For several years, it has been made clear (by the Twitter Files and through the works of Mike Benz, Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger and other courageous journalists) that America's censors are well-to-do people with degrees from fancy colleges who hide within enormous federally funded bureaucracies. Now consider these words of Matt Taibbi:
So let me pause to say something about America's current intellectual class from which the anti-disinformation complex works. By the way, there are no working class censors. The dirty secret of content moderation all over the world is that it's a tiny sliver of educated rich correcting everybody else. It's telling people what fork to use, but you can get a degree in it, basically.
The problem is America has the most useless aristocrats in history. Even the French dandies who were marched to the razor by the Jacobins were towering specimens of humanity compared to the Michael Hadens, John Brennan's, James Clapper's, Mike McFall's, and Rick Stengel's who make up America's self-appointed speech police. In pre-revolutionary France, even the most drunken, depraved, debauched libertine had to be prepared to back up an insolent act with a sword fight to the death.
Our aristocrats pee themselves at a mean tweet. These people have no honor, no belief, no poetry, no art, no humor, no patriotism, which is unique to them, no loyalty, no dreams, and no accomplishments. They are simultaneously illiterate and pretentious, which is very hard to pull off. They may have one idea, and it's not even an idea, but a sensation. Fear. Rightly so, because they snitch each other out at the drop of a hat. They're afraid of each other. But they're also terrified of everyone outside their social set, and they live in near constant dread of being caught with even one original opinion.
I just finished posting the following on FB, where I often piss off the sheep and where many well-meaning people are afraid to say what they think:
BTW, you'll rarely hear about these words of Matt Taibbi of the works of other amazing independent journalists from corporate media. They have by and large decided that their job is not to provide you with facts so you can make up your own mind on issues. Instead, they serve their corporate masters by telling you what to think. They feel that it's their job to fool you by hiding relevant facts from you and by making shit up on a grand scale in fairly lockstep coordination with other corporate outlets. I know this is hard to hear for many of you. I know that you might prefer to remain in blissful ignorance rather than do the hard work of growing a spine and telling these propagandists and censors to fuck off because they are Anti-American.
For more on how censors think, consider the words of Robert Corn-Revere, author of The Mind of the Censor:
The message of the censor is clear and unmistakable: I (or we) know the truth, and must control the ideas or influences to which you may become exposed to protect you from falling into error (or sin). Truth may be revealed by whispers from god, by political theory, by popular vote, or by social science, but once it has been determined, the time for debate is over. Anthony Comstock did not invent censorship, but his DNA may be found in the genetic code of every would-be censor who walks the earth. As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy put it: “Self-assurance has always been the hallmark of a censor.” In this respect, he echoed Mencken’s assessment of vice crusaders that “[their] very cocksureness is their chief source of strength.”” . . .
There appears to be a psychological dimension to the censor’s dilemma as well. What can one say about the type of person who devotes his or her life to denouncing certain types of expression and advocating its prohibition while choosing a profession in which he immerses himself in it? Purity crusaders claim to hate the stuff they want to suppress and argue that it will ruin all who are exposed, but invariably they can’t get enough of it. They search it out, collect it, study it, categorize it, archive it, talk about it, and display it to others, all for the ostensible purpose of making such expression cease to exist. . .
