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.


Ever Wonder Who’d Win a 2nd Civil War? This Colonel Did the Math and It’s Brutal

Two world wars and a protracted conflict in Vietnam and the American Civil War still remains the bloodiest war in our country’s history. An estimated 620,000 men lost their lives in places with names like Antietam, Gettysburg, Shiloh and Vicksburg — all in the name of ending the great evil that was slavery.

Back then, of course, the Democrats treated Dixie as if it were their fiefdom. When they lost control of the White House in 1860, they were livid. This time, they hadn’t lost it to the tepid, elitist Whig Party but the upstart Republicans, who had agitated for an end to slavery. By the time Abraham Lincoln took office in March of 1861, seven Southern states had seceded, and four more would eventually join the Confederate States of America.

Four years later, the South laid in tatters, slavery as an institution had been destroyed, and the secession had been a failure. Lesson learned, right?

Well, it may be a century and a half later, but the Democrats haven’t learned their lesson well enough. In fact, after Trump’s election, there were plenty of liberals talking about a civil war.

Sure, slavery may not be involved, but there’s a different kind of culture war being perpetrated — and contributor and retired Col. Kurt Schlichter thinks the Democrats would suffer the same ignominious fate they did a hundred and fifty years ago.

“It’s obvious that the central tenet of the Democrat Party platform is now hatred and contempt for Normal Americans. Taking their cue from the elites in Europe and Canada who are stripping dissenters of their free speech rights and religious freedoms, the leftist elite is moving to solidify its hold on power here with the eager assistance of tech companies and the moral support of the Fredocons who yearn to return to pseudo-relevance as the ruling class’s slobberingly loyal opposition,” Schlichter wrote, referring to social media companies cracking down on conservative publishers and personalities.

“In California, the leftist government is practically firing on Fort Sumter. And nationally, these aspiring fascists are especially eager to disarm Normal Americans – doing so would be an object lesson in who’s the boss, as well as solving that frustrating problem of the Normals having the ability to resist.”

“Do I think there will be a civil war? No, but there could be,” Schlichter wrote.”Civil war is unlikely, but never underestimate Democrat stupidity and hatred. The Schlichter family learned that lesson a century and half ago, the last time the Democrats decided to try to impose their hatred of basic human rights on the rest of the country, when an army of Democrats burned our family hometown.

“Oh, they paid for it. And they would pay again. Democrats are 0-1 in insurrections, and if they went for another round, they would be 0-2. It’s a matter of terrain, numbers, and morale.”

Schlichter said that those “who think history began when Obama was elected, don’t understand the dangerous game they are playing when they talk about how they want to impose their brown shirt vision upon red America.”

If they want to go to war over guns, or over rights, or over any other issues, Schlichter notes that in terms of territory, the Democrats actually control very little of it.

“Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver,” Schlichter says.

“That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.”

Now, the likelihood of this is almost nonexistent. However, with Democrats talking Calexit or attempts at imposing a popular vote in the stead of the Electoral College, things could get awfully hairy. But there’s one last issue Schlichter notes: that of commitment.

“The Democrat threat to peace is based on its policies designed to deprive Normal Americans of their right to speak freely, to worship freely, and to defend themselves and their rights with firearms. Make no mistake – millions of Normal Americans are willing to risk death to defend those rights,” he writes.

“In fact, many swore to do so when they entered our military and law enforcement. But who is the leftist big talker willing to die to impose the fascist dream of censorship, religious oppression, and disarmament on Normal American citizens? Is the screeching SJW at Yale going to suit up in Kevlar? Is the Vox columnist going to grab a M4? Is the Hollywood poser going to switch her gyno-beanie for a helmet?”

Well, no, probably not. Then again, Civil War II: Electric Boogaloo also isn’t likely to happen at all. But the next time a Democrat starts talking tough about conflict, show him Col. Schlichter’s brutal article. And then give him a change of underwear.



“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.


Leftists mistakenly believe they have game-changing incident involving Border Patrol and illegal immigrant

Newsbusters – MARCH 11, 2018

Leftists finally think (erroneously) they have a game-changing incident involving a Border Patrol apprehension of an illegal immigrant.

A week ago, Perla Morales-Luna was arrested in front of her crying daughters in National City, California. Someone videotaped the incident. The video has gone viral. What most early press reports failed to note, or buried deep in their stories, is that the woman refused to be taken peacefully and in private. One unusual exception was a Friday evening Associated Press story.

Here is a sample of related headlines seen at other outlets found in a Google News search at 10 p.m. Eastern Time on Saturday:

Many people who only see these headlines will believe that this was an abusive incident.

The AP story began with the Border Patrol’s reaction. With the exception noted below, it was relatively objective:

[…]”The U.S. Border Patrol said Friday that agents acted appropriately during the videotaped arrest of a woman who was pulled away from her anguished daughters on a street in Southern California.”

[…]“The agency said 36-year-old Perla Morales Luna recruited drivers to take people who crossed the border illegally to a house in National City, near San Diego.”

The agency put her in deportation proceedings and is not pursuing smuggling charges.

Video of the woman being pulled from her daughters on March 3 in the San Diego suburb had drawn nearly 10 million views on Facebook by Friday afternoon. At least one person can be heard crying uncontrollably as agents forced Morales-Luna into a vehicle and drove away.

The woman’s attorney, Andres Moreno II, said agents left the daughters — 17, 15 and 12 — alone on the street. The children, all U.S. citizens, are now living with family in the San Diego area.

AP reporter Elliot Spagat clearly decided not to describe Morales-Luna’s alleged involvement in human smuggling as, well, human smuggling.

The Border Patrol didn’t hesitate to do so, and also addressed why the daughters’ situation was handled as it was:

The AP’s Spagat adequately disclosed the CBP’s position, and noted it was potential disruptors who placed the daughters in jeopardy (though “whisked her away” in the excerpt below betrays bias):

Morales-Luna arranged for her sister to take custody of her children but not until after agents whisked her away, according to the Border Patrol.

The agency said officers faced “a barrage of insults and confrontational agitators” during the arrest.

Michael Scappechio, a spokesman, said safety concerns prompted agents to leave before letting Morales-Luna call her sister.

Especially given the alleged crime, as Jazz Shaw at Hot Air wrote Saturday, it’s hard to imagine that this story will change many minds:

… this entire premise of “families being separated by the cruel ICE agents” isn’t going to resonate very well in the heartlands. … do you hear liberals crying that … (citizens convicted of crimes) shouldn’t go to jail because the cops are “breaking up their family?”

No, we don’t.

NUNES: Why are ‘DRUDGE REPORT’ tweets censored?




Is Twitter censoring and attempting to suppress one of the post popular website on the Internet?

Breitbart’s John Nolte tweeted several examples of posts by the Drudge Report that were hidden behind a warning reading, “This Tweet is not available because it includes potentially sensitive content.


“Look at how Twitter censors @Drudge,” Nolte wrote. “90% of tweets are blocked.”

Twitter wasn’t just warning readers and letting them click through. The tweets were simply “not available” to be read.

Here’s what he’s talking about:

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes echoed Nolte’s sentiment.


“I’ve noticed this also,” Nunes responded.

“Seems like @Drudge_Report @Drudge being censored by Twitter.”

Nunes invited readers to retweet his observation if they experienced the same problem.

His tweet had been retweeted over 2,000 times.