Substack does not have a Nazi problem
Substack does not have a Nazi problem
It is the censors who must explain their vices, not the writers.
In recent times Substack has witnessed a slew of new writers join the platform and loudly call for more moderation in the content published. Many of these enthusiastic censors are refugees from the collapsing mainstream media keen to capitalize on the growing popularity of Substack.
To complement this Atlantic magazine recently published a piece entitled Substack Has a Nazi Problem, written by one of their writers who also publishes here on Substack. In the article he called for more energetic removal of troubling material he claimed was widespread on this platform.
Much of it is “Neo-Nazi” in nature. White supremacists are also at large it would seem. These too cannot be tolerated. They spread hate and racism. Censorship is the only solution. Substack must tackle this important issue and make the platform more like the mainstream outlets that are dying.
Terms like Neo-Nazi are not intended as accurate labels. They are used to halt debate and encourage an immediate, emotional judgement.
It is generally accepted use of the term Neo-Nazi is designed to conjure up some vortex of anti-Semitism, racism and perhaps suggest real horrors like eugenics. It is a label exclusively aimed at white Europeans.
It acts as a handy marker to remind you to go no further. You will become infected by their hate. Perhaps they believe the arguments of “Neo-Nazis” are too compelling to be published such is their power over others. A key insight into the mindsets of the censorious.
White supremacy is the other popular label. This one sees more use as they’ve discovered no one has ever met a Neo-Nazi.
We are told white supremacy is the number one threat facing the Western world today. To translate, the most dangerous people in Western nations are the descendants of those that built them.
This is of course an inversion of how the rest of the world works. No one in India is reminded of the threat of brown supremacists. And we can only imagine the howls of laughter at Nigerians being warned about the black supremacists in their midst.
Nonetheless it is the flavour of the month here in the West. White supremacy is a clear and present danger. In the United States it is listed as the primary threat to the nation. Not minorities killing minorities, not serious looting leading to the flight of taxpayers from big cities, not progressive DAs releasing violent thugs back on to the streets within hours of committing crimes. No, the real threat is a group of people so invisible they should really be called white ninjas. They are everywhere despite their apparent scarcity.
This could be because the term is not used to describe an identifiable group of people. Its purpose is to act as a warning.
Dominant narratives around diversity and mass immigration don’t work unless we demonize criticism as racism, and the fastest way to accomplish that is to assure readers any pushback is an implicit belief in the inferiority of the immigrants. This is designed to trigger the liberal European concern with unfairness. It is a manipulation.
Elite preoccupation with “white supremacy” is primarily driven by fear. No other cultural group has the same long history of concern over individual liberty. This common trait of Europeans is at odds with the many utopian schemes now fashionable with establishment figures and their lackeys.
What they really fear is the emergence of some form of white identity similar to that seen in other ethnic groups. Hence the constant references to Nazis. That conjures up images of master races or eugenics. Genocide is implied too, the implicit threat being if Europeans get their act together and start acting in their own interests like every other group is encouraged to do there will be blood.
That worries some, so they try to stave off the emergence of this dangerous thing by anticipating what it might look like. To people whose grasp of WW2 comes from Raiders of the Lost Ark then Nazis are perfect. Easily conjured up in the mind and instantly understood as evil. The connection is automatic.
All this is known even if forbidden to discuss. But who are these people that want to ruin our fun?
Who calls for censorship?
Who are the people so worried about Substack they are writing articles in the mainstream media to warn us of the hate it allows to be published?
Many of the calls to censor are a means to demonstrate to others in their peer group they are on message. It also lets the powerful know they understand what is expected of them, an elaborate form of virtue signalling. I am dependable and obedient, a slave to the preoccupations of the elite. See how I conform.
This is so commonplace we often overlook the obscenity of these performances. People will limit what you can read and will destroy the quality of our cultural life for selfish personal gain.
Far from being virtuous this is plumbing the very depths of vice, the vice of avarice. Many covet what society can give them, the treasure and the prestige they imagine they deserve, all it will cost is your right to see and hear and read what you wish.
The very act of calling for censorship to signal one’s adherence to a regime that can hand out prizes instantly makes them unfit to cast judgment on anyone, not even Nazis.
Theirs is the more active component of maintaining the current thing. They know their job is to set the tone the more passive signallers use to demonstrate their own allegiance to the thoughtless ideas that animate the chattering classes. They tell the faithful what is in and what is out. Orange man bad, castrating boys good.
These are the people calling you a Nazi.
Say what you like
Free speech is not this. Free speech is open speech – say what you will. After all those who dislike what you say are free to challenge or ignore it.
There are some accepted constraints. We cannot call for harm to others. If by “Neo-Nazi” they mean something specific like calling to harm Jews or other groups then this is unlawful. It can be said to encourage lawless behaviour, which is illegal.
Most will accept restrictions on speech along these lines. Say what you like but don’t threaten to harm or kill people or groups, and don’t encourage others to do so.
We should remember critics are not suggesting this is the case. When they claim some popular figure is a fascist or will become a dictator they are indulging in rhetorical manipulation. Those with verbal dexterity and above average IQs excel at this. It is their main selling point in life and is present in writers, journalists and academics, the very groups most vocal about imposing censorship to protect us from the evils of hate speech.
The only position for a healthy society is everyone gets their say. The only response to the censorious is no. Nobody gets to decide. Only everyone gets to decide what we can read.
Why free speech is necessary
People yearn for information. Sophisticated readers understand everyone is biased. Calls for unbiased information on neutral platforms are unrealistic. This is tacitly acknowledged by the would-be censors who argue to limit speech based on their own world view. They champion bias in the name of preventing hate speech. What is this if not a call for a specific viewpoint?
The more seasoned reader understands the only way to ensure a lack of bias is ever more speech. For us to have access to all points of view. Anyone is then able to absorb multiple biased perspectives and come to their own conclusions.
Objectionable material that troubles some can be argued against. It is often this interplay between different positions where most of us develop our own ideas on any number of issues. No one has a monopoly on truth. We learn more from watching opponents slug it out over some issue we care about.
The answer to all this is more speech, never less. Those calling for restrictions beyond the accepted norm of avoiding incitement to harm always have an agenda, the very thing we are told drives those Nazis we are not allowed to read.
What are we to make of all this?
It is not the “Neo-Nazis” or “white supremacists” who need to explain themselves. Neither exist except in the fevered imaginations of the groupthinkers where they act as a kind of intellectual dark matter, the only way to make their cultural equations balance. Why else would anyone deviate from our conspicuous compassion and vote conservative unless they had been hijacked by the hard right?
Nonetheless it is the would-be censors who need to explain their vice of control. Most of their arguments can be reduced to distaste. They find some material upsetting. They wish it didn’t exist.
Much of this distaste is cultivated in the bubbles they inhabit, echo chambers where no one challenges anything and social capital is the currency of choice. This is the living hell of the midwit social climbers, where it is important to demonstrate fealty to righthink and to ensure it is visible. Everyone there is playing a game and they cannot understand the rest of us are not.
Who has this need except the insecure? Those unsure of their position. Those who cannot cope with challenges to their worldview. Those who don’t really have considered opinions at all. Those who wear opinions like a disguise.
The mentally weak in other words. People absolutely convinced they are right and any deviation from their own adopted norms are an aberration to be corrected. When feelings trump facts then conviction is the measure of the weak minded. I feel strongly about this so it must be true.
Of all the groups least suited to evaluating the suitability of content we are allowed to consume those who mistake conviction for virtue have to rank highest, a mental blindspot they can never acknowledge.
The way to deal with speech is not to indulge a need to control it but the altogether more traditional approach of printing it all. Let anyone read anything they like. Let them sort it out. Let them decide for themselves.
Capitulating to the whining effeminacy of weaklings afraid others might read something they disapprove of is a mistake. There is one response to these initiatives, a firm no. Only Nazis want to censor others.
If you liked that you may like this.
The "Nazis" Katz describes notes are a small and marginalized group that has as much chance of gaining political power as a Civil War reenactment group has of retaking Dixie. Meanwhile, he's ignoring the clear and present danger in his backyard. Does he honestly think that the people who cheered while "racist" cities burned won't cheer when "Zionist" synagogues and community centers get torched?
Shortly before the cancel crowd showed up after being sacked from their jobs there was a spate of crudely made Substacks which popped up and practically broadcast fake fed from a foghorn. These sites were so idiotic I don't think the Feds knew they were telegraphing how fake they were.
If you didn't know better you'd think the whole thing was coordinated as a false flag.
Manufacture problem, then draw attention to fake problem and then call for global censorship of Substack.
I doubt if those "Nazi" sites have had more than ten hits in their existence and most of those from the cancel culture 'tards.