Why Are Leftists Obsessed With Destroying Hero Culture?

In the movie ‘Batman: The Dark Knight’ the well regarded district attorney Harvey Dent makes a statement that has since woven itself into our popular culture to the point that we often hear it quoted as if it was said by some ancient philosopher. He noted:

“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

The most predictable interpretation of this is that there is a fine line between doing good and doing evil with the best of intentions. People can start out as heroes and quickly fall to darkness in the name of serving the “greater good.” I think there is more meaning behind the quote, however.

There is also the issue of historical revision and the fact that the heroes of yesterday might be considered the terrorists of tomorrow given who is in charge of writing the history books or reporting the news. Sometimes heroes become villains through their own mistakes, other times they are just rewritten that way.

For example, today we hear constant gnashing and wailing from the political left about the “evils” of the Founding Fathers and why they should be erased or canceled from our cultural zeitgeist.

They have even attempted to revise the very foundations of American history through their “1619 Project” as they assert that no American accomplishment is valid because EVERYTHING was built around the institution of slavery.

They make no mention that slavery has been an institution in every single culture on the planet since civilization began, but that doesn’t matter to them.

The goal of the 1619 Project was to diminish or dismiss everything distinctly American, right down to the revolution that founded our nation. What they care about is the deconstruction of heroes, in part because if you can destroy the character of a hero then you might be able to also destroy what they stood for in the process. And, if you can destroy the ideals of a society, it becomes a lot easier to then control that society.

When the political left seeks to undermine the legacy of the founders they aren’t just engaging in character attacks against men who can no longer defend themselves, they are also attempting to sabotage the vision those men created – The vision of a free republic outside of the dictates of collectivism and monarchy (rule by the elites).

Obviously the Founding Fathers are no longer alive, but there are millions of people that have carried on their legacy for generations that are in fact still living to see their heroes be made into monsters through revisionism.

But the destruction of heroes goes even deeper than historical rewrites.

Leftists are also targeting the very foundations of heroic archetypes and mythologies by attacking heroic representations in our society.

They are seeking to change the nature of heroism by hijacking cultural pillars and erasing beloved stories and characters in order to “reboot” them in the image of the leftist cult.

This is usually done under the cover of “diversity and equity” as a means to obscure the true agenda. Let’s break down the tactics and motives behind this trend…

Rewriting Heroes To “Reflect Our Modern Era”

Woke ideology does not reflect our modern era in any way; it is actually a masked version of the old social models of collectivism and communism, specifically the social Marxism displayed by Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

The only difference is today we have online struggle sessions and corporations are fully onboard with the movement. When leftists claim they are fighting the system, they have no idea what this really means.

Leftists use the reflection argument all the time to justify the gutting of hero mythologies and replacing them with vapid clones. A recent example would be the latest Amazon release of their Lord Of The Rings prequel series.

I wrote about this extensively months ago in my article ‘Amazon’s Woke Lord Of The Rings Is The Death Rattle Of Social Justice Content.’

To summarize, the new Lord of The Rings is designed to spread a political message and undermine the values of the past rather than tell a meaningful organic story that pays homage to Tolkien. Amazon even released their woke Lord of The Rings on the anniversary of Tolkien’s death.

Sometimes the propaganda is subtle, and sometimes it’s a train wreck in your face.

Specifically, I examined the political left’s obsession with injecting their own Cultural Marxism into every new entertainment product as a means to saturate the media space with their ideology.

When they say they want to rehash old stories and old heroes but write them to “reflect the world of today,” what they are really doing is erasing past ideals and principles and eliminating choice.

They don’t want you to see the world from different points of view; you are only allowed to see it from THEIR point of view. This is the exact opposite of good story telling.

Diversity As A Crutch And A Cudgel

Diversity is meaningless. It serves no purpose in terms of heroic representations. People identify with actions and deeds and principles, not skin color.

Leftists in Hollywood do not actually care about diversity of skin color, they only care about two things – Using minorities as a crutch to justify poor storytelling and lazy productions, and using minorities as a cudgel or weapon when they face criticism.

That is to say, when they make garbage media with no imagination or effort, they announce “we got diversity, though,” and this is supposed to make you want to watch their products anyway, otherwise you might be “racist.”

By extension, when you dare to criticize the political pontificating and terrible writing in their media, they can then say “our stories are fantastic, you just don’t like us because we hire brown people.” See how that works?

They use minorities as a shield, either for their ineptitude or their malicious intent, but they DO NOT care about such people if they can’t exploit them.

“Diversity and inclusion” is the new slave plantation that leftist elites in Hollywood use to farm virtue points and ESG loans.

That’s all there is to it. If they actually respected the idea of presenting diverse heroes, they would create original minority heroes and write them well.

Or, they would pick minority heroes from real history and avoid implanting current day woke politics into that era.

Narcissists Can’t Write Heroes

It has long been my contention that the leftist ideology is rooted in appeals to narcissism. Everything about it is based in entitlement rather than sacrifice. It is based in demands for special treatment rather than respect for accomplishment and merit. It is based in equity of outcome while eliminating equality of opportunity.

A person that has embraced the victim mentality can never be a hero or imagine how a hero would act. They have no relationship to the concept, because narcissists are usually villains in the real world and villains tend to see themselves as victims while they spend their time victimizing others. How else can they justify the evils they do?

No Conservative Heroes Allowed

As our media world was overrun with woke ideologues over the years the depictions of heroes and villains have become utterly twisted. Heroes act selfishly with ego and hubris, and villains are usually depicted as either misunderstood people that are only reacting to the trespasses of society, or they are ridiculous exaggerations of conservatives and liberty activists.

This trend has become an epidemic in films, television, video games, comic books, etc. Only in the past couple of years has there been mass push-back against the agenda, but there is a long way to go before things can change for the better.

Many of these woke productions fail miserably, but they aren’t necessarily interested in box office success or making money.

Again, what they care about is saturation, as well as murdering the hero archetype openly where everyone can see.

They want to destroy your heroes in front of you and replace them with woke pod people. This is what drives them.

The biggest problem is that most conservatives ignored the culture war while only focusing on fleeting political battles. They acted as if the culture war didn’t matter, and in the process we have almost lost our country completely.

Future generations need heroic ideals and examples to live by, among real live people as well as in popular media. By ignoring the culture war, conservatives ignored the future.

There are some people out there that are working to change our country’s course by producing original media with a heroic message based in American foundations of freedom, individualism, self reliance and meritocracy.

I’m working to join them by producing my own graphic novel project based on a survivalist hero. The best we have is Burt Gummer from Tremors – He’s great but we need more. Readers who are interested in original non-woke entertainment can learn more about that project HERE.

It’s important not to underestimate the power of media in culture. There is a reason why leftists are so obsessive with it; by changing all our heroes to villains they hope to change our values and our behaviors.

They aren’t just rewriting movies, or characters, or comic books, they are trying to rewrite us.

The only way to stop this is to identify the threat, neutralize the propaganda, and then bring back legitimate hero culture by writing it once again with our own hands and our own deeds.

We Are Witnessing What Happens When Unrestrained Youth Gets Power

From Madison reading Cato and Cicero when framing the Constitution to the outsized impact both Rome and America had on the world around them, the United States has long been associated with historical Rome. There are great similarities, and there can be much to learn—and what’s happening now does not reflect well on either historical Rome or America.

When most of us think of the worst emperors in Roman history we think of names like Commodus, Nero, Caligula, and Elagabalus. To a man they were vain, self-centered, bloodthirsty hedonists who took what they wanted and tortured and killed many thousands of Romans and provincials.

All emperors, including the great ones like Augustus, Trajan, and Aurelian had blood on their hands to one degree or another but most tried to maintain or grow the empire. Commodus et al didn’t. Their goal was to satiate their lusts, whether literal lust or gluttony or, sadly, bloodlust. While there were other bad emperors, these four are among the worst.

What makes this relevant today is the fact that all four of these “men” were spoiled, pampered, entitled sadists who were given free rein when they were still essentially children. Commodus was the oldest at 19, while Nero was 17, and both Elagabalus and Caligula were 16.

They were overindulged brats who never faced consequences for their behavior. They were given virtually anything they wanted or, just as often, allowed to take what they wanted with impunity. And at those ripe young ages, and with that upbringing, they were literally given the keys to the kingdom and unleashed on the Empire—and virtually everyone in it suffered as a result.

Every day in America we see modern-day Commoduses or Caligulas wreaking havoc on our streets and in our stores, restaurants, schools, and more. Instead of a single entitled Emperor, America in 2022 is being ravaged by a generation of young men—many of whom have grown up fatherless—who have been told that they can do and say anything they want and that, regardless of what they do, there will be no consequences for them.

Just as Elagabalus et al brought nothing but blood, despair, and dysfunction to the Empire, these 21st-century youth are bringing blood, despair, and destruction to America. A generation of Americans has grown up being given “time outs”, “participation trophies,” and grades that have nothing to do with actual academic success, while at the same time they’ve been told that all inequality is due to racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything other than individual choices or actions.

The consequence of this indoctrination is that far too many young Americans think they can do anything with impunity. If they want something they take it. If they’re mad about something they protest, disrupt the lives of everyone within shouting distance, and frequently riot. They assault, rape and, sometimes, even murder, increasingly with impunity.

Pat Moynihan predicted much of this 60 years ago in his “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” In it he “…described through pages of disquieting charts and graphs, the emergence of a “tangle of pathology,” including delinquency, joblessness, school failure, crime, and fatherlessness that characterized ghetto—or what would come to be called underclass—behavior.”

While most of the scenes of flash mobs, carjackings, Knock Out Game punches, subway shovings, and daily shootings involve black male youth, this is not a race issue. Yes, the problem is disproportionately black, but White and Hispanic America is increasingly experiencing the same challenges of unwed mothers, school failures, and the lack of responsibility that underpins much of the dysfunction.

Whether a California college student getting 6 months for rape, a Texas boy getting no jail time for killing four people in a car crash, or charges being dropped against a South Carolina boy for killing someone in a boat crash, unaccountable America spans across races, wealth, and indeed the country itself. This is nowhere better demonstrated than by the legions of rioters who participated in the “peaceful protests” of 2020 who found their charges dropped or their bails funded by the glitterati.

‘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

Explosive! Dutch Bank Links Customers’ Expenditure With CO2 Emissions

We’ve recently published articles about governments in Bologna, Vienna, Bavaria and Belgium making plans to implement social credit systems: those who consume less CO2 will be rewarded. In the Netherlands, starting on 22 April, the first Dutch bank, and possibly the first in Europe, is linking payment transactions with CO2 emissions.

explosive! dutch bank links customers’ expenditure with co2 emissions

Mastercard, in collaboration with a start-up, already has a credit card that monitors and automatically cuts off spending when purchases have reached their “carbon max” – an initiative praised by the World Economic Forum.

Now, the second-largest bank in the Netherlands, Rabobank, has begun to monitor CO2 emissions of every payment made.

rabobank customers gain insight into the co2 emissions of their purchases, 22 april 2022

Rabobank customers gain insight into the CO2 emissions of their purchases, 22 April 2022.

Rabobank does not want to go as far as Mastercard. Its new tool is voluntary and is being sold as a service and not as a disciplinary procedure … for now.

The bank’s CEO, Barbara Baarsma, said: “The goal is absolutely not to point the finger as a bank and act as an advisor.”

To sell the idea to the public Baarsma wraps the innovation in fluffy language: “We want to give people insight into their own behaviour and if they want to, they can adapt their behaviour.”

Baarsma is considered an “expert” in the Netherlands: she advises the Ministry of Health through “expert commissions” and often makes guest appearances in the media.

The bank is also already issuing vouchers to farmers who are doing something about CO2 emissions.

“We’re making consumers part of the solution, just as we are doing with sustainable farmers who can earn carbon credits by storing carbon in their fields. Together, our eight million private customers can make a difference and fight climate change by changing their consumer behaviour towards a lower CO2 footprint. For example, by buying other, less carbon-intensive foods, they also encourage supermarkets to offer more sustainable products,” Baarsma said.

She also advocates that in future the CO2 emissions should be indicated on the products in the supermarkets. That’s what people want, they want “well-informed decisions and transparency.”

“This is a good first step for the bank,” said Laurens Sloot, a professor of retail entrepreneurship at the University of Groningen, “as a consumer, you don’t know exactly what damage the products you buy are doing, and you certainly don’t have to pay extra for it.”

What neither the bank nor “scientists” have considered is that Europeans’ disposable income is slowly being eroded and Europeans will factor in the price of goods, not the CO2 emissions, when making a purchase.

Another crucial aspect neither the bank nor the “scientists” have considered is that changes in climate are not due to CO2.

CO2 – plant food, as generations of school children have been taught – is Earth’s greening gas.

The lie about CO2 is being perpetuated by World Economic Forum technocrats to further their agenda: “You will own nothing and you’ll be happy.” Notice the use of “you” and not “we” in their statement. Their agenda does not apply to them and not to all of us equally – initially, as is the case with all of the technocrats’ plans, the poorest will be hit hardest.

Source: DailyExpose.uk / Reference: New service: Bank links expenditure with CO2 consumption, TKP, 27 April 2022.

UK Government To Launch Digital ID Technology In April 22

The UK government is pushing ahead with its nationwide digital ID plans, despite half of the responses to its public consultation on digital identity opposing the idea.

uk government to launch digital id technology in april 22

Source

On April 6, 2022, new digital identity document verification technology (IDVT) that enables data sharing between public bodies and businesses for the purpose of identity verification will be introduced. It will be made available to UK employers, landlords, and letting agents who can use it to digitally carry out pre-employment criminal record checks, right to work checks, and right to rent checks.

The introduction of this digital IDVT is part of the government’s far-reaching digital ID plans which were announced in March. The government has framed these digital ID plans as a way for UK citizens to “easily and quickly prove their identity using digital methods instead of having to rely on traditional physical documents.”

Under these digital ID plans, UK citizens will be able to “create a digital identity with a trusted organisation” which can be used “in-person or online” and “via a phone app or website.” These trusted organisations will then be given a “legal gateway” to “carry out verification checks against official data held by public bodies to help validate a person’s identity.” The government will also allow the “trust” generated by a single successful digital identity check to be passed to other organisations “where appropriate.”

The trusted organisations that provide these digital identity solutions will need to get accredited and certified under legislation that the government plans to introduce. Once accredited and certified, they’ll be “given a trust mark to demonstrate their compliance and will be defined as being a trust-marked organisation.”

A new interim governing body, the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (ODIA), will be set up in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) and it will have the power to issue these trust marks. The ODIA will also publish a publicly viewable list of trust-marked organisations.

new legislation set to make digital identities more trustworthy and secure

Source

Other companies that rely on the digital identity solutions provided by trust-marked organizations won’t need to be certified but may be subject to “flow-down conditions” such as agreements to not share the information they receive.

Before announcing these digital ID plans, the government sought views and feedback on its proposed approach to digital identity via a public consultation.

50% of the responses to this consultation were “against digital identity in principle” but the government didn’t include these responses in its statistical analysis of responses to the consultation because they “did not engage with the questions.”

However, the government insisted that “outside the context of producing the statistical analysis, we have taken these responses into account as part of this consultation exercise.”

The government also admitted that some respondents feared that “digital identities are going to be made mandatory for all people” but dismissed these concerns as “false” and said it will seek feedback on how to “encourage more inclusive digital identities.”

“As set out in the consultation, there are no plans to make digital identities mandatory, but we recognise they are an emerging technology and people may not be fully aware of the privacy and security benefits,” the government said.

“Therefore we will take steps to increase understanding amongst potential users and engage with civil society groups to receive their expert feedback on how to increase inclusion, now and into the future.”

The government added that it’s “committed to ensuring” that “people will still be able to use available paper documentation.”

The government’s digital ID framework has completed alpha testing. The next steps are a beta publication followed by beta testing before the framework is formalized in legislation.

The government cited “positive feedback received about the ability to conduct right to work and right to rent checks remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic” as one of its reasons for initiating its review of digital ID technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government embraced jjab passports – a technology that shares many similarities with digital ID by requiring citizens to use a digital pass.

These jjab passports were used to scoop up large amounts of data from UK citizens, some of which was shared with private companies.

identity document validation technology in the right to work and right to rent schemes, and bs pre employment checking

Source

Vaccine passports are one of many examples of the UK government using or proposing the use of technology to surveil its citizens. Other examples include it secretly surveilling millions of COVID jjab recipients via their phones, proposing a social credit style app to encourage healthy eating, and proposing the increased use of surveillance drones to “protect” women.

Despite its history of surveillance, the government insists that this digital ID technology will have “strong security and privacy standards.”

The government’s digital ID plans were announced in the same month that the UK government’s Online Safety Bill began its legislative journey. This bill mandates the implementation of identity and age verification technology on many large online platforms.

This current attempt to introduce digital ID comes almost a decade after the UK government launched its 2013 digital ID project “Verify” which was blasted by the National Audit Office and internal Parliamentary committees for “failing the public” and missing all of its performance targets.

The Absolute HORRORS Of The Social Credit System That Is Coming To The Western World

A few years ago, in a book called The Game’s Afoot (published in 2018), the author wrote that the Chinese Government was giving people marks according to behavior. Its called social engineering, and citizens were being ranked and rated according to their behavior.

social credit system tyranny

‘ The Government,’ It said, ‘will measure people’s behavior in order to decide what services they are entitled to. Anyone who incurs black marks for traffic offences, fare dodging or jay walking will find that they are no longer entitled to the full range of public services and rights. Moreover, internet activity will also be used to assess behavior. Individuals who do bad things on the internet (or whose searches are considered questionable) will find themselves ‘black marked’. Individuals who have ‘responsible’ jobs will be subjected to enhanced scrutiny.’

It was called a social credit score and I wrote then that it was likely that Western Governments would soon follow suit.

And they are doing so with great enthusiasm. It might not have obviously reached your town just yet – but it will, oh it will.

China has led the way because the Chinese system is more ruthlessly efficient than anything the West can offer. The Chinese government has more control over everything and the people don’t have much control over anything.

It works very easily.

Everyone starts off with so many points.

And a smart app on every phone measures behavior and helps the authorities decide whether or not you are good citizen.

There are, of course, video cameras absolutely everywhere watching to see whether you cross the road at the wrong time, smoke in public, throw down litter or do anything considered anti-social or inappropriate. If you talk to the wrong sort of people you’ll find your credit rating goes down. Stand and talk to me and you’ll get black marks.

China has one camera for every two people and they’re equipped with facial recognition technology that can pick an individual out of a football crowd in less time than it takes to say `surely they can’t do that!’

Supermarket computers watch to see how much you spend on alcohol, cigarettes, sweets and fatty foods. You’ll lose points if you spend too much on the wrong sort of food.

Local authorities measure how much recycling you put out and cameras in the bins will tell computers how much food you’ve thrown away and how much excess packaging you’ve had to discard.

Of course, social credit scores are already here in the West and they have been introduced slowly.

In the UK for example, drivers of more expensive motor cars have to pay a special, massively increased tax to use a motor car on the roads. That’s a blatant punishment for spending a lot on a car.

On the other hand, citizens who drive electric cars do not have to pay anything towards the building, maintenance and repair of roads. They are exempt from the tax because they are `good’ citizens. Their cars use the roads just as much as cars which are powered with petrol or diesel but they are exempt. Drivers of petrol or diesel powered cars are punished for being `bad’ citizens and must pay ever-rising annual taxes to pay for the roads. The system ignores the fact that electric cars have been proven to be no better for the environment than petrol or diesel powered cars. Drive your car into a city and you’ll have to pay a special penalty.

If you live in a house that is bigger than you need then you will be marked down and your taxes will rise. If you have spare rooms you’ll be punished. If you do a useful job and give money to charity you’ll get extra points. If you criticise the Government then you’ll lose points.

When you’re away from home, the authorities will, of course, know where you are all the time.

Indeed, if you behave badly you won’t be allowed to go far from home. If you haven’t obeyed all the health regulations you won’t be allowed to travel on public transport, fly anywhere or go abroad.

If your social credit rating goes down you won’t be able to borrow money, buy a house or book a decent room in a hotel.

If your rating goes down too far you won’t be allowed to go into hospital, and if you get in by accident they’ll slam a Do Not Rescusitate notice around your neck before you can say `what’s that for?’

You’ll receive bonus points if you live in a tiny, modern, poorly built flat with thin walls and absolutely no privacy but you’ll lose those points if you keep a pet or complain about absolutely anything.

If you spend too much on clothes or shoes your rating will go down and saving money will mark you out as guilty of something or other and you won’t be able to hire a car, get a promotion at work, use a gym or get your children into a school with textbooks.

If you are a lot of trouble you’ll find that your internet speeds will slow to a crawl and if you have your own business and talk back to council officials you won’t get any help with planning problems or be able to obtain any official government contracts.

If you don’t dress appropriately when out in public or are spotted crossing the road when the lights are against you then you’ll be photographed and your picture displayed. If you have a row with a neighbour then your pictures will be put on a billboard near your home and you’ll be shamed. If you are late with your taxes you’ll be marked down for regular audits, your business will be inspected once a week and your picture will appear on a shame board on the internet. You’ll find it impossible to obtain licences, permits and loans you might need.

In restaurants the cameras will study your manners and your eating habits and the amount of food you leave on the plate – all likely to damage your social credit rating.

Snitches, sneaks, police officers and over-compliant government employees will mark you down for any sin of commission or omission.

And by now you probably think I’m making this up and I wish I were but I’m not. We’re not talking about the far distant future. We’re talking about the very new future.

You’ll receive points if you give blood, lose points if you associate with people with low scores, be punished if you spend frivolously or don’t praise the Government on social media.

Eating meat or indulging in unsuitable activities will result in a severe points loss, as will putting too much refuse into public bins. Facial recognition cameras in bins will see and punish you and reduce food credit.

Not having the correct number of children, being overweight and owning land will result in a loss of social credit points. In the UK the Office for National Statistics has already claimed that childless women will be a burden on the state because they’ll have no one to look after them).

Not having a smart meter will result in a loss of points as will any example of civil disobedience. Chronic sickness, mental illness, being old and being disabled will lose you points as will being arrested (it doesn’t matter whether you are found guilty).

Having too big a carbon footprint, being middle class or white or asking too many questions will all result in a loss of points as will being too protective of your family.

You’ll lose social credit points if you cause some `identity harm’, say something that makes someone feel uncomfortable about who they are, where they are from or what they look like – or don’t say something that causes them to feel good.

If you show any micro-aggression, exhibit white privilege or stir up hatred you’ll be punished. If you behave in a threatening or abusing or insulting manner you will be in trouble as you will if you communicate threatening abusive or insulting material to another person.

Your intention will be irrelevant. The complainant only has to say he was hurt. Writers, actors or film or stage directors could be charged if anyone finds any of their material offensive. Shakespearean plays won’t appear much in the future.

You probably think I’m really kidding now. If you do just check out what is happening in Scotland.

In the UK, the police now define a crime or incident as hateful based on the perception of the victim (and not on the intent of the offender).

Naturally, the police and politicians have been encouraging citizens to snitch on those breaking laws.

You can get into serious trouble for playing loud music or having trees in your garden. Trees are bad because they may interfere with communications and have no practical purpose. There will be no place for aesthetics or nature in the New World Order.

What else will be bad?

Eating on public transport, missing a medical appointment, parking in the wrong place, missing a job interview and jaywalking will all lose your points and make your life more difficult.

If you think I’ve gone mad you should know that cybersecurity experts have discovered that 32% of adults between 25 and 34 in 21 countries (a total of 10,000 individuals) have already had difficulty getting a mortgage or loan because of their social media activity.

So far around 4.5 billion people around the world use the internet and most have social media accounts.

A fairly scary survey found that two thirds of individuals are willing to share information about themselves or others to get a shopping discount while half are willing to do so if it helps them skip queues at airports. One in two individuals say they are happy for the government to monitor everyone’s social media behaviour if it means keeping the public safe.

Of course, it will be impossible to find out what your social credit score is, to find out exactly how scores are made up or to correct any error. And scores will be changed in real time. So you could join a queue thinking you are entitled to hire a car or board a train and find, when you get to the front of the queue that your rating has changed and you can’t do either of those things.

Governments, big companies and local authorities are already gathering information about you from facial recognition cameras, biometric studies at airports, drones, surveillance planes and social media. This is the technocratic state in full fly. Using a silly name or avatar on social media will provide you with absolutely no protection. They know exactly who stinkyfeet of Weymouth really is and they know the name, address and inside leg measurement of bumfluff from Colorado.

You can forget about privacy, freedom or rights.

We will soon all be living in China.

If one person in a family breaks the law, the whole family will be punished.

Taking an active part in a religious ceremony will result in punishment. You may, for example, be sent to an education and training centre where the inmates study political propaganda.

Every time you give information on line they are storing up information about you, your views, your personality and so on.

And there are so, so many ways in which your social credit score can be adversely affected.

If you drop rubbish in a public place you will be shamed and will lose points. In Thailand, tourists who drop rubbish in a national park must give their name and address. If they leave rubbish behind they are in trouble.

All this is known as social engineering. It’s something politicians have been trying to do for many years since, when it works, which it does, it gives them complete control over the population. There is no longer any need to worry about opposition or criticism.

In China, citizens who do `good’ things for the State and their community are rewarded by having their photographs and names on a local wall. This is exactly what I remember seeing in East Germany in the 1970s. And back then people vied with one another to please the State and win a place on the wall.

So, again, if you want to know the sort of society you and your children will live in then look at China now where what people do, say and think is being monitored.

But our future won’t be so free and easy as life in China is at the moment.

We are moving rapidly into a dystopian, digital dictatorship.

Good behaviour will be rewarded and bad behaviour punished. But who defines what is good and what is bad?

Geotracking is the new normal now. Your financial records are combined with your criminal record, academic record, medical record and shopping patterns. They’re keeping an eye on the type of friends you have, the videos you watch, the people you date or marry or meet.

This is Big Brother on speed

In the brave new world, those with a low credit score won’t be able to move an inch.

People who speak out about corruption or who question the propaganda will be punished. If they are fined then their fine will be higher because they are seen as bad people.

And it’s already all happening.

Computer games are training us for our future.

the author is banned in China because he wrote a column for a Chinese newspaper which was considered unacceptable. His books in Chinese were instantly removed from sale.

I leave you with this fact.

There are public loos in China which won’t let you in without first checking your face and identifying you. Only then will the machine dispense the small quantity of loo paper you are allowed.

How many sheets will you be allowed if you have a low credit score? Two? One? None at all?

You may be smiling now.

But see if you’re still smiling in twelve months’ time.

Vernon Coleman’s book Endgame: The Hidden Agenda 21 explains how we got here and where the conspirators are taking us. If you want the truth about the past, present and future then read Endgame.

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.”

73 Years Later, It’s Still ‘1984’

In October 1947 Eric Arthur Blair, known today by his pen name George Orwell, wrote a letter to the co-owner of the Secker & Warburg publishing house. In that letter, Orwell noted that he was in the “last lap” of the rough draft of a novel, describing it as “a most dreadful mess.”

Orwell had sequestered himself on the Scottish island of Jura in order to finish the novel. He completed it the following year, having transformed his “most dreadful mess” into “1984,” one of the 20th century’s most important novels.

70 years later, it’s still ‘1984’

Published in 1949, the novel turns 73 this year. The anniversary provides an opportunity to reflect on the novel’s significance and its most valuable but sometimes overlooked lesson.

The main lesson of “1984” is not “Persistent Surveillance is Bad” or “Authoritarian Governments Are Dangerous.” These are true statements, but not the most important message. “1984” is at its core a novel about language; how it can be used by governments to subjugate and obfuscate and by citizens to resist oppression.

Orwell was a master of the English language and his legacy lives on through some of the words he created. Even those who haven’t read “1984” know some of its “Newspeak.”

1984” provides English speakers with a vocabulary to discuss surveillance, police states and authoritarianism, which includes terms such as “Big Brother,” “Thought Police,” “Unperson” and “Doublethink,” to name a few.

The authoritarian government of Orwell’s Oceania doesn’t merely severely punish dissent — it seeks to make even thinking about dissent impossible. When Inner Party member O’Brien tortures “1984’s” protagonist, Winston Smith, he holds up his hand with four fingers extended and asks Smith how many fingers he sees.

When Smith replies, “Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!” O’Brien inflicts excruciating pain. After Smith finally claims to see five fingers, O’Brien emphasizes that saying “Five” is not enough; “’No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four.”

Orwell’s own name inspired an adjective, “Orwellian,” which is widely used in modern political rhetoric, albeit often inappropriately.

It’s usually our enemies who are acting Orwellian, and it’s a testament to Orwell’s talents that everyone seems to think “1984” is about their political opponents.

The political left sees plenty of Orwellian tendencies in the White House and the criminal justice system. The political right bemoans “Thought Police” on college campuses and social media companies turning users into “Unpersons.”

But politicians can lie without being Orwellian, and a private company closing a social media account is nothing like a state murdering someone and eliminating them from history.

Likewise, perceived academic conformity might be potentially stifling, but it’s hardly comparable to a conformity enforced by a police state that eliminates entire words from society.

Yet when U.S. government officials use terms such as “enhanced interrogation,” “alternative facts,” “collateral damage,” or “extremists” they understand that what they’re describing is actually “torture,” “lies,” “innocent civilian deaths” and “political dissidents.”

They prefer it if others, especially the press, used and believed in Orwellian language that dehumanizes enemies of the government and makes their horrific violence sound tolerable or even justified.

We see far more nefarious and barbaric distortions of language abroad. According to reports by activists and researchers, the Chinese state has put about 1 million people including many Uyghurs — a majority-Muslim ethnic group — in “re-education” camps.

Reports reveal that the camps are hardly schools. They’re brutal indoctrination sites, with inmates forced to recite Communist Party propaganda and renounce Islam.

North Korea, the country that comes closest to embodying “1984,” has hampered its citizens’ abilities to think for themselves with a disheartening measure of success.

In her memoir, North Korean defector Yeonmi Park describes discovering the richness of South Korea’s vocabulary, noting “When you have more words to describe the world, you increase your ability to think complex thoughts.”

It’s hardly surprising that when Park read Orwell’s classic allegorical novel “Animal Farm” she felt as if Orwell knew where she was from.

Orwell was not a prophet, but he identified a necessary feature of any successful authoritarian government. To control you effectively it can’t merely threaten death, imprisonment or torture. It’s not enough for it to ban books and religions.

As long as the state doesn’t dominate your consciousness, it’s under constant risk of overthrow. We shouldn’t fear the U.S. turning into Orwell’s dystopian nightmare just yet, but at a time when political dishonesty is rampant we should remember 1984’s most important lesson: The state can occupy your mind.

Dystopian: China Introduces ‘AI Prosecutor’ That Can Automatically Charge Citizens Of A Crime

While in the West mostly speech and movement of people are policed through automated “AI” censorship and surveillance systems, in China, work appears to be well under way to create a machine that would act as an AI-powered prosecutor.

dystopian china introduces 'ai prosecutor' that can automatically charge citizens of a crime

The product, which has already been tested by the busy Shanghai Pudong prosecutor’s office, is able to achieve 97 percent accuracy in charging people suspected of eight criminal acts, researchers developing it have alleged.

According to the South China Morning Post, the cases that the “AI prosecutor” is allegedly highly competent in handling involve crimes like credit card fraud, dangerous driving, gambling, intentional injury, obstructing officials, theft, but also something called “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”

The last one is considered particularly “problematic” since its definition, or lack thereof, can cover different forms of political dissent.

And now the plan is to introduce a machine that would be given decision-making powers, such as whether to file charges, and what sentence to seek on a case-to-case basis.

That, said Professor Shi Yong, who heads the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ big data and knowledge management lab that is behind the project, is a marked difference between this and other “AI” tools that have already been in use in China for years.

One of them is System 206, whose tasks are limited to assessing evidence, the danger a suspect poses to the public, and conditions under which they may be apprehended.

But the tech behind the new artificial prosecutor looks to be at the same time far more ambitious, and advanced. What has been disclosed is that it can be run on a desktop PC, processing 1,000 traits extracted from case description filed by humans, and based on that press a charge.

It’s unclear if the database of 17,000 cases spanning five years used to train the algorithms is enough to consider the project as true AI – and if the same result can be achieved by rule-based algorithms.

Either way, not all human prosecutors are thrilled about having some of their workload replaced in this way – although precisely this has been given as the motive for developing the tech.

“The accuracy of 97 per cent may be high from a technological point of view, but there will always be a chance of a mistake. Who will take responsibility when it happens? The prosecutor, the machine or the designer of the algorithm?,” one Guangzhou-based prosecutor noted, speaking on condition of anonymity.

George Orwell’s 1984 (Eric Arthur Blair) Will Be Re-Written To Be Politically Correct And Fit The Agenda

You know what George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984 needs?

A politically correct modern day re-write from a feminist perspective.

Said no one ever.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the 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.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Truth Bombs About The Feminist Agenda

Unfortunately, feminism was never about women’s rights. The Rockefeller Foundation sought to achieve multiple goals through the feminist movement, such as:

1). Depopulation by destroying the traditional family and having less kids as a result (statistically, there are more divorces than ever, even though less people than ever are getting married. Consequently, the Western population is in steep decline – which means that the plan was a resounding success).

2). Indoctrinating children in schools from a very early age, and destabilising society as a resul (this is according to Nicholas “Nick” Rockefeller himself) – before feminism, many kids were either home schooled by their mothers, or they would be sent to school later, and the curriculum was closely monitored by their mothers. Because both parents had to work a 9-5 job, the kids were sent to school earlier, and because the family was too busy working, the school became their main family. Of course, the curriculum deteriorated with each passing year, and we all know what abominations are being taught in schools today.

3). Taxing women and doubling the work force – double the work force, double the taxation, and double the income that was being pumped back into the economy.

We’ve all been lied to, people! If you really think about it, the women have actually been enslaved, not liberated. They’ve been put to work for eight hours a day, five days a week, until they’re 60. And today, all people are currency slaves, regardless of sex. What a sham!

Reference: YouTube.com