Interview with Aldous Huxley

Stumbling as I did over Julian Huxley in the previous post and then realizing he was Aldous Huxley’s father, I went to YouTube to see if anything was on record from Aldous. There is this, a 1958 interview by Mike Wallace. It is about 30 minutes.

I know how people are with videos because I am the same way. I am not about to drop everything just because someone thinks I should watch something. So I took notes as I watched. If any of this is of interest to you, the time in the video is noted.

2:10: Overpopulation. Huxley sees it as a problem in 1958, not in the US, but in the poorer nations. Prescient, as this is the driving force now behind so-called Climate Change. A problem in 1958, a problem now.

5:10: Over-organization, large bureaucracies, people reduced to lowly servant status.

6:20: Propaganda. He sees its use in Germany and the USSR, though he claims it has not yet arrived in the US. [Wink wink.]

7:50: The power of TV.

8:50: Drugs, and not street drugs, but rather things like soma from Brave New World, drugs that elevate us without debilitating us, foreshadowing the era of antidepressants.

10:45: Rule by propaganda, love of slavery.

12:10: Technology

13:00: Politics. “All that is needed is money and a candidate that can be coaxed to look sincere.”

13:50: Reagan. (Not really.) He talks about the possibility of an amiable dunce becoming president because of the power of advertising.

14:35: Subliminal persuasion.

15:40: Advertising.

17:00: Advertising and children.

18:15: Brainwashing.

19:40: The will to power.

21:00: Integrity, values, education.

22:30: Decentralization.

23:25 and 25:10: The Evil Empire (words not used), the USSR.

24:00: Is freedom necessary?

By the way, I should add, I don’t think Aldous Huxley was an evil man, though he certainly qualifies as an insider. I do not impugn evil motives on him, though he does not say all that he knows. I came away from this interview with the impression that I had just visited a different era, when perhaps the ruling class held out hope for an informed citizenry.

I am going to sort of quote Martin Luther King, or his writers (who obviously knew he was to “die” the following day), since it is obvious to me that Huxley in 1958 had never been to WalMart:

“Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to Walmart. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to have a lot of stuff. Stuff has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to Walmart. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the thundering herd. I may not go there with you ever again. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to to have lots of stuff, and that is all that will matter. And I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen Walmart, and I know what must be done. And man, I am outta here!”

23 thoughts on “Interview with Aldous Huxley”

  3. From Gnostic Media (listed on POM blogroll):
    And from there it’s picked up by Terence McKenna, also working at Esalen and tied directly to the Huxleys:

    “He [Terence] knew Francis Huxley, an anthropologist and one of Julian’s two sons. The other, Anthony, was a botanist. Francis lived in Santa Fe and we knew him through personal circles there. Though how well Terence knew him, I have no idea. Not well. I only met him once or twice myself, so it was more of an acquaintanceship than a friendship. Laura, of course, was Aldous wife and was a beloved figure in the psychedelic community as a result. I’m sure she probably hung out at Esalen and may have been there when T was there, which was regularly in the 80s and 90s.”
    ~ Dennis McKenna

    So here we see that Terence even hung out with Francis Huxley, son to Julian Huxley. And of course Julian is one of the key suspects in this entire investigation. Coincidence? We also see that Terence likely spent extensive time at Esalen while Laura Huxley was there. Again, coincidence? Coincidentally, Terence’s archives were destroyed in a fire – at Esalen’s business offices in Monterrey, California. While official reports say that the fire started in an adjacent Quiznos, I can’t help but see the convenience and irony, especially when considering the magnitude of such an operation. Just some of the “coincidences” we’re dealing with here:

    Is it coincidence that Terence would hang out with the great grandson of one of the key promoters of Darwin’s theories, Francis Huxley (1), who had ties via his own family to Darwin’s via his cousin (2), and was influenced heavily by Tielhard (3) – who created the Piltdown Hoax (4) – who happened also to have an intro in his book written by Julian Huxley (5), Francis’s father (6), and should then come up with the Stoned Ape theory (7), and promote it and the 2012 meme that was developed by a CIA agent, Coe (8), who just so happened to hang out with a friend of Julian’s, Dobhzanski (9), and then dispense the entire meme from Esalen (10), where he spent time with Aldous’s wife, Laura (11), and Esalen happens to be co-created by Aldous Huxley himself (12)?

    12 coincidences, and that’s not even counting all of the other ties mentioned above to the Huxleys and Darwin, and those below, that will total up to about 40 coincidences!

    (note: At this point those who can still maintain this many coincidences and still not see an agenda should have their heads checked – as this many coincidences is statistically impossible.) https://logosmedia.com/2012/08/how-darwin-huxley-and-the-esalen-institute-launched-the-2012-and-psychedelic-revolutions-and-began-one-of-the-largest-mind-control-operations-in-history/

    ….and then there’s the whole Tavistock/social engineering/MK Ultra connection. Sketchy (if not evil) as it gets.

    Like

    Reply

    1. No … there are other things ar work here besides good and evil, which I tried to address in my snarky MLK faux closing at the end. They are charged with governing a very stupid population. They could reason with us, in fact, there are many ways to approach us about important matters for discussion by the body politic. None of them work. So they resort to manipulation. I get it. They have no choice in the matter. Huxley spoke at a time when it had not yet really sunk in … in the ensuing years, fake events, mass shootings, 911, all of that, they gave up, went all in on manipulation for sake of control of the herd. Have you been to WalMart?

      Like

      Reply

      2. He is connected to the same apparatus that freely passed out mind altering drugs that crippled multiple generations the damage of which hasnt subsided yet nor has that apparatus ceased in its supplying of drugs. The same apparatus that has dropped bombs on innocent men, women, and children for generations and the bomb dropping has yet to subside. So by birthright you give him a pass I suppose I mean its not his fault he was born on top and having been born on top he is simply carrying on family tradition no matter how detrimental to us commoners those activities may be because he is not like us, got it.

        Like

        Reply

  5. “But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

    How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present debility? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing steadily in accordance with its proclaimed social intentions, hand in hand with a dazzling progress in technology. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

    This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very foundation of thought in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was born in the Renaissance and has found political expression since the Age of Enlightenment. It became the basis for political and social doctrine and could be called rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the pro-claimed and practiced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of all.”
    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/SolzhenitsynHarvard.php

    Wally World is engineered fiction. “They” left out the key ingredient: spirit/soul. Bad recipe.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I clipped a copy of that speech to read in the morning. I am currently reading the Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. It is slow-going for sure. Bloom seems to make much of the loss of authority of churches, setting us adrift with no higher power to keep us in check. But has it not always been so? Did kings not merely take the place of gods? But were kings bound to a higher authority? I doubt it. I think we’ve alwasy been on our own, whether we know it or not, and that it is not so gloomy as thinkers like Bloom and Solzhenitsyn make out. But I also sense that even those who do not believe in a higher power believe in ultimate evil. I got a taste of this when I opined that Aldous Huxley may have higher motives and that ordinary people not governable without tricks. (Whether or not ordinary people believe in higher powers … if so, it merely makes us more manipulable.)

      Like

      Reply

      1. It’s been so long since I read it, I don’t remember that being the focus. What excited me was the history of ideas and their relevance (or not) to modern society. And his critical stance, questioning things many accept without a thought.

        Since then I’ve learned that Bloom was in the orbit of Leo Strauss, alao based at the U of Chicago, and that Strauss is considered THE leading light of (the conservative wing of) Postmodernism. (Which is nebulous, yes, but seems to be a network of intellectuals, probably Intel connected, whose high-flown ideas do actually trickle down into average everyday reality.)

        And Strauss was big on that “tricks are necessary for common people” idea you mention. He also was famous for arguing that “great books” were written with both exoteric and esoteric meanings, only truly accessible to a brilliant mind equal to the author’s. This was how dangerous ideas were secretly shared among an intellectual elite. IIRC. Many high level neo cons were part of this alleged Strauss personality cult. Donald Rumsfeld and such types if memory serves. It actually got some mainstream magazine coverage during the Reagan presidency. Such a hall of mirrors as far as telling what was really what.

        Like

        Reply

        1. That is really interesting, first I’ve heard of that school of thought. I wonder what deep exoteric thoughts are conveyed in Catcher in the Rye. It’s obviously an important book, for unknown reasons. Also, my first exposure to “IIRC.”

          Regarding Bloom, I am in to part two, now, The University, and not far, but I am going to speculate about what I see around us now: An intolerant corps of groupthinkers in most of the disciplines, guided by money. Is that what closed minds refers to, or must I read on and wait for more surprises.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Catcher in the Rye calls all the rich northeast boarding school children of the elite phonies and describes them not favorably. Those people run society, so they weren’t to pleased with Salinger calling them out, I suppose.

            Like

            Reply

          2. Catcher in the Rye is about rich northeast boarding school kids of the elite. Salinger mocks them and calls them all phonies in his book. Since those folks end up running society, they try to blackwash his book. Strange it is offered in schools though… If you ask me, there seems to be evidence there are multiple factions at the top duking it out with one another.

            Like

            Reply

          3. Coaltar- Also 1984 and Brave New World on reading lists. Salinger is a promoted author w a whole mystique and everything. It’s not necessarily factions. They seem to be just putting it out for any “awake” young people… For multiple reasons probably, one could speculate. It seems similar to many conspiracy sites being probably controlled

            Like

            Reply

    1. Good thing Obama and his psience czar have our best interests at heart…

      http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/

      …im joking of course. I would no more ascribe motives to our betters behavior than I would to a cat snacking on a rat. So good v. evil talk doesn’t mean much to me. However, if I was a rat I wouldn’t be knocking about making up excuses for the behavior of cats andwhatnot.

      Like

      Reply

  7. Not sure, it’s been about 20 years since I read it. It seems I recall he talked about the 60s counterculture a lot, and its impact on the universities. A rising anti-intellectualism, w profs catering to a dumbed down, sybaritic student body?

    Catcher is “great” apparently for its propaganda messaging… It must have some esoteric masonic meaning since it comes up in Lennon’s death and other psy ops. Strauss is probably referring to the Western Canon of Great Books though, from centuries past.

    Like

    Reply

  8. “and then realizing he was Aldous Huxley’s father”

    I was under the impression that they were brothers, not father and son.

    As for the question of whether Aldous was evil or part of a nefarious clan, I used to believe that this was the case. Now I am not so sure. Seems to me that some people were able to ‘connect the dots’ and see where society was/is heading. Aldous appears to have been such a person.

    If you read Brave New World, in the first chapter you are exposed to the idea that the ruling elite would prefer the physical maturation of the epsilons to occur more quickly than it presently does. Why should a person whose role in life will be menial, take so long to reach physical maturity?

    Now in the 21 century we are told that western women are beginning puberty younger than they did in the past, and nobody knows why. Is this true? If so, is there a parallel between what we are seeing in the Epsilon west and what Aldous wrote about almost 100 years ago?

    Later in Brave New World we learn that women have been trained to see motherhood as ‘yucky’, even ‘disgusting’. Fast forward to today, have you spoken with many young women lately? If so, did you glean their opinion on motherhood? The parallels in this case go from curious to borderline eery.

    By the way, has anybody here ever looked into the ‘science’ of prenatal ultrasound? There’s a rabbit hole littered with black pills, Jesus H Christ. As they say in the classics, What A Time To Be Alive.

    Like

    Reply

    1. All good points JLB. Also it’s said they’ve ramped up the vaccine schedule to some absurd number (and you’re a crazy anti-vaxxer if you doubt the wisdom of this.) Could that account for different generational types and development? Is there covert biological engineering in sync with the social engineering from schools and media?

      Like

      Reply

  9. A “catcher in the rye” could also be described as a “player in the field”, no?

    Holden is confronted wtih a choice in the book: to “play ball” and become one of the fake, plastic people he doesn’t respect, joining his brother in “the field”, i.e. intelligence; or to reject the offer and lose their respect, which he secretly craves yet loathes himself for desiring.

    If I’m correct about the title and its meaning that might go a long way toward explaining why the book has been associated with some of the people and it events that it has. Its inclusion may be a signal that the event or person in question is a “field agent”, a catcher out in the rye, doing what they do. Mark David Chapman supposedly having a copy of the book in his back pocket would then read, to me, “this guy’s in our pocket, he’s our field agent.” Simple as that.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment