The Dark Knight: Forecast & Weather Patterns (an @nalysis)

    I know, I know. Bane is Zerzen-esque. This entry is along the same lines as the anarchistnews.org perspective, except this is a nerd-ed out detailed analysis of the coolest movie I have seen in a theater to date. So give me a chance despite me not having a fancy piece of paper that says I'm allowed to focus my thoughts on such trivial matters. This movie was clearly about Occupy and why it failed. Here it is - The Forecast.

     This movie starts out with the cover up of Harvey Dent. (Bear with me I'm using a plot summary to help speed this up). Harvey Dent is the socially acceptable version of Batman. He thinks he's fighting for justice but while fighting with his last breath, it corrupts him. Then, via Joker, becomes Two-Face (in case you didn't see the film before this one). Why two-faced? On one side he is the hero Harvey Dent, on the other he is the very thing that he hates, corruption and crime. Batman is similar because although he has very clear cut morals, he is still going against the law to do what he feels is right. Essentially Batman is a criminal, which is how the government and majority of Gotham feels; he has alot in common with Harvey. So Harvey Dent's character is paralleled with Batman. (i.e. what is socially acceptable, what is not? what are morals? is the law ethical?) This is why I dissected this movie on anarchist principals - aren't anarchists the ones who essentially fight for justice while simultaneously opposing the law?
    The whole controversy in Gotham is why Commissioner Gordon felt it was necessary to cover up for Harvey when he was a murderer. Why? Because Harvey is the law, the people need to trust in the law or else everything could spiral out of control. (Sort of like what our government tries to do now). If they trust Batman, who was criminalized by the state, people could get funny ideas. Plus, people are morons.
    So, in the meantime, Wayne Enterprises is investing in clean energy. How merit-able Bruce Wayne! Aren't you the hero/billionaire? As you can see, Bruce has a hard time dealing with the fact that the police can't be trusted, the general public is brainwashed, and the fact that he's a billionaire in good with high officials, so he overcompensates by trying to do something good. If you can't change politics from the outside, you should be able to change it from the inside, right? Wrong! This is what the Occupy movement was about, what it failed to recognize, and what the public fails to recognize. It also happens to be the plot device for this epic movie. Let's continue...

 
    The thing with the sustainable energy project, is it's made with nuclear technology. So, if in the wrong hands, it would be disastrous, when, in fact, it was designed to help people live peacefully. This goes along with the whole dual-identity thing that Harvey and Bruce have going on. Even though something is meant to be for good (or your intentions for instance) it doesn't mean the outcome will be good. This is the grey area of ethics and morality this movie is trying to show and what anarchism is all about. Bane, who wants control of this power, also has good intentions. To have people live peacefully, instead of being moronic sheep. This is the "Zerzen-esque" parallel that Graeber mentioned, because in theory, if green anarchists actually achieved their goal of rewilding, even a city, it would have disastrous outcomes. Like for instance, those who didn't give a rats ass about the environment and loved sipping on lattes and raping women in the first place, so your whole theory that sounded good on paper is actually attacking you now. (Which, although I am a green anarchist, this is theoretical and in accordance to the movie, and what it seems to express). In Bane's attempt to help civilization, that he also hates (there's that duality again), he is actually destroying the city and becoming militant which is the antithesis of what he initially wanted.  Which is also how some green anarchists like to approach helping people (i.e. Green Nazis).

 
    When Bruce finds out he's bankrupt, thanks to my favorite character of all time, Selina Kyle (aka CatWoman, but she is not referred to that in the film), Bruce suddenly sees things a bit differently. Like how corrupt money is. Not to mention how Selina, seemingly a criminal (after all she is breaking several laws for that necklace), is actually a morally intact person who only steals from those who can afford it. That would be the typical "I only steal from large corporations"-anarchists and Batman would be the one on a morally high horse who never steals because he doesn't think stealing on any level is good; but will still vandalize property. When he meets Selina, he obviously falls for her, because they're both psychopaths who dress up and break the law. All she wants her identity erased so she can live peacefully outside the system upon realizing she can't keep stealing, she needs to lay low. Sound like anyone you know? Conveniently for my analysis, they all wear black. Thank you Christopher Nolan!
 

    That's about when Joesph Gordon Levitt comes into the picture (seems like he's in a ton of movies these days) and he knows everything. Not only that, he was an orphan just like Bruce and totally idolized him from the time he was a kid and his childish obsession continues into his adulthood, into his profession. That's actually what inspired him to be a cop. A good guy. He wanted to impact people the way Batman had, so he's adopted the same strong ethical code Batman has, and thinks he can help from the inside - like Bruce Wayne. That's a delusion that gets dispelled at the end of the film. His character is a key role because he becomes Robin/Night Wing, so he as well as every single character in this movie, parallels the Dark Knight and his moral evolution. He represents naive youth. He's trying to fill the role Batman had, by helping those that truly need it - eventually stumbling upon the fact those who are there to help (kinda like cops) aren't doing their job, in fact, they don't care. The whole idea of "I can be a good cop" is a farce, and at the end of the movie he throws his badge away to become Night Wing. Following in the shadow of his hero, Batman, throughout the film this question is posed as they mirror each other's steps "Can you work inside the system and still make a difference?" Really, they are just delusional and won't come to terms with reality. The innocent people of Gotham they love so much and are trying to save are actually morally corrupt, just like the law. Most of the time they're too busy trying to save the people from themselves.
    This poses a moral conundrum for all the characters (excluding Selina Kyle, because she is in no way trying to be a vanguard, she's in it for herself, her own gain) now that they are starting to realize how corrupt the system AND the citizens of Gotham are. Why are they trying to save them in the first place? Can justice truly prevail? Are people doomed to make their own mistakes over and over again? How can one be truly happy within all this chaos? Can you be happy living apart from society? Is that feasible?

    Selina Kyle is like the anarchist that is actualized in thought, practice and theory. She has come to terms with society and it's flaws and has decided her coarse of action based on experience of juggling two very different personas - Selina the socialite living within the system/ the cat burglar against the system that is disgusted by Gotham's well-to-do. Now, believe it or not, no one with such moral opposition to the system of 1% versus the 99% can conform their actions to project their radical ideology in their day to day life and peacefully live within that same society. That society doesn't want you, and you don't want it.  So like many anarchists who want to change the system, but cannot, and keep finding blockades in their struggles, eventually giving up because of all the problems from the law, neighbors, your relationships, your child, etc. You have to make a decision. Will you continue on to make a point despite the cost of your happiness/peace, extract yourself from society altogether, or go with the flow so to speak, i.e. give in to capitalism?
    Both Alfred, one of my favorite Batman characters, and Selina, are two sides of the same coin - reason and experience. They both understand the ethical dilemma of Batman (and what he represents) and the need to just live life in peace. Everyone deserves that, you can't save other's from themselves like everyone is trying to do by dressing up in costume. That's why Selina is never addressed as Cat Woman in the movie. She is who she is all the time. No fake identities to save her from from going to jail or to save her reputation to get a decent job. The only difference between the two of them is they represent different options that anarchists eventually face: Alfred = giving in to capitalism and becoming a producing member of society despite being knowledgeable enough to oppose it, and Selina = getting off the grid and living on the outskirts of society and not worrying about other's economic issues she can't fix by robbing the rich.
    This is the green anarchist problem: stay within society to help it become sustainable and equal, or give up on it because it's not going to change (at least not anytime in our future) and just live in a nice hut, grow your own food, etc. During this development, Batman still not knowing what to do upon Bane's rise in power, is making last attempts to justify his Bruce Wayne/ Batman lifestyle that is for the "good of the people", he let's Tate take control of the nuclear energy investment because she seems trustworthy. Plus, if you haven't seen the movie, Bane has control of the energy, he just needs a scientist (like Tate) to activate it and create some sort of death threat so people will be scared enough to do what he wants.

    Bane is the vanguard, UnaBomber person who honestly has a point, but doesn't realize his ways of proving that are psychotic. He gains the city's trust by showing how the police aren't on their side and Harvey Dent was not who he was portrayed as. Commissioner Gordon had a speech all written out that Bane took (score!) and read it out loud to the public. Now, Bane is painted as having a secret motive because they aren't clear as to why he wants everyone scared into REAL freedom. As you watch scenes with Bane, you start to realize he is a pretty nice guy who had some harsh stuff happen to him being raised in a prison and all. But...that is proven to be assumption that is incorrect. HAHA! (more on that later). He wants people to be free, because he honestly feels people are sheep who deserve the right to have a choice. What he doesn't realize, is how naive he is. In fact, like many anarchists (and pro-authoritarians) proclaim in their theories, when the prisoners were released because they are just victims of society and circumstance according to us good-hearted folks, they start killing, raping and creating havoc for those who they felt were responsible for their life decisions. You know, CEOs, politicians and rich old women.

    Cillian Murphy (a great Irish actor who played Scarecrow in the first Batman; another awesome comic book character I wished this movie elaborated on...) happens to be the judge, and if you knew he was Scarecrow in the first film, (you do, cuz I just told you) the craziest of the crazy are now making judgments on the people who were imprisoned by society - giving them the option of death or death by trying to escape. Nice. Bane thinks this hilarious, just like myself, and continues on believing this is what people want, they just don't realize it yet. The truth of the matter is, Bane thinks his motives are pure, but they aren't because he is actually the son of Ra's al Gul (Liam Neeson, another Irish actor, from the first film), so it's tied in with his need to actualize his dad's vision. That's why he imprisons Batman in the prison he grew up in - BUT WAIT! That's not his dad, as revealed in the film, Tate is his daughter...that's who is behind it the whole freakin' time. The reason why no one suspects her and trust so much is because she's a smart woman, in a man's world of business. In fact, Bruce has no clue because he's somewhat of a closet chauvinist. So that's why I appreciate that aspect of the film. The men are so much on their high horses they don't suspect that even for a moment that the pure motherly, smart Miranda Tate is a conniving backstabber, and Selina Kyle who's such an untrustworthy burglar who turns Batman in, is actually sweet as pie. It's all too easy for them to manipulate the situations to their advantage. Good for them!
 

    All the while Batman is in the Ra' al Gul prison watching the people of Gotham going out of control like some movement just happened (ring a bell?). He does have the option to leave, after all there is a big opening at the top of the prison someone escaped through (only once) and it was a child, whom Batman believes is Bane, because he is still completely ignorant that a woman could be doing this.  He is being kept alive by some monks, because in Bane's words, he has to have hope of escape to truly suffer. So Bruce is just waiting around for something to light up so he can finally make the connections to what Bane was unintentionally alluding to. It has something to do with (a) hope, (b) his unrecognized motives that have to do with Ra' al Gul, (c) escaping, and (d) a mass movement.
    The thing is and what I'm trying to conclude by tying together all these characters and motives and cultural analysis is that Bane, like anarchists in general, has strong ethics that unless forced upon the general public, will only be actualized in small time setting. Why? Because people have their own individual problems and motivations that they fail to recognize that have alot to do with how they are approaching things like activism, personal relationships, political theory, etc. Which makes it impossible for anyone to be on the same page. We are all individuals, and that is what the intention of anarchist principals and practice are supposed to respect at all times. But when you start to interact with society, with all the different types of people with different views, desires, and aspirations, we ultimately dismiss the possibility that we were wrong to think we have the best morals that make the most sense. We are only in control of our own lives, not everyone else's and we need to make decisions based on that. Like Alfred and Selina.
    Bruce eventually comes to this conclusion by putting things back to the way it was, just as messed up as before, becoming the martyr of the movement by faking his suicide, because he just loves society so much. When in fact, he realizes he can't be a billionaire who cares about orphans and pretend he's doing so much to help the world, when in fact, like the nuclear sustainable energy, that started with good intentions, his fascade developed into something reckless based on personal motivations and ego. People need hope not to suffer, but to balance the duality of their lives without being hypocrites.  
    That's why Bruce and Selina in the end run off to Italy with Alfred's recommendation, off the grid, and start living a happy life. He now sees he was pretentiously making himself the hero for a lost cause at the expense of his happiness. It's like Occupy movement because the intentions weren't clear, it was angry and all over the place. Occupy eventually fizzled out because people lost hope. The point of the film, as symbolized by Robin/Night Wing is you need to continue hoping, and trying as much as you can. People need to feel a revolution could happen if they wanted it. Which it could. The truth is though, we don't know what's good for everyone else.

Failure of Revolution

     For those who believe merely recognizing gender roles and sexism in our society is counteracting patriarchy, please reconsider how (despite our protests) we are still products of a patriarchal society. No one would ever suggest simply recognizing the faults of a global economy is sufficient enough to oppose its oppression, then continually engage in free market capitalism (either as a consumer or a capitalist). As with both examples, which of course illustrates patriarchal globalization from the perspective of social relations enforcing pre-existing systems of sexist institutions (which of course then reinforces our personal behaviors)...there is a deep psychological manipulation used through economic and social means that condition every person based on a role we are programmed to believe we are destined to play. Meaning, experiencing and/or seeing the injustices of patriarchy (or globalization) and ethically opposing it in theory only deprogram our faith in these systems, which does not necessarily change the conditioning we've experienced up until that point. We no longer believe it's our destiny to play the games of the government but we've still been conditioned to fulfill certain roles.
    Our habits and tendencies are much harder to break than it is to simply change our beliefs, which only takes a thought. Taking action, like to actually stop biting your nails, requires will-power and many times of falling back into the same pattern before your actions match up with your thoughts, which already oppose biting your nails. Essentially, with changing our daily habits, like when we decide to dumpster or grow our own food than shop at the supermarket, or patch up our pants rather than buy a new pair, we are rerouting our brain's pathways and discovering new routes to go about the same situations (i.e. coming up with a different coping mechanism when experiencing mild anxiety rather than biting your nails).
    Our pre-existing habits and social behaviors is why anarchists, during meetings, purposely make room for women to speak. The behaviors we've accumulated allows a social dynamic of, for instance, men being more comfortable speaking and listened to when being vocal which enables women to be less inclined to speak out and opinions less respected. This is the process of eliminating hierarchy through changing our habits.
    It seems as though every time I am at a social gathering, whether anarchist related or not, not only do people talk past me to my boyfriend (as if I am not there)  but then unwittingly, he continues the cycle by leaving me no room to speak, and by no means am I a shy or quiet person! Yet, there I am staring at my feet hoping for a gap in the conversation where they may or may not hear me due to the mere rapidness and exclusion of their conversation. It makes sense that there is no need for my input considering my boyfriend uses the words "we" and "us" to sum up my experiences, as if he is my spokesperson and I feel awkward bringing up topics that are out of context, as if I can't help but be a secondary conversation partaker. Why, as well, do I fixate on gaining a couple pounds when I am aware of the crisis of eating disorders and oppose this consumer driven society that treats women as objects? The only logical conclusion would be that these are knee jerk reactions.
    Most of us aren't "good" anarchists; "good" meaning up to our ideal standards of what anarchism opposes/stands up for. The failures of our attempted revolutions, as with Occupy, is the unwillingness to reconcile our behaviors to match our beliefs. I expect liberals to bring take-out to the Occupations, but the anarchists...doing drugs, drinking PBRs (as if drugs and alcohol aren't already the reason for failed revolutions)...it's a hypocrisy we are all guilty of (to some degree) but we have the obligation to be the counter-point to these liberals. It's not radical to support large corporations or fund wars due to opiate addiction. What, in fact, is the difference between Chinese take-out and PBRs? At least with the take out you probably aren't supporting a large chain and also putting a little change in a family's pocket.
    It is understandable to feel pressured by this society of greed and oppression, especially as anarchists, but it's not understandable to play into ignorance out of pride. We should recognize our behaviors and hypocrisies as individuals and attempt to change them. Look at the sophistication of television advertisements, enticing us with bright colors, sounds and key words they know from research will peak our interest. Companies are constantly conducting experiments on willing participants (unwilling depending on your point of view) to find ways to draw us in based on our biology and psychology. They know what colors make us angry or excited, and how to make a jingle that can't get out of our heads. I can't even look away from HD, it just looks so cool, and I don't even know what I am watching half the time, because my brain's pleasure receptors are being stroked so efficiently. Pulling ourselves away becomes a constant struggle living in civilization.        
    There are similar problems with the post-left anarchists who believe we are beyond labels, yet, how can you be beyond patriarchy by just refusing to acknowledge it's existence and not using the ideas and terminology to examine your behaviors? This is why I meet men who refuse to acknowledge patriarchy exists and the same reason why even though we know oil funds war, many of us end up at the dealership ready to purchase a car... already prepared with excuses to defend your decision... because it's convenient. Ethical decisions, I assure you, are usually not convenient. This is also why so many people are against the Anti-Civ folks. It's not impossible to live sustainably with the environment, off the grid and rewild - it's just people are afraid. Bugs, storms, diseases (most which would be eliminated outside of civilization), not having all the foods they love; people are dependent on the concrete structures to protect them from their fears that have been instilled since birth. Most people would honestly,  based on their tendencies and habits, stay within capitalism, even when they hate it, based on a laundry list of excuses and quotes from dead white men who hoped technology would save humanity.
   Revolutions fail only because we prevent ourselves from succeeding. We are a society based on realism instead of idealism, which traps us into being "flywheels on the ram-shackle machinery of the awful truth" (Kurt Vonnegut). We intellectualize things to a point of falling back into our Babylonian prison cell. Sometimes we are duped into thinking we're making a difference  and then you look around you and notice your in a group of white males 20-25 talking about minority issues when who knows if any of these people personally knows one person of color. We must witness our hypocrisies and become willing to fix them with the support of our anarchist friends and not shoot down everyone who has a slightly different theory. I do think that within time, people will abandon the old anarchist syndicalist ways and become open minded to the possibilities of life not dependent on technology, which can only quicken the pace of the world's demise.
   Revolutions take place, first, within yourself. That is the main reason why Occupy countered any attempts at mass uprising, because it tamed anarchists to work within mainstream politics. Radicals failed to differentiate themselves from liberals, due to the bureaucracy of large scale consensus, although it is effective in small groups. As soon as Occupy clearly became a reformist movement about better banking and so on, anarchists should have broken up, back into our smaller groups, and took the opportunity while Occupy was still making headlines to start a counter-Occupy movement. Yet, because our theories do not sync up with our actual practice, many of us were drawn into the game of democratic process and trying to convince middle class people how to go about effective direct action (to no avail).
    There is no solidarity between anarchists which leads us into petty discussions about theoretical points instead of looking at practicality and possibility. For instance, though anarcho-primitivisim  is heavily criticized,( in my opinion for an individual's co-dependency with civilization and fear of nature) you will find a fear of feminism. Expecting the effects of patriarchal civilization to magically dissipate into a peaceful feral community, would be to expect HIStorical and archeological evidence to be accurate, which, of course, is doctored and shaped by the society in which we live. This is not to create an argument about whether or not hunter-gatherer societies held the platform for hierarchy (which it quite probably did considering here we are now) but more so to acknowledge the influences this society already conditioned us with, and to hold out the possibility that maybe the Unabomber had a point. The validity and necessity of primitivisim should not be dependent on whether or not natives were peaceful or at times violent. This is petty arguing, and the reality is, to leave rewilding (which in actuality would take generations to fully realize) the hefty task of eliminating patriarchy based on faith of someone's research instead of taking extra precaution to create a genderless society (specifically in regards to division of labor)  would be ignorant of the current attitudes of individuals and their cultural influences. If on the other hand, people applied these theories instead of debating with words we would see in practice if in fact it is necessary to make genderless equality an issue at the forefront instead of relying on what we were told worked for Tribe A or Tribe B.
    Close-mindedness, from liberals to red/green/black anarchists among themselves, is our only detriment and keeps us DE-radicalized. The very premise for anarchism is that we've been conditioned to believe we need leaders, and as we all know reading this, that is a lie, that  before  in theory leaders were believed  necessary until put into practice otherwise. Upon having the opportunity to say what we've been dying to let the mainstream media know, we cowardly watered ourselves down for the liberals and therefore played right into the hands of our big, mean government machine. Revolutions aren't futile, but with the Occupy let down, it will be difficult for another mass movement, and perhaps different tactics are in order. For now, I say unity, small collectives, and groups is, at the current time, the only counter-point to the oppression we experience in the United States, so working on ways to deviate from the capitalist system should be number one priority. Hopefully others will see the possibilities of our own creations once we stop dividing ourselves and mend our hypocrisies. The failure of revolution? Our own thoughts left over from our pre-anarchist days.

The World We've Inherited: Brave New World & Anti-Civ

"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't."

    -William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act V, Scene I, II.

"Am I sorry you killed the Kennedys'
And Huxley too?


But I'm sorry Shakespeare was your scapegoat
And your apple sticking into my throat
Sorry your Sunday smiles are rusty nails,
And your crucifixion commercials failed."
   
    -Marilyn Manson, Target Audience, album Holy Wood.



   It's 11:59pm, 1983, you're waiting for the ball to drop and the boot to come down on the face of humanity. As soon as it hits midnight there's going to be a sudden outbreak of totalitarianism...1984 has come to pass literally, and figuratively, being that the anticipated image of riots in the streets, currently popularized by the Occupy movement, is the un-evolved fascism of pre-democratic, give a dog-a-bone consumerism; now, post-1984, is a future that operates more like the dystopian vision of Huxley's Brave New World. We cannot distinguish democracy from fascism, we willingly participate in our sedation in fear of the littlest inconvenience or displeasure at the cost of freedom within the illusion of free-market capitalism. As an anarchist, I do not distinguish the myth of voting from a literal boot in the face, but two party democracy and intellectual elitism gives people their apples and oranges, or rather GMO and organic options, not realizing Monsanto can fall far from the tree, and we've allowed this - outrage and all. 
    It's remarkable that in 1932 Aldous Huxley was able to foresee the infiltration of technology and how it would alter and control the masses.  Even more remarkable would be the fact that his critique on technology goes as far to say it's not the incorrect use of technology that troubles our future, but civilization itself that is doomed because it is dependent on manipulation of nature, now exaggerated by the aid of modern technology. 

Population Control
      Population control is the backdrop for Brave New World, keeping the population consistently at 2 billion, which is sustained artificially through "decanting bottles" for the Alpha intelligentsia and for the other lower ranks in a single fertilized egg; breeding intelligence and passivity for the government's preordained tasks at various levels and continues on past nature into nurture. This keeps the different groups, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon separated not only through superficial differences but through their analytical capabilities, which also manifest in privileges and jobs they uphold. Sex is seen as a commodity and pastime, encouraged so the population is satiated with pleasure, beyond the point of love so no real bonding can occur.  

    Population has steadily increased since the Industrial Revolution, which began in 18th century Britain, and came into full actualization during the early 19th century, although it wouldn't be until about 100 years later the world would truly experience the impact of modern medicine, food modification, and fossil fueled methods of mass import and export.

    "In only 100 years after the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the world population would grow 100 percent to two billion people in 1927 (about 1.6 billion by 1900)......Since the 250 years from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to today, the world human population has increased by six billion people!"  

-Eric Lamb, The Ecological Impact of the Industrial Revolution, Global Ecology Network       

     Technological development and scientific gains in medicine supports population increase not only in the sense diseases are cured (i.e. when smallpox was eradicated through extensive vaccination, once a serious cause of death), or because life expectancy has drastically increased due to medical research, less child-bearing deaths, etc., but when the general world population has food, shelter and are not fighting to survive, the rate of child births also increases, therefore resources will be depleted rapidly. In Brave New World, once a person hit 60 years of age, they were euthanized to prevent overpopulation. This is not unlike China's forced abortions and one child policy, or China, India, Pakistan, Taiwan and Singapore's (just to name a few) gendercide of small baby girls, because (a) there are too many mouths to feed, (b) boys are seen as more profitable since they are used for physical labor, (c) the parents wouldn't have to pay dowry and, (d) men cannot become pregnant.  Uneven distribution of resources leaves the poorer nations fighting to control population, while the wealthier countries keep using up the resources to sustain their own populations with more advanced technologies.

    In more affluent countries, the manipulation of the birth process has been actualized through fertilization drugs, which is why there has been an increase in twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc., and through artificial insemination, but recently countries have been experimenting with cloning and stem cell research to grow organs in laboratories. These so called "advances" only enhance existing problems such as wars over oil, outsourcing factories for cheap labor which only make countries dependent on the presence of rich corporations, and mass destruction of ecosystems (i.e. the rainforests for some commercial food commodity). The development of genetic mutations, and forced genetic mutations of food, and people to cure diseases, actually creates new, more sufficient illnesses, like cancer, for example, that had not existed before recent times and as of yet, cannot be cured. Civilization cannot exist without manipulation of nature, and nature cannot allow humans to destroy the planet. No matter what measures we take to protect ourselves from the inevitability of death, illness and scarcity, we will experience backlash.

    Countries such as the United States are answering these problems by creating new ones, and out necessity to fill the wallets of corporations without looking at long term effects, we experience, just as in Brave New World, a breeding of levels of intellect according to privilege and class. Separatism is already enforced through capitalism - where minorities are kept poor and unable to receive higher education, unable to verbalize concerns in the preferred jargon of pseudo-intellectuals who run our schools, hospitals, and, who are at the mercy of the corporate hierarchy. Then those who are born into money/privilege are held captive by positions of business executives and lawyers afraid to lose a paycheck. Capitalism keeps neighbor fighting against neighbor, thanks to private ownership, and the poor always dependent - therefore abused by the rich. To further the correlation between Brave New World and modern society, is the superficial way we treat having children, with artificial insemination (which is not dependent on pair bounding or family; family considered "pornographic" in the novel), the lack of natural childbirth, c-sections being treated like an assembly line, and the lack bounding between mother and child (i.e. using cow's milk over breast milk) leaves us to treat sex as a commodity, just a fun past time, that has no real correlation with love or human bonding. 
    The careful calibration to desensitize and rob us of love, family, loyalty, etc. has been made possible through private ownership, consumerism, and technology and is the platform for the blindfolded allowance of social and environmental injustice. Huxley, an academic from the prestigious Eton, had seen the development of modern technology, and its effects so much that he, himself was in awe at the accuracy of his predictions, which inspired Brave New World Revisited.

Soma

           "There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." 

    -Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961 

    Soma is a fictional drug (although there is a pharmaceutical drug that shares its name) that is used many times a day whenever one of the characters are unhappy or needs an extra boost; the drug is also given in rations. Soma resembles not only our own drug epidemic, but our addictions to sex and consumerism that is used at our will to sedate ourselves, not unlike a self-serve IV pump. With the constant pressures to maintain 40+ hour work weeks, or on the other hand, the stress of making sure you have basic necessities, it becomes mandatory to "groom" civilians with treats (as do pedophiles with young children) for a trust to develop. "Grooming" prevents the questioning of blatant injustices, letting people assume the government has our best interest in mind, while we die with a belly bloated with fast food, as our country kills animals, ecosystems, creates wars, just to have more businesses to kill more people in the name of democracy which is a mockery run by the banks.
    Sex is treated as commonplace, to a point where sexual exploitation of all walks of life, but primarily women, is treated as a game. Degrading each other is treated as humor, when in actuality it desensitizes our scope of empathy, and we continue to look at each other as demographics or an object of sorts. How could we understand the starvation that millions of people go through, when we are more concerned with smart phones or having our gas prices decrease? Sex is not a problem, just the commercialization of sexuality and everything else including music that funds our sedation, to give an illusion of choice or freedom.
    Occupy is a great example of this illusion, most of the people I've met within this movement just want bank loans and would rather have a frappicino than actually understand that convenience comes at a price. More so, it illustrates how even when people sort-of see there's something not right, here comes Ben & Jerry's to make an ice cream flavor called Occu-Pie. 
    Symbolically, consumerism, democracy and sex are soma, but what about the true-to-life drugs like alcohol or prescription pain medication? Alcohol causes liver disease, is linked heavily with cancer, it's a contributor for brain shrinkage, stroke, dementia, causes accidents (31% of all traffic fatalities in 2010) and is associated (obviously) with poor decision making. Although most people know this, almost all social functions center around drinking, for the mere fact that it feels good. Now, alcohol has been around since ancient times, the only reason that makes a fair amount of sense as to why now it's an epidemic, would be modern advances in civilization which creates a need to feel sedated despite its consequences and half-assed attempts with advertisements to warn everyone.  
    More shocking, is the sudden uprising of pain clinics all around the country where almost anyone can have a prescription. There has been a 24 percent rise in prescriptions to opiates, and the abuse among teens has been steadily increasing. Our government has an on-going war against drugs, yet at the same time we feed children adderall, give adults anti-depressants which have been actually linked to increased feelings of suicidal thoughts and behavior, because of certain drugs being pushed by major corporations, this includes opiates. Opiates have increased in distribution to keep heroin off the streets, which most certainly would not profit the Rx companies, yet sedate the masses. This keeps poor folks struggling for a moment of peace, which unfortunately is bought because they are unable to earn it.
   
Savage       
     Brave New World is a sterilized society away from nature, afraid of actual child birth and appalled at the "ancient" religion Christianity. Ways of the outsider "savage" Christians are seen as immoral and disgusting. This is a direct correlation to our current attitudes about native rituals and our (dare I say it?) hatred of nature. Modern society is obsessed with anti-bacterial soap to a point where we actually get sick from having 99.9% of bacteria gone, making us much more vulnerable to foreign organisms that otherwise would naturally live on our skin. People are terrified from eating a fruit off a tree because of chemicals, yet we eat food that's been doused chemicals on it all the time...people can't even tolerate a speck of dirt or a harmless insect on them or inside their homes...It's to a point where if I even politely voice my views about green anarchism to a fellow anarchist they assume a necessity in concrete, cars and supermarkets. I assume people are too comfortable in air conditioning to want to even think about living a place made out of sustainable materials or to just farm or something which requires effort.
    These views are ingrained in our behavior because the very fact civilization exists is because of the violence we've put the so-called savages through and their so-called savage land. Just being within a tax bracket is upholding the values of violence. We have not only committed mass genocide but stripped natives of their culture which before Spanish and European settlers, was in accordance with nature. The so-called civilized ways of Christianity pushed out the need for nature, and ever since industrial society has been trying to make everything plastic.
        Not only does Brave New World articulate our blind and willing obedience as the evolution of totalitarianism, but it makes the argument that the entire concept of civilization is doomed due to its defiance of nature. Nature is the first casualty of war and mass agriculture. Earth cannot support endless development of cities and constant multiplying of any creature. It is not beneficial to us either, because if there are not enough resources people will become extinct. Capitalism, or any other form of developing government cannot exist without manipulation and depletion of the land which goes hand in hand with the exploitation of people, their rights and the extinction of their culture (look at China and Tibet).  If Aldous Huxley, who by no means is an anarchist can make that analysis, then why stand around starry eyed wondering why our protests are barely making a dent? 
    At the end of the book the main character decides to live like a "savage". He didn't try to change society; no the soma was too strong, the fear of the people too great...and it was their decision. My only suggestion is for those of us who can see the destruction and how it renders us almost completely powerless, is to resist by living outside the "safety" of industrial civilization as  much as possible. This is not to criminalize the participants of civilization or to suggest that being totally outside civilization is feasible, but to take an action that is more feasible than hoping for 1984.