Truth Is Not Always Palatable At First Sight

Truth may be disgusting, but it is the truth. Musk is buying Twitter, to save free speech, and prevent intellectual fascism (paraphrasing, he says, and it’s likely) [1].

Last week, Facebook told me, twice, that I was banned for thirty days. I disagreed and then: Your post is back on Facebook.
We’re sorry we got this wrong. We reviewed your post again and it does follow our Community Standards.
We appreciate you taking the time to request a review. Your feedback helps us do better.
You disagreed with the decision. Thanks for your feedback. We use it


Shadow banning is used massively on the Internet, and not just when reviewing tweets.

For example BING, Gates’ and Duck Duck Go’s search engine shadow ban me completely. Elon Musk, Apr 22: shadow ban council reviewing tweet …

A traditional leitmotiv of the pseudo-left: “If we don’t confront hateful speech, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia and xenophobia become normalized.” This sentence equates “hateful speech”, fear of homosexuals, fear of transgender people and fear of strangers with fear of “Islam”.
It implicitly equates natural biological conditions and a particular type of ideology which advocates to kill (!) some categories of people (including homosexuals, “apostates”, pagans, polytheists, etc.). This is a category error. And why just Islam? I have Christianophobia, and my ancestors had it for generations: does that make us racist?

There are more than 100 types of “Islam”. Fearing the sort of Islam found in Arabia is only rational, and should not be equated to “hateful speech”. Arguably “hating” a regime such as the Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia, which executes bloggers for advocating democracy rather than Salafist islam is to be more commended than feared, by those who claim to be “antifascist”.

The author claims that “ being denied a platform is not a violation of one’s rights.” Well, the ancient Athenians made “equal speech” part of democratic rights. Equal right of speech was called “isegoria”. It is industrially violated nowadays. And this is used to manufacture not just consent, but minds.

Official media, such as the New York Times, have special rights (given by the government, such as being part of the White House press Pool). In exchange, they should have the fiduciary duty to give equal comment rights to all honorable citizens in good standing. This is not the case: although a full subscriber to the New York Times for decades, it had banned all my comments in the last four years (something it didn’t even do when I disagreed with the Iraq invasion by the US in 2003, and the NYT supported it!)

It is my observation that, by censoring commenters who disagreed, say, with the nature of Quantitative Easing (which was manufactured to serve the wealthiest people on earth), the media has been able to control who said what. In the USA, all the media is either owned or controlled by plutocrats (yes, even ostensibly public NPR and PBS).

The Electoral College has been thoroughly debated. It was instituted to prevent one state to dominate the Union. If Britain feels dictated by the EU, certainly the rest of the USA should feel dominated by California, which voted massively for Clinton. However, that was an interested and biased vote. California’s monopoly tech companies (Apple, Google, Facebook, Oracle, Intel, Salesforce, etc.), which often double as spy agencies, have been massively favored by the Obama administration, at the cost not just of the USA, but of the entire planet. The Electoral College compensates for that manufactured electorate, bought by monopolists.

Calling automatically the enemies of media which are fake, lie, dissemble, shun alternative knowledge, and serve the wealthiest, “fascist” is itself fascist.
Revealing truth is the only activity which is genuinely antifascist.
Patrice Ayme

I have come across colossal eco hypocrites with fleets of electric cars, mansions in the Sierra, advising presidents (French and US). Had big fights… Gates of Hell used a foundation to make stocks he personally owned more valuable… Elon Musk made fun of Bill Gates (who bans me) because Gates shorted, by billions of dollars, ecological stocks, including Tesla. Here is Musk’s retort:

Elon Musk@elonmusk, Apr 22: in case u need to lose a boner fast:

[1] I used to be adverse to Musk, because of his collusion with the Obama administration. However, meanwhile, Musk proved to be, indeed, and excellent technologist… He made rockets land again and again and again… changing the cost of access to space… and Tesla makes the best batteries….


One Response to “Truth Is Not Always Palatable At First Sight”

  1. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Patrice Ayme
    The law is hard, but it is the law, that outlaws, those who live outside of the law, should be punished by law. That rule should be applied to all media: if censorship is outside the law voted by the democracy, it is practiced by outlaws. And outlaws should be punished.

    Elon Musk@elonmusk

    By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.

    I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.

    If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.

    Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: