Although the West was born from the tradition of the Enlightenment and, with that, an appreciation for scientific reasoning and intellectual debate, we increasingly live in a society where sharing and discussing facts is not an option. Censorship is in.
Behind this trend, the explanation appears to be that facts and truth can make people angry, and angry people may do violent things, so if people are not exposed to any facts or truth that can make them angry, they will not do anything violent. Behind the curtain, of course, is a good strategy to make the public less likely to challenge the status quo. And this, of course, is something that those with power and privilege can benefit from. So, it is hardly a surprise to see those with power and privilege supporting the idea of such censorship.
But those with power and privilege have other strategies up their sleeves to preserve the status quo. For example, they may try to inject certain information into the public consciousness that inspires anger - or funnels it - in a way that distracts from an understanding that those with power and privilege just might be to blame for the problems within the status quo, and part of the problem. Part of this "deflection" strategy involves convincing the public that power and privilege belongs to somebody else. This is why we continue to be presented with news and hear views that do well to convince the public that we live in 1950 - with the same oppressors, obstacles and status quo of that era.
The irony, of course, is what life looked like in 1950, when those now-demonized people were in complete control of the country and had absolute power:
Tweets by esc_press
For the time being, we can still say that "things were better" in 1950, a time of upward economic mobility and opportunity; we can still say that "things were better" in 1950, before jobs were outsourced or lost to imported labor for the benefit of the few - the ultra-rich - at the long-term expense of many; we can still say "things were better" before the opioid pandemic, or the culture that torpedoed family and community; we can say "things were better" before feminism became the anti-family promotion of female infidelity and hypergamy, leading men to go their own way - "MGTOW" - become incelibate and drop out of society, or turn to transgenderism, take hormones and cut their dicks off - while the taxpayer foots the bill - as the birth rate declines; we can still say that "things were better" before consensual sex became something utilized to destroy careers of men, or gender became a bludgeon in an argument to brew up sexual harassment claims.
But the question is: if this is all a major waking-up point, and calls into question the direction those in power are taking us, how much longer will you be able to say the obvious: that "things were better"?
Behind this trend, the explanation appears to be that facts and truth can make people angry, and angry people may do violent things, so if people are not exposed to any facts or truth that can make them angry, they will not do anything violent. Behind the curtain, of course, is a good strategy to make the public less likely to challenge the status quo. And this, of course, is something that those with power and privilege can benefit from. So, it is hardly a surprise to see those with power and privilege supporting the idea of such censorship.
But those with power and privilege have other strategies up their sleeves to preserve the status quo. For example, they may try to inject certain information into the public consciousness that inspires anger - or funnels it - in a way that distracts from an understanding that those with power and privilege just might be to blame for the problems within the status quo, and part of the problem. Part of this "deflection" strategy involves convincing the public that power and privilege belongs to somebody else. This is why we continue to be presented with news and hear views that do well to convince the public that we live in 1950 - with the same oppressors, obstacles and status quo of that era.
The irony, of course, is what life looked like in 1950, when those now-demonized people were in complete control of the country and had absolute power:
Tweets by esc_press
For the time being, we can still say that "things were better" in 1950, a time of upward economic mobility and opportunity; we can still say that "things were better" in 1950, before jobs were outsourced or lost to imported labor for the benefit of the few - the ultra-rich - at the long-term expense of many; we can still say "things were better" before the opioid pandemic, or the culture that torpedoed family and community; we can say "things were better" before feminism became the anti-family promotion of female infidelity and hypergamy, leading men to go their own way - "MGTOW" - become incelibate and drop out of society, or turn to transgenderism, take hormones and cut their dicks off - while the taxpayer foots the bill - as the birth rate declines; we can still say that "things were better" before consensual sex became something utilized to destroy careers of men, or gender became a bludgeon in an argument to brew up sexual harassment claims.
But the question is: if this is all a major waking-up point, and calls into question the direction those in power are taking us, how much longer will you be able to say the obvious: that "things were better"?
 |
| image: Katka Pruskova |
