The Substack Censorship Wars: Round 1
Dialogues with Censorship Bullies on Notes
Below you will find my skirmishes in The Substack Censorship Wars, starting with Round 1 from April 2023 after the launch of Notes. Round 2 occurred in December 2023 after the Substack founders endured another barrage of attacks for defending free speech and will be published separately.
Meet the virtue-signaling censorship bullies who view themselves as heroic vanquishers of phantom Nazis on behalf of the oppressed—all while exhibiting the very tactics and venomous hatred of said group. Not everyone I engaged with was a bully, admittedly, and one in Round 2 was even open-minded enough to reconsider his position, but most—having fallen for the alibi of tyrants—zealously assumed their roles as self-appointed hall monitors.
Round 1: April 2023
I wrote the following Note in response to Anne Helen Petersen’s plea to Hamish McKenzie expressing concerns about Substack’s moderation policy. Normally, I would avoid playing the identity card as it is usually a sign of a weak argument, but I made an exception in this case because I fell into two of the groups she was claiming to want to protect. That prompted a cascade of replies and subsequent exchanges as documented below.
When I restacked my response, I introduced it as follows:
“This is my response to the latest call for Substack to censor speech. I am tired of do-gooders demanding that authorities infringe on our rights and freedoms to protect people like … me. No thanks. I’ll take the freedom.”
MAA:
I am half-Jewish and had relatives at Auschwitz. I get cannonaded by Holocaust deniers in the comments (only a few at Substack but more virulent ones at other sites where my work is republished) every time I reference that period of history, some pretty vicious.
You know what I do? I ignore them and move on. I used to try to talk sense to them but realized they are too committed to their world view to engage in reasonable dialogue so stopped wasting my time.
As someone who has studied and written extensively about the period of history that made the Holocaust and other genocides possible, I emphatically feel the greatest threat to humanity is the acquiescence to censorship and the suffocation of free speech and free thought. A commitment to freedom demands a willingness to let others speak, whether or not we agree with them.
The solution to online harassment is not to stifle speech but for each of us to take individual responsibility for cultivating our own experience and developing resilience. There is no more powerful defense against other people’s hurtful words than cultivating one’s internal strength.
The solution to online harassment is not to stifle speech but for each of us to take individual responsibility for cultivating our own experience and developing resilience.
I will take a million cruel, stupid, and vicious comments from Holocaust deniers in defense of free speech, and I know Holocaust survivors and their relatives who 100% agree with this stance because it is our most important bulwark against tyranny.
I highly recommend reading the following two books to understand how totalitarianism progresses and why censorship is the most powerful tool in the tyrant’s toolkit:
1) They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933–45, by Milton Mayer (covered in my first Recommendations Roundup):
2) Defying Hitler, by Sebastian Haffner
Dustin Du Cane:
As the grandson of a concentration camp survivor I utterly disagree with your free speech absolutism. The gas chambers were born on the pages of Mein Kampf.
MAA:
In addition to reading They Thought They Were Free, Defying Hitler, and Ordinary Men, I highly recommend you watch Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav’s documentary series featuring interviews with Holocaust survivors and family members from around the world to understand why guarding free speech as if our lives depended on it is our best defense against the very scenario you fear.
Dustin Du Cane:
I read two of them. And plenty of others. Now will you be buying our book Putin’s War - Russian Genocide one of whose authors include Philip Blood, author of Hitlers Bandit Hunters and Birds of Prey (About the Lutfwaffe and the Holocaust).? And perhaps you should read up about how German anti-semitism was born in the 19th century and Bismarck’s role in it.
MAA:
It is curious that you don’t appear to have any concerns about the Azov Battalion being literal Nazis, as was widely reported in mainstream media up until February 2022.
As this 2015 article notes:
“Last February, when ethnic Russian rebels were closing in on the Ukrainian port of Mariupol, the New York Times rhapsodically described the heroes defending the city and indeed Western civilization—the courageous Azov battalion facing down barbarians at the gate. What the Times didn’t tell its readers was that these ‘heroes’ were Nazis, some of them even wearing Swastikas and SS symbols.”
Dustin Du Cane:
And you are a genocide apologist. Oh and I have raised my concerns about Azov. You can find them on my Substack.
Dustin Du Cane:
It’s curious that this book from another author from my publisher is on my desk. On a desk my grandpa translated Wagner after the war he spent in concentration camps. And you might want to read my article on the unacceptable Bandera in my Substack. But then again you think Azov, who you will find criticised in my notes and writing here, justifies the genocidal invasion.
Dustin Du Cane:
Also you pulled out Azov. Oh those white power nutters justify Russia’s genocide of Ukraine? True Colors.!Now that tells me enough. Genocide apologia.
Dustin Du Cane:
Lots of abuse of my position here and assumptions which in verbosity though not quality argue your position by strawmanning and exaggeration.
MAA:
Because I pointed out the factually correct history of the Azov Battalion’s Nazi roots—which you acknowledge—you called me a “genocide apologist”? And you are the one accusing me of “Lots of abuse of my position here and assumptions”? 🤔
I realize you haven’t read my work, so you wouldn’t know that my entire life is passionately devoted to exposing and stopping the mass murder of millions. I have written extensively about genocide and democide, Letter to a Holocaust Denier being but one example:
We ultimately both wish to save lives—we just have a very different conception of how to do that.
We ultimately both wish to save lives—we just have a very different conception of how to do that.
Dustin Du Cane:
Here’s your whatabout Azov. Oh and I think Bolton is a scumbag. If you think I’m a war-mongering neo-liberal that just shows how you’re limited in your American reveb dichotomy. East Europeans know that America bad does not mean Russia good or the other way round. Basically you think the world is a cowboy film and once you’ve chosen the black hats, the rest are white hats.
MAA:
Hey, we’re in agreement on Bolton.
“If you think I’m a war-mongering neo-liberal”
You are the one who keeps flinging out the ad homs, not me. I made no such presumption about you because I don’t see people through cartoonish labels like you have demonstrated you do.
“East Europeans know that America bad does not mean Russia good or the other way round. Basically you think the world is a cowboy film and once you’ve chosen the black hats, the rest are white hats.”
You are the King of Assumptions, Dustin. I never said “Russia good.” I side with the innocent people of every nation who are impaled on the egos of their leaders at the behest of their avaricious governments.
Dustin Du Cane:
No seriously how do you think that Mein Kampf didn’t abuse free speech? Or how Hitlers rants at his trial were a complete abuse of both free speech and the legal system? Fascists use free speech to get into power and then limit it because any speech is a threat. Words are just words. The good and the truth are not privileged in reception. PS this is what I consider light reading for relaxation (bought with an author discount). Don’t assume your opponent in a discussion doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
MAA:
Let me see if I can follow your reasoning: Because Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, eventually rose to power, and imposed censorship, authorities should preemptively impose censorship to avoid another Hitler rising up and enacting totalitarian edicts like censorship? Huh?
Surely, you understand that censorship is one of the cardinal traits of every totalitarian regime in history. As Milton Mayer writes in They Thought They Were Free:
“Free inquiry on a free platform is the only practice that distinguishes a free from a slave society.”
You appear to be advocating for adopting fascist tactics to … prevent the rise of another fascist regime? Do you not hear how illogical that sounds? And are you seriously saying it is more dangerous for an individual to have the right to free speech than it is for a government or other authority to suppress the freedom of its citizens?
You appear to be advocating for adopting fascist tactics to … prevent the rise of another fascist regime? Do you not hear how illogical that sounds? And are you seriously saying it is more dangerous for an individual to have the right to free speech than it is for a government or other authority to suppress the freedom of its citizens?
I don’t have time to continue chasing this circular logic so will just leave you with this excerpt from the United States Holocaust Museum entry on Nazi Propaganda and Censorship and hope you sincerely meditate on these words and how clamoring for the suppression of free speech (even speech you disagree with or fear) is aligned with the Third Reich’s approach:
The Nazis wanted Germans to support the Nazi dictatorship and believe in Nazi ideas. To accomplish this goal, they tried to control forms of communication through censorship and propaganda. This included control of newspapers, magazines, books, art, theater, music, movies, and radio.
How did the Nazis use censorship?
When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Even telling a joke about Hitler was considered treachery. People in Nazi Germany could not say or write whatever they wanted.
Examples of censorship under the Nazis included:
Closing down or taking over anti-Nazi newspapers;
Controlling what news appeared in newspapers, on the radio, and in newsreels;
Banning and burning books that the Nazis categorized as un-German;
Controlling what soldiers wrote home during World War II.
Dustin Du Cane:
What is your logic in arguing your point by the fact the Nazis used censorship? Sorry. That does not prove that absolute free speech is something to die for. Mein Kampf used free freedom. Don’t prove the sky is blue by stating that Washington DC is the IS capital. The Nazis also limited gun ownership. That does not mean the absolute right to gun ownership is good. And I’m deliberately provoking second amendment gun nuts here.
But seriously how does the Nazis using total censorship prove that absolute free speech is an absolute good? They used free speech to get to the point they could ban other ideas. But those other ideas failed in the 20s to stop the rise of Nazism.
This thread is full of persons telling me about Nazi censorship. Thank you, I dont need wiki on that subject and again it does not address the point that Mein Kampf led to the Holocaust, Mein Kampf used free speech. Give me an update example of a genocide that occurred BECAUSE of the banning of hate speech of the Mein Kampf kind. That would be proof. Not your reciting Cory Doctorow level pseudo-intellectual libertarian bro nonsense.
The Genocide convention bans genocide incitement. That includes in writing. Are you going to argue that this is an abuse of free speech?
Raphael Lemkin in 1944 literally defined genocide in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. He describes Nazi censorship laws. Then he wrote this.
MAA:
This is one of the saddest exchanges I’ve experienced as it is clear to me you have been so menticided that you are not only willing but eager to relinquish your most precious inalienable right—freedom of expression—in exchange for the illusion of safety.
The propagandists have made you so terrified of the monsters under the bed that you jump at the opportunity to proffer your liberty to the tyrants—and then champion the tyrants’ power to strip that right from others.
The propagandists have made you so terrified of the monsters under the bed that you jump at the opportunity to proffer your liberty to the tyrants—and then champion the tyrants’ power to strip that right from others.
In The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn delivers this urgent missive:
“We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more—we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure!”
Étienne de La Boétie captured this spirit of surrender in his 1553 work The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude:
“It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.”
But you might be more inclined to agree with the following quote:
“When I recognize a concept as correct, I not only have the duty to convey this to my fellow citizens, but moreover the duty to eliminate contrary interpretations.”
This aligns with your belief that speech you feel is incorrect, malicious, or even evil should be silenced while speech you feel is good should be permitted. Funnily enough, that’s exactly how Hitler felt. In fact, he’s the one who said that.
You asked for “an update[d] example of a genocide that occurred BECAUSE of the banning of hate speech of the Mein Kampf kind.” You seem to miss that when you empower a government or other authority to silence speech they define as “hateful,” “wrong,” or “dangerous,” totalitarian governments will censor the speech of dissidents attempting to expose their crimes under the guise of it being “hate speech.” The propagandists vilify dissenters as enemies of the State, and they are later targeted for elimination when it comes time to roll out the genocide.
I can give you a concrete example of how censorship incited genocide. To quote my first article:
“Everyone wonders how Hutus could have suddenly started axing their Tutsi neighbors to death after being inundated with waves of anti-Tutsi propaganda from Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines. Read Philip Gourevitch’s We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda.”
In the Rwandan genocide, all opposing media outlets were banned, and only one radio station was permitted to broadcast its literal incitement to genocide, even to the point of naming specific targets for community members to machete.
This is how totalitarian regimes operate: They ban opposition media, make certain forms of speech illegal, and cause people to self-censor out of fear of persecution, as Heinrich Hildebrandt describes in They Thought They Were Free:
“‘Everything was not regulated specifically, ever. It was not like that at all. Choices were left to the teacher’s discretion, within the ‘German spirit.’ That was all that was necessary; the teacher had only to be discreet. If he himself wondered at all whether anyone would object to a given book, he would be wise not to use it. This was a much more powerful form of intimidation, you see, than any fixed list of acceptable or unacceptable writings. The way it was done was, from the point of view of the regime, remarkably clever and effective. The teacher had to make the choices and risk the consequences; this made him all the more cautious.’”
This is why people who have come face to face with the brutality of tyranny throughout history understood they must guard our freedoms with every breath of their being.
Benjamin Franklin stated that “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” and Thomas Jefferson said, “There is no justification for taking away individuals’ freedom in the guise of public safety.”
They enshrined freedom of speech in the First Amendment for this very reason:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Your example of incitement to violence/genocide is a rare exclusion to First Amendment protections, so it is not germane to this discussion as it is already illegal.
John F. Kennedy honored the Founders’ fervent commitment to freedom in these words:
“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”
Tyrants, on the other hand, know very well that censorship is their primary tool for controlling the populace. As Stalin says:
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?”
You wrote, “That does not prove that absolute free speech is something to die for.”
Honestly, that is one of the most bloodcurdling statements I’ve ever read when you consider how many millions of people have sacrificed their lives to preserve that very right.
Before White Rose leader Hans Scholl laid his head in the guillotine after being sentenced for exercising free speech that exposed the crimes of the State, he cried out, “Long live freedom!”
His sister, Sophie Scholl, was also beheaded for this crime that same dark date of February 22, 1943. In her cell, the indictment sheet was found with a single word scribbled on the back: “Freedom!”
The Scholls and their fellow White Rose dissidents wrote in one of the leaflets they gave their lives to distribute:
“If the German nation is so corrupt and decadent in its innermost being that it is willing to surrender the greatest possession a man can own, a possession that elevates mankind above all other creatures, namely free will—if it is willing to surrender this without so much as raising a hand, rashly trusting a questionable lawful order of history; if it surrenders the freedom of mankind to intrude upon the wheel of history and subjugate it to his own rational decision; if Germans are so devoid of individuality that they have become an unthinking and cowardly mob—then, yes then they deserve their destruction.”
If you wish to learn more about why the White Rose and the most courageous individuals throughout history have chosen to defend our sacred right to free speech, you can read more in this piece:
The choice is simple: Cower in terror as the State manipulates you into believing individual freedom of speech is an expendable, abridgable right, or courageously resist the totalitarianists’ attempts to wrench that freedom from you.
I choose courage.
The choice is simple: Cower in terror as the State manipulates you into believing individual freedom of speech is an expendable, abridgable right, or courageously resist the totalitarianists’ attempts to wrench that freedom from you.
I choose courage.
Dustin Du Cane:
Menticided. That’s a new one from a COVID tankie.
MAA:
“COVID tankie”—thank you for the fun new slur to add to my trophy shelf, Dustin! 🏆
Since you expressed interest in menticide, you could benefit immensely from my 12-step recovery program.
Dustin Du Cane:
‘Think for yourself’ invariably means hoovering up the garbage rants of the inane and insane rather than engaging in critical thinking.
Still waiting for the logic behind: Nazis censored books therefor they did not abuse free speech with genocidal screeds to gain power.
MAA:
At least you’re honest enough to admit you don’t think for yourself, although your definition is inverted. That’s a step toward self-awareness.
As much as I’ve enjoyed this merry-go-round with you, Dustin, your habit of hurling ad hominem attacks, kafka traps, and Gish gallops at each of my substantive responses makes it evident you are unwilling to engage in a good-faith discussion.
I wish you peace and emancipation from mental slavery.
I will let Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Smith have the closing word since he articulated such a succinct response to your challenge:
Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Smith:
Bravo for rejecting the attempts of the totalitarians to try to protect us from Hitler by amassing the power held by Hitler. Hitler obtained consent of large swaths of the population by offering to protect the people from the chaos he helped manufacture. Even many Jews were led to believe only he and his officers could protect them from what was falsely portrayed as a hostile general population. So too today, the purpose of the agent provocateurs typing and recording hate is to misleading their targets into misinterpreting the world as hostile and intimidate the target population into surrender to the “protectors.”
Peter Nayland Kust joined the conversation next.
Peter Nayland Kust:
One does not “abuse” free speech. For that to happen, free speech would have to be a privilege rather than a fundamental right.
One does not “abuse” free speech. For that to happen, free speech would have to be a privilege rather than a fundamental right.
We have an inalienable right to speak freely, to speak and think as we will. This right is a gift to us from God. It does not flow from the benevolence either of Man or of Man’s government.
That does not make our speech or our thoughts intrinsically virtuous, or even require that we limit ourselves to virtuous speech and virtuous thoughts. Virtuous people will have virtuous thoughts overall, and evil people will have evil thoughts overall. Their speech will invariably follow their thoughts.
Can the denial of this God-given freedom ever be the result of a virtuous thought? No. There is no virtue in denying God. Nor can one use evil to accomplish a virtuous purpose.
Dustin Du Cane:
Of course one does. If I write that X should be killed then that is abuse. Simple example that you will attempt to special argument or syllogism out of by proving that my saying X should be killed is not free speech. It is. It’s also incitement. Limited by law. As Mein Kampf should have been and is in properly functioning democracies.
Peter Nayland Kust:
If you write X should be killed that is not abuse.
Your entire argument collapses thereafter.
Dustin Du Cane:
Do you know how words work? I’m engaged in an argument on Notes where I’m being told I should educate myself on the rise of Nazism and that the Nazis introduced censorship in reply to my contestation that free speech allowed Mein Kampf to be published which was the genesis of the Holocaust. I’m endlessly being told that the Nazis used censorship. How does that disprove that Mein Kampf was an expression of free speech. Or that it led to the Holocaust (with preludes in German academia and literature). The opponents of Nazism used their free speech to oppose Hitler’s rise. They failed. Free speech is not a panacea to fascism. In fact it is necessary for its rise. The fact that fascists then limit free speech means nothing here except that they recognise that ideas good and evil are dangerous. PS stop telling me free speech is good when Russian genocide in Ukraine is justified in the West under the guise of free speech.
MAA:
You have adopted the Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike practiced by war criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. You are using a potential threat to justify the curtailment of free speech because of the theoretical possibility that this free expression could lead to violence—all the while being oblivious to the fact that the government has tricked you into fearing freedom so you would volunteer for your own enslavement and thank them for it.
Peter Nayland Kust [replying to Dustin’s question]:
I do know how words work…and how they do not.
Words are not magic spells or incantations by which we can corrupt men’s souls. Words are not some dark and mysterious wizardry to be feared.
Words are but one small expression of ideas. Words are a means by which we share our thoughts. Words are neither more nor less than this.
We rightly prize freedom for words because we rightly prize ideas and thoughts. We prize that facility of Man which, in addition to the evil expressed in Mein Kampf or Putin’s 2021 ethnonationalist screed denying the right of the Ukrainian people to their own sovereignty, has also gifted us with the Declaration of Arbroath, the Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s “Letter From A Birmingham Jail.”
We rightly prize freedom for words because we rightly prize ideas and thoughts.
We do not need to fear fascist ideas of ethnonationalism, for we already have their rebuttal. We have that in Galatians 3:28, in Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”, in the words and work of William Wilberforce, and in countless other expressions and defenses of our universal humanity.
Your error lies in the false depiction of Mein Kampf as an “expression of free speech”. Hitler’s screed, much like Putin’s a century later, is simply speech, neither more nor less. Neither Hitler nor Putin invented antisemitism or ethnonationalism, but merely exploited that hatred which already existed within their audiences.
This is why censorship is always the tool of the authoritarian, and never used by the libertarian. In order to ensure their hatred remains undiluted, the authoritarian must work to prevent alternative thoughts from being shared. The libertarian has no such burden. The sharing of thoughts authoritarianism fears animates and informs libertarianism.
Thus the core question in a debate over censorship vs free speech is ever and always this: Will we be authoritarians or libertarians? Will we seek freedom for all, or power for a few, and oppression for the rest?
Myself, I am a libertarian. My desire is simply to live and die a free man.
Archaic Noise:
you of all people should know that censoring the nazis does not, in fact, make one as bad as the nazis
MAA:
a) Saying this is about “censoring the nazis” is a straw man argument that is demonstrably false. Show me the literal Nazis on Substack. Only one even comes close and appears to have been banned for spamming.
b) Censorship is the hallmark of every totalitarian regime (Nazis included) and is their primary tool for controlling the range of thought.
c) Even if there were literal Nazis here, allowing them to speak exposes them for who they are and gives others an opportunity to dismantle their arguments. Extremism thrives in darkness, where their ideas go unchallenged.
“The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.” —Tom Smothers
Archaic Noise:
you skipped right past the argument i made about nazis congregating to state that a) the nazis must not exist, b) censoring the nazis would make us just as bad, and c) that even if they did exist, it wouldn’t be a big deal. that’s really going to be your end point? that censorship of any kind is equivalent across the political spectrum?
that isn’t just a childish point, it’s outright and provably false. there’s demonstrable evidence to the contrary that states that when you allow nazis access to the public sphere, all they do is attract other fascists to their cause. there’s little to no evidence to suggest that belittling or disproving their points does anything to prevent them from organizing and congregating, unlike denying them access to the same playing field, which does exactly that. you said yourself that they’re too ensconced in their worldview to realize the error of their ways — so what, we give them free advertising space because of some faux-erudite attempt at eradicating censorship? complete rubbish. you know full well there’s nothing censorious about banning symbols of hatred.
“…To maintain a society of tolerance, the tolerant must be intolerant of intolerance” ~ Karl Popper
MAA:
I realize propagandists have gradually acclimated people to the idea that censorship can be a good thing under the right circumstances. That’s precisely what the Ministry of Truth and every totalitarian regime wants you to believe because then they define what is good/evil and truth/lies. They can call a lie the truth and the truth a lie and then censor accordingly, which is precisely what has been occurring the past three years—to catastrophic results.
I realize propagandists have gradually acclimated people to the idea that censorship can be a good thing under the right circumstances. That’s precisely what the Ministry of Truth and every totalitarian regime wants you to believe because then they define what is good/evil and truth/lies. They can call a lie the truth and the truth a lie and then censor accordingly, which is precisely what has been occurring the past three years—to catastrophic results.
Those who are familiar with history know censorship always leads to dark places—without exception.
This is why the ACLU, for example, chose to defend the KKK’s right to free speech in 2010. Even The Guardian supported that decision. The fact that such a principled stance is considered extremist these days shows how effective the authoritarians’ propaganda has been.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant for fallacious and hateful ideas. The reality that actual neo-Nazis are pariahs in society and are nearly as rare as leprechauns outside their echo chambers is proof of this.
We are adults, and everyone has the right to assess content and make determinations based on their own critical thinking, research, and vetting criteria. It saddens me when I see people not only willing but eager to outsource their thinking to others.
I don’t have time to continue back-and-forthing but do encourage you to read the books I recommended above if you want to understand how totalitarianism comes into being and how censorship is the first and most essential step in that journey into slavery.
I will close with a quote from ACLU-EM Executive Director Brenda Jones:
“Defending the rights of groups that the government tries to censor because of their viewpoints is at the heart of what the First Amendment and the ACLU stand for, even when the viewpoints are not popular. If we don’t protect the free speech rights of all, we risk having the government arbitrarily decide what is, or is not, acceptable speech.”
Claude:
While acknowledging your perspective on free speech and your personal approach to handling online harassment, it is vital to consider that individuals’ resilience and ability to ignore hateful or harmful comments may vary significantly. Factors such as personal experiences, background, and exposure to harassment play a role in shaping one’s coping mechanisms. Your half-Jewish ancestry does not do much, seeing as chances are you have passed as a white Christian woman your whole life. Online moderation, therefore, serves to protect those who may be more vulnerable to harassment or the negative effects of certain types of speech.
Striking a balance between free speech and maintaining a safe, inclusive online environment is essential. Online moderation need not equate to stifling free speech and free thought. Instead, it can function as a tool to ensure that public discourse remains civil, respectful, and diverse.
Moreover, cultivating internal strength is undoubtedly valuable but may not suffice to counteract the negative impacts of widespread harassment or hate speech online. A collective effort to encourage respectful discourse, paired with moderation systems prioritizing safety and inclusivity, can foster a more hospitable online space for all.
It is also crucial to recognize that some forms of speech, such as hate speech or incitement to violence, can have severe real-world consequences. In such cases, moderation can serve as a necessary measure to prevent harm and ensure public safety.
In conclusion, while your personal approach to handling online harassment is commendable, it is essential to contemplate the broader ramifications of unrestricted speech and the potential necessity for moderation in fostering a safe and inclusive online environment for everyone.
MAA:
I appreciate your measured response, Claude. As I noted in my original comment, I have been subjected to online harassment based on my ethnicity, being called “the Jewess” in vitriolic diatribes and repeatedly attacked for merely mentioning the Holocaust. Even if that weren’t the case, though, fostering a victim mentality and a culture of coddling does the very people you are trying to help a tremendous disservice, as
documents in The Coddling of the American Mind.If, instead of viewing themselves as victims, they adopted a mindset of resilience and triumph over adversity, they would feel empowered and confident rather than fragile and frightened. Recalibrating one’s mindset is the ultimate victory and enables them to walk over coals without feeling the heat.
If, instead of viewing themselves as victims, they adopted a mindset of resilience and triumph over adversity, they would feel empowered and confident rather than fragile and frightened. Recalibrating one’s mindset is the ultimate victory and enables them to walk over coals without feeling the heat.
Authorities, however, want us to think of ourselves as victims, because then we turn to them for solutions instead of resolving our problems ourselves—like asking them to censor content rather than taking responsibility for cultivating our own online experience.
Kevan Hudson:
100% agree. As someone who has been very active in the international human rights community for 30+ years I have met many inspiring people who have had terrible things done to them. Despite various forms of torture most human rights activists are amazingly positive and never play the victim. Sure, many have received treatment for their trauma but they refuse to let it define them. My friends in Asia and Africa are very much surprised by the strength of victimhood culture in North America. Life is full of happiness and pain.
Peter Nayland Kust [to Claude]:
“Your half-Jewish ancestry does not do much, seeing as chances are you have passed as a white Christian woman your whole life.”
Exactly what should the casual observer make of this bigoted and prejudicial language?
How is this not an exemplar of the “hate speech” you wish to see silenced and “moderated” into oblivion?
Should we then call for your silencing and suppression, to protect any who might not be able to handle such harassing speech?
Shall we censor you for your impolitic turn of a phrase?
Or shall we allow people the freedom to engage or disengage with your words as they see fit?
Moral Government:
I don’t want the government censorship. But, it’s not true that the best ideas win in the free marketplace of ideas. Most people are not capable of doing their own research and coming to the correct conclusion. We need voluntary societies to protect people from dangerous ideas.
MAA:
You mean fact-chokers, who are bankrolled by corporations and philanthropaths? 🤔
The only reason people don’t make better decisions is because noble liars, propagandists, corporations, and various authorities are intentionally curating narratives to obscure the truth and psychologically manipulate them.
The only reason people don’t make better decisions is because noble liars, propagandists, corporations, and various authorities are intentionally curating narratives to obscure the truth and psychologically manipulate them.
When ideas are freely exchanged without interference from dubious interests, the best ideas do absolutely triumph, as the history of science has shown. It is only when science became politicized and the voices of millions of ethical scientists and physicians of integrity were silenced that we wound up with the worst possible outcomes.
People need to embark on my 12-step recovery program for menticide, and then they would be more capable of thinking critically, independently, and freely.
Moral Government:
No, I don’t mean fact-checkers. And I know about how messed up our current media is. But that doesn’t mean that a free marketplace of ideas would get us to the truth either. The history of science and medicine is full of bad ideas like lobotomies.
MAA:
I agree with your point about the history of science and medicine being full of bad ideas like lobotomies, but as you can see, that practice was discredited because of Dr. Peter Breggin, who was the first to expose its dangers and who is now known as “the conscience of psychiatry” for helping to abolish that barbaric practice.
Today, Dr. Breggin is trying to expose the grave hazards associated with the COVID injections, but pharma-funded fact-chokers have smeared him and anyone else who dares to counter the narrative.
The minute you introduce an arbiter of truth, that arbiter takes on a godlike role and becomes responsible for adjudicating between truth and fact on behalf of the public. That power alone should terrify anyone, but combine that with the rampant corruption that occurs when such entities are funded by the very corporations and organizations that benefit financially from curating a particular narrative, and you wind up with the shitfuckery that has defined the past three years.
When you have complete transparency and distributed data analysis and research being conducted by as many people as possible around the world, you arrive at verifiable, evidence-based conclusions more rapidly. As long as there are not dubious entities impeding the flow of information and communication, tragic practices like lobotomies can be halted in their tracks by the likes of those
captures in this penetrating Note.Moral Government:
Ideally, lobotomies never would have happened beyond the experimental phase. Part of the problem is our overly openness to new ideas. We should trust tradition and be skeptical of the new until proven otherwise. I’m not advocating for government regulation or arbitration of truth. And an open and honest scientific community would be much better than what we have now. But most people don’t have the time, inclination or ability to keep with the intellectual community. So they need trusted sources of information and ideas.
MAA:
I think we’re in general agreement, except I would simply say those trusted sources establish themselves organically by consistently demonstrating quality work (again, see el gato’s Note) rather than some entity appointing them, which is what occurs when information is freely available. We saw that with the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of data warriors who rose to the challenge over the past three years and spent countless unpaid hours participating in this collaborative labor of love in pursuit of truth.
The cream always rises to the top as long as there aren’t artificial forces pressing it down and pouring spoiled milk on top.
The cream always rises to the top as long as there aren’t artificial forces pressing it down and pouring spoiled milk on top.
Moral Government:
A system can demonstrate competence in appointing good people by the results they get. When someone buys into a belief system, religious or secular, and put their trust in an institution like a church or mutual aid society, they take into account the lives of those who have done the same. We want to join the group that’s doing well and the longer the track record the better. That’s why we need a diverse set of voluntary communities, so we can let the natural experiment play out and see social evolution do it’s thing. The vast majority will always be followers and not free thinkers because that it how humans evolved to be. The key is to allow good institutions to exist so they can be followed safely.
MAA:
All institutions are corruptible, and the past three years has proven they are perhaps the gravest threat to humanity (the WHO, WEF, UN, CIA, FBI, etc.). Yuval Noah Harari has an extremely naïve faith that institutions will save us, all while simultaneously predicting the total biosurveillance totalitarianism the very institutions he is advising are busy implementing.
Moral Government:
When I say institution I mean any organization. The institution of the church or an insurance company, etc. I don’t mean the government controlled or funded institutions or the ones given government like control. Yes, they are all corruptible, and people should be able to withdraw support and membership and join another if they want. That’s the only way to put a check on corruption. We need organizations, preferably they would be good ones.
MAA:
How are we to ensure these organizations remain uncorrupted when their very existence depends on the contributions of philanthropaths with ulterior agendas?
How are we to ensure these organizations remain uncorrupted when their very existence depends on the contributions of philanthropaths with ulterior agendas?
Moral Government:
Ideally they would be funded by their members. But we should let a variety of finding mechanisms exist and see which ones get the best results. If an institution becomes corrupt people would hopefully leave it. Being funded by a single person maybe good or bad depending on their goals.
Noah Berlatsky:
I’m glad you’re able to just block and move on. sometimes when fascists build power, though, they engage in extensive targeted harassment, which can include death threats, doxxing, and actual violence. just blocking and treating it as an individual problem doesn’t really address these issues.
MAA:
Thank you, Noah. In case you haven’t noticed, the true fascists (convergence of corporations, governments, and organizations) have already centralized power. They are the ones calling for censorship of free speech because it is the only way for them to suppress damning information about their corruption and life-threatening actions being shared by dissidents. They are the true threat to humanity—not the handful of disgruntled misanthropes keyboard-warrioring in their mother’s basement.
The true fascists (convergence of corporations, governments, and organizations) have already centralized power. They are the ones calling for censorship of free speech because it is the only way for them to suppress damning information about their corruption and life-threatening actions being shared by dissidents. They are the true threat to humanity—not the handful of disgruntled misanthropes keyboard-warrioring in their mother’s basement.
Noah Berlatsky:
the real fascists right now are the republican party, which is a fascist movement. the right often uses the internet to organize stochastic terrorism aimed at leftists, marginalized people, and (especially most recently) children’s health clinics. Dismissing only fascist organizing is very dangerous; it’s quite effective, and harms many people.
Mr. Raven:
LOL, both parties are evil war mongering puppets of Wall St. Joe Biden as we type these type these words is drifting towards getting the U.S. empire into a global war with China, Russia, and Iran that would turn into WWIII with millions of casualties.
His justice department just had 4 African American radical socialist arrested for thought crimes. Real leftists have a material class analysis and focus on real serious problems like the state capitalist imperialism of the military industrial complex supported by both parties.
And yes I do know, I was an Earth First!, anti-war mutualist anarchist activist for two decades. I quit exactly because authoritarian Democrat partisans in favor of censorship started overrunning actual leftist spaces under the guise of woke. It started with Occupy and has only gotten a hundred times worse sense then.
Ro:
Please read more about speech and genocide. The Bosnian massacres and Rwanda are two examples of people being urged to violence by speech. SCOTUS also recognized the problem of speech to incite violence. There is a VERY well known problem of tolerating the intolerant and many liberal thinkers have argued that it's not valuing the right to speech to leave a field for speech that destroys freedom itself. Nor does an atmosphere of threats and violence create the conditions for free speech.
MAA:
Funny you should mention the Rwandan genocide as I used precisely that example elsewhere in this thread to demonstrate how censorship is used to advance a genocidal agenda. I referenced this in my first essay:
“Everyone wonders how Hutus could have suddenly started axing their Tutsi neighbors to death after being inundated with waves of anti-Tutsi propaganda from Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines. Read Philip Gourevitch’s We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda.”
Those who advocate for the abridgment of our right to free speech fail to understand that empowers the government to define what is permissible, which means it can criminalize any speech that threatens their hegemony, as has occurred in every totalitarian and genocidal regime in history. The instant the people relinquish their freedom of speech is the instant they become slaves.
Those who advocate for the abridgment of our right to free speech fail to understand that empowers the government to define what is permissible, which means it can criminalize any speech that threatens their hegemony, as has occurred in every totalitarian and genocidal regime in history. The instant the people relinquish their freedom of speech is the instant they become slaves.
Ro:
The Rwandan genocide was caused by hate speech, not by government censorship. Hate speech does cause genocides and violence. Internet platforms are not ‘the government’ nor is removing hate speech from internet platforms a cause of mass violence. Our system has never been one of free speech absolutism. This is not what the right to free speech has ever involved. Various types of harmful speech have been regulated by the government. And internet platforms are not the government in any case. Various media are clearly a conduit for the planning and production of extremist violence, and there is no obligation for the private owners of these forms of media to allow themselves to be used for speech which urges mass violence or even for misinformation.
MAA:
Incitement to violence and genocide is already illegal and is excluded from First Amendment protections, so that is not what is being debated here.
Individual businesses have the right to set their own policies regarding speech, which Substack has done along with empowering individuals to control their own experience through blocking and muting. This provides the protections you are advocating for without infringing on individuals’ rights to freedom of expression.
If you have any genuine examples of the planning of extremist violence on Substack, feel free to share those. If they violate the law regarding incitement of violence or genocide, then they would be banned per the existing legal framework.
Ro:
The first amendment does not cover private entities like substack. It is very challenging for a platform like substack, more challenging than first amendment protections, which can be pretty wide. This issue has been ongoing since the internet began. Content moderation has been an issue for every platform. Except for a few, like 4chan or 8chan, it has existed on almost every platform that is widely used by the public. However, because there is a faction in the US that is favorable to extremist ideas like Naziism, which is certainly a genocidal program, and because they will attract dollars, it appears substack is going to let various stormfront bona fide Nazi substacks to exist. This is indeed allowing the platform to become a venue for genocidal ideas. I am simply stating in clearly. People who favor mass violence, expulsions, and genocide will have substacks where they argue for ideas which will make arguments that promote these ideas. I would love to see an argument where allowing people with genocidal ideas an easy way to reach an audience is somehow preventing genocide? That seems to be your view. I think it is quite reasonable to disagree with this view, and you have simply provided no argument for it.
MAA:
I am only aware of one person on Substack who was spamming statements that fit your definition, and that person was rapidly banned.
I do appreciate your concerns but feel they are already being adequately addressed by existing laws and Substack’s policy of empowering community members to mute and block bad actors.
I realize you likely haven’t perused all of the comments in this thread, but I have already spent several thousand words discussing this matter and providing extensive examples elsewhere. I have been up for 22 hours and need to get to bed, so I will bid you a good evening and leave you with a comment by Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Smith as his response addresses your comments succinctly.
The following Academy of Ideas video and John Stuart Mill quotes were in my notes for the above exchange. I believe I posted them but failed to grab the Note links so will just include below since they are pertinent to the discussion:
In the introduction to his essay On Liberty, Mill writes:
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.… The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself … so long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong … from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals.… No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified.”
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
Because this piece focuses on exchanges with censorship bullies (and is already too long!), I did not include valuable contributions by free-speech defenders such as The Celtic Chameleon, Esprit de Voltaire (R. Kogon), and JWSPOONERMD as well as an additional Note from Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Smith so will include previews of those below:
Ready for More?
You’ll find Round 2 of the Substack Censorship Wars here:
Note: Inline links have been embedded for ease of reading. I have left mistakes intact for fidelity.
© Margaret Anna Alice, LLC
🙏 I Can’t Do This Without You 🙏
Only 2 percent of my readers are paid. By choosing to support me, YOU make it possible for me to do this meaningful work. Thank you with all of my being.
When you subscribe, you help me fight tyranny and stop democide while enjoying access to premium content like “rolling” interviews, podcasts, memes, Consequential Quotes, Behind the Scenes, and bonus articles. If you really want bang for your buck, get a group subscription and save 30%!
I especially want to thank those of you who have taken the time to write a private message to me when you subscribe. I read and cherish each note.
Thank you for being part of our karass. I look forward to accomplishing more mind-saving work together this year!
🤲 One-Time Support
After PayPal canceled me last year, my donations plummeted and I lost nearly all of my recurring donations. This is just one of the many ways the silencers try to hurt dissidents. Thank you for whatever you can give to help me fight back.
📚 Order Signed Copies of My Book
I offer bulk discounts on signed copies of my fairy tale The Vapor, the Hot Hat, & the Witches’ Potion. If you’re considering buying personalized copies for yourself or to give as gifts, please reply to this newsletter (or any of my emails) to place your order. You can also buy unsigned copies directly from Amazon.
Download the E-Book
Paid subscribers can download the beautifully typeset and illustrated e-book of my fairy tale, The Vapor, the Hot Hat, & the Witches’ Potion. It is equivalent to the paperback version (retails $12.99) and much prettier than the Kindle version (retails $5.99). Click here to access the downloadable PDF (the post will be unlocked once you subscribe).
📕 Poetry Anthology
A Doctor’s Despair (Paperback, Kindle)
Dr. David Cartland published an anthology of poems titled A Doctor’s Despair: An Anthology Including Poems by Dr Clare Craig, Matt Le Tissier & Doc Malik. The book features three of my poems, Mistakes Were NOT Made: An Anthem for Justice, Eulogy for the COVID Kapos, and You Cannot Break Us.
David writes in the Introduction:
“I was particularly inspired by the poem that was read by Tess Lawrie, ‘Mistakes Were NOT Made’ written by Margaret Anna Alice, a profound and deeply moving reflective poem around some of the illegitimacies of the Covid era and its emotional impact. Margaret Anna is joined by some other experienced poets in this anthology. You might spot their work, yet this collection of verse shows that neither literary genius nor knowledge of iambic pentameter is needed to artfully express the pain and frustration in our hearts during this time.”
Proceeds from the book will go to support legal defenses for doctors who have been targeted for speaking out. David notes:
“As you know, many medical professionals have been persecuted for speaking out during this time. This collection of poetic grievances shall be rightly used to raise funds to support legal defence of our names, careers, and livelihoods and for similar projects to counter the narrative that’s shown in the following pages.”
Below is the all-star list of contributors:
📚 Canary in a COVID World: How Propaganda & Censorship Changed Our World (Paperback, Kindle, Audiobook)
I am honored to have my work featured alongside that of thirty-three fellow thought leaders in the newly released book Canary in a COVID World: How Propaganda & Censorship Changed Our (My) World. Proceeds will be donated to: React19, Children’s Health Defense, and ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network).
To help boost search availability and rankings, please consider purchasing copies as well as rating and reviewing it (it has all five-star reviews as of the time of this writing). The description reads:
“The contributors to this collection of essays are courageous people.
“They are critical thinkers who are prepared to put everything on the line to speak their truth. They strive to alert us all to what COVID was, and what may lie ahead.
“They are community leaders. They are novelists, journalists, lawyers, judges, scientists, doctors, academics, politicians, researchers, vaccine-injured and data experts. Some shouted from the rooftops from the very beginning of the pandemic, others found their voices as the contradictions in public policy and health policy became undeniable.
“What unites them is that they have given those looking for answers, factual evidence. They have alleviated fear and given us hope. They have shown us all that if our opinions fall outside those deemed acceptable by mainstream media, we are not alone.
“The subject of COVID is often too sensitive to introduce into polite conversation. Battle lines are drawn and more often than not there’s no amount of data, facts or opinion that will change perspectives. However, we believe that once people understand that their opinions have been formed based on information that has been heavily censored and that most legacy media are now instruments of propaganda, they will be more inclined to entertain the possibility that all is not what it seems.
“The endeavour of this book is to bring thoughtful voices together to sing as one choir. The diversity of these voices that harmonise may allow others to hear the music. Over the last three years solo voices have too often been drowned out of the discourse.
“For once you see it, you can’t unsee it. You’ll understand the power of censorship and propaganda to conceal the lies and dishonesty that now underpin our societal foundations.”
Follow Canary in a COVID World on Substack and Twitter for chapter teasers and news about the book:
🛒 Spread the Words
If you would like to help propagate the message that Mistakes Were NOT Made, you will find a wide selection of products in my Mistakes Were NOT Made collection, including:
🗒 Join me on Substack Notes!
You can find my Notes here.
🐇 Follow Me on Social Media
I always alert my social media followers to new posts, so if your Substack notifications become disabled without your notice (as a number of my readers have reported), following me on other outlets will ensure you don’t miss anything.
📼 Subscribe to My Channels
Follow my channels if you’d like to be notified when I upload new videos.
Visit BioLink to find all of my social media accounts:
🌟 WARM GRATITUDE FOR THE RECS!
The single-most important driver for new readers joining my mailing list is Substack recommendations. I want to thank every one of you who feels enthusiastic enough about my Substack to recommend it, and I especially appreciate those of you who go the extra mile to write a blurb!
⏰ Wake-up Toolkit
If you’re new to my Substack, my Wake-up Toolkit is a great way to get acquainted with my content. I’ve organized my articles by topic for easy reference and use in your red-pilling efforts as needed. I will update this to reflect new content as it is published.
🎓 IPAK-EDU
Click here to see upcoming IPAK-EDU courses, and please use my affiliate code (MAA1IPAK) to register for any you decide to take.
If you feel the work I am doing is worthwhile and want to make it possible for me to spend more time writing and researching in my aim to unmask totalitarianism and awaken the sleeping before tyranny triumphs, please consider supporting me, whether it be by subscribing; buying me a Ko-fi or coffee; or sharing my posts. I thank you for reading, thinking, sharing, and supporting my work in whichever ways you choose.
Prefer to donate crypto? You can send Bitcoin using the following code:
bc1ql706rr7vj7c7nzxnqfp9rldw8ddfc20f492jk0
Since crypto transfers are anonymized, I won’t know about your donation. Please drop me an email by responding to any of my newsletters if you’d like to alert me to your generous gift.
Remember, a subscription to Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass makes for an intellectually adventurous gift down the rabbit-hole!
Note: Purchasing any items using Amazon affiliate links included in my content will further support my efforts to unmask tyranny.
MAA,
This needs to be required reading for today’s high school students. Your levelheaded replies to those that espouse freedom of speech as long as it’s speech they approve of are masterful! I was taught young by a Korean War, Cuba, and Vietnam combat Marine that our freedom of speech is precious. He saw firsthand how wavering from approved speech is treated by oppressive regimes. Thankfully, my best view of it was seen while patrolling the border wall between East and West Germany.
I’m a 60 years old 7th generation Texan, so in my lifetime I’ve been exposed to some of the most vile and hateful speech imaginable. In high school, that hate was most visible on some Thursday evenings at the corner of 3rd and Main. That is when and where a group of our local KKK members handed out flyers and recruited new members. My brother, best friend, and me would drive past a few times a year showering their hate with eggs. It was a guarantee that at school on Friday at least one of us was going to be in a fight with some of the guys we had egged; but that’s okay, we were standing for people too afraid to stand.
I believe in freedom of speech with no exclusions beyond incitement or fighting words, but those limitations should be severely restricted. Egging the klan back then wasn’t our attempt to halt their speech, it was merely a response. The yellow they wore home was a bonus.
MAA, my 1st thought on reading this was WHY? Why did you continue to engage and why did you decide to share this with us. What were you hoping to get from your readers and what were you expecting from the people you were engaged with, in particular Dustin Du Cane.???
I read this last night before going to bed and it percolated in my subconscious through the night. I woke up with this subject still on my mind.
Your conversation with Mr. Du Cane is a microcosm (one to one) of what the whole world is having, and probably always has: Who is right and who is wrong? Are both right, or are both wrong? Are there other points of view that have been left out that are equally valid or invalid, but many adhere to?
Whether Mein Kampf abused free speech or should be censored is a side issue to the discussion because such books and lines of thought are published all the time and don't rise to build movements that take over countries and create mass formation psychosis in large swaths of people. The times must be right for people to desire such concepts (usually due to economics, poverty, and oppression).
Karl Marx's writings "Das Kapital" "The Communist Manifesto" is an example of another of one that did. In fact, it influenced Hitler’s writings, but the writings of Marx had a far greater impact on the world, and still does. To censor Mein Kampf builds a far better case to have censored Marx's "Das Kapital" "The Communist Manifesto" from the standpoint of the death and destruction inflicted on the people of the world.
Ukraine vs Russia isn’t really about Nazis vs Former Communists (even though the Russians still are mainly allied with Communist regimes - Particularly China). It is far more about the much vaunted "New World Order" and the plans of the Globalists (WEF) vs individual nations and cultures. Talk about mass formation psychosis, censorship, and control!!! Add AI, lethal viruses (biological and computer) global depopulation schemes, and dumbing down people into compliant worker bees. Meanwhile, most of the governments, their agencies and media are compromised and controlled. Shit-O-Dear! Rinse and repeat until they get the result they are after.
We must examine how we think, because we all want to believe we are right and working for "The Greater Good". But are we? Are we arrogant in our assumptions about ourselves and others? Is our country / culture a, or the bad actor on the world stage?
Am I with the Israeli or Hamas? Both have valid grievances, and both have committed atrocities. Am I with Ukraine or Russia? Ditto. Now how do I stand on WEF /Globalism vs Nationalism? Would it be better or worse to have no countries or culture that are not homogenized into one cultural stew? But, with 80 percent of the people deleted because they are redundant. Gotta save the planet and its resources for the important elites so they can fly their private jets to all the best places, don't ya know.
There is a new book "The Indoctrinated Brain" by PD Dr. Michael Nehls that I just picked up. He talks about the autobiographical part of our brains where who we are - our history, concepts of culture, what we value, and belief resides. What is being done to erase and degrade that and remold us into the compliant people the powers that be and the powers that want to be have in store for us.
This book (which I have not yet been able to read) made me think about all the books I have read, and that Margaret Anna Alice has read and occasionally posts on her substack. How have all those books formed us into a major part of who we are, and who would we be if we did not have access to all those books. Would we be better or worse without all that erudition? Could we ever go back to a simpler life based in the natural world? We may find out. Just an EMP away or other natural or manmade catastrophe.