Modern Newspeak: How Internet Censors Are Making Sure You Hear Only One Side of the Story

By Daisy Luther

It’s not breaking news that the Internet censors have been hard at work to silence voices that are in opposition to the mainstream media agenda. But after the influence that social media had on the last election, things are going to a whole new level. The Internet, that last bastion of truly free speech, isn’t very free anymore.

We’re watching the evolution of Newspeak right before our very eyes as the Internet strives to silence any voices that oppose their carefully crafted stories of how guns are bad, there are 291 genders, and anyone who isn’t a liberal is an evil Nazi racist.

If you aren’t familiar with the term “Newspeak,” it’s from George Orwell’s prophetic novel, 1984.

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thought-crime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. . . . 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? (source)

YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have all been participating in a full-on purge of not just conservative voices, but the voices of anyone who is loudly anti-establishment. Any Internet personality who is pro-gun or anti-socialism can fully expect to be censored. If you go against the agenda, you will be silenced.

Apparently, we have become too discerning for their liking and we can’t be trusted to hear both sides of the story and decide what seems most accurate.

Let me preface this: It isn’t about being a fan of websites like Infowars or Natural News. It’s about being a fan of free speech. It’s about getting the truth instead of a carefully scripted narrative.

In this video, Ben Swann, who is mercifully back from a long, unexplained hiatus, gives us the facts on how the Internet censors are striving to ensure we hear only one side of the story.

I’m certainly not in the same category as Mike Adams or Alex Jones, who have hundreds of thousands of followers, but even I have experienced this censorship. Facebook frequently refuses to allow me to pay to boost posts that might be controversial in nature, Back in 2016, I posted an article containing 2 videos, one of which was quickly removed from YouTube. It was about the threat of civil unrest to the Milwaukee suburbs after a cop killed a black man. The media portrayed the man’s sister as warmly trying to prevent the unrest, urging people not to burn down their own neighborhoods. But they cut her rant right before she urged people to burn down the suburbs instead. I quoted her as saying:

Burnin down sh*t ain’t going to help nothin! Y’all burnin’ down sh*t we need in our community. Take that sh*t to the suburbs. Burn that sh*t down! We need our sh*t! We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it. We need our food. We need our gas. Y’all wanna hurt somebody you take that sh*t further out! (source)

But somehow, I was the one who was in the doghouse for quoting what she said and showing both of the videos. My article was reported as “hate speech” a number of times and Facebook removed it. Not only did they remove it, they banned me from posting for a week, giving me a “warning” about hate speech. I also got put in Facebook jail once when someone asked what Godwin’s Law was and I used the word Nazi because it hurt someone’s feelings who was from Germany when I said the word “Hitler.” I could not make this stuff up.

A lot of you may be wondering why alternative media sources use social media at all, and the answer is – we have to if we want to be heard. If we want to be competitive and we want our stories to be out there, we must go where the people are. And there are millions of people on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

But purges like this are why it’s particularly important that you sign up for email lists if you want to hear the real stories. (You can sign up for mine right here.) And even then, it isn’t a guarantee you won’t be the victim of censors. During the election, for research purposes, I signed up for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s email lists. Clinton’s ended up in my inbox without fail, while Trump’s went to my spam folder, no matter how often I marked it as “not spam.”

This is something we have to stop now. We have to speak up and let these social media outlets know that we aren’t going to put up with their censorship and their control of the national narrative.

We’re watching 1984 unfold right before our very eyes.

Please feel free to share any information from this site in part or in full, leaving all links intact, giving credit to the author and including a link to this website and the following bio. Daisy is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting, homeschooling blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, The Organic Prepper, where this article first appeared. Daisy is the publisher of The Cheapskate’s Guide to the Galaxy, a monthly frugality newsletter, and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site, She is the best-selling author of 4 books and lives in the mountains of Virginia with her two daughters and an ever-growing menagerie. You can find Daisy on FacebookPinterest, and Twitter.

Also Read: YouTube Terminated Activist Post Unblemished Channel Without Warning

Google’s Search Results For Questions About Parkland Shooting Are Different From Other Search Engines

By John Vibes

Google may be the world’s most popular search engine, but it has also been the subject of a number of accusations in recent years that it is purposefully censoring searches and influencing results. In the case of search results related to the Parkland shooting, that alleged influence is becoming even more apparent.

This week, the staff at The Free Thought Project began testing various keywords related to the Parkland shooting on different search engines, and we noticed that if our search terms were controversial, the first page of Google results was filled with entirely different information than the other search engines. The information showed on Google was often not relevant to our search, and the results always seemed to support the official narrative.

The most striking of these results came when we searched for the words “girl says 3 shooters parkland,” expecting the news footage of an eyewitness from the school saying that there were multiple shooters.

This video did not come up on Google, nor did any articles about the statement that the student made to the news, despite the fact that our search was extremely specific. Don’t be fooled by the top article “Calling B.S in Parkland, Florida,” it is an op-ed promoting gun control.

Oddly enough, when we searched for the same keywords on Yahoo, Bing or DuckDuckGo, each search engine brought up exactly what we were seeking. Try this experiment yourself and see what you come up with. It does not just have to be for this story—if you find other stories and search terms that Google appears to be suppressing, let us know. Below are screenshots from DuckDuckGo and Bing. We did not post Yahoo because their results were identical to Bing.

Google became the most popular search engine on the Web because it connected people with the links that were close to their searches while offering up a wide variety of different sources. But now it is obviously far past time to move onto more trusted platforms.

In the early days of the Internet, search engines and service providers like YouTube acted as a gateway to the world. But over the years the most powerful of these companies have increasingly begun to act as gatekeepers, caving into pressure from the government.

In the last two years, censorship on the Internet has been brought to an all-time high, thanks to “fake news” hysteria and a consistent campaign from the mainstream media to silence dissenting voices during times of tragedy when the official story has come into question—like the recent shootings in Las Vegas or Parkland.

Instead of investigating stories and asking tough questions, the mainstream media simply regurgitate press releases from police and government agencies. Before the Internet gave birth to the alternative media there was only one side to every news story, the official narrative, and for the most part, everyone believed it. Even if news outlets have partisan disagreements about politics, they always sell the basic version of reality, especially when it comes to questioning information handed down from those in authority.

As the alternative media has grown in size and relevance in recent years, there has become a wide range of perspectives for people to choose from, and there is no longer just one side to the story when large news events happen. Now there are many different investigations and theories behind every event—from the brilliant to the insane—leaving it up to the reader to use their own critical thinking when reading this news.

Critics see this as some type of breakdown of reality, where everyone just adopts whatever version of the world that suits their needs. While this is a legitimate problem that does happen to some extent—in the case of online echo chambers and actual fake news—these things are far less dangerous than allowing an all-powerful media cartel to think for us.


US Attorney General Sessions fires ex-FBI deputy director McCabe

FILE PHOTO: US Attorney General Jeff Sessions (L) and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe © Aaron P. Bernstein / Reuters

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions says has fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, effective immediately. The abrupt termination could cost McCabe, who is accused of mishandling Hillary Clinton‘s email probe, much of his pension.

The termination was recommended by the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility. It comes after a still-classified report from the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general found that McCabe mishandled the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

“Based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately,” Sessions said of his decision.

McCabe’s firing was announced on Friday, just two days before he was set to retire. The sacking could cost McCabe the pension that he was entitled to after 21 years of working at the FBI.

McCabe “has made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor – including under oath – on multiple occasions,”Sessions stated, citing reports by both the Inspector General and the ORP. The soon-to-be-released DOJ report is expected to reveal that McCabe leaked information about the Clinton email probe to the media and misled watchdog investigators.

McCabe announced that he would be stepping down from his post in late January, but took a “terminate leave” that would have allowed him to collect an estimated $60,000 a year pension. McCabe planned to retire on Sunday, the day of his 50th birthday.

The career FBI official’s plan did not sit well with US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly taunted him on Twitter, particularly over his wife’s connections. In July, Trump tweeted that McCabe should have been fired because his wife, Jill, received money from a Clinton ally in 2015 to run for a state seat in Virginia. In a string of tweets in December, Trump slammed McCabe for “racing the clock to retire with full benefits.”

In the statement released upon his ouster, McCabe accused the White House and Trump personally of taking revenge on him for his conduct in wake of the firing of former FBI Director James Comey.

“The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey’s accounts of his discussions with the President,” McCabe said, describing the accusations against him as “an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn.”

His dismissal, McCabe argued, is a part of a larger pattern involving “an ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel [Robert Mueller] Investigation [into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia]” waged by the Trump administration.

He has rejected all the accusations against him, saying that there is “nothing further from the truth” than the claims that he lacked integrity and was led by political motives through the Clinton probe.

McCabe has also denied that he single-handedly allowed media leaks, arguing that all his contacts with the press were supervised by the FBI chief. “It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter. He went on to point out that he continued “the same type of work” after Comey was fired and replaced with Christopher Wray “at his request.”



There are way too many booms in our headlines lately. But this is a big one.


They were talking about doing this in order to screw him over on his pension, and it looks like they pulled the trigger. This is gonna cost him A LOT of money…



Wow. Here’s the statement:

Here’s our original story about Sessions considering firing McCabe.


Here’s McCabe’s FIERY RESPONSE!!!!!



Another absurd example of big tech censorship

 | – MARCH 16, 2018

Another ludicrous example of big tech censorship occurred when Instagram removed a photo of a young woman wearing a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat for violating its community guidelines.

“Instagram removed my picture of me and my MAGA hat on. WTF?” tweeted Kathy Zhu.


“Your post has been removed. We removed your post because it doesn’t follow our community guidelines,” states the Instagram message alongside the blurred out MAGA hat photo.

Instagram’s community guidelines state that nude photos cannot be posted and that “hate speech” will be removed, so presumably the Trump hat falls into the latter category.

The now notorious red MAGA hat has enjoyed a storied short history of triggering leftists.

Back in December, Fordham University students were ejected from a Bronx campus coffee shop because their MAGA hats violated its “safe space” policy.

An absurd video that emerged in September last year shows an irate ethnic studies student at the University of California snatching a MAGA hat from another student before asserting that the hat promotes “laws and legislation that literally kill and murder in the masses, people of color.”

In July last year, a Brooklyn man was attacked with a broken bottle in a Manhattan bar over his MAGA hat, leaving him with a broken nose and a slice down his face.