Why are Journalists Demanding More Censorship?

Why are Journalists Demanding More Censorship?

Michael Shellenberger writes at Public:

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.

Continue ReadingWhy are Journalists Demanding More Censorship?

The Elites are Increasingly Saying What They Are Thinking.

They are increasingly saying the quiet part out loud. The problem is that too many Americans want to think for themselves and they think that they are in some sort of democracy. And then there is that damned First Amendment that keeps us elites from controlling all the information.

I fear that they are brashly saying these things because they are confident that they are about to take down X (Twitter), which would mean they actually would control essentially all national dialogue.

Continue ReadingThe Elites are Increasingly Saying What They Are Thinking.

Mike Benz Details Part I (of III) of the History of the Intelligence State

If you dare to mention the past evils perpetrated by the CIA, most modern-day Democrats will call you names, including "conspiracy theorist." They don't want to consider whether the utterly bizarre informational ecosystem many of us see every day has anything to do with a government agency with a long and unbroken history of lies, violence and interfering with the democratic process in dozens of countries.

As though the CIA meddlings in the democratic process of dozens of countries haven't been documented. See here.

You know, Democrats used to be highly suspicious about the CIA . . . Democrats have admitted that the CIA has and uses coercive power against politicians. See this statement by Chuck Schumer. [Video has since been taken down by Youtube].

None of this should be controversial. I highly recommend David Talbot's expose on the CIA, the Devil’s Chessboard. And see here. And here.

The CIA does not operate on its own as a "rogue" agency. As Mike Benz has carefully discussed on numerous occasions (here is one), it is one aspect of the "Blob," an amalgam of agencies, cutouts and government actors who meddle in the democratic process in mysteriously coordinated ways, all of them taking orders from the State Department.

Today I finished watching and transcribing a 40 minute talk Mike gave at Hillsdale College: "The History of the Intelligence State." I offer the full transcription here and suggest that the next time you are accused of being a conspiracy theorist by a modern-day Democrat, that you tell them this sordid true story about what has long driven and enabled our country's foreign policy. That was in the good old days, however. For instance, during the time JFK was murdered (See JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass (2010). We are now seeing the national security state turned inward, making a farce of our elections.

Here's an excerpt:

[NSC 10-2] sanctioned US intelligence to carry out a broad range of covert operations, including propaganda, economic warfare, demolition, subversion, sabotage, sponsored by George Kennan. He was the one who pushed for this right after he wrote the inauguration of organized political warfare.

But he would later say it was the greatest mistake he ever made because of the monster it created. Because what NSC 10-2 two did was it gave the intelligence community this burgeoning, newly created CIA and the we now have 17 intelligence agencies plus the ODNI. They transformed not just from spy organizations, but to lie organizations. What I mean by that is because of this phrase that is used in NSE, 10-2, I'm going to read it. All of these activities, which are normally illegal, can be carried out so long as they are planned and executed, so that any US government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons, and that if uncovered, the US government can plausibly deny any responsibility for them. I'm going to actually just show you the exact language here. This is again, 1948: All covert operations, all of these sabotage, demolition, controlling the media, they are now legal, as long as they are planned and executed, so that any US government responsibility is not evident to unauthorized persons.

So you are cast out of Eden effectively if you eat the apple of the fruit of the tree of knowledge you are not allowed to know. And they are not allowed to tell you. Their job is to lie to you. And if they do get caught, the US government can then lie above the agency level, above the CIA. The State Department gets to lie to the world because the CIA had these covert links, and they can say it was not an official sanctioned US government operation. Something went rogue. Someone wasn't authorized, someone took it into their own hands.

And I'm just going to read this analysis that I think is a useful summary. Plausible deniability encouraged the autonomy of this newly created CIA, which is created the year earlier or year earlier, and other covert action agencies in order to protect the visible authorities of the government. And we're going to come back to that as we discuss the power structure of all these different organizations. But I want to drive this point home immediately, which is that this was seen as a major growth opportunity because of how effective it was in the 1940s and the 1950s to be able to take over the world through diplomacy through duplicity. But the problem with diplomacy through duplicity, plausible deniability is the core doctrine that governs the interagency, which controls all of our major US, government operations on national security, foreign policy and international interests.

Because you lie to the outside world, you need to also lie to your own citizens to keep the outside from finding out. So while the lies may help you successfully acquire an empire. You now have to permanently maintain an empire of lies. Not just abroad, but at home.

Continue ReadingMike Benz Details Part I (of III) of the History of the Intelligence State

The Silence of the White House While Speech is Being Muzzled World Wide

The silence of the White House is Deafening, too horrible for most Americans to contemplate even though it deeply affects every American.

David Sachs:

"American politicians speak constantly about the indispensable role of the United States in leading the free world against authoritarianism. If that is true, why is the White House so silent in the face of new global threats to free speech? In January, American citizen Gonzalo Lira died in a Ukrainian prison for posting YouTube videos; the State Department didn’t lift a finger to help. Last week, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France for the crime of insufficient content moderation. Now Brazil has banned X for resisting the diktats of a tyrannical judge, who salivates over the possibility of jailing @elonmusk.

The EU is one step behind, with Eurocrat Thierry Breton pursuing a criminal investigation against Elon for “platforming disinformation,” which Breton defines to include a conversation with Donald Trump.

In the UK, the government of Keir Starmer imprisons critics of open borders with more zeal than it prosecutes violent crime. In Canada, Justin Trudeau crushed a trucker protest against vaccine mandates by asserting sweeping new powers to freeze bank accounts.

At no point has the White House expressed concern about this new iron curtain that seems to be descending across the West. Quite the contrary, Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that the Biden-Harris administration repeatedly pressured Meta to censor during Covid. Worse, the FBI primed Facebook to censor true stories about Biden Family corruption by suggesting that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation (even though the FBI knew it was authentic).

Barring court intervention, TikTok will shut down in the U.S. on January 19, 2025 thanks to a new power authorized by Congress to ban websites and applications that the President determines are subject to the influence of a foreign adversary. X may not be far behind if liberal elites and deep state apparatchiks like Robert Reich and Alexander Vindman get their wish. They have called for the U.S. to adopt Brazil’s and the EU’s approach and “rein in” Elon Musk.

Hypocritically, the same voices demanding this crackdown are also the loudest in proclaiming the West to be engaged in a “war on authoritarianism” against countries like Russia and China. But whatever their other sins, Russia and China are in no position to deprive American citizens of their free speech rights; only our own government can do that.

Similarly, if Western leaders truly wanted to prevent authoritarianism, the easiest place to start would be at home, protecting the civil liberties of their own citizens. Instead they seem obsessed with deflecting the public’s attention onto foreign enemies, as Orwell depicted in the Two Minutes Hate in 1984.

As this battle over free speech heats up in an election year, where do the candidates stand? Donald Trump has declared his support for free speech whereas Kamala Harris has said nothing and can be expected to continue her administration’s policy of tacit approval of creeping censorship. In just two months, Americans will decide. Do we actually lead the free world in standing up for free speech, or do we accept the authoritarianism we claim to detest so much?"

Continue ReadingThe Silence of the White House While Speech is Being Muzzled World Wide

Brett Weinstein Warns of the Deepening Cartesian Crisis

We should be spending a lot more time living normal lives: visiting friends, taking care of our children (and parents) and contributing positively to our communities, but we have a profound collective case of Burridan's Ass. Because advocacy is strongly prevailing over knowledge seeking, we struggle to know what is true in numerous basic ways.

Brett Weinstein warns that this problem is getting worse.

The Cartesian Crisis describes the inability to be sure of anything—scientific claims, the basic facts of historical events, the degree to which a consensus is actually accepted by others. It leads to the collapse of reason itself. But it’s difficult to illustrate with examples because in each case, people immediately get lost in making the case for their best guess at what’s true.

Try spending one day resisting conclusions, and concentrating on the quality and consistency of the evidence. Our average level of certainty may be unchanged, but our reason for certainty is at an all time low. If you did this exercise once a month you’d soon know how rapidly the Cartesian Crisis is deepening.

It’s vital that we each halt our descent into this tsunami of uncertainty. Establish an unbreakable bond with someone you have good reason to trust, and discuss your beliefs and the reasons you hold them, regularly and in person. You won’t regret it.

Burriden's Ass:

Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass (donkey) that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the donkey will always go to whichever is closer, it dies of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision between the hay and water.[1] A common variant of the paradox substitutes the hay and water for two identical piles of hay; the ass, unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger.

Continue ReadingBrett Weinstein Warns of the Deepening Cartesian Crisis