Saturday, 18 May 2019

Truthers, Populism & Censorship

With censorship becoming the most pressing issue of the age, I consider why the 9/11 ''Truth Movement''was not subject to the levels of censorship that Nationalists are today. Surely accusing the U.S Government of mass murdering its own citizens is as destructive and dangerous as the ''Great Replacement'' theory of today.....

Transcript by Katana:

Hello again there folks. So I was having a few paints with a friend recently. We were talking about censorship, online censorship especially, and the general clamp down on free speech. And it’s not something that I’ve actually got into that much.

But the conversation led in a sort of funny direction. And we ended up wondering, because if you go back ten years, the big thing on the internet — and off the internet — but the big thing in general was the 9/11 “truther movement”. The idea that 9/11, which brought down the World Trade Center, the attacks were an inside job.

And if you go on YouTube today you can still see that all of that material is still available. It’s all there, with millions of hits. I did a quick search and “Loose Change” the second part has got something like half a million hits, because it’s gone off the boil. But the original, and stuff by Alex Jones was in millions, upon millions, of hits! And people got rich off this. People were writing books and holding conferences. And as soon as he getting this — and I know what people are gonna say — they’re gonna say that:

“A lot of it were shills, and they were mis-directing people from the real culprit.”

So let’s say the average conspiracy theory — Alex Jones — they talk about the Illuminati, or they were talking about the Saudis, or something. They weren’t talking about some of the more (((ethnic))) aspects — the neocon movement, or whatever plans Israel had in the Middle East. And although the new conservative plans in the nineties, which did actually lay out that they needed some sort of “Pearl Harbor” event in order to enact a neo-consevative foreign policy in earnest. But nevertheless what the interesting thing is, people were still coming out and saying that the American government, the CIA year, the Pentagon, whoever, were all actively complicit in mass murdering American citizens on American soil!

And this — as far as undermining the public trust is concerned — about peddling a soft destructive conspiracy theory, from the perspective of the elites you can hardly imagine something being worse than that! And it did grew legs! And it spread like wildfire!

As I said, and yet I mean, just a Rasmussen poll said that in 2007 a press release, overall 22 percent of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance! Slightly larger number, 29 percent, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. So this is the thing — even if we take into account that they are mis-directing people — the sort of the theory, the idea the American government had committed an act of mass murder on its own soil against its own people was like, it spread like wildfire!

To the point where you had really sizable percentages of the population actually believed it! And even if they didn’t know the the wider conspiracies of, you know, some of the tangled web of Middle Eastern politics, and so on. Just the idea that the American government would murder it’s own citizens.

And now, the crucial thing here is that the government itself, or it’s elite, didn’t seem to do anything about this idea being spread all over the place. And they didn’t seem to care that 22 percent of all voters thought the President knew about these attacks before hand. They weren’t in the least bit convinced about that.

And I remember at the time — I came in quite late to the internet — and I was talking to a friend who was really in all this stuff. And my point was that:

“Well if they did do that, why is all this stuff on the internet? Why are they not shutting it down?”

And, of course, he would say:

“The internet! You can’t censor it!”

Those were the days! For at least, for example, why was Alex Jones becoming rich off the back of saying that the American government was committing mass murder of its own people? How and why were the American government not the least bit will concerned about this? You would think that would be extremely destructive!

And why wasn’t Alex Jones, why didn’t he have like a mysterious heart attack, or why wasn’t a piano fell on his head, or something? A quick car crash? None of it ever happened, the government didn’t seem in the least bit concerned that it’s legitimacy and it’s power was being undermined in this way.

And I think that’s very interesting to compare that — you fast forward the clock — you go to 2017, and you get Evette Cooper holding a parliamentary committee. Where she’s got the bosses of YouTube, and Facebook, and whatnot, and she’s really given them a workout session, because she’s seen terms such as “White genocide” and the “Great Replacement”, on the Internet. And she finds this absolutely disgusting, and she is saying:

“You’re gonna have to get rid of this! You’re gonna have to get this off this platform, as fast as possible!”

And, of course, she’s not the only one. There’s Senators, powerful organizations and lobby groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League in America. And they too, are absolutely demanding that this is a state of emergency! You’ve got to get this off!

And so, why, this is the thing, why is it that the “Great Replacement” is a controversial conspiracy theory, but to accuse the American government of mass murdering it’s own people, isn’t? Why is one deeply worrying for the authorities, for the elites, the system, and the other one, not? And that’s quite a mindbinder? Because it still comes down to the the legitimacy of the centers of power. And I think one one of the ways we have to look at that, is to say:

“If Alex Jones was a shill in see say 9/11, and it was half-truths, but it was still being laid at the foot of the American government. Well the difference is, there’s not really any way you can go after that! Especially when, sort of politically they were sort of libertarian. And their answer to the government being corrupt, and having their own agenda, and murdering their own citizens, was effectively to disconnect yourself as much as possible from that center of power.

So, you know, it was a very sort of libertarian way of looking at the world where you’d stack up the pickup with rifles and tinned fish, and then move out to Idaho, or wherever in America, and build yourself a bunker and see out the storm! Just hope that you don’t get round up and put on a Fema camp! And so, from that perspective, the system the center of power didn’t have that much to worry about, because it seems if twenty nine percent or twenty two percent of the population think the government is mass murdering the people — it’s own citizens on its own soil — there’s not really anything the citizens could do about that! What is that they can do? Especially if you’ve got this sort of patriotard-libertarian way of looking at the world, where you’re already distrustful of power! You’re already distrustful of the establishment and how political power works. You’re looking then to be free of that, rather than actually challenges it.

So, they must have been looking at it from a perspective of:

“We don’t care, because you’re not a threat! You can think whatever you want! .”

That certainly seems to be the case. Now where you get into something, let’s say, the “Great Replacement”, this is an entirely different thing, because implicit in that, the only way that you can actually react to that, is to challenge the system outright. And this is more what we see with populism in Europe. And so, because there’s no not really any escape, it’s as if your cards being marked. And so populist nationalist movements in Europe are not looking to be free from the State. The shills of the 9/11 movement, let’s say, in that way, they were directing the energy away from the State. And saying:

“Well, let’s head off into the woods, let’s just disconnect from it.”

And sewing distrust of the government that way.

Populist nationalist movements don’t do that. Populist nationalist movements are taking energy and directing it straight at what the neo-reactionaries would call “the Cathedral”..

But in populist nationalism that energy is directed straight towards the center of power — and I don’t just mean politics — also the media, and even more the financial institutions as well, are starting to pop up more on the radar. And so, from that perspective, the center of power itself is looking out onto a populist revolution and seeing that they’re so surrounded by this beying mob! And as something like the “Great Replacement” is a sort of meme which they’ve adopted and run with it. It’s this way of looking at them, and it’s put directly straight back into the center of power, into the “cathedral”. And from their point of view this is much, much, more dangerous, because it undermines their entire narrative another.

And another thing is that there’s not really any political correctness, or cultural narratives around the 9/11 thing, the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. It’s mainly just raw power of the government and there’s nothing you can do about it.

What we see with populism and nationalism, is that also their narrative and their morality is being questioned. Political correctness is being undermined. And then this is all coming from, they’ve recognized that it’s all emanating from the same place. And they’re going straight to that. Which I think is very interesting way of looking at it. Because, of course, the Alex Jones types, they were allowed to keep their platforms when they were talking about the 9/11 and the American government sort of conspiracy. But then when the sort of got swept along with the nationalist populist movement, and that changed the dynamic, because then they weren’t. This is actually something that which a lot of people may disagree with, but they’re not actually — in the overall scheme of things — they are directing people towards the center of power! Not precisely. This is where people think they have to be more precise. I may have to explain explicitly, exactly, who, or what, within the power structure is the problem. And they didn’t do it on 9/11. They misdirected people completely.

And then, they’re not doing that here, either. But they’re still sending people in that general direction.

And so, from that — unlike what happened with 9/11, where it was more of a sort of just disconnect yourself — and so from the perspective of the people inside the center of power, from the system, in the “Citadel”, then they’ve all of a sudden become a liability. Somebody like Paul Joseph Watson, Alex Jones, or even Tommy Robinson, are no longer sort of useful idiots. They’re actually useful idiots on the other side, and they’re directing people toward that base of power in a way that they didn’t do with the 9/11 conspiracy stuff.

And so then it becomes a matter of them being sort of Generals on the opposing team. And they’ve got to be neutralized. They’ve just got to lose their platforms. And that is and that’s what’s playing out now.

And it’s very interesting to see the change in the attitude. The idea that, well, if you say something like:

“The American government murder its own citizens.”

It doesn’t really have any kind of repercussions. Nobody particularly cares that much. But if you say the “Great Replacement” is real, you’re gonna lose your platform! And to sort of wrap your head around the difference there, because both undermine in theory, both are undermining the center of power, in practice that’s not the case! In practice the “Great Replacement” is much more dangerous. Because you end up with a sort of mass rebellion, which they don’t want to have to deal with.

So anyway, thank you very much for listening. And thanks for a lot for people who’s been donating recently. It helps me out a lot. I’ve got more time to do content.

See you later folks.
Become a Patron!

Buy Me a Coffee at

No comments: