It is not an accident that the most populous social media environments have significant restrictions on free speech. Permanent bans of outspoken rightwing commentators have occurred since well before January 6th. The weaponization of app stores on phone platforms was used in an attempt to silence Gab. But it is important to understand what is happening to speech itself to lend context to the trend of large tech monopolies suppressing dissent on their digital town squares.
Social media did something extraordinary when it emerged at nearly the same time as the smartphone. It truly democratized thought. It empowered the masses to share ideas across a spectrum of individuals who either harbored similar thoughts or never considered those thoughts at all. This immediately challenged the ruling classes, who had a monopoly on social and political narratives that were spoon fed by news outlets, entertainment companies, etc. In essence, suddenly and without warning, “The People” began to listen to one another versus the approved messaging. The 2016 election of Donald Trump was a byproduct of this phenomenon. It also contributed to a severe and desperate reaction by global power brokers, especially those on the political Left.
For years the political Left has argued internally – especially in academia – that speech is inherently violent. Whereas most of us were raised not to fear words, they actually fear them. They claim words lead to uncontrolled consequences. Questioning the Holocaust, for example, is immediately antisemitic, even though the questions may be reasonable and devoid of any particular anti-Jewish animus. They ascribe any violence committed against the Jewish community to be an outgrowth of questioning approved narratives. The same goes for homosexuality, transgenderism, and racial differences in criminal statistics, as examples.
This newly defined interpretation of speech has since been exploited by a global ruling elite that needed to obliterate the democratization of thought. In essence, by making unapproved speech “violence,” they attempted to put the genie back in the bottle. Since they cannot un-invent Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., they needed to ensure that the democratized thought process was either co-opted by those venues – under the pretext of amorphous “hate” speech rules – or silenced all together – as they did to Parler and attempted with Gab.
The problem they now face is that the suppression is so blatantly obvious, because many of the leftist foot soldiers who subscribed to the new definition of speech control the definition of “hate” itself. What likely began as a means to curtail conversations about the efficacy of vaccines or the truth about wars has now become a bludgeon to ensure societal changes that run directly contrary to the majority of the people. Castrating children, for example, is now a fundamental right, instead of child abuse. Ruling elites never likely wanted this to happen, but the train went off the tracks and they are no longer fully in control. This threatens their very order, unless more compliant masses can be introduced to the West.
The Left is correct that speech is a weapon. They are incorrect that it is inherently dangerous to all. Rather, speech has the ability to move the mindset of ordinary citizens and inspire incredible acts. Thus, speech is dangerous to the status quo. It is dangerous to those few who benefit from the status quo.
Men like Patrick Henry compelled the establishment of a new nation on a new continent with speech. Joan of Arc compelled French resistance with speech. Jesus Christ compelled Salvation with speech. No movement is possible in silence.
Consequently, that is why they fear speech. It threatens their grasp on us. Free speech shakes their hold. Functional constitutional republics rely on free speech to achieve responsive government. Autocracies fail in such an environment, so they act to suppress it. Healthy societies rely on free speech to weigh the costs and benefits of medical decisions. Those invested in profiteering from medical outcomes act to suppress it. Christianity relies on free speech to promote the Word of God and the Salvation of the masses. Thus, the ADL hates free speech. It must suppress that speech because it fears the end result: the elimination of their systemic power over us. After all, they are of their father and His blood be upon them.
The son of a recent Irish immigrant and another with roots to Virginia since 1670. I love both my Irish and Southern Nations with a passion. Florida will always be my country. Dissident support here: Padraig Martin is Dixie on the Rocks (buymeacoffee.com)
“After all, they are of their father and His blood be upon them.”
In John 8: 44, Jesus tells the Jews who reject him: “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
In Matthew 27: 24-25, Pilate, after seeing that the Jewish crowd will have Jesus’s death regardless of his innocence of any crime says, “I am innocent of this man’s blood… it is your responsibility!” And in verse 25 all the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”
— So just to be clear : It is the devil who is their father; and it is the spotless Son of God’s blood, which is upon them i.e which they must answer for – (and, of course, all sinners must answer for it).
Free speech means restricted speech, but we can’t call it restricted speech because that would be unfair and ridiculous, and might actually prevent liberalism from sneaking in the back door while we’re distracted defending “free speech,” which is really restricted speech. See Zippy:
And,
Here is the link to Zippy’s articles I quoted from:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/?s=freedom+of+speech
Exactly, I should have read your comments before posting mine. Free speech is Liberalism, zippy was brilliant with that, and usury
He did say some heresies , (I think he said the pope could be a heretic and remain the pope)but not everyone can get everything right like I do!
Hello, Hi-ya. I met, or, rather, first became acquainted with, Zippy way back when he was posting as “Matt” at VFR (View From the Right). That was around about 2003-04 as I recall. One of the things he taught me (and many others) early on was the concept of the “Unprincipled Exception (the UE),” which of course has been explained from here to there and back numerous times since. I followed him, too, when he went to 4-W (What’s Wrong With the World) and became a main contributor there, and ultimately to his private blog from there. But, you’re right; Zippy was brilliant when it came to exposing liberalism for what it really is in its essence, and how it’s always backdooring its way into “conservative” opposition against it. “Free Speech” is a good example; government “by the consent of the governed” is another; and who can ever forget his unparalleled exposure of motte & bailey feminism for what it truly was, and is? Etc.
I sure do miss Zippy nowadays! God rest his soul! Oh, and he was a native Virginian and a true Southron to boot. …
While I agree that at this moment in history we need to be able to speak freely. But free speech is not inherency good in and of itself. There is a purpose to speech and that is truth. The Catholic Church has taught this for 200 years. Patrick Henry wanted HIS speech to be free so he could accomplish his revolutionary goals, but then that right would disappear when the revolutionaries get into power.
Having said that, at this point I would settle for banning blasphemy against our lord, pornography and oh, how about Mormons….
It seems to me the issue of free speech today revolves around the issue or idea of Sin.
Sin being the violation of the Creators Laws. If there is nothing outside of man defining right and wrong then there if no right or wrong. Such concepts of right and wrong merely become opinion about opinions. As the rule of law dies (or the rule of God’s laws die) so with it dies freedom of speech along with the freedom to call someone out as to their actions being universally wrong. Is that not where we find ourselves today?
The Apostle John said that in His day many antichrists had arisen. The Beast System has taken off its’ mask. The true Gospel of Jesus the Christ and the Law have to die, and the destruction of Free Speech is necessary in order to finish accomplishing that goal.