How well does censorship work?

It was nearly midnight on the 3rd of April, 1917.

“The crowd, most of whom had never previously seen Lenin, started to push towards the building. The train rumbled to the side of the platform. He had arrived. After a decade abroad Lenin stepped down from the carriage onto Russian Soil.” (Robert Service, Lenin).

Censorship will work this time though, I swear!

Remember World War 2? Of course you don’t, it never happened, it couldn’t have, censorship works so well that absolutely nothing of interest at all happened between 1933 and 1945. Nobody named Hitler ever came to power, no Third Reich ever occurred (at least not until PewDiePie gives the signal). God censorship is awesome! So effective..

American Psycho (still to this day is ‘supposed’ to be sold in shrink wrap in Australia), Lolita, Anarchist Cookbook, The Bible. None of these books are circulating at all, American Psycho and Lolita were never adapted into brilliant movies, The Bible is not available anywhere. I do not have copies of any of these books on my bookshelves, stop lying, you have never read any of them. These were all censored, thus they never reentered circulation. They never moved around during the censorship period

But seriously…
Actions begin as ideas, what we create originates from thought. The nuclear bomb was a thought; the Third Reich was a thought; the the genocides in Soviet Russia were a thought. All these ideas and ideologies become what occurred, Lolita was developed through Vladimir Nabokov’s mental process, if anything it was the outrage and censorship that turned his work into what it became – first a brilliant Kubrick masterpiece, then an atrocious remake…

Ideas cannot be combated with material force. Do you want to defeat a political idea? Challenge it, defeat it in the public square on an even field. Do you want to discredit someones movement? Challenge it.

What happens when you “silence” an opponent? You generate further interest.

What happens when you “de-platform” your enemy? They create a new platform, (how moronic are these Silicon Valley leeches?).

What happens when you try to cram views down the throats of the public? Your company falls apart slowly, your “journalists” have to learn to code.

What happens when the socialists become the middle-class, then ceaselessly mock the working-class of which they pretend to support? They revolt against you in droves, you are now the Tsar and they are the bitter revolutionaries. This is what happens when they only attention you pay to history is a fallacious one centred around economics.

Why do I call them fake Marxists?
An overwhelming amount of them display no understanding of Marx’s work at all, and clearly they know nought at all about the history of communism. They have cheer-picked references, they most likely acquired their knowledge from Wikipedia if we are to be honest. Karl Marx himself detested censorship, if censorship worked then Lenin would have never taken power – as Alain de Benoist says: without Marx, no Lenin.

I ask you this.
If an idea is truly terrible, then why would one need to censor it? If it is a stupid idea it should die on merit alone. Or maybe those who are calling for censorship believe themselves to be of “superior” intelligence, they are looking down on the masses from their matchstick tower, swaying in the wind – their fall is imminent and our guillotine is ready.

What is populism?
To be a populist means that you are espousing the wishes of the public, you are promoting policies favorable with the general public. Anti-mass-immigration sentiments are populist, why? Because the general public is opposed to it for a variety of reasons – not just “racism”, indeed, early Marxist’s were opposed due to the negative impact on on employment. Yet, populism is used as a pejorative, why? The public is meant to decide, yet elites attack people like Salvini as populists, Le Pen as a populist – all in a pejorative manner. And so, why?

Because, what the majority of a population wants is negative, those above know better… By knowing better I mean that they know what is better for their bank balance. Thus, anything that maintains the public’s desire against X must be censored, you are not allowed to know anything that fuels opposition. You are not allowed to have a say in your countries property and resources being sold off; you are not allowed to have a say in who comes into your country; on what is taught in schools; on who gets housing when in need – “do we give it to the single mother? The veteran? No, the migrant.”

But then, someone who is in the public eye speaks their mind. Someone else starts to speak out against what is occurring on what is supposed to be a public platform. And so those who are invested in what is occurring for monetary or egotistic means (“oh how wonderful I am, listen to me and my virtue! I am so important!” “You said there are plenty of empty houses here for refugees, how many will you be taking in to your various mansions and apartments?” “Oh, I meant empty houses in working-class areas away from my gated community..”) must now attack that person who speaks out with good intentions, who wishes to inform the public about what is occurring.

They do not attack the actual statements of these individuals, they attack what they say for its “moral” content. This is to ignore reality, this is utopian. Life is full of choices between options that we do not wish to choose from. Life is not all rainbows and sunshine.

We cannot ignore reality. Just as we all in our individual lives must make tough and painful choices, sacrifices, heart breaking decisions – we must also as nations make decisions which seem harsh, like focusing on our own country while letting other nations develop independently at their own rate. There is a difference between helping out a friendly nation after a disaster and manipulation a nation for capitalist overlords: “we come bearing gifts like democracy and sexual liberation.” “Uhhh, no thanks.” “Okay, we will replace you with another leader and take then take your resources.”

Anyway, what monster would openly speak out against the direction our society is heading in? What sort of evil villain would criticise egalitarianism, Marxism, capitalism, gender studies? What sort of horrible person would say Christianity is decadent nonsense, that it blatantly plagiarises thousands of years of mythology, and that it is entirely incompatible with the European Dasein?





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s