Can we ban all accounts who tweet “free speech?”
Angela Belcamino @AngelaBelcamino
Tweeted on April 27, 2022
[At first I thought it might be sarcasm. But upon close inspection I don’t think it is.
After reading many of her tweets, I’m still not sure how to classifier her. Is she merely ignorant of history or is she evil? Perhaps the correct answer is “Both!”—Joe]
If nothing else. She safely fits in the useful idiot column. Amazing. They really are pants pissing scared.
This stuff is the other side of Yuri. Moral subversion just doesn’t cover it. We got half a nation of Bagdad Bobs. The whole world history of communism, human nature, the workings of propaganda. Literally at their fingertips and carried in their pockets. Generally, never more than an arm’s reach away.
And they still can’t see it. And don’t want to know.
It’s no longer a wonder why the real communist kills these people first. Poor Angela. Got no clue what’s coming.
Response: “Sure, but we’ll also ban all accounts who complain that free speech isn’t ‘free speech’. Including yours.”
It’s amazing to me, these people had no problem when the rules were arbitrarily enforced favoring their side, but now that the rules will be consistently enforced across the board — favoring nobody’s “side” — it’s the end of the(ir) world.
Maybe it’s because they know that enforcing the rules objectively will disproportionately affect their side, since the Left are the ones advocating doxxing and violence; the Right generally doesn’t. Twitter had to stretch or break their own rules to enforce “community standards” against conservatives, and had to bend or ignore the rules to avoid enforcing “community standards” against liberals. Objective “community standards” will mean the loss of many Leftist accounts and the restoration of many conservative accounts.
No wonder the Left is losing its collective mind.
“Mal-educated” would certainly fit. A fine product of our Jesuitical education system and legacy media.
Why, goes the general argument, should people be thinking and speaking according to individual conscience when we have experts who already know better (and a pope who has the authority of “god” [VICARIVS FILII DEI], and the backing of “science”)?
This is in perfect keeping with the system of the Dark Ages, when “heresy” (thinking for one’s self) was punishable by death. “Free speech” indeed. Nothing, save an armed citizenry, could be more antithetical to the hierarchical, authoritarian mindset and thus a “high crime” and an offense against “The Common Good”.
We used to joke about this stuff, but it is no longer a matter for jokes. I suppose it never was, except to highlight its extreme differences from America’s originally asserted founding principles. Point out those extreme differences today, and many hearers, born, raised and educated on American soil, will favor the authoritarian position over the libertarian. It will soon be considered a form of self incrimination to assert a right of free speech, or any of the other constitutionally enumerated rights. If you “waive your fifth amendment rights” by freely and publicly admitting that you’re opposed to the new, globalist system (which after all is merely The Common Good in practice), a time is coming, and already is in some venues, when you will be punished for it.