Substack über alles

Yesterday’s men are getting desperate.

I recently wrote a piece exploring the emergence of calls for censorship on Substack.

A group of individuals had joined the platform from the mainstream media and social media sites. They quickly assessed the blogs here and concluded Substack was a hotbed of Nazi content driven by fascists.

I wrote my piece thinking it would be a short-lived phenomenon. But they don’t seem to be going away. They appear to be even more enraged by the pushback.

I took the time to read some of their articles and notes. Their sense of outrage is matched only by their conviction. The Nazis must be stopped. Substack must moderate harmful content. The harm is not defined, but is presumably psychological harm.

All this potential harm has a well-understood solution. Ignore it. Read something else. All the normal things your mother would remind you of. Sticks and stones.

But this common sense approach is not in vogue. And nor is argument, debate or live and let live. These indulgences open the door to hate and fascism.

In a sense they are right. Something dangerous is afoot, but it isn’t Substack Nazis. The lunatics have destroyed their own asylum and now they want ours here on Substack.

What are we to think of these developments? Well, let us see...

---

Substack HQ, yesterday.

There are calls for censorship here on Substack. Echoing past developments within social media we now see demands to moderate harmful content. Substack must remove anything defined as harmful to others. Hateful material is mentioned, and we cannot tolerate hate in any form.

More explicitly there is pressure to cancel and remove the authors of these hateful blogs. Names are named, although they are few in number.

Some of the demands are infused with an air of superiority. If Substack is to compete with the media titans where some of these new Substackers originate from then it must up its game. It must rise to the challenge and ban content. We are assured no new writing platform that aspires to greatness can succeed while allowing all this hate.

What they mean is Substack doesn’t look like the failing media organs they are fleeing from. It leaves comment controls to the authors. There are muting and blocking tools so readers can dismiss anything they dislike, including people.

None of this is good enough. Personal autonomy is no match for top-down control. How else can we ensure righthink prevails if we don’t impose it?

It is all very tedious and, interestingly, becoming more obviously so. It is beginning to feel out of date. Old solutions to non-problems.

We are all aware it took a $44 billion buyout to begin to fix Twitter and tone down some of the wrongthink removal apparatus. It is unlikely most authors would like to see a similar situation here on Substack.

So what are they whining about? Everything hateful, which means the usual suspects. Here are a few standard tropes that keep them up at night.

Racism

Racism is everywhere. Racists are writing articles and promoting hatred and division. White supremacy, the gold standard of racism, is omnipresent on Substack.

It is also expertly hidden. No one can find much of it. Hardly any swastikas either. Our resident Klansmen obviously haven’t mastered the art of self-promotion.

It is difficult to tell if this is old school racism, the sort that hates anyone who doesn’t look like me, or something related to immigration.

It is probably the latter as few people nowadays will broadcast obvious racist comments, whatever their private feelings on the matter.

There are plenty of measured comments about the effects of mass immigration into Western countries.

Recent events in Ireland threw up many of these. There was a particular focus on the Irish government’s inappropriate response, clamping down on dissent from an enraged public after being informed an illegal immigrant from Algeria had stabbed young children.

Many European countries are now talking about these issues too, and are doing so in explicitly cultural terms. Are they racist as well? Most are democratically-elected government ministers, not cranks.

This focus on an influx of alien peoples is normal. It is a concern shared by most of the world’s population which is why few countries allow mass immigration.

This and related social problems that arise from unwise immigration policy are of interest to ordinary people. The mainstream has effectively banned all discussion beyond peripheral issues.

The tension around culture and diversity are not a sign of latent Nazism or white supremacy, but a product of enforced silence. The real concerns of ordinary people cannot be discussed or explored, so they go searching for answers.

Far from being a reflection of hate it is a consequence of frustration at the total failure of the mainstream media to tackle these issues in a mature fashion.

People on Substack already know what censorship of diversity and multiculturalism looks like. It doesn’t work and it causes problems. It is something we need less of not more.

Trans hate

Substack are platforming transphobes. Transphobia is rarely defined. It seems to be anything from thinking trans women are men, to complaining about male-to-female transgenders competing in women’s sporting events. All this chatter is just the preamble for trans genocide.

There are many criticisms of the transgender movement, and even more for public policy enacted in its name. Grown men in women’s bathrooms, especially with young girls present, is not tolerated in most countries for a reason.

Many of the claims made about transgender hate seem to be little more than people describing reality. However a transgender person thinks of themselves, real life exists. No one can change sex.

What some can do is amend superficial aspects of their appearance to mimic a member of the opposite sex. Most obviously clothing. They can also take a cocktail of hormones that may make physiological changes to appearance such as different fat distribution.

No amount of medical intervention can actually change a person’s biological sex and gender reassignment surgery will sterilize the individual for life.

Most people are decent and will play along if they meet a trans woman, even one who is unmistakably masculine. Many of the claims of transphobia are either people pointing out the physical limits of transgenderism, as noted above, or stating the obvious, that no one can really change sex.

Since most would never insult or abuse such individuals in real life the healthiest way to discuss these matters is openly and frankly. We are all aware social contagion may play a part in teenagers adopting transgender identities so it is vital we are free to discuss this topic, especially concerned parents.

Simply writing all this off as hate or transphobia is itself a phenomenon that requires scrutiny. And as with so much in this particular domain it rarely survives serious attention.

Misogyny

Substack is an open invitation to wife-beating maniacs. They hate women and seek to enslave them. Substack allows hate towards women.

Nazis too hate women. They have a disdain for their empowerment and their hard-won freedoms. Given half a chance they’d chain them all to the kitchen sink and roll back the clock by at least a century.

Feminism is endemic in Western countries. It is a permanent feature of our culture. All of media is saturated with the main tenets of the movement. Questioning any of it is a one-way ticket to cancellation.

But not all women agree, or men for that matter. Many have observations to make not just about the feminist movement but about the feminization of society itself.

One key aspect of this is policing language and tone, witnessed in the recent calls for censorship. People feel uncomfortable about some subjects being discussed at all. The solution is not to grow a thicker skin but to bring it to a halt.

Those who wish to criticize the immense changes to society over the last half century kick-started by feminists in the 1970s have a place here on Substack. They also have an audience.

Much of this focuses on the deleterious effect of feminism on women. Unhappiness, dependence on antidepressants, childlessness, divorce, the trials of managing a job or career while raising children. All this and more is examined. Much of it by women tired of feminist aggression who wish to present an alternative narrative of interest to other women.

We must suppose they are Nazis too. They fit the bill. They challenge one of today’s sacred cows. And that will not do.

Without free speech and a platform on which to explore these issues we are left only with the approved view. With feminism this can be seen in virtually every news broadcast, TV show or film. It is a standard, unchallenged viewpoint that some dislike.

Politely discussing the failures of feminism, as well as its increasingly strident tone as more women condemn it publicly, is key to a healthy society. There is not a Nazi or a misogynist in sight.

What is going on?

The calls to censor are bullying. Plus they indulge an emotional need of being right on all the important issues, by which they mean they hold approved views. All this is cowardly.

The key giveaway for the cowardice is the would-be censors do not want to debate any of the points they find contentious. They have no urge to inform or educate others on their point of view.

They don’t want to set the record straight on what they claim are Nazi talking points. Indeed, they rarely even identify them. Their goal is to dominate conversations with an aggravating sense of smugness they think of as superior understanding.

We now see this play out across society. Narratives are established because they suit some agenda or cause. Cultural stormtroopers ensure compliance and the bullies tackle the normals. Every talking point must be kept within narrow parameters. We can’t have the plebs thinking for themselves.

All this has a chilling effect on debate which relies on informed people. Platforms that enable a wide range of opinions help educate, making an exchange of views possible. Plus, they are more interesting than the alternative.

The mainstream is dying. There are many reasons for this, including infiltration by activists as well as government agents. But the loss of trust we see in traditional media outlets is also a reflection of their adopted constraints. We don’t sense freedom in the press nowadays and we do detect a tiredness, a kind of cultural exhaustion. They no longer reflect much except the wishes of their paymasters.

Making Substack more like this will kill it. The only price we pay for free speech is to accept some will publish material we find distasteful. Given some of our ancestors died for basic freedoms then ignoring content we dislike seems like a small price to pay to ensure anyone can become informed about the world they live in.

That’s all the Nazi talk is about. An irrational fear the normals will stumble across alternative views on issues that trouble them and get them thinking. And we can’t have the minions thinking for themselves. That’s just for the thought police.

Initiatives to establish censorship are driven by the weak. All this talk of hate and banning writers is a sign of desperation.

They demonstrate why they need censorship by the list of normal talking points they want to brand as extremism. The use of the term Nazi or white supremacist is just a mental shortcut to trigger an appropriate sense of horror to the casual reader. The material must be extreme to warrant this.

Most of the angst is noticing, something of a crime to those who hold fast to a restricted speech mentality.

Crime statistics, IQ scores, social contagions absent from our history, differences between the sexes even children can spot, the anguished videos of women rejecting feminism; all this noticing is awkward to the narrative spinners.

Then there are the contradictions. Radical feminists condemning peaceful European nations as bastions of sexual violence and abuse while overlooking entire cultures who institutionalize the harsh control of women. Do they think we haven’t noticed?

This noticing, and the desire to explore these topics openly, including inviting scrutiny and debate, are difficult to argue against as they form the basis for civilization itself. They must then be kept at bay with accusations of hate speech or nebulous consequences for which no evidence is provided. If we allow any discussion of immigration or transgenderism people will get hurt.

That is how some can claim they fear a trans genocide with a straight face. Those who we are told are indistinguishable from real women will somehow be identified as not real women and ended. Our indifference to their plight is a precursor to the altogether more active process of rounding them up to casually terminate them. All this concern about the importance of life from people who will march in public to champion full-term abortions.

It is precisely these internal contradictions public scrutiny and discussion help flush out. It identifies nonsense as nonsense. Reason enough to fear it when your worldview is little more than preprogrammed talking points designed to slot into a set of emotionally satisfying narratives. This is not thinking it is cognitive recycling and they know it.

And who are these Nazi-hunters? Well, they are nobody’s future. They lack the strength to endure actual debate. This deficit is waved away as disgust. It cannot be broached. It is wrapped up in a swastika themed package to repel the righthinking.

Most are Establishment stormtroopers currying favour with their betters, lost in a dying world fewer and fewer now trust.

They agitate for attention, likes, brownie points and ideally personal gain. All this self-interest is delivered via histrionic displays of horror designed to demonstrate their superior grasp of the Big Issues.

Theirs is a gamified world. Score points against the Nazis and win prizes. Until recently this was a quick win. Low effort virtue signalling was a sound investment because they had an entire media machine behind them. And the dopamine hits came easy. Those echo chambers deliver provided you aim low and know your audience. They automatically reward the righteous for their approved views. I’ve been vaccinated and boosted, here is my Ukrainian flag, Black Lives Matter. Like falling off a log.

But on an open platform things are different. Arguments need facts to back them up. Spurious claims are challenged. Substack’s data Nazis are the worst, always insisting you justify that progressive take of yours. What do you mean trans women are women? Can they have kids? Why should we give amnesty to illegal aliens? They broke the law. They are already criminals. Laws exist for a reason. Can the rest of us break laws too?

There are a few minimal attempts to justify their positions. One of the aspiring censors pasted together a montage of images from Substacks that included headlines blaming the Jews for 9/11, replete with Star-of-David symbols and Israeli flags. Also present were photos of Hitler and a picture of some Saxon warlord in full regalia. He even had a sword.

Much of this is designed to stave off serious investigation. Those Hitler pictures and swastikas are meant to chase you away, to embrace the rightness of their position. If you don’t let us censor this is the hate you’ll be dealing with.

Even the evolution of our little censorship spat demonstrates the usefulness of scrutiny. We can observe the decline of their own accusations almost in real time when challenged.

It all started with a focus on Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. That soon devolved into more general comments about racists, homophobes and misogynists. Then it was diluted to anti-woke sentiment.

As evidence for dangerous hate fails to materialize the wording changes to focus on the impact. We are no longer explicitly calling them Nazis. When this is challenged they retreat further. Pushback on woke in their mind is tantamount to being a genocidal Nazi.

One of the would-be censors explains the rationale, such as it is. Remember, deplatforming doesn’t mean removing you completely. Just exile. How decent of them.

This reflects an immature model of life, an adolescent configuration where disagreement puts us in the outgroup, and anyone not in the ingroup is categorized using crude labels designed to trigger revulsion. Haters of women, gays and trans people. Violent thugs who’d have us all in camps or worse. Nazis.

This is a pleasantly simple world, them and us. Anyone outside the group is them. This makes it effortless to dismiss entire groups of people without engaging in their arguments. Why bother tackling the complexities of transgenderism or climate policy when you can just package it up as obvious hate?

This is adolescent levels of sophistication. It is mental immaturity. Verbal dexterity is used to rationalize an inability to deal with polite counterargument and tension. It is ultimately an emotional response to being challenged. Cherished beliefs cannot be scrutinized lest they are found wanting. So they must condemn the scrutinizers as hateful, obsessing over their motivations. They hate gays, trans women and real women. They dislike other races and will destroy the planet. They are imperialist dogs. They must be stopped.

When we peer through the linguistic fog and look beyond the emotive labels all we find are frightened teenagers. People all too willing to bend their lives into unnatural shapes to protect their utopian ideas that cannot exist outside of their heads.

A real worry for them is manipulation of language is less tolerated on platforms based on free speech. After all most progressive talking points can be demolished by converting them into plain English making their insanity all the more obvious.

A simple example — children need gender-affirming care to fully develop as human beings; to deny them this is fascism. Translation, children can permanently alter their healthy bodies before they are old enough to vote or drink, an irreversible surgical process that will sterilize them.

Written plainly we understand this is something a sane society would punish people for, so it must remain obscured.

This plainsplaining process works well in print and does what the printed word has always done, it gives pause for thought. It makes us stop and think providing the space to begin to reflect on what is going on in our world.

In a time where shallow sloganizing and untested ideas are lavishly promoted it is precisely this pause mechanism many now value. Our problems can be complex, they require thought and consideration.

Many issues are like this. But caution doesn’t mesh well with the breathless calls for immediate action, rushed policy changes or instant endorsement of fringe views. All the more reason to call it hate.

While normal people get riled at being manipulated in this way we miss the fact others welcome it. Some want a benevolent ruler not freedom.

This slavish mentality drives much of the confusion. We push against obvious social control while others are baffled at our lack of gratitude someone else is deciding our health outcomes or how to educate our children.

The urge to support technocratic solutions stems from this. Some people prefer to be governed good and hard so your sensible questions feel like ignorance to them. This is how slaves think. They uncritically accept the tenets of the deal. Some promote these ideas for personal gain and hope to profit while fooling us into believing they fight the good fight on behalf of us all.

But slavish adherence to fashionable nonsense does not a culture make. It is the hard stuff that tests our mettle, as individuals and even whole nations.

Making tough decisions means facing up to uncomfortable realities. The incessant demands by social climbers to convince us otherwise are failing. This is the real source of the hysteria. The 900lb gorillas of medialand are increasingly looking like overweight dinosaurs lumbering blindly as the more nimble run rings around them.

There is always a contingent in society who don’t buy the hype. If you are reading this you are probably one of them. Regardless of your views on any of the major topics it is unlikely you are a racist, a trans genocider or a fan of polluting the planet beyond the point of no return. You probably don’t use violence on your spouse and have complex views about abortion and raising children that cannot be reduced to aphorisms.

All our major societal issues require a calm, considered period of reflection and a sensible response, not censure and hectoring. The last thing we need are more anodyne talking points. If we want that kind of thing we can always switch on the TV with its identikit array of established positions from central command.

Our exhaustion with this older approach is what has driven us here to a new platform. A place where, for now, we can wander through a cultural archipelago of material largely uncontrolled by the media giants, most of it produced by lone gunmen with zero corporate interference. We see what real people think and believe, and for a while we get to ignore the Establishment sock puppets ravaging our societies.

Your journey may include some questionable material, even the occasional Nazi, but so what? Who cares nowadays?

We saw what our gatekeepers did when they got the keys to the kingdom. We haven’t forgotten the fact that when the mainstream dominated the Covid narrative their endgame wasn’t anti-fascism at all, it was joblessness and concentration camps for the unvaxxed. Those health Nazis are now concerned with fake Nazis here on Substack.

The indecent hysteria of the censorious is an attempt to circumvent established methods designed to help us assess our world and how it works, to take the time to absorb information and make informed choices. We must act now, we must react with anger, we must not tolerate the critical so we must brand them as hateful and sinister, the enemies of civilization. We must accuse them of being evil.

The Nazi-hunters are beholden to a system that hitherto has worked for them. It has given them a purpose and in some cases a living. But they remain slaves to their downloaded talking points. They have internalized the rules dictated by the powerful, which they mistake as self-evident truths because no one they know ever questions them.

No wonder they are aghast at the content they find when it originates outside their expertly managed reservation of approved follies. Only a fascist would resist climate initiatives, the kind of monster who is uncomfortable with gay porn in school libraries. Only backward savages view abortion as anything other than healthcare or reproductive rights. Only a Nazi would dare challenge these sacred cows everyone decent agrees upon.

This is the thinking behind the anti-Nazi pogrom taking shape. It worked well in the past. All the effort they brought to bear in the old world of the mainstream was successful. But now it is failing. Now there are alternatives, and we sense they know it too.

As those twentieth century media outlets die the light moves on. And they chase that light with all they’ve got. But all they’ve got is mistrust and fear and anxiety. And in this brave new world of independent thinkers, writers and challengers of orthodoxy that doesn’t get you far.

That makes them yesterday’s men, superbly trained to operate the old machinery as the new takes over. And the new machinery isn’t buying the censorship. The new machinery is under new management. We can only hope the new management will weather the storm.

---

Related material you may be interested in…

The benefits of hate speech

---