2026 Versus “1984”-The Road to Control: Surveillance, Digital Money, Polarization and the Age of Permanent Conflict
George Orwell's 1984 was published in 1949.
It described a world in which governments could watch their citizens, control information, manipulate language, rewrite history, and use fear to maintain political power.
The world of 2026 is not 1984.
But some of the technologies and political conditions that Orwell imagined are no longer theoretical.
We now have artificial intelligence capable of analyzing enormous quantities of information, facial-recognition systems capable of identifying people in public, increasingly sophisticated digital identities, centralized databases, algorithmic content moderation, digital currencies, and communication systems capable of monitoring and filtering information on a scale that would have been unimaginable to Orwell.
At the same time, political polarization is intensifying, trust in institutions is deteriorating, and armed conflicts are lasting for years without obvious conclusions.
The question is therefore worth asking:
Are we creating the infrastructure for a more controlled society?
The Surveillance Machine Is Getting Smarter
Surveillance used to require people.
A camera recorded something.
A police officer watched the footage.
An investigator examined records.
Someone manually connected the pieces.
Artificial intelligence changes that equation.
Modern systems can combine facial recognition, license-plate recognition, behavioral analysis and other forms of automated detection. Researchers are already developing integrated AI surveillance systems capable of analyzing multiple types of events simultaneously.
And these aren't merely laboratory concepts.
Real-time facial recognition is being deployed in public spaces, with cameras comparing people's faces against law-enforcement watchlists. Recent deployments have prompted arguments over privacy, accuracy, oversight and the possibility of surveillance expanding beyond its original purpose.
This creates an important distinction.
A security camera records you.
A facial-recognition system can potentially identify you.
An interconnected AI system can potentially begin building a picture of where you go, who you encounter and what patterns your behavior follows.
That is a fundamentally different capability.
When Everyone Can Be Identified
Imagine walking through a city.
A camera sees you.
Another camera sees you ten minutes later.
Another sees you entering a transportation system.
Another sees you entering a building.
Another records you leaving.
Individually, these cameras may appear insignificant.
Connected together, they become something else.
They can potentially transform anonymous movement into an identifiable record.
And once artificial intelligence is added, the system no longer needs a person sitting behind a monitor watching thousands of screens.
The machine can search for people.
The machine can compare faces.
The machine can recognize vehicles.
The machine can detect patterns.
The machine can produce alerts.
The machine can remember.
This is one of the most important technological developments of the 21st century.
Surveillance is becoming automated.
And Accuracy Is Not Guaranteed
There is another problem.
These systems can be wrong.
In April 2026, the ACLU documented another wrongful arrest connected to police reliance on facial-recognition technology, bringing the number of known wrongful arrests it had identified to fourteen. One person in the case spent six months in jail.
That raises an uncomfortable question.
If a human being makes a mistake, there is a human being to hold responsible.
But what happens when a government increasingly relies on automated systems?
Who is responsible when the algorithm is wrong?
The programmer?
The police officer?
The government agency?
The company that created the system?
Or nobody?
The more important question may be:
What happens when an algorithm's decision becomes more trusted than an individual's denial?
Digital Money Changes the Equation
Money is also changing.
Central-bank digital currencies, or CBDCs, are being researched and developed in multiple parts of the world.
A digital euro is currently being prepared for a potential first issuance in 2029, assuming the necessary legislation is adopted. The European Central Bank says the system is intended to work both online and offline and would complement cash.
A digital pound is also being investigated, although no final decision has been made to introduce one. Its current design phase runs through 2026.
These facts do not establish that CBDCs will become tools of political control.
But they do establish something else:
The architecture for centrally issued digital money is being developed.
And digital money is fundamentally different from physical cash.
Cash changes hands.
Digital money exists within an electronic system.
That means the system can potentially know more about transactions, enforce rules automatically and connect payments to digital identities.
Whether governments choose to use those capabilities is a political question.
But once the technology exists, the capability exists.
What Happens When Money Becomes Programmable?
This is where the CBDC debate becomes much more interesting.
A digital payment system could potentially be designed to:
impose transaction limits
verify identity
block transactions
automate compliance
record transaction histories
connect financial activity to other digital systems
That does not mean that every CBDC will do those things.
It means digital systems make certain forms of control technically possible in ways that physical cash does not.
And that leads to a simple question:
Who writes the rules?
If a government creates a powerful digital financial system, what prevents a future government from using it differently?
The government of today may have one philosophy.
The government of tomorrow may have another.
The infrastructure remains.
The Social Credit Idea Is Bigger Than One Number
The phrase "social credit system" has become popular because it describes something many people find disturbing: the possibility that information about a person's behavior could be used to determine what opportunities they receive.
The reality is more complicated than the popular image of every citizen having one universal score.
But the underlying concept is important.
What if governments could combine:
identity
financial records
legal records
travel
employment
online activity
communications
biometric information
and other data?
At that point, the question isn't whether there is a number attached to your name.
The question becomes:
How much should a government know about its citizens?
Information Control Is Already Here
The battle over information is nothing new.
Governments have censored newspapers for centuries.
Governments have banned books.
Governments have arrested journalists.
Governments have controlled radio and television.
But the internet created something new.
For a time, information became extremely difficult to control.
Anyone could publish.
Anyone could distribute.
Anyone could communicate across borders.
Now the pendulum is moving again.
Governments are increasingly attempting to regulate online information, while technology companies use automated systems to moderate enormous quantities of content.
Freedom House has documented a long-term global decline in internet freedom, with censorship and surveillance becoming increasingly sophisticated.
The technology makes this possible at a scale previous governments never possessed.
You Don't Have to Ban Speech to Control Speech
There is an important difference between banning someone's speech and controlling its reach.
Imagine someone publishes an unpopular opinion.
Nobody arrests them.
Nobody shuts down their website.
Nobody confiscates their computer.
Technically, they remain free to speak.
But an algorithm can decide that their material shouldn't be recommended.
It can be buried beneath other content.
It can be demonetized.
An account can be suspended.
Search visibility can change.
The result is something more subtle than traditional censorship.
The person can still speak.
But fewer people may hear them.
That distinction deserves much more attention.
Who Controls the Information Environment?
The modern citizen receives information through systems controlled by a mixture of:
governments
media organizations
technology companies
advertisers
political organizations
influencers
algorithms
artificial intelligence
Each has different interests.
Each has different incentives.
Each can influence what people see.
And that creates an unprecedented information environment.
There may not be one Ministry of Truth.
There may instead be thousands of organizations and algorithms competing to determine what people believe is true.
Political Polarization Makes Everything Worse
A deeply divided population is easier to manipulate.
This doesn't necessarily require a secret organization deliberately dividing people.
Modern information systems can naturally reward conflict.
Anger gets attention.
Outrage generates engagement.
Extreme opinions travel farther.
Political influencers build audiences by attacking opposing groups.
People increasingly choose media that confirms what they already believe.
The result is two people looking at the same event and coming away believing completely different things happened.
That is dangerous.
Because a functioning society requires at least some shared understanding of reality.
Without it, every disagreement becomes a battle over the facts themselves.
When the Media Stops Being a Common Reference Point
Traditional journalism once served as a common reference point for large portions of the population.
That system had its own problems.
But there was at least a relatively small number of major information sources.
Today there are millions.
A person can construct an entirely personalized information environment.
One person sees one set of headlines.
Another sees another.
One sees one interpretation of a war.
Another sees the opposite.
One believes a political figure is saving the country.
Another believes the same person is destroying it.
Both sides can produce hundreds of sources supporting their position.
And artificial intelligence is about to make the problem even more complicated.
When AI Can Manufacture Reality
AI can now generate realistic photographs, voices, videos and written material.
That creates a new problem.
Not merely:
"Is this information true?"
But:
"Did this information even originate from a real event?"
A convincing fake video can be created.
A person's voice can be imitated.
A photograph can be manufactured.
A fake statement can be attributed to a real person.
And eventually, the public may reach an even more disturbing position:
Nobody believes anything.
That can be almost as useful to someone seeking power as convincing everyone to believe a lie.
If people can't determine what is true, they become dependent on whoever they trust to tell them.
Then There Are the Wars
While technological control is expanding, another phenomenon is occurring:
Wars are lasting longer.
The Peace Research Institute Oslo recorded 65 state-based conflicts across 35 countries in 2025, the highest number since its records began in 1946. It also reported that the world has experienced persistently high levels of violence for more than a decade.
The problem isn't simply that wars are occurring.
It is that many modern conflicts have become extraordinarily difficult to end.
A conflict begins.
A ceasefire is negotiated.
The ceasefire breaks down.
New factions appear.
Outside powers become involved.
Weapons continue flowing.
Another military objective appears.
Another retaliation occurs.
And the war continues.
The Forever War
This is where the phrase "forever war" becomes useful.
A forever war doesn't necessarily mean that fighting occurs every day.
It means that the conflict becomes a permanent condition.
There is always another threat.
Another enemy.
Another military operation.
Another reason that peace must wait.
And once a country becomes accustomed to permanent conflict, something else can happen.
Emergency powers become normal.
Surveillance becomes necessary for security.
Censorship becomes necessary to combat enemy propaganda.
Information restrictions become necessary to prevent foreign influence.
Military spending becomes necessary because the threat remains.
And citizens are repeatedly told that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures.
The Emergency That Never Ends
There is an important historical lesson here.
Emergency powers are supposed to be temporary.
But temporary measures can become permanent.
A government introduces a surveillance program because of an emergency.
The emergency eventually passes.
The program remains.
A new emergency appears.
The existing system is expanded.
Another crisis occurs.
More powers are added.
Eventually, the exception becomes the normal system.
This is one of the central questions surrounding the modern security state:
At what point does a temporary emergency become a permanent method of governing?
Technology Makes That Process Easier
In the past, expanding government power required people.
Today, technology can make expansion dramatically easier.
A new camera network can be connected to existing databases.
A facial-recognition system can be connected to watchlists.
A digital identity can connect government services.
A digital currency can connect financial activity.
AI can analyze the resulting information.
And the entire system can become increasingly automated.
The danger isn't necessarily one giant machine.
It is the interconnection of many smaller machines.
The Pieces Don't Look Dangerous Individually
That's perhaps the most important point.
A camera doesn't look dangerous.
Neither does a digital ID.
Neither does a CBDC.
Neither does facial recognition.
Neither does an algorithm.
Neither does a content-moderation system.
Neither does an online speech law.
Neither does an emergency surveillance program.
But connect them together and something very different becomes possible.
Identity.
Movement.
Money.
Speech.
Information.
Associations.
Behavior.
All potentially connected.
That is the point where the conversation stops being about individual technologies.
It becomes a conversation about power.
Who Watches the Watchers?
The most important question isn't:
"Can this technology be useful?"
Of course it can.
The question is:
Who controls it?
Who can access the database?
Who can change the rules?
Who can add someone to a watchlist?
Who can remove someone?
Who audits the algorithm?
Who investigates mistakes?
Who determines what constitutes dangerous speech?
Who decides when an emergency has ended?
Who controls the digital financial infrastructure?
And what happens when the people operating these systems become corrupt?
The Real Danger Isn't Technology
Technology itself isn't the enemy.
The same technology that can be used for surveillance can be used for security.
AI can help detect crimes.
Digital systems can reduce fraud.
Facial recognition can help identify dangerous suspects.
Digital currencies can make payments more efficient.
Algorithms can help people find useful information.
The problem isn't whether technology can be useful.
The problem is unchecked power.
A free society can use powerful technology.
But powerful technology requires powerful safeguards.
Without them, the balance between citizen and government can change very quickly.
The Road to Control Doesn't Need a Dictator
This may be the most uncomfortable possibility of all.
A society doesn't necessarily need one evil leader.
Control can emerge gradually through institutions.
One law.
One database.
One surveillance program.
One emergency.
One restriction.
One algorithm.
One new identification system.
One new financial infrastructure.
Each decision can be defended individually.
Each can have a reasonable explanation.
But eventually, people may wake up and discover that the government knows considerably more about them than previous generations could have imagined.
And reversing that situation may be extremely difficult.
We Are Not Living in 1984
Not yet.
And that distinction matters.
There are still elections.
There are still courts.
There are still journalists.
There are still opposition movements.
There are still privacy advocates.
There are still people willing to protest.
There are still people willing to question authority.
The future is not predetermined.
But the technology is changing rapidly.
And the political environment is becoming increasingly polarized.
At the same time, armed conflicts remain widespread and prolonged.
These trends deserve attention before they become irreversible.
The Question for 2026
Perhaps the most important question isn't:
"Are we becoming a totalitarian society?"
That's too simple.
The better question is:
"Are we building systems that a future totalitarian government could use?"
Because technology survives political administrations.
The government of today may be democratic.
The government of tomorrow may be different.
The infrastructure remains.
The databases remain.
The cameras remain.
The algorithms remain.
The digital identities remain.
The payment systems remain.
And whoever controls the state inherits the technology.
This Is Why Orwell Still Matters
Orwell didn't predict smartphones.
He didn't predict artificial intelligence.
He didn't predict facial recognition.
He didn't predict CBDCs.
He didn't predict social media.
He didn't predict deepfakes.
But he understood something fundamental:
Control over information is control over people.
And he understood something else:
The most powerful form of control is the ability to make people accept the loss of freedom as necessary, reasonable, or inevitable.
That is why 1984 remains relevant.
Not because our world is identical to Orwell's.
But because the underlying questions haven't changed.
Question Everything
Who controls the technology?
Who controls the information?
Who controls the money?
Who controls the databases?
Who controls the cameras?
Who decides what is misinformation?
Who decides what is acceptable speech?
Who decides when an emergency is over?
Who decides what information you are allowed to see?
And perhaps the most important question of all:
Who watches the people watching everyone else?
These are not questions that belong to one political party.
They don't belong to one country.
They don't belong to one ideology.
They belong to everyone.
Because governments change.
Political parties change.
Technology changes.
But once a society builds a system capable of monitoring, identifying, restricting and controlling its population, the question of who eventually controls that system becomes much more important.
The future isn't predetermined.
But the infrastructure for the future is being built right now.
Question everything.
Think for yourself.
Stay awake.
Designed by Concordia
Related Designed by Concordia products
Mushroom Fuse Instant Coffee — Medium Roast
https://www.concordia.style/shop/p/mushroom-fuse-instant-coffee-medium-roast
Rich Hazelnut Coffee — Medium Roast
https://www.concordia.style/shop/p/rich-hazelnut-coffee-medium-roast
Complete Multivitamin Complex — 1984
https://www.concordia.style/shop/p/complete-multivitamin-complex-1984
Sources for further reading
Freedom House — Freedom in the World 2026: The Growing Shadow of Autocracy
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2026/growing-shadow-autocracy
Freedom House — Freedom on the Net 2025
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2025/uncertain-future-global-internet
Council on Foreign Relations — Conflicts to Watch in 2026
https://www.cfr.org/reports/conflicts-watch-2026
International Institute for Strategic Studies — The Armed Conflict Survey
https://www.iiss.org/research/conflict-security-and-development/
International Institute for Strategic Studies — The Military Balance 2026
https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance/2026/
Internal Links
Newspeak article:
https://www.concordia.style/blog/newspeak
The One-Eye Symbol:
https://www.concordia.style/blog/the-one-eye-symbol-history-meaning-and-why-it-appears-in
The Eye of Sauron:
https://www.concordia.style/blog/the-eye-of-sauron-the-symbol-of-power-that-wants-to-control-
The Republic: Plato's Search for the Perfect Society:
https://www.concordia.style/blog/the-republic-platos-search-for-the-perfect-society-and-the-meaning-of-utopia
