Well, here’s a good one, fellas. The mouthpiece of the political intelligentsia isn’t happy with all the free speech that its non-readers are enjoying. Seems the mainstream media is losing control over the public narrative and this just will not do!
Recently, the New York Times published an op-ed that essentially declares as much. Oh, very moral and civic-sounding reasons are provided for the author’s “concerns” which essentially break down as follows: free speech means people can say nasty things, and what follows is inevitably nasty behaviour, including violence. Thus, the author feels that free speech should be curtailed, according of course, to the author’s opinions and political leanings.
To prove the self-evident truth of this intellectually stunning equation, namely: free speech + nasty words = violence, the author lists a number of recent events, like the Christchurch massacre and the El Paso shooting. But needless to say the author’s choice in examples provides ample proof of why his self-described magnanimous concerns ought to be met with skepticism.
His examples all deal with persons whose actions can, in one way or other, be abstractly tied to groups the author himself doesn’t like: working class whites, Republicans, Trump supporters, nationalists, etc. By contrast, he was careful not to mention the Dayton, Ohio mass-shooter whose actions can, in one way or other, be abstractly tied to groups the author very much likes, like leftists, Democrats, and Trump-haters. He was certainly careful not to mention the Orlando gay bar shooting, either, where the culprit was a non-white person, and therefore for reasons of political correctness not eligible to be tied to any “problematic” group lest the critic be charged with racism.
This infantile column, in that most infantile mouthpiece for the political establishment, actually highlights what’s truly going on, though unintentionally. It’s not that acts of violence have suddenly started happening since that fateful night when Hillary’s dreams didn’t come true. It’s not that violence did not happen before the internet was invented (does anyone remember Denis Lortie, Ted Kaczinski, Waco?).
However, something’s clearly happening that has the political establishment scared stiff, and like every political establishment in history, when it gets scared it seeks to crack down on freedoms, rights, and liberties.
This is especially telling coming from the New York Times. Perhaps no publication on planet earth is more of a mouthpiece for the academic left, and the intellectual power structure that has ruled the West since the 1960s. What the internet and mass communication – including social media, supposedly evil bloggers, and alternative news – have done is wrest the narrative from the hands of the professional political class.
No longer can inconvenient stories be buried, like the dubious nature of WMD attacks in Syria (see here) or the ethnic composition of crime statistics (see here), just to name two hot-button issues the MSM prefers not to discuss.
This is a huge problem for any political establishment, including our own. As always the deeds of a few lunatics can be paraded out as proof that the authorities need to crack down. Should we trust the establishment to do this? Say, for example, the author of the NYT‘s aforementioned op-ed?
Well, of course we shouldn’t, fellas. It’s abundantly clear from the author’s own twisted words that the establishment desperately wants to crack down on its critics, since nary a word is mentioned about the need to crack down on those – like the Dayton, Ohio shooter or Antifa – who are inspired by their devotion to the political establishment.
You see, it’s about far more that just random acts of violence. An ideological narrative must involve every aspect of life, and exists to protect the intelligentsia’s power and perceived legitimacy:
Each day statistics are trumpeted by the mainstream media telling us how great the economy is doing, for example. For a certain segment of the population, to be sure, this rosy picture is largely accurate. However, a much larger segment of the population knows this is bullshit. For many many more there is the reality that permanent, full-time jobs are becoming extinct (except, of course, for government workers, part of the protected class of our intelligentsia), while inflation-adjusted blue collar wages have been falling since the 70s (see here), and indebtedness is crushing most working people (see here).
We know so much of what we hear isn’t true, but at least today there are outlets where people can converse without the watchful eye of the New York Times’ editors looking over their shoulders. Shudder to think.
The intelligentsia is losing its control over other areas of the narrative, too
Were it not for the alternative media it’s quite likely no one would have called out the political establishment – and specifically its cronies at the Washington Post, CNN and elsewhere – when they attacked young Nick Sandmann with a lynch-mob hate campaign earlier this year. Without alternative media would even know what truly happened there?
Of course, we all remember how Rolling Stone broke the story about the Duke Lacrosse team. How those evil privileged white males raped an innocent black exotic dancer. Of course, we also know the story was bogus (see here), and that Rolling Stone has a habit of doing this sort of thing (see here).
It’s not clear how these scenarios would have played out in the absence of alternative media and the internet, but what is clear is that thanks to alternative media and the internet it was impossible for the intelligentsia to sweep Rolling Stone’s misdeeds under the rug, or deny the ideological nature of its reporting and narrative.
Of course, back in the 60s Rolling Stone was the bugle of the hippies and of the New Left, inspired sheepishly by ivy league academia. It prided itself on being ostensibly anti-establishment. Yet today, it is just another part of the all-too-familiar monolith of mainstream media, just another organ of the political establishment. Namely, the very thing it once considered its enemy, despite its comical attempts at appearing edgy.
But this is precisely why the aforementioned scandals are so important, and why the alternative media is so crucial today. As the 60s became the 70s, the New Left finally succeeded in unseating the old establishment, and replaced it with itself. And much like that old establishment it doesn’t like criticism.
Most importantly, like any post-revolutionary movement, it needs to continuously find persons and groups to hate, defile, and to purge lest the enthusiasm for the revolution wane, and obedience to the new establishment lose its vigour. The rage must continue; the fervour must not wane.
The above false rape allegations fit the bill perfectly. The accused were white: check. They were male: check. They were from successful families: check. Hell, they were even toxically masculine jocks: check, check, check!
Now obviously the staff of Rolling Stone, or any mainstream outlet, needn’t scour campuses for wealthy white males to attack if their interest is simply to report on rapes, or on victims of interracial attacks. These happen every day. Problem is, most don’t fit the correct narrative (see here). The following graph from US News and World Report undermines the “white supremacist under every bed” narrative of the New Left.
One can certainly debate the reasons for these statistics (see above), but no sane person who believes in a democratic system, free speech, or in a free and open society can argue that such facts should be concealed, though that is exactly what the mainstream media does. The ideology of the establishment is all important: facts, not so much.
It is telling that the New York Times op-ed attempts to use violent acts as a pretence for suggesting our increasingly vulnerable freedom of speech is a bad thing. How quickly we forget how the progressive NYT fawned over the sociopathic mass-murderer Stalin in the 30s, or similarly papered over the USSR’s purges, mass killings, and genocidal sieges (see here).
It would seem, perhaps, we should question whether the criteria for limiting free speech based on violence should be not applied to the New York Times itself! Justice Kavanaugh, the recipient of one of the paper’s more recent smear campaigns (see here), might wonder that, too. One also might question why an outlet ostensibly devoted to racial justice would hire an anti-white racist like Sarah Jeong to its editorial board (see here).
Such are the questions that the political establishment, including academia and the mainstream media, are unaccustomed to having to answer. Perhaps we should not be surprised, then, that so many moral and civic-minded apologies for attacking free speech are suddenly being discovered.
From their days in our universities and colleges, our elites have assumed that only they have the authority to speak. They’ve assumed that any challenges to their authority can be instantly shut down simply by crying, “racist”, “sexist”, “fascist”, or any other such accusation. They’ve grown accustomed to being unchallenged, no matter how empirically right or wrong they may be.
Fortunately, there should be no need for censoring in the internet age. The growth of the alternative news, of social media, and of the blogosphere, while every bit as imperfect as its antipode, should suffice to at least give the truth a chance to be heard. This is why the Booby offers the Un-Media page on his site, which features alternatives from all over the political spectrum and from all over the web.
Neither the mainstream media nor the political establishment it serves is going to like this new open reality of ours. Clearly, the mainstream media has a problem with freedom of speech, and as the Russia-gate hoax shows, it has a problem with legal and fair elections, too… and of course, we already know how it feels about the right of citizens to arm themselves and defend themselves.
Again, these are all typical behaviours of a post-revolutionary reign of terror (see here).
Will the New York Times, and its masters and lackeys, succeed in cementing the absolute power of the New Left? Probably not, but that depends on us, fellas. The Booby just hopes you’re not too consumed with your daily diet of Tinder, porn, pop culture, and professional sports to care.
Despite its near-monopoly in academia and in the media, the true believers of the New Left are acting scared. It would seem they’re losing control. One is reminded of the unraveling of the USSR after Gorbachev’s “perestroika” policy, except that today the unravelling is originating from below, not from above. And perhaps that is what terrifies our elites the most.
To quote Martin Gurri, from his book, The Revolt of the Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium (a must read, but more on that in some later post):
Bloggers, and in general all dabblers in digital communication, are often accused of insulting sacred things… They speak when there should be silence, and utter what should never be said. They trample on the sanctities, in the judgement of the great hierarchical institutions which for a century and a half have controlled, from the top down, authoritatively, the content of every public conversation. The idea is not that some forbidden opinion or other has been spoke. It is the speaking that is taboo. It’s the alien voice of the amateur, of the ordinary person, of the public, that is an abomination to the ears of established authority.
Indeed. It’s no wonder the New York Times has now revealed its truest totalitarian colours. Should we not show the Times, then, that we choose to retain our freedom of speech, and that we choose to retain our liberties and our democracy with or without them? If we truly care about our democracy the answer is obvious.