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

YouTube To Introduce Conspiracy Theory Debunking Information Boxes On Videos

By By Aaron Kesel

YouTube has announced a crackdown on conspiracy themed videos, which will soon feature informative debunking boxes linking back to Wikipedia and other sources, Yahoo News reported.

In light of the recent conspiracy driven narratives after shootings, with many claiming mere minutes after an event that a situation was a false flag attack, YouTube has taken measures into its own hands.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki detailed what the company has deemed a “potential solution.” YouTube will now begin displaying links to supposedly fact-based content to combat conspiracy videos.

Wojcicki announced the new feature, which she called “information cues,” during a talk with WIREDeditor-in-chief Nicholas Thompson at the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas.

Here’s how the new information box will work according to WIRED: If a user searches and clicks on a conspiracy video about “insert topic,” YouTube will now link to a Wikipedia page that will aim to debunk the claim alongside the video.

A video calling into question whether humans have ever landed on the moon might be accompanied by the official Wikipedia page about the Apollo Moon landing in 1969. Wojcicki says the feature will only include conspiracy theories right now that have “significant debate” on the platform.

“Our goal is to start with a list of internet conspiracies listed on the internet where there is a lot of active discussion on YouTube,” Wojcicki said at SXSW.

YouTube made sure to clarify that it wasn’t banning the videos or becoming an arbiter of truth.

“People can still watch the videos, but then they have access to additional information,” said Wojcicki.

In regards to using Wikipedia, the website can also be edited by anyone and has had its own credibility issues in the past.

Ironically, Activist Post reported months ago that since Google was heading towards targeting critical thinkers demonized as “Conspiracy Theorists” who ask the difficult questions in its rating guidelines, YouTube wouldn’t be too long to follow behind those actions.

Considering that the origination of the word “Conspiracy Theorist” comes from the CIA, I would say using a derogatory word to discuss those who think is dangerous. More modernized, in fact, it is also straight out of the JTIRG playbook that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed.

Misinformation is plaguing the Internet, but who is to decide what is and isn’t misinformation?  The readers themselves need to, because policing thought and opinion opens a door to the avenue of a Truth Council and information oversight where admins (the purveyors of truth) decide what is and isn’t fact. What happens when one of these people doesn’t dig deep enough and just dismisses something without looking at the evidence, due to lack of information or understanding? Censorship of not only ideas but also people as a whole who are effectively removed from the discussion.

As discussed in this reporter’s last article entitled “YouTube Purge: The End Of Freedom Of Expression Or The Great Awakening For Alternatives?” – questioning is healthy; and as writer Naomi Wolf exposed, you should think before it’s illegal to do so. “It’s no longer crazy to assess news events to see if they are real or not real,” she stated in the video below. As history has shown through declassified documents (overthrow of Mossadegh), leaked diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks, and reporting by murdered journalist Michael Hastings who exposed propaganda used against the Senate and Congress, “all over the world, it’s well-established, the State Department intelligence agencies engage in theatre, and it’s what they do, it’s spycraft, to create spectacles and events that people may not realize are spectacles and events…,” Naomi says.

Hastings exposed the use of propaganda to get into Afghanistan in his report entitled: “The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn’t Want You to Read.” The article was surrounding a leaked unclassified Pentagon report.  The report took the shroud off the U.S. military’s psyops operation command revealing several techniques the group uses in psychological warfare to manipulate the public, including but not limited to fake intelligence information, lack of information and social media manipulation, according to Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis. The kicker is that not only were those tactics used against the American people but the tactics were used against senators.

It is an extremely worrying fact that the Military Industrial Complex would manipulate elected officials with fake news, especially considering that propaganda wasn’t legalized in America again until 2012. Previous legislation had been passed to protect citizens during the Church Committee hearings as part of a series of investigations into intelligence abuses during the mid-1970s, amended by the Smith-Mundt Act. Smith-Mundt was repealed in 2012 under Obama, as Business Insider reported, “The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public.”

As Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright stated, VOA, Radio Free Europe, and many others ED Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such “propaganda” should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. “from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity.”

This is extremely dangerous; one perspective might see things a different way because one person has acquired information, while the other lacks that information. For example, the U.S. government (specifically the CIA) used documented propaganda on the public and uses foreign propaganda against other countries. It’s not just the CIA, other nations’ intelligence services do it, too.

While one person might feel that is insane, (and it quite literally is) the other person might know of the previous existence of Operation Mockingbird,which used CIA-employed journalists to produce fake stories during the Cold War era 1950s through 1970s. They also funded student and cultural organizations and magazines as front organizations.  This CIA operation became known as Operation Mockingbird and was mentioned in the infamous CIA Family Jewels collection.

The U.K. equivalent to Operation Mockingbird was known as Operation Mass Appeal. It was allegedly run by MI6 during 1997–98 and exaggerated Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction according to former U.N. chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter. That claim was further exaggerated years later in 2003 when the U.K. government Downing St. produced a fake Iraq war memo  that was exposed as being based off academic papers. It is a claim that would never have seen the light of day if it wasn’t for a doctor named David  Kelly, one of the lead scientists who called the Iraq dossier a sham.  Kelly was later found in the woods, and his death remains a mystery to this day.

Another example is how the media as a whole portrayed a video that was claimed to be from Syria (known as the “Syrian boy hero”) as real, but was later revealed by Norwegian filmmakers to have been faked. As a result, the media had to backpedal their story issuing retractions.

Years later in an unrelated incident, five people were arrested for using children in staged Aleppo videos, showing how dangerous it is to report any information out of Syria, as well as how important it is to have independent free thinkers.

Perhaps a better example, and one that doesn’t involve propaganda, that more people can relate to is the situation in Flint, Michigan where water was poisoned due to negligence that was attempted to be covered up by the local government. YouTube as a medium allowed those citizens to have a voice and show the carelessness by their government officials. Further, the government even removed the citizens’ power to sue the state of Michigan over the lead contamination of its water supply.

For a moment imagine that this was called fake; these people would have been ignored far more than they were by the national mainstream media.

Then there is the spraying of carcinogenic chemicals on unknowing residents in the U.S. and Canada by the Army under Operation DEW and Operation Large Area Coverage (LAC) during the Cold War in testing linked to weaponry involving radioactive ingredients meant to attack the Soviet Union. Which, if I am being frank, sounds absolutely bonkers; but if you study history, you will see that this is the least that was done during that time frame, i.e. the infamous program known as Project MKUltra. During that covert program, people all over the place were tested with various experiments, many times against their own will.

So to say that YouTube will link to one source that can be edited by anyone and claim it as the moral high ground of “truth” is insanity.

For now, at the very least, we can be thankful that YouTube is stating that it will not outright ban all content it designates as conspiracy theory (yet), despite the recent purge of dozens upon dozens of accounts that are connected to free speech and free thought. There are also always alternatives such as DTube, BitChute, and many others for uploading content. We need to ask ourselves is the YouTube purge the end of freedom of expression or the great awakening for alternatives?

YouTube’s moves against free thinkers could backfire for the company quite severely because truth is stranger than fiction. Although this writer can agree with YouTube that the world is a spheroid, definitely not flat or completely round for that matter, it is important to have free independent thought and speech. Even if that means I have to share the planet with flat-Earthers or people who believe every crazed murder spree is a false flag attack (granted some might be because Operation Northwoods against Cuba and a memo suggested a false flag attack against Russia during the Cold War using civilians as cannon fodder, so it’s not that insane to suggest.)

The rapid changes we are witnessing with the main drivers of Internet perception has even drawn the attention of one of the inventors of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee. He noted in an open letter that “What was once a rich selection of blogs and websites has been compressed under the powerful weight of a few dominant platforms.” Do we really want those dominant platforms telling us their exclusive version of the truth?

Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on FacebookTwitterSteemit, andBitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.


“When spreading that kind of extreme opinion, sometimes calling for violence and threatening groups, it’s illegal.”

by CHRIS TOMLINSON 13 Mar 2018

Swedish Justice Minister Morgan Johansson has promised to put more pressure on social media giants Facebook and YouTube owner Google to remove illegal “hate speech” material.

The Minister’s remarks come after many in the Swedish media railed against YouTube over right-wing channels that they had claimed were harassing them, Swedish public broadcaster SVT reports.

“I think that in any case, we must increase the pressure on the internet giants. They allow the unlawful material to remain. Then we will not have it. We have freedom of opinion. But Nazism is no opinion. It is a crime against humanity,” Mr. Johansson said.

“When spreading that kind of extreme opinion, sometimes calling for violence and threatening groups, it’s illegal,” he added.

Johansson also mentioned that he would be working with the European Union Commission on the issue. “The EU Commissioner responsible comes here on Thursday. Then we will continue the discussion that threatens online giants with EU legislation if you do not get better at grabbing this extreme material,” he said.

Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 11.23.02 AM

The Swedish government has made it a priority to crack down on hate speech and on so-called “fake news” ahead of this year’s national election. Last year the government announced it would be handing out millions of Swedish Krona in cash to organisations including various mainstream media outlets to fight the spread of fake news.

Private organisations have also been working to report people for hate speech online including the group Näthatsgranskaren which is said to be behind a rapid increase in reports of hate speech to authorities.

The man behind the group, Tomas Åberg, was recently nominated by mainstream newspaper Aftonbladet for their “Swedish Hero” award as he reported around 750 cases of hate speech to the police. Åberg admitted in a separate interview that many of the people who he reported were women over the age of 65.

Näthatsgranskaren also receives funding from the EU.


Austria’s capital “is dirtier, poorer and increasingly crime-ridden since migrants began living there”

Voice Of Europe – MARCH 8, 2018

Janos Lazar, Chief of Staff of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, posted a controversial video about Austria’s capital on his Facebook. He states that “immigrant communities have completely changed the cityscape” and “Vienna has become a worse place because of refugees”.

In the video, Lazar says that Austria’s capital “is dirtier, poorer and increasingly crime-ridden since migrants began living there”. When he tried to ask citizens of Vienna how they experience this “nobody spoke German [Austria’s main language]”, he says.

Lazar concludes “a city within a city” is created and if Hungary’s not careful its capital could look Vienna within 20 years. “There are a great number of schools in Vienna where there are no white Viennese children left, only the children of Muslim immigrants and immigrants from the Middle East,” Lazar says.

With his eye on Hungary’s next elections in April and his party’s anti-migration stance Lazar says: “We are working to prevent this phenomenon”.

Earlier, Hungary’s government spokesman, Zoltan Kovacs, already said that “Migration is very expensive and integration or assimilation — as it is referred to in Western Europe — is not possible”

Facebook Keeps Secret Files on Internet Users Habits – Here’s How to Find Yours


Facebook regularly collects data on its 1.4 billion daily active users worldwide — here is how to find the information they have collected on you.

The Daily Mail reports that Facebook may be tracking your Internet habits even if you’ve never registered an account on the site. Facebook states that this information is used to target specific advertising towards users and for other security reasons —explaining why you may suddenly see ads on Facebook for a new lawnmower right after you searched the internet for “gardening supplies.” Although it is not really possible to stop Facebook tracking your internet habits, Facebook users can download the information that Facebook collects, so at least you have a firm grasp on what the Silicon Valley giant knows about you.

Facebook tracks user activities on more than 10,000 websites using invisible trackers called Pixels, these record information about users when they visit one of the sites and transmit it back to Facebook. Information collected by these Pixels include your IP Address, computer operating system, where you’re located, which sites you visit the most and what you do on these websites.

Nick Wingham, a reporter for the New Zealand Herald, downloaded his personal file from Facebook and discovered a huge collection of data captured by the social media platform. The file included old videos he had taken on his phone, copies of tenancy agreements, bills for his internet service and screenshots of bank transfers. The file also contained basic chat logs and other site activity records.

Getting a copy of your own personal data file is quite easy. Simply log into Facebook and follow these steps:

  • Click the drop-down arrow beside the question mark icon on the toolbar and select the “Settings” option/

Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 3.01.55 PM

  • This will bring you to a “General Account Settings” page, at the bottom left of this page you should be able to see text reading “Download a copy of your Facebook data.” Click this to begin downloading the information that Facebook has collected on you.

Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 3.03.57 PM

Facebook has come under fire for their tracking of Internet users in the past. In February, a Belgian court ruled that Facebook must stop tracking users that don’t have an account registered on the website or face a fine of up to $305,000 a day. European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) spokesperson Johannes Kleis stated at the time, “This is a big win for internet users who don’t want tech companies to monitor every step they make online. What Facebook is doing is against Europe’s data protection laws and should be stopped throughout the EU.’

Hillary Clinton cries ‘Russians are coming,’ accuses Trump of ‘surrender’

Former US Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton © Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is raising a cry of alarm that the “Russians are still coming” and accusing President Donald Trump of doing nothing to defend the upcoming US elections.

Though the US media and political establishment gave Clinton a 98 percent chance to become president in 2016, she lost to Trump – and she has blamed the loss on former FBI Director James Comey, WikiLeaks and “the Russians,” including President Vladimir Putin personally.

“I say this as a former Secretary of State and as an American: the Russians are still coming,” Clinton tweeted on Wednesday. She said that the US intelligence community wants “Trump to act” but he has continued to “ignore and surrender.”

Screen Shot 2018-03-01 at 11.33.54 AM

Clinton posted a link to a Washington Post article on Tuesday’s testimony by Admiral Mike Rogers, the head of the US Cyber Command and the NSA, to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rogers said that Trump has not granted him any new authorities or capabilities to attack Russian cyber operations ahead of the midterm elections in November.

“I haven’t been granted any, you know, additional authorities, capacity and capability,” he told Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire).

Having originally followed Clinton’s lead in accusing Russia of outright “hacking” the election, Democrats have since whittled their accusations down to “meddling” and “influencing,” to the point where no one actually knows who did what to whom or when. That has not stopped the US intelligence apparatus and the media from breathlessly speculating about the “Russian threat,” though.

In addition to blaming Russia for losing the White House race, Clinton has pointed her finger at social media. On Monday, she retweeted a claim that Facebook charged her campaign far more than Trump’s for advertising, adding that something needs to be done about social networks’ impact on US elections.

“We owe it to our democracy to get this right, and fast,” she said.

While diehard Clinton supporters were quick to believe reports that Facebook overcharged her campaign by a factor of 200, one Facebook executive moved quickly to counter such claims, releasing statistics that showed otherwise.

Trump’s campaign “paid slightly higher CPM prices on most days rather than lower as has been reported,” Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth said Tuesday, referring to her costs per thousand (CPM) impressions.

“Prices depend on factors like size of audience and campaign objective. These campaigns had different strategies,” Bosworth added. “Given the recent discussion about pricing we’re putting this out to clear up any confusion.”

Facebook is willing to share more information, but will need permission from the campaigns, Bosworth said.

Screen Shot 2018-03-01 at 11.37.23 AM