Freedom rocks, democracy sucks

If one of the aims of the liberal-Establishment is to deprive Europeans of their right to free speech, so it must become the aim of Europeans to overthrow the cheat-system that the liberal-Establishment likes to call 'democracy', writes Christopher Goff.

Recently, the liberal-Establishment has taken its war on free speech to a new and unprecedented level. The attacks on people's freedom have been growing, and in the absence of any legislation to protect the rights of UK citizens to say what they want – unlike in the US and where a persons right to say things they believe in is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution – it has become open season on the political right.

The popular social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit, are now firmly in the firing line of those who seek to deny people their freedom and who say that the social media platforms are being used to spread hateful views. A carefully coordinated campaign is now afoot to try and silence people under the guise of 'the responsibility not to allow the distribution of hateful views', and so as the popularity of the right-wing message has grown on the social media platforms so too has the left-wing campaign to try and silence this message.

One particular battleground in this war has become the highly popular Internet video-sharing platform, YouTube. If you don't know how YouTube works, it goes a bit like this: some kid in his or her bedroom in Milwaukee or wherever begins to upload videos to YouTube and which start to attract lots of views; after a certain threshold of views, YouTube then starts to reward aforesaid kid by paying him or her as a token of their appreciation for attracting so many users to their platform; and at which point YouTube also starts to insert adverts into either the uploaded videos themselves or into the web pages in which the videos are embedded, these of course being adverts which businesses and corporations have paid YouTube to show. This is broadly the system by which the social media platforms have become monetized, and needless to say those who seek to deny others their freedom really don't like it because the people who they accuse of spreading what they call 'hateful views' can actually get paid for doing it. Hence the campaign to close certain YouTube channels down altogether, or to bar some users from the aforesaid system of monetization by preventing the display of adverts on certain channels.

A number of other Internet battlegrounds have also emerged in the war between the proponents of free speech and those who seek to deny it. First of all in the US, and then more recently in Europe, Twitter has been engaging in a concerted operation to ban right-wing users from its platform. On 15 November 2016, The Daily Caller, in an article titled 'Twitter Initiates Mass Purge of Prominent Alt-Right Accounts Following Trump Victory', explained how Twitter had conducted a mass purge of accounts associated with the alt-right movement in the US within just a week of Donald Trump winning the 2016 US Presidential Election, an exercise which included the deleting of the account of Richard Spencer, President and Director of the leading alt-right think-tank, the National Policy Institute. Not only did Twitter terminate Spencer's personal account, but it also suspended the National Policy Institute's official account as well as the one associated with its online magazine, the Radix Journal. The ban came into force the same day that Spencer was appearing on The Daily Show, a highly popular news satire and talk show in the US, and also on National Public Radio. Speaking to The Daily Caller, Spencer called the purge of Twitter accounts "corporate Stalinism".

In the early stages of Twitter's purge of right-wing accounts I think the motivation for doing so was largely one of the unease felt amongst many of Twitter's left-leaning employee's at exactly what kind of beast they had managed to unleash, in as much as during campaigning for the 2016 US Presidential Election Twitter had managed to become a seismically important vehicle for social change by giving a voice to people on the political right and whose opinions had previously been heavily censored. BuzzFeed News Reporter, Charlie Warzel, wrote of the influence of Twitter in the 2016 US Presidential Election in an article of his titled 'Facebook and Twitter Didn't Fail Us This Election', and which appeared on the BuzzFeed website on 11 November 2016:–

"As a megaphone for political discourse, Twitter was vital to the campaign of President-elect Donald Trump, who used 140 character missives to bypass the press, rake in earned media, program cable news talking points and rally supporters. The result was the empowerment of the insurgent political movement of the alt-right who, through a co-ordinated effort of trolling and online organization, drove enthusiasm and momentum against the establishment and for Trump".

And in Warzel's highly informed analysis of the role played by social media in getting Donald Trump elected, he explained just how well the likes of Facebook and Twitter had lived up to their billing as important vehicles for social change:–

"Throughout the fifteen-month election slog, Facebook, Twitter and the social platforms we live on functioned exactly as designed – rapidly disseminating information, providing a real-time look into the pulse of the nation. Throughout the cycle and almost without exception they were reflective of the national mood and elevated a political movement by giving voice to a previously unheard constituency – just as the [social media] companies had hoped they would. Argument, opinion, ideology – all these things were amplified widely and powerfully across Twitter, Facebook and places like Reddit. In the end, these platforms worked exactly as their founders intended – just on behalf of a group they didn’t see coming with views that many who worked on their development are now struggling to come to terms with".

However, during the most recent phase of Twitter's purge of right-wing accounts I think a different dynamic has been at work, and this being one where the organization has come under intense pressure from outside sources to censor certain opinions. Both in the US and all across Europe, the liberal-Establishment has been working tirelessly to try and bring the social media platforms to heel, including in Britain.

On 14 March 2017, the BBC News website, in a story titled 'Facebook, Twitter and Google Grilled by MPs Over Hate Speech', reported how senior executives from the three aforementioned companies had appeared before a Home Affairs Select Committee to receive a dressing-down for not doing enough to silence those people with highly contrarian right-wing views and who have been exploiting the social media platforms so well. The Labour MP, Chuka Umunna, focused his questioning on the activities of Google-owned YouTube and whom he accused of making money from "videos peddling hate", while fellow committee member and Labour MP, David Winnick, described YouTube's system of monetization which I explained earlier in this article as "commercial prostitution". Criticism of Twitter was left to the Chairwoman of the committee, Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who related a story to the three senior executives of how she had personally reported a user who had posted what she described as a "series of racist, vile and violent attacks" against political figures such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, but who had not been banned from the platform. She added: "Surely when you manage to have such a good reputation with advertisers for targeting content and for doing all kinds of sophisticated things with your platforms, you should be able to do a better job in order to be able to keep your users safe online and deal with this type of hate speech". My own personal view on this matter is one that can best be explained by saying that if I was Chancellor of Germany or Mayor of London, well then I would expect to be on the receiving end of a lot of deeply unpleasant remarks because it is something which invariably comes with the job.

The work of the Home Affairs Select Committee seems to be paying dividends for Britain's liberal-Establishment. On 18 December 2017, the BBC News website ran a story in which it was reported how Twitter had made the decision to widen its definition of what it terms 'hateful and harmful behaviour', a move which the company followed up with by the introduction of a new and stricter set of rules governing what users can and can't post on its platform. A spokeswoman for the company was reported as saying the following: "If an account's profile information includes a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incites fear, or reduces someone to less than human, it will be permanently suspended". Of this statement though, I must confess to not really understanding what the phrase "reduces someone to less than human" actually means, but I guess that is the idea of it – it's not that difficult to make it mean pretty much anything you want.

Following the introduction of its new rules, Twitter wasted no time in suspending a number of accounts associated with the UK-based far-right group Britain First, this being the group whose Twitter posts had sometime earlier been re-tweeted by none other than US President Donald Trump, much to the consternation that is of some of the most senior members of Britain's liberal-Establishment, including Prime Minister Theresa May. And through the same report on the BBC News website (18 December 2017), we learned how Twitter had suspended both the personal accounts of Britain First leader, Paul Golding, and deputy leader, Jayda Fransen, as well as the group's official Twitter account. In consequence, the three posts made by Jayda Fransen and which had sometime later been re-tweeted by Donald Trump also disappeared from the US President's own Twitter feed. Interestingly though, and in contrast to Twitter's decision to ban Britain First from its platform, Facebook decided not to follow suit when many expected they would, and the Britain First Facebook page is still online as I write this.

The decision by Facebook not to ban Britain First from its platform is likely to have been one to have got the likes of Chairwoman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Yvette Cooper, hopping mad. Astonishingly, Britain First has almost 2 million Facebook likes, a figure which far exceeds the number of Facebook likes for both the Conservative (650,000 Facebook likes) and Labour Party (1 million Facebook likes) combined. One could muse that if Members of Parliament were selected on the basis of their party's popularity on the social media platforms, well then we could expect to see a sizeable smattering of Britain First MPs sitting in the House of Commons. But, and on second reflection, this rather glib remark does have some important meaning, in so far as Britain's most popular political party on the social media platforms has never actually made any impact whatsoever in the context of electoral politics. And why not? Well, here's your answer: It is because the system of party-politicking that we have in the UK and which goes by the name of 'democracy' is a cheat and a fraud, and something that denies people with what some might term 'far-right' views a fair shot at the political process. In other words, the political process is fixed in the UK. Indeed, this giant fraud which goes by the name of 'democracy' can be found existing right across the Western Hemisphere, and it is the cheat-system under which political parties exactly like Britain First are routinely denied a fair crack at the polls. And as if to reinforce this point, on 2 November 2017 Britain First was statutorily de-registered as a political party in the UK by The Electoral Commission after becoming personae non gratae on account of its use of the 'Remember Lee Rigby' slogan during elections. The liberal-Establishment didn't like that.

And so we have arrived at consideration of that giant fraud ... that cheat-system ... that death cult for Europeans ... and that sinister synthesis of communism and capitalism which goes by the name of 'democracy'. Democracy: the fraud to beat all frauds. Whether Labour, Liberal or Tory, it is the liberal-Establishment that always wins, and in part through the routine denial of free speech to those on the political right.

In the first part of his seminal The Way Ahead series, Colin Jordan made the following observations on democracy:-

"Democracy is … the colossal confidence trick of the century. Furthermore, democracy … has been embellished by its manipulators into something far more than just a method of government in order to provide maximum power, profit and protection for those manipulators. It has in interpretation been turned into a whole creed concerned with a multiracial, egalitarian society".

Jordan's withering attack on democracy continues:-

"What it does, more than what in some respects it claims to stand for, provides the most accurate definition of the democracy afflicting us. The results of democracy in Britain today are a teaching profession and educational system [Colin Jordan was by profession a secondary school teacher, Ed.] which turns out a brainwashed, anarchic, egocentric, ideal-lacking, crudely materialistic, drug-taking younger generation addicted to a typifying din of decadence known as 'pop'. Adults are taken care of to similar effect by the mind-controlling media, acting in conjunction with the propaganda and practices of the democratic political parties. The overall effect of this, in a crime-ravaged, run down vestige of a former world power and vast empire, is a British public which offers no effective resistance to being intruded on and ousted by immigrants; subjected to an ever-extending alien control of British affairs from within and without; and restricted by more and more measures to prevent and penalize opposition to this alienation of their homeland".

There is no beating democracy; it is something which can only be destroyed. The great difficulty with this aim though is that democracy has in every way imagineable become dictatorship in disguise, with all the trappings of a Police State, and where every effort to replace it – even the entirely non-violent political canvassing of the public in favour of a different system – is deemed 'subversion'. And if indeed democracy is what Colin Jordan called 'the colossal confidence trick of the century', well then the task of overthrowing it and replacing it with something else is as equally colossal. Such is the deceit, the deprivation and the degeneration of democracy, one can be forgiven for thinking that the job of destroying it might in this modern age be an impossible one. But in spite of the enormity of the task ahead, it should nevertheless be the duty of nationalists to try and achieve this aim because there are at least unquestionably positive lessons that each of us can learn from making the effort. And lets face it, no-one is going to do it for us.

Copyright © Christopher Goff
Tag: Freedom
Uploaded: 8 January, 2018.