Censorship: Leftist Obsession with Thought Control

[grarpamp]

"
https://alt-market.us/the-leftist-obsession-with-parler-reveals-their-infatuation-with-thought-control/

The Leftist Obsession With Parler Reveals Their Infatuation With Thought Control
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

In my recent article ‘Power Is An Illusion, Control Is A Facade’ I
outlined the realities behind power structures and how people dominate
other people by conditioning them with false assumptions and misplaced
fears. For example, many people make themselves easy to control by
remaining dependent on governments during crisis events and
emergencies; if you actually believe the government will protect you
from any and all eventualities then why would you ever learn to
protect and provide for yourself?

The infantization of a society makes citizens easy to dominate.

Another example would be instilling a fear of “standing out” among
one’s peers – Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of being
seen as aberrant or in opposition to the “majority” and will seek to
fit in, even when they fundamentally disagree. A ruling elite merely
need to manufacture the assumption or impression that the “majority”
of the population are in agreement with oppressive measures. Even if
this is not the case, the perception of a majority can be used to
control those people that would otherwise rebel.

Controlling a population is more about thought control or “perception
management” than it is about direct force. Power is an illusion, no
large group of people can be controlled by force alone; eventually,
they will find a way to wear down the totalitarian system and destroy
it. So, the people must be tricked into enslaving themselves and each
other. The people must police the very prison they are trapped in,
otherwise they could simply walk away anytime they wished. It’s the
only way a tyranny can survive in the long term.

The political left and the social justice cult have been particularly
interested in the concept of thought control lately, or, at least,
they are much more open about discussing their private obsessions
these days. I have to say, their rhetoric in not at all surprising,
but I think some analysis is needed to understand the root of their
ideology and how they are able to rationalize their behavior.

I was watching an interview on MSNBC with an activist (fake
journalist) by the name of Ben Collins who almost exclusively produces
hit pieces and hatchet jobs on conservatives and the alternative
media. His focus is generally on what he calls “disinformation” and
“conspiracy theory”; in other words, his job is to identify what
totalitarians would refer to as “wrong think”. The discussion centered
on the social media website Parler and how it represents a “threat” to
our “democracy”. You can see the interview for yourself HERE.

Collins is not all that interesting as an individual and he appears to
be more of a mouthpiece than a thinker. His work is very similar to
the SPLC’s in terms of tone and lack of tangible arguments; it is
basic low brow propaganda revolving around little to no evidence or
facts (i.e. propaganda for stupid people as opposed to carefully
crafted propaganda designed to trick smarter people). He often uses
omission of important details that might provide the viewer or reader
with a clearer understanding of the subject matter. That said, this
specific interview fascinated me because of how transparent he was in
his lies, and how honest he was (perhaps unwittingly) in his agenda.

The initial goal of MSNBC and other establishment outlets was
obviously to try to spread disinformation on Parler. When Parler’s
traffic began to explode months ago I think the media’s intent was to
slow the bleeding from sites like Twitter and Facebook. They were
unsuccessful.

Today, there is a deeper issue of thought control involved.
Alternative tech sites are going to continue to grow and establishment
tech sites are going to continue to shrink. Lackeys and hacks like
Collins now have to use a different strategy – Painting more
conservative platforms as “dangerous threats” to our society.

First, Collins employs the standard attack that social justice mobs
were using to vote brigade the Parler App months ago. When Parler
began to receive more widespread attention, leftists conjured false
claims that the website was not “user friendly” and that private data
was “easily hacked”. Collins then tries to frighten potential
conservative users by mentioning that Parler “asks for a drivers
license”; of course, what he fails to mention is that this is only
when you are applying for a special verification badge. He also fails
to bring up the fact that Twitter does the EXACT SAME THING when you
apply for “Blue Checkmark” status, and even then, if you don’t have
the right politics Twitter is unlikely to give you verification
anyway.

Already, Collins has exposed himself as a low credibility analyst; but
here is where things get crazy…

As usual, identity politics enters the discussion as Parler is accused
of being a haven for “racism”, but not real free speech. Now, I want
to reiterate that “racism” and “hate speech” are typical thought
control buzzwords of the political left. There is no such thing as
“hate speech”, at least not in a constitutional sense. Free speech
means you are allowed to say and think whatever you like as long as
you are not making direct threats or spreading outright lies about a
person to harm their reputation.

In a free society, you are allowed to not like a person because of
their skin color or cultural differences. This is the cost of freedom;
sometimes people are free to think in ways you disagree with or even
abhor.

I abhor communists, but I actually prefer that they be free to make
their insane arguments publicly; they only sabotage themselves.
Leftists, on the other hand, do not believe in free speech, they
believe in selective free speech, and this becomes evident as you
watch the Collins interview.

Hate speech is code for “speech that we are allowed to censor”.
Leftists view speech that hurts a person’s feelings as being exactly
the same as punching that same person in the face or threatening their
life. It is a bizarre conflation that we would usually expect to see
in the thinking of children, but in this case it is full grown adults
acting as if their personal feelings are more important that our
freedoms.

In order to disrupt speech that offends their tender emotions,
leftists consistently misapply accusations of racism and hate speech
as a tool to silence opposition. Everything is racist, according to
these lunatics, therefore everything can be censored if they deem it
necessary. And, of course, they have declared THEMSELVES the arbiters
of what is racist and what is not, therefore they become the arbiters
of who gets to speak and what social platforms are allowed to exist.

Collins then laments the idea that debates between conservatives and
leftists will no longer be commonplace on websites like Facebook or
Twitter because people are migrating to their own political bubbles.
Again, what he doesn’t mention is that conservatives and moderates are
leaving Twitter and Facebook in droves because they are being censored
or suspended from those sites on a regular basis. How can one have a
fair debate on Twitter with a leftist when the leftist gets special
treatment from the moderators? He has the option of flagging
everything you say as “hate speech” or “dangerous speech” and having
your arguments removed?

As I’ve noted in the past, private property rights do indeed apply to
websites, and even though leftists don’t believe in such rights, they
will use the private property argument to defend Big Tech censorship.
Of course, there is a difference between a megasite like Twitter and
other smaller platforms; namely that Twitter and many Big Tech
companies enjoy massive tax incentives and welfare from the
government. Once there are billions of taxpayer dollars involved in
the upkeep of a social media company, I don’t think that their website
qualifies anymore as “private property”.

Initially, big tech sites argued that they do not discriminate against
users based on their politics, but of course the evidence shows this
is a lie. The vast majority of users suspended or banned from Twitter
are conservatives according to the data, and not because conservatives
are more inclined to violate community guidelines.

Leftists and the MSNBC spin doctors want to keep all debate on the
platforms THEY control, that way they can suppress the information
they don’t like and give biased advantage to the arguments they agree
with. Anyone who is conservatives has to self-censor constantly to
avoid suspension while leftists are allowed to say almost anything
they want without repercussions. Big tech platforms pretend they are
neutral ground when they are the utter opposite.

These are typical tactics of
socialists/communists/Marxists/collectivists; they are not interested
in prevailing in a debate based on facts and evidence. They are not
interested in being right, they are only interested in WINNING, and
they will use any means available to them to rig the fight in their
favor.

Finally, Collins suggests that if conservatives are allowed to migrate
onto platforms that do not suppress their viewpoints along with the
evidence that supports those viewpoints then there is a danger that
they will then find themselves at odds with the “real world” and this
will “cause problems in society”.

And here is where we get to the very foundation of thought control –
The notion that some thoughts and ideas are “dangerous” or
“destructive” and that merely being allowed to talk about them in an
open forum could cause conflicts and disruption to society as a whole.
By extension, Collins is suggesting that it is not okay for people to
have radically different viewpoints at all. So what is the solution?
For everyone to think exactly the same within a narrow margin of
error?

Yes, that is what the leftists and the establishment want and you can
see the beginnings of their Utopia on Big Tech social media; a society
in which all citizens are part of a hive mind, an endless echo chamber
in which only collectivist ideals are acceptable. Sure, there will be
debates, but they will be meaningless fodder.

You will be allowed to argue about which groups are more oppressed,
but you will never be allowed to question the idea of the oppression
Olympics and their validity. You will be allowed to debate which brand
of socialism is most effective, but you will never be allowed to take
a stand against socialism as a system. You will be allowed to
criticize certain people based on their victim group status, but not
others. If you are straight, white and male you won’t be allowed to
criticize anyone or anything ever, even if you’re the smartest person
in the room.

Collins claims to be worried that internet “echo chambers” will
undermine the conservative relationship with reality. Not
surprisingly, leftists with the most disturbed and disjointed
relationship with reality and logic are trying to elevate themselves
as the judge and jury of reality. The schizophrenics want to run the
asylum and determine who is “sick”. I think not…

As I have noted in the past, the attacks on websites like Parler are
not in and of themselves about Parler. Parler is a lightning rod right
now, the leftist reaction to its existence needs to be analyzed and
observed because their hypocrisy can be used against them. The leftist
mind is collectivist in nature, and they think in terms of
plantations; they do not like it when people move freely away from one
of their plantations and start their own systems.

This is why they are so infuriated by Parler and sites like it. They
see people as property of the collective, and not as individuals with
free will that develop their own opinions based on the evidence and
facts they collect. For the political left, it’s all about who
controls the environment.

Under communist regimes this chattel philosophy is taken to its
natural end result; leftists will deny it to their last breath, but
this is where we are headed if they get their way. In communist China
after the invasion of Tibet a program of ethnic cleansing was
instituted. Railroads were built to more easily relocate native
Chinese in order to supplant the Tibetan population, and the Tibetans
that remained were oppressed and brutalized. You might think that the
Chinese would be happy to see the Tibetans leave on their own, but you
would be wrong. Instead, the Chinese military set up snipers on the
Nepalese border and began shooting any Tibetans trying to cross the
mountains.

You see, collectivists, Marxists, leftists, whatever you want to call
them, they want submission more than anything else. They want thought
control. They want you to WANT to be a part of the hive, and if you
don’t then you must be punished or reeducated. You cannot walk away
peacefully and live your own life, or start your own website.

Collectivists see any contrary ideals or principles or voices as a
threat to their existence, and perhaps they are right. If you think
about it, their ideology is so fragile that they have to silence or
destroy any and all alternatives. The only way their cult can continue
to survive is if people believe there are no other options. The moment
people are presented with another choice, they will leave the abusive
collective en masse.

Leftists are angry about Parler and they see the alternative media as
“dangerous” because it IS dangerous; it’s dangerous TO THEM and their
dream of monopoly of thought.
"