Internet gatekeepers trying to torch all truth across the ‘Net, targeting Natural News, InfoWars and more

Image: Internet gatekeepers trying to torch all truth across the ‘Net, targeting Natural News, InfoWars and more

Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
February 23, 2017

We warned you it would happen, and now it has: The anti-Trump, pro-globalist Left is moving quickly to punish independent media outlets who support the 45th president and treat him fairly with honest coverage of him and his administration.

Earlier this week Alex Jones’ Infowars lost a $3 million-a-year ad content deal when the company, AdRoll, decided to suddenly drop them, despite the high volume of traffic his web properties receive, over charges that the site publishes ‘fake news.’ It doesn’t; in fact, if anyone publishes fake news, it’s the many other web properties the company is continuing to do business with. If this angers you as a liberty-minded person who believes in the constitutional principle of free speech, let AdRoll know you’re angry.

Then there was the takedown this week of conservative provocateur and enthusiastic Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos by an alleged “conservative” group called the Reagan Battalion, whom virtually no one had heard of before. The group published a selectively-edited video of Yiannopoulos appearing to condone homosexual sex between adults and 13-year-old boys; the takedown cost him a $250,000 book deal, his job at Breitbart, and an invitation to the Conservative Political Action Committee meeting, which began Wednesday evening. Come to find out, Reagan Battalion actually has ties to the far-Left group Indivisible, as the Gateway Pundit reported. This group is one of those behind the staged protests at GOP lawmakers’ town hall meetings. Board members to the group have indirect links to Alt-Left George Soros groups. (RELATED: Pay attention to these three financial experts if you want to survive the coming financial superstorm)

Shopify, an e-commerce platform, was threatened by organized Left-wing groups to drop Breitbart as a content provider, but the CEO graciously defended his decision not to do so, despite coming under intense pressure from the real purveyors of censorship. He may not like Breitbart’s political slant, but as a true believer in free speech, he refused to cave to the demands of would-be authoritarians.

And now, Natural News is under assault – by Google, a multi-billion dollar company that built everything that it has become on the premise that the World Wide Web ought to be a place where censorship went to die and freedom of speech and expression flourished for all.

We were notified early Wednesday that some 140,000 previously indexed pages – our catalog of stories – has been removed from the search engine giant, almost as if we’d never existed. The reason? We’re not sure yet, but as our founder/editor, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has observed, it’s very likely an arbitrary decision directly tied to our commitment to the truth, to fair, unbiased coverage of President Donald Trump, and our penchant for taking on the medical, social and political establishments with hard-core vigilance and take-no-prisoners style.

Facts are inconvenient things, we are told, and no one epitomizes that more than those on the insane Left. When they encounter people who simply disagree with them, they always defer to the solutions of banishing them, taking away their ability to express themselves, or shouting them into silence. Never have they resorted to open and honest debate, allowing two separate voices to be heard on the issues so as to allow all of us the opportunity to make informed decisions based on all the evidence and all the facts. In the past, voices of conservative dissent were rarely heard because the Left owned the press; today, however, that ownership has been subjugated by the flourishing of the independent, online media. In cyberspace, the competition of ideals is fully achievable, but that’s a problem for the Left because when shown the light of day, they lose the debates.

Barack Obama and Democrats could have never told Americans that Obamacare would result in the loss of personal insurance plans, that deductibles would skyrocket, that out-of-pocket expenses would rise dramatically, and that you couldn’t keep your doctor. So they lied about the law in order to get it passed. George W. Bush and Republicans could not reveal that provisions of the USA Patriot Act would grant presidents carte blanche authority to order American spy agencies to vacuum up all of our personal data, or they would have never been able to pass it. And so on. (RELATED: All you need to know about the discredited mainstream media, in one Mika Brzezinski quote)

The Internet was supposed to be the final answer to free and open debate, real representative democracy and the free-flowing exchange of ideas – but we allowed it to be hijacked by the same anti-choice, anti-free speech forces the ‘Net was supposed to thwart. That’s the Google faction, by the way.

Well, at least there are ways around this abject censorship. Here’s what we need our wonderful Natural News readers and supporters to do:

— Stop using ‘mainstream’ search engines like Google and Yahoo, as well as social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. They are limiting your information.

— Use GoodGopher.com for searching, and become a social media warrior at Share.NaturalNews.com, where there is NO censorship, just liberty.

— Sign up for the Natural News daily newsletter (below) and get our content sent straight to you.

— Bookmark our site, NaturalNews.com, and check in regularly throughout the day, as we update the site regularly with fresh, informative, truthful content. Same with Censored.news.

Thanks for your continued support. We really do appreciate it.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

TheGatewayPundit.com

InfoWars.com

Collective Consciousness – The Individual Is Gone

QuestionEverything2
Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
October 24, 2016

“In the middle of all the brain-research going on, from one end of the planet to the other, there is the assumption that the individual doesn’t really exist. He’s a fiction. There is only the motion of particles in the brain. Therefore, nothing is inviolate, nothing is protected. Make the brain do A, make it do B; it doesn’t matter. What matters is harmonizing these tiny particles, in order to build a collective consensus, in order to force a science of behavior.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Individual power. Your power.

It stands as the essence of what the founding documents of the American Republic are all about, once you scratch below the surface a millimeter or so.

Therefore, it stands to reason that colleges and universities would be teaching courses in INDIVIDUAL POWER.

As soon as I write that, though, we all fall down laughing, because we understand the absurdity of such a proposition. Can you imagine Harvard endowing a chair in Individual Power?

Students would tear down the building in which such courses were taught. They’ve been carefully instructed that the individual is the greatest living threat to the planet.

If you can’t see that as mind control, visit your local optometrist and get a prescription for glasses.

So we have this astonishing situation: the very basis of freedom has no reflection in the educational system.

You can say “individual” within certain limited contexts. You can say “power,” if you’re talking about nuclear plants, or if you’re accusing someone of a crime, but if you put “individual” and “power” together and attribute a positive quality to the combination, you’re way, way outside the consensus. You’re crazy. You’re committing some kind of treason.

In order to spot the deepest versions of educational brainwashing, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME STANDARD AGAINST WHICH YOU CAN COMPARE WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE INTO THE MINDS OF STUDENTS.

If you lack that standard, you miss most of the action.

If you lack that standard, you have already been worked over by the system.

And in this case, the standard is INDIVIDUAL POWER.

Clean it off, hose off the dirt, polish it, look at it, think about it, remember it.

Then you’ll see some Grade-A prime mind control. Everywhere. Because schools either don’t mention it, or they discredit it.

Back in the days when I was writing on assignment for newspapers and magazines, I pitched a story about individual power to an editor. I wanted to trace its history as an idea over the past ten years.

He looked at me for a few seconds. He looked at me as if I’d just dropped some cow flop on his desk. He knew I wasn’t kidding and I had something I could write and turn in to him, but that made it worse. He began to squirm in his chair.

He laughed nervously.

Then he stopped laughing.

He said, “This isn’t what we do.”

For him, I was suddenly radioactive.

I had a similar experience with a high-school history teacher in California. We were having lunch in a cafe in Santa Monica, and I said, “You should teach a course in individual power. The positive aspects. No group stuff. Just the individual.”

He frowned a deep intellectual frown, as if I’d just opened my jacket and exposed a few sticks of dynamite strapped to my chest. As if he was thinking about which agency of the government to report me to.

Now, for the schizoid part. The movies. Television. Video games. Comics. Graphic novels. They are filled to the brim, they are overflowing with individual heroes who have considerable power. These entertainment businesses bank billions of dollars, because people want to immerse themselves in that universe where the individual is supreme. They want it badly.

But when it comes to “real” life, power stops at the front door and no one answers the bell.

Suddenly, the hero, the person with power is anathema. He’s left holding the bag. So he adjusts. He waits. He wonders. He settles for less, far less. He stifles his hopes. He shrinks. He forgets. He develops “problems” and tries to solve them within an impossibly narrow context. He redefines success and victory down to meet limited expectations. He strives for the normal and the average. For his efforts, he receives tidbits, like a dog looking up at his master.

If that isn’t mind control, nothing is.

Once we enter a world where the individual no longer has credibility, a world where “greatest good for the greatest number” is the overriding principle, and where that principle is defined by the elite few, the term “mind control” will have a positive connotation. It will be accepted as the obvious strategy for achieving “peace in our time.”

At a job interview, a candidate will say, “Yes, I received my PhD in Mind Control at Yale, and then I did three years of post-doc work in Cooperative Learning Studies at MIT. My PhD thesis? It was titled, ‘Coordination Strategies in the Classroom for Eliminating the Concept of the Individual.’”

From Wikipedia, “Cooperative Learning”: “Students must work in groups to complete tasks collectively toward academic goals. Unlike individual learning, which can be competitive in nature, students learning cooperatively can capitalize on one another’s resources and skills…Furthermore, the teacher’s role changes from giving information to facilitating students’ learning. Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds.”

That is a towering assemblage of bullshit.

“Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds.” You could use that quote on the back cover of Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World. Everyone does not succeed—because the individual never finds out what he can do on his own. That avenue is cut off. He only knows what he can achieve in combination with others. He only knows what he can understand when he borrows from others. He may never glimpse what he truly wants to do in life.

This is a tragic situation, but the tragedy is concealed, because the memory of shifting from individual independence to group dependence is gone. There is no such memory. A child is brought up without independence. Therefore, how can he recall losing it?

He only knows the group and the team and the participation and the praise. He only knows the organizing of his life within a synthetically produced context.

He is taught that this is good and necessary.

So, one day, when a bolt comes out of the blue and he recognizes he is himself, what will he use to grasp that revelation and build on it?

Yes, there are productive groups and teams, and one is always working with others, to some degree. But the core and the starting point is one’s self. That is where the insight and the magic begin. That is where the great decisions and commitments are made. That is where the world is born, every day.

I see no end of writing about this magic, because civilization has been turned upside down by treacherous people who have been fabricating a counter-tradition that will sink the ship.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

_________________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Do People Still Read Brave New World?

Image result for brave new world
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
October 14, 2016

Rule by technocracy—that is the subject of this article. In such a future, there would be no politicians. They would have been made extinct…

Huxley’s 1932 novel about a World State and its version of Utopia is still one of the most important and relevant novels of our time.

It is the companion piece to Orwell’s 1984. The overt brutal force has been removed from the equation in Brave New World. Instead: all births are synthetic, hatched in artificial womb factories, with accompanying genetic manipulation; no more nuclear families; no more monogamy; education is achieved through hypnotic sleep-learning; a caste system is engineered so the lower, less intelligent classes are happy with their lot, and the upper-level “alphas” occupy the top positions; the castes have little interest in associating with each other.

Technocracy has triumphed.

The theme of life, the basic theme, is Pleasure. Pleasures of the senses. Not of the mind, not of constructive action, certainly not of imagination. Pleasure keeps the citizens of the World State occupied…and if that fails, the ultimate backup is a drug called Soma, which relieves anxiety and depression and stimulates “happiness.”

There are many people living among us today who would opt for that life in a heartbeat. They would see no downside. “Well, of course. Sign me up. I’ve been trying to find that pleasure all along. I’ll take it.”

The 1932 technocrats of Brave New World found a key. Why should they waste time trying to inflict pain on the population as a control mechanism? Why should they risk rebellion and revolution? Go “positive.” Give people pleasure. Absolutely.

All older forms of government fade away. They were just crude experiments in the foothills of the one and only revolution: technology deployed to pacify the world.

By the way, in Brave New World, no one reads books. They’re unnecessary. They make no sense. The “better life” is already a living fact. What possible benefit could a book deliver?

Every time I read Brave New World I see complacent animals grazing in pastures. That’s the picture. Human animals at peace in the fields. Nothing to care about. Nothing to think about. Just bend and chew. Don’t worry, be happy.

As Patrick Wood mentions in his fine and highly recommended book, Technocracy Rising, Huxley began writing Brave New World as a parody of other utopian novels of his time, but he became fascinated with his own ideas along the way, and set his mind to the task of fleshing out a technological end-game civilization.

Brave New World reveals a landscape in which people would be unable to turn around and throw off what has been done to them. They would not consider it. They would have no basis for comparison. They would have no cultural memory. They are living in a universal super-welfare state. Their needs are satisfied—especially the central need: pleasure. It isn’t gained or worked for. It’s given. It’s a fact as basic as rain and sun. It’s there. It’s the shortest distance between the present moment and the next moment.

Isn’t this the fairy tale told about rich and famous celebrities? They can wake up in the morning thinking about what pleasure is immediately there for the taking. They have the means. They have the time. They have the opportunity. In Brave New World, everyone is that kind of creature. By necessity. There is no real choice. Their most base desires are their only desires. Their horizon is shortened.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

The Terror Dialectic: Contrived Unity, Social Engineering, Shootings & More – Jay Dyer On Red Ice

Source: Red Ice Radio
JaysAnalysis.com
Jay Dyer
July 19, 2016

From hour 1 of a 2 hour interview with Red Ice Radio: “Jay Dyer is a public speaker, lecturer, comedian and author of Esoteric Hollywood: Sex, Cults and Symbols in Film, as well as the host of the JaysAnalysis Podcast/Esoteric Hollywood. Jay is also a regular contributor to 21stCenturyWire, Soul of the East and the Espionage History Archive. Broaching subjects as wide as satire, metaphysics, film analysis, theology, geopolitics, literature and history, as well as interviewing numerous prominent figures, Jay has authored hundreds of articles read by millions.

In the first hour, Jay deconstructs the events of the 7/7 Dallas shooting spree by Micah X. Johnson during a Black Lives Matter protest that left 5 police officers dead and 9 officers and two civilians wounded. Jay brings to light many details that echo previous staged false flag events and terror plots hatched by the FBI, inflamed by Soros funded NGOs, and propagandized through MSM pageantry. We discuss various anomalies that point to black ops social engineering, including the active shooter drill prelude, the racially charged sniper scenario and the Hollywoodesque bomb bot takedown of the killer. Jay talks about “enlightenment liberalism” that is being exacerbated and capitalized on by the internationalist elite, where the normal distinctions of human nature are being erased in order for a “Brave New World” of blended monoculture to be reconstructed out of the chaos. He says this Manichaean dialectic is part of a long term geopolitical strategy of ramping up tensions and instigating conflicts between extremist elements (i.e. BLM vs police, LGBTQ vs Islam) so that a One World Government dictated by Martial Law can rise up out of the ashes. We look at the volatile conditions that are the result of the multicultural experiment and consider the kind of social glue that would be needed to hold together a culture contrived on unity and oneness. This new pseudo religion is all about perception management and the amalgamation of emotions and opinions as defined by a synthetic 2-D reality of fake news and a hierarchy of victim classes.

In the member hour, Jay talks more about the alchemical aspect of the merging of two opposing forces that is playing out perfectly in the current East/West clash of civilizations. He illuminates the Freemasonic elements we see openly displayed in these Gladio-style intelligence operations, where orchestrated terror events are fronted by patsies and provocateurs of one extreme to propel history towards a “great unification.” Jay explains how a double standard tactic is being applied to create hypersensitivity about race so as to crush down any sort of natural hierarchy that may threaten the globalist hegemony. Then, we analyze the black power/global rainbow unity spectacle of the 2016 Super Bowl – a high profile ritual Jay calls “aesthetic terrorism” that is designed to program the subconscious minds of the masses to accept the media’s definition of terrorism. We look at how this deliberate display of xenophobic propaganda foreshadowed the establishment’s plans for a “helter skelter” race war and a “summer of chaos,” and we break down how the controlled media muddies the Nationalist uprising by propping up contrarian figures like Yiannopoulos and Geller. Later, we discuss how to overcome the slow kill of humanity by the diseased system by recognizing the fundamental flaws of equality and ridding ourselves of the infection of liberalism.”

The Terror Dialectic: Contrived Unity – Jay Dyer on Red Ice

The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech

Source: Rutherford.Org
John W. Whitehead

“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it…. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” ― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.

In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.

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

It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

As a society, we’ve become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. The result is a nation where no one says what they really think anymore, at least if it runs counter to the prevailing views. Intolerance is the new scarlet letter of our day, a badge to be worn in shame and humiliation, deserving of society’s fear, loathing and utter banishment from society.

For those “haters” who dare to voice a different opinion, retribution is swift: they will be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes.”

We have entered a new age where, as commentator Mark Steyn notes, “we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells” and “the forces of ‘tolerance’ are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.”

In such a climate of intolerance, there can be no freedom speech, expression or thought.

Yet what the forces of political correctness fail to realize is that they owe a debt to the so-called “haters” who have kept the First Amendment robust. From swastika-wearing Neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, and underaged cross burners to “God hates fags” protesters assembled near military funerals, those who have inadvertently done the most to preserve the right to freedom of speech for all have espoused views that were downright unpopular, if not hateful.

Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. However, that long-vaunted, Court-enforced tolerance for “intolerant” speech has now given way to a paradigm in which the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum. Justifying such discrimination as “government speech,” the Court ruled that the Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles could refuse to issue specialty license plate designs featuring a Confederate battle flag. Why? Because it was deemed offensive.

The Court’s ruling came on the heels of a shooting in which a 21-year-old white gunman killed nine African-Americans during a Wednesday night Bible study at a church in Charleston, N.C. The two events, coupled with the fact that gunman Dylann Roof was reportedly pictured on several social media sites with a Confederate flag, have resulted in an emotionally charged stampede to sanitize the nation’s public places of anything that smacks of racism, starting with the Confederate flag and ballooning into a list that includes the removal of various Civil War monuments.

These tactics are nothing new. This nation, birthed from puritanical roots, has always struggled to balance its love of liberty with its moralistic need to censor books, music, art, language, symbols etc. As author Ray Bradbury notes, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Indeed, thanks to the rise of political correctness, the population of book burners, censors, and judges has greatly expanded over the years so that they run the gamut from left-leaning to right-leaning and everything in between. By eliminating words, phrases and symbols from public discourse, the powers-that-be are sowing hate, distrust and paranoia. In this way, by bottling up dissent, they are creating a pressure cooker of stifled misery that will eventually blow.

For instance, the word “Christmas” is now taboo in the public schools, as is the word “gun.” Even childish drawings of soldiers result in detention or suspension under rigid zero tolerance policies. On college campuses, trigger warnings are being used to alert students to any material they might read, see or hear that might upset them, while free speech zones restrict anyone wishing to communicate a particular viewpoint to a specially designated area on campus. Things have gotten so bad that comedians such as Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform stand-up routines to college crowds anymore.

Clearly, the country is undergoing a nervous breakdown, and the news media is helping to push us to the brink of insanity by bombarding us with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days.

In this way, it’s difficult to think or debate, let alone stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this.

As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, regularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions keep the citizenry tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles and tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms. These sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions are how you control a population, either inadvertently or intentionally, advancing a political agenda agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.

Professor Jacques Ellul studied this phenomenon of overwhelming news, short memories and the use of propaganda to advance hidden agendas. “One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones,” wrote Ellul.

Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but he does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man’s capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandists, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks.

Already, the outrage over the Charleston shooting and racism are fading from the news headlines, yet the determination to censor the Confederate symbol remains. Before long, we will censor it from our thoughts, sanitize it from our history books, and eradicate it from our monuments without even recalling why. The question, of course, is what’s next on the list to be banned?

It was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, when we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.

Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, reading is banned and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, serious literature, scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through the use of conditioning, social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality are viewed as vulgar and abnormal.

And in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

All three—Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell—had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to 1984:

The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free,” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts….

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go. Our backs are to the walls. From this point on, we have only two options: go down fighting, or capitulate and betray our loved ones, our friends and our selves by insisting that, as a brainwashed Winston Smith does at the end of Orwell’s 1984, yes, 2+2 does equal 5.

Read More at: Rutherford.Org