It’s important to remember that the most iconic dystopian fiction is not a vision of the future or an insight into the darkest tendencies of human nature.

The most iconic dystopian fictions are specifically insights into the nature of the British.

Orwell was not painting a vision of the future, he was opening a window into the minds and hearts of the British. Perhaps not all British people are this way, but enough of them are and enough of them have clawed their way onto the fulcrums of institution that they stomp upon the face of their kinsmen until they can all down in misery together.

Terry Gilliam’s Brazil is one of the most enlightening pieces of media and arguably the greatest depiction of proper dystopia through the lens of actual relevant sourcing: British culture and governance. In Brazil you very clearly see a society that instills a tyranny of convolution upon its populace. Everyone drowns in tubes and wires. Bureaucracy stretches out onto an exponential infinite dimension of torturous agony. The film culminates in the highest ideal a British person strives for in life, which is to torture a friend viciously for the sin of having transgressed an absurd law.

It was always laughable that high school teachers and armchair midwit philosophers would dangle the likes of 1984 in front of us as some cautionary warning against something that could ever happen to us. The truth is that while a police surveillance state or oppressive dictatorship is always a very real possibility, the excessive horror of that existence is not really something that’s universally applicable. It is nightmare that the British distinctly occupy. A cruelty that excessively morose is exclusive to certain specific societies, one in which drab misery was always present. The Russians are a good example as well, their Bolshevik communist hellscape could only have been facilitated by a people already used to trampling upon each others existence through a history of harsh cruelty. Most dystopias have generous pockets of humanity to give reprieve from the cruelties of the state, which are mostly done logistically without excessive need to crush humanity

The UK is unique in this tendency. Their cold shitty damp swamp origins fostered a brutish people who have developed an attraction to suffering, a hunger for it, a need to crush their fellow man in order to feel any sense of fulfillment. The most autonomous and independent of their ranks left for the new world or some other colony. Britain’s best always choose to leave that damp shithole, despising the ravenous maw of chattering busybodies and chastising hags who will scurry away from stab happy Africans to hone in on random natives and harass them for the sake of existing.

This is why they were so prodigious an empire. They wanted to be anywhere else but home. It’s why the mutiny on the HMS Bounty occurred, the prospect of returning to London was a promise of entering hell itself. The fascinating combination of ignorance mixed with fictional-factual toned smugness makes the English nanny drones particularly tantalizing for hate. They are so specifically programmed for crushing their fellow man that it’s not enough to simply gawk at them and dismiss them. You want to actually go to England and beat them thoroughly with large iron rods. You want to reprogram their brains via a gun pressed into their mouth as tears stream down their face. Theirs a worldview so abhorrent to all natural principles of existence that they deserve to be corrected inside of a soundproofed shipping container.

Their laws jail you for purchasing dull cookware knives while daily rape gets completely dismissed. They are so specifically rabid in their crusade to suffocate life that they reach out to other countries to prosecute people for transgressing against hate speech laws. Their country swirls into the toilet and their final dying act is to pull down and drown their fellow kinsmen when they try to escape.

When someone acts badly towards you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he is acting or speaking in that way because he regards that as being the proper thing for him to do. Now, it isn’t possible for him to act in accordance with what seems right to you, but only with what seems right to him. So if he judges wrongly, he is the one who suffers the harm, since he is the one who has been deceived. For if anyone should think a true composite judgement* to be false, the judgement itself isn’t harmed, but the person who has been deceived. If you start out, then, from this way of thinking, you’ll be gentle with someone who abuses you, for in each case you’ll say, ‘That is how it seemed to him.’

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

The last time I had the honour of being in your Lordship’s company, you observed that you were utterly at a loss as to what facts many parts of the Declaration of Independence published by the Philadelphia Congress referred…

The first in order, He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good; is of so general a nature, that it is not possible to conjecture to what laws or to what Colonies it refers. I remember no laws which any Colony has been restrained from passing, so as to cause any complaint of grievance, except those for issuing a fraudulent paper currency, and making it a legal tender; but this is a restraint which for many years past has been laid on Assemblies by an act of Parliament, since which such laws cannot have been offered to the King for his allowance. I therefore believe this to be a general charge, without any particulars to support it; fit enough to be placed at the head of a list of imaginary grievances.

I shall next give you a Sketch of some of Mr. Samuel Adams’ Features; & I do not know how to delineate them stronger, than by the Observation made by a celebrated Painter in America, vizt. “That if he wished to draw the Picture of the Devil, that he would get Sam Adams to sit for him:” & indeed, a very ordinary Physiognomist would, at a transient View of his Countenance, develope the Malignity of his Heart. He was a Person of Understanding, but it was discoverable rather by a Shrewdness than Solidity of Judgment; & he understood human Nature, in low life, so well, that he could turn the Minds of the great Vulgar as well as the small into any Course that he might chuse; perhaps he was a singular Instance in this Kind; & he never failed of employing his Abilities to the vilest Purposes.

Antiracism gained power in the United States through what we call the civil-rights movement. Perhaps a more precise name would be the black-rage industry, but we can compromise and settle for blackpower movement. When you hear these words, you probably think of the “carnivorous” side of the whole circus, with Huey Newton, H. Rap Brown and Field Marshal Cinque, and not the “vegetarian” side, with Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, etc.

But from the perspective of European-Americans, the two acted as a perfect Mutt and Jeff act. Mutt said: I’ll kill you. Jeff said: That Mutt is a really bad apple, and if you don’t give me money and power he might well kill you.

To a Loyalist, this all sounds dreadfully familiar. Remember the pattern of the American Rebellion: the likes of Otis and Sam Adams raised hell, and the likes of Burke and Pitt explained that they were raising hell because they weren’t given enough money and power. Of course, the conciliations of the latter did precisely nothing to reconcile the former to British government.