In my recent article ‘Power Is An Illusion, Control Is A Facade' I outlined the realities behind power structures and how people dominate other people by conditioning them with false assumptions and misplaced fears. For example, many people make themselves easy to control by remaining dependent on governments during crisis events and emergencies; if you actually believe the government will protect you from any and all eventualities then why would you ever learn to protect and provide for yourself?
The infantization of a society makes citizens easy to dominate.
Another example would be instilling a fear of “standing out” among one's peers – Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of being seen as aberrant or in opposition to the “majority” and will seek to fit in, even when they fundamentally disagree. A ruling elite merely need to manufacture the assumption or impression that the “majority” of the population are in agreement with oppressive measures. Even if this is not the case, the perception of a majority can be used to control those people that would otherwise rebel.
Controlling a population is more about thought control or “perception management” than it is about direct force. Power is an illusion, no large group of people can be controlled by force alone; eventually, they will find a way to wear down the totalitarian system and destroy it. So, the people must be tricked into enslaving themselves and each other. The people must police the very prison they are trapped in, otherwise they could simply walk away anytime they wished. It's the only way a tyranny can survive in the long term.
The political left and the social justice cult have been particularly interested in the concept of thought control lately, or, at least, they are much more open about discussing their private obsessions these days. I have to say, their rhetoric in not at all surprising, but I think some analysis is needed to understand the root of their ideology and how they are able to rationalize their behavior.
I was watching an interview on MSNBC with an activist (fake journalist) by the name of Ben Collins who almost exclusively produces hit pieces and hatchet jobs on conservatives and the alternative media. His focus is generally on what he calls “disinformation” and “conspiracy theory”; in other words, his job is to identify what totalitarians would refer to as “wrong think”. The discussion centered on the social media website Parler and how it represents a “threat” to our “democracy”. You can see the interview for yourself HERE.
Collins is not all that interesting as an individual and he appears to be more of a mouthpiece than a thinker. His work is very similar to the SPLC's in terms of tone and lack of tangible arguments; it is basic low brow propaganda revolving around little to no evidence or facts (i.e. propaganda for stupid people as opposed to carefully crafted propaganda designed to trick smarter people). He often uses omission of important details that might provide the viewer or reader with a clearer understanding of the subject matter. That said, this specific interview fascinated me because of how transparent he was in his lies, and how honest he was (perhaps unwittingly) in his agenda.
The initial goal of MSNBC and other establishment outlets was obviously to try to spread disinformation on Parler. When Parler's traffic began to explode months ago I think the media's intent was to slow the bleeding from sites like Twitter and Facebook. They were unsuccessful.
Today, there is a deeper issue of thought control involved. Alternative tech sites are going to continue to grow and establishment tech sites are going to continue to shrink. Lackeys and hacks like Collins now have to use a different strategy – Painting more conservative platforms as “dangerous threats” to our society.
First, Collins employs the standard attack that social justice mobs were using to vote brigade the Parler App months ago. When Parler began to receive more widespread attention, leftists conjured false claims that the website was not “user friendly” and that private data was “easily hacked”. Collins then tries to frighten potential conservative users by mentioning that Parler “asks for a drivers license”; of course, what he fails to mention is that this is only when you are applying for a special verification badge. He also fails to bring up the fact that Twitter does the EXACT SAME THING when you apply for “Blue Checkmark” status, and even then, if you don't have the right politics Twitter is unlikely to give you verification anyway.
Already, Collins has exposed himself as a low credibility analyst; but here is where things get crazy…
As usual, identity politics enters the discussion as Parler is accused of being a haven for “racism”, but not real free speech. Now, I want to reiterate that “racism” and “hate speech” are typical thought control buzzwords of the political left. There is no such thing as “hate speech”, at least not in a constitutional sense. Free speech means you are allowed to say and think whatever you like as long as you are not making direct threats or spreading outright lies about a person to harm their reputation.
In a free society, you are allowed to not like a person because of their skin color or cultural differences. This is the cost of freedom; sometimes people are free to think in ways you disagree with or even abhor.
I abhor communists, but I actually prefer that they be free to make their insane arguments publicly; they only sabotage themselves. Leftists, on the other hand, do not believe in free speech, they believe in selective free speech, and this becomes evident as you watch the Collins interview.
Hate speech is code for “speech that we are allowed to censor”. Leftists view speech that hurts a person's feelings as being exactly the same as punching that same person in the face or threatening their life. It is a bizarre conflation that we would usually expect to see in the thinking of children, but in this case it is full grown adults acting as if their personal feelings are more important that our freedoms.
In order to disrupt speech that offends their tender emotions, leftists consistently misapply accusations of racism and hate speech as a tool to silence opposition. Everything is racist, according to these lunatics, therefore everything can be censored if they deem it necessary. And, of course, they have declared THEMSELVES the arbiters of what is racist and what is not, therefore they become the arbiters of who gets to speak and what social platforms are allowed to exist.
Collins then laments the idea that debates between conservatives and leftists will no longer be commonplace on websites like Facebook or Twitter because people are migrating to their own political bubbles. Again, what he doesn't mention is that conservatives and moderates are leaving Twitter and Facebook in droves because they are being censored or suspended from those sites on a regular basis. How can one have a fair debate on Twitter with a leftist when the leftist gets special treatment from the moderators? He has the option of flagging everything you say as “hate speech” or “dangerous speech” and having your arguments removed?
As I've noted in the past, private property rights do indeed apply to websites, and even though leftists don't believe in such rights, they will use the private property argument to defend Big Tech censorship. Of course, there is a difference between a megasite like Twitter and other smaller platforms; namely that Twitter and many Big Tech companies enjoy massive tax incentives and welfare from the government. Once there are billions of taxpayer dollars involved in the upkeep of a social media company, I don't think that their website qualifies anymore as “private property”.
Initially, big tech sites argued that they do not discriminate against users based on their politics, but of course the evidence shows this is a lie. The vast majority of users suspended or banned from Twitter are conservatives according to the data, and not because conservatives are more inclined to violate community guidelines.
Leftists and the MSNBC spin doctors want to keep all debate on the platforms THEY control, that way they can suppress the information they don't like and give biased advantage to the arguments they agree with. Anyone who is conservatives has to self-censor constantly to avoid suspension while leftists are allowed to say almost anything they want without repercussions. Big tech platforms pretend they are neutral ground when they are the utter opposite.
These are typical tactics of socialists/communists/Marxists/collectivists; they are not interested in prevailing in a debate based on facts and evidence. They are not interested in being right, they are only interested in WINNING, and they will use any means available to them to rig the fight in their favor.
Finally, Collins suggests that if conservatives are allowed to migrate onto platforms that do not suppress their viewpoints along with the evidence that supports those viewpoints then there is a danger that they will then find themselves at odds with the “real world” and this will “cause problems in society”.
And here is where we get to the very foundation of thought control – The notion that some thoughts and ideas are “dangerous” or “destructive” and that merely being allowed to talk about them in an open forum could cause conflicts and disruption to society as a whole. By extension, Collins is suggesting that it is not okay for people to have radically different viewpoints at all. So what is the solution? For everyone to think exactly the same within a narrow margin of error?
Yes, that is what the leftists and the establishment want and you can see the beginnings of their Utopia on Big Tech social media; a society in which all citizens are part of a hive mind, an endless echo chamber in which only collectivist ideals are acceptable. Sure, there will be debates, but they will be meaningless fodder.
You will be allowed to argue about which groups are more oppressed, but you will never be allowed to question the idea of the oppression Olympics and their validity. You will be allowed to debate which brand of socialism is most effective, but you will never be allowed to take a stand against socialism as a system. You will be allowed to criticize certain people based on their victim group status, but not others. If you are straight, white and male you won't be allowed to criticize anyone or anything ever, even if you're the smartest person in the room.
Collins claims to be worried that internet “echo chambers” will undermine the conservative relationship with reality. Not surprisingly, leftists with the most disturbed and disjointed relationship with reality and logic are trying to elevate themselves as the judge and jury of reality. The schizophrenics want to run the asylum and determine who is “sick”. I think not…
As I have noted in the past, the attacks on websites like Parler are not in and of themselves about Parler. Parler is a lightning rod right now, the leftist reaction to its existence needs to be analyzed and observed because their hypocrisy can be used against them. The leftist mind is collectivist in nature, and they think in terms of plantations; they do not like it when people move freely away from one of their plantations and start their own systems.
This is why they are so infuriated by Parler and sites like it. They see people as property of the collective, and not as individuals with free will that develop their own opinions based on the evidence and facts they collect. For the political left, it's all about who controls the environment.
Under communist regimes this chattel philosophy is taken to its natural end result; leftists will deny it to their last breath, but this is where we are headed if they get their way. In communist China after the invasion of Tibet a program of ethnic cleansing was instituted. Railroads were built to more easily relocate native Chinese in order to supplant the Tibetan population, and the Tibetans that remained were oppressed and brutalized. You might think that the Chinese would be happy to see the Tibetans leave on their own, but you would be wrong. Instead, the Chinese military set up snipers on the Nepalese border and began shooting any Tibetans trying to cross the mountains.
You see, collectivists, Marxists, leftists, whatever you want to call them, they want submission more than anything else. They want thought control. They want you to WANT to be a part of the hive, and if you don't then you must be punished or reeducated. You cannot walk away peacefully and live your own life, or start your own website.
Collectivists see any contrary ideals or principles or voices as a threat to their existence, and perhaps they are right. If you think about it, their ideology is so fragile that they have to silence or destroy any and all alternatives. The only way their cult can continue to survive is if people believe there are no other options. The moment people are presented with another choice, they will leave the abusive collective en masse.
Leftists are angry about Parler and they see the alternative media as “dangerous” because it IS dangerous; it's dangerous TO THEM and their dream of monopoly of thought.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.