Posted 13 января 2021, 13:53
Published 13 января 2021, 13:53
Modified 25 декабря 2022, 20:54
Updated 25 декабря 2022, 20:54
Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
In the hyperinformation space of the 21st century, censorship is, in principle, ineffective. This is not only a rollback into the totalitarian practices of the past, but also simply a meaningless event from a purely technical point of view. Which, on the contrary, only advertises, highlights the prohibited or prohibited. The persecuted US President Donald Trump switched to the telegram messenger, where he already gained about half a million subscribers.
Opinions in the Russian and international communities were fundamentally divided. Including in a liberal and democratic environment.
A new disgusting consensus has emerged that makes all the inhabitants of Russia mental marginals, crypto-colonial microbes. It turns out that now it is not worth speaking out about the events in America and directly censorship in a negative way. The Russians, in the opinion of the consensus representatives, should only be interested in what is happening in Russia.
I had to ban one, especially an arrogant commentator, which, in general, is not in my rules. But. That's amazing. Censorship against Trump suits them, and they come to me to be rude.
It is also interesting to observe how the public is distressed by the "inconsistent" opinion of Andrei Illarionov * (namely, because of his recent material "The Arson of the Reichstag - 2021" ). Illarionov is difficult to suspect of being engaged. He himself lives in the United States and takes great risks, speaking out against the new government. Here's what he writes:
“What resources remain with citizens if the legal and political systems refuse to respond to social challenges?
Answer: The right to replace such a political regime.
A comprehensive description of this right is contained in the canonical text of the United States Declaration of Independence:
“...all the experience of the past confirms that people tend to endure vices as long as they can be tolerated, rather than use their right to abolish the government forms that have become familiar to them. But when a long series of abuses and violence, invariably subordinated to the same goal, testifies to an insidious intention to force the people to come to terms with unlimited despotism, overthrowing such a government and creating new guarantees of security for the future becomes the right and responsibility of the people".
Together with Trump, they threw out freedom. I also understand when the conventional "bad" want to become "good." They cling to the agenda in order to get rid of the negative background. Wash away injuries, legalize, legitimize.
But now the consensus agenda is voiced not by the "bad" ones, but by none. Eternal Komsomol members swear allegiance to the global distribution base to spread their bread and butter on someone else's "Crimea is not a sandwich".
The current agenda of the American so-called Democrats, although they are not Democrats, since they brandish the hammer of censorship, is a neo-Marxist revenge taking place before our eyes.
All that would seem to have passed in the 20th century and realized as ineffective social models, namely, Marxist, socialist methods of social structure, are currently trying to recreate in the current United States under the brand of liberalism.
Thus, we are dealing with a whole system of substitution and manipulation. Starting directly with the recent controversial US presidential elections, which were at least opaque. Then, moving on to political censorship in the media and ending with mass protests, which are approved in the case of BLM and vice versa, are condemned in the case of the "trumpliers".
The apotheosis of this set of dirty tricks is the stretched Trump-Hitler parallel. Instead of a thousand words, I refer these banal metaphorists to Godwin's Law.
Journalist Sergey Mitrofanov writes:
“But the government is weak, and the state is still a police force, and real totalitarianism reigns there. Maybe it seemed to you that since you can block the president's account on the Internet, then this is just a manifestation of democracy and the resistance of civil society to authoritarianism? An, no. TV bypasses this issue, but emphasizes that there may have been an attempt on freedom of speech (* this point of view was supported by Illarionov, Navalny and the philosopher-publicist Vitukhnovskaya)".
And here we again deal with the substitution and creation of false conceptual pairs (dichotomies). We and the central Russian television are a false pair here. Our political goals are completely different. I, Illarionov and Navalny are people who are in no way connected with each other. Each of us has his own reasons and grounds for affirming what he considers necessary. Moreover, our opinion does not in any way correlate with the opinion of the television officialdom. Points of contact on topical issues do not mean ideological identity. Putting your opponent into the enemy's camp is a very primitive and, most importantly, useless move.
If the Kremlin tomorrow says that “two times two is four”, then we will not dispute this statement. But at the same time, this will not mean that we are in solidarity with the Kremlin.
My already traditional Facebook poll on this topic caused the following reactions.
The philosopher Pavel Gelman writes:
“As censorship, this act is meaningless, since Trump's position is already known to the whole world. Rather, it is an act of loyalty to the new administration".
Alex Moma, a political activist and member of the Libertarian Party of Russia, spoke out as follows:
“Undoubtedly. This is not just such an act, it is a sign that the first amendment to the American Constitution no longer works, and all power has passed to the neo-Marxists".
Blogger Aino Boldina wrote:
“Corporations are already placing themselves above states, and this is unacceptable and fraught with dire consequences for people. Moreover, I believe that this is the main danger for the future".
User Alexander Sofronov unequivocally condemned the censorship:
“Any censorship is evil. Be it the censorship of conservatives, leftists, democrats or liberals. You should not be prohibited from expressing your opinion if it is not an outright insult or a call to violence. Trump did not call for violence, he called for the fight against electoral fraud and a coup d'etat by leftists in the United States".
What happened for a long time does not resemble the plot of the classic dystopia "1984", it went much further. We are witnessing in real time the collision of the hyperinformation society in the face of its flagships - IT giants, moreover, just as victims of the crisis of management models, as well as the mass unconscious regulated by them, trying to control modernity with prohibitive measures characteristic of past centuries. This is a kind of neo-barbecue in a plastic shell. The film "Mad Max", which I often mention in connection with current historical events, can again serve as a visual metaphor here.
So, through the scorched desert of mass expectations, driven by the dry and hot wind of the coronacrisis, a frantic information flow rushes, from which all dissent and renegades are thrown out at full speed, amid the cheerful hooting of passengers-hostages, fastened tightly to the uncomfortable philistine chairs.
* The Andrey Illarionov Institute for Economic Analysis Foundation is included by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in the register of foreign agents.