In Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, the totalitarian government made dissent impossible by creating Newspeak, a highly controlled language that suppresses specific ideas. This is happening now. Here are three real-life examples of elite organizations pushing the banning of words from public speech.

These days, the word “Orwellian” is being thrown around everywhere because, sadly, it is more relevant than ever. That’s because some of the most oppressive elements found in George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four are becoming reality right before our eyes.

The totalitarian state described in Nineteen Eighty-Four controls people through a number of mind-bending methods. One of them is Newspeak – a controlled language.

In the novel, the Party created Newspeak to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism in Oceania. Newspeak is a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual’s ability to think and articulate “subversive” concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will. Such concepts are criminalized as thoughtcrime since they contradict the prevailing Ingsoc orthodoxy.
– Wikipedia, Nineteen Eighty-Four

To the elite, Nineteen Eighty-Four is not a cautionary tale, it is a blueprint. A real-life version of Newspeak has been created by elite think tanks and it is currently being forced on the world using powerful organizations.

Through the banning of specific words from public speech, the elite is looking to suppress the ideas they represent. As we’ll see in this article, they are at war against genders, religions (Christianity in particular), history, and anything that relates to a national identity. The ultimate goal: To create a single, uniform, global culture.

Here’s how they are doing it.

The totalitarian state described in Nineteen Eighty-Four controls people through a number of mind-bending methods. One of them is Newspeak – a controlled language.

In the novel, the Party created Newspeak to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism in Oceania. Newspeak is a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual’s ability to think and articulate “subversive” concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will. Such concepts are criminalized as thoughtcrime since they contradict the prevailing Ingsoc orthodoxy.
– Wikipedia, Nineteen Eighty-Four

To the elite, Nineteen Eighty-Four is not a cautionary tale, it is a blueprint. A real-life version of Newspeak has been created by elite think tanks and it is currently being forced on the world using powerful organizations.

Through the banning of specific words from public speech, the elite is looking to suppress the ideas they represent. As we’ll see in this article, they are at war against genders, religions (Christianity in particular), history, and anything that relates to a national identity. The ultimate goal: To create a single, uniform, global culture.

Here’s how they are doing it.

The European Union’s Newspeak Bible

On October 30th, the European Commission presented a 30-page document titled Guidelines on Inclusive Communication. It is part of a plan championed by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to implement a “Union of Equality” in Europe. Behind these meaningless words hides the real plan of this document: To control speech. Under threat of severe penalties.

I believe this document should be read by everyone because sums up the outrageously Orwellian mind state of the elite. For instance, in the section titled “To be followed at all times”, we can read:

• Never use gendered nouns such as ‘workmen, policemen’ or masculine pronouns (he, his) as a default.
• Do not use Miss or Mrs, unless it is the explicit preference of the person addressed; use Ms universally.
• When asking about gender, do not offer only male/female options, add ‘other’ and ‘prefers not to say’.
• Never address an audience as ‘ladies and gentlemen’ but use expressions such as ‘Dear colleagues’.
• Do not use the word “citizens” to refer to people in general.
• When addressing trans people, always respect self-identification.
• Avoid gender-specific pronouns for people whose gender is unknown. It is preferable to use ‘they’ or reformulate the sentence so that no pronoun is needed, or use “he or she”, “s/he” (albeit this option is falling out of favour)

As you can see, they are attempting to erase concepts such as gender and national citizenship from public speech. But that’s not all. The guide also dictates how groups of people should be represented in media.

The guide actually says “if we always portray mothers as child-carers, we perpetuate harmful stereotypes”. Wow. There’s a lot of craziness to unpack here. Mothers are, by definition, child-carers. That’s what the word stands for. A mother caring for a child is not a “stereotype”. And it is certainly not “harmful”.

“Not everyone celebrates the Christian holidays, and not all Christians celebrate them on the same dates.”

In one of its many Orwellian examples, the document recommends replacing the sentence “Christmas time can be stressful” by “Holiday times can be stressful.”

Going further, the guide also frowns on using names “that are typically from one religion.” It gives the example of using “Malika and Julio” instead of “Maria and John” to describe an “international couple. That’s because the names “Maria” and “John” are associated with Christianity.

The release of this document went largely unnoticed for a couple of weeks until an Italian paper revealed its absurdity to the general public. The outcry was immediate. Even the pope, who is usually on board with globalist policies, compared the document to “dictatorship“. The Vatican accused the European Commission of “canceling Christmas”.

Several political figures also denounced the guidelines as efforts to erase the identity of nations inside the European Union.

Faced with this backlash, the Guidelines were removed and its author promised to revise them. While this might be perceived as a “win”, there’s an important fact we need to realize: Every single part of this document is already being applied across mass media.

The War Against the Word “Woman”

 In 2020, JK Rowling ridiculed a headline that replaced the word “women” with “people who menstruate”. The backlash against her was immediate and continues to this day.

A growing number of officials and organizations are finding themselves tongue-tied when it comes to using the word “woman”.

A British hospital has instructed staff on its maternity wards to offer to use the phrase “birthing people”. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of America’s Congress, talks of “menstruating people”. On September 18th the American Civil Liberties Union (aclu) republished a quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Supreme Court judge, on the anniversary of her death. The quote was a defence of a woman’s right to have an abortion. But the aclu’s version—for which it, too, later apologised—replaced every instance of “women” with “people”. In Britain the opposition Labour Party is tying itself in very public knots over questions such as whether only women possess cervixes.

The CBC Tells Canadians to Stop Using 18 Words

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is the public broadcaster of Canada. Now, this government-owned entity (funded by taxpayer money) is publishing lists of words people should stop using. The first sentence of this surreal article goes as follows:

Have you ever casually used the terms “spirit animal,” “first-world problem,” or “spooky”? It might be time to rethink your use of these phrases and remove them from your daily lingo.

The article is not about racial slurs or words that are blatantly offensive. It takes aim at regular, non-offensive words and uses flawed logic to explain why they’re offensive. For instance, the article states that the word “blackmail” is offensive to black people because it is “negative” and connotes “distrust”.  However, the “experts” who were consulted in that article completely ignore the origins of the word (which has absolutely nothing to do with black people).

The word actually comes from the Scottish ‘mail’ meaning ‘tax’ or ‘rent’. In the old days, when the law and order situation was quite bad, farmers living along the borders of Scotland had very little protection against gangs who robbed and plundered. Instead of fighting these looters on a regular basis, farmers chose to pay them off in order to be left in peace.

This payment that they made was called ‘blackmail’ because the usual form of payment was black cattle — in the old days, a man’s wealth was determined by how much cattle he had. If a farmer chose to pay in silver coins, then it was called ‘white mail’.
– Know Your English, What is the origin of ‘blackmail’?

The article also frowns on words such as spirit animal, powwow, and tribe because they “can be a painful insult to Indigenous communities”. Once again, those are not insults, they are regular words. The words opossum, squash, avocado, canoe and kayak, skunk, and toboggan also originate from native languages. Should they be banned as well?

Furthermore, the word “tribe” has been in use since antiquity. It originates from the Latin word tribus which means: “A group of persons forming a community and claiming descent from a common ancestor”. What exactly about this word is “offensive”? Hint: Nothing.

In a final push for complete absurdity, the CBC article bans the “brainstorm”. The reason?

Using the term brainstorm could also be insensitive to those who have brain injuries or are neurodiverse, added Cashman.

“More important is the stigma that it will effectuate about …  disorders [like] epilepsy for example,” said Kalra.

Wow. I’m having a brain injury just by reading these explanations by so-called experts.

Of course, the CBC disabled comments on this article. However, journalists from several outlets ripped this thing to pieces.

In Conclusion

The war on words is real and it is being fought at high places. This article listed examples from the European Commission (the executive branch of the European Union), the American government, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the medical journal The Lancet. All of these entities are implementing a plan that was hatched, years ago, by elite think tanks.

The ultimate goal: The create a uniform, global culture that would supplant the cultures, identities, and traditions of individual nations. Through the creation of a real-life Newspeak, the elite is attempting to suppress concepts such as genders, nations, religions, and history in order to instaurate a homogenous culture that can be applied worldwide.

Anything that goes against this agenda is now deemed offensive. In other words: Thoughtcrime.