‘Equitable Speech’: The Swamp’s Replacement for Free Speech
Originally published via The Daily Bell:
Elon Musk bought Twitter and promised to stop censorship on the platform.
Legacy corporate media, in reply to his ostensible effort to restore free speech, the foundation of the US Constitution, called Musk a fascist “trying to control how people think.”
MSNBC: Elon Musk ‘can actually control how people think. That’s our job.’
To compensate, they demanded a replacement for free speech — a peculiar new social engineering standard called “equitable speech.”
I previously wrote about two weaponized new designations for speech in the corporate state censorship arsenal called “dangerous speech” and “malinformation.”
Now we have “equitable speech,” pushed by purple-lipsticked MSNBC monstrosity Joy Reid and Anand Giridharadas, a 21st-century POC Fonzie replica.
(His leather jacket and greasy hair mean he’s a rebel against The Man, not actually a former-McKinsey-consultant-turned-New-York-Times-columnist corporate fascist tool in disguise to hoodwink gullible boomers in the network’s 65-year-old target viewership):
<image redacted>
Edgy!
What does “equitable speech” entail, exactly? Given that social engineers conjured it out of thin air, there’s no universal definition.
Joy Reid and her POC Fonzie goon never actually get around to clarifying exactly what they’re calling for – not defining the standard is a key feature of “equitable speech,” as with “hatespeech” and other such vagaries, that enables arbitrary enforcement. But we can be sure it means something like:
“Domestic terrorists, something something, Russia, something something, problematic disinformation, something something, marginalized communities, something something, Our Values©, something something, harm reduction, something something, diverse voices.”
[Fill in the blanks with histrionic buzzword salad.]
‘Equitable speech’ and social media censorship is all about narrative control
If the epic implosion of CNN+ just one week following its launch — even after investors dumped hundreds of millions of wasted dollars into its development and promotion – proved anything, it’s that legacy media can’t compete with actually popular online content on a level playing field.
That’s bad news for narrative control — the only way that the governing class can retain its grip on power.
As just one recent example of the power of narrative control, recent polling proved that corporate media rigged the 2020 election with its censorship regime:
“17 percent of Biden voters would not have voted for the Biden-Harris presidential ticket if they had known about at least one of the eight news stories that were suppressed by big tech and mainstream media outlets [including the Hunter Biden laptop story].”
Without intimidating, throttling, and outright silencing dissenting voices, the corporate state — represented within the political system by the Democrats and in the media by CNN – has no possibility of remaining in power.
Hence the Department of Homeland Security’s Orwellian new “Disinformation Governance Board.”
Will the new DHS ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ enforce ‘equitable speech’?
(By all appearances, the social engineers now intentionally mimic dystopian fiction terms in open mockery of the underclass they govern.)
Joe Biden’s handlers rolled out an entirely new division of the domestic law enforcement agency Department of Homeland Security called the “Disinformation Governance Board”:
“The Department of Homeland Security is setting up a Disinformation Governance Board to try to counter the spread of false information… Misinformation on a number of other issues — from COVID-19 to the election — quickly spreads on social media.”
The new bureaucracy is headed by a bad-faith, unhinged ideologue and self-described “disinformation expert” named Nina Jankowicz. (There are no objective credentials to earn the title of “disinformation expert.”)
(Jankowicz called the 100%-true Biden laptop story “Russian disinformation,” forcing the inevitable conclusion that she would have censored it in 2020 in her official capacity as information commissar.)
Here she is doing an uber-cringe partisan propaganda number directing citizens whom to vote for (hint: it’s not Donald Trump):
“When Rudy Giuliani shared bad intel from Ukraine. Or when TikTok influencers say COVID can’t cause pain. They’re laundering disinfo and we really should take note. And not support their lies with our wallet, voice or vote.”
Public dollars are now paying the salary of a partisan demagogue to silence dissenting voices.
—————–
The initial selling point of these new government powers to police speech, as is often the case with such power grabs, is that they will be directed at human smugglers at the border and Russians. This tactic serves to disguise the true objective, to be revealed in good time, of actually targeting domestic dissidents.
With this initial framing, the security state will placate and provide rhetorical cover to GOP cucks in Congress who play tough on the border and national security, so that they won’t face oppose it or face insurrection from enraged voters.
It’s essentially the same tactic used to initially justify the post-9/11 creation of Department of Homeland Security in 2003 and the passage of the Orwellian “PATRIOT Act.”
That time, they used the boogeyman of evil brown people plotting evils deeds in Third World caves – a rouse which worked on gullible right wingers who ironically now find themselves in the crosshairs.
<image redacted>
“If You See Something, Say Something©” DHS campaign, circa 2010
Call it karma.
In the context of the “Disinformation Governance Board,” once a new war or pandemic grabs the headlines and the public looks the other way, DHS will quietly redirect its focus internally to target “MAGA insurgents,” “white supremacists,” domestic terrorists” – misleading designations that merely mean “anyone who disagrees with the ruling class.”
<image redacted>
——————
Asked about the White House position on the new bureaucracy, Biden spokescreature Jen Psaki, who ostensibly represents the man in charge of the executive branch, claimed she had no authority to weigh in and said DHS was in charge of everything. (The president has direct authority over DHS):
“‘Any hiring decisions are up to the Department of Homeland Security, but this is a person with extensive qualifications,’ Psaki said.”
Unelected background Deep State figures make grave executive decisions with immense Constitutional implications now.
That’s what leadership is! That’s democracy! Those are Our Values©!
Ben Bartee is a Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Armageddon Prose, Substack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter. Please support his independent operations however you can.
Bitcoin public address: 14gU3aHBXkNq8bDqmibfnubV7kSJqfx5LX