George Orwell’s 1984 was a sharp critique of Stalinist totalitarianism.
Using it to attack democratic leaders distorts its meaning and diverts attention from the real “Big Brother” that still exists today.

March 5, 2017
What Orwell depicted was not a generic totalitarian society.
The object of his satire was the Soviet Union under Stalin’s dictatorship, and the novel was a powerful critique of communism.
Using it as a tool to attack the Trump administration or the Abe administration, which stand at the opposite pole from communism, is logically untenable.
At one time, some media outlets attempted to portray Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as a modern Hitler in order to stir fear and revulsion among the public.
Now they appear to be linking him with President Trump and branding both as “Big Brother.”
This, however, is absurd, because there is a genuine “Big Brother” in the world surrounding Japan.
It is a communist dictator exactly as Orwell described.
This “Big Brother” thoroughly surveils the population and tolerates no dissent.
Those who resist are executed or assassinated, even if they are family members.
Those purged are treated as if they never existed, and historical falsification is routine.
This is the true totalitarian society, and this is the terror Orwell portrayed.
Using the novel to criticize Japanese and American leaders is completely off the mark and nothing but fake news.
Viewed more cynically, it may even be intended to prevent criticism from being directed at the real “Big Brother” of the modern world and its methods.
The same phenomenon was already evident in 1984 itself, the year Showa 59.
Despite the Soviet Union still being intact, 1984 was interpreted as a warning against the rise of a managed society in the free world, and even the translator focused on surveillance cameras at bank ATMs.
This was an intentional misreading, and proper understanding of the novel as a critique of the Soviet Union and communism was overwhelmingly marginalized in the media.
Asahi Shimbun concludes its article by quoting an editor saying that it is “complicated” that a book published nearly seventy years ago feels realistic today.
It is precisely this misleading posture toward readers that makes one want to say, “It really is complicated, isn’t it?”