What words are "violence" and who gets to decide? This claim that words are violence is the flip side of the widespread embrace of censorship by those on the political left. They don't foresee that someday the political winds will change and this exaggerated empathy for those "hurt" by words will be turned against them by a ruthless right-wing authoritarian.
Ed Dowd is bringing lots of bad news regarding the COVID vaccine. He's worth listening to because of his careful methodology, the fact that he is a former Blackrock financial analyst (who got red-pilled along the way, like many of us) and because the U.S. pharmacy-industrial complex is doing its damndest to keep up from learning about the adverse side-effects from the COVID vax. He discusses his findings with biologist Bret Weinstein on the Darkhorse podcast (link to full interview).
Ed is part of a team called Phinance Technologies. You can access their various projects at their website.
The censorship three-step. A) We only want to censor hate speech. B) We get to decide what hate speech is. C) Hate speech is anything that makes us uncomfortable.
Excellent report by Michael Shellenberger:
More on the Mindset of the censor. These are extremely dysfunctional people. What drives them to control our right to express ourselves and hear the thoughts of others unfettered? Michael Shellenberger explains:
The reason that many in the media demand censorship is because they believe it is in their self-interest to do so. Many journalists want censorship for the same reason as their owners: to protect their market share.
These are likely to be journalists who believe that they cannot make a living as independent journalists and must instead work for a large media corporation whose revenue comes from large corporate advertisers. Pro-censorship journalists are thus likely to be more insecure, more envious of successful independent journalists, and more deferential to governmental and corporate authority.
And the pro-censorship journalists are likely to be the most dogmatically Woke activist journalists. TikTok banned ads by a new athletic clothing company, XX-XY Athletics, started by the former COO of Levi, Jennifer Sey, because her company recognizes the reality of biological sex. TikTok banned Riley Gaines, the collegiate swimmer trying to protect girls’ and women’s sports. And Meta has blocked pro-female sports posts and hashtags, including ones critical of the victory of a biological male in this summer’s Olympics.
Meanwhile, the platforms allow the promotion of the trans agenda. TikTok allows ads for minors to perform irreversible surgeries. As such, it is censoring the truth and demanding that the public believe the lie that physically different trans-identified boys and men can and should participate fairly and equally in girls’ and women’s sports.
Ultimately, what motivates governments, the news media, and societal elites to continue to demand more censorship? Some of it has to do with plain ignorance as to what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. Some of it is Woke dogma. Another part of it is the fear that societal elites have of losing control of the government, the economy, and society. As for the professional journalists and editors who demand censorship, their main motivation appears to be envy of free thinkers who have attracted an audience because they had something to say and the courage to say it.
The Democrats love censorship because, as Martin Gurri has written, they are the party of control. They think they are smarter than you and you need to fall in line. They are the exact opposite of what they were in the 60s and 70s, when Democrats didn't trust authoritarians. Now, Democrats are the authoritarians because they love controlling us and they have control over most of the sense-making institutions of the US. Martin Gurri:
There are only two vital forces in American politics today: those who wish to control everything, and those who wish not to be controlled. The antagonists are roughly equal in number but vastly disproportionate in strength. True to its nature, one side controls virtually all the institutions that hedge the life of the voters. Also true to its nature, the other side spends most of the time fighting with itself.The forces of control own the White House, the Senate, the media, the universities, the mainstream churches, the federal and state bureaucracies, most corporations, most digital platforms, and the entirety of American culture. Homegrown control freaks can also rely on assistance from Control International, the cabal of like-minded elites that runs the United Nations, the European Union, and any number of nation-states from Britain to Brazil.
Why the itch to control? Nietzsche would explain it as pure will to power, and that’s a perfectly adequate account.
The Democratic Party is the party of control.
"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature . . . the quaint old forms... elections, parliaments, supreme courts and all the rest... will remain.
The underlying substance will be a new kind of Totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly like they were in the good old days. Democracy & freedom will be the theme of every broadcast & editorial, Meanwhile, the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite will quietly run the show as they see fit."
—Aldous Huxley, 1962
Mike Benz explains:
At min 5, he pulls up USASpending.gov, which he describes as the only substantive difference between the U.S. and North Korea or China or Russia. All of these do less censorship than the U.S. At USASpending.gov, we can actually see what our government is paying to each university to do its censorship. Simply plug in "misinformation," then read and weep.
"We don't have a fucking First Amendment anymore." The government merely pays our universities to do its censorship. "Funded by the underbutt of the Pentagon."