“I am an arms dealer dealing you in weapons in the form of words. I don’t really care which side is winning. As long as the room keeps spinnin’ that is the business I’m in.” – This Ain’t A Scene, It’s An Arms Race, Fallout Boy
On Tuesday, December 12th 2016, the EU gave four major tech companies an ultimatum. Censor and remove everything that it classifies as “hate speech” from their websites or they will put legislation in place that will hold them responsible and punish them for any of this information found on their platforms. They’re working with Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft which pretty much covers every major social platform on the internet.
One of the things they said includes, “The last weeks and months have shown that social media companies need to live up to their important role and take up their share of responsibility when it comes to phenomena like online radicalisation, illegal hate speech or fake news.”
Outside of censorship in general, I hope you see the major issue in the above. They’re putting news sources in the same category as Islamic propaganda–and this idea of blocking ‘fake news’ might sound good to some, but here’s some food for thought:
The mainstream media has been running hard with this idea of fake news since about the time the Podesta emails hit in early November. Since then, they’ve repeated this mantra that’s “all news that’s not us is fake news,’ even in the face of legitimate alternative media sources. Meanwhile these same companies pointing at ‘fake news,’ such as CNN, MSNBC, and even NPR have been proven to be lying through the Podesta emails and onward. The more the mainstream media seemed to lose credibility, the more they pushed this idea that anyone who wasn’t them was a fake news outlet. They are grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to maintain control of the population. It has never been more clear that the mainstream media was a propaganda arm of the government than now, as the government tells websites meant to share information that they need to block what they deem as ‘fake.’ Meanwhile, who wants to bet that CNN and other MSM news sources proven to push fake news will not be censored?
Something else to think about with this onslaught of smear campaigns against alternative media: There has always been ‘fake news.’ Even before the internet, people passed around fake news all the time. However, since when did the MSM start reporting/warning people about it? The MSM is at an all-time low for trustability. Meanwhile, across the west a populist movement is rising. Don’t be fooled. We are in the middle of peoples’ revolution and we’re not fighting it with guns. The elites in power believe that they can fool the population and create an Orwellian hellhole as long as they do it covertly. They’re using the media to create the world they want, telling the stories they want to be real to keep them in power.
Fortunately more than 90% of Americans don’t believe the mainstream media. Unfortunately, that’s not enough and I don’t know what the percentage of skeptical Europeans is, but the most important thing to pay attention to with the fake news narrative is that the elites are trying to create the world they want by repeating things the way they want them. They’re targeting ‘mindset’ to create reality rather than reporting reality as it is.
Restricting Free Speech Disarms the People
The first thing that people need to realize about censorship is that the government isn’t trying to crackdown on the spread of false information; they’re trying to disarm the people. When you silence a person, you’re showing that they can’t dispute what’s being said. Think about it: it’s a lazy way out. If the news or any claims were really ‘fake,’ then you’d think news organizations whose job it is to report the facts would be able to investigate and come up with rebuttal points. But instead, across all issues they dub as ‘fake,’ they don’t investigate and present counter arguments. In most cases, the people calling for censorship use the argument, “That’s so stupid, I’m not even going to bother responding.” If it’s so easy to dispute with evidence, then do it.
Author George Orwell warned about the limitation of thought through the limitation of speak in his novel 1984: “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thought-crime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”
Stop the thoughts by stopping the words. Create greater divides by destroying opportunities for discussion. This is what the government wants. Answer me this: since when does big government care about helping the little guy?
Speech Protection Fundamentally Supports Unpopular Ideas
Look, if freedom of speech protection was meant only for popular ideas then we wouldn’t need to fight for freedom of speech all that much. You might not necessarily like what someone says, but the government in no way should be pushing or be allowed to limit the speech of anyone. Take Canada’s recent C16 bill. Genderf@ck tranny’s all across the white north might want to be called whatever the frick they want, but you can’t legislate language because it makes you feel uncomfortable or upsets you. Freedom of speech is meant to protect the words, phrases, and ideas that you, the individual, don’t like.
If the idea were popular, then it wouldn’t need defending. If the mobs were rabid, like typical college liberal mobs, then the ideas wouldn’t need protecting, but you only get assaulted when saying something that is viewed as unpopular. Of course freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequence. If someone makes an ass out of themselves, then surely you can respond appropriately. If someone calls you a name you don’t like, then you can choose not to interact with them, but their right to say it is as valid as your right to never talk to them ever again.
Big Government Has Everything to Lose in This Fight
MSM doesn’t care about you. They care about lining their wallets. Big government doesn’t care about you, they care about filling their wallets and the accrual of more power. The Wikileaks emails showed that big government is interested in keeping the population stupid and compliant. They have everything to lose in this fight. They have secrets that we don’t know. They are more corrupt than we know and the power runs deeper than we realize. They will say anything to stay in power. They will do anything to stay in power because if they lose this fight, they know they lose everything and the MSM is in bed with them. Don’t allow yourself to be tricked that they want to inform you. They don’t. They want to divide. This idea of blocking ‘fake news’ is nothing more than projection and redirection in an attempt to make themselves the only source of information and to disable you from being able to tell if they’re lying.
Think back to a month ago when CNN said they it was illegal to look at the Wikileaks emails unless you were them . Yeah, they aren’t trying to misdirect or anything. They aren’t trying to funnel information through themselves or anything–but hey, they also think that the president-elect Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to talk directly to the people. He should only be allowed to speak to the people by using THEM as a conduit. Oh yeah, that’s sounds nothing like a game of telephone where I can pass-on whatever message I want and pretend it’s what the person before me said.
Upholding Truth is a Citizen’s Responsibility
Researching is a citizen’s responsibility. Finding and upholding the truth is a citizen’s responsibility. Be vigilant in your research, look at multiple outlets and sources, even if you don’t like them. Find the other perspectives and weigh the claims against the evidence. If you don’t find evidence to a claim, doubt it. All outlets have a bias. Every last one of them and that includes even the most trustworthy reporters. They all have biases. Does that mean they don’t report the truth? Not necessarily, but they will always be flavored with some kind of bias and even your researching will be flavored by your personal bias.
That’s okay, but be aware of it and again, look at things objectively, look for facts, look for evidence to support the facts, and then accept something only once evidence has been shown. The media, and people in general, have proven that they cannot be trusted. We all like to think that they aren’t that bad, but when you look at the historical patterns, the warnings given by philosophers, historians, and citizens-alike, they all point to a continual pattern of greed, corruption, and destruction. They point to countless dismissals and deaths in the name of the 1% elite gaining more money and more power.
Do not be fooled. Words are weapons, censorship is an attempt to disarm the people, and we are in the middle of a world war and revolution.