How the 1993 Movie “Demolition Man” Perfectly Predicted (and Ridiculed) Today’s Society

The movie Demolition Man takes place in 2032, in an oppressive society managed by a tyrannical doctor who rose to power after an epidemic and social unrest. Watching this movie today is an eerie experience as the “jokes” of the past are the realities of today. Here’s a look at the incredible predictions made by this movie made 30 years ago.

When I want to relax and take my mind off things, I like to watch movies from the 20th century, especially the 1980’s & 1990’s. As someone who grew up in this 80’s, immersing myself in 80’s/90’s nostalgia is like a balm to my soul. I mean, everything back then was better. Fun things were fun. Cool things were cool. And, in my opinion, society was just saner and happier.

So when I recently came across the 1993 movie Demolition Man, I could not resist. Is there anything more 90’s than Wesley Snipes fighting Sylvester Stallone while wearing denim overalls?

But watching this movie in 2022 ended up being a bizarre, mind-bending experience.

First, the movie takes place in 2032, which is only ten years from now. In other words, we are currently much closer to the “future” of the movie than to the year it was actually made. Second, the “future” depicted in the movie pinpoints, with near-prophetic accuracy, everything wrong in society right now. And it is ridiculing it – as if it is laughing at us from the past.

In Demolition Man, a tyrannical doctor oversees a tightly controlled “utopia”, where every aspect of life is monitored and heavily regulated. Sylvester Stallone’s character, who was cryogenically frozen since 1997, barges into that future and hates every single part of it. So I’m sitting there, trying to relive the 90’s by watching a movie, realizing that the movie is about a dude in 2032 who wants to go back to the 90’s. It’s all rather mind-bending.

While I like to idealize the 90’s, a lot of today’s tendencies originated from that decade. At the time of the movie’s release, political correctness was bourgeoning in media, technology was leaping into the information age, AIDS was a worrying epidemic and Los Angeles was the site of social unrest. Through comedy and satire, Demolition Man depicted a future where a tyrannical figure exploits these elements to an absurd degree to usher in a “brave new world”. And we’re living it now. And, in some ways, our “future” is worse than what we see in the movie.

Demolition Man is the only movie directed by Marco Brambilla, an artist who is mostly known for his elaborate art installations, his works are rife with symbolism. This is one of his latest art installations.

A portion of Marco Brambilla’s Heaven’s Gate (2021). Symbolism overload.

The artwork above is described as a “deconstruction of Hollywood”. About thirty years ago, Brambilla was actually directing a Hollywood movie. And, after being dismissed as a mediocre action flick, Demolition Man went on to become a visionary cautionary tale against the dystopian tendencies of the elite.

Here’s a look at Demolition Man and its astounding predictions about today.

Prophetic Movie

In Demolition Man, a violent criminal named Simon Phoenix (played by Wesley Snipes) is sentenced to be cryogenically frozen for 70 years. In 2032, he is thawed for his parole hearing but he ends up escaping the facility.

Phoenix finds himself in a “utopian”, non-violent future where guns are banned (they can only be found in museums). At one point, he sums up the situation:

“The year is 2032. And I’m sorry to say that the world has become a p*ssy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself run by a bunch of robbed sissies”.

Everyone in the future wear robes. Other than a nod to globalism, the movie predicted the “gender-blurring” fashion that is happening now.

“Fashion” in 2022.

In a world filled with “robbed sissies”, nobody can stop Phoenix from destroying everything. So the police force decides to thaw John Spartan (played by Sylvester Stallone), an old-school police dude who was also cryogenically frozen in 1997 due to accusations of involuntary manslaughter.

When Spartan integrates the police force, he’s immediately at odds with the oppressive ways of this new society.

There are machines everywhere listening to what people say. When someone says something bad, the machine emits a buzzing noise and says: “You are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute”. In this scene, Spartan keeps insulting the machine so he can use the fines to wipe his butt with them.

What better way of representing today’s anti-free speech climate, where any violation of the “morality code” dictated by the elite results in immediate punishment, censorship, and cancellation?

Spartan also discovers that everyone has a microchip sewn into their skin. Including himself.

The chip is required to accomplish anything in San Angeles, including entering one’s own home. Since money is outmoded, all transactions are done using the chip.

Watching this movie in 2022, it is impossible not to draw parallels with vaccine passports which are, in many places, required to participate in society. Of course, there are efforts to turn these passports into chips.

A recent headline about a Swedish company developing a microchip vaccine passport.

When Spartan learns about the chip, he says “this fascist crap makes me puke”. Yup, back in the 90s, people could recognize fascist crap when they saw it. As Spartan discovers this “brave new world”, he also learns about how it all came to be. And it’s eerily similar to what happened in real life.

Order Out of Chaos

In 2032, the city of San Angeles (born from the merger of Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego) is under the control of Dr. Cocteau, a tyrannical figure who uses science and technology to create a “perfect” society. In Dr. Cocteau’s city, everything that is bad for you is illegal: Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat, bad language, chocolate, gasoline, non-educational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal but so is pregnancy … unless you have a license.

Also, physical contact between humans is forbidden.

A recurring joke in the movie is the contactless “handshake”.

With that being said, he’s a recent headline from real life.

I’m not saying that Dr. Fauci is Dr. Cocteau from Demolition Man, but let’s say that the similarities are stunning.

Left: Dr. Cocteau. Right: Dr. Fauci.

In this contactless society, the best way to run meetings is through … Zoom calls.

One of the many accurate technological predictions made in Demolition Man.

At one point, John Spartan discovers the full extent of the no-touching policy.

Spartan’s co-worker Lenina Huxley (named after Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World) asks him to have sex. When he agrees, she hands him a “vir-sex’ device.

When one watches this scene in 2022, one automatically thinks: Those are VR devices. However, none of these things really existed in 1993. At that time, the height of technology was the Super Nintendo.

Spartan hates this device and wants to do it with Huxley the good old-fashioned way. Huxley refuses and explains to him how a series of epidemics and “variants” lead to the banning of “fluid transfer”.

“The rampant exchange of bodily fluids was one of the major reasons for the downfall of society. After AIDS, there was NRS. After NRS, there was UBT. One of the first things Dr. Coteau did was to outlaw and behaviorally engineer all fluid transfer out of societally acceptable behavior. Not even mouth transfer is condoned. (…)

With that being said, here’s a recent headline from Canada’s “top doctor”.

This is not satire.

Huxley also explains how procreation is regulated in 2032.

Procreation? We go to a lab. Fluids are purified, screened, and transferred by medical personnel only. It is the only legal way.”

With that being said, here’s a very recent headline.

People are actually discussing synthetic wombs right now.

Demolition Man also satirizes popular culture being destroyed by political correctness. Indeed, people in 2032 are so sensitive and infantilized that the only music they listen to are “mini-tunes” – short commercial jingles with absolutely no content. In one scene, Spartan’s co-workers sing the Armour Hot Dogs jingle in the car:

“Fat kids, skinny kids, kids of climb on rocks. Though kids, sissy kids, even kids with chicken pox love hot dogs”.

Upon watching this scene, I came to a mind-blowing realization: If the Armour Hot Dog jingle played today on the radio, some people would actually be offended by it. They would request its censorship. In other words, this satirical example of the least offensive song possible would still be considered offensive today. We’re beyond satire.

While Spartan hates every aspect of this new society, he discovers that some people are rebelling against it.

The Resistance

Living underneath San Angeles is a group of dirty rebels who oppose Dr. Cocteau’s rule.

The un-chipped rebels in the movie are complete outcasts from society. They are reminiscent of today’s unvaccinated people who are banned from public places because they have no passports. They are also reminiscent of those who are vilified because they want the freedoms that existed in the 20th century.

At one point, the leader of the rebels tells Spartan:

“See, according to Cocteau’s plan, I’m the enemy. Because I like to think. I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice”.

Could this be more relevant today? Of course, Cocteau hates these people. He calls them:

“Outcasts and deserters who choose to live beneath us in sewers and abandoned tunnels. They’re a constant irritation to our harmony”.

We eventually discover that Cocteau programmed Simon Phoenix to kill the rebels and stop their revolution. In other words, Dr. Cocteau used Phoenix as a mind-controlled patsy to take care of his dirty work. This happens in real life.

When Dr. Cocteau exposes the full extent of his plan, Simon Phoenix becomes disgusted and says:

“Look, you can’t take away people’s rights to be *ssholes.”

So, even the “bad guy” of the movie values freedom.

Then, Jesse Damn Ventura shoots Dr. Cocteau and rids the world of his awfulness

Eventually, John Spartan destroys Simon Phoenix and his gang of thugs. Then, in a new world, free from Dr. Cocteau’s rule, people ask Spartan what they should do next. As usual, Sylvester Stallone imparts the world with precious words of wisdom. He tells the brainwashed citizens to “get a little dirtier”. Then, he tells the rebels to “get a lot cleaner”. Then, he says:

“Somewhere in the middle, I don’t know, you’ll figure it out.”

And he’s right. Extreme oppression leads to extreme resistance. This is happening now. I say we stop everything, go back to how we were in the 1990’s, and try again.

The movie ends with a big, fat exchange of fluids. Sanity is back.

In Conclusion

The movie Demolition Man is probably the most predictive sci-fi movie I’ve ever seen. It also predicted self-driving electric cars that look exactly like Teslas, Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming a politician, people conversing with Alexa/Siri-type machines, the widespread use of biometrics and artificial intelligence, the disappearance of small restaurants to be replaced by monopolistic chains, and much more. All of this was pure science fiction in 1993. But it could happen if society took a specific direction. And it did.

The future depicted in Demolition Man was meant as satire. It was basically a warning saying: “Here’s how things could end up if we’re not careful”. Today, which is ten years from the movie’s “future”, we can easily say that the satire has become reality. The jokes of the film have become our annoying reality.

The COVID pandemic allowed unelected “doctors” to rule every aspect of our lives and dictate oppressive policies. QR codes and microchips are creeping into our everyday lives. Opinions and attitudes that do not fit the current orthodoxy are immediately censored and punished. General manliness and womanliness are frowned upon and deemed undesirable.

While we are being conditioned to think that all of this is normal, IT IS NOT. Demolition Man is like a distant voice from the past telling us:

This fascist crap makes me puke!

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.

The Great Reset Aims To End Freedom Of The Press, Speech, And Expression

Governments, corporations, and elites have always been fearful of the power of a free press, because it is capable of exposing their lies, destroying their carefully crafted images, and undermining their authority.

In recent years, alternative journalism has been growing and more people are relying on social media platforms as sources of news and information.

In response, the corporate state, digital conglomerates, and the mainstream media have been increasingly supportive of the silencing and censoring of alternative media outlets and voices that challenge the official narrative on most issues.

At the recent World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, “Australian eSafety commissioner” Julie Inman Grant stated that “freedom of speech is not the same thing as a free for all,” and that “we are going to need a recalibration of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online—from freedom of speech … to be free from online violence.”

Meanwhile, the Canadian government is seeking to restrict independent media and the freedom of expression via the implementation of Bill C-11, which would allow it to regulate all online audiovisual platforms on the internet, including content on Spotify, Tik Tok, YouTube, and podcast clients.

Similarly, the UK is seeking to introduce an Online Safety Bill, the US “paused” the establishment of a Disinformation Governance Board following backlash, and the European Union approved its own Digital Services Act, all of which aim to limit the freedom of speech. Attempts by elites and politicians to silence dissenters and critical thinkers is not something new.

In fact, history is full of examples of “the persecution of men of science, the burning of scientific books, and the systematic eradication of the intelligentsia of the subjected people.”1

However, these current efforts to curtail freedom of speech and press by supposedly liberal governments are still somewhat ironic, given that even “the most intolerant of churches, the Roman Catholic Church, even at the canonization of a saint, admits, and listens patiently to, a ‘devil’s advocate.’

The holiest of men, it appears, cannot be admitted to posthumous honors, until all that the devil could say against him is known and weighed.”2

The corporate state, digital conglomerates, and the mainstream media want to ensure that they have the exclusive authority to dictate people’s opinions, wants, and choices through their sophisticated propaganda techniques. To do so, they have even resorted to transforming falsehoods into truth.

In fact, the word truth has already had its original meaning altered, as those who speak the truth on certain subjects are now regularly accused of spreading hate speech, misinformation, and disinformation.

Presently, truth is no “longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort, and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organised effort require it.”3

However, modifying the definition of truth comes with the potential for great peril, as truth-seeking often contributes to human progress in that it leads to discoveries that ultimately benefit society at large. It should be noted that truth is by no means the only word whose meaning has been changed recently in order for it to serve as an instrument of propaganda; others include freedom, justice, law, right, equality, diversity, woman, pandemic, jjab, etc..

This is highly concerning, because such attempts at the “perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals” of the ruling class are expressed is a consistent feature of totalitarian regimes.4

As a number of liberal-democratic governments increasingly move toward totalitarianism, they want people to forget that there is “the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.”5

According to them, “public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support.”6

In fact, they believe that all views and opinions that might cast doubt or create hesitation need to be restricted in all disciplines and on all platforms. This is because “the disinterested search for truth cannot be allowed” when “the vindication of the official views becomes the sole object” of the ruling class.7

In other words, the control of information is practiced and the uniformity of views is enforced in all fields under totalitarian rule.

The suppression of freedom of the press, speech, expression, and thought means that current and future generations will be “deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”8

They are also at risk of becoming ignorant of the fact that the only way in which a person can know “the whole of a subject” is by “hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind.”9

That is to say, current and future generations will be unaware that “the steady habit of correcting and completing” one’s own “opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it.”10

At present, it is likely that the masses do not regard freedom of the press, speech, expression, and thought as being particularly important, because “the great majority are rarely capable of thinking independently, that on most questions they accept views which they find ready-made, and that they will be equally content if born or coaxed into one set of beliefs or another.”11

Nevertheless, no one should have the power and authority to “select those to whom” freedom of thought, enlightenment and expression is to be “reserved.”12

In fact, John Stuart Mill went so far as to claim that “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”13

He further added that silencing the expression of an opinion is essentially an act of “robbing the human race,” which applies to both current and future generations.14

Even though the suppressors can deny the truth to people at a particular point in time, “history shows that every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present.”15

If current efforts to suppress freedom of the press, speech, expression, and thought succeed, then the search for truth will eventually be abandoned and totalitarian authorities will decide what “doctrines ought to be taught and published.”16 There will be no limits to who can be silenced, as the control of opinions will be extended to all people in all fields.

Accordingly, contemporary authoritarian policy makers need to be reminded about the crucial importance of freedom of speech, expression, and thought, which the US Supreme Court recognized in the 1957 case Sweezy v. New Hampshire when it ruled that:

“to impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made…. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise, our civilization will stagnate and die…. Our form of government is built on the premise that every citizen shall have the right to engage in political expression and association.

“This right was enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Exercise of these basic freedoms in America has traditionally been through the media of political associations…. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, who innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted. Mere unorthodoxy or dissent from the prevailing mores is not to be condemned. The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society.”

• 1. F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (New York: Routledge 2006), p. 168.
• 2. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2001), p. 22.
• 3. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 167.
• 4. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 161.
• 5. Mill, On Liberty, p. 21.
• 6. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 164.
• 7. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 165.
• 8.  Mill, On Liberty, p. 19.
• 9. Mill, On Liberty, p. 22.
• 10. Mill, On Liberty, p. 22.
• 11. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 168.
• 12. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 168.
• 13. Mill, On Liberty, p. 18.
• 14. Mill, On Liberty, p. 19.
• 15. Mill, On Liberty, p. 20.
• 16. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 165.

The US Is Dying, Can We Save Her?

“Liberty must at all hazards be supported.  We have a right to it, derived from our maker.   But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us,  at the expense of their ease,  their estates, their pleasure and their blood.”     – John Adams “Timid men…prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty. ”     – Thomas Jefferson “The people…are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. ”    – Thomas Jefferson ” A constitution of government once changed from freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. ”   – John Adams “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right … and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible,  divine right to that most dreaded and envied king of knowledge, I mean of the characters and  conduct of their rulers. ”   – John Adams

The above quotes are from two of our early presidents.  They ran against each other in 1800… In what is sometimes referred to as the “Revolution of 1800,” Vice President Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party defeated one-term incumbent President John Adams of the Federalist Party.  Jefferson served two terms.

I recently read Glynn Adams wonderful article, True Biblical Christianity .  It made me weep because he was so right. I had just one caveat.  It started long before Saul Alinsky; he was just another cog in the 175-year-old wheel promoting the replacement of a free capitalist society with a Marxist one.  In 1848, European communists immigrated to America after failing to implant socialism in Europe.  By 1860 they were flourishing.  There were 13 high ranking officers in the Union Army who were avowed Marxist/Engels communists.  The war was not over slavery, it was over economics to be exact, and 700,000 American citizens died because of that vile and unconstitutional war.  The abhorrent evil of slavery was already on its way out as well it should have been. But that unconstitutional war was the watershed event that changed America forever.  

Karl Marx wrote to Lincoln many times urging Lincoln to use the slavery issue as it would give America a centralized federal government in order to secure a birthplace for communism to easily be spread.  Apparently, Lincoln wrote back to him. Yet, diaries of both northern and southern soldiers kept asking, “Why is slavery being brought into this?”  

That watershed event has led to what our country has become today, and the totalitarian tyranny that has taken hold of our once great nation, the “land of the free and home of the brave.”

America’s Public Education

In 1880, John Dewey’s progressive education was blooming.  Later, John Rockefeller Jr. was enamored with Dewey (no relation to the Dewey of the decimal system) and sent all four of his sons to the progressive school Dewey had birthed.  Every one of them was not only dyslexic but they were functionally illiterate (lack of phonics).  One of those sons was a heartbeat away from the presidency when he was VP under Gerald Ford.  Nelson Rockefeller couldn’t read, and when he gave a speech, he’d come out and lay a bunch of papers on the dais and then proceed to tell the audience that he had prepared a speech, but was going to speak from his heart.  He hired Soviet Agent Henry Kissinger to read to him.

That was the death knell of American academic teaching and the destruction of our youth, which in 1932 was well on its way to a coalition of Marxist thinking and collectivism.  Then came teachers’ unions…you know the rest of the story, by the 50s McCarthy knew we were infiltrated, so the communists destroyed him.  (For a look at the communist planners of the early 1930s, purchase the book, The Turning of the Tides , originally published in 1953. And for the truth of Senator Joe McCarthy, read M. Stanton Evans’ Blacklisted by History .)

Morality

Morality is gone, the filth paraded down the streets of America used to hide in the back alleys, and is now on full display, even to our kindergarten children.  The perversion and fetid noxiousness of this sewage emanates directly from the very pit of hell.  It has been growing for many decades in America and started long ago…does not our Lord call it an abomination in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament!?  And these perversions are on display in American politics for all the world to see.  Nearly every corporation has exploded with praise for “Pride Month!”  Pride in perversion and disgusting and filthy activities now claimed by our culture to be normal.  Even L.L. Bean has promoted Pride Day with the stolen rainbow promise of our Lord on their goods.

The Rule of Law

Although the preamble to the Constitution begins with “We the people,” the word “democracy” (mob rule) is not mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance is “to the Republic for which it stands.” We are supposed to be a nation of laws, “rule of law” rather than “mob rule.”  One of the inherent weaknesses in a government based  only  on the will of the people is the potential for  mob rule . This was often the downfall of direct democracies, where all the people decided on public matters directly rather than through representatives. We were created as a  representative Republic , not a democracy .

Law, that precious thing of justice is now also gone.  Daily we see examples of charges being thrust against the innocents forcing them to lose their savings and livelihoods to defend themselves.  There are so many examples, one cannot possibly list them all, but there are obvious truths blaring to the nation that those with eyes to see and ears to hear know only too well.  

Trump was innocent of charges, but the Stalinist leftists continue to harass him with charges that are unconscionable and serve only to cover over their sins while their comrades in the media continue the harangue of outright lies and prevarications. And Trump wasn’t the only one…General Michael T. Flynn suffered for three and a half years under this tyranny.  Roger Stone is still suffering because of the fraudulent charges against him and the loss of his savings and livelihood.  Both were fortunately pardoned by President Trump.  Today it’s Peter Navarro being harassed and led away from the airport in handcuffs and chains.  An unnecessary show of tyrannical force for the public.

Hunter Biden is free, the illegitimate president in our White House is not being impeached for his failure to protect America. Forty Billion taxpayer dollars has been sent to the fascist nation of Ukraine and you certainly understand just whose pockets the kickbacks will end up in.  Inflation is skyrocketing, food plants are burned to the ground, the southern border is flooded with elements of danger for American citizens.  It is an invasion the president is supposed to protect us from, but ignores his constitutional oath and duties in order to bring to us the “Great Reset.”

Durham continues his pseudo attempts at being an investigator who will bring justice and we all know that will never happen.  Hillary’s campaign lawyer, Michael Sussman was acquitted of lying to the FBI because the trial was held in the democratic conclave of DC.  That same conclave will find all Republicans guilty, i.e., Roger Stone.

The illegal and murderous actions of the last two years have served to destroy America’s people and rip the guts from our unalienable Bill of Rights.  Few complained, they mostly complied. The American public acquiesced their freedoms and the societal impact of group think, or mass formation psychosis was parroted from the demonic entities hired by Task Force head, Benedict Arnold Pence.  

Muzzling the Pulpits 

The muzzling of the clergy was done through the Lyndon Baines Johnson Amendment of 1954.  Johnson had faced political difficulties and attacks from organizations in his home state of Texas.  So LBJ proposed the amendment to the tax code that has greatly restricted the free speech of pastors and churches on July 2, 1954. 100 Cong. Rec. 9604 (daily ed. July 2, 1954). The words “in opposition to” were added in 1986.  Ass’n of the Bar of the City of N.Y. v. Comm’r , 858 F.2d 876,879 (2d Cir. 1988). 

“The IRS rule that strips tax exemption from churches engaged in electioneering was born of Lyndon Johnson’s Texas politics, not the U.S. Constitution,” Larry Witham, Texas politics blamed for ’54 IRS rule LBJ wanted to keep Senate seat, WASH. TIMES, Aug. 27, 1998 (discussing a study done by James Davidson, a Purdue University sociologist).

Unbelievably, it passed and it was not clear why Congress even enacted it .  There was little to no debate over the amendment or how it would even influence churches, so I suspect backroom finagling went on just as it has for over 175 years and as it is today.

For the first century and a half our nation had a tradition of our clergy being involved in the political activities of the day.  It was commonplace for preachers and rabbis to speak of candidates and issues.  But that was stopped by LBJ, who had also cheated to gain the Senate seat which he had actually lost to former Governor Coke Stevenson.  Link Check out History of the 501(c)3 .

The IRS Gov website states, “Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative ( lobbying ) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see  Political and Lobbying Activities . For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article  Lobbying Issues PDF ; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic  Election Year Issues PDF .”

So, if a church or organization has received tax exempt status as well as the ability to deduct your charity giving from your income tax, then you best keep your mouth shut about any political activities.  Otherwise, you’ll be harassed into closure if you disobey these draconian and censorial laws.

Political Sermons of the American Founding Era

How different the sermons and papers were from 1730 to 1805, the founding era of our country.  Ellis Sandoz’ edition of the 1600-page book of political sermons from that era is still available here .  They are starkly different than any you’d hear today from any of our clergy.

In 1800, Tunis Wortman wrote to his Christian readers and his entire address can be read in full here .  In this letter, he is defending Thomas Jefferson against the charge of deism.

Here is just one paragraph of that momentous tome:

I address you upon the most solemn and momentous subjects which can interest the mind-religion and liberty. I consider you in the capacity of believers and patriots, as equally anxious to maintain every inestimable right which appertains to Christians and to men. You have a religion which deserves your pious solicitude; but need I to remind you that you likewise have a country! Are you to be told that your duty, as Christians, is irreconcilable with the sacred obligations which bind you to the state? Are you at this day to be solemnly and seriously called upon to sacrifice your freedom upon the altars of your God? No, my countrymen, your religion is inestimable and worthy of your care. Your civil constitution is also invaluable. It is the palladium of all your social blessings, and the peculiar gift of providence. Your obligations to your children, to your country, and to heaven, command you to defend that constitution. With a voice too powerful to be resisted, they conjure you to cling to, and fasten upon it, “with the last strong hold which grapples into life.”

Conclusion

We have lost so much in these 235 years of America.  Our country was founded by great statesmen, men of letters and men of faith, men who desired freedom and liberty at all costs.  We have failed to defend what they gave us.  It is way past time for all good men to stand for freedom, liberty, justice, morality, academic education and true God given Judeo and Christian faiths.   

July 4 th is upon us…Independence Day, where our founders threw off the chains of taxation and control from Great Britain and fought for our own independence from tyranny.  It is time to take to the battle once again.  The cost is even higher this time, but if we wait much longer, our fate will be decided and the losses will be greater than those we’re seeing today.

Please take a stand against this Luciferian evil which has permeated our beloved nation.  Too many have died to save her, let them not have died in vain.

Canada Moves To Make Asset Freezing Under Emergencies Act Permanent & Their Justice Minister Says Trump Supporters Should Worry About Having Their Bank Accounts Frozen

Canada has moved to make the asset freezing part of its Emergencies Act, which was used to target supporters of the Freedom Convoy protests, a permanent fixture.

Wow, who saw that one coming?

In order to stop what the Trudeau regime referred to as “illegal blockades,” the government threatened to freeze the bank accounts of demonstrators and anyone who donated money to them.

Under the Emergencies Act, bank are required to freeze accounts without a court order, while all crowdfunding platforms and payment providers are mandated to provide information to FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada).

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that many of the measures imposed ‘temporarily’ to deal with the protesters (after they had been suitably demonized as violent extremists) will now become permanent.

Trudeau’s deputy, Chrystia Freeland, who is also a director of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, says she plans to make her emergency powers permanent. pic.twitter.com/g8JTCwzmqX

— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 19, 2022

“We used all the tools that we had prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act and we determined we needed some additional tools,” Freeland announced

“Some of those tools we will be putting forward measures to put those tools permanently in place. The authorities of FINTRAC, I believe, do need to be expanded to cover crowdsourcing platforms and payment platforms,” she added.

Ronald Reagan has been proven right again.

“Nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program.”

Meanwhile, as we previously highlighted, such measures are likely to exclude protected classes (basically anyone who isn’t a native Canadian or white), with groups such as immigrants and refugees enjoying an exemption.

Canada’s Justice Minister Says Trump Supporters Should Worry About Having Their Bank Accounts Frozen

ADRIAN WYLD via Getty Images

Canada’s Justice Minister David Lametti says Trump supporters who donated money to the Canadian Freedom Convoy should “be worried” about having their bank accounts frozen.

Lametti made the obscene comment during an interview with CTV after he compared someone financially supporting the truckers to funding a terrorist movement.

“You just compared people who may have donated to this to the same people who maybe are funding a terrorist,” the reporter stated. “I just want to be clear here, sir. A lot of folks say, ‘Look, I just don’t like your jjab mandates and I donated to this, now it’s illegal, should I be worried that the bank can freeze my account?’ What’s your answer to that?”

“Well, I think if you are a member of a pro-Trump movement who’s donating hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars to this kind of thing, they oughta be worried,” responded Lametti.

SHOCK: Trudeau’s justice minister says that being “pro-Trump” is a factor that will decide if your bank account is seized under their Emergency Orders. https://t.co/Ez5GPgvup1

— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) February 17, 2022

Earlier this week, the Trudeau regime warned that anyone who supported or donated to the Freedom Convoy protest could have their bank account frozen under an emergency powers law.

“This is about following the money. This is about stopping the financing of these illegal blockades,” Trudeau’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said during a press conference on Monday. “We are today serving notice if your truck is being used in these illegal blockades your corporate accounts will be frozen.”

Lametti also threatened the truckers, who are protesting against jjab mandates, with the loss of their licenses if they continued to participate in the demonstration.

Trudeau's Justice Minister, David Lametti, warns truck owners involved in the convoy protest that “you may now actually lose your trucking licence”.

See our coverage at https://t.co/DEN7zzSz9G pic.twitter.com/dwou2oRB2C

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) February 17, 2022

The Canadian government’s demonization of the trucker protest as an extremist movement incited the GiveSendGo hack, which revealed the names of 90,000 people who donated to the Freedom Convoy.

This was then ruthlessly exploited by media outlets like the CBC and the Washington Post, which have spent the last few days identifying and harassing people on the leaked list who donated.

It sure looks like Donald Trump was right when he stated that “the fake news media, [is] the true enemy of the people”:

As we highlighted earlier, even far-left Congresswoman Ilhan Omar spoke out against the practice, calling it “unconscionable.”