# data[].attributes.body
china the state that sees everything”

# data[].attributes.body
kim Jong-Un and his repression govenent

# data[].attributes.headline
"Awake or sleeping, working or eating, at home or on the street, in the bathroom or  in bed, there was no escape nothing belonged to the individual  than only a few cubic centimeters inside his skull"

# data[].attributes.subject
"Awake or sleeping, working or eating, at home or on the street, in the bathroom or  in bed, there was no escape nothing belonged to the individual  than only a few cubic centimeters inside his skull"

# data[].attributes.body
in the 2016 US election, Dorian Lynskey made a comment comparing it to the novel

# data[].attributes.body
This requires using logic against logic or suspending disbelief in the contradiction.
The slogan " war is peace, freedom is slavery and  ignorance is strength" is the obvious example of doublethink writen on this novel. Is the "reality contro", the mental activity of holding contradictory ideas in one's mind, beliving and disbelieving  them.
We can see an example apart from politics, on one  of the most seen nowadays, tabac, something harmful  for us but people consume it knowing this as alcohol consumers.
On one hand we have that are things which can caused death but on the other hand people still consuming it and paying for it.

# data[].attributes.body
George Orwell predicts the World's Future when human rights, such as freedom of speech, won't exist anymore.
Everyone has to obey the government who controls citizens' lives, no one speaks against the government.
And as we explained before, if they do it they'll go arrested.
We have a clear example with the world we are living in, at this time.
Putting has cancelled every way of communication with outside has cut the informatic  chains  and those who have expressed or say anything against the government have disappeared, taking totally out of everyone's freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is Vladimir Putin losing the information war with Ukraine?

Well, it depends on who you ask.

It’s never easy to measure such things, but here are a few numbers.

While 141 countries in the UN voted to condemn Russia’s aggression, the number of African, Middle Eastern and South American countries who have imposed sanctions on Russia is 0.

Last week, President Joe Biden hosted a summit with eight nations of the Association of Southeast Asian nations, and pressured them to criticize Russia. Their response: silence.

When the Russian Federation released an official list of “unfriendly” nations, no country from Africa, Asia, or South America was on the list, and neither was India or China—the two most populous countries in the world—both of which have been pretty chummy with Putin.

Yes, Putin is losing the information war in Europe and America, but he’s holding his own elsewhere.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, two-thirds of the world’s population live in countries who are neutral about the war or support Russia. While China is an ally of Russia, the big non-aligned nations—Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates—voted against Russia in the UN, but resolutely refuse to criticize Putin.

Part of the reason for this is that two-thirds of the world doesn’t see the war that we see. That is due to the balkanization of the internet, which Russia is in part responsible for. Today, there are three internets. There’s the American and Western internet which we think of as the internet. There’s the unfree internet in places like Russia, Turkey, and India where content is restricted and policed. And then there’s the Chinese internet, which is censored and not at all free. The Chinese internet—used by one out of five of the world’s internet users—is pro-Russian. In the unfree internet of Turkey and India and the rest, they get much of their information about the war from Russian state media. They are not seeing Zelensky’s nightly invocations to democracy. They are seeing images of noble Russian soldiers. Two of the most popular hashtags on the Indian internet are #IStandWithPutin and #IStandWithRussia.

In the first few weeks after the invasion, there were a spate of stories in America and Western media about how Ukraine was triumphing in the information war with Russia. Zelensky’s inspiring nightly speeches; the destroyed Russian tanks on Instagram and TikTok; the Ukrainian social media influencers decrying Putin’s invasion. The Ukrainians were nimble and modern and authentic and had a powerful story to tell.

By contrast, Russia’s messaging efforts were top-down, clumsy and slow—a little like their invading army. In 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, the , the infamous Russian troll farm, was still largely unknown. But its use of false personas, phony websites and blog posts, and malicious bots, seemed to be the state of the art of disinformation.

Back then, Russia had the advantage of surprise—remember the Russian troops in Crimea that were first described as “little green men”? The reports of alleged harassment of Russian speakers in Crimea? Few connected this rash of disinformation to a Russian troll farm in an unmarked building. That was two years before the 2016 election and long before the Mueller report detailed Russia’s efforts to interfere in that election.

This time, Putin telegraphed his efforts for weeks and months. He had over 100,000 troops on the border of Ukraine but couldn’t or wouldn’t explain what they were doing there. The Russians were pioneers in what is called hybrid warfare—the mixture of information war and kinetic war—but the Russian military machine seemed to have no meme battle plan or even how the war would be seen on social media.

Read More: Inside Zelensky’s World

Russian messaging was sophisticated in 2014, but they didn’t get much better. Everyone else did. Back in 2014, social media was still text-dominant. Today is the era of real-time video. Zelensky understands this; Putin doesn’t.

When I worked in the Obama State Department, I visited Ukraine in 2015 to help with their messaging. When I met with their then acting information minister, the first question he asked me was, What is a press conference? They were pretty hopeless. But over the next few years, American and European funding for fact-checking organizations and social media training helped jumpstart their transformation.

Now, with their TikTok influencers and multiple channels on Telegram, they are very much up to the moment. . They’ve even launched a state-sponsored volunteer IT army which has been carrying out cyber-attacks on Russian targets. In the early days of the war, they put out a call for volunteers on the messaging app Telegram—which has been the main digital battlefield of the war. As many as half-a-million people responded. They created an open source platform for white hat hackers to fight the Russians. They shut down Russia Today for a day after the invasion. It was like people volunteering to fight for the republicans in the Spanish Civil War, but using laptops instead of rifles.

Supporters and activists of Hindu Sena, a right-wing Hindu group, take part in a march in support of Russia during the ongoing Russia-West tensions on Ukraine, in New Delhi on March 6, 2022. (Photo by Sajjad HUSSAIN / AFP) (Photo by SAJJAD HUSSAIN/AFP via Getty Images)

AFP via Getty Images

But while Russia’s messaging has been clunky and old-school, let’s not forget, we are not the primary target. Putin has multiple audiences, but his most important audience—and his most reliable one—is domestic. According to the counter-extremism firm Miburo, 85% of Russians get the majority of their information from Russian state media. There, they get a steady diet of Nazis in Ukraine, claims that Ukraine is not a real nation, concerns that Ukraine is pursuing genocide against Russians, and the professionalism and generosity of the Russian military. It’s a simple formula: Russian state media is a projection of how Putin sees the world. According to the Levada Center in Russia, one of the country’s few independent pollsters, more than half of Russians see NATO and the U.S. as the cause of the conflict. Only 7% blame the Kremlin.

As if this relentless state propaganda was not enough, Russia is inoculating its own domestic audience against Western and international narratives about Ukraine by creating a host of fake fact-checking shows and organizations to pre-emptively undermine any news that contradicts Putin’s narrative. Russia’s largest state channel, Channel One, has created a show called “AntiFake” that rebuts what they say are false stories about the war in Ukraine. It employs all the tropes of fact-checking—statistics, forensic analysis, black-and-white video to prove that claims about Russian atrocities are made-up and staged. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs posts “Your Daily #Fake” which includes short videos debunking Western claims about the invasion. There’s a Russian channel on Telegram—where so much of the digital battle for truth is going on—called “War on Fakes” which says it is debunking “the information war against Russia.”

The encrypted platform Telegram has become the most important battlefield in the information war in Ukraine. It is the instant news channel for the war—used by both the Ukrainians and the Russians. Zelensky has a channel on Telegram where he talks directly to the Russian people in Russian. Russia has created dozens of channels on Telegram. One reason the information war is more hidden today is because so much of it is on an encrypted platform that does not broadcast, rather than Twitter or Facebook.

The other reason the information war is harder to see these days is that the platforms have abandoned neutrality and taken a side. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google have basically blocked Russian messaging. YouTube announced a global block of Russian state media and removed over 1000 channels and 15,000 videos. Facebook has restricted access to official Russian outlets Russia Today and Sputnik in the European Union and banned Russian state media from running ads. Netflix suspended its service in Russia. This is new territory for the platforms which have always wanted to appear apolitical. In response, Russian courts have declared Facebook an extremist organization.

Read More: Ukraine Is In Worse Shape Than You Think

Zelensky may be the TikTok Churchill and a champion of Ukrainian democracy, but he has taken some decidedly undemocratic actions at home. In March, Zelensky banned 11 Ukrainian political parties because of their links to Russia. Most of the parties were small, but one, the Opposition Platform for Life, has 44 seats in the 450 seat Ukraine parliament and is Ukraine’s largest opposition party. It is led by a pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch with close ties to Putin. In that same month, citing national security, Zelensky effectively ended independent television broadcasting in Ukraine by consolidating all national tv channels into a single state platform. This wasn’t much reported on in the West, but it was headline news in Russia and China. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev posted the following on his Telegram channel: “The most democratic president of Modern Ukraine has taken another step towards the Western idea of democracy… He completely banned any activity by opposition parties in Ukraine. Well done!”

For the global audience, the U.S. and the European Union have made something of a tactical error in portraying the war as the West versus Russia, or even as Democracy versus Autocracy. This meme is effective in America and Europe, but plays less well among developing and non-aligned nations. In Africa, much of Asia, and the Middle East, the West are the colonizers who did not permit democracy in the lands they ruled. A better way of mobilizing these countries against Russia is to depict the war as a fundamental, illegal violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, as an imperialist Russia trying to violently expand its own borders That’s something they can relate to. These non-aligned nations don’t hearken to America’s frequent invocation of the “free world.” What they want is some acknowledgement from America and the West that they will at least get rhetorical support if their borders are violated. Kenya’s ambassador to the U.N. rebuked Russia without mentioning democracy or autocracy—or Putin for that matter. “Kenya, and almost every African country, was birthed by the ending of empire. Our borders were not of our own drawing. They were drawn in the distant colonial metropoles of London, Parks, and Lisbon.” Russia, he suggested, is simply trying to repossess a now independent colony.

Even if we exaggerate Ukraine’s expertise on the information battlefield, and underplay the extent of Russian influence, I do think we are sometimes deceiving ourselves by talking about information war when there is a real war going on. Yes, there is an information war in Ukraine, but it is not the war. The war is where people are dying every day and homes and schools are being indiscriminately bombed. Winning and losing an information war is an oversimplified way of looking at things. In some ways, it anesthetizes us from the true horror of the conflict. No, a tank can’t stop a meme, but a meme certainly cannot stop a tank. Memes may wound people’s egos, but they don’t kill them. You can win the information war and lose the real one. The republican freedom fighters won the information war in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, but Franco won the real war. Let’s hope that is not what happens in Ukraine.

Contact us at letters@time.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Putin May Just Be Winning the Information War Outside of the U.S. and Europe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While Russia's messaging has been clunky and old-school, we are not the primary target-the rest of the world is

# data[].attributes.body
In relation to the post-truth in the 2016 United States elections, Dorian Lynskey made this comment comparing it with the novel:

During Trump's campaign against Hillary Clinton, it was hard to see the candidate lashing out at supporters in a cry of 'Lock her up!' without being reminded of “Two Minutes Hate” and Orwell’s description of the party mentality: “A continual frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and domestic traitors, triumph over victories, and humiliation before the power and wisdom of the party .

What they transmit here is the strength and votes of the population simply by saying what they want to hear.
In the same way as the novel with the "Big Brother'', what he does is mold them to his way of thinking, homogenizing thought by implanting beliefs without truth or any demonstration.
This denial of the truth and appeal to emotions is known as post-truth and in the book we can see it with the moment of the "two minutes of hate".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Probably my favorite novel of all time is 1984, a book that I think is often misinterpreted, cherry-picked, or interpreted far too superficially---to such an extent that I paradoxically ignore or discount anyone who makes a 1984 reference.

But this just jumped out at me:

And by Monday night, Trump iterated his anti-media script, indulging the crowd’s hate for reporters by letting supporters scream for two minutes at the press penned into the venue.

This is literally … it’s … I mean Christ, why do we even have fiction anymore?  What’s the point?

This guy seriously just held a “two minutes hate.”  Literally two minutes … hate.  And just like the book, it was directed at a largely symbolic figure of fictional oppression, engineered by the Party as a scapegoat.

This is a short diary, but it took a long time to write, punctuated by long periods of stunned silence.  In Watership Down, the rabbits had a word called “tharn,” to describe the stunned immobility caused in animals by car headlights.  I think that’s what I’m looking at here:  a what-is-this-I-don’t-even event that just has my brain frozen up.

In the novel (1984, I mean) there are a few obscure passages in the book-within-a-book that reveals the fundamental sci-fi principle behind the fictional world of Oceania.  That scientists---economists, sociologists, psychologists---figured out all the mechanics behind political revolutions, and the Party used this knowledge to engineer a government that would never be overthrown.   Through a combination of technology, propaganda, and burning money on perpetual war, they created economic and social conditions that would forever prevent the preconditions for a revolution.  This is what makes 1984 a work of science fiction:  it’s a “what if” exploration of the human condition in a world where science gives us an unusual ability, in this case the ability to control society.  Orwell’s answer to this question is depressing:  such an ability would first be seized by people who want to rule the world with an iron fist, and that will be the eternal end of civilization.

We are now experiencing a different kind of experiment, where the Party is exploring the power of circus antics.  We have a candidate who turns everything he touches into a fucking circus, to such an extent that we’re less than a month away from the presidential election, and the public is still too distracted by (check sex tape and past) to focus even on basic fundamentals----like the fact that we have two major candidates, one of whom has extensive experience while the other has a completely blank resume, never having held any office of any kind, and doesn’t seem to understand basic ideas about government and foreign policy.  In any other year this contest wouldn’t exist.  Without Trump’s megasize personality, reputation and showmanship, anyone else with his complete lack of qualifications and his dimwit answers in interviews would have been ignored months ago.  But here  we’re faced with a character who can turn reality into a 24/7 episode of Access Hollywood, and make a presidential election about reality-show bombast.  It would make a great premise for a science fiction novel, if it weren’t so slick and unrealistic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump literally holds a “two minutes hate”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Probably my favorite novel of all time is 1984, a book that I think is often misinterpreted, cherry-picked, or interpreted far too superficially---to such an extent that I paradoxically ignore or discount anyone who makes a 1984 reference. But this...

# data[].attributes.headline
"Awake or sleeping, working or eating, at home or on the street, in the bathroom or  in bed, there was no escape nothing belonged to the individual  than only a few cubic centimeters inside his skull"

# data[].attributes.subject
"Awake or sleeping, working or eating, at home or on the street, in the bathroom or  in bed, there was no escape nothing belonged to the individual  than only a few cubic centimeters inside his skull"

# data[].attributes.body
"Those who  surrender freedom for security won't have nor do they deserve, either one"
This book shows clearly the way freedom and security are faced.
There's no liberty for people who create a world in which war and aggression are the solution. The example we find on this is clear, they couldn't even write on their books or they would be arrested.

Today we can see this with "The repression against demonstrators in Cuba". Terror seizes Cubans due to the harsh dictatorship they live in, but by moving away from fear they manage to rise up and protest what has become the great fear.
Hundreds of detainees frightened by the excessive surveillance under which the live.
Agents went door to door arresting citizens us an clearly example of this noble.

# data[].attributes.body
In the book,the "Big Brother" implants his ideology through screens that use him as a social tool and are located throughout the country.
They do not relate as in a normal dialogue but who receive this message are influenced or persuaded spectators by these screens.

"China the state that sees everything".

There are 170 million cameras throughout the country and they ironically call it the "Orwellian" Chinese plan to monitor the behavior of their cities.
It is intended to install 400 million more.
Point they can recognize faces from their disguise, age, ethnicity and gender.
It practically control every movement of each citizen at all times, violating their privacy point.
According to the government, where's the problem in this if there is nothing to hide?

One song of the album "Hail to the Thref" of the group RADIOHEAD,gives a reference of this noble and it's called "2+2=5" symbolizing what cameras do, that are like one more of us.

# data[].attributes.body
The society was governed by a totalitarian and dictatorial government known us the "Big Brother", which objective was to implant his ideology in society, impose  instructions on the population and dictated how they should behave and control what they thought.

Today the Kim Jong-un government, still known as a Democratic People's Republic, is known worldwide as one of the strongest dictators ever, as the "Big Brother".
There is a brutal repression especially in prisons where womans are forced to abort and are exposed to extreme beatings.
They considered traitors to all those who try to leave there in search of a better life also all connections with foreigners are strictly prohibited, even movies, only this would be a reason for crime and imprisonment, even  speaking foreign jargon for which they live under constant surveillance.

# data[].attributes.body
The speakwrite is a standard device found within the Ministry of Truth and presumably within the other ministries. It prevents the workers from having any need to write themselves and perhaps find themselves thinking about writing something that they shouldn’t. When all their spoken words are recorded as writing, there is no way to hide anything.
A machine that transcribes everything you readThat it already appeared in Dracula and bears great resemblance to Apple's current Siri. Parallels can also be found between the war situation of the novel and the conflict in the Middle East. In 1984 Oceania was surrounded by enemies and conflicts something similar to what happened 2019 in Afghanistan or Syria. Orwell also warned that many countries would have a lot of nuclear weapons even that some countries will become potential dangerous.