The book 1984 shows a drab, bleak future society – not a brave new world - in which three competing empires, spheres of influence, use total control of their populations to maintain their power. Changing history by simply rewriting it is just part of that control.
‘Big Brother’ is physically in place on most streets of many cities whether within a democracy or not. I don’t remember if, in that book, those empires were in collusion in some greater sense than just being in conflict for awhile before changing sides but, in this world today, all nations, regardless of ‘friends or enemies’ labels, are beholden to the same system of Central Banks which finance all sides of every conflict and which indicate that ultimately they’re all entwined in a system which is indifferent to national borders or to aspirations.
Perhaps national leaders see otherwise, perhaps ‘going along with lies’, perhaps using ‘weapons of mass deception’ on their own populations, makes it now more than difficult to back away and state ‘Enough is enough. This is a wrong direction.’
At the moment China, Russia and the U.S. plus allies are the ‘three competing empires.’ China uses soft power, money and resources where the West just destroys societies. It’s hard not to compare these approaches. I don’t hold China up as some standard of behaviour to emulate, the detail of the agreements for such apparent generosity would need to be scrutinised but … ‘still an’ all’ …. a newly dug well is better than a bomb crater.
As for Russia – I have no issue with Putin nor the way in which Russia behaves on the world stage. They are not the Soviet Union.
Human Rights are an ongoing issue in Australia and how much more must it be true in totalitarian societies where any deviation from ‘Big Brother’ isn’t tolerated.
The untold trillions spent on destroying societies – for what purpose? Would the populations of Greece or Libya cry ‘Hooray’ for war!’
Divide and conquer and do it again and again until whoever or whatever is left is grateful for anyone or anything who promises to sort it all out. Enter Big Brother in massive manifestation.
Once upon a time the U.K. was invited to join a Common Market. The devil’s in the detail of course but the general idea appeared sound. If at that time the population were asked to join a European Union, give up national law making, the idea wouldn’t have stood a chance of being accepted and for a multitude of good reasons. National sovereignty is too hard won to give up for an experiment in promise and a difficult divorce if it doesn’t work out.
Fifty years pass and the difficulty of making Brexit work proves the point yet, blinded perhaps by the grants that the European Union provides in so many areas of society, the argument is made that to remain in the Union is of more benefit than to leave. My response is that the British ‘cake’ therefore needs to be distributed better - not that the ‘cake’ is given to Europe to divide and distribute.