Since this is a 5 part series, here is the master index to each individual article so you can conveniently access each one.

• Part 1 - PROPAGANDA (and Series Introduction)
• Part 2 - DIVIDE-AND-CONQUER
• Part 3 - HEGELIAN DIALECTIC, a.k.a. PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION
• Part 4 - POLITICAL CORRECTNESS / HATE SPEECH (this post)
• Part 5 - ASSAULT ON THE PINEAL GLAND (the physical brain)

Okay now guys, I will ask you to please bear with me on this one a bit. Let me explain...

This 4th part in my series entitled Top 5 Mass Mind Control Techniques used by the Elite.

I strongly believe that this technique – ‘Hate Speech’ in particular – is really the one for which they are currently exerting the greatest amount of effort (and the largest amount of minions and bootlickers) in order for their evilest of plans to come to fruition.

Accordingly, I will beg for your patience and plead for your effort to read through this lengthy post (or at the very least have a thorough scan of it).

I promise and guarantee, it will be eye-opening and worth your time and effort.

Thank you.

Introduction

In similar fashion to how the CIA had fabricated ‘Conspiracy Theory’ & the demeaning label of ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ which was recently (read, during the 2016 US Presidential Election) revamped into its 2.0 version as “Fake News”, the same upgrade can be witnessed with ‘Political Correctness’ in its new & improved form of ‘Hate Speech’ which is more fitting for the ages.

First, a bit of history (and elaboration on ‘Fake News’)...

Before going into the history of Hate Speech’s predecessor, we must look at definitions of its parent – Conspiracy Theory/ist.

The definition of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ according to Cambridge Online Dictionary is:

A belief that an unpleasant event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people.

And if we look at the meaning of ‘conspiracy’, according to Oxford we have:

A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

The term ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ is one that has taken on a negative connotation since the 1960s. In current usage, the term is used (with substantial efficacy) to label or discredit someone as “crazy” due to his/her views about a certain conspiracy or contentious/questionable issue.

Curiously, the term ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ can be seen as a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ in itself, as evidence has surfaced that the term has been coined (or at least utilized) by the CIA since the 1960s to discredit or ridicule any person who criticized or questioned the findings of the Warren Commission which stated there was merely a single gunman who had killed US President John F. Kennedy during his assassination on November 22, 1963.

The assassination of US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on November 22, 1963, Image source

As to not be labeled a nutjob myself, I am providing tangible evidence that the CIA indeed has been behind the fabrication of this term by showing you their official DISPATCH (document Number 1035-960) to this effect:

CIA DISPATCH, Document Number 1035-960 as per a FOIA request. This is the first page of the Original document entitled ‘Countering Criticism of the Warren Report’ (dated: April 1, 1967). Near the upper left corner, we can see the term PSYCH which is short for Psychological [Warfare] Operations. End of section 2 states:

“The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, ...”

So there you have it in black and white. This was indeed a psychological operation created by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in designating certain events off limits to inquiry or debate (source).

Particularly in the United States, raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion is a major thought crime.

With outlets such as Wikipedia still conveying various inconsistencies and holes in the original JFK account as conspiracy theories.

And as many per the government and intelligence agencies with many important files about the event remaining sealed and yet to be released, there is still plenty of room for these Deep State players to ridicule those with valid questions about the JFK event (just as is the case with the 9/11 conspiracy).

The mainstream news media, notably on television and in print, have run with the operation for decades, certainly in line with their infiltration by this very same nefarious CIA.

Fast-forward to 2016 – ‘Fake News’ is born

Perhaps having been a bit exhausted after several decades of wear & tear, these same Deep State actors have decided that something a bit more novel and catchy was required to effectively continue the charade.

Hence, we get Fake News. This new and improved method, at least for its 21st century stage, made its huge debut during and immediately following the 2016 US Presidential Election. So much misinformation, disinformation and outright lies were spewed by both the mainstream media as well as their alternative media rivals during the campaign, as to infuse an infinite amount of confusion and deception upon the masses.

CNN, in particular, bore much of the brunt of this blazing new Ferrari of a construct. The newly elected President Trump also used the term to great effect to discredit the once the most trusted name in news network.

Image source

The freshly concocted ‘Fake News’ ploy, however, seems to have somewhat backfired on them.

Trump’s post-election assertions were, and currently are, not false, as CNN has been known to lie and provide false news on so many occasions in recent years. Project Veritas has confirmed this through their undercover investigation implicating key figures from CNN including John Bonifield a supervising producer as well as Van Jones a contributor. When these individuals were pressed about the ongoing Russia Investigation (of Trump colluding with the Russians to win the election) this is what they had to say [Emphasis Added]:

"Could be bullshit. I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don’t have any big giant proof" - John Bonifield

Mr. Bonifield also suggests that all this (fake news) is good for CNN’s ratings – hence profits.

"The Russia thing is just a big nothing burger...Yeah." - Van Jones

The original Project Veritas videos can be viewed here

Shortly after, Van Jones was doing damage control with CNN anchor Anderson Cooper; and by his rather eloquent skating performance in the following video, you can tell that he indeed couldn’t skate his way around his previous assertion:

In his every so slyly style, Anderson Cooper did attempt to divert the issue so as to help Van Jones regain face.

Another instance of CNN fabricating Fake News occurred right after the London Bridge terrorist attack.

CNN Fabricating news in London

Of course we also had MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (or should I say Madcow?) push the false Russian [Election Interference] narrative for almost 2 full years night after night only to be proved totally false after the official Mueller Investigation.

2 whole years of broadcasted fake news by MSNBC

But wait, it gets better.

Fake News is not something that is limited to the MSM, even politicians can get in on the action:

A more recent example involves none other than US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez caught faking tears pretending that immigrants at the US southern border are suffering greatly.

Once more, as with its predecessor, it is being used to great effect as a means to discredit individuals or entire organizations. It seems like everyone is using it.

Well that’s enough for elaborating on the ‘Fake News’ phenomenon. So let’s get back to the real substance of this post.

Under the hood: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (PC)

For those of you who are a bit up there in age (like me) and were born prior to the late 1970’s you may recall a time where the majority of folk would not get easily offended. They didn’t require special attention back then. Black could be called black and would often say “I’m black.” when describing themselves. Those perhaps were the good old days.

My post The Good Old Days before Political Correctness...Gone forever? on the subject is definitely worth the read. If you are in dire need of stomach-splitting laughter, do have a look at the links to the ‘Dean Martin Celebrity Roast’ videos therein, as they are some of the funniest ever. These guys knew how to have fun and made an art out of insulting each other – all in good fun, without malice. Such a TV show today would never be able to find its way on the major networks’ airwaves. A forgotten era, sadly.

But by the 1980’s, especially in the latter part of the decade – especially when women were much more integrated into the workplace – things began to shift. Sure men could still be flirtatious and make the odd comments towards women at the office. And even tell some light-hearted sexist jokes without too much of a worry of being reprimanded.

By the 1990’s and into the 2000’s things really took a turn for the worst as it relates to Political Correctness. Men had to be much more on their guard and careful as to not offend women in the workplace. People were becoming more indoctrinated to be more “socially sensitive“ towards others which actually is not a bad thing in and of itself.

But it didn’t take long for things to really get out of hand.

I think the entire concept of Political Correctness has been beautifully analyzed and summarized by a teenager named Ainslie L., Winsted from Connecticut who posted a short piece on the issue on an online educational website called TeenInk (where teens can post their written works). Without posting the entirety of the piece, I will quote some of her fine assessment on the matter: [Emphasis Added]

One of today’s hot topics is “political correctness.” This idea concerns the “proper” names of races, genders, nationalities, and professions. That means that words which used to be common have been changed in an effort to please everyone and offend no one.

For example, garbage men (excuse me, not “men,” collectors) are sanitation engineers, and some women would prefer to spell the name of their gender as “womyn.”

I see this political correctness crusade as a power struggle between radicals who want to have their views pushed on everyone else and realists who know that a garbage man is doing the same duties as a sanitation engineer, no matter what the title.

It is impossible to please everyone in the world at one time.

To institute a new vocabulary to please everyone would be impossible.

Labels and titles are individual preferences that an entire society should not be forced to accept. Unfortunately, those who are “politically correct” fanatics don’t seem to respect individual opinions.

While it may sound nice to some people to be known as “vertically challenged” rather than to be called short, the name does not increase their height, nor does it prevent others from noticing their size.

Some black people prefer the term African-American. Others are satisfied with black. Not every person with dark skin comes from Africa. Who, then, has enough knowledge to tell the public how to label others?

I honestly don’t understand the hysteria over political correctness. Aside from making someone (but not everyone) feel satisfied on the outside, people will still be the same on the inside, doing the same job, with the same nationality.

It is one matter to be tactful and polite; it is another to go overboard and have a “correct” name for everything.

Should Orientals be called Asian-Americans or is it more respectful to designate each separate country: Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, or Korean-Americans? Then there are Polish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans. If you’re of multiple descent, then what are you called?

It is a positive notion to be proud of and knowledgeable about your heritage, but it is not a good idea to separate each part of your identity (nationality, religion, occupation) from everyone else. This is the root of discrimination and hatred, where the political correctness revolution has the potential to lead.

We are all different and no language or vocabulary is going to change that.

No matter how anyone is referred to, respect them for what makes them who they are. Respect means more than any title.

What a brilliant and articulate young woman this Ainslie L., Winsted. She nails the PC sham for exactly what it is – total BS. Bravo.

She ends with “No matter how anyone is referred to, respect them for what makes them who they are. Respect means more than any title.” This is what genuine compassion should be all about: respect for others. But people have gotten trapped into this mass deception of divide-and-conquer rendering themselves so blind and dumbed-down to realize it.

Under the hood: HATE SPEECH

Although ‘Hate Speech’ hasn’t been around as long as the PC culture psy-op, it is already as fine-tuned as a F1 Ferrari.

Its scope and scale exceed far beyond that of PC culture. ‘Hate Speech’ has been designed to both complement Political Correctness as well as catapult it to a stratospheric level.

This extremely malicious method of mass mind control can easily be perceived as a calculated conspiracy involving multiple players with the designed intent to inflict serious damage on individuals – even, and especially, online.

We will explore, with some detail, how it is employed to great effect by these multiple, complicit participants. And I will provide very pertinent examples to show how the stratagem works like a charm.

Example #1: University campuses plagued with student division

Campus division. Image source: David McNew, Getty Images

Complementary with the divide-and-conquer tactic, Hate Speech has been fomented across the wider spectrum of society, pitting individual and groups against one another along various manufactured divisions such as political parties (Democrat vs. Republican), progressives vs. conservatives, whites vs. colored, men vs. women (#Meetoo movement), straight vs. gay, and so forth and so on.

So much division and intolerance exists. I can find no better sample of this than during what occurred in the months following the 2016 US Presidential Campaign. On university campuses throughout the US, in particular, we have seen an orgy of intolerance between students, and, on occasion, between faculty or administrative staff and students.

On the famous grounds of UC Berkeley, which had admirably become a cradle free speech that ultimately lead to a greater nationwide anti-Vietnam war movement of the late 1960s, we witnessed an utter and complete breakdown of respect and civility between students. There was seemingly zero room for any kind of rational discussion or exchange of thoughts or ideas between peers. To make matters worse, both the school’s administration and local law enforcement pretty much idly stood by doing nothing to pacify tensions; one could almost rationalize that this was purposely and intentionally contrived on their part.

I will let the following video by CBS San Francisco affiliate KPIX entitled Violent Clashes Break Out At Pro-Trump Rally At Berkeley Park convey the extent of the hatred in all its glory.

At the time, none other than the self-proclaimed “Gay Conservative” (and former Breitbart editor) Milo Yiannopoulos had been schedule to give a speech on Berkeley’s campus; but due to the level of violence exhibited by the students, the engagement had to be canceled. Here is the highly articulate Milo giving his take on the matter:

Interestingly, even though Milo Yiannopoulos has been characterized as a highly controversial agitator or agent provocateur by mainstream media, they have, on countless occasions, invited him on their shows, often clashing with their hosts and pundits.

What I most admire about this extremely intelligent and articulate person is his ability to state the fallacies of the so-called progressive-left (or “liberals”) often ripping to shreds any argument thrown at him. He has honed these speaking skills so well that some countries have even banned him from entering their territory, lest they let their controlled propaganda media suffer additional embarrassing shellackings.

If you want a taste of the amount of dividing points that figure amongst the various divisions, just have a look at any interview he has provided. In similar fashion to Milo’s unscrambling of the divisive issues that plague societies around the Western world, you can also search for exchanges between the mainstream media and the Canadian university professor Jordan Peterson.

Peterson also became a well-know, equally controversial figure after Canada passed Bill C-16 which basically made not addressing someone by their preferred gender-pronoun a criminal act punishable by incarceration.

I need to note here, that a lot of what is happening on college & university campuses all over the Western world is nothing short of spectacular; I say this with respect to the means by which it has been purposefully and deceptively implemented. That is to say, through various boards, think tanks, non-profits, and so-called equal opportunity organizations, a culture of inequality and victimhood has most detrimentally been sewn into the fabric of student life.

It’s a simple approach when you think about it. If you want to instill radical change in society and mold people’s thoughts, perceptions, and attitudes, you need to start with those who are most impressionable – students.

We know that a lot of indoctrination occurs throughout elementary, middle-, and high-school; but for these malicious seeds to truly bear fruit, or foment hatred and devastation, you need to indoctrinate those who will be the most active members of society – young workers, as they are highly energetic and passionately driven individuals that will set out to carve the world they see fit.

Divide-and-conquer Elites have always espoused that it merely takes one generation to shape society in the way that is sought or desired.

A recent “conservative” graduate from St. Olaf College (a Liberal Arts college in Minnesota) has exemplified the true nature of change that has taken place on college campuses in recent years. She tells of her story saying that: “I spent the last four years defending myself”. The article is quite eye-opening and is definitely worth the read. Here are but a few excerpts:

... I’ve spent the last four years defending myself against personal and political attacks from professors and peers alike.

The most recent example came in late April as the St. Olaf College Republicans hosted scholar Heather Mac Donald for a talk on her new book, “The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.” As chair of the group, I fielded many angry emails, including this from a theater professor: “This speaker is dangerous. It’s not about a difference in idealogical [sic] perspectives. This rhetoric is dangerous and puts my Black body in danger.
Several more professors emailed similar sentiments.

All these incidents spring from the prevailing ideology on campus, which was perhaps most evident the day after President Donald Trump was elected. The campus was in a tailspin. Several professors cried in front of their classes. Some canceled class altogether. Students openly wept in the quad.

As a well-known conservative on campus, I received reports that my name was being mentioned frequently during those protests. As I walked into our student commons area, someone yelled: “If you voted for Trump, you better be f**king scared.” This prompted most students nearby to erupt in cheers and clapping. I quickly left the area.

Other conservative students have been targeted in this way. Several friends in the spring of 2017 said they felt violently threatened by peers and refrained from speaking about their political views out of fear.

In fact, fear was a constant feeling for conservatives on campus. In May 2017, when a massive protest engulfed the college over racist notes found on campus, my progressive peers put up posters declaring “I’m sick of white tears” and “f*ck your white complacency.”

... Later it was proven that the main “racist note” that had launched the campus coup was a hoax, written by a black, female student.

As I reflect on my four years in college, I admit I am disappointed in many ways. The lack of diversity of thought, the absence of respect for differing opinions, the threats, the bullying–it was all so juvenile and the antithesis of everything higher education is supposed to be.

Meanwhile, administrators who wanted to please everyone often lacked conviction in defending marginalized voices, like conservative ones, and often made college life difficult. I can’t help but feel sad at the potential such a school, were it to focus on actual “diversity” and “inclusion” of all kinds.

The example above is probably one of thousands across the nation (and other countries’).

You can find countless examples of how students like the one above have painfully suffered through challenging ordeals in these “higher-learning” settings – many involving abysmal faculty and administrative staff on the torturing end of the spectrum from these two websites:

• The College Fix, https://www.thecollegefix.com/
• Campus Reform, https://www.campusreform.org/

Example #2: Race-baiting & “White-privilege”

Although the traditional meaning of the term race-baiting implies “the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group” (Merriam-Webster dictionary), the concept is better defined as per entries found in UrbanDictionary.com:

Baiting a racial group;

Baiting people, using racially-inflammatory issues or stereotypes.

Attempting to cloud logic and facts by appealing to emotion through false accusations of racial discrimination.

Yet another divide-and-conquer gambit rears its ugly head to the forefront. In multicultural countries such as in the United States, Canada, and many in Western Europe, race division has been used to great effect for centuries.

But more recently, the focus of this method of division has sought to cluster people into impenetrable bubbles, or sacrosanct ideologies.

Antifa - an American “anti-fascist” left-wing group - exemplifies this phenomenon to a T.

Members of Antifa have very often demonstrated unrelenting violence at rallies and protests against “white supremacists” or any group that doesn’t conform to their strict dogma. It is grossly ironic that as a group that supposedly wants to defend against fascism (in the original sense of the word/ideology, it must be stated), Antifa has proved itself to be nothing more than an outright terrorist organization.

To expand on the subject at hand: the highly-deceptive dualistic nature of this Hate Speech tactic must also be exposed. While the example above illustrates how certain groups are cajoled to be homogeneous or exclusive (tightly knit, if you will), the diametric side of this double-edged sword employs an “inclusiveness” approach – such as with the LGBT movement/agenda.

Interestingly, this approach was beautifully challenged when a group of straight people sought to have their own “Straight Pride” parade (in similar fashion to the “Gay-Pride parade”):

But getting back to the “race-baiting” or division between races issue, we have seen that begin in earnest with the “Black Lives Matter” movement which was absolutely nothing like the Martin Luther King protest movement of the 1960s (nor the Black Panther movement either), but rather a faux or phony one that was ill-conceived and poorly executed by its adherents.

Yet, the powers-that-be, seeing that this approach was perhaps not the most effective, changed gears a little bit and simply focused on “white-privilege”

This approach killed two birds with one stone: first, it continued to foment hatred amongst various groups, and second, it also served as a means to “erase history”.

To illustrate the latter (erasing history), I need only cite one (of many) examples of how they have (sadly managed) done so. Their field of operation is the same as the former (attack on whites) – namely, on college & university campuses.

Who better to go after “black-hating” white supremacists than many of the Founding Fathers and early presidents such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, not to mention Confederate general types such as Robert E. Lee. All around the United States, students, professors, and others have made it their mission to remove, destroy, or ban any statue or mention of the past which bespoke of slavery.

Statue of Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration of Independence and third US President. Source: Hofstra Students Demand Removal of Thomas Jefferson Statue. Additional sources: here, and here.

Without any consideration of the nature of society in the era of the founding of the country, these radicals ignorantly thought it better to simply remove the vestiges of the former institution of slavery rather than preserving it as an important instructive lesson for future generations. This is a very careless way to [supposedly] ensure that mistreatment against blacks (or any particular race for that matter) going forward.

A wonderful article by Daisy Luther from The Organic Prepper Blog entitled How Can We Learn from the Past If We Erase History? beautifully conveys the ridiculousness of the movement’s premise. Here are a few astute excerpts from the piece:

Removing monuments from the Civil War to erase history is a mistake.

Every country’s history has a dark spot in it. ... Erasing history, though, is a dangerous path because it means that the truth becomes something malleable that has been created instead of recorded.

Rewriting history is positively Orwellian, and a terribly dangerous path.

As you watch people destroying monuments of Southern Civil War generals, renaming streets, and planning to deface the side of a mountain with their faces on it, let this chilling quote ring in your ears: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” (George Orwell, 1984)

Without our history, good or bad, who are we? If we don’t remember where we came from, how can we hope to continuously improve? If we can’t learn from the mistakes of the past, and if the truth is “created” by the vocal minority, then how does the truth even exist anymore?

History teaches us important lessons.

We’ve all heard that quote, “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” So what happens when we completely erase it?

Erasing the negative part of history doesn’t make it go away Sanitizing the facts doesn’t mean that they never happened. It just means no one can learn from them.

Everything has now become so politically correct that most of us have no idea what to say in certain situations, lest we be chastised as horrible bigots. The schools are systematically brainwashing children and the indoctrination is completed in our colleges and universities.

Good, bad, and ugly, this is part of our national story. Tearing down everything that was related to the sordid parts doesn’t mean that they never happened.

If you look at it at face value, this is nothing more than an Orwellian – textbook 1984 – means by which to erase history so that unaware and oblivious future generations repeat mistakes of the past.

Today, we continue to see this “white supremacy” doctrine not only on college campuses, but in the corporate world as well.

Similar to how less qualified individuals are admitted to universities, many corporations (including [and maybe even lead by] those in Hollywood) also naively choose to play along with the false movement.

While there exist tons of examples to illustrate this, I will simply show a recent one that was conveniently set for Independence Day in the United States (2019). The company in question is Nike who, at the last minute, pulled a “controversial” product – a sneaker with a Betsy Ross style (colonial) flag – from sale since it “triggered” too many SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) who saw it as a racist symbol of white supremacy. Here are three related articles from ZeroHedge if ever you want to read more about this nonsense:

• Arizona Blocks Nike After Kaepernick-Complaint Sparks Virtue-Signaling Sneaker Ban
• This Isn't About Sneakers, But People Who Want "No USA At All"
• Corporate America's Virtue-Signaling Is Opportunist, Dangerous, And Undermines The Spirit Of Capitalism

As with so many group-focused issues or triggers which spark virtue-signaling just like 1984’s doublespeak, we have come to a point where people can no longer distinguish what is real from mere fantasy.

Who knew that George Orwell’s novel would become an instruction manual for the Elite’s plan of a dystopian society?

Example #3: The Victimization mentality

I will keep it somewhat short for my final example of how the ‘Hate Speech’ deception is implemented. Instead of outlining the specifics of the example I wish to exhibit, I will simply link to a recent post I made on the matter which not only exemplifies the Hate Speech Psy-Op, but also illustrates how the Problem-Reaction-Solution bravado gets thrown into the mix. The post is entitled The Jussie Smollet affair - A precursor to what's in store for 2019-2020 and is definitely worth a look.

One of the main points I should make about the ‘victimization mentality’ is that it is used as a mechanism to render people helpless and non-self-reliant. In other words, it creates a “some authority needs to help me” or “some authority needs to do something about this” mindset amongst the population so that they become more dependent and even ask for more control and policing by the state.

The three examples above represent but a microcosm of what is really out there. Literally hundreds more could be provided. But, to not make this post too lengthy, I just want to give the audience a taste of some of the ways they implement these tactics.

Criminalizing Hate Speech

An important point I want to make about ‘Hate Speech’ is that the powers-that-be have not only sought to spread this depraved mind control technique across societies, but also to actually criminalize it through the help of corrupt legislatures and law enforcement agencies.

While I could go into detail about how many countries have passed ‘Hate Speech’ related legislation, I will begin by providing the example of Canada that recently passed Bill C-16 which criminalizes anyone who addresses someone with something other than their preferred pronoun. Think about the implications of that for a moment and what kind of Pandora’s box this is opening. One need merely to think how this law will (and already does) affect teachers, professors, doctors, public servants, etc. Think of how many current rules, policies, and procedures that need to be modified in order to implement these insane laws.

Throughout the European Union and the United Kingdom, you can also find several instances not only of this type of legislation, along with how law enforcement are put in a position to enforce those laws and punish culprits while even inviting the general public to rat on “wrongdoers”.

Here are a couple of Twitter screenshots from an outstanding Steemit article entitled The Psychology Of Control: Social Media & The Frontlines Of The Reality War (which I highly recommend) that shows such instances within the UK:

A more recent example involves France. The extent of this continuously propagated insanity is nicely touched upon in a recent ZeroHedge article entitled Dark Days In France (originally published in The Unz Review). Here are a few highlights from the article [Emphasis Added]:

Every regime under siege has a choice: improve its performance and unify the country or . . . crack down on critical opposition. The Macron regime has decidedly opted for the latter, proposing yet another law to destroy that pesky last bastion of free speech in France: the Internet.

The person charged with drafting this new legislation is Laetitia Avia, an MP of Togolese descent, with the support of Parliamentary Undersecretary for Digital Economy Cédric O [sic], a Franco-Korean.

Laetitia Avia: The new face of the libertidical “French” “Republic”

This is how they operate folks, they recruit these parasitical, spineless politicians – often not even natives of the countries for which they are elected officials – and brainwash, compel, bribe, coerce, blackmail, or brownstone them into proposing, voting, or enacting laws that serve the interests and enable the nefarious agendas of the Elite.

These politicians – who have infested nearly 99% of the Western world (this 99% figure is undoubtedly the case with the highly corrupt and self-serving US Congress) are absolute scum and are not worthy at all of the positions they hold, as they really provide nothing of real value for their constituents apart from unswerving and gradual destruction of their standards of living, freedoms, rights & liberties.

This, my friends, is really the crux of the problem, apart from a highly ignorant and different population I must add.

More seriously, tech companies will be liable to massive fines if they do not immediately remove content which might be considered “hateful.”

This seems to follow the lead of the UK which a few months earlier has also obligned to such lunacy (see UK to fine Facebook & Google up to 4% value for not removing 'hate speech' & 'fake news' fast enough. And the UK also has hefty fines for social media companies if they don’t block “bullying” content.

If a platform does not remove such content within 24 hours of notification, it could be fined by the French High Council for Audiovisual (Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel) to the tune of 4% of their global annual turnover. For Twitter for example, this would mean fines of up to a whopping $120 billion.

Let those numbers sink in a bit. How much higher would it be for Facebook?

With such menacing fines, big tech companies have all but no choice to oblige to the massive policing and censorship that is bound to ensue.

Social media are also expected by the French government to artificially suppress the diffusion of hateful content, by limiting their “virality.”

“limiting their “virality” seems to imply that big tech companies are expected to shadow-ban contents – which is something that companies such as Twitter and Facebook already do on a massive scale.

Avia defines “cyber-hate” as “any content that is manifestly an incitement to hatred or a discriminatory insult on grounds of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or disability.” But free speech watchdogs have already pointed out that French law is notoriously vague as to what constitutes “hate.”

This is the problem with these laws (wherever they are implemented); the language used in them is so vague that their implementation is very subjective and is subject to much interpretation and personal biases amongst its enforcers.

The combination of the scale of the fine and the swiftness of expected response may mean a devastating chilling effect against free speech: tech operators will have a massive incentive to auto-ban any and all content which might conceivably be considered “hateful” by a CSA bureaucrat or some litigious ethnic lobby. Needless to say, much legitimate content would also be banned.

I am sure that I am missing many more European countries here. But I’ve just come across how Germany is also playing along.

And how would this project be complete without the help of the biggest global organization in the world. I am talking about the United Nations (UN), of course. As per a very recent (July 11) ZeroHedge article entitled UN Launches All-Out War On Free Speech (authored by Judith Bergman of The Gatestone Institute) we can clearly see that the so-called arbiter of human rights seeks to masquerade efforts in such fashion but, in reality, is actually doing the opposite. Let’s examine a few specifics from the UN’s plan in question [Emphasis and Hyperlinks Added]:

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, "Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law".

The UN frequently provides vague enough guidelines as to not overtly state its true objectives; in lieu, it prefers to use broad and somewhat vague language to disguise their plans and present them in noble manner. This is definitely the case with their extremely nefarious Agenda 21 & Agenda 30 (which I will not go into here, as these would require entire posts to outline the sheer level of planned destruction found therein). So, I wouldn’t take their mention of “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech” too seriously, as this is just a blanket statement thrown in good fashion to appease the skeptics.

Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN's agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to "media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants" should be stopped.

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN's action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be "hate" and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: "Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor". With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled "hate".

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to "present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis".

With the UN Secretary-General (i.e., the UN’s top boss) fast-tracking a global plan of action against hate speech (and hate crimes) basically translates to: obliging member countries (pretty much all countries in the world) to introduce and pass legislation to this effect.

The mere fact that this project is “fast-tracked” shows the desperation with which the power Elite (who happen to have an endless supply of minion tentacles within the UN structural apparatus at their service) are eager to push this plan through.

Disturbingly, the UN plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through education.

As was the case with the PC (Political Correctness) agenda which, in large part, was initiated in educational settings, the new and improved mantra of ‘Hate Speech’ will be implemented in similar fashion. You see, children are the most vulnerable and impressionable to these deceptive shenanigans. And what better way to instill and plant their seeds than with our youth. They are the ones who will be less likely to challenge any of it and go along and do as they are told by their teachers and principals.

Now don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against institutions sensitizing students to the adverse effects of hate speech. Not at all. What I am saying is that the way they are going about this is deceptive in their intent. Their true motive or intent is to plant the seed so as to instill the acceptance of the masses that any form of [even vaguely] “harmful” speech will be unacceptable and will ultimately result in grave restrictions or near complete bans on free speech - which is what they really despise and are afraid of, as truth is their greatest enemy (or those who speak it). That my friends, is why they are going through such monumental efforts with this project.

How long will it take for the remaining Western countries to implement such draconian laws and law enforcement mechanisms? And will the people sit idly by permitting their legislators to do so unabatedly?

How BIG-TECH is enabling and pushing the ‘Hate Speech’ agenda full-steam ahead

Without a doubt, this summer of 2019 appears to be a full-blown, all-out multi-player coordinated blitz to take advantage of this “anti-hate” movement agenda in order to not only suppress free speech and ban conservative (and other voices), but also to use it as a means to complement another (divide-and-conquer) agenda, namely the European migration crisis and the illegal immigration problem the US is experiencing on its southern border.

Simply stated, these tech companies – in line with governments’ newly implemented draconian laws – are more than willing to oblige and help label all that are against such immigration or migrants as ‘racist’, ‘inhuman’, ‘careless’, ‘hateful’, and so on and so on. Additionally, it serves as the perfect means by which governments

Despite the [fabricated] appearances that governments in Europe and in other Western countries (such as Canada, Australia, etc.) are being “tough” on big tech companies (through big fines, rhetoric, etc.), let’s be clear: they are clearly in bed with each other and are playing one of the biggest con games on us...

It’s the exact same thing in the Banking & Financial industries; even though these institutions are imposed hefty fines (which are usually but a mere fraction of what they’ve already swindled) by governmental regulatory agencies, you’ll never see them get real punishments, nor ever ever see any their executives get punished or criminally charged.

Similar to “vague” anti-hate laws enacted by governments as described above, big tech companies pretty much do the same with their own bylaws or ‘community guidelines’.

Here is one example with that of YouTube – the #1 video sharing platform in the world which is well know for its practices of censorship, banning, shadow-banning, and demonetization of conservatives (and other voices) – with their Official Blog: Our ongoing work to tackle hate (dated June 5, 2019 at the time of this post), notable excerpts [with Emphasis Added]:

Over the past few years, we’ve been investing in the policies, resources and products needed to live up to our responsibility and protect the YouTube community from harmful content.

Thanks to these investments, videos that violate our policies are removed faster than ever and users are seeing less borderline content and harmful misinformation.

What the hell is “borderline content” and who will determine this and how? The same goes for “harmful misinformation” – who will determine what is “harmful” and what is not? How can this not be subjective and vary from person to person? How on God’s earth could staff at YouTube even “objectively” interpret and enforce these?

We review our policies on an ongoing basis to make sure we are drawing the line in the right place

So YouTube gets to “draw the line”? They are the arbiters of what is deemed appropriate?

We’ve been taking a close look at our approach towards hateful content in consultation with dozens of experts in subjects like violent extremism, supremacism, civil rights, and free speech. Based on those learnings, we are making several updates:

Who exactly are these so-called “experts”? And what on what authority can they decide what is deemed acceptable or not?

In addition to removing videos that violate our policies, we also want to reduce the spread of content that comes right up to the line.

Again, what the hell is this “line”? How the heck does one measure how it “comes right up” to it? Pure insanity!

Finally, it’s critical that our monetization systems reward trusted creators who add value to YouTube.

We know from mass demonetization that a lot of alternative channels (e.g., WeAreChange, but to name one example) that do nothing more than provide truth – often backed by factual and verifiable information – get harshly punished while establishment mainstream media propagandistic mouthpieces such as CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and the like not only get monetized but also are deemed “trusted creators” and thus have their videos recommended more than others – even though their viewcounts are often horribly lower than their alternative counterparts.

I haven’t looked at the ‘community guidelines’ for Facebook and Twitter, but would safely assume that they are just as insanely vague and bogus as is the case with YouTube. Facebook recently seems to be focusing on what they deem “Hate Agents” (see articles Facebook's Secret 'Hate Agent' Formula Leaked By Insider & BOMBSHELL: Leaked Docs Reveal Facebook’s Process To Label You A ‘Hate Agent’).

Imagine being labelled a ‘Hate Agent’ along with its associated shame; I think that would actually be much worst than ‘Conspiracy Theorist’. This is social engineering at its finest.

Finally, I must note that these social media giants continuously change these guidelines, adding more and more of what they deem ‘hateful’ – especially after left-leaning (or other cry babies) get triggered by something least bit offensive to the average person. There is no end in sight.

Conclusion

How far and wide will this ‘Hate Speech’ movement/tactic/stratagem unabatedly continue to spread across the Western world like the black plague?

Unless we make a COLLECTIVE EFFORT to put an end to this madness, it will only get worse. The time to act is now.

Thank you for taking the time to read (or scan through) this lengthy post.

Any re-steems would be highly appreciated, as we really need to put a monkey wrench in the plans of the Elite before it's too late.

This concludes Part 4 of the series. You can continue with Part 5 - ASSAULT ON THE PINEAL GLAND (the physical brain).

In Peace & Liberty,

@libertyacademy