By Frances Bloomfield | Natural News | August 26, 2018

When Harvard University first introduced RoboBee back in 2013, it could do little more than fly and cling to walls. Come 2018, the same research team has put out a new and improved RoboBee — one that can successfully dive into and burst out of water.

The latest in a series of minuscule, flight-capable robots, this RoboBee is a mere two cm tall and has a weight about one-fiftieth that of a penny. Yet it’s fully capable of smoothly leaping into water, back out, and then making a proper landing. In order to achieve this, the team utilized a combination of experimental data and theoretical modeling to find the ideal flapping frequency for the wings in the air and in the water. Too low a frequency would make it difficult for RoboBee to fly after submerging in fluids, and too high a frequency would result in the wings snapping off. They found that 220 to 300 hertz was suitable for aerial flight, and nine to 13 hertz was best for water.

Following this, the researchers had to devise a way for RoboBee to break surface tension and leap back into the air. The solution turned out to be a two-step system consisting of a central gas collection chamber and four buoyant outtriggers. Upon swimming to the surface, an electrolytic plate within RoboBee’s gas chamber would convert water into combustible oxyhydrogen which propels the wings and the robot out of water. The outtriggers would then help stabilize RoboBee.

“Because the RoboBee has a limited payload capacity, it cannot carry its own fuel, so we had to come up with a creative solution to exploit resources from the environment,” explained Elizabeth Farrell Helbling, graduate student at the Harvard Microbiotics Laboratory and co-author of the accompanying paper. “Surface tension is something that we have to overcome to get out of the water, but is also a tool that we can utilize during the gas collection process.”




At this stage, the biggest limitation of RoboBee is that it can’t fly right after emerging from water due to the lack of on-board sensors and a restricted motion-tracking system. Yet the team hopes to improve on this in the future. One other thing RoboBee has going for it is that it’s a thousand times lighter than any past aerial-to-aquatic robot — meaning that it could potentially be utilized for even more real-life applications, such as environmental monitoring and search-and-rescue operations.

However, this also means that RoboBee could very well be an effective spy. As was brought up in a 2016 article on the Daily Mail, this tiny robot can land on and rest on just about any surface with nothing more than an electrode patch and foam mount. Essentially, RoboBee would be using static electricity to stick to walls, an action that requires way less power than flying. So a RoboBee that has settled comfortably on your ceiling is one that could stay there for long periods of time.

Furthermore, at its current size, RoboBee could easily be mistaken for an actual bee struggling to get out of water. This could then present an easy opportunity for a free meal to the likes of woodpeckers, shrikes, crab spiders, beewolves, and frogs — all animals known to prey on bees. But instead of getting a quick meal, they risk mouthfuls of potentially deadly electronics and hardware.

So really, RoboBee may pave the way for better microrobots to come, but currently it’s a piece of technology that should be approached with cautious optimism at the least. After all, it only takes one wicked individual to take something good and appropriate it for less-than-savory purposes. (Related: Not only spy drones in the sky: Homeland Security has robot spy fish in the water.)

Go to Robotics.news and read up on many more stories about robots and artificial intelligence.


Contributed by Frances Bloomfield of NaturalNews.com


SHARE:

By Daisy Luther | The Organic Prepper | August 23, 2018

After a company in Wisconsin fitted each of their employees a microchip and claimed they absolutely loved it, many people were adamant that nope, no way, they’d never get chipped like a dog. Some people claimed religious objections (mark of the Beast) while others feel that their privacy has been already been invaded quite enough with the advent of “smart” technology and advertising cookies on the internet.

If you swear to the skies that you’ll never get chipped, several experts quoted in an article on USA Today are here to tell you that you’re wrong.

Associate professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Noelle Chesley said, “It will happen to everybody. But not this year… Maybe not my generation, but certainly that of my kids.”

Professor Chesley isn’t alone in her prediction. Gene Munster of Loup Ventures had a lot to say about the possibility of everyone getting a microchip. He believes it’s about 50 years away.

 “In 10 years, Facebook, Google, Apple, and Tesla will not have their employees chipped,” he says. “You’ll see some extreme forward-looking tech people adopting it, but not large companies.”

The idea of being chipped has too “much negative connotation” today, but by 2067 “we will have been desensitized by the social stigma,” Munster says. (source)

The article gushes about the “benefits” of getting a microchip embedded in your hand.

This would go beyond paying with your smartphone. Instead, chipped customers would simply wave their hands in lieu of Apple Pay and other mobile-payment systems.

The benefits don’t stop there. In the future, consumers could zip through airport scanners sans passport or drivers license; open doors; start cars; and operate home automation systems. All of it, if the technology pans out, with the simple wave of a hand. (source)

Seriously, how much lazier are humans going to get?

They’re right about the desensitization, though. There are things going on these days that never in a million years would have been okay decades ago, and that’s because popular culture, television, and the internet make it seem A-OK and perfectly normal. When They Who Rule decide that microchipping is the best way to ensure their total control, you can bet that there will be tv shows and movies and celebrities that all demonstrate the ease and joy of having a microchip.

Everyone’s talking about the “benefits” of getting a microchip.

Tech companies are practically waxing poetic about the joys of having a microchip implanted in one’s body.

In Sweden, BioHax says nearly 3,000 customers have had its chip embedded to do many things, including ride the national rail system without having to show the conductor a ticket.

In the U.S., Dangerous Things, a Seattle-based firm, says it has sold “tens of thousands” of chips to consumers via its website. The chip and installation cost about $200.

After years of being a subculture, “the time is now” for chips to be more commonly used, says Amal Graafstra, founder of Dangerous Things. “We’re going to start to see chip implants get the same realm of acceptance as piercings and tattoos do now.”

In other words, they’ll be more visible, but not mainstream yet.

“It becomes part of you the way a cellphone does,” Graafstra says. “You can never forget it, and you can’t lose it. And you have the capability to communicate with machines in a way you couldn’t before.”

That guy who wants to communicate with machines clearly hasn’t been watching the same sci-fi movies that I have. Nor has he read Stephen Quayle’s terrifying book, Terminated.

Graafstra isn’t the only one who thinks the whole thing is fabulous. One guy even has parties were people can “bond” over getting microchipped.

At a recent tech conference, Hannes Sjöblad explained how a microchip implanted in his hand makes his life easier. It replaces all the keys and cards that used to clutter his pockets.

“I use this many times a day, for example, I use it to unlock my smart phone, to open the door to my office,” Sjöblad said.

Sjöblad calls himself a biohacker. He explained, “We biohackers, we think the human body is a good start but there is certainly room for improvement.”

The first step in that improvement is getting a microchip about size of a grain of rice slipped under the skin. Suddenly, the touch of a hand is enough to tell the office printer this is an authorized user.

The microchips are radio frequency identification tags. The same technology widely used in things like key cards. The chips have been implanted in animals for years to help identify lost pets and now the technology is moving to humans…

…Sjöblad said he even organizes implant parties where people bond over getting chipped together.  (source)

Will microchipping parties be the next generation of those outrageously expensive candle parties? Will folks be pimping microchips like they do those scented wax melts? Will it become some kind of MLM thing to make it even more socially acceptable?

What about the dark side of being microchipped?

Of course, they didn’t mention how easy it would be to shut off the microchipped person’s access to all of those things. And it isn’t like you could just not use your chip if it’s embedded in your body. If you were ever in a situation in which you didn’t wish to be identified, tough luck. Everything would be right there in a little device implanted under your skin.

Although the current breed of microchips does not have GPS tracking capability, analysts contend that they will one of these days in the not-so-distant future. Anyway, how do you KNOW that there is no GPS tracking technology in that teeny little chip? Just because they tell you so? And gee, who doesn’t want their every move being tracked?

Not every professor or tech expert thinks getting a microchip is a good idea. Mercifully, there are a few voices of reason.

Alessandro Acquisti, a professor of information technology and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, warns that this might not be a good idea. (Although it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to realize this.)

“Companies often claim that these chips are secure and encrypted…But “encrypted” is “a pretty vague term,” he said, “which could include anything from a truly secure product to something that is easily hackable.”

Another potential problem, Dr. Acquisti said, is that technology designed for one purpose may later be used for another. A microchip implanted today to allow for easy building access and payments could, in theory, be used later in more invasive ways: to track the length of employees’ bathroom or lunch breaks, for instance, without their consent or even their knowledge.

“Once they are implanted, it’s very hard to predict or stop a future widening of their usage,” Dr. Acquisti said. (source)

Then there is the issue of the chip in your body being hacked.

“This is serious stuff. We’re talking about a nonstop potential connection to my body and I can’t turn it off, I can’t put it away, it’s in me. That’s a big problem,” said Ian Sherr, an executive editor at CNET.

“It’s very easy to hack a chip implant, so my advice is don’t put your life secrets on an implant, Sjöblad said…

“It’s about educating the people and giving every person the tools…not only how to use the technology but, more importantly, when it’s being used against you,” Sjöblad warned.  (source)

Yeah. Microchips are fabulous.

Here’s how it could go down.

Some people actually want to be microchipped like a dog. They’re lining up for it. It if isn’t available to them, they’re totally bummed out.

Certain folks won’t be happy until everyone has a computer chip implanted in them. Here’s how this could go.

• Initially, it would be the sheep who blindly desire to be chipped for their own “convenience” leading the way.

• Then, it would become remarkably inconvenient not to be chipped – sort of like it’s nearly impossible to not have a bank account these days.

• Then, the last holdouts could be forcibly chipped by law.

The push may be soft at first. It may begin with peer pressure in the workplace.

Three Square Market said the chips are voluntary, but Chesley says that if a company announces a plan to be chipped, the expectation is that you will get chipped — or risk losing out on advancement, raises and being a team player.

“That’s what we’re worried about,” says Bryan Allen, chief of staff for state Rep. Tina Davis (D), who is introducing a bill in Pennsylvania to outlaw mandatory chip embedding. “If the tech is out there, what’s to stop an employer from saying either you do this, or you can’t work here anymore.”

Several states have passed similar laws, while one state recently saw a similar bill die in committee. “I see this as a worker’s rights issue,” says Nevada state Sen. Becky Harris (R), who isn’t giving up. “This is the wrong place to be moving,” she says.

Should future corporations dive in to chipping their employees, they will have huge issues of “trust” to contend with, says Kent Grayson, a professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.

“You’ve got to have a lot of trust to put one of those in your body,” Grayson says. Workers will need assurances the chip is healthy, can’t be hacked, and its information is private, he says.  (source)

So what if it meant you’d lose your job if you refused to be chipped? What if you had a family to take care of and health insurance you couldn’t afford to lose?  The question of would you or wouldn’t you just got a whole lot more variables.

This horror movie gets even scarier. There is already a law on the books that could allow human beings to be forcibly chipped.

Oh, it’s couched in warm, fuzzy language and they say it’s just to help keep track of folks with Alzheimer’s or other developmental disabilities, but remember that the most unpatriotic law ever passed was also called the Patriot Act.

H.R.4919 was passed in 2016.

It directs the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to award competitive grants to health care, law enforcement, or public safety agencies, and nonprofit organizations, to develop or operate locally based proactive programs to prevent wandering and locate missing individuals with dementia or children with developmental disabilities. The BJA must give preference to law enforcement or public safety agencies partnering with nonprofit organizations that use person-centered plans and are directly linked to individuals, and families of individuals, with dementia or developmental disabilities. (source)

Despite the fact that the bill requires everyone to use privacy “best practices,” it’s not that much of a stretch to see what a slippery slope this is. Who gets to decide whether a person “needs” to be chipped for their own good? Law enforcement? Scary.

Could this lead to a cashless society?

If “everyone” is getting microchipped like these experts predict, that could be the next step in the push toward a cashless society. Think about the lack of privacy then. If everything is purchased via a chip unique to you, then no purchases could be under the radar. Whether a person was stocking up on food, watching X-rated movies, reading books on revolution, or buying ammo, it would all be recorded in a database. Our purchases could be used in some kind of pre-crime technology, ala Minority Report, or they could be used to profile us in other ways.

If there is no way to make purchases but with a chip, many people will have to reluctantly comply. The same chips could be a requirement for medical care, driver’s licenses, jobs – you name it. No matter where you tried to hide, your GPS locator would mean that you would be found. It would be like everyone being forced to have one of those ankle bracelets that criminals wear, except it would be inside your body.

If you think the atmosphere of control is unnerving now, just wait. When everyone is microchipped, the net will be even tighter.

Between the looming robot apocalypse and forcible microchipping, it seems like we won’t have to wait for “climate change” or a war of Mutually Assured Destruction to get us. Technology just might be the end of humanity.


Contributed by Daisy Luther of TheOrganicPrepper.com

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. 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, PreppersDailyNews.com. 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 Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter.


SHARE:

By Daniel Taylor | Activist Post | August 22, 2018

Company that helps manufacture U.S. citizens drivers licenses brags of “building and managing databases of entire populations” across the globe.

Big Tech has gathered unprecedented amounts of personal data from millions of people. At the same time, a system of total surveillance has been constructed: Facial recognition, biometric scanning, cell phone surveillance and more have amassed a huge amount of information.

We see the stories about the growing surveillance state, but we don’t hear about the gigantic multinational corporation that is helping to build the physical infrastructure supporting it.

Idemia (formerly Morpho), is a billion dollar multinational corporation. It is responsible for building a significant portion of the world’s biometric surveillance and security systems, operating in about 70 countries. Some American clients of the company include the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and the FBI.

The company website says that Morpho has been “…building and managing databases of entire populations…” for many years.

From the company site:

Morpho has been building and managing databases of entire populations for governments, law enforcement agencies and other government bodies around the world, whether for national ID, health cards, bank cards or even driver license programs.

In the United States, Idemia is involved in the making of state issued drivers licenses in 42 states.

The company is now pushing digital license trials in the U.S. Delaware and Iowa are among five states involved in the trials this year. With the mobile license, law enforcement will be able to wirelessly “ping” a drivers smartphone for their license. The move is part of a wider trend toward cashless payment.

The company website says:

With a sales office in Hong Kong, Morpho offers services and solutions in the field of digital identity and smart transactions. The world leader in multibiometric identification technologies, Morpho supplies biometric identification systems to Chinese police forces and government immigration agencies.

Morpho has also provided facial recognition systems to police agencies in Shanghai, Tianjin, Heilongjiang, Jilin, Jiangxi, Guangzhou and Wenzhou.

In India, the controversial Aadhaar national ID card system is also enjoying the support of Idemia through Safran Identity & Security, now part of Idemia. The company states that it is “in charge of all technological aspects of Aadhaar”.

Morpho is one of the companies chosen to take part in an unprecedented program called Aadhaar to count everyone residing in India and then assign each person a unique identification number. Morpho is in charge of all technological aspects of Aadhaar.

Several court cases have gone to India’s supreme court on grounds of privacy violations from Aadhaar. The ID system has had serious security breaches, with access to a billion identities being sold for less than $10 through WhatsApp.

The social credit trap

One of the court filings (Mathew Thomas vs Union of India) details the rise of China’s social credit system, comparing the Indian Aadhaar initiative to the Chinese program.

The Chinese government initially permitted corporations to aggregate personal data of their customers and built algorithms that could then rate the worth of these customers. As such applications began to get integrated and large technology companies began to dominate every aspect of citizen lives, the ‘Social Credit Rating Systems’ that these companies ran became all the more pervasive.

Once this system had taken hold of the entire country, the State Council of the Central Government in China released an Outline of the Social Credit System Construction Plan

(2014-2020), which specifies that such Social Credit Rating Systems would be integrated into their governance by 2020. This represents the integration of such infrastructure into

the central architecture of the State, and would ensure a devastating amount of State control over its citizens.

A disturbingly similar pattern is being followed in the United States. Big Tech (Google, Apple, Facebook) has already gathered most of our personal data. It has also absorbed around 90% of Internet traffic, and is now openly allying with communist Chinese policies.

Facebook has begun rating users “trustworthiness” on the platform. At the same time, other major tech companies like Apple are removing content at the request of the Chinese government.

Between Idemia issuing digital drivers licenses to U.S. citizens and Big Tech’s data collection, we are inches away from a fully integrated national ID system and an accompanying social credit score.

At the moment, the United States does not have a government-backed program like the Chinese. However, if gone unchecked, a de facto social credit system could still take hold due to the pervasiveness of big tech influence.

Idemia is building the infrastructure of the massive world-wide biometric surveillance grid. Demand for “convenience” with wireless, cardless, cashless payment and shopping is driving us right into their hands.

Thanks to Citizens Council for Health Freedom’s report Exposing Idemia: The Push for National Biometric IDs in America

H/T: MassPrivateI


Contributed by Daniel Taylor of ActivistPost.com


SHARE:

By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | August 20, 2018

In a not-so-shocking interview with CNN, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that social media has a left-leaning bias. But Dorsey claims that Twitter doesn’t ban over ideology, it will ban or “shadowban” over a user’s “behavior.”

“The real question behind the question is, ‘Are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints?’ And we are not. Period. We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology. We look at behavior,” Dorsey said according to The Washington Post. 

What makes that statement by Dorsey completely wrong (if not a bold faced lie) and extremely disingenuous, is the fact that Twitter has “shadowbanned” many conservatives over ideology while ignoring the “bad behavior” of leftists, likey because they agree ideologically and politically. And they aren’t the only social media platform that’s taken this approach. Facebook has also suspended conservatives for posting the vile hate-filled messages they’ve received from leftists while allowing the left to continue to threaten and harass those who aren’t left-leaning.

The Death Of Free Speech: Twitter Ramps Up CENSORSHIP Of ‘Hate Facts’

The Death Of Free Speech: Twitter Ramps Up CENSORSHIP Of ‘Hate Facts’

Twitter is banning conservatives and others who don’t subscribe to the leftist mentality plaguing social media.  Using the excuse that people are posting “hate facts,” the social media outlet is just shutting down accounts that post any truth that doesn’t fare well for the liberal agenda.

SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You

46

Comments

WordPress Embed HTML Embed

The Death Of Free Speech: Twitter Ramps Up CENSORSHIP Of ‘Hate Facts’

Copy and paste this URL into your WordPress site to embed

“We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is more left-leaning,” Dorsey said. “And I think it’s important to articulate our own bias and to share it with people so that people understand us. But we need to remove our bias from how we act and our policies and our enforcement.”

Dorsey’s comments come amid a growing debate over how tech companies influence public discourse by censorship and banning based on their own political bias. Apple, Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify have taken aggressive steps against right-leaning talk show host and Alex Jones for violating their “hate speech” policies. All Jones really is guilty of, is stating an opinion that those in charge disagree with and offering a different view than the “official narrative” we are being brainwashed into accepting, even when there are red flags and many unanswered questions. Spotify, Facebook, and YouTube removed Jones from their platforms, and Apple followed suit by removing the majority of podcasts published by Jones’s website, Infowars, from iTunes and its podcast apps.

Eerie Censorship Precedent: Big Tech Proves Alex Jones’ Motto Correct

In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Dorsey said he is rethinking core parts of Twitter to curb the spread of hate speech, harassment, and false news (news he disagrees with). He also told The Post that he’s experimenting with new features that would allow people to see alternative viewpoints and reduce “echo chambers.”

“I think people see a faceless corporation . . . They don’t assume that humans are in it, or that they’re genuine or authentic,” Dorsey told CNN. “They just assume based on what the output is. And that’s on us. That’s on me.”

We’ll see.  So far, social media has done away with free speech by purging their platforms of those who spout political opinions that are disagreeable to the left. The whole “fake news” frenzy is nothing more than a way to silence those who don’t conform to the ideology the left deems acceptable.  Anything that’s disagreeable becomes fake giving the left adequate reasoning to silence, censor, and ban.  And it’s all being done to the raucous cheers of those who are willing to become slaves to the government in an increasingly authoritarian regime. They say history repeats itself…

“The things that are going to be blocked are not going to be fake stories. The things that are going to be blocked and censored, the things they are going to keep from people is going to be stuff they just don’t want you to focus on or know about.” – Melissa Dykes


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com


SHARE:

By Dylan Charles | Waking Times | August 13, 2018

“The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.” ~George Orwell

The big tech companies are now openly censoring popular viewpoints and deleting select social media pages who supposedly ‘violate community guidelines.’

There is, of course, never a detailed explanation of why companies like You Tube and Facebook delete user generated pages (our You Tube page was deleted in 2017 for no apparent reason and our Facebook page has been throttled down to almost no reach), and there is never a reasonable way to appeal for the reinstitution of these pages.

The end result of this type of censorship, however, quite likely will not bring about the feared Soviet style clampdown on ideas that challenge the establishment. It’s more reasonable to expect that these companies have fallen pray to monopolistic hubris and will soon see massive declines in viewership, collapsing stock prices and the revolt of angry shareholders. In other words, these companies are shooting themselves in the feet.

That said, the current social/political/media climate in America today is likely to bring about the rise of a far more insidious and dangerous type of censorship: self-censorship.

The Cambridge dictionary defines self-censorship as:

“control of what you say or do in order to avoid annoying or offending others, but without being told officially that such control is necessary:”

Wikipedia defines it as:

“Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one’s own discourse. This is done out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences (actual or perceived) of others and without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority.” ~Wikipedia

In other words, self-censorship is voluntarily silencing one’s self out of fear of inoffical reprisal. That reprisal can come in many forms, soft and hard, but at it’s most fundamental level it involves the fear of what others will think of you or say to you if they don’t like what they hear.

This form of censorship is already taking hold and is the result of the fear that individuals have of upsetting the mobs and virtue signaling hordes of self-righteous personalities. It is the fear that anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion and political correctness. That just by voicing your opinion on something you risk being attacked by black clad and megaphone wielding tyrants, physically removed from restaurants or harassed when conducting the ordinary affairs of life.

George Orwell wrote extensively of self-censorship at the conclusion of world war II. When he sought to publish his classic book Animal Farm, which he wrote during the war as a metaphorical critique of Soviet society, he was rejected by a number of publishers who were afraid to offend the prevailing sentiment of the time that the USSR should not be criticized for fear of instigating a diplomatic rift with the UK.

Publishers and editors were not ordered by law not to criticize the USSR, but they did so as not to offend the political establishment and popular sentiment. To this, Orwell penned an introduction to Animal Farm explaining the effects of self-censorship on a free society.

Entitled, ‘The Freedom of the Press,’ Orwell’s short letter aptly describes the situation we are faced with today.

“…the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.” ~George Orwell

Orwell continues in his critique:

“Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that “it wouldn’t do” to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.” ~George Orwell

In this dynamic, the influences of peer pressure and commercial pressures do more to silence dissent than any official decree of censorship could possibly accomplish.

When speaking on the importance of press freedom, American writer E.B. White spoke of the cultural importance of having many independent viewpoints and fearless news organizations professing a wide range of ideas.

“The press in our free country is reliable and useful not because of its good character but because of its great diversity. As long as there are many owners, each pursuing his own brand of truth, we the people have the opportunity to arrive at the truth and to dwell in the light. The multiplicity of ownership is crucial. It’s only when there are a few owners, or, as in a government-controlled press, one owner, that the truth becomes elusive and the light fails. For a citizen in our free society, it is an enormous privilege and a wonderful protection to have access to hundreds of periodicals, each peddling its own belief. There is safety in numbers: the papers expose each other’s follies and peccadillos, correct each other’s mistakes, and cancel out each other’s biases. The reader is free to range around in the whole editorial bouillabaisse and explore it for the one clam that matters—the truth.”  ~E. B. White

Final Thoughts

Media censorship is a shift in the flow of information, while self-censorship is a shift in consciousness. It is the dangerous cornerstone of group-think.

We haven’t reached that point yet, not by a long shot, as is evident in the fact that both sides of the political spectrum are 100% engaged in bickering with the other side. But as social discourse continues to digress and corporations and other institutions feel more empowered to compel their employees and clients to unofficially comply with one political view or another, self-censorship will come creeping more so into our culture.

Will you have the courage to be yourself as the push towards internet censorship gains momentum?


Contributed by Dylan Charles of WakingTimes.com

Dylan Charles is the editor of Waking Times and co-host of Redesigning Reality, both dedicated to ideas of personal transformation, societal awakening, and planetary renewal. His personal journey is deeply inspired by shamanic plant medicines and the arts of Kung Fu, Qi Gong and Yoga. After seven years of living in Costa Rica, he now lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where he practices Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and enjoys spending time with family. He has written hundreds of articles, reaching and inspiring millions of people around the world.

This article (George Orwell Warned us of the Most Dangerous Type of Censorship) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to DylanCharles and WakingTimes.com.


SHARE: