Search Results

Keyword: ‘Even if the Provocateur is Alex Jones’

Freedom of Speech Matters, Even if the Provocateur is Alex Jones: 2

August 13, 2018 8 comments

As mentioned in the previous post of this series, laws to protect free speech are really about protecting unpopular speech. For a long time, organisations such as the ACLU understood that standing up for highly unpopular speech was necessary to prevent the creation of legal precedent to suppress other forms of free speech. Of course, that was before the ACLU was influenced and infiltrated by SJWs– and yes, I am aware of the irony my linking to a piece on a LIEbertarian rag such as ‘Reason’. But the point still stands- organisations which once stood up for the right to free speech, especially its unpopular forms, are now trying to justify their unwillingness to fully support obnoxious characters such as Alex Jones.

But why are so few willing to support Alex Jones? Sure.. the guy is an obnoxious character whose style of acting makes William Shatner seem restrained. But so are many other people, both public figures and private citizens. I mean.. there is no law against being a loud obnoxious asshole with a penchant for hammy acting. Nor is hawking “dietary supplements” of dubious efficacy a crime in USA- thanks to all that wonderful lobbyist-paid legislation passed in mid-1990s. In other words, Alex Jones is not any worse a human being than many YouTube celebrities I can think of right now. And let us be honest- the “conspiracy theories” he is purveying are no more sane or insane than what you see on TV shows such as Ancient Aliens, in its 13th or 14th season now.

So why have so many LIEbral idiots and presstitutes.. I mean “objective credentialed journalists” gotten their panties in a bunch over a character whose bullshit and scams are as American as they come. And why do they keep on repeating some nonsense about how his online presence is somehow hurtful to the mental and physical well-being of “normal folk”. Are they suggesting that people who peddle crazy shit and hilarious lies should not be allowed a public forum? Because if that is their central argument for deplatforming Alex Jones, they themselves are guilty of far greater crimes with infinitely higher real-world body counts than anything he is even remotely capable of pulling off. And they have doing it for a long.. long time.

Some of you might be aware that public support for wars as old as the Spanish-American War of 1898 was largely created by lies published by state-supported journalists of the day. The same can be said of WW1 and WW2. But since none of us are old enough to remember that, let us start something closer to out time- namely, the role of these “credentialed objective journalist” in pushing the Vietnam war to an ignorant and racist public in its early years. To make a long story short, the vast majority of american journalists (print, radio and TV) kept on selling the war to the american public until the 1968 Tet Offensive made it just too hard to ignore reality.

But until then these CONartists.. I mean “honest objective journalists” had no problem reprinting press releases from the american government as news and publishing pretty much any other bullshit in order to demonstrate their loyalty to the system. It might come as a shock to some people now, but there was once a time when Americans volunteered for the Vietnam war- partly under the assumption that they were going to win it, based on the lies and bullshit spewed out by mainstream journalists of that era. Of course, things got real once it became hard to hide the increasing number of body bags and crippled soldiers coming back to USA.

So should all the journalists of that era who willingly and enthusiastically lied for the american government be held responsible for the unnecessary loss of life on the American and Vietnamese side? How many of those who wrote glowing articles about American intervention in Vietnam prior to the Tet offensive lost their jobs because of knowingly publishing lies and bullshit? What about NONE! But why stop there.. Remember the lies published by those “objective professional journalists” to help convince the american public of the need for first Gulf War in 1991? Or what about enthusiastically spreading lies about presence of WMDs in Iraq to justify the failed occupation of Iraq in 2003. Did any journalist lose their job over publishing government-sanctioned lies? Heck.. many of them still write in NYT, WP and appear on cable news.

If you support deplatforming Alex Jones because of some negligible real-life harm people who listen to his shows may have done, how can you justify the continued ability of those who cheerlead disastrous wars such the Vietnam War, Afghanistan War and Iraq Occupation to still have careers in journalism? Aren’t american journalist responsible for tens of thousands of american soldiers who got killed or crippled by those senseless conflicts? What about the millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians who died during Vietnam war? What about hundreds of thousands who died due to conditions created by war in Afghanistan and failed Iraq Occupation?

If you believe that some mentally unstable idiot who listed to Alex Jones show and then went with a semi-auto rifle to a Pizzeria in DC is sufficient for Alex Jones to be deplatformed, how can you justify the continued ability of the vast majority of journalist in USA who work for corporate news outlets to still have a job? If you think Alex Jones allegedly doxing parents of kids who were killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting is bad enough for him to be deplatformed, what do you think about all those mainstream journalists whose carelessness over the years has resulted in torture, imprisonment and death of their sources? Face it.. “credentialed objective journalists” who work for corporate news outlets in USA have been responsible for crimes that are thousands of times more horrendous than anything Alex Jones is accused of.

What do you think? Comments?

Freedom of Speech Matters, Even if the Provocateur is Alex Jones: 1

August 10, 2018 13 comments

As I briefly talked about in my previous post on this topic, the willingness of large monopolistic corporations to cut off essential services to an unpopular person without due process is highly problematic. Some of you might say that people like Alex Jones, who are cheerleaders of an ideology which hold private and corporate power to be supreme, deserve to be screwed by the very system they worship. And, Yes.. it is darkly funny and ironic that a prominent cheerleader for libertarianism got run over by large corporations acting as surrogate government agencies.

Some of those who commented to my previous post put forth excuses such as.. “they are private corporations”, “he was doing illegal things”, “Google, FaceBook and Apple are not monopolies” and “Free Speech protection does not apply to private corporations” etc. I for one find the sudden love among LIEbrals for private corporations, private property rights, insights into laws about monopolies and free speech rather amusing. Wasn’t it barely two weeks ago when LIEbrals were loudly professing to believe in exactly the opposite of what they are claiming this week?

Then again, establishment LIEbrals have been enthusiastically kissing the ground which Mueller and his fellow NeoCons walk on for almost a years now. They act as if the failed and highly expensive occupation of Iraq never occurred. They pretend that all these newfound icons did not lie through their teeth about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, how american soldiers would be greeted as liberators, how the occupation would cost less than 60 billion USD etc. And don’t forget all those ‘mainstream’ media outlets pimping fake intelligence in 2002 and early- 2003.

My point is that there is something very wrong and short-sighted about cheering on a bunch of wannabe tyrants just because they are persecuting some unpopular person first. And this raises the even bigger issue of why protection of free speech is so important. Let me begin this part by saying that we have laws to protect free speech because it is implicitly understood that free speech is often unpopular speech. Nobody is going to persecute you if you shout “USA, USA” at some game or “thank some veteran for his or her service”. Protection of free speech is, therefore, exclusively about protecting unpopular speech.

Free speech is about calling an asshole an asshole. It is about openly criticizing unjust institutions and systems. It is about organizing and protesting against injustice and unfair treatment. It is about expressing viewpoints contrary to the popular narrative. It is about expressing a dissenting viewpoint in as colorful a manner as you choose. Free speech, especially unpopular speech, provides a feedback mechanism for society to find out and address problems, both temporary and systemic- if it chooses to do so. As you will soon see, there is a good reason behind my decision to put a photo of Alex Jones alongside MLK, Malcolm X and Larry Flynt in the attached graphic.

I am sure that a few of you might be scandalized by my decision to compare the current travails of Alex Jones to such historical and notable figures such as MLK and Malcolm X. That comparison is however far more accurate than many of you would want to admit. For starters, the biggest controversies surrounding MLK and Malcolm X during their lifetimes centered around what they said and the causes they openly supported. Let me remind you that Jim Crow laws, overt “legal” discrimination against blacks and generally treating them as less-than-human was the accepted way of doing things in USA as late as the mid-1960s. In other words, their speech was unpopular speech.

Now ask yourself, have you heard of any instance of either MLK or Malcolm X being denied phone connections by the Bell monopoly of that era, because of their unpopular views? I am sure many whites would have loved to see that happen, but it did not. But why not? Well.. there were laws and regulations that prevented monopolies such as Bell from denying service to people without due legal process. Long story short, they could not deny telephone connections to anyone who paid their bills on time and did not intentionally damage their rented equipment.

The same was true for gas, electricity and water utility companies. Similarly, it was quite hard for major public venues (even at that time) to deny them space for holding large meetings. Compare that to the situation today. Do you think FaceBook would have let groups which openly protested “existing laws” exist on their platform? Would YouTube keep hosting videos in which someone like MLK encouraged his supporters to break “existing laws” even when those laws were clearly unjust. Let me remind you that majority of whites in 1960s were against civil rights and racial equality.

To put it another way, even somebody like MLK would have been deplatformed by internet and communication monopolies such Google, FaceBook and Apple if they had existed at that time. Let us now talk about Malcolm X, or more specifically what he said in his more well-known speeches. Do you think he would be able to remain of social media platforms such as FaceBook, YouTube etc after his famous ‘The Ballot or the bullet‘ speech? Ever considered that a lot of what he said in his other speeches would have gotten him multiple strikes for “hate speech”.

Or what about Larry Flynt, whose first famous conflict with the establishment was over his decision to publish spread nudes of women in the 1970s. And yes, I know they were very hairy- because it was the 1970s. Was the telephone company able cut his connection because they disagreed with the ‘morality’ of his business decisions? What about the press who printed his magazines? Moving on a bit further, do you remember how he got himself into that famous supreme court case. In case you don’t, he used his magazine to incessantly troll religious and conservative frauds such as Jerry Falwell. He won the case and they made a film about it later.

The point I am trying to make is the laws to defend Free Speech are really about defending Unpopular Speech. There is a reason why the standard for what constitutes Free Speech is set such that it is not easy to suppress it with spurious claims of libel and slander- especially if you are a public figure. To be clear, this does not mean you can libel and slander people in a malicious manner. In fact, I know people who received satisfactory settlements against certain well-known news outlets who had libeled and slandered their good name.

If Alex Jones libeled and slandered people or actually incited violence against specific individuals, he should be sued by the affected individuals and the case should be tried before an independent judge and jury and under conditions where his legal counsel can cross-examine the plaintiffs and their witnesses. In other words, even somebody like Alex Jones deserves the benefit of due legal process. His fate should not be decided behind closed doors and on the whims of some petty and unaccountable tyrants employed by internet monopolies such as Google, FaceBook and Apple.

In the next part of this hopefully short series, I will talk about why corporate media outlets peopled with supposedly “professional” and “objective” journalists are a far bigger hazard to public well-being than an alcoholic clown continuously screaming at the camera and hawking nutritional supplements.

What do you think? Comments?

Conflict Between Right Wingers and Tech Monopolies Won’t End Well: 3

May 12, 2019 18 comments

A few months ago, I started a short series about why the conflict between right wingers and tech monopolies won’t end well. While the immediate reason for that series was the conspiracy by tech monopolies to deplatform Alex Jones, I knew that sooner or later there would be more instances of such high-handed behaviour by tech monopolies. As it happens, my allegedly pessimistic views on human beings and their pathetic institutions get validated almost every single time. Some of you might have heard that Roissy’s blog was recently banned. Apparently that particular blog was on WP, unlike self-hosted WP blogs who are constrained only by the availability of a willing DNS registrar and hosting provider. There are those, especially on the “left” who see this as some minor victory in the war against “hate speech”.. which is now basically whatever shrill SJWs do not want you to say in public. Others see it as good riddance since that blog had increasingly become full-bore racist and was frequented by even sadder racist nutcases.

Here is what I think about the whole situation and some of you won’t like to hear it. The right to free speech is about protecting the right to unpopular speech- even and especially if you do not agree with it. I am no fan of the racism, anti-semitism and nativism which increasingly filled up posts on that blog. Having said that, I support the right of Roissy to post crazy and repulsive stuff as long as it does not involve overtly illegal stuff (making specific threats towards specific people etc). In any case, people who post controversial stuff online are not making you go to their site or social media profile and read it. Some of you might think it odd that me, a non-white guy with a deep dislike for racism and other forms of bigotry and discrimination, would support the free speech rights of a blog that peddled many of those very things. Then again, I have read a bit more history than most of you to know that “public moralists” of all shades are power-hungry sociopaths who will not stop once the most objectionable people or stuff are gone.

Consider, for example, that the hilariously misnamed PATRIOT act passed after Sep 11, 2001 to combat “global terrorism” is now used almost exclusively in investigations of “drug trafficking” to target poor people of color. Or SWAT teams, first conceived to tackle rare instances of hostage taking, are now found in almost all larger police departments and usually used to murder non-violent (and usually non-white) citizens. Similarly, laws to deal with highly organised Italian mafia are now used to terrorize, murder and otherwise destroy the lives of poor and often completely innocent non-white people. You might also remember how the 1994 crime bill meant to combat fictitious urban “super-predators” ended up jailing and destroying the lives of millions of black men for “crimes” that would have been never prosecuted if they were suburban whites. My point is that all laws, rules and regulations meant to “protect” public morality, virtue and other non-tangible bullshit end up as tools of exploitation, profit and abuse for those pushing them.

It also my contention that the tech sector, especially tech monopolies are highly susceptible to behave in such a high-handed manner. Of course, the problem with behaving in such a manner is that the inevitable backlash will be especially brutal- and that previous term is not just a figure of speech. Let us first talk about why the information technology sector is unusually susceptible to high-handed and ultimately suicidal behaviour. See.. two types of persons are over-represented in information technology corporation- Aspies and SJWs. Yes, you hear that right- Aspies and SJWs. But why is that combination so problematic and ultimately suicidal? The simple and short answer is that both, Aspies and SJWs, do not posses a functional theory of mind– albeit for different reasons. Aspies, aka computer programmers aka software “engineers” are often seen as smart or intelligent people. The tragically funny part is that they are not.

The vast majority of computer programmers are closer to autistic savant artists and other autistic savants than people without such mental disabilities. While I am not denying their specific skills, a majority of people working in programming etc are what one might say.. suffering from a mild mentally disability. This is also why so many in that sector have libertarian economic leanings. I can appreciate this far better than most since I was a bit aspy as a kid but grew out if it. But most programmer and mathematically minded do not grow out it- largely because they lack the brain circuitry to appreciate what they do not possess- not unlike a child who was born blind or deaf. But why would this be a problem? After all, haven’t the founders of Google, FakeBook etc done very well- at least right now? A disability which lets you make a very nice salary in Silly Valley cannot be that bad.. right? The thing is.. keeping power is far harder than attaining it.

The next issue I am going to talk about will be obvious to most people, but may not register in the mind of tech Aspies. Have you noticed that information technology companies, out all types of corporations, treat their users and customers like shit? I am sure that most of you have come across tons of people complaining about FakeBook, Twatter, Google, Apple, Paypal etc. Did you notice the large tech monopolies missing from that list… Amazon, Netflix and to some extent Microsoft. But why is that so? The ‘so clever’ among you might say that this has something to do with you being the product for companies such as FakeBook and Google and the consumer for Amazon, Netflix and Microsoft. Others might say that this is because they can get away with it- and there is some truth to that. Let me posit a third option- connection or lack thereof to the physical world aka reality. And you will soon why I think that is the case.

Let me ask you another question- How many of you would walk into a some random bar, insult everybody you interacted with and try to start fights with them? Let us assume that you could somehow win the first few bar fights. Or consider randomly insulting people around you, for no good reason. Why won’t the vast majority of people behave in this manner, even if they could “win” the first few times. The simple, if tasteless, answer to that question is most people who are not Aspies understand real-world social dynamics. The majority of people understand that pissing off random people around yourself, for no good reason, carries a serious and rapidly increasing reputational cost. While it may not be much in the beginning, especially if you are rich, the many enmities you will make along the way will lead to your eventual downfall and demise. There is a reason that even Machiavelli advises rulers against mistreating their common subjects- lest it create fertile grounds for successful usurpers.

Even highly totalitarian, but somewhat successful, regimes such as those in the former eastern block understood that gross mistreatment of average people and frequently subjecting them to capricious power-crazy nutcases was fundamentally bad policy. This is also why the Chinese government actually cares about what its people want and think, in many cases far more so than USA. The problem with tech Aspies is that they can read history quite well but are mentally incapable of understanding it. In other words, they are unable to appreciate how their actions and behaviour make them hated and detested. As you will see in the next part of this series, this profound inability to read other people and their proximity to equally oblivious SJWs makes for a really bad combination, with potentially catastrophic results. In case you are wondering, the main reason Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft haven’t gone that far down this route has a lot to do with such behaviour having an immediate and marked negative effect on their business.

In the next part, I will write about how SJWs aka hyper-socialized sociopathic fakes and their involvement in the tech sector makes the effects of tech aspism far worse than it would have otherwise been. SJWs, academic leftists and post-modernists also lack a functional theory of mind- though for vastly different reasons than tech Aspies. As you see, the peculiar combination of tech aspism and SJWism induces way more backlash than either would have by itself.

What do you think? Comments?

Contemporary Transgenderism is Based in Regressive CONservatism

February 4, 2019 14 comments

Readers of this blog will be aware of my rather dim view of certain social movements which claim to be liberal and progressive, but are the opposite of what they claim. I have written more than a few posts about how SJW-ism and how the causes it promotes are actually quite regressive (link 1, link 2 and link 3). I have also been a strong supporter of causes, such as freedom of speech, which are currently unpopular just because losers like Alex Jones are invoking it to defend their odious behavior (link 4 and link 5). Moreover, unlikely many self-anointed progressives, it is my opinion that giving your consent or more power to governments and corporations is a really bad idea (link 6 and link 7). My beliefs don’t fit within intellectually dishonest ‘left-right’ classification which dominate the mind of incestuous circle-jerkers aka “credentialed intellectuals”.

Some of you might be aware that I have written posts on this area such as- Contemporary Elite Support for Transgender Rights and Neoliberalism, On the Most Likely Mode of Discreditation for TransGenderism Ideology and Some Thoughts on How TransGenderism Will Likely Lose Public Support. In these, I covered issues such as the connection of this ideology with neoliberalism and late-capitalism and how institutional support for it is eerily reminiscent of past support for other bad ideas such as eugenics and residential schools. To put it another way, I am not a big fan of that ideology- especially the way in which its proponents are trying to force their worldviews on other people. Some might ask.. “how is that different from struggle for gay and lesbian rights”? Well.. glad you asked, because there is a big difference between them and transgenderism.

But before we go there, let us be clear about something- I have always believed that no person or institution has any right to tell or enforce how another person should live their life or who they should have sex with- as long as it does not involve animals or children. In other words, society should not discriminate between people irrespective of their sexual preferences and lifestyle. But isn’t this belief at odds with my strong support for gay and lesbian rights versus my expressed thoughts about the ideology of transgenderism? Well.. no, because gay and lesbian rights are not in the same category as transgenderism. Confused? Here is the long-form explanation which starts by looking at how the gay and lesbian rights movement came into being.

The modern movement for gay and lesbian rights in west started sometime during late-1960s. While there are many reasons for why it started at that time- it is best understood as being an extension of the sexual revolution and various civil rights movements. So.. ya, the movement for gay and lesbian rights started and grew as a movement for equal legal rights and legal protection from discrimination. And yes, there is a very good reason that I am emphasizing the part about legal equality. You might have noticed that this movement, over the next few decades, was primarily focused on achieving legal equality rather than social acceptance. But why? Why focus on the legal part and not the social part. The simple answer to that question is that legal equality is readily attainable while social acceptance cannot be forced.

A more complex answer requires us to understand its philosophical underpinnings. Specifically, the gay and lesbian rights movement was and is largely based in progressive principles. But isn’t the movement of transgender ideology based in progressive principles too? Well no, it is not and the way I described it provides a partial clue. See, the gay and lesbian rights movements are not independent and free-standing ideologies. Instead they are part of progressive humanism, which is why they were successful and are so uncontroversial today. They demanded equal legal rights because they were also human, rather than somehow special or different. Nor did they try to impose their belief system on other people or make constant demands from others to recognize and celebrate their “specialness”. They just wanted to treated like everyone else.

Now compare this to the ideology of contemporary transgenderism, more precisely how it works in real life. For starters, everyone else is supposed to just shut up and accept any new brainfart emanating from the vocal self-anointed leaders of that movement. Anybody who does not do so immediately is labelled as a denier or heretic. And don’t forget that they are all “extra-special” people with a unique connection to something that nobody else can understand. Accepting this ideology by mutilating your genitals and secondary sexual characteristics is supposed to provide you with a magic cure for all your mental issues and help you get into the inner circle. Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the reactionary bullshit you usually see in religions and cults?

But it gets worse. Have you noticed that those who change their gender (especially from male to female) go for conventionally hyper-feminine look, dress and behavior? But why is that so? Why do they crave socially sanctioned feminine and masculine looks, dress and mannerisms? Let me contrast that with gay men and lesbian women. Have you noticed that both come in a very wide range of looks, dress and mannerisms? While the media, sadly, often still portrays gay men as effeminate queens, most people who have interacted in real life know that they cover the full range of masculinity. In other words, most gay guys are like straight guys. The same is true for lesbian women. Most are not the ultra-masculine “dykes” still sadly portrayed in media. Most of them are like straight women and it is even harder to tell them apart than gay and straight men.

And this brings us to why I said that the ideology of transgenderism is based in a regressive form of CONservatism. One major difference between CONservatism and progressive humanism is that the former requires people to conform and fit into narrow definitions of what they are “meant” to be. That is why, for example, CONservatives were historically against women wearing pants or not dressing in allegedly “approved” ways. This is, also, why women who appear on CONservative news outlets dress and style themselves in a particular hyper-feminine manner. To make a long story short, any ideology which directly or indirectly pushes its followers to conform to narrow “traditional” choices in style, dress and behavior is by definition CONservative. Now combine this insight with the previously mentioned bit about its highly cultish nature and you will why it is fundamentally different from the movement for gay and lesbian rights.

What do you think? Comments?

Conflict Between Right Wingers and Tech Monopolies Won’t End Well: 1

August 17, 2018 13 comments

Important: Please read this post in its entirety before commenting on it. The reason why I put this notice before writing even the first line of this post will be obvious once you start reading it.

So let us begin..

As many of you know, there has been a lot of talk and claims about whether censorship of large internet platforms by tech monopolies without even the tiniest hint of due process is a good idea or not. In case you haven’t noticed, I recently wrote a couple of posts about it (link 1, link 2) and think that it is an incredibly stupid and shortsighted idea. What I did not spell out explicitly in those posts is my belief that this extreme overreach by corporations based in SJW-istan, aka the Bay Area, will result in some incredibly problematic blow-back and reactions- of the kind that will soon make LIEbral idiots, who are still cheering for corporate monopolies to deplatform even more of their ideological rivals, regret coming up with idea in the first place.

But let us first be a bit more specific about what we are talking about. Many of you might have noticed that, since the 9th of November 2016, there has been a push by establishment democrats and contingent of useful idiot activists to use corporate power to go after “those republicans whose votes gave us Trump”. For example, there has been an unusually concerted effort by establishment democrats and dying corporate media to deplatform gun manufacturers and retailers from the highly oligopolistic financial network they created. It is funny how similar this approach is to failed attempts by american establishment to maintain its terminally declining power by imposing economic sanctions on various countries- from Russia and China to DPRK.

It does not take a genius to figure out that rest of the world (especially the parts which matter) are doing quite well in spite of these sanctions, which have unintentionally exposed the rapidly shrinking power of USA. Even very small countries, such as DPRK, have shown little interest in bargaining with USA. You might have heard that they just went ahead and tested their H-Bombs and ICBMs, before even having a formal meeting with USA. Only countries filled with spineless and white-worshiping idiots (such as India) have gone along with american establishment- so far. But what does any of this have to do with the topic of this post? As you will soon see, a lot.

Moving on to something which is similar and related- we have seen establishment democrats and their cadre of useful idiots go after something called “fake news”, which to be quite blunt can be applied to any piece of news or viewpoint one does not personally agree with. I am old enough to remember how anybody who challenged the official justifications for the failed occupation of Iraq in 2003 was labelled as an idiot or traitor by the corporate media. And we all remember how that worked out, don’t we? And who can forget all the other disastrous attempts at pushing narratives such as ‘there is no housing bubble’ as late as 2007 or how dietary carbohydrates were good for you while fats was bad for you- just to give a few of the more memorable examples of what was forcefully pushed by the corporate media as gospel truth.

An even more troubling, and more recent development, have been the willingness of LIEbral idiots to encourage and cheer on internet monopolies as they deplatform people with due legal process for “hate speech” as defined by whichever petty tyrant employed at said corporation is making the decision. Personally, I support the right of people to say whatever they want- no matter how hateful and unpleasant it sounds. Some of you might also be surprised to know that I not white. So ya.. I am perfectly fine with right of others to say hateful things even if I do not agree with it. In case you are wondering, I draw the line at actual and specific threats. For example: Person A wishing for the death of Person B, from say.. cancer, might be tasteless to some- but it is not illegal nor should it be illegal. But as we saw today, even something like this is now cause for suspension of Twitter accounts.

And this is a problem. Or to be more precise, this type of behavior by internet monopolies has the potential to cause all sorts of problems, blowback and downstream consequences far beyond what they themselves can imagine. Let me explain that sentence a bit more clearly. Some you may might have read ‘The Prince’ by Machiavelli in which he famously writes that it is better to be feared than loved- if one has to make a choice between the two. Most people seem to forget the part where he says that one should avoid being despised and hated (even if one is feared) because having people hate and despise you is how you will lose power or get assassinated. But what does this have to do with the ongoing behavior of internet monopolies?

Let us talk about what Machiavelli said about the reasons which drive the populace to hate and despise their ruler. According to him, taking the property and women (property) of populace by the prince (monopoly) because he thinks that he can get away with it (hubris) will make them hate him because people do not forget material insults. He goes so far as to say that men are more likely to forgive you for killing their parents than for taking from them what they own. According to Machiavelli, a prince (monopoly) who acts in a fickle, frivolous, effeminate, mean-spirited, irresolute manner will elicit contempt from the populace. In other words, depriving people of their property or livelihood and acting like an undependable bitch are surefire ways of losing the goodwill and support of your subjects.

But why does a prince require the support and goodwill of his subjects? I mean, since the prince is technically an autocrat, shouldn’t he be able to get away with anything? Well.. if you have read any history, you will know that rulers who did not take care of the needs of their population were usually the last ones of their dynasty- in addition to having short and troubled reigns. But why is that so? Why is it so important to not be hated and despised by the populace? The short answer is that deep public dissatisfaction with their rulers creates a fertile ground for external invasions, internal power struggles, attempts at assassination etc. But these are just second-order problems created due to a populace hating and despising their ruler. The central problem concerns progressive and irreversible loss of institutional integrity and stability.

In the next part of this series, I will write in more detail about why the wide range of individuals and groups affected by the capricious behavior of internet monopolies pose an unusual challenge to the continued existence of these monopolies. Some of you might heard a saying about the perils of making too many enemies at once, and how the course of events subsequent to making such a decision can be highly unpredictable and even harder to control. And hopefully, you will better understand what I meant by ‘it won’t end well’ and also why I put that warning about reading it in its entirety before commenting on it.

What do you think? Comments?