You see it again and again. People take matters into their own hands. They take direct action to create a more just and orderly reality such as more equal living standards, a better balance of power, less taxes etc. and yet are alleged by the economic and political elites to really be doing the opposite. Their oppressors propagandize their efforts to maintain power and the status-quo by characterizing the rebellious acts, depending on how much of an exaggeration they can get away with, as an unjustified disruption of social order, a threat to innocent parties, and/or terrorism. Repressive violence, which JFK gave the somewhat benign but accurate name of "violent investment," along with divide-and-conquer strategies such as exacerbating sectarian tensions or even outright segregation are used to weaken opposition. Economic and/or political rule is used to further squash dissent by instituting either government and/or corporate censorship.Those not directly involved in the conflict might even willingly forfeit some, most or all of their or their fellow citizens' established rights the name of "loyalty" and "security" and even racist notions about ethnic purity and more generally, a sense of protecting from "otherness." These can be immigrants, religious minorities, ethnic minorities as well as others.

The investment made on the part of the economic and political elite in violence can also serve to keep power in the hands of the few by conscripting the poor into the army thus co-opting their power and using war taxes to justify increased taxation in peace time, to be handed out, of course, to the rich in the form of subsidies. With fear and suspicion successfully instilled in the masses, the elite institutes what Naomi Klein calls "The Shock Doctrine," policies that are intituted to supposedly avert an immediate immediate threat. This further exacerbates inequality and injustice. This can either be done from the inside or the outside. When it is done from the outside, a sect of the population, usually a minority like the rich or the government, becomes idealized. Likewise, their foes become demonized. This allows the intervention to take place in the name of justice. When done from the inside, it is usually a minority itself that is scapegoated. Stereotypical propaganda is used to reinforce useful lies about them. They are especially useful first as a scapegoat for current economic and social turmoil, and second, as the new policies of social and economic division and inequality are introduced, remain the a diversion from the real causes of problems.

People become aware, protest, and the cycle starts all over again...

Until we finally win the propaganda war that is. The lies cannot be countered by simple fact. They must be countered in the hearts of people because simply countering innacurate facts will not change the motivations for believing the lies. Lies have two sides to them: a function for legitimizing control and placating people's wishes and fears. Our truth cannot only deal only with how illegitimate power is but also how legitimate people's motivations (or in the case of the already propagandized, misplaced motivations). Likewise, while only focusing on people's motivations and not the function of power we run the risk of becoming first populists, then sooth-sayers and finally just as corrupted as the powerful.

So let's look at each of the lies and what emotional function they serve. By countering them not only with a critique of power but a De-Orwellification, or a reframing of the first term's associations to return its meaning to the opposite of the second term (for example, immigrants are "helpful" instead of "dangerous") and not simply a negation that still invokes the concept (such as "not dangerous") we will be doing both at the same time.

1. "Dissent to power leads to disorder"
2. "popular struggle is dangerous terrorism"
3. "a loyal citizen submits to authority"
4. "some races of people were born inherently inferior"
5. "the Other is uknown and is immoral and possibly dangerous"
6. "subsidies for corporations are good investments"
7. "questioning the party line is unpatriotic"
8. "a threat is upon us, we must give the rich money"

I just came up with these reframings off the top of my head. I'd love to hear yours too. Any stories you have that support these reframings would be good too. Remember, people reason with emotion: the stronger the emotion, the stronger the argument.

1. "Dissent to power leads to disorder"
Re-frame: Dissent is self-expression. Dissent is a natural check on power.
De-Orwellify: Dissent is order because only in a society where people are free to express themselves and keep power in check can there really be order. What the powerful call order is only to have the order of a chess game in which we are the pieces.
Possible emotional need: Getting rid of cognitive dissonance

2. "popular struggle is dangerous terrorism"
Re-frame: Popular struggle an expression of positive change.
De-Orwellify: Popular struggle is human safekeeping because it makes sure that our expectations for how people should act lines up with how they do act. Popular struggle is terrifying to the powerful because they are afraid of people holding them accountable.
Possible emotional need: justification for allowing violence

3. "a loyal citizen submits to authority"
Re-frame: A loyal citizen looks out for his fellow. We are citizens of the world and the only true authority is Nature, which is already a part of us.
De-Orwellify: A loyal citizen IS authority because he is a part of Nature. His authority is over the gift his parents gave him, his body, and nothing else. He therefore submits to nobody but himself.
Possible emotional need: trust in people who appear altruistic

4. "some races of people were born inherently inferior"
Re-frame: To get an "A" on a test because you are the only person with a pencil does not make you smarter. It just means you have a pencil and they don't. Similarly, those with good resources have the edge over those who don't. If everything were to be decied through who grabs what first, then a measure of intelligence would simply be the abilitiy to monopolize resources.
De-Orwellifly: "Race" is simply an idea used to justify why some people are rich and others are poor
possible emotional need: to deal with guilt

5. "the Other is uknown and is immoral and possibly dangerous"
Re-frame: The other brings in new knowledge. The other seeks to get along with people, just as you do
De-Orwellify: The other is really the same, and promotes your well-being.
Possible emotional need: ancient tribalist instinct for survival

6. "subsidies for corporations are good investments"
Re-frame: Subsidies are handouts in a good ol' boys network. Subsidiy-paying-taxpayers do not see returns.
De-Orwellify: Subsidies are theft
Possible emotional need: usually sold as a source of "job creation"

7. "questioning the party line is unpatriotic"
Re-frame: Questioning is a part of human nature. Party lines limit human nature by eliminating diversity - an essential part of life.
De-Orwellify: Questioning the party line is just one part of loving your fellow man.
Possible emotional need: tribalistic survival

8. "a threat is upon us, we must give the rich money"
Re-frame: 99:1 odds are that the rich caused the threat in the first place. The rich can protect themselves already. The poor cannot.
De-Orwellify: We must prevent any threats by keeping our society just.
Possible emotional need: wanting to avert catastrophe

Your reframings are themselves ideological statements and not especially truthful.