Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

Posts

Silicon Valley Is Destroying American Democracy by Playing Political Favorites.

/in /by

Perhaps it was expecting too much that the tech giants would check their political allegiances at the door to ensure fairness. Instead, they have let their political affinities disrupt the process every step of the way and this is leading the country down a blind alley.

June 2019 may go down in the history books as the defining moment when the American IT giants – in cahoots with the limping ‘legacy’ media – removed their masks, as well as their gloves, revealing the real threat they have become to the institution of US democracy, fragile as it already is.

The New York Times got the ball rolling when it ran a front-page story (‘The Making of a YouTube Radical’) detailing the trials and tribulations of one tortured Caleb Cain, a college dropout who was “looking for direction” in life but instead tumbled headlong into a rabbit hole of “far-right politics on YouTube” where he eventually found himself “brainwashed” and “radicalized.”

The article, quoting “critics and independent researchers,” which I suppose could mean just about anyone, says the Google-owned platform has created “a dangerous on-ramp to extremism by combining … a business model that rewards provocative videos with exposure and advertising dollars, and an algorithm that guides users down personalized paths meant to keep them glued to their screens.”

Some people would call that the very same business model that keeps the wheels of capitalism rolling: Keep the product hot and spicy so that the consumer comes back for more. The so-called “alt-right,” however, is not serving up extremist beliefs or Nazi ideology to attract viewers, as the New York Times claims, but rather coherent arguments that challenge the tenets of modern Liberal thinking. It may shock a lot of people, but a person does not have to be a Neo-Nazi to want strong national borders, for example, and laws that prohibit children from being taught about transgender lifestyles in grade school. Yet that is exactly how the right-leaning creators are being portrayed. And it is worth noting that these conservative ‘citizen journalists’ are doing a much better job at attracting audiences than the mainstream media, which is hemorrhaging both viewers and profits.

At the same time, the Times’ article assumes many things about YouTube users, none of which are remotely flattering. First, customers of the video platform, according to the Times, lack any sort of free will and independence. Thus, when a video appears in the recommendation box the user – not unlike a helpless heroin addict – will automatically press ‘play’, thereby involuntarily becoming subjected to yet another right-wing indoctrination session. Soon enough there’s a veritable vegetable sitting in front of the computer, helpless to pull itself away from the recommended video selections.

The article also assumes, with amazing naiveté, that people could not have had uneasy feelings about some issue until a crafty content creator came along and presented it to them. That is simply absurd. Such assumptions infantilize the user, making him appear incapable of making rational judgments on everyday social and political issues. The real reason, of course, that many users find a particular video on a particular subject is because they had been searching for answers to the very questions presented. Nevertheless, it is necessary, Google believes, that these YouTube creators be demonetized and banished from the platform, lest the unsuspecting user fall prey to their dastardly ways and radicalize an entire generation to loathe open borders, marijuana, abortion, transgender lifestyles, and any other controversial issue that is dear to the heart of Liberals.

But the Times hit piece was not the only whiff of grapeshot to grab the headlines. YouTube also demonstrated that it will swiftly move to defend other social media giants when it removed a video by the undercover investigative group, Project Veritas, that showed how Pinterest suppressed conservative talking points.

James O’Keefe, Project Veritas founder, slammed YouTube’s decision in a statement posted on Twitter.

“The established media and technology are so afraid of investigative journalism they need to censor it. YouTube calls REPORTING on someone by showing their face and name, and how they added a pro-life group to a porn blacklist, a ‘privacy complaint.’ Would they do this to NYT?” he wrote.

So here we have a situation where the largest American social media companies are able to shame and ban users with impunity, while also deleting efforts by any outside agency that demonstrates their political bias.

This leads us to the crux of the matter: As the social media companies hide behind their ‘private’ corporate status in order to curb political speech on their platforms with total impunity, they are exerting, at the very same time, powerful influence on the political process. In other words, they are empowered to do the very thing that many of their platform users are not, and that is to support their political convictions without fear of reprisal, banning and censorship. They want to have their private cake and eat it too.

Needless to say, such hypocrisy and double standards on the part of the social media behemoths cannot continue in the so-called ‘land of the free.’ And with US presidential elections approaching in 2020, tensions over such arbitrary power by the social media companies will only intensify when the people come to understand their voices are being silenced. The situation may get bad enough that the question of social media freedoms will even be heard on the debate floor during the campaigns. At least we can dream; it seems to be all we have left these days.

Socialism Might Get You “Free” Stuff, But Kiss Your Civil Liberties Goodbye

/in /by

A couple of years ago, in a video produced by Red Alert Politics, a reporter took to the streets during Spring Break to ask college students if they preferred socialism or capitalism. It should surprise no one that many of the students believed socialism was preferable to capitalism, as this has recently become a trend in our country.  

However, as we have addressed previously, the students’ answers gave credence to the speculation that many Millennials are unclear as to what socialism really entails.  

Perhaps, the most shocking element of these street interviews was the fact that many Millennials believed socialism to be an ideology that empowers its people. However, nothing could be further from the truth.  

The guise of “democratic socialism” has led many young minds to believe that throwing a “D” in front of a term that has historically represented oppressive governments and bloody revolutions will somehow remedy its reputation. However, there are still many Millennials who know better.   

Whether we choose to refer to it as socialism, communism, or democratic socialism, the fact remains that these are ideologies in which power is concentrated into the hands of a very few politically elite. 

In fact, all these political identities all represent collectivism, where group rights are favored ahead of individual rights. Since civil liberties exist to protect the individual against government abuses, in collectivist governments, civil liberties are the first thing to go because they threaten its very existence. 

Though many view socialism primarily as a set of economic principles where the collective wealth of its citizens is redistributed “fairly” among the people, there is so much more to it than that. It is important to remember that there has never been a nation in existence in which all its citizens agreed with each other unanimously. Our Founders were not blind to this fact, this is why they were specific in creating a Constitutional Republic. 100 percent consensus was an impossible feat, but with small groups of individuals being represented by statesmen who lived among them, they believed this would lead to a government derived from the consent of the governed and one which required the least amount of force. 

Socialism, or collectivism in general, is an ideology that, by its very nature requires massive amounts of coercion. Since the power rests with only a few individuals, the power structure is extremely fragile. If the people realized that they greatly outnumbered those in power, the entire government could be overthrown easily. The former Soviet Union is a great example of this. As such, if collectivist governments want to survive, they have to institute a fair amount of force.  

It doesn’t matter where you are located on the globe, there will always be at least one person, though usually many, who do not believe it is just to take someones hard earned money, and redistribute it others. The power of the individual is, perhaps, one of the strongest forces on the planet. Like a ripple in the water, the action of one can cause a domino effect, where more and more individuals join together. This is why it is so important to control the message in collectivist regimes. 

Collectivist governments have always recognized this, which is why freedom of expression is never held in high value for these types of ideologies. One person speaking out could lead to more and more citizens questioning the legitimacy behind a government that takes what is not theirs and redistributes it as they see fit. In order to convince an entire nation that collectivists policies are the only path to prosperity, you MUST control the message, and squash any message that threatens the existence of those in control.  

If collectivists governments feared the power of the individual in the days before the internet, imagine how much greater of a threat the individual is today.  

Even Sweden, which Senator Bernie Sanders has praised as being a beacon of democratic socialism, has limits to free speech. For example, in order for a publication to be protected under its Freedom of the Press Act, it must be registered with the state. That means that if a publication, not registered with the government, chooses to speak out against something the Swedish government has said or done, they are not protected under free speech laws.  

Millennials in America have been incredibly spoiled when it comes to free expression. Even though free speech appears to be under attack on many college campuses across the country, the United States still enjoys an unprecedented amount of freedom when it comes to expression, which is why it is so important to protect that right. 

If Millennials are serious about wanting socialism in America, they need to take a good hard look at civil liberties under collectivist rule. Though many are drawn to socialism because of the lure of free government handouts, Millennials need to realize that they are trading in their precious civil liberties in exchange for “free stuff.”  

California’s Authoritarian Plan to Restrict Free Speech

/in /by

The World Wide Web gave individuals limitless knowledge at the click of a button. And with this privilege, came the responsibility of each user to do his or her own research in order to determine which information was accurate and which was not.

But as the internet has experienced 20+ years of mainstream use, public opinion has shifted. Now, instead of celebrating the free flow of information and letting people decide for themselves, many people are championing censorship all in the name of silencing opinions with which they disagree. And now, even governments are getting involved in the quest to stop “fake news” and the latest example comes from California.

A Terrifying Precedent

Currently, on top of California Governor Jerry Brown’s desk sits a bill that, if signed, could set a dangerous precedent as to how far a state can go to stop the flow of information. Recently, the California Senate and State Assembly passed S.B. 1424, which has has been dubbed the “Internet: social media: advisory group” act.

Passed in the spirit of curbing the spread of “fake news,” the bill would allow for an advisory group to investigate the spread of false information online and formulate a plan for how it could be stopped.

The text of the bill states:

“The Attorney General shall, subject to the limitations of subdivision (d), establish an advisory group consisting of at least one member of the Department of Justice, Internet-based social media providers, civil liberties advocates, and First Amendment scholars, to do both of the following:

(a) Study the problem of the spread of false information through Internet-based social media platforms.

(b) Draft a model strategic plan for Internet-based social media platforms to use to mitigate the spread of false information through their platforms.”

Silencing the Opposition 

When Facebook and eventually Twitter made the move to block Alex Jones from using its platforms, many people were nervous. Facebook is most certainly a private company, and a private company has every right to censor whomever it pleases, but censorship in any capacity it concerning. And while it was one thing for private groups to practice this type of censorship, it is quite another for governments to get involved.

Many might be under the assumption that the government would only use this power for “good,” But that does not seem to be the case. As Barry Brownstein says:

“Most likely, Californians are not concerned about “fact-checking” content like “a mile is 5290 feet” or an appeal to form a flat Earth Facebook group; such content poses no threat to entrenched interests. Instead, “fact-checking” will be deployed against those who express doubt, for example, about climate change, vaccine safety, or “educating” children about gender dysphoria.”

No matter how much you may disagree with the groups described above, everyone has a right to speak their truth. And those of us on the receiving end can choose whether or not we want to accept what we are being told. But even if we vehemently disagree with someone, we should never use the government to silence their voice. But this is exactly what this California bill will do.

Under the First Amendment, governments are forbidden from passing laws that restrict free speech. There is no disclaimer that amends this protection to allow for the censorship of potentially untrue speech. And yet, governments are somehow under the impression that it is their job to or worse, their duty to make sure they are sifting through information before it is allowed to be disseminated to the public and this should frighten everyone.

Our modern world is so extraordinary partly because information is accessible to just about everyone. Throughout most of human history, only the elite had access to knowledge. But the internet has liberated information and by opening the floodgates, we have been exposed to both true and untrue information. But getting to make our own decisions absent government coercion is our right.

Supporters of free speech and anyone else who believes that individuals are responsible for their making their own decisions should be extremely concerned about this bill. Legislating speech is a slippery slope, and once we lose one right, the rest will quickly follow.

Write for CFI