1984 passed by relatively quietly. George Orwell's satirical novel about Soviet style world domination and indoctrination seemed to have been overly alarmist. The Soviet Union was, in fact, on its last legs. Perhaps this was best represented by ailing President Chernenko who was hospitalized and died in March 1985. Gorbachev then took over unopposed. His accession marked the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union.

Crystal ball gazing is an inexact science and in 1984 it seemed that western democracy, would triumph unopposed. Such thinking was to come to the fore in 1989 when the scholar Francis Fukuyama published his essay "The End of History". Three years later he expanded on his theme in a book entitled "The End of History and the Last Man". Fukuyama wrote:

"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

Well, a couple of decades later, it seems that Fukuyama might have been celebrating a bit prematurely. And if the votes at the United Nations are anything to go by, it does appear that Chinese style Communism, in league with Islamic fundamentalism, are proving to be more than a match for the hand-full of countries who are weakly touting liberal democracy. Moreover, economically The West is on its knees and seems impotent when dealing with the forces which are trying to usurp it.

So what sort of ideas will govern the world in 2084? In 74 years time, will Orwell's warnings finally come to fruition? Will it be a "Big Chinese Islamic Brother" that is watching over us? Will Google have been bought up by a Chinese consortium? Or will it be controlled by western capitalists who, for the time being at least, seem to believe in freedom of expression?






"How Iran is filtering out dissent" (Ian Black, Middle East editor)
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 June 2009

If the Iranian regime hesitated over tactics when protests erupted over the "theft" of the presidential elections by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it was well prepared on one front: internet censorship is both routine and highly developed in the Islamic Republic, so when the crackdown came it was swift and – fairly – effective.
Iran uses what the OpenNet Initiative calls "one of the most extensive technical filtering systems in the world". Internet providers are required to go through state-controlled gateways. Reformist websites, Flickr, foreign blogs and social networks such as Facebook were all sporadically blocked before the elections, but censorship intensified once the unrest began.
Filtering has become much heavier in the last fortnight. "It is very bad," says a keen internet user in north Tehran. "They're tightening the circle." The internet is said to be running at less than a tenth the speed it usually does.
"The authorities are aware that almost every internet user knows how to get around the filtering and they don't care much about it," said Mehrdad, a student. "But once there is a danger the internet may undermine the political system, they intensify censorship so it gets very difficult to get access to blocked websites even with anti-filter software."
Crucially, all internet traffic in and out of Iran travels through one portal – the Telecommunications Company of Iran (TCI) – though a few service providers operate below it. This makes it easier to monitor traffic. Sophisticated software allows officials to look at a website or tweet and see the IP address it came from. Decisions on blocking are made by a committee of government officials, members of the judiciary and intelligence services. Filtering is done by the telecommunications ministry.
"The authorities can filter a new website within 24 hours," said Mahmood Enayat, an Iranian expert at the Oxford Internet Institute. "They monitor very intensively. It's not really that sophisticated as they use domain names rather than key words, but that's still enough to stop users' access."


BBC WEBSITE (Jan 16th 2009) "Iran issues warning on opposition internet use."

Iranian authorities have warned opposition supporters against using text and e-mail messages to organise protest rallies.
The country's police chief said these systems were monitored and people misusing them would be prosecuted.
Gen Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam also said opposition supporters should not think internet proxies would protect them.
Following post-election protests, the government blocked several pro-reform websites and stopped text messages.
Without newspapers, Iran's young opposition supporters have constantly turned to the internet and mobile phone to communicate with each other and the outside world, organising demonstrations and distributing images and news of violence against them.
Iran's head of police said disseminating the opposition's plans deserved great punishment.
"These people should know where they are sending the SMS and e-mail as these systems are under control. They should not think using proxies will prevent their identification," Mr Ahmadi Moghaddam said.
He warned that those who incited others to protest or issued appeals: "have committed a worse crime than those who come to the streets".