Aldous Huxley: The Future Dictatorship Will Be Loved
In a 1958 television interview, the author of Brave New World warned that freedom may not be taken from us—but that we might give it away, willingly.
This post is a cleaned and organized transcript of Aldous Huxley’s appearance on “The Mike Wallace Interview”—a remarkable conversation about propaganda, overpopulation, technological control, and the subtle erosion of personal liberty. What Huxley foresaw in 1958 feels eerily relevant today.
The Opening Question: Who Are the Enemies of Freedom?
Mike Wallace: Who and what are the enemies of freedom here in the United States?
Aldous Huxley: I don’t think there are sinister individuals plotting to rob Americans of their freedom. But there are two main impersonal forces pushing us in that direction—and certain technologies that can accelerate this trend.
1. Overpopulation and the Rise of Central Control
Huxley pointed to overpopulation as a key threat. In his words:
“Between the time of Christ and the landing of the Mayflower, the population of the Earth doubled—from 250 million to 500 million. Today, it’s doubling in just half a century.”
In underdeveloped countries, this rapid growth creates economic strain, forcing governments to centralize power to maintain order. Ironically, even well-meaning institutions that oppose birth control—like the Catholic Church—may inadvertently support political instability, pushing societies toward authoritarian solutions.
2. Overorganization and the Bureaucratic Machine
As societies grow more complex, Huxley warned, they tend to overorganize.
“People increasingly live as subordinates within giant bureaucracies—whether governmental or corporate.”
The result? Individual autonomy is lost. Institutions grow stronger. Citizens grow passive.
Technological Devices: Tools for Control
Huxley emphasized that modern tools—TV, radio, advertising—can be used to bypass rational thought:
“Hitler didn’t have television, but he used radio and loudspeakers brilliantly to sway a highly educated population. We mustn’t underestimate the power of these tools.”
While technology is morally neutral, how it’s used determines whether it protects or threatens freedom. Television, for instance, might someday be used not just for distraction—but for mass persuasion.
Propaganda and the Manufacturing of Consent
Huxley spoke critically of American political campaigns:
“Advertising experts say the candidate must be merchandised like soap or toothpaste. It’s not about principles—just personality.”
He warned that advertising, when used politically, bypasses reason and appeals to subconscious desires. Voters may feel they’re making choices freely—when in fact they’re being manipulated.
“People will be made to love their slavery.”
Children as the First Targets
Huxley was especially concerned about the suggestibility of children in a media-saturated world:
“Children are now radio and television fodder. They’re trained to be loyal brand buyers. But those same mechanisms can create loyal ideology buyers.”
He foresaw how jingles and slogans could shape future generations into obedient consumers—or worse, obedient citizens of an authoritarian regime.
Brainwashing, Power, and the Moral Vacuum
While Huxley acknowledged that brainwashing as practiced in Communist regimes wasn’t happening in the U.S., he warned that the tools for psychological control were advancing. And such tools tend to fall into the hands of the powerful:
“These are instruments of power—and power attracts the wrong people.”
Technologies that can influence minds will likely be used not to empower individuals—but to dominate them.
How Can We Preserve Individual Freedom?
Huxley believed there was hope—but it required proactive effort:
-
Education that teaches people to spot manipulation
-
Decentralization of power to smaller, local communities
-
Recognition of every human as genetically and spiritually unique
“That’s the basis of freedom—valuing the individual. We must teach people to spot false rhetoric and resist the urge to surrender their judgment.”
Does Freedom Really Matter?
Some might argue that strong central control can create material prosperity. Huxley acknowledged this—but warned against trading liberty for comfort:
“You can manufacture goods without much freedom. But creativity, initiative, and true productivity require it.”
Final Warning: A World of Happy Slaves
Huxley closed with a chilling vision—not of people oppressed by jackboots and barbed wire, but by comfort and entertainment:
“The future dictatorship won’t resemble Hitler’s. It will be a painless concentration camp where people love their servitude.”
And the instruments? Not just guns and armies—but television, drugs, and advertising.
Conclusion
Aldous Huxley’s vision of the future wasn’t meant as prophecy, but as a warning. In a world flooded with information, entertainment, and persuasive media, freedom is not lost all at once—it is given away, piece by piece.
Vigilance, education, and a strong commitment to individual dignity remain our best defenses.
This is Aldous Huxley—a man haunted by a vision of Hell on Earth. A searing social critic, Mr. Huxley, 27 years ago, wrote Brave New World, a novel that predicted that someday the entire world would live under a frightful dictatorship. Today, Mr. Huxley says that his fictional world of horror is probably just around the corner for all of us. We’ll find out why in a moment.
The Mike Wallace Interview, presented by the American Broadcasting Company in association with the Fund for the Republic, brings you a special television series discussing the problems of survival and freedom in America. Good evening, I’m Mike Wallace.
Tonight’s guest, Aldous Huxley, is a man of letters as disturbing as he is distinguished. Born in England and now a resident of California, Mr. Huxley has written some of the most electric novels and social criticism of this century. He’s just finished a series of essays called Enemies of Freedom, in which he outlines and defines some of the threats to our freedom in the United States.
Mr. Huxley, right off the bat, let me ask you this: as you see it, who and what are the enemies of freedom here in the United States?
Huxley: Well, I don’t think you can say who in the United States. I don’t think there are any sinister persons deliberately trying to rob people of their freedom. But I do think, first of all, that there are a number of impersonal forces pushing in the direction of less and less freedom. And I also think that there are a number of technological devices which anybody who wishes to use can use to accelerate this process of going away from freedom—of imposing control.
Wallace: What are these forces and these devices?
Huxley: I should say there are two main impersonal forces. The first of them is not exceedingly important in the United States at the present time, though very important in other countries. This is the force generally called overpopulation—the mounting pressure of population pressing upon existing resources. This is something unprecedented in human history. Between the time of Christ and the landing of the Mayflower, the population of the Earth doubled—from 250 million to 500 million. Today, it’s rising at such a rate that it will double in just half a century.
Wallace: Why should overpopulation work to diminish our freedoms?
Huxley: In a number of ways. Experts like Harrison Brown have pointed out that in underdeveloped countries, the standard of living is actually falling. People have less to eat and fewer goods per capita than they had fifty years ago. As their economic situation becomes more precarious, central governments take on more control to maintain stability. This often leads to social unrest, which again prompts further government intervention—pushing these societies toward totalitarian regimes. And in many of these countries, the only highly organized political party is the Communist Party. So they often inherit this growing power.
Wallace: Ironically, then, one of the greatest forces against Communism—the Catholic Church, which opposes birth control—might be pushing us directly into the hands of the Communists?
Huxley: That strange paradox probably is true. From a biological point of view, life depends on balance. We’ve practiced death control—reduced death rates—without balancing it with birth control. The birth rate remains high while death rates fall, creating strain on resources and governance.
Wallace: So much for overpopulation. What’s the next force?
Huxley: Overorganization. As technology becomes more complicated, it requires more elaborate and hierarchical organizations. People increasingly live as subordinates within these bureaucratic structures—whether of big business or big government.
Wallace: And what about the devices you mentioned?
Huxley: There are certainly devices that can be used to limit freedom. Take, for example, Hitler’s use of propaganda—he used brute force, yes, but also effective, modern propaganda. He didn’t have television, but he had radio, which he used brilliantly. The Germans were a highly educated people, and yet he imposed his will.
Wallace: Are you suggesting that similar propaganda is used in the U.S.?
Huxley: Not now in that way, but we mustn’t be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology. Television, for example, isn’t being used harmfully at the moment, but it’s often used to distract. Imagine a situation where it’s used constantly to push a single idea. That’s a powerful instrument of control.
Wallace: You’re talking about potential misuse?
Huxley: Exactly. Technology is morally neutral. It can be used well or ill. Take atomic energy—it can power homes or destroy cities. I’ve even written about drugs in this light.
Wallace: You invented a drug called “soma” in Brave New World.
Huxley: Yes. In the novel, it could make people happy in small doses, show them visions in medium doses, and put them to sleep in large ones. While no such all-purpose drug exists, we now have powerful mind-changing drugs that are physiologically almost costless—not like opium or cocaine, which do great harm.
Wallace: You say we’re approaching a real-life Brave New World. Can you describe what that might look like?
Huxley: The dictatorship of the future will likely be different from those of Hitler or Stalin, who ruled through terror. The future dictator will find he needs the consent of the ruled. He’ll gain it through drugs and propaganda—bypassing reason and appealing to subconscious emotions. People will be made to love their slavery. They may be happy, but they shouldn’t be.
Wallace: Could this happen here in the United States?
Huxley: I think it could. That’s why it’s vital to think about these problems now. With drugs, propaganda, and media, we must stay vigilant. As Jefferson said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
Wallace: You write about American political campaigns. You say that all that’s needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look sincere. That political principles no longer matter. Just image.
Huxley: During the last campaign, advertising managers said exactly that—the candidate must be merchandised like soap or toothpaste. Personality, especially on TV, becomes more important than policies. But a pleasant TV personality doesn’t always make a good leader.
Wallace: Are you saying men like Eisenhower or Nixon knowingly misled the public?
Huxley: No. But they were advised by advertising agencies to run campaigns very different from those of the past. We’re going to see more such devices—like subliminal projection. At the moment, it’s not a danger, but as the technology improves, it could be. People may be persuaded to vote without knowing they’re being persuaded.
Wallace: In your essays, you also criticize Madison Avenue—the ad industry.
Huxley: Advertising plays a necessary role. But in a democracy, voters must make rational choices. Advertising and propaganda often bypass reason and appeal to unconscious drives—undermining democracy.
Wallace: You say today’s children walk around singing beer and toothpaste jingles—and that’s dangerous.
Huxley: Children are more suggestible than adults. If propaganda ends up in the hands of just a few agencies, they could shape children into “loyal brand buyers”—or loyal ideology buyers. In Europe, children were once cannon fodder. Here, they’re becoming radio and TV fodder.
Wallace: Is there any brainwashing going on in the U.S.?
Huxley: Not the same as in Communist China or Russia, where it’s intensely applied to individuals. But in those regimes, they apply extreme psychological and physical pressure to break people down and rebuild them as fanatics. It’s terrifying.
Wallace: Why do you think the wrong people are more likely to use technology for evil purposes?
Huxley: Because these are instruments of power. And power attracts those who seek it. Democracies are designed to limit power—through constitutions and checks. But these new technologies make it easier for small groups to control large populations.
Wallace: You ask in your essay: In an age of accelerating overpopulation, overorganization, and efficient mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity of the individual? What’s the answer?
Huxley: Education. We must stress individual values. Each person is genetically unique. That’s the basis of freedom. We must teach people to recognize manipulative language and propaganda. And yes, I believe in decentralization—to return power to smaller communities. In large societies, voters feel powerless. In small ones, they can make real decisions.
Wallace: But how do we decentralize and still meet the challenges of nations like Soviet Russia?
Huxley: Some industries require centralization—like automobile manufacturing. But many others can be decentralized. We’re seeing examples in the American South with the textile industry.
Wallace: Is freedom truly necessary?
Huxley: As far as I’m concerned, yes. You can produce material goods without much freedom. But creativity, initiative, and true productivity require freedom.
Wallace: Soviet Russia seems strong—economically, militarily, even creatively.
Huxley: But it’s a privileged society. Scientists and artists are given freedom—as long as they avoid politics. The people below—the “epsilons”—have little freedom. That kind of regime can endure, but it’s not desirable.
Wallace: So next time we talk, perhaps we’ll explore the idea of a society where drones serve the queen bees?
Huxley: That’s what we must avoid. Let’s not sacrifice the individual to the system. The aim is freedom with order—not order without freedom.
Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Huxley.