You are a legend, Michael. Instead of elites, we should be calling them fascists. The emperor has no clothes and seeks to imprison those who say he is a naked tyrant.
We should take care in throwing around the term "fascist". It's true that the "progressives" especially and to a lesser extent Democrats in general, share some things in common with fascism. They are authoritarian, they seek to supplant individual liberty and choice with a state plan for practically all economic and personal activities [Mussolini: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”], they appeal to emotions over reason (despite falsely telling us to obey The Science), they are intolerant, they subvert democracy (by trying to pack the Supreme Court, using regulatory agencies to get around legislation, and by systematically censoring differing views), they are racist (anti-white and anti-Asian), and they are anti-conservative.
However, they lack a strong, charismatic leader (Biden! Harris!). They do not appeal to all social classes (a characteristic of fascism). They are officially anti-racist (but not really). And they are anti-nationalist. "Authoritarian" and "autocratic" and "scientistic" are all correct terms to apply but aren't specific. We could do with a new term.
However the explosion of “Public-Private Partnerships” satisfies the exact meaning of Fascism that Mussolini coined. Corporatism. In this instance it is ACTUALLY Fascism despite the cries of “wolf!” from the unknowledgeable activist class.
I believe that "corporatism" meant something rather different when fascism was developing. For instance, unions were one form of corporatism. However, yes, the kind of public-private partnerships behind much censorship -- as well as regulatory capture -- that we see are much like that aspect of fascism.
"Fanatics" is a good term, I think. People know what it means, and it accurately describes the true believers among Progressives. A fanatic is irrational, aggressive, power hungry and engages in dehumanizing black and white thinking. They can't be reasoned with, only curtailed. Maybe "Woke fanatics."
Wrong. This is exactly what fascism is, in the Mussolini sense. Just because it hasn't risen to the level of old-school Chicago Mob rule yet, or full-scale military-supported corporate funded State fascism...
Doesn't mean it isn't fascism, because it is fascism, right now, right here. It doesn't need "one" leader, because it has a Soros-funded corporate "board." We don't need to be "careful." We need to resist it out of existence, starting this second, so we can eventually quit having the discussion. Hopefully that can be done peacefully.
You obviously don't know me at all. If you did, you wouldn't imply that I'm "covering" for fascists or sugar-coating fascism. I'm probably the most anti-authoritarian person here. As a philosopher, the accurate use of terms matters to me. Making distinctions between differing things helps improve our understanding. "Fascism" is an emotive and powerful term. That's what makes it easy and tempting to use when we intensely dislike something.
As I said in my first comment, the "Progressives" (absurd label) do share several important characteristics with fascists but they also differ. Taking the emotive use, I could call Stalin a fascist. Indeed, he was rather close to fascism. But that takes away from understanding Stalin's particular Marxist form of totalitarianism.
Progressives and (to a slightly lesser extent) other Democratic Party supporters are currently more authoritarian and autocratic than Republicans on most issues. But "fascist" is not a very accurate label for them, and Nazi less so.
Maybe "fascist-adjacent" or "proto-fascist" would be a bit better, although inelegant.
Fair enough, I'll adjust my comment to remove the inflammatory remark.
If you must be more "elegant" (which would curry no favor with the proto-fascists, of course), then I'll concede proto-fascist is perhaps a better word.
A strong leader could appear at any time with the foundation being laid. What label would you propose ? The strong leader could be created using a deep fake. Such as…Big Brother who did not really exist.
I want to again thank you Michael, friends and brave fellow journalists, like Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi, Alex Epstein (fossil fuel guy), organizations such at Judicial Watch and many others for absolutely speaking truth to power when the latter is dedicated to stamping out the former in Orwellian game of dis/mis/mal information. It take incredible stamina, patience and I believe your efforts are paying off. Witness some of the recent elections in Europe - Italy, Greece and Spain.
I just watched the WEF promotional video on what I'll enjoy in 2030, and could only think of the Hunger Games or some other dystopian vision which for the Davos elites is not fiction but the future.
I look forward to your continued efforts and clear, concise and persuasive writing. Thanks again.
Personally, I think all "fact checking" should be chucked in the bin. If we are ever going to usher in a return of widespread critical thinking, outsourcing the job of finding truth to someone else will never get it done. Yes, we may run the risk of reading something that is *gasp* false; but we used to operate under the maxim of "don't believe everything that you read."
Whether it is shadowy techno-fascists or good-intentioned crusaders for free speech, it's high time that the lazy, ignorance-inducing habit of asking the internet to "just tell me the right answer" ends.
"Hate speech": any speech that challenges the narrative du jour, most especially against the holy trinity of Diversity Equity Inclusion (thus someone "interrogating your whiteness" can never be hateful, but refusing to submit to it is only and entirely hateful), questioning "gender affirmation" (the only possible reason for opposition is "Hate") or opposing mass immigration (once again, only Haters disagree).
And people still wonder why the global corporate state wed the New Left: it was for the Kafka traps!
Clever Pseudonym, you had better go sit in the corner, don the dunce cap, and “do the work”. And don’t come back until you admit your institutional white ( always lowercase) privilege! Even if you’re Asian etc.
I sincerely apologize to you, and I deleted my unwarranted message. As a GenXer, I had to look up what Poe's Law meant. To an idiot like me, you sounded SO convincing. I literally read the same lines you used every time I'm in twitter. That's what did me in.
If the Founders wanted to ban "hate speech," they could have. They didn't. Of course, that means their statues must be pulled down in the current frenzy of self-righteous indignation and moral superiority. "We hate your side so much that we have to get you fired for hating our side. It only makes sense. Your speech is toxic, dangerous, and leads to suicides 'n' stuff."
Have just been wading through a piece by Matthew Crawford on The Rise of AntiHumanism. He has a substack, Archedelia, but the full piece is in a publication called First Things, link: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/08/the-rise-of-antihumanism. It covers a lot of territory (not all of which I pretend to completely comprehend) but he breaks it into 4 parts that today's elites have 4 underlying assumptions about us humans: We are stupid, we are obsolete, we are fragile and we are haters. Therefore, our scope for action and evaluative decision making must be ever more narrowly defined to save us from ourselves and others. Democracy and free speech is too much trouble, generates too much inconvenient friction (for them) to bother with, they believe. And of course, it's those 'elites' who will define the scope they will allow us to have. It's pretty dense but I can tell it would be child's play for many of you who read these pages. A worthwhile and thought provoking read that explains the philosophies behind what Michael and his colleagues are uncovering.
We can all see the push for more censorship on the rise. They have to, “they know we know”. The massive interlocking infiltration of western institutions seems undefeatable.
Free speech is the most important thing we need to defend. It is the most important thing America at one time gave to the world. We cannot let it slip away.
We cannot allow “them” to doublespeak the meaning of it to oblivion, like they have the meaning of democracy or our values.
The democrats must be somehow swayed to open their eyes to the destruction they are creating to American values.
I could be wrong, but I think the countries most interested in Woke ideology are listed here:
"There is bad psychology behind the war on free speech. Elites came to hate and fear ordinary people after the election of Trump and the Brexit referendum in 2016. Liberals made a deal with the devil, partnering with forces within the national security state, particularly in the Five Eyes nations of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, to label populists and nationalists as racists, anti-Semites, and fascists."
Michael, I tried to donate. The site needs much work. The Paypal link disappears after flashing on the screen, and then the Paypal hookup (if you can snag it) just hangs. I am sure it works sometimes. But if it does not work for a sophisticated user like me, it is going to fail for others as well. Someone needs to give it some work and then we will try again. Or try a payments processor that has all of these permutations conquered. Fingers crossed. This is important and I would like to support it, but have to be able to do so.
Please tell us more about the alternative fact checking apparatus. What principles will guide it? How are you finding people to work on this? This is badly needed. There is a remarkable amount of great fact checking analysis on Substack blogs that would provide a good resource.
You are a legend, Michael. Instead of elites, we should be calling them fascists. The emperor has no clothes and seeks to imprison those who say he is a naked tyrant.
Amnesty International is another human rights GONGO that has been captured, no longer standing up for free speech. They sided with Trudeau against the truckers and said nothing about COVID lockdowns/mandates: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/amnesty-international-silence-ccp-esg-covid
We should take care in throwing around the term "fascist". It's true that the "progressives" especially and to a lesser extent Democrats in general, share some things in common with fascism. They are authoritarian, they seek to supplant individual liberty and choice with a state plan for practically all economic and personal activities [Mussolini: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”], they appeal to emotions over reason (despite falsely telling us to obey The Science), they are intolerant, they subvert democracy (by trying to pack the Supreme Court, using regulatory agencies to get around legislation, and by systematically censoring differing views), they are racist (anti-white and anti-Asian), and they are anti-conservative.
However, they lack a strong, charismatic leader (Biden! Harris!). They do not appeal to all social classes (a characteristic of fascism). They are officially anti-racist (but not really). And they are anti-nationalist. "Authoritarian" and "autocratic" and "scientistic" are all correct terms to apply but aren't specific. We could do with a new term.
However the explosion of “Public-Private Partnerships” satisfies the exact meaning of Fascism that Mussolini coined. Corporatism. In this instance it is ACTUALLY Fascism despite the cries of “wolf!” from the unknowledgeable activist class.
I believe that "corporatism" meant something rather different when fascism was developing. For instance, unions were one form of corporatism. However, yes, the kind of public-private partnerships behind much censorship -- as well as regulatory capture -- that we see are much like that aspect of fascism.
Perhaps, and yes it is.
How about "fucking Nazis?"
It's a good a term as any.
But then what will we call actual Nazis?
*eyeroll*
"Eyeroll" isn't a good term for these authoritarians. Try again.
I’m good.
"Fanatics" is a good term, I think. People know what it means, and it accurately describes the true believers among Progressives. A fanatic is irrational, aggressive, power hungry and engages in dehumanizing black and white thinking. They can't be reasoned with, only curtailed. Maybe "Woke fanatics."
Wannabe fascists. They fulfill the the commonly used meaning for fascist; therefore, they are.
Wrong. This is exactly what fascism is, in the Mussolini sense. Just because it hasn't risen to the level of old-school Chicago Mob rule yet, or full-scale military-supported corporate funded State fascism...
Doesn't mean it isn't fascism, because it is fascism, right now, right here. It doesn't need "one" leader, because it has a Soros-funded corporate "board." We don't need to be "careful." We need to resist it out of existence, starting this second, so we can eventually quit having the discussion. Hopefully that can be done peacefully.
You obviously don't know me at all. If you did, you wouldn't imply that I'm "covering" for fascists or sugar-coating fascism. I'm probably the most anti-authoritarian person here. As a philosopher, the accurate use of terms matters to me. Making distinctions between differing things helps improve our understanding. "Fascism" is an emotive and powerful term. That's what makes it easy and tempting to use when we intensely dislike something.
As I said in my first comment, the "Progressives" (absurd label) do share several important characteristics with fascists but they also differ. Taking the emotive use, I could call Stalin a fascist. Indeed, he was rather close to fascism. But that takes away from understanding Stalin's particular Marxist form of totalitarianism.
Progressives and (to a slightly lesser extent) other Democratic Party supporters are currently more authoritarian and autocratic than Republicans on most issues. But "fascist" is not a very accurate label for them, and Nazi less so.
Maybe "fascist-adjacent" or "proto-fascist" would be a bit better, although inelegant.
Fair enough, I'll adjust my comment to remove the inflammatory remark.
If you must be more "elegant" (which would curry no favor with the proto-fascists, of course), then I'll concede proto-fascist is perhaps a better word.
Thank you. Alert the media -- agreement reached in a comments section! :-)
AWOOGA - AWOOGA ... LOL :)
A strong leader could appear at any time with the foundation being laid. What label would you propose ? The strong leader could be created using a deep fake. Such as…Big Brother who did not really exist.
Let's go with "fucking Nazis."
Never a good idea to compare nazis to anything
I’m sick of being polite. Spade’s a spade, boyo.
Except other Nazis
I want to again thank you Michael, friends and brave fellow journalists, like Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi, Alex Epstein (fossil fuel guy), organizations such at Judicial Watch and many others for absolutely speaking truth to power when the latter is dedicated to stamping out the former in Orwellian game of dis/mis/mal information. It take incredible stamina, patience and I believe your efforts are paying off. Witness some of the recent elections in Europe - Italy, Greece and Spain.
I just watched the WEF promotional video on what I'll enjoy in 2030, and could only think of the Hunger Games or some other dystopian vision which for the Davos elites is not fiction but the future.
I look forward to your continued efforts and clear, concise and persuasive writing. Thanks again.
Personally, I think all "fact checking" should be chucked in the bin. If we are ever going to usher in a return of widespread critical thinking, outsourcing the job of finding truth to someone else will never get it done. Yes, we may run the risk of reading something that is *gasp* false; but we used to operate under the maxim of "don't believe everything that you read."
Whether it is shadowy techno-fascists or good-intentioned crusaders for free speech, it's high time that the lazy, ignorance-inducing habit of asking the internet to "just tell me the right answer" ends.
You said it, CW. I neither need nor want a nanny, nor should any mentally competent adult. Children are their parents’ responsibility.
💯
This, all of this. CW nails it.
Freedom = Speech
Speech = Freedom
Speech is a human right.
"Hate speech" does not exist.
If a listener/reader is offended by speech they "feel" is hate, that individual is responsible for battling his/her own demon.
"Hate speech": any speech that challenges the narrative du jour, most especially against the holy trinity of Diversity Equity Inclusion (thus someone "interrogating your whiteness" can never be hateful, but refusing to submit to it is only and entirely hateful), questioning "gender affirmation" (the only possible reason for opposition is "Hate") or opposing mass immigration (once again, only Haters disagree).
And people still wonder why the global corporate state wed the New Left: it was for the Kafka traps!
Clever Pseudonym, you had better go sit in the corner, don the dunce cap, and “do the work”. And don’t come back until you admit your institutional white ( always lowercase) privilege! Even if you’re Asian etc.
🙄🥸
Abolish the Four Olds! Long Live the Red Terror! Mao Now and Forever!
(I'm getting the hang of this!)
You will be promoted as soon as you turn in 3 speakers of objective truth.
LOL
Poe's Law?
If you were being facetious, please tell me. This topic makes me so angry I sometimes can't tell the difference.
I was being facetious. Read it again and notice the “scare quotes” and the emojis…
I sincerely apologize to you, and I deleted my unwarranted message. As a GenXer, I had to look up what Poe's Law meant. To an idiot like me, you sounded SO convincing. I literally read the same lines you used every time I'm in twitter. That's what did me in.
He was. We've spoken enough.
If the Founders wanted to ban "hate speech," they could have. They didn't. Of course, that means their statues must be pulled down in the current frenzy of self-righteous indignation and moral superiority. "We hate your side so much that we have to get you fired for hating our side. It only makes sense. Your speech is toxic, dangerous, and leads to suicides 'n' stuff."
Sorry. - but if the question becomes "The Internet, or the First Amendment?", then the internet has to go for me.
Have just been wading through a piece by Matthew Crawford on The Rise of AntiHumanism. He has a substack, Archedelia, but the full piece is in a publication called First Things, link: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/08/the-rise-of-antihumanism. It covers a lot of territory (not all of which I pretend to completely comprehend) but he breaks it into 4 parts that today's elites have 4 underlying assumptions about us humans: We are stupid, we are obsolete, we are fragile and we are haters. Therefore, our scope for action and evaluative decision making must be ever more narrowly defined to save us from ourselves and others. Democracy and free speech is too much trouble, generates too much inconvenient friction (for them) to bother with, they believe. And of course, it's those 'elites' who will define the scope they will allow us to have. It's pretty dense but I can tell it would be child's play for many of you who read these pages. A worthwhile and thought provoking read that explains the philosophies behind what Michael and his colleagues are uncovering.
Dude you are doing such important work. Thank you.
We can all see the push for more censorship on the rise. They have to, “they know we know”. The massive interlocking infiltration of western institutions seems undefeatable.
Free speech is the most important thing we need to defend. It is the most important thing America at one time gave to the world. We cannot let it slip away.
We cannot allow “them” to doublespeak the meaning of it to oblivion, like they have the meaning of democracy or our values.
The democrats must be somehow swayed to open their eyes to the destruction they are creating to American values.
Our free speech right is not slipping away nor disappearing into oblivion. They are STEALING it--ripping it right out of our soul!
I could be wrong, but I think the countries most interested in Woke ideology are listed here:
"There is bad psychology behind the war on free speech. Elites came to hate and fear ordinary people after the election of Trump and the Brexit referendum in 2016. Liberals made a deal with the devil, partnering with forces within the national security state, particularly in the Five Eyes nations of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, to label populists and nationalists as racists, anti-Semites, and fascists."
Funny, that.
How much longer will we even be able to have this conversation without some form of recrimination?
I think they want to break the Constitution somehow and slide in with a prearranged alternative governing structure in the immediate aftermath.
Martial Law? It’s just one “crisis” away.
It's Minority Report with psychos instead of psychics.
Michael, I tried to donate. The site needs much work. The Paypal link disappears after flashing on the screen, and then the Paypal hookup (if you can snag it) just hangs. I am sure it works sometimes. But if it does not work for a sophisticated user like me, it is going to fail for others as well. Someone needs to give it some work and then we will try again. Or try a payments processor that has all of these permutations conquered. Fingers crossed. This is important and I would like to support it, but have to be able to do so.
Please tell us more about the alternative fact checking apparatus. What principles will guide it? How are you finding people to work on this? This is badly needed. There is a remarkable amount of great fact checking analysis on Substack blogs that would provide a good resource.
Freedom of speech means that people we don't like get to say things we don't want to hear.
And that is necessary for our democracy to function.
Just because you offend me, doesn't mean I can stop you from talking. But also, that you can't stop me from saying things you don't want to hear.