yet he remains true to his principles, finding happiness through reason, logic, and self-confidence — both in his work and his love life.

The story serves as a striking analogy for our modern world, where socialism once again undermines individual freedom and achievement. It exploits the productive while rewarding dependency. The Fountainhead shows how one can not only survive in such a system — but thrive.

The Fountainhead trailer:

The book in a nutshell:

The Philosophy of The Fountainhead

The philosophy behind The Fountainhead is called Objectivism.

In the Russian literary tradition, Ayn Rand presented her philosophical ideas through storytelling. Howard Roark is the embodiment of Objectivism — the living example of her philosophy in action.

In short, Objectivism is about rational self-interest and the right of every individual to pursue their own happiness.

If you want to know more, here is a more detailed video:

The four main pillars of objectivism are:

• Metaphysics: Objective Reality – “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
• Epistemology: Reason – “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.”
• Ethics: Self-Interest – “Man is an end in himself.”
• Politics: Capitalism – “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Howard Roark: The Ideal Man

According to Ayn Rand, the ideal man possesses three core virtues:

1. Rationality
2. Independence
3. Self-Esteem

In simple terms:

• Understand your emotions, but don’t act on them alone — act on reason.
• Be independent — rely on your own judgment and abilities.
• Develop self-confidence through competence — self-esteem is earned by mastery.

It’s said that Steve Jobs drew inspiration from Rand’s characters — particularly in Apple’s early days — at least according to the “Almighty Woz”:

Quotes from The Fountainhead

Some standout passages include:

The Importance of Work

“I have, let’s say, sixty years to live… I’ve chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I’m only condemning myself to sixty years of torture… The best is a matter of standards—and I set my own standards.” (p. 18)

Individualism in Work

“They were sketches of buildings such as had never stood on the face of the earth… They were only Howard Roark.” (p. 18–19)

Independence

“I owe you an apology. I don’t usually let things happen to me. I made a mistake this time… I should have left long ago.” (p. 22)

Defiance

“My dear fellow, who will let you?”
“That’s not the point. The point is, who will stop me?” (p. 23)

Rational Selfishness

“They have no self. They live within others. They live second-hand… He didn’t want to build, but to be admired as a builder.” (p. 605)

Happiness in Individualism

“If any man stopped and asked himself whether he’s ever held a truly personal desire, he’d see that all his dreams are motivated by other men…” (p. 607)

The Power of the Individual

“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision… They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won.” (p. 736)

Capitalism vs. Socialism

“The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.” (p. 738)

The Virtue of Independence

“Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value… There is no substitute for personal dignity.” (p. 740)

Freedom

“I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine.” (p. 743)

The Fountainhead: A Guide for Living

Objectivism has been called a philosophy for living on Earth.

For men especially, The Fountainhead offers a powerful role model — a guide to success and happiness grounded in reason and integrity.

Even if philosophy seems dry, stories like The Fountainhead bring ideas to life through narrative — much like Star Wars or Harry Potter, which also carry philosophical themes. Just as Luke Skywalker teaches us about courage and overcoming fear, Howard Roark teaches us how to live with purpose and self-respect.

Resources

• Ayn Rand Institute
• Atlas Society
• You can read the book for free online: Public Online Library Version
• Cliffs Notes on The Fountainhead
• The Fountainhead Movie on IMDB.