Democratic censorship

Some years ago, in a book I read, the writer used the term ‘democratic censorship’ to describe a kind of totalitarian society in which the government does not have to carry out heavy-handed control over speech and the press, a la the old Soviet Union. In the ‘democratic” censorship method, the people themselves are indoctrinated so fully that they will police each other (and probably self-censor as well) so that peer pressure will discourage independent thought or heretical views. At the time I thought such a system would be very suited to Americans because it seems we Americans are very tuned into the consensus; most Americans don’t want to be the odd one out, the one who steps outside the bounds of what’s socially popular. We don’t want to feel excluded or outside the acceptable norms.

Now of course there are always some who don’t fit the majority pattern. There are always some who go to the other extreme — this is often true of the adolescent and the perpetually adolescent, who make a point of being nonconformist and rebellious in an attention-seeking way, or just to be a thorn in everyone’s side. And there are a few, I mean a real few, who simply seek out the truth, without caring if the majority agree or not. There’s a saying something along the lines of “It’s better to be in the right with two or three than to be wrong with the majority. “

Whatever the reason, most Americans prefer to fit in with their crowd, whoever that may be, and will avoid taking controversial stands. I suppose that’s why it seems we dissidents are seemingly outnumbered by the SJWs, the antis, and all their motley groups.

So it seems we have a kind of ‘democratic censorship’ in which we’ve learned like Pavlov’s dogs to salivate when the bell rings, in anticipation. I think that many we call ‘normies’ are people who try to ascertain which way the wind is blowing before they come down on one side or the other. Principles are optional for these people; they may change with the direction of the political/social winds. It was that way in the American revolution; most colonists were in the “big middle”, and something like a third were for the Revolution, with others being ‘anti’.

It happened that I just read an article on the TakiMag blog, wherein Taki writes about how the present war on free speech is being prosecuted not by government primarily but by private entities: the Big Media, including the Social Media goliaths. I agree with Taki substantially, and it does seem strange that the fictional dystopias written of by Orwell and Huxley were the work of all-powerful governments. Now here we are with private corporations telling us what we may say or write, and despite the warnings by Thomas Jefferson so long ago, we no longer have a free press.

We also seem to have a government, though, which acquiesces for the most part in the censorship and the dishonesty of the major media. We have a government which does not, or will not, carry out the primary duty of a national government: to protect from foreign invasions. So it seems as if our government as a whole is at best, taking a hands-off role regarding the obvious unconstitutional actions of private corporations.

But the strange role played by supposedly private entities in dictating to us what we can and cannot say or write is something I’d like to hear a libertarian address. I always wondered why libertarians clamored for everything to be privatized, to be handed over to the private sector, which is apparently incapable of becoming corrupted or compromised, unlike government. I’ve noticed for most of my adult life that private entities, banks, and other financial institutions, often oppress in ways of their own, just as much as governmental entities do. How, then, does placing more power in the hands of corporations (think of big media, big pharma, big medicine, big whatever) improve things for us, much less make us freer?

As for the censorship we now endure, in which many of us who blog live under the shadow of being de-platformed for our ideas and our thoughts, it seems that they really need not bother; the average citizen, especially those who’ve been thoroughly brain-laundered and gaslighted, will use peer pressure, shunning, and other such social means to discourage fellow citizens from coloring outside the lines and thinking outside the narrow bounds of “socially acceptable”, PC speech and thought. It seems, though, that there is a concentration of efforts on the part of several forces here.

Less freedom for honesty

Increasingly, there is no place left for free expression as in politically incorrect (read: honest) ideas, opinions, or images.

On Vox Day’s blog, a report of one Pinterest user having her board on Nationalism deleted as ‘hate speech.’ The fact that it was labeled ‘hate’ indicates, if there was any doubt, that the nationalism at issue was White people’s nationalism. I sincerely doubt that black nationalism or Jewish nationalism/Zionism would be designated as ‘hate’, and such a board would not be summarily deleted, and the owner warned of possible account suspension.

I requested that my Pinterest account be deleted, though it appears that accounts can’t be deleted at the user’s request, only ‘deactivated.’ You can enter but you can’t fully opt out of the Pinterest world. Just as with google, or, come to think of it, with the sacred American Union.

For some time I’ve thought of deleting my Pinterest boards and account, finding it to be time-consuming and rather pointless. Now, I never had a political board there, really, but I did have items related to controversial history and images of the Confederate Battle Flag, which is now being designated as a ‘hate’ symbol. As wrong as that is, the fact is, the enemies of the flag and of the South and her people are now winning, easily, with very little resistance or pushback from our side. Sad. But other than those images (which I expected would sooner or later be the occasion of complaint from some SJW or ‘aggrieved victim’) my boards were innocuous and non-controversial. Actually my reason for being there was for sheer escapism; the desire to divert my mind from all the disheartening news and the lack of an outlet through which to channel my frustration. I just enjoyed looking at, and pinning, examples of beauty in some form or other, something to counter all the ugliness of this upside-down world we inhabit.

And, as John Keats said, beauty is truth, and truth, beauty. Our current world, this present darkness, has banished both.

Am I caving to the politically correct commissars? You might look at it that way, but why just sit and dread the inevitable? I’d rather depart of my own free will and not wait to get my warning letter or notice of suspension. Better to leave by the front door than to be kicked out. Pinterest just isn’t that important to me.

One of my first exposures to Pinterest was when a pro-White woman spoke of it as a possible venue for sharing pro-White views, as she said she was doing. I now have my doubts as to the value of doing that; it seems the majority of users are either apolitical women (from all countries, by the way) and the rest, people with an obvious ‘social justice’ agenda, people who constantly post multicult ‘diversity’ propaganda. I had to unfollow a number of people who constantly pushed that kind of thing. Pinterest may not be as blatantly leftie/globalist/antiWhite as tumblr, but it is still not friendly to White ethnonationalists, as we are seeing.

I don’t think I will miss Pinterest, but the thing that troubles me is that it is becoming more obvious that by design there are fewer and fewer places online where people may speak freely and honestly. I am surprised that the major blogging platforms still allow free speech at all. Soon we may be reduced to speaking in whispers, in secret, as in the old Communist regimes. And with today’s high-tech surveillance, which spares no one, there really is no private communication between individuals anymore — at least if we are to believe the Snowden revelations.

One last thing: the question that occurred to me was: who owns Pinterest?

Those who hate the truth

British news outlets are disallowing comments on ‘controversial’ subjects, namely race, Islam, and immigration. This is not news really; it’s been gradually happening for some time as we’ve noticed comments being shut down when politically incorrect views appeared in the comment boxes.

The ‘American’ media (made up mostly of ‘diversity’ and AA reporters it would seem, hence my scare quotes around the word American) have in many cases not been accepting comments on such articles for some time,

They pretend that they are making heroic efforts to fend off the non-PC villains who disagree with the party line. Note this part from the linked article:

“Despite valiant efforts by the moderators to repel the bigots, threads on three separate opinion pieces had to be closed after barely two hours. The bullies had won.”

[Emphasis above is mine.]

Nice turning of the tables. Who are the ‘bigots‘, Mr. Pritchard? Who are the ‘bullies‘? Who is being ‘valiant‘?

The self-described journalists used to assert that their job was simply to report facts. Who, what, where, when. Maybe ‘why’. An op-ed piece was another thing. However most alleged ‘news’ articles in today’s lying press are barely disguised op-ed pieces, loaded with bias and unsupported assertions, often written by people who cannot be impartial, and who are in fact hired to represent what is called in today’s PC cant ”underserved minorities’ or ‘underserved communities’. Someone who is born of immigrant parents, or is himself an immigrant, usually has emotion-based biases which prevent an objective, factual approach, yet the media deliberately seek out ‘persons of color’ to write on race, immigrants to write on immigration, and Moslems to write on Islam. Note the bylines on many such pieces. People are hired because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, and sexual ”orientation”, and are hired to express a subjective point of view which is usually hostile to the majority population. They are paid to stack the deck against the majority and against the traditional point of view.

The media constitute gigantic echo-chambers in which those employed in that field reinforce each other in their monolithic worldview. They have a huge ‘us-vs.-them’ complex, and we, their supposed audience and customer base, are being told to shut up. Our ideas and attitudes are not welcome, and will not be tolerated. Our opinions and feelings are anathema.

The left, which includes the media, government, and education at all levels, are letting it be known that they will continue to preach at us from their respective bully pulpits, and we are only to listen and conform, because we have no right to be heard. They are determined that only one point of view is to be heard or permitted. We are seeing how the johnny-come-lately ‘social media’ are now acting as censors, in tandem with law enforcement in places like The Netherlands and Scotland and Canada. Those who express the wrong point of view are visited or phoned by the Law and told that their comments on things like immigration must stop or they will face criminal prosecution.

And people like Stephen Pritchard think they are being ‘valiant’ in suppressing critical comments, (“repelling the bigots”)? Who are the bigots here?

Those who dissent from the politically correct party line of today hardly have the megaphone; our views are not allowed in mainstream media unless some ‘right-wing’ guest is invited on a show to be used as a verbal punching bag or an object of derision.The other side, however, having a stranglehold on the media, can impose its views on the rest of us on every news channel and arm of the media 24/7/365. The leftist media are not much different from the tantrum-throwing college students who scream about their ‘safe space’ being violated, demanding that any reminder of opposing ideas be banished and punished.

But if the delicate creatures who work in the media can’t be asked to tolerate opposing points of view, and if they are not mature enough to withstand criticism of their dogmas, to be fair (don’t liberals bleat about ”fairness” all the time?) they should make a deal with us: they must stop talking about and ‘reporting’ about race, immigration, and Islam. Their ”reporting” is just stark, naked propaganda at this point and it’s as intolerable to us as the equivalent propaganda was to the citizens of the old Soviet Union.

Media people: stop reporting those ‘controversial’ subjects on which you preach to us constantly. It makes people exasperated and angry. Just shut up about those subjects (there is no truth in your ‘reports’ anyway). We can see for ourselves, with our own eyes, what is being done to our countries, and we don’t need those who deem themselves our ‘betters’ to tell us how to think and what to think.

I’m all in favor of a media blackout on race, immigration, and Islam.

But it’s not going to happen because the globalist regime has to keep up the barrage of conditioning lest people see for themselves and start thinking for themselves. Some of us already do that, and we are the ones whose views are silenced, lest our ideas be contagious.

And if these feared ideas spread it will be because they line up with reality and traditional common sense and truth.

Truth is always ”hate” to those who hate the Truth.