Welcome to Expose The Dark!
What is this whole swirl of rights?
People seem to think that anyone who complains about their „ rights “ is a kind of tearful fool. I constantly hear comments like: „ Rights? You already have no rights, why do you get upset when you lose more? “ Or on the contrary: „ If you don t know what it means to lose rights, then live in North Korea for a week! “
None of these answers testifies to a lot of intelligence or understanding for our current situation.
The first answer is a particularly good example in this regard. The rights are lost so quickly. When we finally wake up, we will see how much we have actually lost.
This is by no means a reason to ignore what is happening.
The second answer shows that the one who says this does not understand that North Korea is exactly what we are heading for. This is also no reason not to follow current events with the greatest attention.
History has clearly shown that if you don t nip such things in the bud, totalitarianism or one of its oppressive derivatives will eventually creep into culture. We as a free society must be constantly aware of this possibility and recognize the first signs of it.
I find it so interesting that people generally put the label „ paranoid “ or better still „ conspiracy theorists “ on when someone raises concerns about abuse of power and possible corruption, no matter, however big or insignificant these concerns may be. As Jordan Peterson once said:
Systems get out of control terribly when people don t stop them, when they easily get out of control.
Even stranger is that we know that people, many of them, are still able to do what they perceive as government corruption, to recognize and act against it. This ability was clearly demonstrated during Donald Trump s tenure as President of the United States.
Regardless of whether Trump s entire negative personality was fabricated by the press as president or not ( I doubt that was the case ), the left still reacted like this, as if this was a huge problem, and of course they still do.
As much as I fell for the media hype at the time, I am still amazed at how viciously stubborn people were and are that Trump and the Republican Party that supported him, the only reason is that the country has started to spin. It seems pretty clear to me that Trump and everything that came with him was at least partly an insidious bait.
And why is that? If the population can recognize corruption in one case ( the alleged corruption of Trump s government and party ), why can t they recognize it in another case ( government corruption, that we are now experiencing ) – and in a case that is proven to be actually corrupt? If this perception is solely due to the media – in my humble opinion, this is very likely.
I believe that the cliché is true – the press actually controls public opinion and public attitudes.
The press may be one of the roots of the massive weeds that brought us into this mess, but the press used to be only as powerful as it insisted on telling the truth.
Now they obviously don t care if they tell the truth. And why is that?
The root is not the press, but the people who consume the vomit of the media on „ information “. As a rule, they are unable to distinguish the truth from the falsehood. Indeed, it seems that the distinction between facts and fiction no longer matters.
I have experienced situations with friends and family members in which a very clear, evidential truth was presented ( as it happens quite often now ) and still do not cry out: „ I don t care, if it s true, I ll stick to what I believe. “ It is a hopeless situation.
And why?
I don t think there is a single answer to this question. But one of them is certainly the power of past indoctrination. As for the question of freedom, I really believe that many people just don t want to be free.
On the one hand, they don t really know what freedom means, and as simple and sarcastic as it may sound: as long as their video games, grass, porn and other immediate means of satisfaction are not taken away from them, they are as free as they want to be.
Think of Brave New World and the prominent drug Soma, as Huxley introduced it in his cheerful dystopia. Soma can take many forms today and it replaces everything that has a real value. It s a drug, just like today s drugs like grass and alcohol, but also things that we don t consider drugs, like cell phones, computers, video games, pornography, new cars, chic shoes and clothes, big houses, parties, sex, affairs and so on.
Of course I m describing an extreme of the spectrum here, but I think you understand what I m getting at.
So I am convinced that many people do not care about the kind of freedom that you and I would fight for to death. Take freedom of speech. I m an old hippie ( well, not quite, but that s a different story ). Let s just say I come from a time when freedom of speech and the associated restrictions were still a big deal.
Freedom of expression was the pillar of American democracy, and even a tiny, seemingly insignificant suppression of this freedom was tantamount to thrusting a sword into the belly of all of it, what the United States stood for. I still feel that way.
I got into one of these typical skirmishes on Facebook with a few very long-time friends. Some of them are my age and should have the same views on freedom of speech as I do.
I was mostly stupid and replied to someone who suggested boycotting Twitter because „ free thinking “ Elon Musk would take power. I asked: „ Is that because you don t like Elon Musk or because you don t like freedom of speech? “
Someone else then gave me an introduction to constitutional law and said something like: „ To paraphrase the constitution: ‚ Congress must not enact a law that limits freedom of speech ‘. The last time I looked was Twitter, Twitter was not the “ congress. This means that Twitter does not violate any law that it must abide by, that only the United States government needs to be concerned about the illegality of restricting freedom of speech and that a private company has nothing to fear.
I am not going to engage in a discussion now about whether Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others have the right to restrict expression, censor information or whatever. I think, of course, that there is an argument here, but that s another time.
What I want to go into is the attitude of my countrymen who defend Twitter or whoever for their current practice of censorship, restriction and other suppression of the free exchange of information and opinions. What the hell is that?
The other strange thing is that half a dozen people suddenly pounced on me because I claimed that Twitter has no right to manage its members, who all signed an agreement to submit to Twitter s „ rules of engagement “ „ “, although that s not even what I questioned.
People seem very sensitive in this regard. They are very happy that these „ information sources “ protect their sensitive ears from misinformation.
I hear something like this all the time – an undisguised defense of privately owned companies that can do what they damn like again ... „ A restaurant doesn t take your rights, if it does not let you in, if you are not vaccinated, but it is his right to serve anyone who does not meet his standards: ‚ no shirt: no service, no vaccination: no operation !! “
OK, maybe that s true, maybe there are many cases where these companies have the full right to practice their form of vaccine discrimination, but why are these people defending it? Why aren t they outraged? For me it is like defending the right to deny colored people access to a restaurant.
Nobody would accept that, even if the discriminatory persons were on the right side of the law. It seems irresponsible to me that EVERYONE is on the side of someone or a private company who wants to restrict freedom of expression. But that s exactly where we stand.
To be honest, people don t want to be free. They feel comfortable when they are checked and when they can control information. Responsibility comes with freedom, and today nobody seems to be willing to take responsibility.
Source: uncutnews.ch
Leave a comment
