Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
There has been a targeted
purge going on that has dramatically increased over the past two years. It
involves activists who claim to be journalist from Alt-left media outlets
pushing energetically to have conservative views of any form demonetized,
deplatformed and censored because they make cogent and rational arguments to fundamental
positions they hold and more importantly, they are being attended to by the public
more than the extensions of legacy news outlets. In many respects, it reminds me
of a book I read many years ago and have just recently re-read, Fahrenheit 451
by Ray Bradbury. The book is about a dystopia American future in which firemen
no longer put out fires but rather start them because there job now is to burn
books.
In Fahrenheit 451, there
are two sections of dialogue that remind me of how out of control far left
activist have gone toward the destruction of free speech. The first, near the
beginning of the book occurs when Guy Montag meets Clarisse. She becomes the first
person to get him to think outside of his normal sphere simply by suggest he
start to think than by telling what to think when she suggested to him that
there was a man in the moon “if you look.” The next is when Montag is speaking
with Faber and Faber points out, “I don’t talk things sir. I talk the meaning
of things."
Today Guy Montag assumes
the form of notable (just barely) members of major progressive news outlets
journalist staff. I use the word
journalist loosely because they are activist masquerading as journalist for
they have a hidden agenda. These include but are not limited to individuals
such as Vox’s Carlos Maza and the New York Time’s Kevin Roose. These are now
the firemen of 2019 - they are burners of books and the authorized censors of
the state with the phoenix disc on their chest. Although these individuals are
not literally burning books, if they could they would. They are directing their silencing campaigns
at big technocratic corporations the likes of Twitter, Facebook and most of
all, YouTube. They seem to object to the ‘You’ in the title and conveniently
ignore that it is called such for a reason instead of
“MainstreamLegacyMediaTube.”
Maza recently attacked Youtuber Stephen Crowder because Crowder made jokes about him and mocked him while
at the same time logically dismembering Maza’s poorly constructed Vox videos. Since
he was unable to use logic to refute Crowder, Maza decided to call Big Brother
too do his work for him and claim a joke directed toward him was the same as a joke
directed toward all people like himself (which he describes among other things
as being Gay and an Anchor Baby). Even when YouTube demonetized Crowder’s show,
Carlos Maza was not happy stating: “Demonetizing doesn’t work. Abusers use it as proof they're being "discriminated"
against. Then they make millions off selling merch, doing speaking gigs, and
getting their followers to support them on Patreon. The ad revenue isn't the
problem. It's the platform.” This lets anyone with a brain see that he wants
Crowder's show gone (burned) forever and that the problem is in his mind (his
multi billion media corporation NBC) is not what he openly indicates but rather
the competition YouTube as a platform provides. They want to end all
competition with independent content creators who make a living via advertising
on the platform and end any expression of views that go against their left
leaning progressive liberal narrative.
After the 2016 election,
and a significant come to Jesus period of mourning, the left decided they did not want this too happen again, that they had to reclaim power and place the head
of all thought back in the big urban cities on the East and West Coast. So,
before 2020, they wanted to make sure that they would be the only narrative
accessible which meant no Conservative narrative would be tolerated. They would
need to attack, discredit and invalidate all such content by name calling and
playing the victimhood card of intersectional identitarianism. So, if you are
against cultural Marxism, the sciences of Biology and Genetics, modern day feminism,
pro-life, anti-war, pro-immigration reform, pro-border security and being proud
of being an American, you were now a bigot, racist, homophobe,
transgenderphobe, Nazi fascist. To take it a step further, if you dare state
your position and argue it reasonably, you had and must go because only they,
the representatives of the main stream elitist media, were and are the
authoritarian sources (Orwellian) of the Ministry of Truth and therefore know
what’s right and acceptable beliefs we are to have. To them all the rest of us
are dumb and they are smart and know better and what is best. And what is best?
Having 100 percent reach on the internet, no expressed views in opposition of
theirs, collecting all the advertising revenue and being artificially pushed to
the top of all search results.
If you think this is
nonsense, take the New York Time Front page story a few weeks ago. It would take too
much time for me to thoroughly dissect they article so I will only mention that
it represents modern day Newspeakean propaganda. It also appears that in
addition to the press, the big Silicon Valley technocrats and their worker ants
are also in on the purge. To them,
having any conservative belief (God, men and women are different, etcetera)
makes one automatically an Alt-right, nationalist white supremist racist, Nazi
bigot, even if you are Black or Jewish.
Pinterest for example recently were exposed via an undercover whistle blower
interview that they consider Candance Owens and Ben Shapiro as “white supremist”
albeit they are black and Jewish accordingly. The Daily Beast was so upset that
a person slowed down a video of Nancy Pelosi, they asked Facebook to give them
his private information, which they did, so they could doxx (search for and
publish private or identifying information about (‘a particular individual) on
the Internet, typically with malicious intent’). They were so upset that “a proud member of
Trump’s razor-thin African American support base,” who is “currently on probation
for domestic battery” made a joke about one of the costal democratic
progressive elites that they felt this was news worthy. What is frightening is
that a news organization - The Daily Beast, asked for and got Facebook to give
over private information to Doxx a Black man as if this was the 1960 democrat run South, this is very unsettling. If they can do it to him,
they can do it to anyone. It doesn’t stop there,
Google Executives were
recently exposed admitting both to by regulating and suppressing conservative
voices and content creators across its YouTube and Google News by using “Machine Learning Fairness.”
This is the new age: only one belief is permitted, if it is conservative or
Pro-Trump, you are banished to the wilderness and labeled without evidence to
be a bigoted racist. See Ravelry, a
knitting craft-based web site has officially banned any views that are
pro-Trump on its platform suggesting that any "Support of the Trump
administration is undeniably support for white supremacy." Eye level hypocrisy
and an obvious contradiction given that one of their most popular pages is
anti-Trump - The PussyHat Project pattern by Kat Coyle (The plot being
anti-Trump is permitted but pro-Trump is not). This is the playbook
Before he was banned from
YouTube, Alex Jones Infowars had 2.4 million subscribers. As such, he was a
threat, as well as other independent content creators to the major news
outlets. He was not banned until incessant calls from so-called journalist the
likes of CNN reporter Oliver Darcy finally were entertained and accepted without
evidence. The goal is to remove all the competition and like that, it is the
belief of mainstream media that viewers will return. Let us look at some of the numbers. In terms
of YouTube subscribers, The New York Times (1,972,851 subscribers), MSNBC (1,738,914
subscribers), CBS News (1,718,419 subscribers), NBC News (1,287,521
subscribers), Washington Post (700,741 subscribers), HuffPost (554,127
subscribers) and The Daily Beast (27,448 subscribers) seem to be doing very
well until you compare these multi-million and billionaire corporations with hundreds
and thousands of employees to some of the top independent YouTube content
creators (Philip DeFranco (6,403,884 subscribers), Joe Rogan (5,649,940 subscribers),
Steven Crowder (3,992,090 subscribers), PragerU (2,187,930 subscribers), Jordan Peterson (2,113,541 subscribers) ,Dave Rubin (1,009,974 subscribers), Ben Shapiro (769,025 subscribers), The Jimmy Dore Show (575,016 subscribers), Black Pigeon Speaks (528,668 subscribers), Tim Pool (526,581 subscribers), Anthony Brian Logan (Black Conservative with
294,421 subscribers) and Jon Miller (Black Conservative with 160,189
subscribers)). This is the fear and reason why the call of de-platforming from
the left is more than an issue of fake white supremacy, bigotry and hate
speech. Lie I said they want their viewership back, but this will not happen.
The people have seen through their Wizard of Oz curtain and are gone forever.
All the above demonstrate
the desire of the Silicon Valley elite to erase any voice that is discordant
from their leftist corporate narrative. In the case of Google and YouTube, they
are not targeting hate speech but rather the speech of ideas they hate which
allows them to delete operative counterarguments that go against the chronicle
of the mainstream media. Just take what is being watched. According to Nielsen
Media Research, viewership and ratings for CNN, MSNBC and other major
progressive and liberal leaning news organizations are in a steady downfall. Mainly
because many can see their desire to drive a political narrative and agenda as
opposed to presenting straight news. Therefore, people are more and more seeking
alternative independent outlets via YouTube for their information.
The world wanted by the
Maza’s, Darcy’s and others are like the 2026 Allendale, California described by
Bradbury. It is a world without books, dissent and ideas but rather one filled with
compliance and conformity. The point of Fahrenheit 451 was simple. It revealed
that in a world without ideas, everyone conforms, and as a result, everyone
should be happy. But when it must be obtained by burning books and preventing
the formulation of new ideas, in tee process you end up destroying culture.
Bradbury himself said it best: “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a
culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” His point was that the nature
of man is to standout over the crowd and be an individual first by being
someone who can think for themselves and one that values community and family.
It is our nature to be individuals above and before the group. And this
unfortunately, cannot be allowed or tolerated by the mainstream media
establishment, for to do so would take away their power, their power to control
what we all think.
Saturday, May 4, 2019
For the record I have never had a Facebook account.
This was not for a desire not to have one but rather because I read in its
entirety, the disclaimer for permitted use, which I vehemently disagreed with.
With that said, I am free to share my views unconditionally with respect to the
social media’s platform gormless decision to censor and deplatform Alex Jones,
Paul Joseph Watson, Louis Farrakhan and Laura Loomer among several others.
True, Facebook is a private company and they have the right to decide who can
or cannot use its services. However, it is also a publicly traded company and
for them to have a nebulous and unclear policy of who should be deplatformed
based on subjective criteria such as dangerous and offensive views will always
be unacceptable and un American.
Facebook gave the heads up on this ban to several
major mainstream news media outlets. This means that this was a coordinated
action, on behalf of the progressive left against leading conservative
activist. I say this because clearly there was a preconceived bias toward the
right or else they would have never called Louis Farrakhan right wing. They
do this in an autocratic way, for if Facebook consider what one says, or thinks
is hateful, people will not be allowed to share their views or opinions.
In basic terms, by their logic, one could ask why
should Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Louis Farrakhan and Laura Loomer be
allowed to use a computer, or paper to write down and publish their views or a
telephone for that matter? Would a contractor that builds a public square in a
town be allowed to decide who can or cannot speak on the wood stage they built?
Don’t even consider the fact that they deem hateful people as folk they simply
disagree with. As the Verge notes: “The decision took into account the group’s
behavior both on and offline” So for Facebook, appearing in a video with Gavin
McInnes (Jones & Loomer) or even praising him or Tommy Robinson (Milo
Yiannopoulos). CNN and Fox have had Gavin McInnes on TV, will they be banned? Facebook even allows a convicted pedophile (Austin Jones) to use their platform to groom underage girls into sending sex videos to him and his page is still up. How does this make sense?
According to CNN, Facebook states: "We've always
banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and
hate, regardless of ideology," If this was accurate then Antifa and
Islamic Jihadist fundamentalist would have been banned but they have not. If
these people are dangerous and get banned, then why are people like Antifa
allowed to threaten conservatives, even
their families with death and are allowed to operate openly on face book? None
of them have never threaten to kill people from what I have read. A white
democrat can call a black conservative a “nigger uncle Tom” and not be banned
(I know I responded to a twitter blue check who called me that and was banned
for life from Twitter). Yet still, some under thirty something silicon valley nerd in San Francisco, where shit and needles literally cover the streets, is allowed to make these decisions of what people are allowed or not allowed to listen to. I bet there wasn't even a black person in the room when this decision was made.
Who is Facebook to decide what people should hear or
not hear? Who is Facebook to decided what people want to read or should read?
Who is Facebook to decide what people should or should not be protected from?
Americans nowadays are soft enough as it is and to further bubble wrap them
from the real world will result in more harm than good. Facebook regardless if
the believe it or not is the public commons – the common place for public
speech. It is not good that private corporations can be unaccountable and have
the power to control our public spaces.
They may not want to admit it, but it is clear
Facebook had closed door purge conservative views meeting, or else they would
have never sent out a press release saying they were banning far-right
political voices (which are nowhere close to far right). The only reason Farrakhan
was added so that they would not seem to have a bias against the right on
behalf of the progressive liberal left. For example, Linda Sarsour remains on
twitter although she praises and supports Farrakhan and a known convicted
murder terrorist Rasmea Odeh who was convicted in Israel of killing two Hebrew
University students in a 1969 terrorist attack and for planning an attack on the
British Consulate. Is she banned? Will she be banned? I doubt it.
The flying monkeys of Facebook are the true danger. I
consider them flying monkeys because it is a phrase used that describes folk
“who act on behalf of a narcissist to a third party, usually for an abusive
purpose” or folk “who act on behalf of a psychopath for a similar purpose.” Yes
this is an apt description of the thought police of Facebook however, they are
not fictional characters the likes provided to literature by L. Frank Baum in
his novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz but they are ironically the same
representation of evil or fear Facebook censors proffer us today for to
Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, dangerous means saying things they do not like – fascism
by another name is one person deciding what opinions you are allowed to have, especially if liberal leaning tech companies are the single controller in open public debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)