The censorship industrial complex strikes again

We are not allowed to oppose war and genocide

Hillary Clinton recently let the cat out of the bag when she told CNN: “If [social media platforms] don’t moderate the content, we lose total control”. She was talking about total control of your mind by the way, total control of your political views.

The problem with social media is it brainwashed you into thinking genocide is bad by exposing you to problems like the truth. Prior to social media, you did not see much of the truth and that’s why the establishment was so successful. That’s why the military industrial complex got away with violating international law again and again. It thrived on ignorance.

Now that public opinion is shifting, the people who have a right to be in power need to regain “total control” of your thoughts. John Kerry recently said the quiet part loud when he told the normal people at the World Economic Forum the first amendment should be abolished.

If you’re unfamiliar with the WEF, it’s the annual conference where 90-year-old billionaires discuss how to coerce you into being microchipped, and oh god, you think this is a conspiracy theory, don’t you? In that case, watch Klaus Schwab discussing microchipping in this video and listen to his adviser’s views on free will. Are you looking forward to being one of Klaus Schwab’s “digitised humans”? No? Well, John Kerry wants to stop you expressing that opinion, you thought criminal!

Not only does the WEF want to microchip you, and monitor you at every moment, it wants to protect you from “disinformation” because you should only hear one set of opinions: theirs. Corporations would never lie to you and if you challenge corporations, you deserve to be silenced. Thankfully, John Kerry is batting for the corporations because who else would a politician represent? The former US presidential candidate said:

“[Social media] is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It’s really hard to govern today. The referees we used to have to determine what’s a fact and what isn’t a fact have been eviscerated… and people self-select where they go for their news and their information and you just get into a vicious cycle… and there is a lot of discussion now about how you kerb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts. If people go to only one source and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda, putting out disinformation, our first amendment stands as a major block to the ability to just hammer it out of existence.”

Whoa, let’s break this down!

The problem is democracies allow freedom of speech and therefore people end up with differing opinions. I believe we need to be less democratic in order to promote group think.

We weren’t particularly democratic anyway, and we definitely need to be more democratic, but you have it straight from the horse’s mouth: our leaders think there is too much free speech and therefore too much democracy.

Democracy makes it really hard to govern today. In the past, we had arbiters of truth feeding you the acceptable political agendas, but now social media is undermining that by offering you a wide range of sources and the ability to fact check and decide for yourself.

It would be a lot easier to govern if you told the public the truth, unless what you’re doing is so unpalatable, you can’t tell them the truth. It’s not opinions from bloggers that are the problem, it’s lies from our leaders and corporate journalists. If they were telling us the truth, we wouldn’t have to go elsewhere.

The problem today is people self-select, and self-selection is bad. The establishment should select for you. That’s how the market place of ideas is supposed to work.

Yeah, prior to social media, people definitely didn’t self-select their preferred newspaper or TV channel. Good point!

There needs to be some accountability on facts. People presenting inconvenient facts must be held accountable. Inconvenient facts must be hammered out of existence.

Well, that’s not terrifying…

We need to kerb social media and independent media because it’s putting out messages we don’t approve of. You’re only supposed to hear carefully tailored viewpoints: one viewpoint to cater to the left, the other to cater to the right, both equally dishonest, both intended to steer you toward certain positions like “war is good’" while leaving you to fight over pronouns so you think you have free speech.

Is anyone on board with this shit? My favourite part of Kerry’s speech was the last part where he warned us against the dangers of having only one news source that is sick, has an agenda, and is putting out disinformation. That was precisely the problem prior to social media. If you were only getting your information from Fox News, you were getting disinformation that serves an agenda. Same with all corporate media.

The reason people are avoiding mainstream media is because it lies non-stop and is morally bankrupt. Everyone understands that no news source is perfect, whether we’re talking about corporate or independent media, so we sift through the information and figure out the truth for ourselves. Personally, I could find nothing more abhorrent than someone doing that for me and saying I’m not allowed to hear the other arguments. That would mean my mind is not my own.

Corporate media and governments could win people back by stopping the lies and acting with integrity. Instead, they want to take away your options so they can dictate the truth to you. It’s a terrifying, nightmarish vision, and a perfect example of why liberals are every bit as dangerous as neocons. Both sides want censorship and endless war.

It’s no coincidence that we’ve just seen a new wave of de-platforming of anti-war voices. Stop for a moment and ask yourself what kind of society silences those who oppose war? I’m old enough to remember when we understood anti-war voices should be treated with respect, even if you disagree with them. Even warmonger Tony Blair pretended to be respectful towards the opponents of his wars. Anti-war voices can kerb a society’s worst impulses (or at least try) and therefore should always be heard.

This is gonna sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but if anti-war voices are censored, our governments might be tempted to participate in genocides. I know, I know, that’s tinfoil hat stuff! I mean it’s not like they’re participating in a genocide right fucking now. Oh hang on, that’s exactly what they’re doing.

And right now, Youtube and Meta (and most social media platforms) are censoring the people who speak out against the genocide. The latest victim is Rachel Blevins, a Youtuber with 63,000 subscribers who had her account nuked without a single warning for “repeated violations” of Youtube’s T and Cs. Blevins tried to appeal, only to have the appeal automatically rejected.

A number of other anti-war voices have suffered the same treatment in the past few weeks. Don’t worry though, I’m sure it’s fine. I’m sure the people who don’t want you to be told war is bad have good intentions.

It’s not just Youtube censoring people, Caitlin Johnstone and others have recently had their posts taken down from Meta platforms and been given strikes. I fell victim to this today in a very weird way.

I woke up and looked at Facebook to see notifications that some of my posts had been removed. Facebook did not tell me which of my pages or groups had been impacted, so I checked each of my pages to find no recent posts had been removed. Facebook told me the pages were in perfect health!

I then logged into my Facebook group to find a warning that my group was at risk. The strange thing was there are no strikes against the group, apart from an old one for disinformation that has been removed. There is nothing new in there and no admin violations. Normally Facebook shows you what the alleged violations were, but there was nothing other than this notice at the bottom:

Despite Facebook saying I can appeal, it did not give me an option to appeal. Many of you will ask why I’m bothering with social media so let me explain: when I use a platform like Facebook, it’s not an endorsement, it’s a protest.

Think of it like this: if there is an event telling us why Israel’s genocide is good, is it better to ignore that event or go and protest? If people are being censored, is it better to accept the censorship or fight back? Ask yourself what the establishment would prefer and do the opposite.

My presence on social media platforms is a form of protest. The establishment wants to use these platforms to push an agenda, but while we can make our voices heard to their users, that’s exactly what we should do. In fact, we have a moral duty to do so. We are in an information war and we cannot afford to lose.

If we stay away from social media, we are letting the establishment yell at billions of users that war is good without push back and that makes the world a darker place. It’s the job of independent media to push back. It could not be a more important role.

---

Thank you for reading. All of my content will always be freely available, but if you wish to support my work, you can do so at PayPal, Stripe, Ko-fi or Patreon. Likes, shares and comments also help massively.