There is direct censorship and indirect censorship. Direct censorship is what China has. It prohibits certain kind of speech, period. Indirect censorship is what the US has in increasing measure. You can say whatever, but if you say the 'wrong' thing, the consequences are so dire(especially economically) that you are effectively tarred & feathered, shunned and destroyed. Rick Sanchez found out how this works after he said Jews dominate in the media. And CNN recently fired a black guy for defending Palestine at the UN.
https://twitter.com/TwitterMoments/status/1068275992685203457
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1068286959595003909
Marc Lamont Hill dared to mention that 2018 is the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map and that the current Zionist regime uses Apartheid Policies in Occupied West Bank as continuation of Western Imperialism that wages war on indigenous nationalism of the Palestinian people. Jew-run CNN got rid of him, which goes to show that Jews are holier than blacks(and certainly the long-suffering Palestinians).
Personally, I think there are some cases where firing-based-on-speech is warranted. If an organization is inherently ideological, then it has every right to hire or fire people based on their views and convictions. So, if National Review feels that one of its writers is too leftist, he may be fired. Or a person that seems hostile to Zionism may be fired by Commentary Magazine that is committed to Israel First Policy.
But most professions are non-ideological, and it seems utterly wrong to fire someone on the basis of creed, conscience, or conviction. And progressives would have agreed with this position in the 50s when many communists and fellow-travelers were either fired/blacklisted or threatened with such, not least in Hollywood. Also, as long as a person performs his duties well at work, what does it matter what he believes in his personal life? If one's personal creed, ideology, or faith is the basis of whether he can have a job or use financial services, then we no longer have a free society. According to Jewish-controlled PC, in order for you to be able to work and live, it means you can't have certain personal beliefs. Personal conviction and creed have been professionalized, i.e. no work and wages for people with certain views.
Now, imagine if a business fires anyone suspected of being a Zionist on the basis that Zionism is imperialism and commits 'genocide' against Palestinians. Would Jews tolerate this? Of course not. And I would agree with Jews. No Jew should be fired for his Zionist beliefs EVEN IF the owner of the business believes Zionism is evil. Richard Dawkins is virulently anti-religious and believes religious faith is a mental disease of ignorance and hatred. But if he owned a trucking company, should he fire people on the basis of their faith because he believes religion is a 'hate system of the mind'?
Now, there are certain exceptions. Certain jobs are publicity-oriented and involve putting forth an image. So, if a company wants to project a certain kind of image or message and IF its representative or spokesman or spokeswoman is associated with certain kind of ideology, I can see why the company would want to let that person go. If a company is about Family Values and if it turns out that its representative is a wild swinger and promotes promiscuity, I can see why the company would let that person go EVEN IF the person acts wild in his personal life. But most jobs are not publicity-related, and it is simply wrong to deny someone work and wages based on what he believes in his personal life.
This is why China's social credit system is chilling. It will create a nation of conformist cowards. China is spiraling back into the mindset that made it fall behind. A nation where everyone is too afraid to say his piece. New China may allow money-making, but when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and materialistic.
Now, the Chinese may be pushing such a rule because they see the Free West as decadent and degenerate as a result of excess freedom. But this is where the Chinese would be wrong. The West rotted from lopsided freedom that favored the power and expression of certain groups over others. West lost its sense of balance because voices of certain groups and interests were effectively silenced. It's like ecology. If you get rid of certain species, the natural balance goes out of whack and things fall apart. If you get rid of predators, it may seem good for the prey animals, but in time, the herbivores multiply and eat up all the vegetation and destroy their habitats. So, there has to be a balance of prey and predators in nature. The problem of EU is that following WWII, the Right was effectively silenced because it was associated with Nazism. Thus, leftist elements grew too strong and out-of-control. Now, leftism is invaluable to modern society, but it needs to be balanced by rightism that is also essential to social equilibrium. But suppression of the right led to overgrowth of leftism that led to crazy stuff like May 68 lunacy that paved the way for current degenerate France. When left and right were both well-represented, they had to compete to remain healthy and strong. But once the left was allowed to totally dominate culturally and ideologically, it grew decadent and degenerate from corruption and self-satisfaction.
So, if China thinks the West became crazy due to excess of free speech and freedom in general, it would be wrong. The West grew sick from suppression of rightist freedoms and expressions in favor of leftist ideology and obsessions. In the West, even the far-left was protected in academia and media BUT the far-right was banned. Only the wussy cuck-right and bland 'white bread' right were tolerated. If any rightist lurched slightly more rightward, he was denounced as 'far right'. As Jonathan Haidt has argued, Western academia is suffering from lack of real discourse and back-and-forth argumentation. Because the leftists are protected from challenge by rightists, the former has grown lazy, corrupt, decadent, and flabby. Their hysterics are really about cowardice and unwillingness to face real challenge from the Right. They demand protection from being 'triggered' by wrongthink or 'hate speech'. They rarely directly address the voices on the Right. They just go for lazy short-cut of denouncing others as 'racist' or 'nazi'.
But the problem isn't merely ideological but ethnic. When Wasps(or Anglo-Americans) ruled America, it was fair game to notice that (1) Anglos got the power (2) Anglos got the privilege (3) Anglos got the connections (4) Anglos hogged the prestige. So, despite the great power of Anglos, they came under scrutiny and criticism, not least by reformist Anglos who thought criticism and self-criticism were good things. Thus, there was a lively debate among Wasps, Irish Catholics, various ethnics, Jews, and others. Though blacks were suppressed for most of US history, they too became vocal and offered their perspective and made demands that had validity. In terms of social debate, the period from mid 50s to the mid 80s were probably the golden age of free speech and debate. With each year, there was more push for free speech, and many sides had their say. But the worrying development in that period was the growing sacralization of Jews and blacks. It was one thing to allow Jews and blacks to make their case and join in the national debate. Surely, Jews and blacks had their own grievances and legit demands. But, just as undeniable was the fact that Jews and blacks also caused a lot of problems that harmed other groups. Jewish role in US foreign policy led to fiasco in the Middle East, especially at cost to Palestinians. And even though the Civil Rights Movement was a great event in US history(and there's no denying the injustices done to blacks), it was also true that blacks posed a threat to other races because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive by nature. So, once blacks got equal legal protections, they used much of their freedom to attack, rape, rob, and murder other peoples, leading to white flight among not only white conservatives but white liberals and Jews. So, in a truly free society, not only would Jews and blacks get to have their say against goyim & whites but goyim & whites would get to air their grievances against Jews and blacks. That way, all sides would say their piece and all sides would be checked and balanced by healthy and constructive counter-criticism.
But the consecration of Jews and blacks as holy-schmoly groups made this nearly impossible. So, while Jews could scream about 'anti-Semites' and 'Nazis' endlessly — Jews now cry 'nazi' like the kid cried 'wolf' — , we are not allowed to notice Jewish power, Jewish abuses, and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. And no matter how much crime and violence blacks commit, we are supposed to see Negroes only through the rose-tinted glasses of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and MLK sermons. And no matter how many whites(and non-blacks) fall victim to black robbery, beatings, rapes, and murders, we are supposed to wake up Groundhogday-like and dream of supposedly angelic Emmett Till.
When a group is sacralized in a supposedly secular society, the effect is essentially theocratic. Jews and blacks are holy-schmoly in the US, and so, we can't have a honest debate about the problems they cause. We can't talk about Jewish role in communism, Zionist role in Middle East Wars, globalist Jewish economic looting of Russia in the 90s, and Neocon recruitment of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. And it doesn't matter how many times blacks burn down cities and assault/rob people. It is simply 'racist' to notice that blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, tend to commit far more crime and violence than other groups. US has become essentially an ethno-theocracy where we must always speak of Jews and blacks in hushed tones.
Of course, homos joined Jews and blacks in the holy-schmoly pantheon. Why? Because Jews control media, academia, finance, and deep state. And Jews decided homos are their perfect ally as fellow high-achieving minority elites. Because homos were made holy-schmoly(and associated with holier-schmolier Jews), even cultural conservatives clammed up about the Homo Agenda. They were afraid of being labeled 'homophobic', an especially bogus term cooked up by Jews to imply that if you don't sufficiently honor and praise homos, you are suffering from mental malady of phobic proportions. And so, homos & trannies and fecal penetration & penis-and-ball-cutting were associated with 'rainbows' and 'pride'. Indeed, 'gay pride' simply became 'Pride', as if to suggest the essence of pride = homo buggery and tranny dick-cutting. And if you found homo-fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting to be gross and sick and said so, you were blacklisted and fired worse than any Jewish communist during the so-called 'McCarthy Era'. At least the HUAC blacklists ended in a few yrs. These Jewish led PC blacklists last forever because Jewish Power has a near-Stalinist grip on media, academia, and deep state.
The fact is Homomania-as-neo-religion(that festoons churches with 'gay colors') and 'Gay Marriage' would never have become New Western Values IF there had been real free speech that allowed all sides to have their say. If real free debate had been allowed on the Homo Agenda, the lies and falsehoods could easily have been exposed. But, the Jewish-controlled media used the 'rainbow' idolatry to elevate Homo-worship as a new religion in the West. If you were not with the sacred program, you were a blasphemer, a 'homophobe' who must be econo-excommunicated from work & wages. Or a bakery must be sued out of existence by the 'gay cabal' with the full backing of Jewish Supremacist law firms. Jewish Power treats decent moral bakeries like Zionists treat Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Jewish Power says 'my way or the highway'.
In Europe, a continent with no legal protection of free speech, Jewish pressure led to criminalization of speech deemed offensive to Jews and homos(and even African migrant-invaders). In the US, where Constitution guarantees free speech, the culture of open discourse was destroyed by indirect censorship and ethno-homo-theocracy. Even though Jewish Power couldn't ban free speech, its control of media and finance meant they could destroy anyone or any group that dared to be politically incorrect toward Jews, blacks, and homos. Thus, anyone who wanted to keep his job or reputation had to clam up about certain things, no matter how true or based on facts. Also, the sacralization of Jews, blacks, and homos meant that they could spew any amount of hateful, rabid, and virulent venom at goyim, whites, Christians, straight people, and etc. BUT they themselves were PROTECTED from critical speech that dared to expose their corruption, abuses, and fraudulence. This is why the West grew sick. Not from freedom but lopsided monopoly of freedom for certain groups, esp. Jews, blacks, and Homos as the Holy-Schmoly Three.
Now, one could argue that China's censorship is preferable to American censorship because China is about Chinese nationalists ruling over Chinese people. So, the main theme of censorship is "Is it good for China as a whole?" In contrast, the US is a nation where the Jewish 2% rules over 98% that is goyim. So, the central theme of American Censorship is "Is it good for the 2% at the expense of the 98%?" Also, if China is about Chinese Majority Pride, the overwhelming theme for the White American Majority is White Guilt and White Shame. So, while Chinese government boosts Majority Chineseness, American government suppresses Majority Whiteness(and even pushes policies to turn the white majority into just another minority, as already happened in California, increasingly the land of oligarchs and helots, the vision of BLADE RUNNER).
Still, censorship will hurt China too in the long run because a nation that penalizes conscience and courage will result in increasing conformism and crassness.
No comments:
Post a Comment