Well now in regard to this problem of the ultimate revolution, this has been very well summed up by the moderator. In the past we can say that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the environment in order to change the individual. I mean there’s been the political revolution, the economic revolution, in the time of the reformation, the religious revolution. All these aimed, not directly at the human being, but at his surroundings. So that by modifying the surroundings you did achieve, did one remove the effect of the human being.
That's the normalcy bias. We see this in modern media, academia, and the like. The progressives keep advancing their agenda despite their smaller numbers because they have the culture by the throat, by "normalizing" themselves though inserting themselves and their beliefs in key positions. A great number of book writers/publishers are progressives, for example, Stephen King. They're even using the sports world to push their agenda, ex: Jeremy Lin. The corruption of the news and universities is too deep and wide to keep this short. The corruption of TV shows is also readily apparent.
The point is this. Most of the sensational things that Huxley talks about is simply not needed. As Huxley says, still in the first few minutes:
It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude.
That's what it's all about. The current "bias of normalcy" as the progressives who dominate so many sectors of pop culture aim for, is to get you to love your servitude. One of the biggest examples of this are all of the efforts being put into trying to convince Americans that it's in their best interest to disarm.