YouTube Goes Full Orwell: Dissent Will NOT Be Tolerated

YouTube Goes Full Orwell: Dissent Will NOT Be Tolerated

December 2, 2019 – “Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell

Totalitarians always try to couch their horrific plans in ‘rose-colored glasses’ sounding euphemisms such as ‘enhanced interrogation’ rather than torture, or ‘extraordinary rendition’ in place of kidnapping. Don’t worry, everything is rosy, nothing to see here, go back to sleep.

The First Amendment is the bedrock to our Constitutional Republic. The ability to have freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscious are fundamental to maintaining our ability to hold the powerful to account. In third world countries, the powerful few rule over the rest of the citizens like serfs on a plantation. There is no upward mobility without the approval of the overlords.  They use coercion, intimidation and violence.

The Supreme Court has recently upheld this notion, that ‘offensive’ and ‘unpopular’ speech should be the most protected. According to a Townhall article entitled Supreme Court Unanimously Reaffirms: Hate Speech Is Still Free Speech the Court held:

The Supreme Court affirmed Monday that terms or phrases deemed to be offensive are still protected as free speech under the First Amendment. The high court unanimously struck down a disparagement provision of federal trademark law in Matal v. Tam, a case in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied an Asian-American rock band a trademark for their name ‘The Slants’ because they found the name to be offensive.

‘We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,’ Justice Samuel Alito wrote of the provision in his plurality opinion. ‘It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.’

‘The disparagement clause denies registration to any mark that is offensive to a substantial percentage of the members of any group,’ Alito writes. ‘That is viewpoint discrimination in the sense relevant here: Giving offense is a viewpoint.’

‘Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful,’ Alito adds, ‘but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’ – Townhall

The CEO of YouTube Susan Wojcicki appeared on 60 Minutes to discuss the recent changes the so-called platform has made in response to the whining of the overlords and oligarchs. What she disclosed was alarming, Zach Vorhies the Google whistleblower points out:

The problem is, who gets to decide what is hate? Why is it that the so-called defenders of democracy have no problem with political viewpoint discrimination? Why is bias and hate against Conservatives, including violence somehow perfectly acceptable with these organizations and individuals?

Hate: What they call “hate” is often simply dislike, aversion, criticism – opinion! Even when it looks like hate, hate is simply an emotion, a form of anger. Often it is a reaction to perceived injustice and wrongs.

Conspiracies: Everybody conspires at some point in their life. Even dogs and cats conspire, let alone wealthy businessmen and politicians! The solving of most crimes starts with a ‘conspiracy theory’ since most crimes start with a conspiracy.

If you can restrict language, you can restrict outcomes and possibility. Anything that is outside of prescribed rules becomes impossible. This has always been a favored tactic of arrogant tyrants: controlling the mindset of a population through false dichotomies.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” – Noam Chomsky

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. There is already a major problem with big tech monopolistic top down control of industry. They engage in anti-competitive business practices with the government allowing and even enforcing this control because they are able to benefit from it. Its a form of cronyism and kickbacks, I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

This notion, that big tech gleefully wants to censor the internet was outlined by Alex Newman of the New American in an expose entitled ‘U.S. Tech Giants Join EU to Censor the Internet’ back in 2016:

Of course, the EU Big Brother and its Big Business crony partners claim the censorship will only apply to what European governments deem ‘illegal hate speech,’ a concept introduced to the world by the mass-murdering regime ruling the old Soviet Union in its fanatical efforts to silence dissent against communism. But today, the prohibitions are even broader. More than a few EU governments have already shown conclusively that they consider, among other speech, biblical texts, speeches by giants of Western history, and more to be ‘illegal hate speech.’ In the United Kingdom, for example, a politician was arrested for quoting former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s views on Islam. In Germany, critics of Islamic immigration recently had their apartments raided by police for expressing their views on social media. In multiple European countries, Christian pastors have literally been thrown in jail and even convicted of ‘hate speech’ for arguing that homosexuality is a sin. And it’s getting more and more extreme. 

It should not be surprising that the EU super-state, which has a ruling class packed with ‘former’ communists from Soviet Eastern Europe who were never punished for their crimes after the ostensible collapse of communism, would be leading the charge. The tyrannical origin of hate-speech laws was highlighted in detail in a 2011 report by the respected Hoover Institution. ‘The introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies,’ the paper on the ‘sordid origin of hate-speech laws’ explained. ‘Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.’ Acceptance of hate-speech schemes by what remains of the free world, the report added, could have ‘devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.’

Nonetheless, top unelected EU bureaucrats celebrated their latest push for censorship. ‘The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech,’ claimed Vera Jourová, the EU ‘Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality.’ ‘Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist [sic] use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.’ – The New American 

The notion that there is such a thing as ‘hate speech’ is a fundamentally anti-American concept. The founding fathers understood that the right thing is not always the popular thing. This is why they came up with checks and balances, to prevent what James Madison deemed the ‘tyranny of the majority.’

The founding fathers understood that citizens, in what is now referred to as ‘fly over country’, could be oppressed and held hostage by the whims of those in the big cities. Dr. Edwin J. Feulner explains this in an article for the Heritage Foundation entitled Preventing the Tyranny of the Majority.’  Feulner states:

People often refer to the United States as a democracy, but technically speaking, that’s not true. It’s a republic. Big deal, you say? If you care about your rights, it is. The Founding Fathers knew their history well, so they knew better than to establish the U.S. as a democracy. In a democracy, of course, the majority rules. That’s all well and good for the majority, but what about the minority? Don’t they have rights that deserve respect? Of course they do. Which is why a democracy won’t cut it. As the saying goes, a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. 

The Founders were determined to forestall the inherent dangers of what James Madison called ‘the tyranny of the majority.’ So they constructed something more lasting: a republic. Something with checks and balances. A system of government carefully balanced to safeguard the rights of both the majority and the minority.

In short, the Founders were looking out for the people in ‘flyover country’ long before there were airplanes to fly over them.Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could act as if many Americans don’t even exist. They could simply campaign in a small handful of states with big populations. Who would care what the people in Iowa think? Or Wyoming? Or any number of other states with smaller populations?The people in ‘flyover country’ don’t get enough attention as it is, but without the Electoral College, they’d be completely at the mercy of the majority. – The Heritage Foundation

America is under attack by enemies both foreign and domestic. We have members of the so-called ‘resistance’ attempting to overturn the 2016 election by any means necessary. We are seeing this desperation manifesting in a campaign for total control of the national narrative. Organizations like the ADL (Anti Defamation League) and the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) are largely leading the charge for censorship on the entire internet. These organizations specialize in political viewpoint discrimination and they defame anyone who goes outside the ideological group-think they and their donors would like imposed on us.

‘Hate speech’ and ‘speech codes’ are not intellectually valid concepts in a constitutional republic. They are anathema to the ideals of our Founding Fathers. If they were valid concepts, they wouldn’t need to use underhanded shady tactics in an attempt to impose them on society.

It seems YouTube is determined to destroy free speech on their platform and enforce artificial ideological group-think right before the 2020 election. However there is an alternative platform to YouTube, BitChute that is currently looking to add live-streaming capabilities to the platform. According to Reclaim The Net, BitChute has opened up crowdfunding so they can continue to be a viable alternative to YouTube:

A shift to introducing more live video could allow the platform to grow more rapidly, as many live video streamers are crying out for alternative platforms after a series of bad moderation practices on platforms such as Twitch.

BitChute is looking to raise almost $70,000 worth of ethereum to fund the new technology and suggests that it’ll go live in 2020. – Reclaim The Net

So, just before YouTube enacts its latest Terms of Service changes that allow the banning of channels that are not deemed ‘commercially viable’ the CEO of YouTube does an interview with 60 minutes preemptively pretending to be the victim. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. For more information on what these organizations are planning, please see the videos below:

See a spelling or grammar error? Let us know! Highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments