Freedom of Speech is the Single Most Important Issue

There was a fun hearing on Crossfire Hurricane – that is, the conspiracy by the intelligence agencies, the Democrats and the media to frame Donald Trump as a Russian agent – in the Senate on Thursday. It’s not getting much play in the media, but there were some enlightening moments.

This meeting focused on the role the media played in forwarding the hoax. They invited journalists in to discuss how outrageous this whole thing was from a media perspective.

Thankfully, Sharyl Attkisson was there to push back against Senator Tim Scott’s pro-censorship agenda.

Firstly, Sharyl, you look fantastic. I never would have suspected you were a 59 year-old woman, and frankly, I’m not sure if I believe it.

Secondly, I want to say that this woman was 1000% spot on with regards to social media censorship.

If you skip to 29:00 in the above clip, you will find that Rick Scott was going on and on (and on and on and on) about Nicholas Maudro and the Ayatollah being able to use social media, whilst conservatives are banned. You can point this out to show that the social media companies are biased, but these people take it to the point where they are calling for others to be censored. They are saying “well, if the right is going to be censored, then the left should be censored too!”

This is the most blown-out brain position of all, and it is unsurprisingly the one that Laura Loomer put forward in her infamous protest of Twitter. She held up a sign saying that Twitter shouldn’t be allowed to ban her because she is Jewish, and they should ban Louis Farrakhan because he says bad things about Jews.

Attkisson asked for a turn to speak simply to destroy Rick Scott, saying that we don’t need to be calling for the other side to be censored, we just need to end censorship altogether. She accurately stated that there was no censorship before 2016, when special interest groups created the need. She is of course referring to the Jewish special interest groups, the SPLC and the ADL, which were the only ones calling for censorship back then, although she was too polite to name them. (“Special interest groups” has become a euphemism on par with “European style socialists” or “international bankers. ” Even if it isn’t intended to be anti-Semitic, everyone understands that when you talk about these groups, you’re talking about Jews. I’m surprised frankly that the ADL hasn’t put out a press release demanding that people stop saying “special interest groups.”)

What she said was that these groups “created the need” for censorship that didn’t exist before because no one had ever thought of the idea of just outright banning people from the internet. Back in 2016, even leftists kind of had the idea that calling for people to be banned from speaking in public was similar to calling for political assassinations – it’s something you just don’t do in a normal Western society.

However, after the Jewish groups succeeded in beginning mass internet censorship, particularly when I was censored in 2017 by literally every major tech company in the country along with many minor ones, censorship has become something that people are accustomed to and accept as normal, and the left now no longer blushes when demanding people be banned, as more and more mainstream figures and entire categories of speech are forcibly removed from the public square by these private companies.

Attkisson said that we cannot call for right-wing censorship because it validates the concept that these companies have this right in the first place. She said what I have always said: the only speech that should be banned is speech that is outright illegal, which really only means violent threats.

I don’t know if Rick Scott is actually even evil. He might just be stupid. After she explained all of this, he was noticeably contrite, and said, “I agree; that makes sense.”

So he might well be a typical moronic boomer who doesn’t understand the philosophical principles involved in free speech, and is simply saying “well, if they’re going to censor us, they should censor themselves too!”

Basically idiocy is a huge problem, frankly. It’s a bigger problem than maliciousness, for sure. This is why you need some kind of system for the people to follow, which has principles that they can always fall back on. Obviously, I’m very against the entire concept of ideology, which is always a disaster, and is a scam. But you need basic philosophical rules about how society should be run, and one of those rules should be that the solution to bad information is more information – not less.

The left doesn’t censor us simply to bully us. They censor us because they can’t argue with our ideas. In an open market of ideas, the correct ideas will eventually win out. The masses of people are stupid, but they can recognize truth in a general sense, if they’re hit with it hard enough. More importantly, the percentage of people that is capable of critically processing information can always come to the appropriate conclusions if they are given enough information.

As I write this, Trump is at war with Congress, threatening to veto a major defense spending bill if it doesn’t deal with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which would in theory limit the ability of tech companies to engage in mass political censorship.

Trump should have made this priority number one as soon as I was censored in August of 2017.

“Hate Speech” is a Hoax – This is About an Agenda

None of this is actually about protecting people’s feelings. Apparently, Rick Scott believes it is about protecting people’s feelings, which is why he implied that people who hurt his feelings should be censored just like the people who hurt leftist feelings. The entire basic claim of the reasoning behind the censorship is simply a lie. Censorship is about pushing an agenda to transform the world. In order to bring into the world this vision they have of the future, they need to shape people’s thoughts first.

The Jews can say whatever they want about “hate speech.” We all know that the reason I was censored is that I was blamed by the Jews for Donald Trump winning the election. I created a movement of white youth that went out and voted, and that was what I was punished for, not just with censorship but in other ways as well.

Right now, there are totally absurd costume-wearing neo-Nazis that are allowed to operate freely on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. They are allowed to use credit card processors. Their websites have not been stolen and they have not been delisted from Google. The reason these neo-Nazis remain unmolested is that they are against Donald Trump. They also support the coronavirus hoax, as well as various other hoaxes, including the “believe all women” Marxist feminist hoax.

The people in charge of censorship are not stupid. They have an agenda that they want to push through, and they look at that agenda exclusively. If you’re out there saying, “THE HOLOCAUST IS A HOAX AND THE WHOLE WORLD IS CONTROLLED BY JEWS – and that’s why I believe in the coronavirus lockdown and encourage my followers to vote for Joe Biden,” then they are not going to molest you.

Defeating Donald Trump and pushing this lunatic virus agenda are the two main goals of the globalist elite right now, and the focus on that. They know that there are always going to be some right-wingers, so if they can promote right-wingers who push Joe Biden and coronavirus, then they’re doing pretty good.

On another level, allowing people who are offensive but also disgusting to get through the wall of censorship serves to effectively slander the right wing agenda by allowing the worst people to represent it. There are a lot of people who would be interested in right-wing ideas who go on Twitter and see that all of the people talking about the Jewish problem are also supporting Biden and coronavirus, and assume that’s what it’s all about, and ignore the whole thing.

This is to say: the purpose of the censorship is to shape society, not to target “hate speech” or any other supposedly emotionally upsetting thing. You can’t deconstruct this censorship – or anything else going on in our society – based on any heuristic other than an understanding of the underlying and overarching agenda at work in our society. These people have a vision of the future they are promoting in everything they do. They are not simply going from issue to issue and doing whatever they think should be done in any specific situation.

The overwhelming majority of normal people support Donald Trump despite the fact that he’s been so viciously maligned by the media, despite the fact that so many of his supporters have been censored. This pattern would hold true across the board if free information were legalized. The people could be convinced to back what is right and good.

Of course, if Donald Trump is actually going to be removed from office, then fixing internet censorship won’t do anything. Biden will bring it right back. But his current level of devotion to fixing the issue makes me believe that he will work hard to do it if he gets 4 more years.

Again: such a shame he didn’t do it in 2017, because if we’d had free information, we wouldn’t even be in this place we’re in right now. There is no way they could have done this coronavirus lockdown when I had the influence that I had in 2016 up through August of 2017. That’s just the fact.

Freedom of speech is the single most important issue, because without freedom of speech, none of the other issues are even talked about. It has to be principle number one. I hope that we’ve learned our lesson on that now, and I hope it isn’t too late.

Sharyl Attkisson’s new book is entitled Slanted: How the News Media Taught us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism, and although I haven’t read it yet, I saw enough in this Senate hearing that I feel comfortable officially endorsing it before reading it, and I’m going to try to get a copy today.

I don’t know what Attkisson’s politics are, but we need to support people who are telling the truth, whatever their politics are. Furthermore, I just read on Wikipedia that she’s against vaccines, so she knows a thing or two about a couple other things as well. This book may well contain information about censorship that I haven’t run across yet.

I can’t tell you how strong of an impression it made on me to have her interject that Rick Scott appeared to be promoting censorship, and how good it felt to have him back down and act as though he’d never thought of that before.

If I were you, I would get a copy quick while it’s still allowed on It’s frighteningly hard to get ahold of a book when it’s not on Amazon, and they have a pattern of censoring books that speak out against censorship.