Operation "Under the Carpet"

The erosion of the British tradition of free speech.

There is a new system of privilege sweeping the UK.

It’s not decided upon by how much money you have or which class you belong to.

It’s determined by your views and whether or not they are deemed acceptable by Big Brother.

Yes, I'm talking about the right to free speech on social media.

My Twitter account was nuked recently, as were many others, in a massive purge.

“Surely not!” I hear you mutter. That kind of thing only happens to extremists…...like that nasty Katie Hopkins or weirdos like David Icke.

Well, sorry to piss in your prosecco, but there is a massive clean-up of accounts going on right now involving ordinary people whose only crime is to question the narrative or say something someone took offence to, and it’s taking place largely unnoticed.

There comes a point in time, after ridiculing a movement, when the numbers become too great to be able to successfully pull that off.

So, what then? “Operation under the carpet”.

The early days of Shitshow were characterised by lines being drawn. You were team Covid or team Convid. Today, as many people realise their precious vaccination is worth as much as a nine-bob note, it becomes harder to mock the millions who declined it and are still living healthy lives. Far better to brush us dissidents clean out of sight.

If anyone can rise to fame on the back of a kitten video, it makes sense that certain groups must be silenced if *the system* is to corral and steer us towards a future of enslavement in which we eat bugs, own nothing and are happy.

Social media influencing is big business, so heaven forbid if anyone remotely relatable or eloquent dares challenge the status quo! 

Why? Because other people might listen and get bold ideas, y’know, about radical shit like shaping their own destiny or not believing what they see on telly.

The gift of speech has become exactly that right now - a prize.  It is bestowed upon four favoured types of individuals.

They are:

• Those who don’t upset the apple cart

• Those who sell the poison apples

• Apple cart pushers 

And those who are rotten to the core.

“I don’t know what you’re moaning about” 

proclaim the liberals, clutching their Amnesty leaflets of sad-eyed Middle Eastern folk in jail.

“You can speak out……it’s just that Facebook and Twitter are private companies so it’s up to them who they allow on their platform”.

Indeed, they are. But in 2022 Britain, a time in which we’ve all been weaned from the mother milk of real human experience onto the dirty digital bluebottle, does this argument still hold sway?

When a company grows so huge that it is often quoted on the national news as a public mood barometer - which in turn shapes policy - can we still treat it as just another company?

I would argue no. If we accept that social media informs politics, then to stop sections of society being able to contribute, is to deny them that influence. They are on a lesser footing than their compliant fellow citizens. 

This is why the situation is so concerning. Decisions that affect all of us are being made on the whim of a fake consensus.

Much is made of echo chambers, but Twitter is fast becoming a warped hall of mirrors.  It does not offer an accurate depiction of our world, but rather a deliberate distortion of it with a scant whiff of opposition thrown in like a shit lucky bag.

As I contemplate this social engineering, I am reminded of how pedigree dogs are bred. 

The dog displaying unfavourable characteristics is removed from the circle and then you breed some more. Then you tweak again….and again. Eventually you are left with the desired specimen, the would-be Crufts winner.  

We know this technique causes harm to animals, so what effect could such a model have on a healthy society robbed of its natural inclination to hold diverse opinion and seek debate? 

Furthermore, what is being cultivated in its place and for what ends?

It is worth deliberating how we got here.

After all, us Brits, are held in high regard for our ability to tolerate others, to “live and let live”.

The last few years have seen speech acquire categories, which effectively shut topics down so they cannot be explored. The banners pop up to warn us a source is not to be trusted or sometimes content is completely censored and doesn’t even make our screens.

To label something “hate speech” or “misinformation” is to immediately slam the door.

But who is slamming that door and why? 

When doors are locked, it’s seldom in our interests. 

The story of Bluebeard reminds us that our natural curiosity exists for a reason and will ultimately come to our rescue. When the young heroine eventually, against “advice” opens the one door she has been forbidden from opening, she is faced with a very harsh truth that saves her - the bodies of Bluebeard’s former wives.

So, what about the doors of misinformation and hate speech? the stuff we’re not supposed to see? What bodies lie behind those doors? 

Is it really as bad as they say? Who are ‘they’? Why are they saying it?

As always, our *go to* should be Cui Bono. Who benefits from views not being aired, from information uncirculated? By dialogue not being exchanged?

You can believe the superficial happy-clappy explanations served up like fluffy pancakes by our gatekeepers. Or you can dive deeper.

Whose investments are damaged?

Whose plans are thwarted?

Follow the money.

As with sugar in coffee, offence is taken rather than given but also as with sugar, it should be our own decision whether or not we opt for it, not the choice of someone else who allegedly knows better.

I will make my mind up.

I will judge what is presented to me using both instinct and my own research skills.

I want to decide if Katie Hopkins is a bitch or if David Icke has lost the plot.

It is NOT a person’s moral obligation to not cause offence. Indeed, the opposite is true. It is one’s civic duty to offer genuine observation and insights and to risk offending.

When this doesn’t happen, the result is an Emperor’s New Clothes debacle where everyone is saying his suit looks amazing when in fact, the guy is stark bollock naked.

It’s already starting to happen. The language of “identity” and “pronouns” is beginning to obscure biological fact and people are having it!

So, where do we go from here?

We must revisit free speech as a concept. 

If I am alone in the woods mouthing to the trees because my throat has, for all intents and purposes been slit by elite billionaires, how can that truly count as free speech? 

It means nothing.

Sound is redundant without an audience. 

The written word is mere squiggle without a reader to interpret its form.

Perhaps at the moment you don’t have something too controversial to say. 

Perhaps you see no problem and feel you can say what you like, unhindered. 

But as the screw tightens, the fat is trimmed ever more keenly, and the morsel of evil further exposed and defined. If you do not speak up now for others who are gagged, one day you too will find yourself at the mercy of the chopping block. 

I challenge you to get outside your comfort zone and fight for the opinions to be heard of those you hate as well as love and admire. 

It’s not about the content but the action itself.

Failure to do this will mean we are left with a woke nothingburger that everyone swears blind tastes like a quarter pounder. 

But you know what comes first, don’t you?

Crickets.

PS If you enjoyed this, you may also find this piece interesting.

Parties, Whips and Chains.