Human Dialogue, Freedom, and Censorship

 

As facts start to come out and scandals start to close in, I am reminded of the following phase that stems from Soviet era Russia:  “There is no news in the Truth, and there is no truth in the News (В Правде нет известия, и в Известие нет правды).”

Actually, this stems from the two Russian newspapers – Pravda and Izvestiye.   Pravda, the official newspaper of the Communist Party, was considered to be filled with lies even though its name translates as “truth”, while the name Izvestiye, the other Soviet newspaper, translates as “news” and was the official newspaper of the Supreme Soviet.  The saying, at the time, was a joke because all good Russians knew that they could not get the truth or the news from state-controlled media.

Today Americans also have difficulty obtaining news or truth.  The government is too often involved in dissemination and editing of what should be accurate news and truth.  The state of the American media and Americans’ access to news, facts, and truth can be summarized as: 

Let me define truth, for the purposes of this discussion, as that which is in accordance with fact, evidence, and reality.  News I will define as new or noteworthy information in which an audience will likely be interested.

Editorial Discretion has become Political Censorship

The mainstream media today is less interested in providing facts to its readers, viewers, and listeners than it is in pleasing government and elite powers by providing their narratives to audiences rather than facts of a situation.  And audiences are often more interested in the entertainment rather than factual aspects of a story.    Hence, the truth (factual recitation) is not the news, and the news, because it is not factually accurate, is not the truth.

I am not talking about editorial discretion which has always been part of news dissemination.  What to print, where to place a story, how much time/space to give a story – these have always been decisions for editors and have always been colored somewhat by their biases, both conscious and unconscious. 

But today these decisions go far beyond and are far removed from simple editorial discretion.  We now have concrete evidence of state involvement and control of what is/is not “truth” and what information will be disseminated or hidden.   Such involvement has permeated both the actual “news” media as well as social media platforms. 

For example, House investigations now provide documentation that Facebook confirmed to the White House that it was working to accomplish “the administration’s directives” on suppressing content that clashed with its COVID vaccine agenda.  There are processes by which the government can flag certain content on social media and request it be suppressed.  There is also evidence that the White House wanted social media to change its on-line algorithms so that users would see more information from sources supportive of the White House agenda.

The News or Mainstream Media is now also beholden to powers outside of the news itself.  While news editors, as noted above, have always made editorial choices, those editors ensured that the stories presented in their news sections were factual; they left opinion for the opinion pages.  Not so anymore.

Today’s news sources clearly support one or the other political party and every aspect of their “news” reflects that.  Not just the selection of which stories to present, but the manner in which any story is presented. 

The conservative and right-leaning media will slant everything to support right wing positions and politicians while the left-leaning media will slant in the opposite direction.  Stories that cover the front pages of media with one political leaning will be close to non-existent in the media of the opposite political leaning.  Indeed, we now have proof of news sources such as the NY Times and Washington Post deliberately omitting or revising facts of key stories such as the now debunked Russian collusion or the now confirmed story of the Hunter Biden laptop.  Stories that are presented will often be filled with adjectives and other modifiers that, while perhaps appropriate in opinion pieces, are blatant attempts to turn what should be a factual news story into an opinion advocating a particular political position.

Consider the two big stories over the past few days:  the Trump indictments and the concrete evidence of President Biden’s involvement in his family’s influence peddling scheme that resulted in huge monetary payments to the Biden family.    To compare the coverage of these two stories between right and left leaning news media is to read accounts of two seemingly completely different worlds. 

It is next to impossible to find a full and objective account of the Trump charges along with the legal assertions that they are politically motivated and/or a form of election interference.  Similarly, one can barely find the Biden story in left-leaning media, and when one does it is downplayed as simply some sort of Republican witch hunt, while the right-leaning media perhaps over sensationalizes the clearly damning evidence of Biden’s quite likely illegal interactions with foreign countries and the possibility of its compromising of the President. 

The “news” from the left leaning media essentially has already found Trump guilty and Biden completely innocent while the right leaning media takes the opposite view.  This is not news.  This is not truth.  This is bias and propaganda.  And in many instances it is guided by the very people that we elect to protect us and our First Amendment rights. 

Information, Not Censorship, Heals and Sustains America

The First Amendment, a cornerstone of our American democracy, demands a free and objective news media in order that the people can voice and hear a variety of views and make their own decisions.  That others would decide what the people should and should not hear and, worse yet, make judgements about what information is made available in an attempt to do the people’s thinking for them is in complete antipathy to the First Amendment and all it stands for.

When those who should be leading our country become more concerned with their own power than their duty to the country and the people they serve, they find ways to justify their censorship and denial of free speech and the importance of narrative – their narrative – over truth or news.

Suppression of information is often done under the guise of protecting us from “misinformation” though as Robert Kennedy Jr. well-articulated in his July appearance before the House Committee regarding Censorship and Free Speech, the term is often rephrased as “mal-information” – not incorrect but just bad as in information that the government or its lackeys in the media have decided would be bad for the populace to hear, usually because it contradicts the narrative of those in power. 

Our country is split into two camps, and each wants to provide a narrative that benefits them.  To establish that narrative, censorship of truth and news becomes a temptation that is hard to resist.  That, however, is the worst possible reaction.

Words from Kennedy’s opening statement to the House Committee on Censorship are instructive.  He responded to Democrats’ concern about “the need to beat this toxic polarization that is destroying our country today and how do we deal with that?” Kennedy stated: “This kind of division is more dangerous for our country than any time since the American Civil War.  How do we [deal with] that?  Every Democrat on this committee, do you think you can do that by censoring people?  I am telling you, you cannot.  That only aggravates and amplifies the problem.”

Recently Sen. Joe Manchin spoke and wrote about the division in America, stating that the United States is “not designed for” the level of division currently seen within the country, leaving many “common-sense” Americans without a political home.   He wrote:

The extremes on the left and right now control the Democratic and Republican Parties, defining our politics and policy debates. These partisan extremes are in the business of feeding political division and dysfunction everyday – and their business is booming.

They want America divided – because they benefit greatly from it. They want us to see each other as enemies because they feed off of it. They attack our institutions, whether it is our Capitol, our elected leaders or our justice system, without caring about the lasting damage it does.

In America, leadership is not a birthright but instead it’s the choice of voters after respectful debates of ideas. And partisan leaders on both sides of the aisle are increasingly threatened by the growing desire for debate.

To be clear, while both parties are to some extent responsible for resorting to narrative and aggravating division, it is the current Administration and the hard Left that are aggressively pushing censorship and even elimination of First Amendment freedoms.

Dialogue Is Our Humanity

But why does debate and this current censorship matter?  Why not just pick a left or right bubble and live within it?  Or simply allow the government and its media to tell us what to think?  The answer is not only that this contradicts the very core of the 1st Amendment, a necessary cornerstone of our government and our way of life.  It is not only that it furthers a nefarious goal of making the American people enemies of one another.  These, of course, are serious problems, especially to those who believe in American democracy.  But perhaps an even larger problem is that it works to destroy the very core of our existence.

Life in the end is a dialogue.  We participate by speaking, asking questions, listening, writing, reading, responding, agreeing, disagreeing, learning.  A dialogue cannot be open and honest if information is restricted or denied.  With censorship we lose part of the dialogue, and we allow someone else to create a dialogue for us.  We stop learning.  We stop thinking.  We stop speaking.  And we lose part of our humanity.  We become nothing more than a tool for those creating the dialogue for us.

Currently the government and others in power through pressure on private platforms are trying to shape our dialogue.  The media gives us the stories they want discussed in a way that will create preordained narratives.  But our information is limited and therefore our dialogue is limited and we are ultimately limiting our individual humanity as we delegate our power to dialogue to the state.

To retain our humanity and our freedom we must remember that goals of personal comfort and protection from negative narratives are not in the end in our best interest.  Free thought and free dialogue are.  We must remember that good dialogue requires others and their possibly differing and uncomfortable viewpoints.  Those others are not enemies.  Silencing and censorship are the enemy as is a state-controlled media. 

As the mounting proof of censorship and silencing becomes both truth and news we must demand that our news media actually provide us with news that is truth and truth that is news.  All of it.  Only then can we dialogue as fully engaged free people.

Losing Your Voice: The Why and How of a Power Grab

There seems to currently be an all-out war on diverse voices.  The sort of silencing that we are seeing these days makes us think of totalitarian regimes that we read about in history class, the Bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin, etc.  I’d like to think I’m exaggerating, but friends of mine who grew up in Communist or other totalitarian regimes as well as others with firsthand knowledge of that sort of partisan political silencing now indicate they are seeing that sort of silencing here in America.  Former presidential candidate and Democrat Tulsi Gabbard has referred to what we are witnessing as not unlike a police state.

Why the attack on diverse voices?  The answer is fairly simple: When you want yourself or your party to be in control not just of your designated duties, but of society itself; when you think so less of the common man’s abilities to make the “right” decisions, when you want to create your own utopia.  When those are your goals, in order to achieve them you must silence all voices that do not parrot your own.

The “How” of this power grab in America today is multifaceted.  It includes a number of power structures all of which are complicit in a Leftest campaign for what they call “unity” but which really is designed to silence all opposition to their plans. Following are some of the tactics currently in use.

               Combine Forces with Big Tech

Big Tech’s biases sync with those of the Left.  And, Big Tech has the power to silence the voices of those holding different views. 

Democrat Tulsi Gabbard in discussing the Left’s silencing that undermines our civil liberties, noted that "Big Tech is culpable in that they are using their monopolistic power to pick and choose whose voices are heard and whose voices are squelched, whether it’s based on who they agree with, disagree with, political affiliation, who you voted for."

I am aware of the old saw that Big Tech can do as it pleases because it is a private company, not the government and therefore has no responsibility to First Amendment rights.  That view is mistaken both ethically and legally.

In today’s world, social media is our version of the old public square where everyone could speak their views.  That makes these social media sites and their Big Tech controllers uniquely important.  In Packingham v. NC, a unanimous Supreme Court held that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing various websites, where minors were known to be active and have accounts, regardless of whether the sex offender directly interacted with a minor, violated the First Amendment.  The Court stated, “to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.”

While the facts of that case were different from the facts of today’s censorship and silencing by Twitter, Facebook, Amazon’s server (Parlor and Parler App), and others, that case tells us that because the internet is today’s public square, there must be some protection of First Amendment rights within that square if those rights are to mean anything at all. 

               Combine Forces with News and Entertainment

When the Press silences only voices of one political viewpoint or when it presents stories in a way that assists and promotes one viewpoint, the silencing becomes a form of propaganda. 

The mainstream media has biases that, like those of Big Tech, sync with the views of the Left.  Hence, they use omission, distortion, presentation of opinion as fact, suppression of unfavorable stories (e.g., Hunter Biden and his laptop) and airtime to persuade people to adopt the Left viewpoint on most issues.

By now I think it is common knowledge that the mainstream media’s reports about Trump and his actions were over 90% unfavorable.  It is also clear that their approach toward Biden is to present everything favorably or if that is not possible to simply not report it.  As Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it, “The press does not feel responsibility for its judgments.  It makes judgments and attaches labels with the greatest of ease.  Mediocre journalists simply make headlines of their conclusions, which suddenly become generally accepted.” (See his book “Warning to the West”)

Our democracy requires informed citizenry and we in large part depend on the media for that information.  If they are not presenting it or are presenting it in a way that conforms only to one voice, then they are essentially silencing all our voices, because without having full facts and information, it is impossible to even formulate differing views.

While the news media may have become a dystopian form of entertainment, the Entertainment Industry itself, again with biases similar to the Left, has made it its mission to use its programming to bend the views of the American people to those of the Left.   A recent article in the Hollywood Reporter indicated that Hollywood needs to “double down” on pushing the Left agenda.  We will be presented with “entertainment” that reinforces what is good/acceptable and what is not.

               Combine Forces with Corporations and Academia

Again, these institutions tend to also have biases that sync with the views of the Left.  Their role seems to be to limit opportunity for those who hold diverse and opposing views.  We regularly see these institutions blackball individuals who do not share the “correct” views while at the same time making public statements in support of trending Leftist causes and those who advocate for them.

Just this week Sephora cut ties with one of their beauty “vloggers” because she had stated she supported then-President Trump and also expressed her Christian views.  The company was made aware of this via a form of “report on your neighbor” conducted by some Twitter users who accused the vlogger of being racist.  Sephora in response to these unproven allegations said the vlogger’s beliefs are “not aligned” with the company’s “values around inclusivity.”  Apparently lack of inclusivity of conservative views is OK with Sephora.

This is not a unique incident.  Over and over, we hear of individuals, including teachers, scientists, athletes, and respected community members being fired for holding conservative views or making statements that are not in line with the Left’s narrative.  A United States soccer star received backlash for standing during the United States’ National Anthem.  It seems that every entity aligned with the Left that has the power to do so is encouraging its own hiring officers as well as those of others not to hire anyone aligned with Trump or conservatives. 

When Trump Administration employees leaving government service were told by the Biden Administration that they would not be able to receive the rest of their maternity leave which they were already in the course of, their main concern was that they would not be able to find immediate employment not because of having a new child at home but because former Trump officials face an uphill climb finding a job in a Washington D.C.  Reported in Politico on Feb 2, the article notes that employees declined to go on the record for fear that it would affect [their] prospects of landing a job with a salary sufficient to support a family.

Blackballing those who speak diverse views is a form of silencing because it places a person in the untenable position of having to choose between speaking their views or being able to feed themself.  

Academia is not immune from this sort of behavior.  Just this week I received information about the Kansas Board of Regents passing a suspension of tenure and its protections through 2022.  While the justification is potential financial problems due to CoVid, the reality is that under this plan administrators could layoff faculty without any procedural safeguards, without the right to discovery, and with no procedure for reinstating faculty once the financial exigency has passed.  Thus, this makes it possible for a tenured member of the faculty to be fired for any reason, including unpopular views, as long as she is told that it is due to financial exigency.

               Taking Political Action

The current administration is right on board with the Left and its silencing.  It supports the impeachment of a political rival.  It supports calls to censure or remove Congress persons who spoke up or made objections to the Left’s position about the election’s irregularities.  Via executive order that effectively silences the voices of the people, the President is cancelling all actions of his predecessor without reflection about their benefit or detriment to the country. Some of these orders include enforcement and punishment provisions for not complying.  And the people’s Capitol is filled with military protecting not the people but those within the seats of power (while at the same time no military is sent to cities actually under violent assault from Left and anarchist organizations).

The first bills in a new Congress reflect the priorities of that administration.  In this administration we see bills that would further silence views that do not “unite” with those of the Left.  HR-1 and its counterpart S-1, eliminates any restrictions on vote-by-mail, a form of voting that is noted for its likelihood of misuse and hence dilution of legitimate voters’ voices. 

But more importantly, HR-1 allows federal regulators to categorize and regulate speech.  If desired, all speech that just mentions a candidate could be illegal for up to 4 months prior to an election; all that is required is that the speech “promotes, attacks, supports, or opposes” a candidate.   The regulators would be a Commission whose chairman would be appointed by the President and have a tie-breaking (and hence partisan) vote.  The bill also requires groups to disclose personal information of supporters, sometimes to the public at large.

While presented as a “voter protection” act, If HR-1 were to become law it would certainly intimidate if not silence those who hold viewpoints in opposition to those in power.  It would silence any form of honest debate about candidates or issues and their possible solutions.  Notably, the ACLU opposes this bill.

               Keeping the People in Fear of Speaking Out

In addition to silencing diverse views, the above activities all also serve to intimidate by creating a fear in others not yet silenced so that they too will not speak out.  This is not unlike a hate crime in which a member of a particular group is injured less to harm that particular individual and more to warn the entire group not to cause trouble – to stay silent.

This is the goal of Biden’s unity:  Unite in silence.  Silence all diverse views and from the outside it will look like we are all united.  The above methods (as well as others) all work to this end.  Do not present diverse views on social media or you may be censored or your account deleted; do not expect to get information from news, yet without information you may not be able to form cogent views and thus will not speak out; prepare to be bombarded with proper viewpoints in entertainment so that you will begin to internalize and speak those views; do not speak diverse views for fear of losing and/or not finding employment; you must follow executive orders (fiats of the executive) or fear punishment for not acting in accordance with this executive power grab; forget speaking through your vote which the Left is working to dilute.  But if you unite with the “correct” view, the party view, you will be just fine.

               And What Will You Do?

People like Poland’s Deputy Justice minister have seen this silencing before.  He recently called on the U.S. to protect every citizen from the “cancel culture” which “has more in common with the methods of Soviet Russia than modern democracies.”  Russian dissident Alexei Navalny said something similar before he was arrested and sentenced to more than two years in a Russian penal colony.  Professor Michael Rachkosvsky who grew up in the former USSR, came to this country in 1993, and now teaches at Quinnipiac University, reminds us that socialist ideologues need to eliminate opposition and control media, art, and literature.  Alexander Solzhenitsyn was seemingly prescient not only in the underlying themes of his novels condemning the ideological lie, but especially in his “Warnings to the West” originally published in 1975.

These and others who have a personal experience with silencing are warning us.  If you cannot speak, cannot vote, and must conform, then you have no voice and you are not free. 

You are being watched by the many arms of the power hungry who will silence you if you do not behave and “unite” with the Left.  You are being watched, but who will watch the watchers?  And is watching just enough?  Are you willing to sit back and watch your freedoms dissolve, perhaps because as of yet you have not been affected? 

My hope is that this taking of our freedom is being done so quickly, so openly and obviously, and so broadly that everyone will notice, that no one will be complacent about it, and that no one will simply sit back and watch.  This is a watershed moment.  Complacency gives those who seek unbridled power exactly what they want.  Indeed, complacency, which is the voice of complicity, may remove your last chance to speak up and your voice may be lost forever.

Like Rabid Dogs (or Communists)

 

Like rabid dogs the Democrats circle, each trying to outdo one another in their punishment of Conservatives and Trump supporters.  They are about as rational as rabid dogs.  (see for example my recent post on why there actually are no grounds for impeachment, but rational minds could and should agree on censure and be done with it.  LINK ) 

The scene in the capital and wherever the Left gathers (including on social media) reminds me of some old black and white movie where the mob, with pitchforks and torches, goes after the innocent that they perceive as evil.

But we don’t have to go to movies or other fiction to see what is going on.  History gives us a perfect picture. 

The Library of Congress in its Russian Archives has a number of documents that reveal the inner workings of the Soviet Union, including during and immediately after the revolution.  Here are some quotations from the Library's exhibition of those documents:

In the years immediately following their accession to power in 1917, the Bolsheviks took measures to prevent challenges to their new regime, beginning with eliminating political opposition. When the freely-elected Constituent Assembly did not acknowledge the primacy of the Bolshevik government, Vladimir Lenin dissolved it in January 1918. The Left Socialist Revolutionary Party, which protested the action, withdrew from the Bolshevik coalition in March, and its members were automatically branded enemies of the people. Numerous opposition groups posed military threats from various parts of the country, placing the survival of the revolution in jeopardy. Between 1918 and 1921, a state of civil war existed.

 

Bolshevik policy toward its detractors, and particularly toward articulate, intellectual criticism, hardened considerably. Suppression of newspapers, initially described as a temporary measure, became a permanent policy. Lenin considered the Constitutional Democrats (Kadets) the center of a conspiracy against Bolshevik rule. In 1919, he began mass arrests of professors and scientists who had been Kadets, and deported Kadets, Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and Nationalists. The Bolshevik leadership sought rapidly to purge Russia of past leaders in order to build the future on a clean slate.

Having come to power in October 1917 . . . Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks spent the next few years struggling to maintain their rule against widespread popular opposition. They had overthrown the provisional democratic government and were inherently hostile to any form of popular participation in politics. In the name of the revolutionary cause, they employed ruthless methods to suppress real or perceived political enemies. The small, elite group of Bolshevik revolutionaries which formed the core of the newly established Communist Party dictatorship ruled by decree, enforced with terror.

 

This tradition of tight centralization, with decision-making concentrated at the highest party levels, reached new dimensions under Joseph Stalin. As many of these archival documents show, there was little input from below. The party elite determined the goals of the state and the means of achieving them in almost complete isolation from the people. They believed that the interests of the individual were to be sacrificed to those of the state, which was advancing a sacred social task. Stalin's “revolution from above” sought to build socialism by means of forced collectivization and industrialization, programs that entailed tremendous human suffering and loss of life.

 

Although this tragic episode in Soviet history at least had some economic purpose, the police terror inflicted upon the party and the population in the 1930s, in which millions of innocent people perished, had no rationale beyond assuring Stalin's absolute dominance. By the time the Great Terror ended, Stalin had subjected all aspects of Soviet society to strict party-state control, not tolerating even the slightest expression of local initiative, let alone political unorthodoxy.

 

These harsh measures alienated a large number of the intellectuals who had supported the overthrow of the tsarist order. The suppression of democratic institutions evoked strong protests from academics and artists, who felt betrayed in their idealistic belief that revolution would bring a free society. Writers who had emigrated shortly after the revolution published stinging attacks on the new government from abroad. As a result, further exit permits for artists were generally denied.

 

The disenchantment of the majority of intellectuals did not surprise Lenin, who saw the old Russian intelligentsia as a kind of rival to his “party of a new type,” which alone could bring revolutionary consciousness to the working class.

I think the above speaks for itself, or at least it does to anyone with a clear mind.  What we are seeing in the current days is an extreme, concerted, devoted, and fanatical effort by the Left to silence the voices of any opposition to them or their causes.  This has to remind anyone with even the smallest familiarity with history of not only the Russian revolution, but similar Leftist takeovers elsewhere. 

The above gives one an idea of the sort of progression that such silencing can take – towards complete suppression of the people by a power-hungry ruling class.  Do not think that it cannot happen in America.  The question is, will we let it?

"Have you volunteered?"

Now we know what UNITY means

Joe Biden wowed at least some Americans with his calls for and promises of unity.  Unity is a nice word; something we can all applaud, right?

The problem here, like with many of the Democrat promises (think “hope and change”), is that it can mean different things to many people, and because it has not been further defined by the promisor, everyone simply assumes they know what it means.  But, as we learned, or should have learned, long ago, “to assume makes an ass out of you and me.”  More importantly, as anyone with even a slight familiarity with logic knows, building an argument on an assumption results in a faulty argument and a failure of the conclusion.

    What is Biden's "Unity"?

So, unity.  It is defined as: “the state of being united or joined as a whole.”  Note how this definition conveniently leaves out just whom it is that will be united.  I don’t know if Biden was consciously aware of that when he used the word without further clarification, but it is becoming clearer every day that his definition may have been different from that of many.

 “Unity” for Biden and the Left does not include opposing or diverse viewpoints; unity will be of, for, and by those on the Left.  The call is to silence all who disagree.  That is how we will be unified.  Silence or assimilation; either will work for the Biden approach.  That is why his speeches of late sound so divisive as he attacks those on the other side of the aisle, including calling well respected Republican senators Nazis, as Biden continues to use both the words and the approach of some of the most divisive regimes in history.

There are many on Biden’s “Unity” team.  It is not just Democrat politicians but also their hand-maidens in power – the mainstream media and big tech, including the powerful controllers of social media.  This “unity” team continues to call for hatred and punishment against any who do not fully agree with their views.  ABC news called for “cleansing” of the Republican party.  The social media wing of the team uses their power to censor and silence voices that do not agree with the views or message of the Left:  Twitter cancels Trump; Google bans Twitter’s competition Parlor; Facebook takes down the #WalkAway page.  This is just for starters.

Of course their job was made easier by the few crazies who last Wednesday turned a protest march to the Capital into an illegal entry therein.   Yes, it was horrid.  And yes, Trump had given a strong speech, but no stronger than many we have heard coming from the Left encouraging violence against voices on the Right, the police, and others they do not like or approve of. 

But, in typical "never let a crisis go to waste" mode, now the “unity” team can justify its “cleansing" because “violent words or words advocating violence” were uttered or found on the now banned accounts.  No mention of the fact that similar words of violence have been uttered or can be found on accounts of Leftist leaders, elected officials, as well as their many followers.  Maxine Waters comes immediately to mind, but there are many others, both official and not, that have for the last year or more continuously posted calls for violence against the President, against his supporters, against the police, against federal buildings, and many more.  Many such acts have been carried out by supporters of those accounts and their rhetoric.

    Selective silencing

Inciteful words are of course wrong regardless of who utters them.  Believing that strong rhetoric is an invitation to violent acts is stupid and wrong.  But the frightening point here is that the new Biden “unity” team condemns such words when they are spoken in opposition to the Left but justify those words when they support their own causes.  That is not unity; that is oppression.  It is a silencing of opposition, a typical tactic of tyrants.

And not only does it silence the current voices, but it puts people in fear of further speech.  Just look at how many Republicans in Congress who were prepared to assert objections as they had a legal right to do, instead gave apologies or conciliatory speeches as they cowered before the powerful silencers. Decent people on the Right, now more avidly seeking actual peace and unity in light of the actions of the few who breached the Capitol, have in effect silenced themselves so as not to appear to favor or approve of the violent acts.

What is happening here, at a frighteningly ground breaking speed, is that the new “Unity” is being put into place by those holding power; not just political power but economic and corporate power as well.  Opposing voices are being silenced or trained to get in line with the approved voice.  This is tyranny plain and simple.  And it is something that should frighten everyone because if we allow the powerful to silence someone else today, they could silence you or me tomorrow.

A quick review of the “approved” social media posts indicates that it is perfectly OK that the Media wing of the “unity” team (both news media and social media) censors not just allegedly violent language but entire sites that may have included some such language but that primarily simply post views contrary to those of the Left.  The justification is that the Media is not the government and therefore they can censor whomever they please. 

To a large extent that is true (though our constitutional rights have been found to apply to non-governmental entities when they are involved with or funded in part by the government).  But even if it were legal for these entities to selectively censor, that does not mean that we should ignore the effect it has not only on individual voices, but on the type of society that such silencing creates.

Social media is the primary form of communication in this century.  It is how minorities and the oppressed communicate.  If we allow it to silence views with which it does not agree, we are allowing it to be the primary agent in silencing the oppressed.  Without a voice it is very difficult for the oppressed to do anything to end their oppression.  Rather, they are forced to assimilate into a world created by the oppressing power structure and to be subject to its every whim.

    The Individual vs. the Collective

What Biden’s form of “unity” is teaching us is that we are in a battle of the Individual vs. the (“you will be assimilated”) Collective. This is an existential battle about how one envisions the human race and the existence of that race.  Should Mankind be composed of individuals, each with unique and sometimes selfish thoughts, or should each human be just one part of a collective whole?

In a system made up of individuals, certain individual freedoms are essential to maintaining individuality.  These freedoms include the right to say, think, believe as one chooses subject of course to clear, narrow, and specific restrictions necessary for the good of their community.  Such freedoms allow each individual to use their own skills to be creative and innovative, often (whether so intended or not) for the good of all humanity.

Such freedoms are a danger to a collective system.  The breaking out of individual thoughts, even if beneficial, endangers the collective which must be made of group think if the group is to survive.  The collective requires that those who make it up be not self-determined but have every aspect of their existence determined by an outside power structure that decides what is best for the collective and how and what the members of that collective must think, act, and believe.

    We've seen this before

Such a collective model is not novel.  It is a key to building the socialist “utopia.”  It was always a key goal of the Russian revolution and Soviet Russia.  Based on some appealing words (not unlike “unity”), Communism sought a collective mind set that would allow a shared human experience which would be the same for everyone.  Suppression of the individual was an early hurdle for those revolutionaries as they worked to suppress the individualist peasants and mold them into good communists. 

The revolutionary goal also necessarily gave rise to severe censorship of not just speech but art and activity as well.  People were arrested, imprisoned, and even executed for speaking what was not approved.  And the shared experience was not the imagined utopia.  Nor was it shared by all:  those who decided what and who the collective would be, think, do, that is, those in power, had a life experience very different than those over whom they exercised their power.

Just as the communists worked to “train” people to act and think as those in power deemed proper, so we too are being trained by the “unity” team (both government and non-governmental but powerful), to speak and think in a way that will bring us Biden’s “unity.”  

If you follow or worse yet post on a social media account that is affiliated generally with “incorrect” views, you will be censored and silenced.  If you hold office and assert legal rights, but on behalf of the “wrong” person, you will be silenced, impeached, called a Nazi, and told to resign.  If you are a scientist or doctor who uses valid information to propose a dissenting view of COVID, its dangers, effectiveness of various safety measures, etc., then you will lose your license or your job.  A similar thing will happen if you are a respected scientist who uses valid means to predict effects of climate change that question the popular and approved view.  If you use a disapproved term (mother or daughter) in the House of Representatives, you will be sanctioned (even though the writer of that rule is allowed to and does use such terms). 

You may of course call for any and all punishment against those who disagree with the Biden “unity” team.  You may post calls for violence against them.  You may use racist or other epithets against them.  And if you are among the favored, you may do whatever you choose, just so long as you claim that you believe in “unity.”

    A faulty justification; how far will we let it go?

The odd thing is that the “unity” team claims to be doing all this in the interest of civil rights.  Yet one of the most necessary things for anyone advocating for civil rights is the ability to speak their mind.  For if one does not have a voice, then they have no rights at all. 

While it is apparent that the “unity” team has sufficient minions with power both in and out of government to begin to silence those they see as “un-unified,” the question is, can they actually assimilate those who retain independent thought so as to alter those thoughts into ones approved by the “unity” team?  I certainly hope not.  Because once people accept a voicelessness for any group, they must then be prepared to accept it for themselves when those in power or their whims change.

I for one am not looking forward to Biden’s “Unity.” It is a unity of hatred against those who are not like them, the “unity” team.  It is a divisive tactic to cement an ugly power while removing the power of the people, of the individual.   It is more and more looking like the beginnings of a very oppressive regime.