Jordan Peterson and Glenn Greenwald Discuss Censorship and Meaning

a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3h7pmhyIwg">

I've listened to this podcast several times. It's long, but it is extremely thoughtful, engaging, disturbing, but also hopeful and celebratory of the human spirit. It involves Jordan Peterson and Glenn Greenwald. These are two of my most cherished thinkers. I am inspired and provoked by many of the topics that they explore here. Topics include censorship, propaganda, the history of these things in the United States. Also, the relationship between religion and politics, and what goes wrong when religion is absorbed into politics. And there's even some meaning of life moments. I took the time to transcribe a large chunk of this discussion, and I am sharing it with the hope that those of you who listen to it or read it will also find it worthwhile.

I asked Grok to crank out a basic table of contents to this interview:

Min 21:30

1. Censorship of RFK Jr. by Google and the tactic of starting with hated figures like Alex Jones

2. Expansion of censorship to mainstream voices, including Devin Nunes and Rand Paul

3. Reasons for increasing censorship: Generational shifts in values among Millennials and Gen Z, and the impact of Trump's election

4. Depiction of Trump as an existential evil justifying extreme measures, including the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and Sam Harris's views

5. Connection to post-9/11 clampdown on civil liberties, transformation of airports into authoritarian spaces

Min 27:35

6. Reflections on 9/11 trauma, the war on terror, and how airport security conditioned obedience to authority

7. Threats to liberty from fear rather than greed; free speech as equivalent to free thought and essential for adaptation

8. George Orwell on tyranny through mind control; the internet's shift from liberation to control, Snowden revelations

9. Biblical phrase "render unto Caesar"; collapse of religious domain into politics leading to unsophisticated good vs. evil wars

10. Personal background on religion; hubris in censorship; human need for spirituality, politics as a substitute for religion

11. Discussions with Douglas Murray on humanism needing a religious framework; Carl Jung on rationality bounded by the dream

12. Grappling with ethics and morality without religion; necessity of spirituality to avoid nihilism

13. Response to materialist atheists; human relationship with the larger whole; introduction to the story of Abraham

These excerpts start at Minute 21:30 of the above video. Glenn Greenwald 20% of Democratic Party voters say they intend to vote for RFK, Jr. for president. And the most powerful corporations, or one of the richest and most powerful corporations ever to exist, Google sweeps in and says, This is something that you are not permitted to be heard. Glenn Greenwald And what happened was, what always is the tactic of sensors is they always pick a test case in the beginning that they believe is someone who is sufficiently hated or disliked so that everybody will acquiesce to the precedent, simply because their emotions for that person are so high. So the first person to really be deplatformed in this collusive effort by Silicon Valley was Alex Jones. And Peter Thiel was on the board of Facebook at the time. Mark Andreessen in Silicon Valley, and a few other people stood up at the time and said, no matter how much you hate Alex Jones, this precedent is going to work its way slowly, or maybe not even so slowly, to expand into the kinds of voices that you probably think shouldn't be censored. And by the point that you cheer the precedent in the first instance, because you allow your emotional dislike for this person to outweigh your rational capacities, it will be too late the precedent is already implemented, and then you're left to just bicker about its application, rather than the principle itself. Glenn Greenwald And that's precisely what has happened. They began quickly censoring mainstream conservative voices. Devin Nunes went to rumble in part to escape from Google censorship, and then a huge stream of people did as well. One of the most shocking things that happened along those lines, Rand Paul questioned a couple of epidemiologists, scientists who were testifying before the US Senate about the possible efficacy of ivermectin and other alternative medication for covid. It was a Senate hearing, a hearing in the United States Senate. Rand Paul put it on his YouTube channel as a excerpt of this hearing, and Google decided that was something that ought not to be heard as well.

Continue ReadingJordan Peterson and Glenn Greenwald Discuss Censorship and Meaning

Barack Obama Openly Advocates for Censorship by the Elites to Help the Unwashed Masses

Obama is clearly advocating the need for censorship in this video:

Part of what we’re going to have to do is to start experimenting with new forms of journalism and how we use social media in ways that reaffirm facts and separate facts from opinion. We want diversity of opinion. We don’t want diversity of facts. That, I think, is one of the big tasks of social media. By the way, it will require some government regulatory constraints…

I'll paraphrase: "We," (the pre-ordained elites) will be in charge of what you can say and hear. We're helping you and you need our help because you're too dumb to think for yourself. You'll love it!

This is no one-off for Obama. Despite being a former professor of law, who taught constitutional law, Obama considers himself one of the elite leaders of the censorship industrial complex.  Consider this brand new article by Michael Shellenberger: "Obama-Linked Stanford Center Held Secret Meeting With Foreign Governments To Plot Global Internet Censorship: Top EU, UK, Brazil, and Australian officials met in September with US censorship advocates to combine and coordinate efforts." Excerpt:

In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy address at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Six days later, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to serve as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth with the clear goal of controlling the information Americans could access online.

At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with “narratives” expressing concern about the Covid vaccine.

The 2024 election of President Donald Trump significantly reduced the threat of Obama, DHS, and NSF censoring the American people. Trump defunded much of the Censorship Industrial Complex. The Platform Accountability Act is going nowhere in Congress.

To be fair, Trump is no saint on free speech. As FIRE's Will Creely testified recently, Trump has been bludgeoning numerous entities to curtail free speech:

To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is “entitled to what it wants to say — but only within limits.” Under no circumstances may our public servants “employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.”

So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening “we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,” as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics.

Democrats, however, are more on board with Obama's approach to censorship than republicans:

[More ...]

Continue ReadingBarack Obama Openly Advocates for Censorship by the Elites to Help the Unwashed Masses

Hate Speech is an Authoritarian Religious Concept

"Hate Speech" is a claim that some topics/claims are off-limits, that someone ELSE gets to decide what's off-limit and that you are irredeemably "bad" if you try to apply facts, logic and persuasion. Yes, "hate speech" is the modern secular authoritarian version of "blasphemy" or "sacrilege."

I was provoked to write the above after reading the thoughtful post below by Greg Lukianoff, who was provoked by reading this text messages between Tyler Robinson, the accused Charlie Kirk assassin, and his roommate and romantic partner, per prosecutors:

Lukianoff:

This is going to be a Rorschach test for a lot of people. What I see when I look at this is the harm of a quasi-mystical idea of “hate” as a spectral, even demonic, force. It’s a superstition that allows you to turn off your critical faculties, ignore anything that might contradict a sacred belief on a particular topic or about a particular individual — as in this case — and act with impunity.

It has always been a profoundly anti-intellectual idea, developed by those who saw intellectuals as mere tools for often extremely simplistic partisan ends to allow them to win arguments by brute force rather than logic and proof.

It has spread into the rest of society and across the globe in a way that allows taboo to defeat reason and skepticism almost every time.

I hope it’s an idea — like “speech is violence” — that we can relegate to the dustbin of history. If you believe the world is divided into a simplistic binary of “good people” and those infected with hate, then maybe the post-Enlightenment world is not for you.

And for those of us who believe that human morality and nature is more complex and less flattering than the sacred warriors in this battle, it's time to remember that Enlightenment values are not easy. But they are absolutely worth fighting for because the world without them is a place that lets you excuse the most monstrous behavior and never lose your sense of moral superiority.

That's the trap of the binary.

Continue ReadingHate Speech is an Authoritarian Religious Concept

The Words that Cultivate Free Speech

Samual Abrams:

“It’s a free country” signals that disagreement is permissible. “Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion” acknowledges dignity in dissent. “Sticks and stones” reminds us to meet speech with speech, not violence or censorship. Without such reminders, the civic muscle memory that protects a free society begins to atrophy. That last idiom in the table — “Address the argument, not the person” — may be the most telling of all. Only 30% of Americans even recognize it, and barely 1 in 10 say it often.

This absence shows up everywhere: in the pile-ons of cancel culture, the readiness to attack a person’s character rather than engage their reasoning and in why viewpoint diversity is so hard to come by on many college campuses. If you never learn the habit of separating people from their ideas, disagreement becomes personal and dissenters become enemies to be silenced.

And in their place? New slogans, often adversarial and absolutist. We hear “words are violence” or “speech is harm” far more than “defend to the death your right to say it.” The FIRE/NORC survey found that a quarter of Americans now say the “words are violence” framing describes their own view “mostly” or “completely.”

Samuel J. Abrams is professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Continue ReadingThe Words that Cultivate Free Speech

The Elaborate Machinery Behind the 2020 Banning of Charlie Kirk

People don't simply get banned from social media. There's always a back story and we rarely know the details. And since at least 2020, that back story has typically involved the elaborate machinery of the censorship-industrial complex, including corporate media, NGOs and the U.S Government.

Charlie Kirk has now been assassinated, but the story of his banning in 2020 is instructive. Matt Taibbi has investigated the 2020 banning of Charlie Kirk in "Twitter Files: The Muzzling of Charlie KirkAt a crucial juncture in the 2020 presidential election, the Washington Post used a tried-and-true method to pressure Twitter to remove Kirk." Here's an excerpt:

Kirk was banned once, then finally actioned again, and again, with groups like the DFRLabs and New Knowledge working with the Washington Post and other outlets to advertise the action.

Efforts to remove Kirk aren’t urgent background to his assassination, but the episodes do play a part in the overall story. Unquestionably, antagonists of Kirk and Donald Trump recognized that he was an important Internet voice, and the repeated actions sent a signal that he needed to be removed — either for spreading “disinformation” or for more dubious claims of “inauthentic” activity. That there were repeated efforts to go after the same person before the 2020 election also speaks volumes. No other figure in Trump’s orbit had the kind of reach with young people and the same Internet savvy.

It's always the same story. People being censored/banned/shadow-banned and it takes a hell of a lot of work by uniquely stilled, motivated and rare people like Matt Taibbi to get to the bottom of it. Therefore, we rarely every know what really happened. How elaborate is this censorship machinery? In this post, Camus summarizes a video by Robert Malone explaining the Fifth Generation PysOp that we are up against:

Dr. Robert Malone unveils the unsettling architecture of modern control.

In true 5th generation warfare, you never see your opponent. The question isn't "who," but "what." What is the puppet master behind the globally harmonized COVID crisis? Klaus Schwab? Biden? Fauci? These are but surrogates. The true managers of the message remain hidden.

Over the last three years, a silent coalition formed. Western governments, NGOs, transnational organizations, Big Pharma, media conglomerates, and financial corporations merged into public/private partnerships—a euphemism for the new fascism.

Their mission: To execute the most massive, globally coordinated psychological operation in the history of the Western world.

Their weapon: The very same military-grade PsyOps strategies, tactics, and technologies developed for modern combat theaters.

Their target: Their own citizens.

We have been subjected to a perpetual, calculated campaign designed not to inform, but to direct. To manipulate. To control.

The world we believed existed is gone. It's time to see the battlefield for what it is.

Continue ReadingThe Elaborate Machinery Behind the 2020 Banning of Charlie Kirk