[idoubtit]

Orwell is not subtle enough for this. In "1984" (spoiler), the tyranny wins because they manage to torture the main characters so much that their spirits were permanently broken. If memory serves right, that was the end of the story.

For a classical tyranny were deaths squads are almost never necessary, because mass control is extremely efficient, "Brave New World" is better suited.

[082349872349872]

Except "Brave New World" isn't a tyranny at all. The only person who comes to a poor end is the savage, precisely because he refused the offer (which Mond envies) of going to the islands.

Mond also summarises why contemporary people are so willing to follow visions like ISIS or QAnon:

"Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn’t nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand."

(NB that BNW was written after WWI, 1984 after WWII, which may, beyond the temperaments of their authors, also explain how the visions got so much darker. Note also that Huxley wrote a much-less-famous utopia near the end of his life.)