Today is the anniversary of D-Day: the day of the American-backed amphibious landings in Western Europe which led to the collapse of the Axis Powers there. Accordingly, I would like the share the following video, entitled "They Honk Episode 2: No Independent Thought." The significance of the video, in view of this occasion, is explained below.
For quite some time, our society has tolerated the endorsement and sale of "edgy" and "controversial" and sanctioned the critique and defilement of traditional mores and culture to that extent. The result has been twofold; on the one hand, many people have become desensitized to the assault on traditional mores and culture, which has been generally accepted under American speech freedom. On the other hand - because of the desensitization that has resulted from this assault - the boundaries of what is considered "edgy" and "controversial" when attacking traditional mores and culture have had to be pushed back further and further to the point where there are simply few frontiers left to push against (look at the Piss Christ; how does one "top" that?).
I accepted, and still accept, critique and defilement due to my own respect for American speech freedom and faith in open discourse. But sometimes I wonder whether my faith is misplaced; I see now that all the critique and defilement has slowly carved out a new culture to replace the traditional mores and old culture, and the replacement is just as full of dysfunction, inconsistent dogma and ignorance as its oft-critiqued predecessor. In fact, the problems are perceptibly worse because of the severity of what has arisen - imported terror, heightened gender conflict, societal disintegration and atomization - and the reality that, as I quickly discovered, its promoters want to take away our ability to present any criticism to reel back this new culture and its dogmatic conclusions.
A key development in my understanding about the reality of this new age came amidst grumblings as an art student, as I realized everybody's art seemed to comment on the same core things, and ignored that the world was increasingly shaped by the problems of the new dogma, not the old one they were often critiquing. My insight was met with resistance; it met resistance because I was supposed to embrace the new age like some kind of utopia and continue the impetus of mocking and defiling that which was being replaced. The whole sequence as an art student happened years ago; I wonder if today there would be more severe repercussions when classmates or colleagues notice your fake-smile makeup coming off.
Anyway, this whole sequence led to my inspiration to mock, and perhaps even test, the attitude of critique and defilement by extending it to whatever I was not supposed to criticize. To find my target, I simply began looking for the thing from which the rationale of the modern socio-political-economic system and its censorship descended. I was look for the thing that pushes us to cherish and censor what we do, the focal point from which everything about the world is understood and seems to gain meaning. It was not long until I found the subject and target I was looking for: the legacy built from the Second World War.
Through this revelation, I saw that I had stumbled upon a frontier that had never been part of the barrage of critique and defilement. So, I decided to give it the treatment everything else had received and knock down its sacrosanctity. The result was an exercise in absurdity: a film about the "D-Day" landings during World War II that used material from Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, edited to clown music.
At least initially, my goal was not to change the way people felt about the war in a specific way. I was simply set on blending together two different worlds and moods, and deconstructing the emotionally-sensitive material of the one world and mood in order to cross into a new frontier in edginess. Needless to say, I came to see how negatively people responded to the project, and how the same emotionally-driven conclusions I was exposed to were exactly what I was seeing and hearing on television at the time, as politicians and the media used the same sacred narrative rationale from the Second World War to sell the public on Gulf War II. Realizing the same thing had been done for Kosovo and Gulf War I, it all became so cringe-inducing.
My cognitive dissonance grew as I became more familiar with the facts that had been left out of the choice narrative. The catalyst was that I happened to be taking a course in modern Russian history at the time. In spite all the praise for the Soviet Union's contribution to the Second World War that came out during the lesson, I walked away with a view of the Soviets that led me to look at the very war differently. Critically, I came to understand what the Soviets had done to their own people and through foreign policy up to the time when the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada took their hand as an ally. I saw a strange juxtaposition where, although the media and politicians regularly talk about what one side (Germany) did, rarely did anyone mention what the other side (Soviet Union) was responsible for, especially if that revelation would challenge the sanctity of the narrative (about the war against Germany). Here is an example: how often do we hear that, although the United Kingdom originally joined the war to stop Germany for violating Poland's territorial integrity, Poland ended up in the hands of the Soviet Red Army? Add in the fact that the Red Army had already invaded Poland twice (1920 and 1939) by that point, massacred the Poles in 1940 and essentially liquidated the entire Polish resistance to occupation after the Germans were forced out, and you really start to wonder who wrote history.
I also began to understand what the war meant for the future of Western civilization, and became increasingly more familiar with the demographic catastrophe, the Middle East crisis and this:
Amidst these observations, I decided to add information to my film which would represent my growing understanding and - more than before - challenge the public to think about the war and resist the narrative that Spielberg had tried to portray. What is more, I decided to add in a They Live movie theme to my film, where the character came to see the reality of the war by putting on a special pair of glasses.
But it was all for naught; when I posted the final product to YouTube, the video was stripped of nearly all the features behind its sharability and discoverability. Furthermore, thanks to a music copyright claim stating that my open-source clown music belonged to some rap artist (Lil Uzi Vert), my work was blocked around the world:
Of course, there is a certain irony to YouTube confusing Lil Uzi Vert's work with clown music..
...after all, that would suggest Lil Uzi Vert makes clown music.
But that is not the point. The point is the fallacious claims that were used to prevent others from seeing my content - and that, after my correspondence with YouTube, my channel was terminated - which is something that "Video unavailable" (the message on my channel video) certainly does not convey:
Perhaps the whole experience - from the frivolous copyright claim to the boilerplate-only correspondence to the deceptive gravemarker left at my channel - was a taste of how the YouTube culture-controllers plan to circumvent the open democratic forum and American speech freedom: with lies, despotic authoritarianism and deceit. If so, perhaps we should be wary of what happened yesterday, the 5th of June, the eve of the anniversary of "D-Day", as YouTube unveiled a completely new content and comment policy, taking its censorship regime to the next level.
To the blue-pilled observer, it might make sense that the purpose of the new policy is to decrease the amount of controversial material on YouTube so that, if something bad happens in real life, YouTube cannot be blamed for it, and the potential for bad publicity is diminished. But note that Susan Wojcicki, a Jew who lent YouTube some garage space back in the day, is somehow now head of the company and, under her reign, YouTube has been absolutely slaying American speech freedom.
For those who are wondering, YouTube's new policy prohibits anything that could make anyone angry at anyone because of age, caste, disability, ethnicity gender identity, nationality, race, immigration status, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, their connection to a major violent event or veteran status:
Basically, the entire standard was plagiarized from the "protected classes idea" under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only with YouTube the issue is not discrimination in employment or treatment before the law concerning a protected class, but whether you have criticized or hurt the feelings of someone in a protected class. Note that they have taken the liberty to add the last two entries of protected classes - "victims of major violent event and their kin" and those with "veteran status", which could be used to prevent anyone from talking about a historic event like a war, or anyone who fought in one.
How ominous.
If this is the future of life under all of big tech, a critique challenging a war might never see the light of day if big tech supports the war, because big tech controls the primary valves to the online public forum and may simply allege that a critique generates hatred of those serve in the war (veterans) or did not survive it, etc. (victims and their kin). Already, we see that YouTube will censor a work, under a false pretext, that mocks Steven Spielberg for his simplistic understanding of the war. But using the new guidelines, the same could be done, too. Obviously, our work alters the mood and spin that has become synonymous with D-Day, can thus be argued to be "hateful" towards those who served there (veterans) or did not survive, etc. (victims and their kin) by questioning whether their sacrifice was worth it. This clause could even be used to silence veterans who disagree with whether the sacrifice was worth it.
For quite some time, our society has tolerated the endorsement and sale of "edgy" and "controversial" and sanctioned the critique and defilement of traditional mores and culture to that extent. The result has been twofold; on the one hand, many people have become desensitized to the assault on traditional mores and culture, which has been generally accepted under American speech freedom. On the other hand - because of the desensitization that has resulted from this assault - the boundaries of what is considered "edgy" and "controversial" when attacking traditional mores and culture have had to be pushed back further and further to the point where there are simply few frontiers left to push against (look at the Piss Christ; how does one "top" that?).
I accepted, and still accept, critique and defilement due to my own respect for American speech freedom and faith in open discourse. But sometimes I wonder whether my faith is misplaced; I see now that all the critique and defilement has slowly carved out a new culture to replace the traditional mores and old culture, and the replacement is just as full of dysfunction, inconsistent dogma and ignorance as its oft-critiqued predecessor. In fact, the problems are perceptibly worse because of the severity of what has arisen - imported terror, heightened gender conflict, societal disintegration and atomization - and the reality that, as I quickly discovered, its promoters want to take away our ability to present any criticism to reel back this new culture and its dogmatic conclusions.
A key development in my understanding about the reality of this new age came amidst grumblings as an art student, as I realized everybody's art seemed to comment on the same core things, and ignored that the world was increasingly shaped by the problems of the new dogma, not the old one they were often critiquing. My insight was met with resistance; it met resistance because I was supposed to embrace the new age like some kind of utopia and continue the impetus of mocking and defiling that which was being replaced. The whole sequence as an art student happened years ago; I wonder if today there would be more severe repercussions when classmates or colleagues notice your fake-smile makeup coming off.
Anyway, this whole sequence led to my inspiration to mock, and perhaps even test, the attitude of critique and defilement by extending it to whatever I was not supposed to criticize. To find my target, I simply began looking for the thing from which the rationale of the modern socio-political-economic system and its censorship descended. I was look for the thing that pushes us to cherish and censor what we do, the focal point from which everything about the world is understood and seems to gain meaning. It was not long until I found the subject and target I was looking for: the legacy built from the Second World War.
Through this revelation, I saw that I had stumbled upon a frontier that had never been part of the barrage of critique and defilement. So, I decided to give it the treatment everything else had received and knock down its sacrosanctity. The result was an exercise in absurdity: a film about the "D-Day" landings during World War II that used material from Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, edited to clown music.
At least initially, my goal was not to change the way people felt about the war in a specific way. I was simply set on blending together two different worlds and moods, and deconstructing the emotionally-sensitive material of the one world and mood in order to cross into a new frontier in edginess. Needless to say, I came to see how negatively people responded to the project, and how the same emotionally-driven conclusions I was exposed to were exactly what I was seeing and hearing on television at the time, as politicians and the media used the same sacred narrative rationale from the Second World War to sell the public on Gulf War II. Realizing the same thing had been done for Kosovo and Gulf War I, it all became so cringe-inducing.
My cognitive dissonance grew as I became more familiar with the facts that had been left out of the choice narrative. The catalyst was that I happened to be taking a course in modern Russian history at the time. In spite all the praise for the Soviet Union's contribution to the Second World War that came out during the lesson, I walked away with a view of the Soviets that led me to look at the very war differently. Critically, I came to understand what the Soviets had done to their own people and through foreign policy up to the time when the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada took their hand as an ally. I saw a strange juxtaposition where, although the media and politicians regularly talk about what one side (Germany) did, rarely did anyone mention what the other side (Soviet Union) was responsible for, especially if that revelation would challenge the sanctity of the narrative (about the war against Germany). Here is an example: how often do we hear that, although the United Kingdom originally joined the war to stop Germany for violating Poland's territorial integrity, Poland ended up in the hands of the Soviet Red Army? Add in the fact that the Red Army had already invaded Poland twice (1920 and 1939) by that point, massacred the Poles in 1940 and essentially liquidated the entire Polish resistance to occupation after the Germans were forced out, and you really start to wonder who wrote history.
I also began to understand what the war meant for the future of Western civilization, and became increasingly more familiar with the demographic catastrophe, the Middle East crisis and this:
Amidst these observations, I decided to add information to my film which would represent my growing understanding and - more than before - challenge the public to think about the war and resist the narrative that Spielberg had tried to portray. What is more, I decided to add in a They Live movie theme to my film, where the character came to see the reality of the war by putting on a special pair of glasses.
But it was all for naught; when I posted the final product to YouTube, the video was stripped of nearly all the features behind its sharability and discoverability. Furthermore, thanks to a music copyright claim stating that my open-source clown music belonged to some rap artist (Lil Uzi Vert), my work was blocked around the world:
Of course, there is a certain irony to YouTube confusing Lil Uzi Vert's work with clown music..
...after all, that would suggest Lil Uzi Vert makes clown music.
But that is not the point. The point is the fallacious claims that were used to prevent others from seeing my content - and that, after my correspondence with YouTube, my channel was terminated - which is something that "Video unavailable" (the message on my channel video) certainly does not convey:
Perhaps the whole experience - from the frivolous copyright claim to the boilerplate-only correspondence to the deceptive gravemarker left at my channel - was a taste of how the YouTube culture-controllers plan to circumvent the open democratic forum and American speech freedom: with lies, despotic authoritarianism and deceit. If so, perhaps we should be wary of what happened yesterday, the 5th of June, the eve of the anniversary of "D-Day", as YouTube unveiled a completely new content and comment policy, taking its censorship regime to the next level.
To the blue-pilled observer, it might make sense that the purpose of the new policy is to decrease the amount of controversial material on YouTube so that, if something bad happens in real life, YouTube cannot be blamed for it, and the potential for bad publicity is diminished. But note that Susan Wojcicki, a Jew who lent YouTube some garage space back in the day, is somehow now head of the company and, under her reign, YouTube has been absolutely slaying American speech freedom.
For those who are wondering, YouTube's new policy prohibits anything that could make anyone angry at anyone because of age, caste, disability, ethnicity gender identity, nationality, race, immigration status, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, their connection to a major violent event or veteran status:
Basically, the entire standard was plagiarized from the "protected classes idea" under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only with YouTube the issue is not discrimination in employment or treatment before the law concerning a protected class, but whether you have criticized or hurt the feelings of someone in a protected class. Note that they have taken the liberty to add the last two entries of protected classes - "victims of major violent event and their kin" and those with "veteran status", which could be used to prevent anyone from talking about a historic event like a war, or anyone who fought in one.
How ominous.
If this is the future of life under all of big tech, a critique challenging a war might never see the light of day if big tech supports the war, because big tech controls the primary valves to the online public forum and may simply allege that a critique generates hatred of those serve in the war (veterans) or did not survive it, etc. (victims and their kin). Already, we see that YouTube will censor a work, under a false pretext, that mocks Steven Spielberg for his simplistic understanding of the war. But using the new guidelines, the same could be done, too. Obviously, our work alters the mood and spin that has become synonymous with D-Day, can thus be argued to be "hateful" towards those who served there (veterans) or did not survive, etc. (victims and their kin) by questioning whether their sacrifice was worth it. This clause could even be used to silence veterans who disagree with whether the sacrifice was worth it.
And why is this important?
First of all, through its censorship, YouTube is preserving a narrative that just so happens to maintain an impression of the Second World War that can be used to motivate people to fight new wars and the following, specifically: nativists and nationalists (and, by default, opponents of labor insourcing and outsourcing), totalitarian states (by default, states where governments can control industry or limit foreign investment), and radical traditionalists (by default, states where traditions are preserved that limit the reach of mass culture). See the common thread? It is everyone who just so happens to derail the interests of corporate globalism.
Second of all, think about what big tech's censorship regime means for the future: if a foreign or domestic conflict breaks out, policy mechanisms are in place (for training A.I.?) where, unbeknownst to the public, criticism may be flushed away before people can even hear about it under the pretext that it makes people think bad things about veterans or victims. What we are really talking about, in that case, is the wet dream for a merger between the military-industrial complex and corporate globalism, where the interests of the corporate globalists can be upheld by censoring what is said about the conflicts supported by the corporate globalists, and the means to reach the public with a mass message are in control of the corporate globalists and one may never see that message if it comes from the side that the corporate globalists oppose. Frightening.
