" it was about how history is rewritten and people are trained to change their beliefs on command."

That has been achieved in hyperpartisan US politics already. A lot of people of people will change their opinion and perception of the real world immediately once it's convenient for "their" party.

That isn't remotely new. Just look at English history during Anglicianism's transition.

Can you imagine what they would have said if Obama had called the North Korea guy a "great guy"?

An interesting case, since this seems to be reversed.

Democrats mocked Romney's anti-Russia position in 2012. And remember the "reset button"? Now many think Putin controls American elections and the US President himself.

Which Republican politician says Russia is 'the good guys'?

When he had the summit with Putin he definitely was weirdly nice to him. I don't think he is controlled by Russians but I am sure Republicans would have thrown a complete fit if Obama had publicly stated that he trusts Putin over the CIA like Trump did during the press conference.

Again, the point is that partisans willingly accept the same behavior from "their" guy that they would condemn from the "other" guy and they don't even notice how inconsistent this is.

He's always nice when he's dealing with a foreign power. The leader of China, Japan, North Korea... He's always been very respectful and polite to their face, but that doesn't mean he hasn't implemented tough policies against them.

As regards to trusting Putin over the CIA, what was he supposed to do? Call Putin a liar to his face? Not only is that unwise, it goes against his style of negotiation as I mentioned previously.

Calling Putin a liar to his face was not the only possible alternative to calling the CIA liars.

None of them, it's simply misinformation. These people never have any response to actual debate on this topic. How do people think Trump is controlled by Russia when he's been harder on Russia than anyone else. He armed Ukraine, supported sanctions, and threatened to leave NATO because Germany wanted to build a massive new gas pipeline from Russia, thus making them even more dependent on Russia.

They did.

There was a conservative narrative in the circa 2013 timeframe that Russia had been a key ally in the war on terror by allowing military logistics for Afghanistan to travel by rail through their sphere of influence. Obama was said to have insulted our Russian friends and as a result we were forced to use unreliable roads in Pakistan instead.

IIRC, there was notion that we would be playing a 19th century style “great game” in Central Asia, basically paying off Russia to contain China’s ambitions for heavy rail service into the Middle East.

End of the day, there are lots of different policy positions floated out there as a result of our nearly two decades at war and the various stakeholders as alliances shift.

The difference in the current administration is the unbridled graft and influence peddling. Everything is transactional.

Yep, leaving NATO over a pipeline would really stick it to those Russians.

Democrats indeed mocked Romney's anti-Russia position, but from a position of wary engagement with Putin's regime rather than uncritical enthusiasm for the guy.

You believe the Republican position on Putin right now is "uncritical enthusiasm for the guy"?

As with the above, this sounds like something from another dimension to me. Who exactly are you referring to? What words/actions?

I'm pretty sure that if you do a great amount of research you will find a tremendous amount of evidence for what you ostensibly consider to be a really fantastic claim, folks.

I think Orwell's point was even simpler: the overriding purpose of totalitarian political systems is power over individuals, "a boot stamping on a human face - forever". The actual ideology and stated goals are just window dressing towards this end.

As O'Brien says:

"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

Edit: Personally, it's this self-awareness of their own real motives that make the Inner Party of Ingsoc so scary.

I must be reading it wrong, because I thought it was about how love was the most important and powerful emotion and how the final defeat of the two protagonists was the realization that they no longer loved each other and instead loved the state.

All of the Big Brother, Ministries of Whatever, censorship, and surveillance stuff was just window dressing for the love message.

Even Brave New World, to me, is about love. The society spurns familial love (like between John and his mother) and committed relationships (like between everyone and everyone) and pain or discomfort is a prerequisite for love and the pursuit of happiness has all but eliminated true love from the world. John kills himself because he hurt the woman he loved, he is humiliated for loving his mother, and is frustrated by the fact that the woman he loves can't love him because she is too busy pursuing simple, immediate, pleasures.

At least, that's my recollection of the two books.

> I must be reading it wrong, because I thought it was about how love was the most important and powerful emotion and how the final defeat of the two protagonists was the realization that they no longer loved each other and instead loved the state.

That's...an interesting perspective, but I think the audience is expected to already view love with that importance, so that the love storyline instead underlines the power of the control of the state.

Similarly with BNW. I think you are reading things that the authors perceived and sought to leverage in their contemporary audience with as being instead the message of the work: neither is about love, but the effect the dystopia described has on love is a key part of painting the picture because of what readers are expected to already feel about love.

> I thought it was about how love was the most important and powerful emotion and how the final defeat of the two protagonists was the realization that they no longer loved each other and instead loved the state.

My takeaway was that love was the most important emotion yet the state has the power to control even love. I don't think we're supposed to believe his love for Big Brother is genuine, but rather manufactured much like revisions to history.

> because I thought it was about how love was the most important and powerful emotion

Except that she doesn't love him and she immediately and fully confesses everything and betrays him.

The book is about the political classes, while the majority of the population (the proles) are not discussed a lot, they seem to have simple lives and can love.

You can have a story about love and love not triumph. I'd definitely say that that was a big element of the book. But I'd also include the class struggle and the so called dressing. Calling the setting a dressing seems a bit of an underplay. Settings are really important and generally also hold a message. But then again, I'm confused about why there's so much discussion about "I thought it was about" and not "this element is what struck me". Because 1984 is about ALL of those things.

There's something ironic about this whole comment. If it was intended, then well done.