Evil Fake News Says Inflation is Ending

By Jeanna Smialek

FEBRUARY 03, 2023

The econo-propagandists at the Times will always spin a decline in the rate of inflation – which still represents an ongoing increase in prices – as positive news.

From the article:

“People across the country are finally experiencing some relief from what had been a relentless rise in living costs. After repeated false dawns in 2021 and early 2022 — when price increases slowed only to accelerate again — signs that inflation is genuinely turning a corner have begun to accumulate.”

Happy days are here again!

What nonsense. This is akin to a morbidly obese man reducing the rate of his monthly weight gain — yet still gaining a few pounds each month — and declaring progress.  Along with their diversionary tricks, the seditious scribblers of Sulzberger’s Times have “memory holed” the fact that two years ago, the evil “paper of record” and their preferred quack-economists were actually cheer-leading for a “weakened dollar.”I rebutted one such piece. The article is re-posted below. See for yourself who called it correctly. (toot toot)

1. Times economics writer Jeanna Smialek knows more about shoes and handbags than she will ever understand about macroeconomics. // 2. Good news fatboy! Your rate of monthly weight gain fell from 7 pounds to “only” 3 this month! // 3. On the topic of inflation, we dug up a doozy from The Times Orwellian “Memory Hole.”

FLASHBACK / 03-02-21

Noam Scheiber

Rebuttal
March 2, 2021:

Only in the upside-down Orwellian world of Fake Economics — where the most basic dynamic of action & reaction is never understood — would the deliberate debasement of the national currency be considered a good thing if it increases exports sold to countries with a stronger currency (hence, theoretically, more manufacturing jobs here). Never mind the real income and wealth diminution of struggling elderly savers; or the decline in purchasing power of already strapped American consumers which such an insane policy would worsen. Those issues can be addressed separately — perhaps with even more money printing and debasement to pay for more welfare schemes.

This is some really crazy stuff — the equivalent of Stupid-19 insanity for economics. Let’s analyze and rebut a few lines. Hazmat suits and hip waders on, boys & girls, into Sulzberger’s macroeconomic muck we go.

Times: President Biden has made reviving American manufacturing a top priority. To deliver, he may first have to deal with something even more fundamental to the U.S. economy: the strength of the dollar.
Rebuttal: The surest way to revive manufacturing (as the pre-Stupid-19 Trump years proved) is through aggressive deregulation, tax cuts, tort reform (lawsuit control), and protective tariffs. Instead, the eggheads want to debase the currency and drive up prices.

Times: “Dollar overvaluation is the big problem,” said Mike Stumo, chief executive of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, …. Mr. Stumo describes policies that prop up the dollar as a “war on the working class.”
Rebuttal: Mike Stumo is out of touch with reality. We presume, given his title, that his salary and net worth in equities render his family immune to the ravages of a weakening currency. But for “working class” people living paycheck to paycheck with neither guaranteed salary increases nor higher-than-inflation capital gains each year, inflation is deadly. Nothing wages “war on the working class” like rising food and fuel prices. Nothing.

Times: Mr. Biden has hired a handful of senior economic advisers who are concerned about the dollar’s strength and have explored ways to reduce it.(emphasis added)
Translation: Inflation coupled with stagnant wages is coming. Brilliant!

Times: At its simplest level, the trade deficit represents a kind of leakage from the U.S. economy: Americans buy more in goods and services from abroad than the rest of the world buys from the United States … If Americans bought more domestically made products and fewer imports, the spending would create jobs for U.S.-based workers.
Rebuttal: But you’re creating another, even more serious problem (inflation, particularly on imported goods) in order to “solve” the import-export “imbalance.”  It’s like trying to prevent weight gain by smoking a pack of cigarettes daily in order to tamp down the hunger pangs! Why not just exercise and gradually condition yourself to eat smaller portions? — And why not just maintain a strong currency (consumer purchasing power) and a vibrant manufacturing economy (through business friendly policies, sensible tariffs and, ironically, increased consumer purchasing power).

What is most dangerous about this system is the fact that the US dollar is already artificially propped-up due to its status as the world’s reserve currency. Worldwide dollar demand actually keeps the dollar much stronger and more stable than what it would otherwise be. If (((they))) were to start weakening the “strong” dollar, there’s no telling how fast the existing illusion would unravel as investors start dumping them. It’s quite a pickle.

1. British Sodomite crypto-Marxist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) distorted the field of Economics. At the behest of his Globalist Masters, Keynesian ideology replaced the free market with grand and disastrous schemes of boom-bust monetary manipulation and state intervention. // 2. Let the presses roll — at interest! // 3. The elites don’t really worry about rising food prices.

1. The government sinks businesses (especially manufacturing) — then proposes to debase the currency in order to help business? // 2. Mr. Stumo is Mr. Stupid. // 3. “If I smoke more cigarettes, I’ll eat less and lose weight.”

In a perfectly honest monetary system, no government nor Central Bank would be rigging its currency values up or down to achieve this or that economic metric. Ideally, the ratio of debt-free currency to “stuff” (GDP) should be kept relatively constant because the only legitimate functions of currency are to facilitate trade and act as a store of value. In such an honest system, your money should neither depreciate (no theft of citizens) nor appreciate (we don’t want speculative hoarding either) as actual wages and saved wealth increase along with GDP.

Indeed, from 1800 until 1913, wealth increased greatly as prices for clothes and food stayed pretty much constant as neither the state nor the banksters could steal it. But then came “The Fed” (1913); the gradual abandonment of the gold standard (starting in 1933 & ending in 1973); and the post World War II enthronement of “Keynesian” economic gibberish and manipulation on a global scale.

At this advanced stage in society’s mental and moral decline, the monetary error has become so institutionalized that even “educated” business leaders seriously and openly talk about degrading the value of what’s left in our pockets, salaries and bank accounts — as if its  good thing for “the working class.” Nuts!

1. From 1800-early 1900’s — booming exports AND stable currency value. Why was that? // 2. The Fed destroys the value of the dollar. // 3. Hitler’s Germany: The strongest currency in the world AND a booming manufacturing with lots of exports. Why was that?

The NY Times Is Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. “Newspeak, Double-Speak”

Eric Arthur Blair/ AKA George Orwell

“Ingsoc. The sacred principles of ingsoc. Newspeak, double-speak, the mutability of the past.” – George Orwell, 1984

I was greeted by an editorial from The New York Times’ Editorial Board, “A Brutal New Phase of the War in Ukraine.”  It is a piece of propaganda so obvious that only those desperate to believe blatant lies would not fall down laughing.  Yet it is no laughing matter, for The NY Times is advocating for a wider war, more lethal weapons for Ukraine, and escalation of the fighting that risks nuclear war.  So their title is apt because they are promoting the brutality.  This pissed me off.

The Times’ Editorial Board tells us that President Putin, like “Hitler”, is mad.

“Like the last European war, this one is mostly one man’s madness.”  Russia and Putin are “cruel”; are conducting a “regular horror” with missile strikes against civilian targets; are “desperate”; are pursuing Putin’s “delusions”; are waging a “terrible and useless war”; are “committing atrocities”; are responsible for “murder, rape and pillaging,” etc.

On the other hand, “a heroic Ukraine” “has won repeated and decisive victories against Russian forces” (Bullshit) who have lost “well over 100,000 Russian soldiers killed and wounded,” according to the “reliable” source, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley (Asshole).  To add to this rosy report, the Ukrainians seem to have suffered no causalities since none are mentioned by the cozy Times’ Editorial Board members from their keyboards on Eighth Avenue.  When you support a U.S. war, as has always been The Times’ modus operandi as a stenographer for the government, mentioning the dead pawns used to accomplish the imperialists’ dreams is bad manners.  So are the atrocities committed by those forces, so they too have been omitted.  Neo-Nazis, the Azov Battalion?  They too must never have  existed since they are not mentioned.

But then, according to the esteemed editorial writers, this is not a U.S. proxy war waged via Ukraine by U.S./NATO “to strip Russia of its destiny and greatness.”  No, it is simply Russian aggression, supported by “the Kremlin’s propaganda machinery” that has churned “out false narratives about a heroic Russian struggle against forces of fascism and debauchery.”  U.S./NATO were “horrified by the crude violation of the postwar order,” so we are laughingly told, and so came to Ukraine’s defense as “Mr. Putin’s response has been to throw ever more lives, resources and cruelty at Ukraine.”

Nowhere in this diatribe by the Times’ Board of propagandists – and here the whole game is given away for anyone with a bit of an historical sense – is there any mention of the U.S. engineered coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014.  It just didn’t happen.  Never happened.  Magic by omission.  The U.S., together with the Ukrainian government “led” by the puppet-actor “President Volodymyr Zelensky,” are completely innocence parties, according to the Times.  (Note also, that nowhere in this four page diatribe is President Putin addressed by his title, as if to say that “Mr. Putin” is illegitimate and Zelensky is the real thing.)

All the problems stem from when “Mr. Putin seized Crimea and stirred up a secessionist conflict in eastern Ukraine n 2014.”

Nowhere is it mentioned that for years on end:

that U.S./NATO has been moving troops and weapons right up to Russia’s borders,

that George W. Bush pulled the U.S. out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and that

Trump did the same with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty,

that the U.S. has set up so-called anti-ballistic missile sites in Poland and Rumania and asserted its right to a nuclear first-strike,

that more and more countries have been added to NATO’s eastern expansion despite promises to Russia to the contrary,

that 15,000 plus mostly Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine have been killed by Ukrainian forces for years before February 2022,

that the Minsk agreements were part of a scheme to give time for the arming of Ukraine, that the U.S. has rejected all calls from Russia to respect its borders and its integrity, that the U.S./NATO has surrounded Russia with military bases,

that there was a vote in Crimea after the coup,

that the U.S. has been for years waging economic war on Russia via sanctions, etc.

In short, all of the reasons that Russia felt that it was under attack for decades and that the U.S. was stone deaf to its appeals to negotiate these threats to its existence.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if all were reversed and Russia had put troops and weapons in Mexico and Canada that the United States would respond forcefully.

This editorial is propaganda by omission and strident stupidity by commission.

The editorial has all its facts “wrong,” and not by accident.  The paper may say that its opinion journalists’ claims are separate from those of its newsroom, yet their claims echo the daily barrage of falsehoods from its front pages, such as:

  • Ukraine is winning on the battlefield. (lol)
  • “Russia faces decades of economic stagnation and regression even if the war ends soon.” (lol)
  • That on Jan.14, as part of its cruel attacks on civilian targets, a Russian missile struck an apartment building in Dnipro, killing many.
  • Only one man can stop this war – Vladimir Putin – because he started it.
  • Until now, the U.S. and its allies were reluctant to deploy heavy weapons to Ukraine “for fear of escalating this conflict into an all-in East-West war.”
  • Russia is desperate as Putin pursues “his delusions.”
  • Putin is “isolated from anyone who would dare to speak truth to his power.”
  • Putin began trying to change Ukraine’s borders by force in 2014.
  • During the last 11 months Ukraine has won repeated and decisive victories against Russian forces …. The war is at a stalemate.” (lol)
  • The Russian people are being subjected to the Kremlin’s propaganda machinery “churning out false narratives.”

This is expert opinion for dummies.  A vast tapestry of lies, as Harold Pinter said in his Nobel Prize address.  The war escalation the editorial writers are promoting is in their words, “this time pitting Western arms against a desperate Russia,” as if the U.S./NATO does not have CIA and special forces in Ukraine, just weapons, and as if “this time” means it wasn’t so for the past nine years at least as the U.S. was building Ukraine’s military and arms for this very fight.

It is a fight they will lose in the days to come.  Russia was, is, and will triumph.

Everything in the editorial is disingenuous.  Simple propaganda: the good guys against the bad guys.  Putin another Hitler.  The good guys are winning, just as they did in Vietnam, until reality dawned and it had to be admitted they weren’t (and didn’t).  History is repeating itself.

We are being subjected to a vast tapestry of lies told by the corporate media for their bosses, as the U.S. continues its doomed efforts to control the world.  It is not Russia that is desperate now, but propagandists such as the writers of this strident and stupid editorial.  It is not the Russian people who need to wake up, as they claim, but the American people and those who still cling to the myth that The NY Times Corporation is an organ of truth.  It is the Ministry of Truth with its newspeak, double-speak, and its efforts to change the past.

Let Harold Pinter have the last words:

The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

Evil Media Does Reversal on Covid-Mania

DECEMBER 5, 2022

NY Times Headlines:

After Fanning COVID Fears, China Must Now Try to Allay Them

China’s COVID Lock-down Outrage Tests Limits of Triumphant Propaganda

File this felonious filth under “chutzpah” — the yid word for that peculiar brand of shameless audacity which the usual suspects are so notorious for. Can you believe this crap? After two full years of having scared the piss out of the bewildered boobs of the overlapping tyrannical kingdoms of Libtardia & Normiedom with front page death graphs, spooky fairy tales about this or that “variant” -of-the- month,  and numerous hate articles aimed at the non-vaxxed — Sulzberger’s Times is criticizing China for having “fanned COVID Fears” to such an extent that the current process of dialing it down will be challenging.

The opening dose of “chutzpah” — from the topmost featured article — represents a classic case of projection for it appears to ridicule the very policies which the Slimes had actually promoted

“For nearly three years, the Chinese government deployed its considerable propaganda apparatus to fan fears about Covid to justify large-scale quarantines, frequent mass testing and the tracking of more than a billion people. As the authorities now shift their approach to the pandemic, they face the task of downplaying those fears.”

This from the same greasy bunch that once lamented the fact that westerners were not as willing to accept Orwellian “contact tracing” as their Asian counterparts were. (here)

The Times is able to get away with such astonishing reversals because the cult followers who worship its printed sermons are incapable of any independent critical thinking. A line from George Orwell‘s novel “1984” — describing how the Party got the normies to support the seamlessly (and constantly) shifting war alliances of Oceania — makes for a good comparison:

“Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.”

By simply not speaking of the past alliance with “evil” Eurasia, it was as if it never existed. Likewise, the collective memory of the Slime’s role in propagandizing the public and damaging the world with absurd fear porn over Stupid-19 has already been erased — thus enabling the recent attacks on China’s “extreme” policies.

1. As the mandatory TV screen blared out the most hateful anti-Eurasia war propaganda, Winston Smith dared to reflect upon his distinct memories of Oceania having been allied with Eurasia not too long ago in the war against East Asia. // 2. Normies were required to attend the “Two Minutes Hate” each day and scream at images of the enemies of Oceania — who had once been their allies. (reminds me of the holier-than-thou masked & vaxxed lunatics of peak Stipid-19)

The good news out of China is that the “spontaneous” protests over Covid policies have already backfired. Not only will the foreign & domestic Deep States NEVER be able to topple the beloved Xi, but China’s recently announced move to return to normalcy will pull the rug out from beneath the Shanghai Mafia and their allies in western Globalism. If anything, the rent-a-mobs served the purpose of flushing out more CIA-backed traitors, as was the case when the treasonous bastards of Hong Kong showed their faces.

Don’t be too surprised if in about week or so, we read in the Slimes about how China’s reckless rollback of Covid restrictions is causing the imaginary virus to return. Think I’m joking? NPR Radio has already started that new Orwellian head-snapping, mind-rape. Just today:

“Vaccine hesitancy may hamper China’s efforts to ease COVID restrictions.”

Oy vey… the chutzpah never ends!

Why Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) Matters…

Eric Arthur Blair

Most people think that George Orwell was writing about, and against, totalitarianism – especially when they encounter him through the prism of his great dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

This view of Orwell is not wrong, but it can miss something. For Orwell was concerned above all about the particular threat posed by totalitarianism to words and language. He was concerned about the threat it posed to our ability to think and speak freely and truthfully. About the threat it posed to our freedom.

He saw, clearly and vividly, that to lose control of words is to lose control of meaning. That is what frightened him about the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia – these regimes wanted to control the very linguistic substance of thought itself.

And that is why Orwell continues to speak to us so powerfully today. Because words, language and meaning are under threat once more.

Totalitarianism in Orwell’s time

The totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union represented something new and frightening for Orwell. Authoritarian dictatorships, in which power was wielded unaccountably and arbitrarily, had existed before, of course. But what made the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century different was the extent to which they demanded every individual’s complete subservience to the state. They sought to abolish the very basis of individual freedom and autonomy. They wanted to use dictatorial powers to socially engineer the human soul itself, changing and shaping how people think and behave.

Totalitarian regimes set about breaking up clubs, trade unions and other voluntary associations. They were effectively dismantling those areas of social and political life in which people were able to freely and spontaneously associate. The spaces, that is, in which local and national culture develops free of the state and officialdom. These cultural spaces were always tremendously important to Orwell. As he put it in his 1941 essay, ‘England Your England’: ‘All the culture that is most truly native centres round things which even when they are communal are not official – the pub, the football match, the back garden, the fireside and the “nice cup of tea”.’

Totalitarianism may have reached its horrifying zenith in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR. But Orwell was worried about its effect in the West, too. He was concerned about the Sovietisation of Europe through the increasingly prominent and powerful Stalinist Communist Parties. He was also worried about what he saw as Britain’s leftwing ‘Europeanised intelligentsia’, which, like the Communist Parties of Western Europe, seemed to worship state power, particularly in the supranational form of the USSR. And he was concerned above all about the emergence of the totalitarian mindset, and the attempt to re-engineer the deep structures of mind and feeling that lie at the heart of autonomy and liberty.

Orwell could see this mindset flourishing among Britain’s intellectual elite, from the eugenics and top-down socialism of Fabians, like Sidney and Beatrice Webb and HG Wells, to the broader technocratic impulses of the intelligentsia in general. They wanted to remake people ‘for their own good’, or for the benefit of the race or state power. They therefore saw it as desirable to force people to conform to certain prescribed behaviours and attitudes. This threatened the everyday freedom of people who wanted, as Orwell put it, ‘the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above’.

Edmond O’Brien as Winston Smith and Jan Sterling as Julia, in an adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four, 3 June 1955.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, this new intellectual elite started to gain ascendancy. It was effectively a clerisy – a cultural and ruling elite defined by its academic achievements. It had been forged through higher education and academia rather than through traditional forms of privilege and wealth, such as public schools.

Orwell was naturally predisposed against this emergent clerisy. He may have attended Eton, but that’s where Orwell’s education stopped. He was not part of the clerisy’s world. He was not an academic writer, nor did he position himself as such. On the contrary, he saw himself as a popular writer, addressing a broad, non-university-educated audience.

Moreover, Orwell’s antipathy towards this new elite type was long-standing. He had bristled against the rigidity and pomposity of imperial officialdom as a minor colonial police official in Burma between 1922 and 1927. And he had always battled against the top-down socialist great and good, and much of academia, too, who were often very much hand in glove with the Stalinised left.

The hostility was mutual. Indeed, it accounts for the disdain that many academics and their fellow travellers continue to display towards Orwell today.

The importance of words

Nowadays we are all too familiar with this university-educated ruling caste, and its desire to control words and meaning. Just think, for example, of the way in which our cultural and educational elites have turned ‘fascism’ from a historically specific phenomenon into a pejorative that has lost all meaning, to be used to describe anything from Brexit to Boris Johnson’s Tory government – a process Orwell saw beginning with the Stalinist practice of calling Spanish democratic revolutionaries ‘Trotsky-fascists’ (which he documented in Homage to Catalonia (1938)).

Or think of the way in which our cultural and educational elites have transformed the very meanings of the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’, divesting them of any connection to biological reality. Orwell would not have been surprised by this development. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, he shows how the totalitarian state and its intellectuals will try to suppress real facts, and even natural laws, if they diverge from their worldview. Through exerting power over ideas, they seek to shape reality. ‘Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together in new shapes of your own choosing’, says O’Brien, the sinister party intellectual. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull… You must get rid of these 19th-century ideas about the laws of nature.’

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the totalitarian regime tries to subject history to similar manipulation. As anti-hero Winston Smith tells his lover, Julia:

‘Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.’

As Orwell wrote elsewhere, ‘the historian believes that the past cannot be altered and that a correct knowledge of history is valuable as a matter of course. From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned.’

This totalitarian approach to history is dominant today, from the New York Times’ 1619 Project to statue-toppling. History is something to be erased or conjured up or reshaped as a moral lesson for today. It is used to demonstrate the rectitude of the contemporary establishment.

But it is language that is central to Orwell’s analysis of this form of intellectual manipulation and thought-control. Take ‘Ingsoc’, the philosophy that the regime follows and enforces through the linguistic system of Newspeak. Newspeak is more than mere censorship. It is an attempt to make certain ideas – freedom, autonomy and so on – actually unthinkable or impossible. It is an attempt to eliminate the very possibility of dissent (or ‘thoughtcrime’).

As Syme, who is working on a Newspeak dictionary, tells Winston Smith:

‘The whole aim… is to narrow the range of thought. In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?’

The parallels between Orwell’s nightmarish vision of totalitarianism and the totalitarian mindset of today, in which language is policed and controlled, should not be overstated. In the dystopia of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the project of eliminating freedom and dissent, as in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, was backed up by a brutal, murderous secret police. There is little of that in our societies today – people are not forcibly silenced or disappeared.

However, they are cancelled, pushed out of their jobs, and sometimes even arrested by the police for what amounts to thoughtcrime. And many more people simply self-censor out of fear of saying the ‘wrong’ thing. Orwell’s concern that words could be erased or their meaning altered, and thought controlled, is not being realised in an openly dictatorial manner. No, it’s being achieved through a creeping cultural and intellectual conformism.

The intellectual turn against freedom

But then that was always Orwell’s worry – that intellectuals giving up on freedom would allow a Big Brother Britain to flourish. As he saw it in The Prevention of Literature (1946), the biggest danger to freedom of speech and thought came not from the threat of dictatorship (which was receding by then) but from intellectuals giving up on freedom, or worse, seeing it as an obstacle to the realisation of their worldview.

Interestingly, his concerns about an intellectual betrayal of freedom were reinforced by a 1944 meeting of the anti-censorship organisation, English PEN. Attending an event to mark the 300th anniversary of Milton’s Areopagitica, Milton’s famous 1644 speech making the case for the ‘Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing’, Orwell noted that many of the left-wing intellectuals present were unwilling to criticise Soviet Russia or wartime censorship. Indeed, they had become profoundly indifferent or hostile to the question of political liberty and press freedom.

‘In England, the immediate enemies of truthfulness, and hence of freedom of thought, are the press lords, the film magnates, and the bureaucrats’, Orwell wrote, ‘but that on a long view the weakening of the desire for liberty among the intellectuals themselves is the most serious symptom of all’.

Orwell was concerned by the increasing popularity among influential left-wing intellectuals of ‘the much more tenable and dangerous proposition that freedom is undesirable and that intellectual honesty is a form of anti-social selfishness’. The exercise of freedom of speech and thought, the willingness to speak truth to power, was even then becoming seen as something to be frowned upon, a selfish, even elitist act.

An individual speaking freely and honestly, wrote Orwell, is ‘accused of either wanting to shut himself up in an ivory tower, or of making an exhibitionist display of his own personality, or of resisting the inevitable current of history in an attempt to cling to unjustified privilege’.

These are insights which have stood the test of time. Just think of the imprecations against those who challenge the consensus. They are dismissed as ‘contrarians’ and accused of selfishly upsetting people.

And worst of all, think of the way free speech is damned as the right of the privileged. This is possibly one of the greatest lies of our age. Free speech does not support privilege. We all have the capacity to speak, write, think and argue. We might not, as individuals or small groups, have the platforms of a press baron or the BBC. But it is only through our freedom to speak freely that we can challenge those with greater power.

Orwell’s legacy

Orwell is everywhere today. He is taught in schools and his ideas and phrases are part of our common culture. But his value and importance to us lies in his defence of freedom, especially the freedom to speak and write.

His outstanding 1946 essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’, can actually be read as a freedom manual. It is a guide on how to use words and language to fight back.

Of course, it is attacked today as an expression of privilege and of bigotry. Author and commentator Will Self cited ‘Politics and the English Language’ in a 2014 BBC Radio 4 show as proof that Orwell was an ‘authoritarian elitist’. He said: ‘Reading Orwell at his most lucid you can have the distinct impression he’s saying these things, in precisely this way, because he knows that you – and you alone – are exactly the sort of person who’s sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the very essence of what he’s trying to communicate. It’s this the mediocrity-loving English masses respond to – the talented dog-whistler calling them to chow down on a big bowl of conformity.’

Lionel Trilling, another writer and thinker, made a similar point to Self, but in a far more insightful, enlightening way. ‘[Orwell] liberates us’, he wrote in 1952:

‘He tells us that we can understand our political and social life merely by looking around us, he frees us from the need for the inside dope. He implies that our job is not to be intellectual, certainly not to be intellectual in this fashion or that, but merely to be intelligent according to our lights – he restores the old sense of the democracy of the mind, releasing us from the belief that the mind can work only in a technical, professional way and that it must work competitively. He has the effect of making us believe that we may become full members of the society of thinking men. That is why he is a figure for us.’

Orwell should be a figure for us, too – in our battle to restore the democracy of the mind and resist the totalitarian mindset of today. But this will require having the courage of our convictions and our words, as he so often did himself. As he put it in The Prevention of Literature, ‘To write in plain vigorous language one has to think fearlessly’. That Orwell did precisely that was a testament to his belief in the public just as much as his belief in himself. He sets an example and a challenge to us all.

‘Ministry Of Truth’ Trends On Twitter After Government Unveils New ‘Disinformation Governance Board’

On Wednesday news broke that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — a department that didn’t exist 20 years ago but today spends $52 billion annually — had created a new “Disinformation Governance Board.”

'ministry of truth' trends on twitter after government unveils new 'disinformation governance board'.jpg

The news comes just days after Twitter accepted Tesla-Owner Elon Musk’s offer to buy Twitter for $44 billion, a move that critics of the deal claimed could unleash disinformation. (Musk has been vocal in his support for free speech.)

DHS declined to be interviewed by the Associated Press, but issued a statement after news broke of the development.

“The spread of disinformation can affect border security, Americans’ safety during disasters, and public trust in our democratic institutions,” DHS said.

A Ministry Of Truth?

Perhaps naturally, the revelation that the government had created a new board to fight “disinformation” prompted a slew of Nineteen Eighty-Four comparisons, especially since it came so soon after Musk’s purchase of Twitter.

“Elon Musk buys Twitter to save free speech and days later President Biden announces a Ministry of Truth,” one observer quipped. “It’s like we’re living through an Ayn Rand/George Orwell novel mash-up.”

For those unfamiliar with George Orwell’s masterpiece, the Ministry of Truth is the propaganda and censorship department of Oceania, the fictional setting for Orwell’s dystopia.

Known as Minitrue in Newspeak, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer. Like all the departments in 1984, the name reflects the opposite of what the government actually does.

The book’s protagonist, Winston Smith, learns this in the second half of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Even the names of the four Ministries by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.

These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely.

Smith, who works at the Ministry of Truth, realizes the Ministry of Truth is not the least bit interested in truth. Its use of propaganda is overt, as is its use of banal slogans designed to confuse and humiliate the people of Oceania.

On the exterior of the Ministry of Truth building are three party slogans:

WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” and “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

Inside the structure, problematic documents are incinerated, dropped down a Memory Hole where they are conveniently forgotten.

1984: ‘Based Chiefly On Communism’

One might be tempted to laugh off comparisons between a “Disinformation Governance Board” and the propaganda department in Orwell’s classic work. After all, we’re talking about a novel.

This would be mistaken, however.

For starters, Nineteen Eighty-Four is indeed a fictional work. But it was inspired by the authoritarian regimes and ideologies Orwell witnessed firsthand. A one-time socialist who observed the fighting in the Spanish Civil War — a conflict between fascists and communists — Orwell became a budding libertarian who became disillusioned with collectivism.

In fact, Orwell makes it clear that Nineteen Eighty-Four was inspired by communism.

“[Nineteen Eighty-Four] was based chiefly on communism, because that is the dominant form of totalitarianism,” he told Sidney Sheldon, who purchased the stage rights to the book; “but I was trying chiefly to imagine what communism would be like if it were firmly rooted in the English speaking countries, and was no longer a mere extension of the Russian Foreign Office.”

Stalin’s regime was not the only totalitarian regime to utilize propaganda and censorship, of course. Joseph Goebbels, the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party, is perhaps the single most infamous wielder of propaganda in human history. And of course the Nazis were infamous for their book burning.

The Chinese Communist Party uses propaganda and censorship to such great effect today that scholars say it’s difficult to even know what’s actually happened in the country over the last century.

“At a time when censorship is a part of everyday experience of the Chinese people, even few historians actually know all the history of the party,” historian Sun Peidong recently told The Guardian. “It’s hard to get hold of party history materials as a history researcher nowadays. It’s even harder to know what the past 100 years has really been about.”

This is why Americans should be concerned that the US government — nearly two and a half centuries after it was founded — is suddenly in the business of rooting out “disinformation.”

Humans will always disagree over what is true. Descartes’ first principle — “cogito, ergo sum” posited that the only thing we can know with total certainty is “I think, therefore I am.”

It doesn’t take a philosopher to see that a lot of stuff one finds online is drek, so it shouldn’t surprise us that “misinformation” — in various forms and to various degrees — is rampant online.

But history shows that no one wields misinformation and propaganda with greater effectiveness — or at greatest cost — than government.

Orwell understood this. Americans would do well to heed his warning.

Source: FEE.org

Khazaria, Rothschild Dynasty, New World Order, Ukraine And Implementation Of The Nephilim Agenda

During a podcast Clif High made a tantalising comment: “In 1666 Sabbatai Zevi, he was a Khazarian and he was their messiah … [Zevi] said that it was okay for any of the Khazars to pretend to be a Jew but practise their true religion, which is this variant of Satan worship that has been inculcated into the Talmud in hidden language.”

khazaria, rothschild dynasty, new world order, ukraine and implementation of the nephilim agenda

Intrigued by this comment, we did a little digging into the Khazars and came across Dr Laura Sanger. While we can’t guarantee you’ll believe it, we promise you won’t be bored.

Dr. Laura Sanger is a clinical psychologist and author. On 22 March she joined Blurry Creatures podcast, hosted by Nate Henry and Luke Rodgers, to give her first public discussion on the Khazarians and what she believes is a hot bed of Nephilim Host breeding. With what’s going on between Russia and Ukraine, understanding the history of Khazaria will hopefully bring more perspective to that conflict, Dr. Sanger said.

You can listen to the Blurry Creatures podcast, The Khazarian Kid(s) with Dr. Laura SangerHERE.

Introduction

The Khazarians were a violent, warlike people from Asia who migrated to the north end of the Caspian Sea in the 1st century BC. The Khazars were so violent they quickly amassed nearly 1,000,000 square miles by conquering the agrarian societies in the Caucasus region. The Khazarian kingdom encompassed what is now Ukraine and parts of Eastern Europe.

The Rothschilds, who are Nephilim Hosts, and their Khazarian mafia have gained a foothold in nations across the earth since the mid-1700s. The tentacles of the House of Rothschild reach into the monetary policy of 85% of the countries worldwide but Russia broke free from the tentacles of the Rothschilds.

Putin aggressively worked at paying off the debt to the IMF, a Rothschild controlled bank, and by 2006 Russia’s debt to the IMF was paid off. Putin successfully extracted Russia from the strangle hold of the Rothschilds. For this heroic feat, Putin has been characterised as the bad guy ever since.

“Nephilim Hosts are skilled in smear tactics and most of the Western world has drunk the Kool-Aid. I’m not suggesting Putin is a saint, but we must remember that he stood up to the Nephilim Hosts in 2006 and he is standing up to the Nephilim Hosts ruling Ukraine today,” Sanger wrote in a recent article ‘Khazarian Roots in Ukraine’ which covers the first 50 mins or so of the Blurry Creatures podcast.

nephilim lineage tree

Khazarian Roots in Ukraine

“Nephilim hosts” is a term Sanger coined in her book: ‘The Roots of the Federal Reserve: Tracing the Nephilim from Noah to the US Dollar’. She explained to Blurry Creatures, “Nephilim Hosts are individuals who have partnered with the spiritual forces of darkness to carry out the Nephilim agenda.”  An agenda to defile the human genome through the propagation of a hybrid race, the purpose of which is to overthrow God’s Kingdom.

At its the core, the Nephilim agenda has the goal to strip us of our humanity.  Sanger identifies four Nephilim traits: violent without remorse; engage in sexual degradation; dishonesty in trade and business transactions; and, traffickers in humans and enslavement of others.

According to Sanger the differences between Nephilim, Nephilim Hosts and demonised people are:

  • Nephilim are hybrids, part human and part spiritual being.
  • Nephilim Hosts are humans which partner with the spiritual forces of darkness to carry out the Nephilim agenda.
  • Demonised people are people who have demons that reside within them but they do not intentionally try to carry out the Nephilim agenda.

“So, I propose that all Nephilim Hosts are demonised but not all demonised people are Nephilim Hosts,” Sanger said.

History Of The Khazars

When it comes to Ukraine and the Khazars it’s unfortunate we cannot turn to history books because history is curiously silent about the Khazars. The reason why talking about Khazars is so sensitive is because it brings up the contentious question: who are the true Jews, the true children of God? A question that’s difficult to answer, said Sanger, and not one she would go into during this particular podcast.

Khazarians were forced to assimilate Judaism into their everyday lives.  One of the experts on Khazars was Benjamin Freedman, a Zionist operative who walked away from Zionism in 1945 and described the Khazars as a pagan nation and:

When it comes to Ukraine and the Khazars it’s unfortunate we cannot turn to history books because history is curiously silent about the Khazars. The reason why talking about Khazars is so sensitive is because it brings up the contentious question: who are the true Jews, the true children of God? A question that’s difficult to answer, said Sanger, and not one she would go into during this particular podcast.

Khazarians were forced to assimilate Judaism into their everyday lives. One of the experts on Khazars was Benjamin Freedman, a Zionist operative who walked away from Zionism in 1945 and described the Khazars as a pagan nation and:

“The vile forms of sexual excess indulged in by the Khazars as their form of religious worship produced a degree of moral degeneracy that Khazar’s king could not endure. In the 7th century King Bulan… decided to abolish the practice of phallic worship…and selected the future state religion as… ‘Talmudism,’ and now known and practiced as ‘Judaism’.” – Facts are Facts: The Truth About Khazars (so-called Jews), Benjamin Freedman, 1954, pg. 53

Another expert is Louis Finkelstein, a Talmud scholar, who stated that Pharisee doctrines and practices, or Pharisaism, became Talmudism and:

“Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. When the Jew… studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies.” – The Pharisees, Louis Finkelstein, Foreword, pg. xxi

And Matthew Johnson, a former professor of history and political science who specialised in Russian and Ukrainian history, stated in his ‘Defending the Khazar Thesis of the Origin of Modern Jewry’:

“The Khazar theory suggests there is no connection between Israelites and Jews. Yet even if there were, the religion of the modern Jew bears no relationship whatsoever to the Israelite faith, which is vehemently condemned in the Talmud…In adopting the ethic of the Talmud, they adopted the mentality of the Pharisees, whose arrogance served as the early foundation of the Talmud.”

This Pharisee line, to this day, actively works to destroy Christ.  The Nephilims influence the Nephilim Hosts though the Khazarians.  When the mass conversion of Khazarians happened they implemented the Talmud, the Pharisaic teaching, in every part of society.

Eventually, the Khazarian kingdom was conquered by Genghis Kahn’s sons in the early part of the 13th century. This caused a diaspora of the Khazarians, who were Ashkenazi Jews, into Eastern Europe. The reign of the Khazarians did not end, it spread. It spread into all different parts of Eastern Europe.

In ‘A Short Study of Esau-Edom in Jewry’ C.F. Parker concluded, and most historians at the time agreed, there are two categories of modern Jews: Ashkenazic Jews and Sephardic Jews. One of the three elements making up Ashkenazi Jews were proselytes, or converts, including Khazarians. Although a number of scholars and historians believe Ashkenazi Jews come from Germany, there is a growing body of evidence that points to their origins as Khazaria.

The Rothschilds And The Khazarian Mafia

“The Khazar empire had a small but powerful group of Jewish bankers in Kiev as early as the 10th century.” – The Regime: Usury, Khazaria and the American Mass, Matthew Johnson.

The Rothschilds were Ashkenazi Jews, Khazarians, “they’re arguably the most influential Nephilim Hosts of the Common Era,” Sangar said, “the Rothschild family and their Khazarian mafia have gained a foothold in almost every country since the mid-1700s.”

The patriarch for the Rothschild banking dynasty is Mayer Amschel Rothschild. He partnered with Adam Weishaupt who instituted the order of the Illuminati. Together Rothschild and Weishaupt developed a seven-fold plan for world domination:

  1. Abolish all national governments
  2. Abolish all private property
  3. Abolish inheritance
  4. Destroy patriotism
  5. Destroy Christianity
  6. Destroy the family unit
  7. Create a one world government or a new world order

This plan has become the blue print to carry out the Nephilim agenda, Sanger said, this was rolled-out, at least, by Rothschild and Weishaupt in 1776. This is essentially the play book of a Colour Revolution – destroy history, destroy the family unit. This is also World Economic Forum with a dash of communism.

Although it was a topic for another time, Sanger said, the Rothschilds were the treasurers for the Vatican so it filters down and does all connect.

How Can We Break Free From The System Of Enslavement?

“As a psychologist I am also trying to raise awareness of the mind control that has really come over our generation,” Sanger said, “how have we become so hoodwinked, buying the narrative hook, line and sinker?”

It’s because of mind control tactics of the Nephilim Hosts. For example, the situation with Russia and Ukraine. We have been conditioned to believe through corporate media narrative that “Russia is bad.”

What has been communicated to us about war is propaganda and that has been happening for centuries, Sanger said, “we’ve been consistently lied to by our media and our elected officials. If we don’t do our own research and if we don’t use our critical thinking skills we just fall right into the trap.”

Must-read article: Ukraine And The Rothschild ‘Financial Vultures’ Family.

Orwell’s experience during the Spanish War is just one example of what happens to us during war time propaganda.

‘History stopped in 1936’, at which he nodded in immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more particularly of the Spanish civil war.

Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie.

I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines. – Looking back on the Spanish War, George Orwell, 1943, pg. 11

Nephilim Hosts like to boast about their plans, for example Henry Kissinger in 1992 who said:

henry kissinger, address to the bilderberger organisation, 1992

Henry Kissinger, Address to The Bilderberger Organisation, 1992

If we think about who is currently supporting Ukraine and vilifying Russia, “we’ve got D.C. swamp, mainstream media and the woke populace that loves to virtue signal,” Sanger said, and “we ask ourselves: are these the people that we really want to trust?” These are the same people who stripped us of our liberties for the sake of “flattening the curve” or they censored us because we were questioning “the science.”

So, if we use our critical thinking skills, the narrative that is being played out for us is most likely not even accurate. Putin kicked the Rothschilds central bank out of Russia several years ago, Sanger said, so that tells us that he’s not part of this Cabal system.

ukrainian war in the plans of the nwo

Declaration of Msgr. Carlo Maria Viganò on the Russia-Ukraine Crisis, The Ukrainian war in the plans of the NWO, 7 March 2022

The Ukraine-Russia conflict has been used to move the populace from fear of Covid to fear of nuclear war. It’s a weapon of mass distraction because they want to roll out their agenda that was developed in 1776.

Fear is the ultimate driver of mind control. They want to keep us entrapped in fear because when we live in fear our ability to process nuanced information is impaired – we’re more likely to blindly follow others without using critical thinking skills.

Most often, “fear is a big fat liar” and the media plays a huge role as they will roll out stories that determine whether we should think something is risky, heightening people’s perception of risk, for example, daily death statistics shown by corporate media heightening our perception risk from Covid.

Psychologists refer to this tactic used by corporate media as the availability heuristic. “Essentially … when stories are told over and over again that creates fear, then that sticks out in our head and we make decisions based on that,” Sanger explained, “when Nephilim Hosts can control our mind through all this fear porn that’s being put out through mainstream media, when they control our mind, they’ve captured us. We lose our sense of sovereignty as an individual.”

Breaking free from the system of enslavement starts with breaking free of the mind control. The less you fear them, the less power they have over you. Instead of basing decisions on fear, seek that which combats fear – truth and love.

Source: DailyExpose.uk

Further resources:

We Have Arrived Into The Dystopian Future Dreamed Up By Science Fiction Writers

By John W. Whitehead,

The Internet is watching us now. If they want to. They can see what sites you visit. In the future, television will be watching us, and customizing itself to what it knows about us. The thrilling thing is, that will make us feel we’re part of the medium. The scary thing is, we’ll lose our right to privacy. An ad will appear in the air around us, talking directly to us.” — Director Steven Spielberg, Minority Report

We have arrived, way ahead of schedule, into the dystopian future dreamed up by such science fiction writers as George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)Aldous Huxley, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick.

Much like Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984, the government and its corporate spies now watch our every move.

Much like Huxley’s A Brave New World, we are churning out a society of watchers who “have their liberties taken away from them, but … rather enjoy it, because they [are] distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing.”

Much like Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, the populace is now taught to “know their place and their duties, to understand that they have no real rights but will be protected up to a point if they conform, and to think so poorly of themselves that they will accept their assigned fate and not rebel or run away.”

And in keeping with Philip K. Dick’s darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police state—which became the basis for Steven Spielberg’s futuristic thriller Minority Report which was released 20 years ago—we are now trapped into a world in which the government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few skulls to bring the populace under control.

Minority Report is set in the year 2054, but it could just as well have taken place in 2022.

Seemingly taking its cue from science fiction, technology has moved so fast in the short time since Minority Report premiered in 2002 that what once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction.

Incredibly, as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alike—facial recognition, iris scanners, massive databases, behavior prediction software, and so on—are incorporated into a complex, interwoven cyber network aimed at tracking our movements, predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior, Spielberg’s unnerving vision of the future is fast becoming our reality.

Both worlds — our present-day reality and Spielberg’s celluloid vision of the future—are characterized by widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, fusion centers, driverless cars, voice-controlled homes, facial recognition systems, cybugs and drones, and predictive policing (pre-crime) aimed at capturing would-be criminals before they can do any damage.

Surveillance cameras are everywhere. Government agents listen in on our telephone calls and read our emails. Political correctness — a philosophy that discourages diversity — has become a guiding principle of modern society.

The courts have shredded the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, SWAT teams battering down doors without search warrants and FBI agents acting as a secret police that investigate dissenting citizens are common occurrences in contemporary America.

We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state. Much of the population is either hooked on illegal drugs or ones prescribed by doctors. And bodily privacy and integrity has been utterly eviscerated by a prevailing view that Americans have no rights over what happens to their bodies during an encounter with government officials, who are allowed to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.

All of this has come about with little more than a whimper from an oblivious American populace largely comprised of nonreaders and television and internet zombies, but we have been warned about such an ominous future in novels and movies for years.

The following 15 films may be the best representation of what we now face as a society.

Fahrenheit 451 (1966). Adapted from Ray Bradbury’s novel and directed by Francois Truffaut, this film depicts a futuristic society in which books are banned, and firemen ironically are called on to burn contraband books—451 Fahrenheit being the temperature at which books burn. Montag is a fireman who develops a conscience and begins to question his book burning. This film is an adept metaphor for our obsessively politically correct society where virtually everyone now pre-censors speech. Here, a brainwashed people addicted to television and drugs do little to resist governmental oppressors.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). The plot of Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece, as based on an Arthur C. Clarke short story, revolves around a space voyage to Jupiter. The astronauts soon learn, however, that the fully automated ship is orchestrated by a computer system — known as HAL 9000 — which has become an autonomous thinking being that will even murder to retain control. The idea is that at some point in human evolution, technology in the form of artificial intelligence will become autonomous and human beings will become mere appendages of technology. In fact, at present, we are seeing this development with massive databases generated and controlled by the government that are administered by such secretive agencies as the National Security Agency and sweep all websites and other information devices collecting information on average citizens. We are being watched from cradle to grave.

Planet of the Apes (1968). Based on Pierre Boulle’s novel, astronauts crash on a planet where apes are the masters and humans are treated as brutes and slaves. While fleeing from gorillas on horseback, astronaut Taylor is shot in the throat, captured and housed in a cage. From there, Taylor begins a journey wherein the truth revealed is that the planet was once controlled by technologically advanced humans who destroyed civilization. Taylor’s trek to the ominous Forbidden Zone reveals the startling fact that he was on planet earth all along. Descending into a fit of rage at what he sees in the final scene, Taylor screams: “We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you.” The lesson is obvious, but will we listen? The script, although rewritten, was initially drafted by Rod Serling and retains Serling’s Twilight Zone-ish ending.

THX 1138 (1970). George Lucas’ directorial debut, this is a somber view of a dehumanized society totally controlled by a police state. The people are force-fed drugs to keep them passive, and they no longer have names but only letter/number combinations such as THX 1138. Any citizen who steps out of line is quickly brought into compliance by robotic police equipped with “pain prods” — electro-shock batons. Sound like tasers?

A Clockwork Orange (1971). Director Stanley Kubrick presents a future ruled by sadistic punk gangs and a chaotic government that cracks down on its citizens sporadically. Alex is a violent punk who finds himself in the grinding, crushing wheels of injustice. This film may accurately portray the future of western society that grinds to a halt as oil supplies diminish, environmental crises increase, chaos rules, and the only thing left is brute force.

Soylent Green (1973). Set in a futuristic overpopulated New York City, the people depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation. A policeman investigating a murder discovers the grisly truth about what soylent green is really made of. The theme is chaos where the world is ruled by ruthless corporations whose only goal is greed and profit. Sound familiar?

Blade Runner (1982). In a 21st century Los Angeles, a world-weary cop tracks down a handful of renegade “replicants” (synthetically produced human slaves). Life is now dominated by mega-corporations, and people sleepwalk along rain-drenched streets. This is a world where human life is cheap, and where anyone can be exterminated at will by the police (or blade runners). Based upon a Philip K. Dick novel, this exquisite Ridley Scott film questions what it means to be human in an inhuman world.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984). The best adaptation of Orwell’s dark tale, this film visualizes the total loss of freedom in a world dominated by technology and its misuse, and the crushing inhumanity of an omniscient state. The government controls the masses by controlling their thoughts, altering history and changing the meaning of words. Winston Smith is a doubter who turns to self-expression through his diary and then begins questioning the ways and methods of Big Brother before being re-educated in a most brutal fashion.

Brazil (1985). Sharing a similar vision of the near future as 1984 and Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial, this is arguably director Terry Gilliam’s best work, one replete with a merging of the fantastic and stark reality. Here, a mother-dominated, hapless clerk takes refuge in flights of fantasy to escape the ordinary drabness of life. Caught within the chaotic tentacles of a police state, the longing for more innocent, free times lies behind the vicious surface of this film.

They Live (1988). John Carpenter’s bizarre sci-fi social satire action film assumes the future has already arrived. John Nada is a homeless person who stumbles across a resistance movement and finds a pair of sunglasses that enables him to see the real world around him. What he discovers is a world controlled by ominous beings who bombard the citizens with subliminal messages such as “obey” and “conform.” Carpenter manages to make an effective political point about the underclass — that is, everyone except those in power. The point: we, the prisoners of our devices, are too busy sucking up the entertainment trivia beamed into our brains and attacking each other up to start an effective resistance movement.

The Matrix (1999). The story centers on a computer programmer Thomas A. Anderson, secretly a hacker known by the alias “Neo,” who begins a relentless quest to learn the meaning of “The Matrix” — cryptic references that appear on his computer. Neo’s search leads him to Morpheus who reveals the truth that the present reality is not what it seems and that Anderson is actually living in the future — 2199. Humanity is at war against technology which has taken the form of intelligent beings, and Neo is actually living in The Matrix, an illusionary world that appears to be set in the present in order to keep the humans docile and under control. Neo soon joins Morpheus and his cohorts in a rebellion against the machines that use SWAT team tactics to keep things under control.

Minority Report (2002). Based on a short story by Philip K. Dick and directed by Steven Spielberg, the film offers a special effect-laden, techno-vision of a futuristic world in which the government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful. And if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams will bring you under control. The setting is 2054 where PreCrime, a specialized police unit, apprehends criminals before they can commit the crime. Captain Anderton is the chief of the Washington, DC, PreCrime force which uses future visions generated by “pre-cogs” (mutated humans with precognitive abilities) to stop murders. Soon Anderton becomes the focus of an investigation when the precogs predict he will commit a murder. But the system can be manipulated. This film raises the issue of the danger of technology operating autonomously — which will happen eventually if it has not already occurred. To a hammer, all the world looks like a nail. In the same way, to a police state computer, we all look like suspects. In fact, before long, we all may be mere extensions or appendages of the police state — all suspects in a world commandeered by machines.

V for Vendetta (2006). This film depicts a society ruled by a corrupt and totalitarian government where everything is run by an abusive secret police. A vigilante named V dons a mask and leads a rebellion against the state. The subtext here is that authoritarian regimes through repression create their own enemies — that is, terrorists — forcing government agents and terrorists into a recurring cycle of violence. And who is caught in the middle? The citizens, of course. This film has a cult following among various underground political groups such as Anonymous, whose members wear the same Guy Fawkes mask as that worn by V.

Children of Men (2006). This film portrays a futuristic world without hope since humankind has lost its ability to procreate. Civilization has descended into chaos and is held together by a military state and a government that attempts to keep its totalitarian stronghold on the population. Most governments have collapsed, leaving Great Britain as one of the few remaining intact societies. As a result, millions of refugees seek asylum only to be rounded up and detained by the police. Suicide is a viable option as a suicide kit called Quietus is promoted on billboards and on television and newspapers. But hope for a new day comes when a woman becomes inexplicably pregnant.

Land of the Blind (2006). In this dark political satire, tyrannical rulers are overthrown by new leaders who prove to be just as evil as their predecessors. Maximilian II is a demented fascist ruler of a troubled land named Everycountry who has two main interests: tormenting his underlings and running his country’s movie industry. Citizens who are perceived as questioning the state are sent to “re-education camps” where the state’s concept of reality is drummed into their heads. Joe, a prison guard, is emotionally moved by the prisoner and renowned author Thorne and eventually joins a coup to remove the sadistic Maximilian, replacing him with Thorne. But soon Joe finds himself the target of the new government.

All of these films — and the writers who inspired them — understood what many Americans, caught up in their partisan, flag-waving, zombified states, are still struggling to come to terms with: that there is no such thing as a government organized for the good of the people. Even the best intentions among those in government inevitably give way to the desire to maintain power and control at all costs.

Eventually, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, even the sleepwalking masses (who remain convinced that all of the bad things happening in the police state — the police shootings, the police beatings, the raids, the roadside strip searches—are happening to other people) will have to wake up.

Sooner or later, the things happening to other people will start happening to us.

When that painful reality sinks in, it will hit with the force of a SWAT team crashing through your door, a taser being aimed at your stomach, and a gun pointed at your head. And there will be no channel to change, no reality to alter, and no manufactured farce to hide behind.

As George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) warned, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.”

Perpetual Tyranny: Endless Wars Are The Enemy Of Freedom

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison (aka “America’s First Politician.”)

War is the enemy of freedom.

perpetual tyranny endless wars are the enemy of freedom

George Orwell’s 1984 is more relevant today than ever.

As long as America’s politicians continue to involve us in wars that bankrupt the nation, jeopardize our servicemen and women, increase the chances of terrorism and blowback domestically, and push the nation that much closer to eventual collapse, “we the people” will find ourselves in a perpetual state of tyranny.

It’s time for the U.S. government to stop policing the globe.

This latest crisis — America’s part in the showdown between Russia and the Ukraine — has conveniently followed on the heels of a long line of other crises, manufactured or otherwise, which have occurred like clockwork in order to keep Americans distracted, deluded, amused, and insulated from the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms.

And so it continues in its Orwellian fashion.

Two years after COVID-19 shifted the world into a state of global authoritarianism, just as the people’s tolerance for heavy-handed mandates seems to have finally worn thin, we are being prepped for the next distraction and the next drain on our economy.

Yet policing the globe and waging endless wars abroad isn’t making America — or the rest of the world — any safer, it’s certainly not making America great again, and it’s undeniably digging the U.S. deeper into debt.

Indeed, even if we were to put an end to all of the government’s military meddling and bring all of the troops home today, it would take decades to pay down the price of these wars and get the government’s creditors off our backs.

War has become a huge money-making venture, and the U.S. government, with its vast military empire, is one of its best buyers and sellers.

What most Americans — brainwashed into believing that patriotism means supporting the war machine — fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with propping up a military industrial complex that continues to dominate, dictate and shape almost every aspect of our lives.

Consider: We are a military culture engaged in continuous warfare. We have been a nation at war for most of our existence. We are a nation that makes a living from killing through defense contracts, weapons manufacturing and endless wars.

We are also being fed a steady diet of violence through our entertainment, news and politics.

All of the military equipment featured in blockbuster movies is provided — at taxpayer expense — in exchange for carefully placed promotional spots.

Back when I was a boy growing up in the 1950s, almost every classic sci fi movie ended with the heroic American military saving the day, whether it was battle tanks in Invaders from Mars (1953) or military roadblocks in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956).

What I didn’t know then as a schoolboy was the extent to which the Pentagon was paying to be cast as America’s savior. By the time my own kids were growing up, it was Jerry Bruckheimer’s blockbuster film Top Gun — created with Pentagon assistance and equipment — that boosted civic pride in the military.

Now it’s my grandkids’ turn to be awed and overwhelmed by child-focused military propaganda. Don’t even get me started on the war propaganda churned out by the toymakers. Even reality TV shows have gotten in on the gig, with the Pentagon’s entertainment office helping to sell war to the American public.

It’s estimated that U.S. military intelligence agencies (including the NSA) have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows.

And then there are the growing number of video games, a number of which are engineered by or created for the military, which have accustomed players to interactive war play through military simulations and first-person shooter scenarios.

This is how you acclimate a population to war.

This is how you cultivate loyalty to a war machine.

This is how, to borrow from the subtitle to the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, you teach a nation to “stop worrying and love the bomb.”

As journalist David Sirota writes for Salon, “[C]ollusion between the military and Hollywood – including allowing Pentagon officials to line edit scripts — is once again on the rise, with new television programs and movies slated to celebrate the Navy SEALs…. major Hollywood directors remain more than happy to ideologically slant their films in precisely the pro-war, pro-militarist direction that the Pentagon demands in exchange for taxpayer-subsidized access to military hardware.”

Why is the Pentagon (and the CIA and the government at large) so focused on using Hollywood as a propaganda machine?

To those who profit from war, it is — as Sirota recognizes — “a ‘product’ to be sold via pop culture products that sanitize war and, in the process, boost recruitment numbers….At a time when more and more Americans are questioning the fundamental tenets of militarism (i.e., budget-busting defense expenditures, never-ending wars/occupations, etc.), military officials are desperate to turn the public opinion tide back in a pro-militarist direction — and they know pop culture is the most effective tool to achieve that goal.”

The media, eager to score higher ratings, has been equally complicit in making (real) war more palatable to the public by packaging it as TV friendly.

This is what professor Roger Stahl refers to as the representation of a “clean war”: a war “without victims, without bodies, and without suffering”:

“‘Dehumanize destruction’ by extracting all human imagery from target areas … The language used to describe the clean war is as antiseptic as the pictures. Bombings are ‘air strikes.’ A future bombsite is a ‘target of opportunity.’ Unarmed areas are ‘soft targets.’ Civilians are ‘collateral damage.’ Destruction is always ‘surgical.’ By and large, the clean war wiped the humanity of civilians from the screen … Create conditions by which war appears short, abstract, sanitized and even aesthetically beautiful. Minimize any sense of death: of soldiers or civilians.”

This is how you sell war to a populace that may have grown weary of endless wars: sanitize the war coverage of anything graphic or discomfiting (present a clean war), gloss over the actual numbers of soldiers and civilians killed (human cost), cast the business of killing humans in a more abstract, palatable fashion (such as a hunt), demonize one’s opponents, and make the weapons of war a source of wonder and delight.

“This obsession with weapons of war has a name: technofetishism,” explains Stahl. “Weapons appear to take on a magical aura. They become centerpieces in a cult of worship.”

“Apart from gazing at the majesty of these bombs, we were also invited to step inside these high-tech machines and take them for a spin,” said Stahl. “Or if we have the means, we can purchase one of the military vehicles on the consumer market. Not only are we invited to fantasize about being in the driver’s seat, we are routinely invited to peer through the crosshairs too. These repeated modes of imaging war cultivate new modes of perception, new relationships to the tools of state violence. In other words, we become accustomed to ‘seeing’ through the machines of war.”

In order to sell war, you have to feed the public’s appetite for entertainment.

Not satisfied with peddling its war propaganda through Hollywood, reality TV shows and embedded journalists whose reports came across as glorified promotional ads for the military, the Pentagon has also turned to sports to further advance its agenda, “tying the symbols of sports with the symbols of war.”

The military has been firmly entrenched in the nation’s sports spectacles ever since, having co-opted football, basketball, even NASCAR.

This is how you sustain the nation’s appetite for war.

No wonder entertainment violence is the hottest selling ticket at the box office. As professor Henry Giroux points out, “Popular culture not only trades in violence as entertainment, but also it delivers violence to a society addicted to a pleasure principle steeped in graphic and extreme images of human suffering, mayhem and torture.”

No wonder the government continues to whet the nation’s appetite for violence and war through paid propaganda programs (seeded throughout sports entertainment, Hollywood blockbusters and video games)—what Stahl refers to as “militainment“—that glorify the military and serve as recruiting tools for America’s expanding military empire.

No wonder Americans from a very young age are being groomed to enlist as foot soldiers—even virtual ones—in America’s Army (coincidentally, that’s also the name of a first person shooter video game produced by the military). Explorer Scouts, for example, are one of the most popular recruiting tools for the military and its civilian counterparts (law enforcement, Border Patrol, and the FBI).

No wonder the United States is the number one consumer, exporter and perpetrator of violence and violent weapons in the world. Seriously, America spends more money on war than the combined military budgets of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil. America polices the globe, with 800 military bases and troops stationed in 160 countries. Moreover, the war hawks have turned the American homeland into a quasi-battlefield with military gear, weapons and tactics. In turn, domestic police forces have become roving extensions of the military — a standing army.

We are dealing with a sophisticated, far-reaching war machine that has woven itself into the very fabric of this nation.

Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of an overhaul.

Eventually, all military empires fall and fail by spreading themselves too thin and spending themselves to death.

It happened in Rome: at the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise.

It’s happening again.

The American Empire — with its endless wars waged by U.S. military servicepeople who have been reduced to little more than guns for hire: outsourced, stretched too thin, and deployed to far-flung places to police the globe—is approaching a breaking point.

The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.

This is exactly the scenario President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against when he cautioned the citizenry not to let the profit-driven war machine endanger our liberties or democratic processes. Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, was alarmed by the rise of the profit-driven war machine that, in order to perpetuate itself, would have to keep waging war.

Yet as Eisenhower recognized, the consequences of allowing the military-industrial complex to wage war, exhaust our resources and dictate our national priorities are beyond grave:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

“It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

We failed to heed Eisenhower’s warning.

The illicit merger of the armaments industry and the government that Eisenhower warned against has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation today.

What we have is a confluence of factors and influences that go beyond mere comparisons to Rome. It is a union of Orwell’s 1984 with its shadowy, totalitarian government — i.e., fascism, the union of government and corporate powers — and a total surveillance state with a military empire extended throughout the world.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

The growth of and reliance on militarism as the solution for our problems both domestically and abroad bodes ill for the constitutional principles which form the basis of the American experiment in freedom.

As author Aldous Huxley warned: “Liberty cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near-war footing. Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government.”

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead

Global Freezing and Global Warming

Following the supposedly unusual “record” high and low temps of 2021, the first real snow and cold wave has descended upon the eastern United States. But if any of “you guys” think this presents a good “teachable moment” to tweak the loons of Libtardia with a “Say, what happened to Global Warming?” barb —  well, that won’t get you too far because “science” now tells us that nasty cold spells (just like killer heat waves) are also caused by “heat-trapping” CO2 as well. Hence the back & forth marketing shift from “Global Warming” to the catch-all “Climate Change.

A bit of “1984”-ish Orwellian double-think, from the article:

Temperatures in the United States last year set more heat and cold records than any other year since 1994.” (emphasis added)

You see how the Marxist manipulators of the public mind work?

Too hot — blame it on made-made CO2 and call for taxing “emissions.”
Too cold — blame it on man-made CO2 and call for taxing “emissions.” 
Just right — say we must not mistake weather for climate and call for taxing “emissions .”

Still not buying this now 43-year-old doomsday bullshit? Well then, you evidently just don’t understand “science,” boys and girls.

Fake Science aside, from a philosophical perspective, what really fascinates your baby-boomer historian here — who, having lived through all 43 years of this hoax and watched it grow from a few sporadic hypotheses into a Global cult of “settled science”  — is how short people’s memories are. We may forgive the 35 & under population demographic for not appreciating how long and how wrong the “20-years-from-now” doomsday computer model forecasts have been. But how can anyone who has been blasted with this Bolshevik bullshit for a full 20 years or more not have realized by now that new doomsday target dates are perpetually pushed forward as the old doomsday dates come and go? Heck, I specifically recall being taught, circa 1981-82, that lower Manhattan would be under water “by the year 2000!”

Even if a man did not possess a basic understanding of the Globalist Conspiracy nor of basic science; one would think that by actually living through the passing of relatively recent history and so many wrong predictions (including the ice-age scare of the 1970’s) that the middle-aged Normie would have grown suspicious about all the past and present hype by now, and started to ask some probing questions. Evidently not, and Orwell nailed this one too:

Eric Arthur Blair

The Climate Con  — referred to in the beginning as “The Greenhouse Effect” — was preceded by the announcement of “Earth Day” in 1970. With great fanfare ginned up by the Jurisprudence, the very first such observance kicked-off with CBS’s Walter Cronkite (CFR) (aka, “the most trusted man in America) hosting a nationally televised TV special (at a time when there were only 3 networks). The theme of “saving the planet” was thus introduced to the gullible young hippie crowd who have since grown up to take over America — at the behest of their invisible New World Order handlers.

During the period between 1979-1982, at a time when world population and man-made CO2 “emissions” were far lower than today, concerns about an ice-age were suddenly replaced with tales of a warming “Greenhouse Effect” that was expected to melt the Antarctic ice-cap and catastrophically flood the world’s coastlines by the Year 2000. Four decades later, none of the dire flooding and crop failure predictions have come to pass as “doomsday” is again and again pushed up to yet another far off date in “our children’s future” as forgetful fools over forty fail to notice anything suspicious about the “science” behind the never-materializing and never-ending scare that is the Climate Con. What the heck is the matter with people?

As The Great One(that’s Hitler for you newbies & normies) once observed in one of his criticisms of the predatory political class which he was seeking to replace: “What good fortune for rulers that men do not think.”

1 & 2. Cronkite (who years later openly admitted to supporting world government) and the media’s heavy promotion of “Earth Day 1970” was a sure indication of a Globalist push for some sinister agenda. /// 3. 1978: “In Search Of” TV Show — People aged 45 and under cannot remember that we once had an ice-age scare which some scientists were actually blaming on “pollution.”

The Age Of Intolerance: Cancel Culture’s War On Free Speech

“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.” — George Carlin

Cancel culture — political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance — has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance, policed by techno-censors, social media bullies, and government watchdogs.

the age of intolerance cancel culture’s war on free speech

Everything is now fair game for censorship if it can be construed as hateful, hurtful, bigoted or offensive provided that it runs counter to the established viewpoint.

In this way, the most controversial issues of our day — race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, science, health, government corruption, police brutality, etc. — have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom of speech but only when it favors the views and positions they support.

Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

This tendency to censor, silence, delete, label as “hateful,” and demonize viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite is being embraced with a near-fanatical zealotry by a cult-like establishment that values conformity and group-think over individuality.

For instance, are you skeptical about the efficacy of the COVID-19 jabs? Do you have concerns about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election? Do you subscribe to religious beliefs that shape your views on sexuality, marriage and gender? Do you, deliberately or inadvertently, engage in misgendering (identifying a person’s gender incorrectly) or deadnaming (using the wrong pronouns or birth name for a transgender person)?

Say yes to any of those questions and then dare to voice those views in anything louder than a whisper and you might find yourself suspended on Twitter, shut out of Facebook, and banned across various social media platforms.

This authoritarian intolerance masquerading as tolerance, civility and love (what comedian George Carlin referred to as “fascism pretending to be manners”) is the end result of a politically correct culture that has become radicalized, institutionalized and tyrannical.

Putin: Wokeness is ‘Reversed Discrimination’ and a ‘Crime Against Humanity’.

In the past few years, for example, prominent social media voices have been censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that were deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

Most recently, Twitter suspended conservative podcaster Matt Walsh for violating its hate speech policy by sharing his views about transgendered individuals. “The greatest female Jeopardy champion of all time is a man. The top female college swimmer is a man. The first female four star admiral in the Public Health Service is a man. Men have dominated female high school track and the female MMA circuit. The patriarchy wins in the end,” Walsh tweeted on Dec. 30, 2021.

J.K. Rowling, author of the popular Harry Potter series, has found herself denounced as transphobic and widely shunned for daring to criticize efforts by transgender activists to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender. Rowling’s essay explaining her views is a powerful, articulate, well-researched piece that not only stresses the importance of free speech and women’s rights while denouncing efforts by trans activists to demonize those who subscribe to “wrongthink,” but also recognizes that while the struggle over gender dysmorphia is real, concerns about safeguarding natal women and girls from abuse are also legitimate.

Ironically enough, Rowling’s shunning included literal book burning. Yet as Ray Bradbury once warned, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Indeed, the First Amendment is going up in flames before our eyes, but those first sparks were lit long ago and have been fed by intolerance all along the political spectrum.

Consider some of the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.

Offensive, politically incorrect and “unsafe” speech: Political correctness has resulted in the chilling of free speech and a growing hostility to those who exercise their rights to speak freely. Where this has become painfully evident is on college campuses, which have become hotbeds of student-led censorship, trigger warningsmicroaggressions, and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.

Bullying, intimidating speech: Warning that “school bullies become tomorrow’s hate crimes defendants,” the Justice Department has led the way in urging schools to curtail bullying, going so far as to classify “teasing” as a form of “bullying,” and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.”

Hateful speech: Hate speech—speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation—is the primary candidate for online censorship. Corporate internet giants Google, Twitter and Facebook continue to re-define what kinds of speech will be permitted online and what will be deleted.

Dangerous, anti-government speech: As part of its ongoing war on “extremism,” the government has partnered with the tech industry to counter online “propaganda” by terrorists hoping to recruit support or plan attacks. In this way, anyone who criticizes the government online can be considered an extremist and will have their content reported to government agencies for further investigation or deleted. In fact, the Justice Department is planning to form a new domestic terrorism unit to ferret out individuals “who seek to commit violent criminal acts in furtherance of domestic social or political goals.” What this will mean is more surveillance, more pre-crime programs, and more targeting of individuals whose speech may qualify as “dangerous.”

The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state.

Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use.

The end result is mind control and a sleepwalking populace.

In totalitarian regimes — a.k.a. police states — where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.

In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned — discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred — inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

The social shunning favored by activists and corporations borrows heavily from the mind control tactics used by authoritarian cults as a means of controlling its members. As Dr. Steven Hassan writes in Psychology Today:

“By ordering members to be cut off, they can no longer participate. Information and sharing of thoughts, feelings, and experiences are stifled. Thought-stopping and use of loaded terms keep a person constrained into a black-and-white, all-or-nothing world. This controls members through fear and guilt.”

This mind control can take many forms, but the end result is an enslaved, compliant populace incapable of challenging tyranny.

As Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry, one that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”

The problem as I see it is that we’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And we’ve bought into the idea that we need the government and its corporate partners to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean. The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.

In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears.

As Nat Hentoff, that inveterate champion of the First Amendment, once observed, “The quintessential difference between a free nation, as we profess to be, and a totalitarian state, is that here everyone, including a foe of democracy, has the right to speak his mind.”

What this means is opening the door to more speech not less, even if that speech is offensive to some.

Understanding that freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society, James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one — even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints — would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

We haven’t done ourselves — or the nation — any favors by becoming so fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful or closed-minded that we’ve eliminated words, phrases and symbols from public discourse.

We have allowed our fears — fear for our safety, fear of each other, fear of being labeled racist or hateful or prejudiced, etc. — to trump our freedom of speech and muzzle us far more effectively than any government edict could.

Ultimately the war on free speech — and that’s exactly what it is: a war being waged by Americans against other Americans — is a war that is driven by fear.

By bottling up dissent, we have created a pressure cooker of stifled misery and discontent that is now bubbling over and fomenting even more hate, distrust and paranoia among portions of the populace.

By muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve to release the pressure, frustration builds, anger grows, and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

Be warned: whatever we tolerate now — whatever we turn a blind eye to — whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

Eventually, “we the people” will be the ones in the crosshairs.

At some point or another, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes “hate” or “extremism, “we the people” might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.

When that time comes, there may be no one left to speak out or speak up in our defense.

After all, it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth. Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

We are on a fast-moving trajectory.

In other words, whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now, for the sake of the greater good or because you like or trust those in charge, will eventually be abused and used against you by tyrants of your own making.

This is the tyranny of the majority against the minority marching in lockstep with technofascism.

If Americans don’t vociferously defend the right of a minority of one to subscribe to, let alone voice, ideas and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant or merely different, then we’re going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt in, opt out, or forge our own paths as individuals).

No matter what our numbers might be, no matter what our views might be, no matter what party we might belong to, it will not be long before “we the people” constitute a powerless minority in the eyes of a power-fueled fascist state driven to maintain its power at all costs.

We are almost at that point now.

Free speech is no longer free.

On paper — at least according to the U.S. Constitution — we are technically free to speak.

In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official — or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube — may allow.

The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

Orwell intended 1984 as a warning. Instead, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist and obedient to Big Brother.

The police state could not ask for a better citizenry than one that carries out its own censorship, spying and policing.