One thing that just occurred to me: Twitter and Facebook make purges and genocides so much easier and efficient for those in power.
Genocides of the past were sweeping, blanket genocides: “Kill all Jews,” or “Kill all the Armenian Christians,” etc. That’s messy business.
Governments that want to eliminate dissidents used to have to target whole populations to eliminate the dissidents among them. For instance, if an evil government decided Group X was a problem, it would simply engineer the genocide of Group X whole hog. It’s too difficult and time consuming to sort the Bad Xs from the Obedient Xs, so the simple solution is to just kill all Xs.
But now, in the age of social media, we all pour our hearts and souls out online. We cannot help it. All of our inner thoughts on politics, society and the world are shared and saved publicly online for all to see.
We out ourselves as subversives voluntarily because we cannot help ourselves from sharing our feelings and opinions. In doing so, we make “precision purges” significantly easier for governments.
Why take the time and effort–and not to mention risk the backlash from the “international community”–to wipe out a whole group of people when you can simply target the specific dissidents who have willingly outed themselves for you?
Essentially social media platforms, which began as digital “town squares” where we could share our views on virtually anything freely and without fear of backlash, will become–if they haven’t already, and I’m sure they have in some countries–gigantic self-incrimination machines.
Social media will allow the government to easily and almost effortlessly identify the subversives and the Problem Children who must be silenced and, one day, eliminated.
Who is guilty of Thought Crime? Who must be reeducated? Who is not sufficiently Loyal to the Party? Who does not love Big Brother?
It’s not very hard to find them because they’re publicly stating so on social media!
How easy would it be for Facebook and Twitter to monitor their platforms for Subversive Opinions, relay the identities of the Dissidents to the government, and then the government sends its secret police to knock on your door late at night and take you away?
In 1984, it was kinda tough for the Party to catch Winston Smith. They had to bait him to get him to reveal his Subversive Motives.
But nowadays it would be so easy: all you have to do is look up someone’s social media profile and you’ve got a window into their soul.
Of course, we are already in the early stages of this today. Social media companies are banning and shadowbanning people based entirely on their political views.
Social media giants claim they only ban “dangerous” accounts, but some blue check liberal fantasized about shoving the Covington Catholic kid into a woodchipper and he didn’t get banned. That’s because he was advocating the Right Kind of Violence:
Jack Morrissey’s account is still active. He turned his account on private but he was not banned. I just checked.
Social media purges are based almost entirely on your political views.
Anyway, my point here is that Silicon Valley is already in the first stages of silencing and eventually eliminating political dissidents.
Of course it’s a great leap from banning people on social media platforms to kidnapping them in the middle of the night, but that is only because the Uniparty Establishment believes the problem of political dissent can be effectively dealt with by simply banning those preaching Revolutionary Ideas from social media.
In other words, they believe that once they ban you, that’s the end of you. You’re not going to take to the streets and start organizing or plotting against them in real life.
Silicon Valley Fascists correctly observe that most people are little more than keyboard warriors who won’t actually put their money where their mouths are in real life. You may preach about The Revolution all day online, but will you actually go out in real life and make it happen? For the vast majority of people, the answer is no.
But this could change in the future. The worse things get, the more likely actual Revolution becomes, and the more desperate the Uniparty will be to silence dissidents.
If Trump gets reelected in 2020 despite Silicon Valley’s crackdown on right-wing voices following Trump’s victory in 2016, it could lead to an even greater crackdown on dissident voices. This in turn will (hopefully) lead to an increase of real-world, actual revolt against the Uniparty Oligarchy.
That’s how it escalates to the point of real-world purges.
Although, how do we know that our government doesn’t already imprison dissidents at black sites and gulags at various places around this country?
“Oh, the government can’t have black sites. We’d find them.”
Really? Would we? Most people don’t even leave their homes except to go to work. We’re all too busy watching TV and going online. Who is out there looking for black sites? And who is trespassing on government property over high barbed-wire fences and barriers?
“Google Maps would see them.”
Keep dreaming. Google is Uniparty. Plus, it’s not like these hypothetical black sites would be obvious and conspicuous. Keep the prisoners indoors and it looks like a military base from above.
“People would speak out if their loved one or friend was kidnapped or murdered by the government.”
Oh, really? And they’d be dismissed as kooks because the police would conclude that there was no foul play and it was a suicide or something. That’s what happened with everyone who got in the Clintons’ way. Seth Rich is exhibit A: the “Official Narrative” is that it was a robbery gone wrong even though there was no robbery and he was shot in the back. It wasn’t a robbery gone wrong, it was a hit. And yet “polite society” brands you an unhinged conspiracy theorist if you question the “official story” on Seth Rich.
The reality is most people are desperate to virtue signal by publicly proclaiming their acceptance of the “Official Story” and their emphatic rejection of Conspiracy Theories. Most people are more than eager to eat up what the Establishment feeds them–even when the Establishment Media feeds them literal conspiracies like the one that claimed Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election.
Mainstream, blue-pilled Americans loved Obama because the media and all their favorite celebrities loved Obama–and all the while they consider themselves the rebels, the underdogs, the oppressed.
These are the same people who HATE NAZIS SO MUCH and want to PUNCH EVERY NAZI, yet if they were alive in 1930s Germany they would have been the most loyal and devoted Nazis, probably ratting out Jews to the SS because they believed all the Nazi propaganda they were fed, just as they believe all the Uniparty propaganda they’re fed today. The same people trying to get right-wingers and Trump supporters banned from social media today are the people who would have been Nazi Party Loyalists in 1930s Germany. For sure.
They believe in their hearts they wouldn’t have been, but the truth is, if you’re loyal to the Establishment today, you probably would have been loyal to the Nazi Establishment in 1930s Germany.
So does our government already have black sites and gulags for political dissidents? I’d say no. Not yet. They’re not necessary yet.
But give it time.
And when they do exist, most of us will have no idea.
This recent uptick in social media banning and shadowbanning is why the blue checkmark has become almost a negative indicator: instead of denoting someone who is a “credible source,” it really just denotes someone who is Silicon Valley Approved. The tech oligarchs have determined that that person’s voice is Safe For Public Consumption.
You can’t really be that much of a threat to the Uniparty Oligarchy if they’ve given you a blue checkmark on social media.
The ultimate sign of credibility and truth online is, of course, being banned, but this is an imperfect metric because psychos get banned along with the most powerful truth-speaking dissidents.
Not only this but being banned is a dead-end: yes, you’ve proven that you are a significant enough threat to the Uniparty Establishment that they felt the need to silence you, but now what?
Conservatives must reckon with the fact that multinational megacorporations, which are now found oppressing and marginalizing anyone to the right of Jonah Goldberg, were only allowed to get as large and powerful as they currently are because of Reaganomics.
This is a difficult pill to swallow because Reagan is the Messiah to the conservative right. In their telling, he saved and revitalized the economy which fell apart in the 1970s and particularly under Jimmy Carter. Reagan’s neoliberal, or “supply side,” economic policies began a 25-year economic boom that was largely uninterrupted until the collapse of 2008, bringing American prosperity and business to new, unparalleled heights.
Regan’s influence on the right’s economic philosophy is so absolute that even in the 2012 election–24 years after Reagan had left office and 8 years after his death–Republican Presidential candidates competed with each other to show they were the most like Reagan. They would take turns showering him with praise and promising to be just like Reagan. The whole primary campaign was like watching Tibetan Buddhists try to find the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama: who was the TRUE reincarnation of Ronald Reagan?!
A whole generation of Young Conservatives™ born in the years following Reagan’s presidency have grown up revering and worshipping Ronald Reagan, believing him to be completely beyond critique, and his policies having had no downsides.
But while it’s undeniable that Reagan’s policies were great for corporate profits and the stock market, and that a ton of wealth was created following the early 1980s, what’s rarely discussed (even by many of Reagan’s leftwing critics) is the fact that the neoliberal economic paradigm Reagan’s policies ushered in gave us the era of multinational megacorporations and all the troubles they have wrought today.
Reagan’s tax cuts, deregulation and general pro-business, pro-international free trade policies were the opening corporate America needed to take off to heights not seen since the age of the Robber Barrons at the turn of the century.
The difference today is that corporations are hugely influential over our personal lives. We live largely at their mercy, tech giants in particular.
Today, you need to have a social media presence, and yet if you’re a conservative banned from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, you essentially cannot.
We have reached a scary point in the history of our country, where major corporations are not only virtue signaling for the approval of the left via cynical “Faux Woke” ad campaigns and rainbow-flag social media avatars, but are actively working to oppress and victimize political dissidents.
It’s not just about pandering to a leftwing audience in search of higher profits; it’s about actively enforcing a political agenda, even if it means alienating and even directly oppressing millions, perhaps tens of millions, of Americans.
The largest American corporations now fully realize just how much leverage they can exert over our behavior, and have begun using that leverage to silence political dissent and punish the enemies of Politically Correct Uniparty Globalism.
They have become the primary enforcers for totalitarian leftism. It’s not about profits anymore; it’s about power.
If you’re banned from Twitter, Facebook/Instagram, YouTube, Chase Bank, Uber, PayPal, and Airbnb it is going to be difficult to live a normal life and have a successful career.
That’s seven companies that collectively have an enormous amount of control over your ability to live a normal life and have a successful career in 2019.
Do you really want to get on their bad side? Is supporting Donald Trump really worth all the suffering you’re going to endure? Think of how easy it would be to just give up and support the Uniparty. You’d get to keep your social media accounts, you’d get to keep your bank account, you don’t have to worry about being socially ostracized, you don’t have to worry about being fired for Thought Crime. Things would be much easier if you simply gave in and supported the Uniparty, American Consumer #221,543,906.
And that’s just how it is now: it’ll get worse in the future. Soon, hotels will start denying rooms to dissidents. Airlines will blacklist them. Dissidents won’t be able to travel. They won’t be able to bank and get loans.
It doesn’t make as much sense for Amazon to close the accounts of dissidents, given that Amazon would be stupid to ban people who directly give it money on a regular basis, but is it that far out of the realm of possibility? Absolutely not. In fact I’d bet on it happening in the next few years. As of now I’ve not heard of Amazon denying political dissidents the ability to shop on their site, but they have for a while now been banning books written by dissidents, notably those by Roosh Valizadeh—and at the behest of Huffington Post, of course.
Even scarier is the prospect of Facebook and Google, who know everything about everyone, starting to use their vast trove of data to blackmail people into conformity.
Corporations have always been powerful, but never have they exerted as much control over our personal lives as they do today. And it was Ronald Reagan’s economic policies and philosophy that allowed these companies to grow so big and powerful.
We can better understand the rise of multinational megacorporations since Reagan in the following five trends that have emerged:
First, there are now fewer publicly traded companies than there were in 1980, a time when America had a population of 225 million (100 million fewer people than today) and when the US GDP was only about $2.8 trillion.
Today, a shrinking number of megacorporations control more and more of a $20 trillion economy. At the peak in 1996, there were over 8000 public companies in the US. Today there are around 4,000, a decline of nearly 50%.
This is mainly due to mergers and acquisitions, closures due to foreign competition, and closures of domestic competition caused by unfair, anti-competition government regulations written in large part by the megacorporations.
Here’s the market cap of that shrinking number of companies:
The entire economy has essentially become a cartel. Larger pie, fewer slices.
Second, since the early 1980s, the number of banks in the country has fallen by nearly 75%. Increasingly, our only options are the major banks like Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi, US Bank and PNC.
More and more Americans use megabanks, and with fewer options for Americans, the banks are able to exert more control over our lives.
The name of the game is consolidation, both in banking and the economy overall. When did that begin? The 1980s.
Third, income inequality has taken off to the point where the top 1% of the country now holds more wealth than the bottom 90%:
Look where the divergence really begins: the early 1980s.
Median family income, which doubled from the end of WWII to 1970, has basically been flat for the past five decades:
Importantly, this is not a trend that began under Reagan, but the trend of income inequality largely did begin under Reagan:
Because while it’s technically accurate to say that real incomes for Americans haven’t really grown at all since the early 1970s, they have grown for the richest Americans.
The rich have left everyone in the dust; the actual gains that have been made since the early 1980s have gone to a small number of rich individuals and families at the top.
Fourth, global free trade has outsourced millions of jobs to cheap labor abroad. NAFTA may have been implemented in 1994 under Bill Clinton, but the negotiations began in 1988 under Reagan, continued under Reagan’s hand-picked successor George H.W. Bush and were completed under Clinton. NAFTA was Reagan’s idea originally, and in fact he made free trade a part of his campaign way back in 1979. NAFTA’s roots can undoubtedly be traced to Reagan.
This chart shows job outsourcing in the previous decade, the 2000s:
Multinational megacorporations added over 2 million jobs outside the US in the decade from 2000-2009 while cutting over 3 million jobs inside the US.
GE, for example, slightly increased its foreign workforce in the 2000s while reducing the size of its US workforce by 16%.
“In 2007, IBM reported having 121,000 workers in the United States. By 2009, this number had shrunk to 105,000, due to layoffs and outsourcing. But IBM is rapidly expanding its global workforce. Through a similar period in 2007, the company had 386,558 employees globally, a number which has since grown to 426,751.
But we don’t know how many U.S. employees it now has; IBM stopped publishing domestic statistics in late 2009, saying that it was no longer necessary because none of its competitors did.”
That’s because they’re all outsourcing like mad and don’t want anyone to know the true extent!
It is estimated that since China was allowed into the World Trade Organization in 2001 (one of the worst things to ever happen to American workers) over 3 million American jobs have been displaced:
Obviously Reagan was long gone by 2001, but China’s addition to the WTO was a lengthy process that began way back in 1986 and only culminated in 2001. Our trade imbalance with China and all the ills that accompany it began in the early 1990s:
You can see the divergence truly began in 1991 and is now completely out of control.
This has its origins in the neoliberal global capitalism/”free trade” philosophy that began under Reagan.
Fifth and finally, the rise of multinational megacorporations has coincided with the explosion of foreign immigration–both legal and illegal–into the US.
While the demographic transformation of America currently underway can be traced back to Ted Kennedy’s disastrous 1965 immigration overhaul, it was the big corporations that quickly realized they could exploit the left’s push for “diversity” and “multiculturalism” to obtain cheap foreign labor.
There is a massive amount of corporate support behind mass foreign immigration because big companies have realized that if they can’t ship your job overseas, they can bring someone from overseas here to do your job for cheaper.
The reason it has proven so difficult for Trump to stem the tide of foreign immigration is because there are a lot of powerful, wealthy businesses pushing back against him. They largely have Congress in their pockets.
Not only do mega corporations increasingly control our lives, they have also played a major role in destroying the fabric of this country via open borders immigration. Whether it’s cheap low-skilled labor from illegals or cheap high-skilled labor from the H1B visas, wage-killed immigration is in the best interest of the many big businesses that dominate this country.
So it’s no wonder our country is being flooded with third worlders: it is what’s best for the Big Corporations’ bottom lines.
All this goes back to Reagan and his ideology of neoliberal capitalism. It is virtually impossible to say otherwise.
If we are ever going to have any hope of salvaging our country, we must be honest about where the problems began.
Most importantly, the right must move on from the ideology of “free market capitalism.”
There may have been a time when “free market capitalism” truly meant “free market capitalism,” but it has now come to represent an oligarchy of multinational megacorporations.
This does not mean we have to embrace socialism. Not at all. It’s a false choice to suggest that we either have an oligarchy of multinational megacorporations or we have Full Blown Soviet-Style Communism, complete with gulags and Five Year Plans.
We must return to real capitalism. What we have now is basically an unholy alliance of big business and big government. This is not capitalism at all.
It’s not right to say that business is a good thing in and of itself. Small businesses are good, and even larger businesses can be good, but megacorporations are bad—especially when they work hand in hand with the government. Megacorporations spend millions of dollars each year lobbying Washington to write favorable regulations, which usually have the effect of warding off competition and entrenching the megacorporations even further.
“Pro-business” today usually ends up meaning “pro Big Business,” and that’s a bad thing. What we really need is pro-competitionpolicies.
And yes, we do need to reject the ideology of “free” trade because it’s killing us. Cheap Chinese shit has not been a worthwhile tradeoff given how many millions of jobs we’ve lost to outsourcing, and how much capital has been invested overseas instead of here in America.
“Free market economics” generally has a very positive connotation on the right, and conservatives will point to luminaries like Milton Friedman and Adam Smith to justify their views. I know because I used to be a devout, Reagan-worshipping “free market conservative,” believing that the free market was always and everywhere right and any form of government intervention was wrong.
Free market conservatives believe businesses almost always do the right thing, and that if simply left to their own devices, they will create a sort of perfectly efficient utopia in which all demands are met with supply, every problem is solved by an innovative entrepreneur or business, and no one is ever oppressed because only the government can oppress you. This last part about the government being the only institution with the power to oppress you is probably the single greatest blind spot of Reagan-worshipping free market capitalists.
And it’s pretty easy to see that when left to their own devices, businesses operating in a free market will not do what’s best for everyone. For instance, a long-held critique of Reaganomics from the left is that unregulated businesses don’t give a shit about the environment and will pollute and dump to their hearts’ content if the government doesn’t forbid them from doing so.
Free market conservatives, however, instead of simply admitting they don’t give a shit about the environment, often make the ridiculous argument that ackshually, businesses will naturally take better care of the environment because The Free Market is Jesus.
No. They will only care about the environment if it is profitable for them to do so.
Another example is labor costs: free marketers think businesses will care about wages if you simply removed government regulations.
No, they don’t care about wages: they care about profits. And everyone knows the single largest expenditure for businesses is labor. They are always and everywhere looking to cut costs and maximize profits, and when they can cut labor costs, they will.
This is why we have layoffs and outsourcing: if you can’t eliminate the job, find someone who will do it for cheaper.
If these big companies could, they would automate almost every job. Robots and AI are the ultimate cheap labor. But for now big companies have to settle for foreigners.
Before global free trade came around, companies were generally restricted to finding Americans who would do the jobs for cheaper. But now they’re not limited to just Americans: they can find Taiwanese kids in sweatshops who will do the job for way cheaper. Or they can move their plants to Mexico.
The ultimate example of post-Reagan neoliberal capitalism is Apple: Apple is the largest publicly traded company on earth with a market cap of $821 billion. Last year, before its more recent fall in share price, Apple became the first company to sport a trillion-dollar market cap. Yet Apple only directly employs about 50,000 workers here in the US. Foxconn, however–the Taiwanese company that makes Apple’s iPhones and iPads–employs over 800,000 people. And the reason Apple uses Foxconn is because they manufacture for dirt cheap.
(Walmart, in contrast to Apple, employs over 2 million people in the US. McDonald’s employs about 2 million Americans.)
So we’ve got a multinational megacorporation that is worth over $800 billion yet only employs about 50,000 people in the US. Apple is turning just stupid profits and the actual economic benefit to Americans in terms of jobs created is relatively tiny.
This is all because of the ideology of free market economics: just let businesses do whatever they want and trust that they act in America’s best interests.
It’s a faith-based ideology at heart. The Almighty Free Market will be our salvation.
But the past several years should show us all–especially conservatives–that big business is not our friend. The free market does not always get the best result for everyone.
Left to their own devices, companies will consolidate market share and power by gobbling up smaller competitors. They will cut labor costs by moving operations overseas, and they will use their might to lobby and influence Washington for favorable regulations and policies, which suppress, rather than encourage, competition.
We seem to have forgotten this sometime after the end of the first Roosevelt administration, but the primary tendency of unconstrained businesses is towards domination and monopoly. They don’t want competition, they want supremacy.
If the great Trust Buster himself Theodore Roosevelt came back to life and saw that the prevailing economic mindset among America’s modern day political class–especially among his Republican successors–was to simply sit back and allow companies to do whatever they want, under the presumption that businesses only ever act in our best interests and will never harm us, he would be furious. He would wonder if his time in the White House had been forgotten by history.
This all goes back to Reagan. His economic policies were anchored in the desire to fully unleash and unchain American businesses.
We did, and his philosophy took root among our political establishment. Neoliberal capitalism has been the dominant consensus of economic thinking in Washington for the past three decades. All of Reagans successors until Trump were disciples–yes, that includes Bill Clinton, and yes, that even includes Barack Obama, who made a lot of talk about the middle class and taxing the wealthy but ultimately presided over an economic recovery in which virtually all the gains went to the wealthy. From 2009-2017, big corporations saw their values and profits explode while regular Americans were largely forgotten.
It all goes back to Reagan.
I’m not saying we haven’t benefitted from neoliberal capitalism. We clearly have. Our economy is incredibly efficient, and costs on virtually all essential consumer goods have come down significantly over the past 35 years. Today the poorest Americans are much better off than the poorest Americans of prior generations. Today poor people have appliances, cellphones and even luxuries poor people of previous generations could have never dreamed of. Poor Americans today aren’t starving, instead they are actually more likely to be obese. We live in a land of plenty, and that is largely due to neoliberal capitalism that began under Reagan.
But it has all come at a great cost.
The bottom line is that increasingly, regular Americans—conservatives in particular—are out of options and at the mercy of the megacorporations, which they increasingly need to live normal lives. Nobody is self-sufficient anymore. We need big corporations for virtually everything.
The multinational megacorporations, after decades of plundering our economy, hoarding all the gains, importing millions of immigrants for cheap labor, and shipping millions more jobs overseas, are now actively oppressing those who dare speak out against them.
The megacorporations are out of control. This much we can agree on.
But when the question turns to, “How did we get here?” the uncomfortable truth for free market conservatives is that this all started under Ronald Reagan.
The rise of multinational corporations is a large part of the reason things have gotten so bad today—whether it be immigration, corporate censorship, the hollowing out of the economy, the greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the 1%, the rise of the banking cartel—and the modern multinational corporation is a product of free market (or supply side) economics, i.e. Reaganomics, neoliberalism.
We need small businesses. We need thriving families that are not buried in debt. We need strong communities characterized by high-trust, assimilation and shared values and institutions.
Multinational megacorporations have eroded much of that.
We must disabuse Mainstream Conservatives of their belief that the free market is always and everywhere wonderful, and that big business always has our best interests in mind.
This begins by deconstructing the Reagan Mythology.
We will never make any progress on breaking up the modern day trusts until we convince the Free Market Conservatives that businesses can be bad and that the Free Market does not always deliver what’s best for everyone.
Reagan himself would be horrified by what the Big Corporations are doing to conservatives today. Reagan may have been a neoliberal capitalist, but first and foremost he was for individual liberty and the constitution. That’s why he hated communism and the Soviet Union so much.
Reagan would recognize that today’s multinational megacorporations are the very tyrants we feared the government would become.
It’s time to leave Reaganomics in the past and get to Trust Busting before it’s too late.
“PayPal CEO Dan Schulman admitted during an interview with the Wall Street Journal that PayPal works with the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when it considers blacklisting conservatives.
After being asked by the Wall Street Journal what “values” PayPal identifies with,” Schulman replied, “Probably the most important value to us is diversity and inclusion.”
The leftist does not see any contradiction between “promoting diversity and inclusion” and blacklisting Republicans. Seriously, they do not.
When they say “diversity” they’re not talking about diversity of thought, only superficial diversity like skin color and gender. It doesn’t include political views.
Same with “inclusion”. They’ll include everyone who has the correct politics.
Underpinning all of this is an admission that they don’t believe in free speech. They believe there are certain viewpoints that should never see the light of day, and they are determined to silence these viewpoints wherever they find them.
As long as you hold the Correct Views, you have nothing to worry about.
“During the interview, Schulman also admitted that the far-left SPLC helps to inform “PayPal’s decisions.”
Wonderful. We all know the SPLC gives everyone a fair shake.
“There are those both on the right and left that help us. Southern Poverty Law Center has brought things. We don’t always agree. We have our debates with them. We are very respectful with everyone coming in. We will do the examination carefully,” Schulman explained. “We’ll talk when we don’t agree with a finding: We understand why you think that way, but it still goes into the realm of free speech for us.”
No, that’s not how free speech works. The moment you are discussing censoring anyone at all, you have killed free speech.
Free speech is an all-or-nothing deal: either everyone has it or it doesn’t exist.
The moment you get into picking and choosing who you will censor and who you allow to speak, you have killed free speech. Period.
Schulman is talking about when the SPLC will come to PayPal and say, “We think you should ban X, Y and Z.” And PayPal will respond, “No, we’re only going to ban X and Y, but not Z.”
That’s not “the realm of free speech.” Either X, Y and Z all have free speech, or nobody does. That’s how it works.
“Free speech” does not entail banning certain groups you’ve demonized as dangerous and “hateful” while permitting other groups you’ve deemed either Allies To The Cause or nonthreatening to say what they want.
Allowing only Allies to the Cause and nonthreatening “enemies” (i.e. the Fake Republicans who exist only to push for tax cuts, back down on immigration, bend the knee to political correctness and ultimately represent zero threat to the status quo) the ability to speak freely is not free speech at all. It’s controlled speech.
I used to think they censored us because they really and truly believe we’re extreme and so far off the deep end that their censorship of us is seen as a public service, protecting the vulnerable minds of the masses from “extremism” and dangerous ideas that could lead to violence if allowed to spread.
But the real reason they censor us is because we’re speaking the truth, and we threaten their grip on power.
The only danger we represent is to their grip on power.
What is the solution to 21st Century Jim Crow? We need to effectively expand the First Amendment with legislation guaranteeing the right to hold dissenting political views:
The New Fascists have found a way to circumvent the First Amendment: it’s not the government stifling our free speech, it’s private corporations.
They may not be violating the letter of the First Amendment, but they are unequivocally murdering the spirit of it.
We need legislation expressly prohibiting both private corporations and the government (because the Democrats will retake power eventually) from discriminating based on political views.
Otherwise, this will keep getting worse.
They began restricting free speech on the far right, and now they’re moving inward.
They got people (including self-professed conservatives) to accept the premise that some groups, like the mythical “Neo Nazis” and “White supremacists” they claim are running rampant, should not enjoy free speech.
They started dismantling free speech by picking on the groups nobody would defend, and then they gradually expanded their list of personae non gratae by saying “Y’know, these guys are dangerous, too. And so are these guys.”
The blacklist will keep growing unless Congress acts and passes legislation banning discrimination based on political views.
The conveniences and comforts of modern life are now being leveraged against us to control out political behavior.
Example: for many years, social media made it easier to keep in contact with one another, now the companies that own the platforms are proactively policing speech and political expression.
At first social media was a novelty, then it became essential to our daily lives. Life takes place online nowadays; you need to be on social media in order to stay connected. And that’s especially true if you are in the political sphere. Politics takes place on social media. That’s where the debate is.
But now, previously benign social media platforms, which used to simply sit back and allow virtually anyone to say basically whatever they wanted, are beginning to proactively enforce Uniparty political dogma on social media.
Social media companies realize how important they are to our daily lives, and the political debate in particular, and are leveraging their importance toward political ends.
There are strings attached now. If you want to use and benefit from social media, you must have the correct politics now. It wasn’t this way at the start, but now that the big tech companies have us hooked on their platforms, they are trying to control our thoughts and opinions–otherwise, you can kiss your Twitter and Facebook goodbye.
But now major American corporations are taking it a step further: it’s not just big tech that is using its power to play the role of Thought Police.
“Can you imagine how scary it would be to live in a world where your livelihood depended on having the ‘correct’ politics? It’s the sort of thing you might expect of totalitarian regimes – Baathist Iraq under Saddam Hussain; everywhere that has ever tried communism; increasingly, Xi’s panopticon China – but definitely not of any liberal democracy in the 21st century.
That dystopian future, though, may be much closer than you think. I only properly appreciated this recently when the podcast I’ve been doing for the last few years was mysteriously dropped by my regular employer, forcing me to seek funding sources from elsewhere.
If I were impeccably ‘progressive’, this would be a doddle. I could monetize my content through ads on YouTube, I could crowdfund donations through Patreon, I could promote my work with regular appearances on CNN. But if you’re snarky and irreverent and you won’t play the virtue-signaling game then your options are much more limited. Any deviation from the path of ‘woke’ righteousness – even just a misjudged joke or a remark taken out of context – can get you branded a ‘far right’ extremist and your audience won’t be allowed to pay you even if they want to.
This is what happened last month to the blogger/vidcaster Carl Benjamin – aka Sargon of Akkad – whose long-form meditations on everything from Brexit and feminism to Islam and video game politics have won him nearly 900,000 subscribers on YouTube. Benjamin’s primary funding source was Patreon, a website which enables donors to support projects they love with monthly contributions. But when one of Benjamin’s critics unearthed some audio of intemperate remarks he’d made in the course of an obscure interview where he’d been defending himself against neo-Nazis, Patreon de-platformed him for breaching its ‘terms of service.’
Instead of simply providing a neutral platform for creators of all stripes to get paid by their audiences, Patreon has decided that only those with the Correct Views can get paid for their work.
It would be one thing if these platforms like Patreon, Twitter, Youtube and Facebook were actually only trying to remove genuine violent/dangerous extremists. But they’re not. They’re simply labeling everyone who challenges Uniparty orthodoxy as a “right-wing extremist” and using that false label as justification for deplatforming them.
“Benjamin’s defenestration needs to be understood in the context of a much wider ongoing purge of right wing voices by Silicon Valley, which now likes to see itself as the world’s liberal bulwark against the dark, populist forces supposedly unleashed by Donald Trump.
Superficially, this might sound reasonable. As even our conservative tabloids are wont to ask, ‘When, oh when, are social media giants going to do more to combat hate speech?’ The more important question is, though: ‘Who gets to decide what is hate speech?’ From YouTube and Twitter to Facebook and Patreon, Silicon Valley’s answer seems to be: the kind of Social Justice Warriors who think any viewpoint to the right of Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn is literally Hitler.
“Combating hate speech” is merely the pretext, the fig leaf to provide some moral justification for waging war against free speech.
See, the American Totalitarians still want to maintain their delusions of moral superiority. They want to have it both ways: they want to silence anyone who disagrees with them, but they don’t want to feel like fascists while doing so. So they pretend the people they’re silencing are all Literal Nazis who need to be silenced, or else they’ll eventually start waging another genocide or something.
But it’s not just Patreon enforcing political orthodoxy. It’s much worse:
“Among those riding to the defense of Benjamin were two of Patreon’s leading beneficiaries – author and academic Jordan Peterson and vidcaster Dave Rubin. They are trying to launch an alternative crowd-funding platform to Patreon – one untainted by political bias. But this may not be easy because the rot goes much deeper than Patreon. The real pressure, it seems, comes from the payment providers – Visa, Discover, PayPal, especially Mastercard – which have taken to using financial blacklisting as a way of enforcing progressive ideology.
There isn’t space here to discuss why they are doing it. It is simply an observable fact that, as Breitbart writer Allum Bokhari puts it, ‘it has become increasingly difficult for individuals engaged in controversial yet lawful speech to fund their activities online.’ Even liberals are starting to worry. Banks and credit card companies, says the left-leaning Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), have become ‘de facto internet censors.’
Patreon is small-time compared to the big dogs Visa and Mastercard.
Payments processors and banks made life easier for us, now they’re leveraging our reliance on them to control our behavior:
Better think twice now before you use your Visa or MasterCard to legally purchase guns and ammunition. They got us hooked on their products because of how much easier they made our lives, and now they’re saying, “Either you readjust your political views or you no longer get to enjoy our now-essential services.”
And of course if you don’t like it, then go start your own global payments processing business. At least that’s what the True Conservatives™ will say.
If you think this will stop with social media companies and payments processors, you are wrong. Eventually hotels will start refusing rooms to dissidents. A judge in New York said bars are allowed to kick Trump supporters out.
We won’t be able to get loans from banks.
We will eventually be blackballed from commerce altogether.
The New Fascists will not stop until conservatives are completely excommunicated from American life altogether.
They want to make regular Americans conclude it’s simply not worth it to challenge the Uniparty establishment. Too much trouble. It’s about demoralizing dissidents.
They want us fired from our jobs and denied the ability to make a living–in addition to wanting us dead and our homelands overrun with Third Worlders.
The Ben Shapiros will say, “That’s absurd! Muh Free Market will prevent this! These companies will lose so much money discriminating against conservatives!”
Apparently the companies don’t care.
They’re willing to sacrifice profits to enforce Uniparty dogma.
Virtually every major multinational corporation will soon be an enforcer for the Uniparty Establishment.
And, of course, Teachers Pet do-gooder 30-year-old “journalists” at the New York Times are applauding it all.
They’re the same people telling us democracy dies in darkness and that they’re protecting us from tyranny.
They are the tyrants.
The fascists are completely convinced beyond all doubt that they are the good guys doing the right thing.
When the history of this era is written, they will be the bad guys. But not only are they unaware of it, they are so utterly certain that the complete opposite will be true; that they’ll be the Heroes and Good Guys.