The Corporate Controlled Social Media
“History is written by the winners.”
This little truism is an unfortunate fact of life, but it is not simply that history is written by the winners, but another truism I feel is important to bear in mind, is that: present-day narratives which define the cultures and regions of Planet Earth are influenced and limited by those in power. Many wealthy investors have a lot at stake in perpetuating certain ideas for the sake of furthering their own agenda, and are aligned with certain factions in the political arena, and in government agencies. As the historical process plays itself out, and civilisation continues to develop in the beginning of the twenty-first century, it is becoming more clear that the allowed parameters of open parlance are rather rigidly controlled.
At the time of beginning writing this I had just been banned from social media platform Twitter for the third time. I tend to express myself frankly, and sometime severely, and exist in an era where the internet thought-police can deplatform anyone who does not recapitulate the mainstream PC cultural narratives. What precipitated the ban? After being brigaded and harassed for three days by a group of people wearing a shroud of feminism, I was perhaps too severe with one of them; which put me in a position to be reported, and banned.
Those that engaged in the harassment were a collection of largely faceless social media accounts, politically themed and focused. Their entire post histories were arguments with, and attacks upon, political opponents. The accounts seemed devoted to targeting, attacking, and brigading people with particular points of view unfavourable to the. All the while doing so under the cover of zealously supporting women’s rights in the modern Western World (the places on Earth women are treated most honourably. I found it funny that so many of these self-proclaimed ‘feminists’ were in fact men; men desperate for positive female attention by the looks of things. And, we all know how low men desperate for female attention will stoop to portray themselves as valiant White Knights.
Before I continue, even though I do not feel like I need to explain myself, I feel as though I should elaborate this one point: I am an Egalitarian.
It seems to me a suitable arrangement that women and men are treated equally under The Law, and share the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities — within reason. Within reason? Yes. I feel that across most circumstances men and women should ideally be treated equally. But, sometimes it seems an unreasonable proposition to do so. Like, for instance, when a nation is preparing to go to war. But, I digress…
I had a long list of ad hominemistic, accusatory adjectives exhausted in my direction by these self-proclaimed ‘feminist’ trolls; misogynist, racist, nazi, white supremacist, incel, virgin, insane, hateful, fascist, homophobe, and just about every other label one can slap on someone they are desperately trying to defame. ‘Accusatory adjectives’ are pejorative labels which are used as a means of framing opposition in ways which define them as reprehensible in some manner or another, and, in the modern age, are in increasingly common use.
I wasted my time and effort trying to reason with these creatures for three days, while keeping my more severe appraisals to myself. I eventually went ‘too far’, and suggested that one particularly bothersome troll among the pack should maybe commit suicide. I still feel it was not an inappropriate response following the three days of targeted harassment I incurred in the lead-up. But, looking back, I should not have done this. These trolls attack people in order to illicit such reactions, so their opponents can then be reported; which justifies deplatforming.
One thing confuses me: How is it that I can be banned for calling someone a ‘retard’, or suggesting that one trolling me consider suicide, yet they can label me with all these untrue, harmful, defamatory terms and it is all fine and dandy? I am not calling for them to be censored, but for a level playing-field upon which we can interact.
The controlled corporate media has an agenda, and is heavily influenced by business interests(1), agents of the state(2), and international bankers such as George Soros(3). Media institutions, and social media platforms in particular, subtly – and sometimes not so subtly – promote accusatory radical leftist narratives rooted in identity politics through the use of selective censorship; the veiled allowance of one point of view, and the careful routing-out of others under a veil of fairness and tolerance. But, when it gets right down to it, this seems like the implementation of a Marcusian repressive tolerance(4) in action. ‘Repressive tolerance’ is a term coined by Herbert Marcuse, and is known by cultural Marxists the world over. In his essay of the same title, Marcuse preaches intolerance toward conservative points of view as a means of furthering the agenda of anti-Western cultural subversion. This has been the aim of individuals and groups bent on toppling traditional Western civilisation for the past 100 years, such as The Frankfurt School of Political Correctness(5).
Platforms such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook allow anyone who does not follow a Globalist, anti-Western, White Male hating POV to be attacked, to be misrepresented, defamed, and painted as somehow reprehensible (Marxists and useful idiots who have absorbed their ideas have all the ingenuity in the world making targets out to be whatever will make them look bad to outside observers). This is the exact thing Marcuse was bringing into the fray when he used his very tricky language of ‘post-modernity’ to speak of “liberating tolerance”. A term that sounds so delightfully positive until you continue reading, and unravel the underlying argument: that he is attempting to justify the use censorship and intolerance of certain ideas in order to reduce in viability and perceived importance any position in direct conflict with Marxism, Socialism, or Globalism. Liberating tolerance “would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”(4) The end goal being the repression of anti-Marxist sentiment into a position of ostensible unviability.
In late 2018, those who hold certain beliefs are increasingly subject to such intolerance, and restriction in thought and speech that I see as symptomatic of a developing tyranny clearly appearing on the event horizon; which needs frank and direct address. Those who do not fall in-line with the narratives being pushed by Marxists, leftists, and liberals are fair game for defamation, slander/libel, and personal attacks; as well as defunding and deplatforming campaigns of all kinds(6). Media platforms are infected to their very core, and efforts to restrict free speech and free thought are on the rise.
One minor example is a Twitter account I came across when I looked into some of the people involved in brigading me: “Sleeping Giants” (@slpng_giants) is a social media account/group whose sole aim is to target content creators with conservative/populist/libertarian leanings, and to organise and direct efforts toward sponsors, advertisers, social media administration, payment processors such as Paypal, and funding platforms such as Patreon, with the express purpose of alienating those content creators the sources and means of generating financial support that these independent content creators from the sources of funding they are relying on to fund their efforts.
It is not simply ostensibly organic efforts such as the astroturfers of groups such as Twitter’s ‘Sleeping Giants’ who are actively campaigning to garner support to assist in financially ruining political opposition, but large, well-known news media organisations like Mother Jones, who are directly calling for new, sneaky, indirect ways to defund and deplatform those with whom they disagree:
“Do you have any thoughts on how to de-platform or demonetise these creators…”(7) This is a quote pulled from an outlandish article written on the subject of tackling online ‘extremism’ (loosely translated to mean ‘those responsible for public expression of wrongthink’), and is another example of intolerance projected toward, and used against, those engaging in free speech acts regarding certain issues; such as migration, race politics, and banking cartels. One person attacked in the article is independent investigative journalist – and all-around nice guy – James Corbett, of The Corbett Report. His crime, garnering him the label ‘White Supremacist’: making a documentary about the infamous US Federal Reserve. Sure, a ‘white supremacist’, who lives in Japan, has a Japanese wife, and a half-Japanese child…
It can be difficult for some to identify what exactly is happening, because these information campaigns are generally not defined by direct advocacy or opposition for a given point of view, opinion, or political position, but couched in terms of the opposition being somehow reprehensible, that they must be stopped, and ‘how can we stop these bad people?’ The substance of the arguments is ignored, because they are well-substantiated points of view which can not be easily or effectively opposed. We live in an era where the politicisation of ideas and causes is used expertly as an indirect means of convincing people of one thing or another (I wrote about this at length in my article ‘Identity Politics’). This is then used as justification for censorship.
Most people agree that racism is not a good thing. What I mean by ‘racism’ is the unjustified will to cause harm to another because of their racial identity, with no other motivation than that. The term ‘racist’ – along with many other accusatory adjectives – has been weaponised, is all too often used against people as a means of political game-playing through the use of identity politics, and as an attack vector against people or groups who do not align themselves with the political influencers who make a big song and dance about championing minority rights or other sympathy-garnering causes — which is done as some sort of twisted, self-aggrandising PR effort, but also as a means which can be used to negatively frame opposition as intolerant or bigoted.
If, for example, a person or group is always vocally decrying racism, they are surely thereby perceived of, or categorised as, anti-racist; and often most fervently want you to know and believe this! Some people are willing to stoop so low as to weave race-politics into any avenue of discussion to prop-up their otherwise weak points of view, and are capable of using race-politics and race-bating to their advantage; both to guilt, shame and defame others with, and, at the same time, to make a show of their own moral superiority.
Once someone disagrees with a stance one of these champions of the downtrodden has, they can claim those in disagreement are racist – as the argument has already been racialised – and if someone dares to disagree with their loaded position: they can justify, or at least be somewhat convincing in, labelling their opposition as ‘racist’; or one of the many other accusatory adjectives. And, from there, take the position of one in opposition to a racist, biased point of view. Which allows them, by means of Ad Hominem(8), Strawman(9) tactics, the use of Red Herrings(10), or False Causes(11), to paint their political opposition as some reprehensible monster, while making themselves out to be a veritable paragon of virtue.
Logical fallacies are used expertly, but so is the use of censorship to control online discussion. The use of these two stratagem in tandem creates a highly exclusionary environment, which leads to the tight control of publicly expressed thought. The fact that the limits of allowable public speech seem to be shrinking all over the world is worrying sign of things to come, and a sign that there needs to be ever more effort invested into speaking our minds, and expanding upon whatever ideas our hearts so desire. The greater the attempts to censor, the more vitalised the efforts of individuals all over the world to combat this necessarily need to become.
Like it or not, a culture war is raging. We are either going to be subject to it, or we are going to choose to take part and do what we can to guide it in the direction we feel is most righteous. That direction is surely toward free expression without direct or indirect interference or censorship. To the extent that ideas can be shared, and elaborated upon such that our shared ideas can lead us to a place of greater understanding, along every avenue of deepening complexity there is to be found through the medium of open and free discussion of whatever we like, where and whenever we like, on whatever terms we deem appropriate.
- https://twitter.com/slpng_giants (A Twitter account focused on organising and directing defunding/deplatforming efforts against conservative/anti-Globalist content creators)
Tip C.B. Ahern with Cryptocurrency
Donate Bitcoin to C.B. Ahern
Donate Bitcoin Cash to C.B. Ahern
Donate Ethereum to C.B. Ahern
Donate Litecoin to C.B. Ahern
Donate Monero to C.B. Ahern
Donate ZCash to C.B. Ahern
- Accusatory Adjectives
- Controlled Media
- Corporate Control
- Herbert Marcuse
- History is written by the winners
- Repressive Tolerance
- Social Media