Of Coordinated Narratives and Cultivated Mass Delusional Hysteria: Seeing the Game and Knowing the Coming End Game

 

It is well past time to bring this one out again:

As liberty of thought is absolute, so is liberty of speech, which is “inseparable” from liberty of thought. Liberty of speech, moreover, is essential not only for its own sake but for the sake of truth, which requires absolute liberty for the utterance of unpopular and even demonstrably false opinions. Indeed, false or unpopular opinions are so important to truth that they should be encouraged and disseminated by “devil’s advocates” if necessary, for only by the “collision of adverse opinions” can the most certain of truths survive as live truth rather than “dead dogma.”Page 78

Of course, the camel’s nose is far into the tent by now and progressive “dead dogma” must play second fiddle to real totalitarian advances – both directly (overtly and via bad faith “governance”) and by proxy. Unfortunately, most are either numb to it already but some continue to rationalize each cut to already wounded liberties as necessary and/or acceptable. Few see the game … but once it is seen, it is seen everywhere. This may have been discussed elsewhere on R> this week but, for the benefit of my little agenda, I will direct you to this wonderful nine minutes of insight and wisdom:

Sussing Strange, Sudden, Suspicious, Sinister Synchronization

https://youtu.be/GpqC1cb-RmU

The direct message in there about the (no longer hidden) coordinated and choreographed messaging by those who rule us is important but, if you have stayed current on my recent posts and my agenda, you will probably guess that it is the theme about “patterns all around you” and once you’ve seen it, it is “impossible to unsee it” that I think is most critical. (NOTE TO SELF: Find time this weekend to transcribe that video.) Unfortunately, it becomes a rather tortured existence to “see the games” so clearly while others don’t … or just refuse to. To wit…

The chill in the air has become noticeably more distinct since the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election. From the most closeted (or, at least, the least self-aware) elitist authoritarians in obscure comment sections on sort-of-center-right-ish online communities to prominent American corporate entities, the ease with which the “liberty of speech” and thus, all liberty, is brushed aside these days should be of maximum embarrassment from sea to shining sea. Regarding the latter, the most recent example to cross my laptop screen is this:

Cancel Culture Comes to Banking

This past November, Missouri’s conservative Defense of Liberty PAC scheduled a high-profile event featuring a speech by Donald Trump, Jr. On November 9, however, WePay—a JPMorgan Chase subsidiary that provided the payment services for the event—announced the termination of those services. WePay accused the organization of violating its policy against promotion of “hate, violence, racial intolerance, terrorism, the financial exploitation of a crime, or items or activities that encourage, promote facilitate or instruct others regarding the same.” Although WePay eventually reversed its decision, the organization had to cancel the speech. …

Today’s “cancel culture” in banking doubles down on the Obama administration’s infamous Operation Choke Point initiative. Pointing to the “reputational risk” of certain industries such as payday lenders, firearms dealers and purveyors of “racist materials,” regulators leaned on banks to “choke off” the financial air those industries breathed. Not coincidentally, controversial industries and organizations favored by the Left, such as abortion clinics or sellers of communist propaganda, were not included on the administration’s target list. …

It is naïve to expect these bans will not expand beyond the most egregious groups to many others.

But this is nothing new, remember just over a year ago?

DISPATCHES FROM FORBES’ ‘CHIEF CONTENT OFFICER AND EDITOR’: Let it be known to the business world: Hire any of Trump’s fellow fabulists above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie. We’re going to scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we’d approach a Trump tweet. Want to ensure the world’s biggest business media brand approaches you as a potential funnel of disinformation? Then hire away.

Has Forbes felt the need to put out any statements with respect to the glaring (and near-daily) intellectual dishonesty vomited from the current administration? An answer in the negative only bolsters my case that they are little more than happy fluffers for the current anti-liberty crusaders. (I might have an ounce of respect for them and many other make-no-waves corporations today if they waited to cave in until the iron heel was at least on their throat. But alas…)

Add to the mix the career threats to lawyers (and their firms) for even thinking of taking a Trump case, the overt silencing by Big Tech when they took advantage of Jan. 6 to kick their agenda into high gear, and so much more that has just silently flowed under the bridge since then … to the numbed silence of We the People … and it becomes very hard to get too exercised by a partial victory with SCOTUS this week on specific mandates. This court insisted on demonstrating to us the very same day that five-ninths of its members are complete morons. Or worse.

It is worth paraphrasing from above: It is naïve to expect [such curtailments to liberties] will not expand beyond [those you seem willing to sacrifice] to many others.

And, remember, [crap] flows downhill.

Into the abyss…

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 14 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    That argues well for the formation of parallel systems (banking, entertainment news, publishing,  technology, medicine, Red States &  cities to as great a degree possible. 

     

    • #1
  2. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I agree with much of this post.

    I do not think that Gertrude Himmelfarb is correct in the opening quote, as I do not believe that liberty of speech is absolute.  Can you think of any proper exceptions?

    • #2
  3. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I agree with much of this post.

    I do not think that Gertrude Himmelfarb is correct in the opening quote, as I do not believe that liberty of speech is absolute. Can you think of any proper exceptions?

    I’m inclined to agree, but the problem is that, once we concede it’s not absolute, it opens the door to subjective line-drawing based on ideology.  It may be possible to “ wall off” certain forms of “speech” as subject to censorship, such as pornography, but the list is not long.

    • #3
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Liberty of Political Speech should be near enough absolute. While I think we need better slander and liable laws, I should have the right to speak. 

     

    • #4
  5. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    WI Con (View Comment): That argues well for the formation of parallel systems (banking, entertainment news, publishing, technology, medicine, Red States & cities to as great a degree possible.

    Interesting subject. I agree

     

    • #5
  6. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I agree with much of this post.

    I do not think that Gertrude Himmelfarb is correct in the opening quote, as I do not believe that liberty of speech is absolute. Can you think of any proper exceptions?

    We have been over this ground before on this very same quote (among others). Since I will stand very close to my innate Himmelfarbianism and you are you, there is not much more to discuss. Unless, that is, you would like to provide a couple of instructive examples from the headlines over the last 15 months that you think should not fall under the absolute. Thanks.

    • #6
  7. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I agree with much of this post.

    I do not think that Gertrude Himmelfarb is correct in the opening quote, as I do not believe that liberty of speech is absolute. Can you think of any proper exceptions?

    I’m inclined to agree, but the problem is that, once we concede it’s not absolute, it opens the door to subjective line-drawing based on ideology. It may be possible to “ wall off” certain forms of “speech” as subject to censorship, such as pornography, but the list is not long.

    Using it as the standard to strive for, this liberty should never be subject to governmental whims and fancies (e.g., Executive Orders) or the heavier hands of unacknowledged proxies of a rogue government.

    • #7
  8. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    NOTICE: This Member post has been promoted to the Main Feed. Content may have been edited / corrected from the original without attribution by Ricochet.

    (Somewhere along the line it seems we – or I – stopped getting notifications about promotions. For what it’s worth, that is/was an important feature to at least one of us.)

    • #8
  9. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    re the Forbes announcement, I cancelled my subscription immediately after seeing this.

    • #9
  10. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    philo (View Comment):

    NOTICE: This Member post has been promoted to the Main Feed. Content may have been edited / corrected from the original without attribution by Ricochet.

    (Somewhere along the line it seems we – or I – stopped getting notifications about promotions. For what it’s worth, that is/was an important feature to at least one of us.)

    Oh yea that is long gone. 

    • #10
  11. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    A word to the wise should be sufficient ….

    • #11
  12. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    philo: …Cancel Culture Comes to Banking by Todd Zwicki

    I thought that name sounded familiar when I first saw it. For those of you interested in some educational reading on not so ancient American History this weekend, I highly recommend this from 2011:

    The Auto Bailout and the Rule of Law by Todd Zywicki

    I long ago deemed that one worthy of a heavily highlighted hard copy for my files. Someday it would be worth a post and a conversation in the right crowd. 

     

    • #12
  13. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    philo (View Comment):

    NOTICE: This Member post has been promoted to the Main Feed. Content may have been edited / corrected from the original without attribution by Ricochet.

    (Somewhere along the line it seems we – or I – stopped getting notifications about promotions. For what it’s worth, that is/was an important feature to at least one of us.)

    And, again, I really wish R> wouldn’t mess up the inserted video like this when they promote. 

    “Sussing”…you learn something new every day:

     

    • #13
  14. Flicker Inactive
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I agree with much of this post.

    I do not think that Gertrude Himmelfarb is correct in the opening quote, as I do not believe that liberty of speech is absolute. Can you think of any proper exceptions?

    This isn’t an all inclusive answer, but when I was a kid I was quite surprised to hear that lying wasn’t against the law.  When I questioned this, I was told “Do you really want a judge deciding what’s true and what’s not?”

    Now we see that SCOTUS associates have no handle on truth, outside of their own specialty I suppose.  But still they find they have the right to speak it.  So we should, too.

    • #14