How could George Orwell have predicted so much of todays technology...

How could George Orwell have predicted so much of todays technology, even down to the flatscreen TV with hidden microphones and cameras, desktop computers and mass surveillance systems. Bear in mind that he went to a school which the elite send their kids to, Eton College, so he would have known future politicians, diplomats, high ranking military men. He would have been in touch with everyone who was planning the future of Britain, but what gets me is the detailed descriptions of the technology, even a paperless office, etc I believe he may have had access to corporate and state secrets at the highest level. Otherwise books such as 1984 it would have been impossible to write so much of the real future into his fiction

Attached: George_Orwell_press_photo.jpg (1176x1596, 2.62M)

Because George Orwell was a genius.

This. He was an absolute Brain Chad.

>literal microphones hanging from trees
>accurate prediction
That’s a pretty far fetched conclusion, OP. Also, the novel says nothing about screens being flat at all and certainly nothing about personal computers.

Too many psychodelics & other hippie shit. He would have done better to leave the devils flower alone and settled down with a good Christian wife & apply himself to more wholesome activities.

He was also an avowed socialist.

Seething tankies. Eric Blair was the single most based /lit/ nigga that ever walked the face of the Earth. He obviously didn't get everything right, but his predictions were, in spirit, absolutely correct.

Huxley is more of what we live in today. Its the huge amount of infotainment rather than complete censorship of information. Its the huge amount of entertainment making us dull/lazy rather than the government forcing us to be ignorant.

Orwell thought government would control our every life decision. Huxley thought our own impulses kill control us. Guess who was right? Huxley.

Attached: huxvor.jpg (739x5840, 1.47M)

>He obviously didn't get everything right, but his predictions were, in spirit, absolutely correct.
>correct
>in spirit
Cope

This

Hard cope right here. Find Jesus.

A ton of writers wrote science fiction and made various predictions, of all authors some were bound to get most things right.

>Old Etonians
>knowing about technology
Are you fucking kidding me?

Why are you posting this on Jow Forums? This board is filled with kids who never opened a book outside their school.

there are tens of thousands of scifi novels "predicting" shit out there. this dude just happened to luck out and get it right.

>This board is filled with kids who never opened a book outside their school.
Does that really matter, seeing how 1984 is usually part of the curriculum (either in English class for EOL or some other literature study for ESL countries [translated])?

Fucking hell, I got 15 messages telling me the captcha was incorrect before I finally managed to post. Fix your shit, Cloudflare.

I didnt say thgey knew about technology, I said that his friends would have had high rqanking members of the establishment amongst them and he might have had high level access to state and military secrets

In spirit, meaning no mics from trees, but still the presence of mics and cameras literally everywhere anyway. cope yourself.

who said I haven't?

>but still the presence of mics and cameras literally everywhere anyway.
Except you can literally just take it out of the pocket and leave it.

>inb4 hurr durr surveillance
Not everyone lives in Londonistan or communist China. China is pretty much the incarnation of 1984, but the rest of the world not so much.

>"beware the electric jew!!"
>has swallowed the "dead jew on sticks" pill

Attached: task-failed-successfully.jpg (605x398, 31K)

he knew the plan. there's reasons he wrote under an alias. he was removed by more degress than Huxley though, so 1984 wasnt as accurate as Brave New World. Huxley knew about things like genetic modification, synthetic drug research, the communist desire to "progress past" family. Orwell mostly focused on the control of information through media. I think Orwell came from a background where he didn't learn early that all media is propaganda. It seemed outrageous to him that information could be manipulated and disemminated in such a way, he must have missed his history teacher say "history is written by the victors"

Yes and he hated other socialists with a passion.

Mostly due to them being major hypocrites.
Claiming for being the regular joe while calling them idiots and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
But only "educated" metropolitan champagne socialists that have never screwed a screw, or toiled the land that ironically support their life styles.

You see this a lot in modern times to rural folk vs metropolitan liberals.

1984 is a legitimate critique of the Soviet union of that day. It was meant as a warning against the ultimate consequences of any totalitarian ideology (especially communism), not as a prediction of the future. Orwell was pretty much content with western culture and its democratic and liberty-oriented ideology. It's the same with Animal Farm, and Orwell's real life (he actually reported communists to the authorities).

Huxley, on the other hand, saw through the thin veil. His novel is just western ideology taken to its logical extreme. In other words, 1984 is a warning about what could happen if we adopt totalitarian views. A BNW is a warning about where western civilization will take us if we continue down the current path.

>pocket
Did I say it was your smartphone nigga? What is CCTV?

who said I have?

>the solution to Huxley's hedocracy is Orwellian totalitarianism
Go Huawei!

>Mostly due to them being major hypocrites.
He wrote a great essay on middle class socialists where he all but coined the term champagne socialism.

>What is CCTV?
See my inb4 retard.

>inb4
your inb4 was shit. Firstly Orwell wrote about Londonistan. Second, surveillance is relevant to everyone who isn't a barefoot cannibal nigga in Papua New Guinea, any society with an electrical grid and phone lines has some form of surveillance. How do you think they found Bin Laden in Pakishit?

>How do you think they found Bin Laden in Pakishit?
Because ISI actually knew where he was all along and because his couriers were careless. The fact that the US considers Pakistan an ally still is just hilarious. It's completely possible to go off the grid, and unlike 1984 you're not punished for going off the grid. Had bin Laden craved a little less Hollywood decadence, he would have never been found.

Not to mention that it literally took the world's most powerful and all-reaching intelligence agency fucking TEN YEARS to find the MOST WANTED MAN ALIVE... Nobody is going to care about you at all.

Attached: orwell vs huxley.jpg (1328x2380, 614K)

>because his couriers were careless
And how, pray tell, did US intelligence capitalize on lazy couriers? Were they perhaps in the area, monitoring persons of interest? Using advanced equipment like drones and satellites to, I dunno, surveil them?

As to the rest of your shitpost, efficacy is not the issue. Orwell predicted it happening, not how well information will be used against someone.

>Muh optional overreaching state apparatus, just live like an animal bruh
Good goy

real mvp, right here

Yea but it all turns to abuse of pain and pleasure.

talking about terrorism when you live in the USA is a littler bit scary.....

I don't live in the USA, what you talking about?

/lit/ is for kids

Is there a difference between this picture and the other one I'm not seeing?

>And how, pray tell, did US intelligence capitalize on lazy couriers?
They followed them by foot.

>Using advanced equipment like drones and satellites to, I dunno, surveil them?
No, they literally followed them by foot.

Some ISI officer fucking showed up saying that he had information about bin Laden's wereabouts and he wanted $2 million reward for it. The CIA spent some months trying to gather more information, among other things, following suspected couriers.

There was no super secret spy satellites tracking Osama bin Laden. Just regular corruption and agents in the field.

>They followed them by foot.
I saw Zero Dark Thirty too, I know that. You think the CIA could have gotten that far without major surveillance infrastructure?

And even if they failed and it was some ISI nigga that ratted on him, it still doesn't change the fact that the infrastructure exists and Orwell was right about it becoming real. If some CIA brainlets can't use it effectively, still doesn't change the fact it is there in our fucking lives.

There's no need for Orwellian tier surveillance when society is its own vigilante.
(((They))) have brainwashed people in order to label anyone that's not a braindead sheep as a madman.

GK Chesterton was better, IMO.
If you just want to talk commies, then i guess Jack London might work, and if you're not an EOP Brecht

>I saw Zero Dark Thirty too,
I haven't seen it, I'm simply referring to what actually happened.

>You think the CIA could have gotten that far without major surveillance infrastructure?
Obviously, yes. Ultimately, it wasn't tech that traced bin Laden. It was pakis who saw an opportunity to rat on him to the CIA.

>it still doesn't change the fact that the infrastructure exists
The point is that it's completely escapable and avoidable. Just put down your phone and go into the woods, you lazy zoomer.

Why is it always the conspiracy fags that are incapable of sustaining themselves in the woods or in the country side without computers and cellphones that scream the highest?

>Why is it always the conspiracy fags that are incapable of sustaining themselves in the woods or in the country side without computers and cellphones that scream the highest?
Because they know they're fucked.