The Elites Are Coming For Us Online


Twitter, as all know, is outright- and shadow-banning influential members of the right. Facebook was caught doing the same with people and posts, though because Facebook is much larger and heterogeneous they haven’t had as much success.

Google shifts its algorithms to emphasize concerns of social justice warriors: try “American inventors” or see this (among others) article. It and Twitter censor their auto-complete functions in attempts to hide traditional content.

Social justice warriors themselves use the rules set up by these and other sites to report realists for “abuse” or “sensitive content“.

And so on. Which, as I said, all know. The Left has already purged all mainline offline institutions, and so it was natural enough for them to move online.

Yet all their efforts online would if not abetted largely come to naught, because the (Alt) Right adapts as quickly to the tactics of the Left as the Left moves to attack. If unaided by external forces, the Left would at best come to a stalemate, if not endure outright losses, as they have with Brexit, Hungary’s reform, the success of Marie Le Pen, the rise of Trump, and other versions of elite-rejecting “populism” (losers in democracies always call their enemies populists, but democracies by definition are populist).

Enter the abetting: Trolls could face jail under new legal guidelines: Social media is to be more stringently policed under new rules on offences for which online users can face criminal charges.

What’s the old saying? One man’s troll is another man’s freedom fighter?

Internet trolls who create derogatory hashtags or post humiliating photoshopped images could face jail, the country’s most senior prosecutor has warned.

The Crown Prosecution Service has published new guidance to help police determine whether to press charges against someone for their behaviour on social media…

Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said: “Social media can be used to educate, entertain and enlighten, but there are also people who use it to bully, intimidate and harass.

“Ignorance is not a defence and perceived anonymity is not an escape. Those who commit these acts, or encourage others to do the same, can and will be prosecuted.”

Creating a hashtag to encourage an online harassment campaign, or pushing for retweets of a “grossly offensive message” are given as examples of unacceptable behaviour…

The CPS also announced the launch of a hate crime consultation, issuing a series of public policy statements centred on combating crimes against disabled people, as well as racial, religious, homophobic and transphobic hate crime.

Before that, who remembers this? Controversial blog aide arrested. And this? Scottish man arrested for teaching dog a Nazi salute. And this? UK man prosecuted for posting ‘grossly offensive’ anti-Muslim comments on police Facebook page. And this? [German] couple sentenced for Facebook incitement against refugees. And this? Is it right to jail someone for being offensive on Facebook or Twitter? And this? Internet Trolls can be Prosecuted Under Australian Law.

And…but enough. You have the idea.

The effect will be twofold. Governments themselves silencing critics, and companies using stringent interpretations of government rules and laws to increase banishment. The Internet itself is (more or less) in the hands of the United Nations, and if there is one consistency of the UN since its inception, it is that it uses its powers to stifle dissent.

Companies that bar large swaths of customers will, of course, suffer monetarily. Look possibly for rent seeking to increase, companies hit hard by shunning their own customers will argue they are a “public service” and therefore deserve government funds.

What might constitute offenses? Putting an image up of the latest terrorist atrocity? Islamaphobia. Quoting the Bible on one flesh? Homophobia. Say a man who thinks he’s a woman is nuts? Trannyphobia. Publicize the actual crime of a social justice warrior? Harassment.

Hate speech all. You didn’t imagine the speech “codes” that fester and grow on college campuses would remain there, did you? Not when graduates are flooding into government service and onto the streets. The new speech laws will be called “fairness doctrines” and “free speech.”

The elite media, one with the government and the bureaucracy, will be relentless in their propaganda. They must, if they are to survive. It was already known to a minority, but what this election has made clear to those who pay any attention, is that the elite media isn’t needed. “Social” and “alternative” media more than compensated for the loss.

Not only is the elite media not needed, it is actively harmful. But they do have the money and the backing of the rest of the culture’s elite, in and out of government. The fight against free media can and will get dirty.

If Hillary’s wins, it’s likely they’ll win. And then Tradition and Reality news will in dribs and drabs be pushed underground. We’ll have to work on our secret handshakes. We need to study the old ways information got out under tyrannical regimes. I merely mention that there are lots of methods to hide data cryptographically.


  1. JHS

    Yes, the elites are coming for you online. Be scared and take a break from internet.

  2. Shecky R

    Are you off your meds again, displaying paranoia once more? The most litigiously-threatening folks out there for the past month have been Donald, his “wife,” and attorney (all with their patented lying bluster of course).

  3. Dean Ericson

    It’s the Right verses the Wrong. When can we start hanging the devils?

  4. Dean Ericson

    If you want to hang with the devils, okay; it’s your neck.

  5. Matt Czu

    No need to worry. Aged colors fade away faster. Newspeak is an old trick and these practices are all too well-known for those trained by and under the commies. It only accelerates their decomposition.

  6. Andy

    Liberals have always been a thin-skinned lot. They fail to see the irony in all their anti-Trump sneering. Many a time I have posted an opinion on a leftist website only to have it ‘moderated’ due to supposedly flouting some rule or another. None of the messages were remotely abusive – no ad-hominems, personal assaults or fruity language – just viewpoints diametrically opposed to their own.

    This is part of what democracy is all about. If all you want to do is talk with like-minded people with absolutely no different points of view then you might as well shove your head up own backside and talk to yourself.

  7. Anon

    Mrs. Clinton has been threatening Russia, and not with a lawsuit, but with a hot war.

  8. Gary in Erko

    The Australian based ‘academic’ forum called The Conversation has a team of monitors who sometimes claim a comment is off topic. This seems to be the latest tactic for removing ideas they find uncomfortable peas under the bedding of their safe space.

  9. Ye Olde Statistician

    This is from a narrative I started years ago, but which has not gelled. In this segment, two unnamed individuals are discussing the previous scene. The Lucacs mentioned is John Lukacs, an historian who wrote a history of the +XX century in the same style of vignette-discussion.

    This particular discussion plays off his 1901 chapter. But 2001 was still in the future when I wrote it.

    Cheap is a relative term; but that is not why I have chosen this vignette.
    Why then?
    Because it marked a turning point of another sort. It marked the beginning of the ebb of the Phildelphianizing of American society.
    An awful word. You will explain that, I think.
    The cult of safety was a very Philadelphian thing. It marked the city as different from New York, or even Boston. That was partly the Quaker influence, as Lukacs observed. ‘The desire for safety, sometimes so rigid as to be uncomfortable.’ And very often coupled, as he also noted, with a lack of foresight and with a reluctance even to discuss unpleasant things.
    That is not much of an explanation. And besides, those who pushed for safety — and I know you are speaking of the asbestos panic, the dioxin panic, and other millenarian episodes of the fin de siècle — These people seldom exhibited a reluctance to discuss unpleasant things. Indeed, the problem was often to get them to shut up.
    You are not being entirely fair to them. Remember, the cult of safety found its acolytes in all walks of life, not only among the professional doom-criers. Most people never shouted or demonstrated or brought suit; but they held the belief that nothing bad should ever happen to them and that, if it ever did, someone else must be at fault. At least their lawyers said so.
    A cheap shot, that.
    Ah, but worth the cost. Now, there were some genuine problems. As the frontiers of knowledge advanced, we learned of hazards that were previously undetectable, but no less real. Yet gradually the desire for safety, for ‘not rocking the boat,’ grew to include how your neighbor painted his house, or overhearing unkind words spoken by others. People clamored for laws to protect them from other people’s speech, and from their awful tastes in decoration. But when I said there was a reluctance to discuss unpleasant things, I meant the reluctance to discuss. When people are too comfortable with their beliefs, contrarian views can be discomfiting. To cite some troubling examples, at Penn, at Rutgers, at Cornell, and several other campuses, politically conservative student newspapers were sometimes stolen and burned.
    You are saying it was an age of liberalism run amok?
    Hardly. There is nothing liberal about burning newspapers or books. It was not the politics that mattered, so much as the desire for safety and comfort, and that includes safety in one’s beliefs. Liberals were not alone in that desire, only more articulate.

  10. Milton Hathaway

    The Canadian anti-Islamophia motion gave me a chuckle. The liberals paint their opposition as mentally ill, suffering from all sorts of phobias. Then they go and pass a motion against the same ‘mental illness’! Where’s their compassion? Or maybe they believe that they can cure mental illness with parliamentary motions?

    While it’s undeniable that much of the media is openly biased, and I don’t doubt that extends to social websites, I have to say that I have not yet been convinced by the claims of open bias on Google. Using Google to get useful results is an art that takes a lot of practice. And it’s obvious that the ordering of page results, as well as the auto-complete choices, are easily manipulated by determined users who understand some of the algorithms Google uses. But there’s no way that those users can cast a very wide net, and just tweaking the search terms yields a very different result.

  11. John B()

    …who create derogatory hashtags…

    You mean like:
    The course, called “#StopWhitePeople2k16,” is a training class for residential assistants (known as RAs) teaching how to handle “uneducated people” in situations dealing with race. The description also says the course was developed to “help others take the next step in understanding diversity, privilege, and the society we function within.”

    Read more:

  12. Ray

    Liberals have been accusing their enemies of having mental disorders as long as I can remember. When Goldwater was running for president the media were calling him crazy. Naturally, crazy people should be locked up.

  13. Johnny

    I am new to your blog, just wanted to offer my compliments on your astute and wry thoughts. Oh, and you have the perfect voice to be a baseball announcer (if you’re looking for a night job…)!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *