Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): ❖ The biggest impediment to free speech is people’s belief that they have it. Not censorship. Not refusal to platform critical voices. No…
The biggest impediment to free speech is people’s belief that they have it. Not censorship. Not refusal to platform critical voices. Not the war on journalism. It’s the fact that most people are propagandized into saying what the powerful want them to say, and don’t know it.
What makes our dilemma so historically unique is that we live under an empire which makes extensive use of the post-Bernays science of mass-scale psychological manipulation to trick its subjects into believing that they are thinking, speaking, and gathering information freely. In this way our rulers suppress any revolution long before it starts, not by making people’s lives better, nor by violent repression, but by manipulating people into thinking there’s nothing to revolt against, because they have no rulers and they are already free.
In our civilization most people are thinking, speaking, gathering information, working, shopping, moving and voting exactly as our rulers want them to, because these mass-scale psychological conditioning systems have been imposed to keep human behavior aligned with the empire. We are trained to believe we are free while behaving exactly how our rulers want us to behave, and to look down on other nations and shake our heads at how unfree their people are.
What the average mainstream partisan really means when they say they want “free speech” is they want to be able to regurgitate the power-serving narratives that were put in their mind by the powerful. That’s not free speech, it’s deeply enslaved speech. But they can’t see it. By design.
We live in a society with something much worse than censorship: we live in a society where I can say whatever I want, but other people disagree with me!
Obviously, this isn't because I'm wrong, or my opinions are debatable. Clearly it must be because everybody is too stupid to see the truth, and they're easily tricked by my ideological opponents, who are liars and who don't actually believe anything they claim to believe.
The ideal society would be one where everybody was totally free to agree with me and my opinions, and all other opinions and viewpoints were recognized as being incorrect!
The article doesn't say that at all. It's an analysis of the influence of corporate propaganda on the exercise of free speech, and how that influence is more powerful than censorship attempts, as it creates a narrative matrix in which true challenges to the status quo are drowned out by the weight of the propaganda.
There's no place where the author argues for censorship. Rather they argue that censorship holds little weight in comparison to corporate propaganda when it comes to constructing a political narrative. This is arguably true, and an interesting debate.
I think you need to go back and actually read the article instead of commenting on the headline.
I'm just reading between the lines. I did skim a bit, but I didn't miss much.
The culture war is a psyop? By who? Are Biden and Trump in cahoots? Is Trump much, much, much smarter than he seems? Or are they both puppets? And if so, of whom? Don't tell me it's a big conspiracy of ((International financiers)) or something...
The culture war is just tribalism and populism in a new medium. It's not a fucking conspiracy by a shadowy elite, it's mobs getting worked up and then politicians pandering.
Again, the implicit suggestion is: the reason people don't agree with the author about shit is because they're being tricked. I agree it's frustrating that polarization has made American politics stupid as shit, but it doesn't take a corporate conspiracy to make people behave stupidly: it comes to us very naturally.