If you check the collection of posts, it probably sounds funny that nothing has been written for over three years, but that was a sort of passive response to a self-styled free world that, in the writer's opinion, was steadily moving away from fundamental values and almost seemed to be falling apart.
Indeed, the main features of an ideal free world appeared to be crumbling: apart from other issues, a tyrannical attitude had started to infect everything, in the name of supreme values!
Ironically, during the last few years, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of protesting, freedom of opinion have been severely restricted, apparently with the noble aim of protecting and defending both freedom and democracy!!!

Perhaps more importantly, freedom of opinion and freedom of speech were curtailed by claiming that there was the (fake) need to reduce the spread of misinformation and fake news. However, in my own view, this assertion is regularly used as a blatant pretext to impose and justify censorship, which has become one of the most favorite weapons in the hands of government agencies, mainstream media, unscrupulous financial groups and hi-tech giants. No doubt, these entities often try to base their power on unique, unquestionable truths, which (most of the times) cannot be proven.
Thus, here comes the trick: a systematic crackdown on freedom of expression and opinion, in order to spread and impose a unique, unquestionable truth.

I firmly believe that any reasonable person should understand that the most serious attack on democracy is NOT launched by the spread of so-called fake news: the real war on democracy is waged by those circles of power who endeavor to limit freedom of speech and succeed in delivering the news they want—ONLY the news they want, again and again.

The categorical imperative is clear. For the survival of the system, it is of paramount importance to hide uncomfortable truths and unfavorable opinions as much as possible, with the help of a magic keyword: fake news.
No matter that fake news, by its very nature, is practically harmless, because it can usually be debunked quite easily. At the very least, it is always possible to prove that a false story has no grounds and is totally based on unsubstantiated claims—of course, IF the false story we are talking about really has no grounds and has NOT been concocted by certain entities (government agencies, mainstream media, unscrupulous financial groups, hi-tech giants). In this case, that false story will certainly continue to be told as if it were absolutely true.

As I said, fake news, in principle, is practically harmless. For instance, we can consider the hypothetical case of the false story about a zoologist who has found packs of penguins in the wild in Alaska. No doubt, censorship would not be the best solution: it would be much better (and much more useful to society) to expose the stupidity of the reporter who told that silly story.

Yet, someone might object that censorship is a reasonable precaution to reduce the risk that the story grabs the attention of naive, silly people who are predisposed to believe that penguins can coexist with sea otters and seals somewhere not far from Anchorage. That is true, but it is also likely that the number of these people is very low, because there is plenty of scientifically proven evidence that North America is not the natural habitat of penguins. Hence, there is no need to censor anyone—and, perhaps, even the establishment would agree on this point, because such a story would not interfere with its interests!

Similarly, there are people who believe (or pretend to believe) that the Earth is flat, but they are very few, because (again) there is plenty of scientifically proven evidence on the shape of our planet. Hence, (again) there is no need to censor anyone—and, in actual fact, even the establishment certainly agrees on this point, because the flat Earth hypothesis does not interfere with its interests! Otherwise, it would not be so easy to find and browse websites, which are managed by flat Earth enthusiasts... while it is practically impossible to be directed to anti-vaxxer websites by using a search engine!!!

In my opinion, there are very good reasons to insist that censorship is a strategic tool to protect personal interests, rather than freedom and democracy. Even when we focus on recent events and, more specifically, on the action taken against Russian news networks, it is hard to imagine how alleged fake news could affect the ongoing conflict in Ukraine or could threaten the alleged freedom of the Western world. Surely, there would be no problem in proving that those networks are wrong (and are run by very foolish people), if they claimed that Dmitry Medvedev spent last Christmas in Kyiv to celebrate his appointment as new President of Ukraine!

It appears more likely that the main objective of the ban is to curb any attempt to put emphasis on the Western bombs in Libya, Serbia, Syria or on the dramatic consequences of forcing Russia to become a close friend of China and Iran!
Some publicity over the bombardments in Libya, Serbia, Syria, or ironic comments about the new friends of Russia would probably spoil the common narrative—yet, those bombs and that friendship are facts (maybe facts to be hidden and forgotten), BUT they are NOT fake news. Thus, they should be accepted by the zealous defenders of freedom who rule the West. After all, no Russian interference could prevent Western media from giving details about what has been happening in Ukraine. Definitely, there are a lot of good arguments to claim that the so-called "special operation" has been a catastrophic failure for Russia for over one year, with a negative impact on several aspects of everyday life: international relations, domestic affairs, economic issues and military prestige.

In the end, the crackdown on the freedom of speech, combined with the spread of alleged truths, has nothing to do with democracy and human rights, but is a valuable asset for political parties, unscrupulous companies and even groups of self-proclaimed scientists. In actual fact, we have recently seen that the axe of censorship has been extensively used even to stifle debate about typical scientific issues—which looks absolutely amazing!
It goes without saying that respected scholars would never dispute scientifically proven theories. Therefore, it is inevitable that censorship is needed only in the presence of a theory that must be absolutely accepted, even though it is not based on solid foundations. Otherwise, the danger is obvious: an open debate could lead to unpleasant, unwanted results, especially when the difference between an accepted theory and an unaccepted theory can be quantified in terms of billions of dollars!!!

I am just thinking of a would-be scientist who claims that the freezing temperature of gasoline is higher than the freezing temperature of water... should he be censored? Perhaps, he should rather be invited to study the subject before speaking. Then, if the would-be scientist insists, it can be easily proved that he is not a bit silly, but very stupid!
Frankly speaking, censorship applied to scientific subjects reminds of the time when real scientists were forced to reject the Copernican theory owing to the dominant position of would-be scientists at the service of powerful institutions or, if you prefer, owing to the dominant position of powerful institutions who had full control over would-be scientists!

In today's world, however, it might be wrong to believe that the most powerful institutions are government agencies. Most of the times, the rules of the game are imposed by the hi-tech companies that control the flow of information, give evidence to news and reports (maybe unsubstantiated reports) that help their favorite leaders, ignore or downplay what might annoy their political friends and apply strict censorship as soon as unpleasant opinions and ideas start to circulate. Just to give an example, there was an enormous effort to instill terror in society and attack the enemies of the global health tyranny, when a (perhaps engineered) virus began to emerge. The high priests of the web did immediately work as hard as they could to spread covidolatry, a cult for which brand new rituals were created with the aim of checking how much hardship the average citizens of a nation were stoically willing to endure.
Surprisingly, the most significant protests took place in Communist China, where the local regime, after three years of useless house arrests and sufferings, was suddenly forced to give up its ineffective strategies. As expected, there was a spike in cases, lots of fortune-tellers around the world predicted an apocalypse, western shamans were quick to offer their magic potions to solve the problem, the Chinese government said "No, thank you" and all the drama was over in a few weeks—probably thanks to herd immunity, as had already happened in North Korea.

As for the new cult, when it all began, the combined action of high-tech companies was a natural response. The rise of the global health tyranny was a godsend—a fantastic opportunity to be exploited, by all means, without hesitation: everyone could understand that its value was billions of dollars!!!
So, out of the blue, the web turned into an efficient propaganda machine to support any violation of basic (human) rights: first and foremost, freedom of speech and freedom of movement.

Definitely, nothing happened by chance. Should you have any doubt, you might think back to the huge market of online services, videoconferencing, virtual meetings software, video calls, remote learning, online lectures, [...] and don't forget all the lovely stuff you needed to have everything working!

Anyway, let's go back to the topic of this page! We hope you will be interested in our comments and will share your opinion with us. You can submit your remarks to the address author@jihad-al-kuffar.com.
We do look forward to hearing from you.
Do not forget to specify which post you refer to.

Please, feel free to use the material in this site. We just ask you to give credit to the source.