At the outset of another crisis in which leaders will ask for emergency power, a collective letter calling for a 21st century free of information control
Matt - yesterday I sent the WD to as many people I care about, and whom just might listen. It was discouraging yesterday to see the blind hatred posted by many here in Racket which I have always considered to be a haven for reason, dialogue, and a little fun. You are a brave soul, and a beacon of hope. Thanks for everything - P
Yes. We aren't free if in times of strife we find it so easy to vilify a group of people. Hate and division is a key tool of those wanting to control the world.
There is no difference between 24 hour electronic surveillance and an ankle bracelet. It is a means of placing the world under arrest and reducing it to an open air prison. If I can seize your bank account and destroy your livelihood at will or, as with Julian Assange, imprison and silence you without cause, you are born and die on state parole. The attempted overlay of a CCP style surveillance machine and the willful destruction of hard won western freedoms by the DNC/EU/WEF Davos juggernaut must be stopped.
(1) The willingness of "big tech" ownership to allow surveillance state intrusion into the private lives and communications of American citizens has proven it visionless, faithless and incapable of managing the responsibility. Like the telephone, tech/communication platforms should be broken up and become public utilities.
(2) The FBI/CIA needs total reform. Its' complicity in allowing DNC operatives to wield it as a weapon of domestic political repression violates its charter and oath to defend the Constitution and the best interest of the American people. Its' leadership is treasonous and rotten. The mission of the thousands of good men and women who honorably serve there is hampered by them.
(3) Americans can no longer ignore the ascent of Corporate fascism world wide. In America the ongoing criminal looting of labor, the manipulation of supply chains and the destruction of social institutions at the expense of the lives, culture and well being of the American citizen must stop. Like tech/communication, corporate monopoly has become a primary threat and evil. It is a rigged game. Break it up!!
Like all criminals and criminal enterprises the DNC/CCP/EU/WEF Davos perps fear exposure and arrest. Like the whistle blower Stephanie Gibaud who lifted the veil on UBS numbered account corruption, the perps need a system in place to destroy the truth speaker and distort the fact of their own criminality. It's not something else. The investigation into Biden family corruption is a window into the same tax dollar looting, hidden numbered account, influence peddling grift which has openly defined American political thugdom for decades now. The criminals must be able to silence you at will to protect their own corruption. Again!! It is the same old jackboot with a new shine.
Got Constitution?
(If you're not scared you didn't read this article.)
Patrick, Were those commenters regular commenters to your knowledge? I just read the comment thread and was stunned how ignorant and imbecilic many of the comments were. Really stunning. I had hoped that a column like this one would have sharper, more critical readers, but I guess every place has its share of the, well, commenters whom you read yesterday.
If being "kind of a big deal" is good enough for Ron Burgundy, it's good enough for me. I can aspire to really big deal, but can also be happy and effective as kind of.
I would hope that the only credentials needed are “citizen” of a democracy. Otherwise, just one group of elites fussing with another group of elites. Plenty of that right now, in fact really the origin of the problem.
I would be on board and would put my name on it but for the "We write as journalists, artists, authors, activists, technologists, and academics" bullshit. I am none of those fancy things. To put my name on it we would have to add nonentity to the list.
We have all been forced to become "activists" and by signing a declaration of this sort, you are ACTIVELY protesting the status quo. I say we all need to sign it.
Afaict, the names on the list of signatories that I recognize are already excommunicated from The Orthodox Church of Western Liberal Democracy (i.e. mainstream/establishment/approved/safe). So in this sense the document is like an epistle sent from a gathering in the desert. Is there anyone on that list who's career or social prospects are seriously risked by signing? This is no criticism. I am curious and we can follow what happens next. I really hope this kind of thing helps embolden fence-sitters to take the plunge, leave the church and join us in the rabble.
He and his fmr wife Susan Sarandon both washed their hands of the criminals in the DNC/Press/Culturemakers years ago when hillary stole the nomination from Bernie
Did you happen to catch Morgan Freeman during the Russiagate frenzy stating “We are at war with Russia” in Rob Reiner’s bizarre tv commercial? I was a fan of Mr. Freeman’s work until I saw that.
I think it's OK to separate the artist from their opinion. I haven't always felt that way (vote with your wallet and so forth.) But isn't this EXACTLY what we're promoting? Speak your truth. Listen to opposing opinions. Respect differences. Jeezuz. If we can't do that RIGHT HERE. IN THIS SPACE. Then what the hell is it we're advocating for? We form our opinions from exposure, experience, and (it seems to me) our innate natures. Whatever. I could be wrong. Let's discuss.
Certainly he had a right to say what he did, but he was promoting the state narrative regarding Russiagate. It was those calling that hoax out that were smeared and censored so my opinion of his judgment went way down.
Yes. He cast himself out last year, I think, and became, it seems, a radical nonpartisan. Or that's how I see it. I count myself as radical nonpartisan.
"...if you survive it." That's precisely the pain point that most everyone in a mainstream culture/media industry job has to consider. Indeed most people in salaried professional/managerial jobs. This is the means of coercion: understand, obey and espouse the unspoken ideology of transnational capital or you're on your own.
Well, not quite on your own, it turns out. You'll be in good company even if you may not be able to earn much.
"Transnational capitalism" is a neo-Marxist iteration of the Rothshcild conspiracy theory.
The only thing I can see that comes close to it is Claus Schwab's WEF, which will achieve its aims only if national governments--like the useless traitorous scumbags in the UK and Europe--accept its premises and implements its programs against the protests of mere citizens.
They're not having too much trouble pushing things through in Canada either. In the US finance and megacorps have the real power so that's where they're putting in the effort. Once big industry is on board with something their dutiful lapdogs in congress and their revolving door plants in federal bureaucracy make it happen with minimal friction.
The persecution of the UBS whistle blower Stephanie Gibaud and the American MSM squelch of the Biden corruption investigation pretty much confirms your insight into "transnational capital". (The Chris Hedges interview w/Gibaud is with watching.)
He had to defend Life of Brian from the gender crowd who hate the Loretta skit and want it censored. Gilliam likewise stood up for biology and is now cancelled.
I find it hilarioushe signed himself as comedian and acrobat.
I find it instructive that the criticisms Life of Brian received from Christian clerics weren't sufficient to get Cleese to leave England, but the transformation of London into Londonistan was.
The CofE seems quite milquetoast compared to the woke crowd, what with their barbed wire wrapped baseball bats and glueing themselves to random stationary objects. He has mentioned how humorless most people seem these days and I could see that having something to do with it.
Although, I'd always assumed he went to the tropics because that's what I'd do if I had enough money to retire somewhere nice.
"The CofE seems quite milquetoast compared to the woke crowd, what with their razor wire wrapped baseball bats and glueing themselves to random stationary objects."
Well-put and true. I'd say the C of E is milquetoast compared to just about anything.
Having being asked, Cleese opined on the "trans" issue after J. K. Rowling got in some hot water; I found his comments both humanistic and also humorous:
"On Sunday morning, a Twitter user asked Cleese about his stance on Rowling’s views. Cleese wrote: “I’m afraid I’m not that interested in trans folks. I just hope they’re happy and that people treat them kindly. Right now I’m more focussed [sic] on threats to democracy in America, the rampant corruption in the UK, the appalling British press, the revelations about police brutality…”
When another user asked Cleese, “Why the fuck can’t you just let people be who they want to be?” he responded with, “Deep down, I want to be a Cambodian police woman. Is that allowed, or am I being unrealistic?”"
Cleese is enjoying life in the Caribbean these days. He's not hidebound in political correctness, so I doubt he fears being canceled, especially at his age; he turns 84 next week. Happy Birthday, John.
Cleese gets yelled at for lots of things. I once met a very nice couple at a theater in London. We spoke for a long time about many things. At one point I said to them that as a New Yorker I love hearing a hundred languages in the streets of my city. But I quoted Cleese who said that although he loves foreign cultures, (he lives in one) he misses the days when you heard mostly British voices on the streets. The traditions, in other words. I have very progressive French and Italian friends who say the same.
The two Brits I was speaking to acted offended and we parted a minute later.
The punchline is that the show we had all come to see was a dinner theater reenactment of Fawlty Towers.
He complained about London, telling the truth, that it's no longer an English city. Of course, he was instantly branded "racist," apparently because it is the duty of England and every nation to revile their histories and eradicate their borders.
The multicultural lie has had some seriously evil repercussions.
After the 2016 election there has been some of this. Library Journal is published in NY (and it is independent of the American Library Association). I think the fundamentals of librarianship are sound. The field is mostly white (abt 70%) so it's been a time of reassessment and perhaps trying to demonstrate a bigger space. I'm sorry you were blocked.
I was extremely surprised to not get a reply to my several emails requesting clarification regarding my block. I just wrote them again and told them I'm going to write an article on the matter and see if they have any comments.
I can understand disagreement with my tweet, but for those that pledge to serve the library system to be indiscriminately blocking dissenting voices, that are politely expressed, seems radically opposed to to mission of the library system.
You might want to check out the recent story about the librarians in the Peel District School Board in Canada (includes Toronto I believe) jettisoning all books written prior to 2008 so that those books could be replaced with a collection that is more reflective of modern principals of inclusion etc. Books like Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank, the entire Harry Potter series, The Hunger Games, The Hungry Hungry Caterpillar, and presumably our own Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale were included in this "cleansing." High school students returned to school in September to find half the shelves empty. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-school-board-library-book-weeding-1.6964332
Just read it. That is horrifying. What monsters they became. The sorts of people librarians should be guarding our repositories of art & knowledge against.
The same logic in eliminating "outdated ideologies" was used by the German Student Union in the 1930's.
I sent my emails requesting clarification to different departments over there and am beginning to suspect that their staff is full of these authoritarians.
I expect librarians to be supportive of free discourse and against censorship, even outside the borders of their local library. Perhaps my expectations of them are romanticized and too high.
As you've made me second guess those assumptions about librarians, I asked ChatGPT if they have a creed. While they apparently don't, it said "they do typically adhere to a set of ethical guidelines and principles that guide their work and interactions with the public" and first principle it noted was "Librarians are committed to promoting intellectual freedom".
Based on my interaction, the librarians that run LJ must have a funny way to promote that intellectual freedom when interacting with the public on their Twitter feed.
I'm not clear on why the fact that the LJ is independent from the ALA matters. It has a long history, going all the way back to Dewey, and is still read by mainstream librarians, no? The circulation of it is 45k vs 51k for American Libraries, which is roughly equal.
You are right..for a long time Library Journal was the official journal but then it became more of a book reviewing source and separated from the Association. American Libraries is the official journal. And yes, you would think the editors and writers at LJ would have the same principles but given your experience it seems not so. TBH LJ is paywalled and expensive and not as influential as it once was. American Libraries is now bimonthly and not a place where letters to the editor even get printed. The advent of digital publishing seems to have eroded the back and forth that used to exist. I've left comments on various blogs and get no feedback. This is a very interesting conversation as what you observe is that the diffuse nature of communication in the field means there is no leading voice as there was pre-Internet.
We have worked to recruit people who reflect the communities they serve. That only makes sense when some communities have linguistic differences. The pay is not great, so it is a challenge. Ideally a community (or university's) librarians would reflect the community with which they work.
Unfortunately, librarians are forced to be credentialed by schools of library science which, along with all other disciplines within the university, have been captured by neo-Marxist ideology.
I teach in one. I teach library history. Until the 1960s Black people were not allowed to use public libraries in Florida. I have readings on that. It wasn't right to do that and teaching about it isn't Marxism, it is just what happened.When Japanese children were in camps during WWII librarians took children's books.
I didn't mean to imply you and every librarian is engaged in the neo-Marxist struggle for . . . what . . . the liberation of oppressed minorities and dismantling systems of oppression. Librarianship is good, honest work. When I had the romantic notion that librarians were custodians of literature and apostles of literacy and spent their time turning people on to great books, I used to want to become a librarian and was poised to enroll in an MLS program, but I got sidetracked by English literature.
I was in English Literature and got side tracked by librarianship! Librarians do have this tradition and I think the attention goes to liberation issues which needed to be done but isn't all that we do, One example would be books for children. Until special Task Forces were created to award books about Black children or Latino children-- books given awards were not attentive to their different world. We expanded opportunity.
I still find the modern day fixation that characters in books need to match the immutable characteristics of a reader a very strange, somewhat racist, and probably damaging perspective.
My son was a huge fan of Dora & Diego on TV growing up, without being Hispanic. One of my favorite books growing up was To Kill a Mockingbird, which was told through the eyes of a young girl. Jim was my favorite character in Huckleberry Finn. Yet I'm neither female or black.
It seems to me that the focus should be on outstanding stories that transcend the life of the reader and evoke shared aspects of humanity.
The academic shift from promoting the "melting pot" to the "salad bowl" theory of assimilation has done a lot to impair social cohesion by encouraging cultural separatism. We'd get along better if we strived for greater uniformity in culture, rather than diversity.
Note: this doesn't mean 'white' or 'European'. The musical Hamilton may be one of the best examples of that type of uniformity in action (apart from the racist casting requirements).
It has been my experience that librarians only care about burning/banning books, but they're largely indifferent about the free flow of information and speech
The American Library Association? They probably only signed that so they can justify the types of materials they want elementary school children to have available to read. 😂
The fact that our universities have become breeding grounds for neo-Marxist revolutionaries has complicated the question of censorship in libraries. It is more complicated than the mere "banning of books" when you have a cadre of revolutionary zealots using libraries as propaganda outlets.
Talk about a timely subject; here's an item from the 10/10/22 NY Post:
Here's a quotation from the article that ought to activate some almonds, attributed to an anonymous library worker:
“'It’s all about the ALA here,' he said. 'They’re the boss. Libraries want to be accredited by the ALA so they do whatever they say. They’ll enact their policies across the board and it’s insufferable. Librarians are some of the most dangerous people in society. They are very well-organized and they communicate very well. Libraries are lost. They are rotten to the core. So much money has been dumped into them by organizations with agendas.'”
Libraries are not accredited. There are guidelines but these are based on community input.
Yes, funding has come to ALA from progressive organizations, but this is mainly for special projects like setting guidelines for incarceration institutions. We elect a president every year. Some are open about their politics. Most are not. Our president this year is from New York so likely reflects that city's ethos. But next year we have a new president.
It's good to know there's some diversity of political opinion among librarians. Is there any resistance to the politicizing of librarianship, getting librarians to join this foolish moral crusade pushing the politics of "liberation" and the amateur psychoanalysis of children with the foregone conclusion that kids might be suppressing their inner opposite sex?
Library Boards--elected by communities-- are the policy makers on these issues. So citizen involvement is where there would be these discussions. Same as School Boards. There are policies in place that provide requests for reconsideration of library materials.
There has been a lot of blame laid on librarians for being too stern over the years, too staid. So yes, there has been an effort to make an image change and to broaden appeal. In my early years librarians worked with reading lists of the books we thought people should read to be self-educated. As publics changed librarians went along. Helen Haines was once who guided us: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_E._Haines
I would suggest that the books that are in your library are popular and in demand and the books that people want to read and the books you can't find either don't exist or have a very limited audience. Libraries have limited space and also are subject to the laws of supply and demand.
Without absolute free and uncensored speech, we have nothing. Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", because he knew -- as hopefully more people will wake up and appreciate before it's too late and they are forced to discover it the hard way -- that once the power to silence is granted, there is nothing preventing that power from one day suddenly being taken away from your preferred group by another, at which point you will find yourself an instant Enemy of the State. NOTHING is more important than totally unrestricted speech. The antidote to bad ideas is better ideas -- not silencing, de-platforming, and de-personing those with whom you may disagree.
There's actually a huge market for it. Ironically (or revealingly), the big advertisers don't want to support sites that deliver real journalism. Substack has grown because of this demand.
Our politicians, Big Tech, Big Finance, Big Education, government bureaucrats, military/industrial complex and the Intelligence community are running scared and fear losing their stranglehold on the system which provides their power and supports their corruption. The red line for any true American should be our Constitution/Bill of Rights. Agree entirely with the Westminster Declaration.
The war on free speech could also be called a war on reality which I think is the true driving force behind the hysterical demand for censorship. Corrupt powers will always crack down on dissent when they feel their power slipping. It perfectly explains the need to silence Assange and others who have pulled back the curtain on government misconduct. “Nothing to see here” is designed to maintain an illusion. More easily done when speech is criminalized.
"We write as journalists, artists, authors, activists, technologists, and academics to warn of increasing international censorship that threatens to erode centuries-old democratic norms."
The argument from authority is such a drag. How about writing as citizens or people?
The only thing I would add, is there should be a place for "citizens of the world" to sign onto the Declaration. We should have millions of people demanding from our world leaders to stop this.
I did not read this as an argument from authority, but as a timely statement from a large number of people with vastly different backgrounds to encourage a wide audience to understand the depth of the problem and offer some real measures to solve that problem. There is an appeal to reason and principles that is not only refreshing, but crucial at this point. If Joe Smith writes this who will read it? The problem is very real and very concerning.
That's so sad I can't begin to respond. Let us worship our celebrity intellectuals and pray that when they speak for us they are heard and don't embarrass us.
Um, my take on 'worship our celebrity intellectuals' is it's that's what's driven us into the state we now find ourselves in?
Celebrities garner the attention of media because of their popularity, not for their ability to reason.
Intellectuals get more attention than many deserve for their practice of critical thinking and can communicate their reasons for their beliefs yet their motivations may be as entirely selfish as the next in line.
(?) 'Argument from Authority' ("Joe's argument must be right because he's the department head, while Mary is only a manager") is a logical fallacy, but you've misused the phrase here. None of the Westminster Declaration's defenses of free speech take this form. On the contrary, they all cite logically relevant reasons. The only appeal to authority is to the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution; but pointing out what's legal by citing a relevant law isn't a logical fallacy. Neither is the signatories' attempt to provide a thumbnail group identification of themselves. Not only is this self-identification not an illegitimate appeal to authority, it isn't even an argument, fallacious or otherwise.
Everybody's against censorship. It's like being against mosquitos or impetigo. This Westminster thingy is a publicity stunt and vanity project by a group of misfits and outcasts looking to create an issue that might, just might, explain to the members of the group (the Westminsters) doing all the declaring just how they became misfits and outcasts in the first place.
It's a declaration in search of a problem to address and an audience to harangue and it has been created by a group of people who are really demanding an explanation as to how it came about that one day they left the house and in the course of that day discovered they had become misfits and outcasts. I'm sorry, it's not a pretty picture, but there you have it.
Read the following sentence:
"We recognize that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship."
It's not a declaration, it's a cry for help. The discordant tone of that sentence---declarative though it is---fills me with melancholy.
The National Coalition Against Censorship asks, "Should government control, even ban, speech that 'incites religious and ethnic hatred'? Many governments in Europe do: they have not only criminalized hate speech, they are actively prosecuting – and occasionally convicting – artists, curators and writers accused of stirring anti-Muslim or anti-Christian hatred." You can add "speech that incites hatred of trans-sexuals and homosexuals."
The "hate speech" exception to free speech is of course rejected here in the US thanks to our First Amendment. That's a good thing, considering that "hate" is a human emotion and can be prompted by just about anything, and "incitement" implies a cause-and-effect relationship between whatever might be judged "hate speech" and--one is left to suppose--physical violence against these groups. A good-sized contingent of annoying people have rejected the adage "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
I'd say the constitutional workaround called "deplatforming" is also a form of censorship perpetrated by non governmental entities.
We've had to contend with censorship from these NGOs more than we have had to be wary of the USG, at least until the pernicious concept of "misinformation" control arose.
Too many people, across the entire political spectrum, either did nothing or sang the praises of "hate crime" and "hate speech" legislation when they began to appear as "punitive solutions" all those many years ago, and helped lay the foundation for the CIC we see today. We still see those disgusting terms used to great effect today. It's almost funny seeing them whine about being "censored" or "de-platformed" now, as if the toxic dross would never land on, or harm them. Those of us that spoke out against them back then were labeled as cranks, or worse. It's all too late now; the Two Minutes Hate is now part of our DNA.
This Censorship business is a truly pressing issue, as Western governments/elites in particular are pushing the envelope as far as possible. How can you ban someone from flying a Palestinian flag and still call yourself a "liberal democracy"? This War on Free Speech is also a War on Reason.
Here in France we are not allowed to assemble or carry Palestinian flags. I have a feeling this is going to backfire very soon. The French have never been backward at coming forward. Waiting and arranging.
Matt - yesterday I sent the WD to as many people I care about, and whom just might listen. It was discouraging yesterday to see the blind hatred posted by many here in Racket which I have always considered to be a haven for reason, dialogue, and a little fun. You are a brave soul, and a beacon of hope. Thanks for everything - P
Yes. We aren't free if in times of strife we find it so easy to vilify a group of people. Hate and division is a key tool of those wanting to control the world.
There is no difference between 24 hour electronic surveillance and an ankle bracelet. It is a means of placing the world under arrest and reducing it to an open air prison. If I can seize your bank account and destroy your livelihood at will or, as with Julian Assange, imprison and silence you without cause, you are born and die on state parole. The attempted overlay of a CCP style surveillance machine and the willful destruction of hard won western freedoms by the DNC/EU/WEF Davos juggernaut must be stopped.
(1) The willingness of "big tech" ownership to allow surveillance state intrusion into the private lives and communications of American citizens has proven it visionless, faithless and incapable of managing the responsibility. Like the telephone, tech/communication platforms should be broken up and become public utilities.
(2) The FBI/CIA needs total reform. Its' complicity in allowing DNC operatives to wield it as a weapon of domestic political repression violates its charter and oath to defend the Constitution and the best interest of the American people. Its' leadership is treasonous and rotten. The mission of the thousands of good men and women who honorably serve there is hampered by them.
(3) Americans can no longer ignore the ascent of Corporate fascism world wide. In America the ongoing criminal looting of labor, the manipulation of supply chains and the destruction of social institutions at the expense of the lives, culture and well being of the American citizen must stop. Like tech/communication, corporate monopoly has become a primary threat and evil. It is a rigged game. Break it up!!
Like all criminals and criminal enterprises the DNC/CCP/EU/WEF Davos perps fear exposure and arrest. Like the whistle blower Stephanie Gibaud who lifted the veil on UBS numbered account corruption, the perps need a system in place to destroy the truth speaker and distort the fact of their own criminality. It's not something else. The investigation into Biden family corruption is a window into the same tax dollar looting, hidden numbered account, influence peddling grift which has openly defined American political thugdom for decades now. The criminals must be able to silence you at will to protect their own corruption. Again!! It is the same old jackboot with a new shine.
Got Constitution?
(If you're not scared you didn't read this article.)
I flinched reactively, looking for the retweet button.
I was hoping that Substack would not descend to the depths of ad hominem that infects other social platforms.
We do have ad hominem here, but not the depths of it.
For that, go to Gab.
Patrick, Were those commenters regular commenters to your knowledge? I just read the comment thread and was stunned how ignorant and imbecilic many of the comments were. Really stunning. I had hoped that a column like this one would have sharper, more critical readers, but I guess every place has its share of the, well, commenters whom you read yesterday.
kind of surprised nobody asked me to sign this because my kids think im a really big deal
Your kids are obviously younger than mine (33, 36, 38), and they don’t think that of me. 😂
wait a minute are you saying they aren't always going to feel this way about me? that can't be right
😂
😂
I felt slighted too. BTW, I think you're a really big deal.
thanks. i think youre a big deal too
If being "kind of a big deal" is good enough for Ron Burgundy, it's good enough for me. I can aspire to really big deal, but can also be happy and effective as kind of.
Would you please sign the letter please?
i've made it, i've really made it
Right?!!??
Start a campaign with the goal to get 100 million people in the USA to sign this.
Right !? Can we sign it? My husband is a professor at Emory and he would sign it.
Do you need fancy credentials to sign?
I would hope that the only credentials needed are “citizen” of a democracy. Otherwise, just one group of elites fussing with another group of elites. Plenty of that right now, in fact really the origin of the problem.
It seems like it but it would be nice if anyone could sign. Like the GBD.
I would be on board and would put my name on it but for the "We write as journalists, artists, authors, activists, technologists, and academics" bullshit. I am none of those fancy things. To put my name on it we would have to add nonentity to the list.
"That guy from Matt's page"
We have all been forced to become "activists" and by signing a declaration of this sort, you are ACTIVELY protesting the status quo. I say we all need to sign it.
We aren't invited to sign it. It's for famous people.
“Otherwise adversarial entity.”
But it is the millions of nonentities that could actually make this stick!
Right. And what impact has this crowd of luminaries had with this Declaration?
Thank you for initiating this, or helping its initiation.
IMHO, that declaration page should have the ability for people of the world to sign on to the same proclamation.
Afaict, the names on the list of signatories that I recognize are already excommunicated from The Orthodox Church of Western Liberal Democracy (i.e. mainstream/establishment/approved/safe). So in this sense the document is like an epistle sent from a gathering in the desert. Is there anyone on that list who's career or social prospects are seriously risked by signing? This is no criticism. I am curious and we can follow what happens next. I really hope this kind of thing helps embolden fence-sitters to take the plunge, leave the church and join us in the rabble.
Tim Robbins caught my eye. Has he been cast out of the Hollywood elite?
Edit: Likewise Oliver Stone. Haven't heard much from him lately. Would love to see more entertainers on board. I betcha Morgan Freeman would sign it.
He was one of the earlier high profile people to walk back his earlier stance on Covid stuff. Matt interviewed him. https://www.racket.news/p/tim-robbins-and-the-lost-art-of-finding
He and his fmr wife Susan Sarandon both washed their hands of the criminals in the DNC/Press/Culturemakers years ago when hillary stole the nomination from Bernie
Did you happen to catch Morgan Freeman during the Russiagate frenzy stating “We are at war with Russia” in Rob Reiner’s bizarre tv commercial? I was a fan of Mr. Freeman’s work until I saw that.
I think it's OK to separate the artist from their opinion. I haven't always felt that way (vote with your wallet and so forth.) But isn't this EXACTLY what we're promoting? Speak your truth. Listen to opposing opinions. Respect differences. Jeezuz. If we can't do that RIGHT HERE. IN THIS SPACE. Then what the hell is it we're advocating for? We form our opinions from exposure, experience, and (it seems to me) our innate natures. Whatever. I could be wrong. Let's discuss.
Certainly he had a right to say what he did, but he was promoting the state narrative regarding Russiagate. It was those calling that hoax out that were smeared and censored so my opinion of his judgment went way down.
Nah I hadn't seen that. Disappointing. He's always struck me as an independent thinker.
I thought so too. I was a bit shocked the first time I saw it.
We're in a well managed war with ourselves.
Yes. He cast himself out last year, I think, and became, it seems, a radical nonpartisan. Or that's how I see it. I count myself as radical nonpartisan.
Exile and excommunication is a gift if you survive it.
"...if you survive it." That's precisely the pain point that most everyone in a mainstream culture/media industry job has to consider. Indeed most people in salaried professional/managerial jobs. This is the means of coercion: understand, obey and espouse the unspoken ideology of transnational capital or you're on your own.
Well, not quite on your own, it turns out. You'll be in good company even if you may not be able to earn much.
Unspoken ideology of transnational capital? Even when I'm not listening all I ever hear is the ideology of transnational capital.
No kidding. Can't even watch a movie without one of their sermons in it anymore.
Have you heard of Fall of the House of Usher yet? Cathartic.
Poe wasn't it?
"Transnational capitalism" is a neo-Marxist iteration of the Rothshcild conspiracy theory.
The only thing I can see that comes close to it is Claus Schwab's WEF, which will achieve its aims only if national governments--like the useless traitorous scumbags in the UK and Europe--accept its premises and implements its programs against the protests of mere citizens.
They're not having too much trouble pushing things through in Canada either. In the US finance and megacorps have the real power so that's where they're putting in the effort. Once big industry is on board with something their dutiful lapdogs in congress and their revolving door plants in federal bureaucracy make it happen with minimal friction.
True. I still don't understand how Trudeau stays in office.
Yes Sir!!
The persecution of the UBS whistle blower Stephanie Gibaud and the American MSM squelch of the Biden corruption investigation pretty much confirms your insight into "transnational capital". (The Chris Hedges interview w/Gibaud is with watching.)
That’s the way it worked for Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn. But most of them never came back.
I thought the same. Many are the victims of censorship themselves. I like another's comment about starting a campaign to get 100 million to sign on.
John Cleese? I don't recall any cancel scandals surrounding him, but I may have missed it.
He had to defend Life of Brian from the gender crowd who hate the Loretta skit and want it censored. Gilliam likewise stood up for biology and is now cancelled.
I find it hilarioushe signed himself as comedian and acrobat.
I find it instructive that the criticisms Life of Brian received from Christian clerics weren't sufficient to get Cleese to leave England, but the transformation of London into Londonistan was.
The CofE seems quite milquetoast compared to the woke crowd, what with their barbed wire wrapped baseball bats and glueing themselves to random stationary objects. He has mentioned how humorless most people seem these days and I could see that having something to do with it.
Although, I'd always assumed he went to the tropics because that's what I'd do if I had enough money to retire somewhere nice.
"The CofE seems quite milquetoast compared to the woke crowd, what with their razor wire wrapped baseball bats and glueing themselves to random stationary objects."
Well-put and true. I'd say the C of E is milquetoast compared to just about anything.
Having being asked, Cleese opined on the "trans" issue after J. K. Rowling got in some hot water; I found his comments both humanistic and also humorous:
from:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/john-cleese-accused-transphobia-after-defending-j-k-rowling-twitter-n1248621
"On Sunday morning, a Twitter user asked Cleese about his stance on Rowling’s views. Cleese wrote: “I’m afraid I’m not that interested in trans folks. I just hope they’re happy and that people treat them kindly. Right now I’m more focussed [sic] on threats to democracy in America, the rampant corruption in the UK, the appalling British press, the revelations about police brutality…”
When another user asked Cleese, “Why the fuck can’t you just let people be who they want to be?” he responded with, “Deep down, I want to be a Cambodian police woman. Is that allowed, or am I being unrealistic?”"
Cleese is enjoying life in the Caribbean these days. He's not hidebound in political correctness, so I doubt he fears being canceled, especially at his age; he turns 84 next week. Happy Birthday, John.
He so old and well established in his own accomplishments that doesn't need the establishment anymore. He'd hardly notice if he were excommunicated.
Cleese gets yelled at for lots of things. I once met a very nice couple at a theater in London. We spoke for a long time about many things. At one point I said to them that as a New Yorker I love hearing a hundred languages in the streets of my city. But I quoted Cleese who said that although he loves foreign cultures, (he lives in one) he misses the days when you heard mostly British voices on the streets. The traditions, in other words. I have very progressive French and Italian friends who say the same.
The two Brits I was speaking to acted offended and we parted a minute later.
The punchline is that the show we had all come to see was a dinner theater reenactment of Fawlty Towers.
FT is now too politically blasphemous for England.
He complained about London, telling the truth, that it's no longer an English city. Of course, he was instantly branded "racist," apparently because it is the duty of England and every nation to revile their histories and eradicate their borders.
The multicultural lie has had some seriously evil repercussions.
And we now know what can happen when you "gather" in a desert.
Well put, Tom.
Don't forget Librarians.
Librarians have a long history of supporting the Freedom to Read.
The Freedom to Read Statement adopted in 1953.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/freedomreadstatement
Signatories include:
American Library Association
Association of American Publishers
Subsequently endorsed by:
American Booksellers for Free Expression
The Association of American University Presses
The Children's Book Council
Freedom to Read Foundation
National Association of College Stores
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Council of Teachers of English
The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression
Funny story about librarians these days.
Back in 2019, the Library Journal (a trade pub for librarians) posted a tweet, with a link to a Sofia Leung piece that said:
"Library collections continue to promote whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries."
I responded to both with the simple tweet:
"Are you endorsing this racism or just highlighting the article as food for thought?"
They then blocked my Twitter account from viewing their feed. Librarians...
I wrote several extremely polite emails to the Journal itself, asking for clarification regarding my block. No replies.
As a huge supporter of libraries over my lifetime, this was a splash of ice water to the face.
After the 2016 election there has been some of this. Library Journal is published in NY (and it is independent of the American Library Association). I think the fundamentals of librarianship are sound. The field is mostly white (abt 70%) so it's been a time of reassessment and perhaps trying to demonstrate a bigger space. I'm sorry you were blocked.
I was extremely surprised to not get a reply to my several emails requesting clarification regarding my block. I just wrote them again and told them I'm going to write an article on the matter and see if they have any comments.
I can understand disagreement with my tweet, but for those that pledge to serve the library system to be indiscriminately blocking dissenting voices, that are politely expressed, seems radically opposed to to mission of the library system.
You might want to check out the recent story about the librarians in the Peel District School Board in Canada (includes Toronto I believe) jettisoning all books written prior to 2008 so that those books could be replaced with a collection that is more reflective of modern principals of inclusion etc. Books like Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank, the entire Harry Potter series, The Hunger Games, The Hungry Hungry Caterpillar, and presumably our own Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale were included in this "cleansing." High school students returned to school in September to find half the shelves empty. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-school-board-library-book-weeding-1.6964332
Just read it. That is horrifying. What monsters they became. The sorts of people librarians should be guarding our repositories of art & knowledge against.
The same logic in eliminating "outdated ideologies" was used by the German Student Union in the 1930's.
Cultural genocide.
Welcome to the party, pal.
You were dismissed as a racist by a self-appointed moral scold (read: a college graduate in a position of authority).
There's no recourse, no getting around that once you have been cubbyholed.
I sent my emails requesting clarification to different departments over there and am beginning to suspect that their staff is full of these authoritarians.
I'm sure your suspicions are justified and probably correct.
But you wrote to Library Journal--that's an independent magazine.
If you had written to your local library, then you are correct.
I expect librarians to be supportive of free discourse and against censorship, even outside the borders of their local library. Perhaps my expectations of them are romanticized and too high.
As you've made me second guess those assumptions about librarians, I asked ChatGPT if they have a creed. While they apparently don't, it said "they do typically adhere to a set of ethical guidelines and principles that guide their work and interactions with the public" and first principle it noted was "Librarians are committed to promoting intellectual freedom".
Based on my interaction, the librarians that run LJ must have a funny way to promote that intellectual freedom when interacting with the public on their Twitter feed.
I'm not clear on why the fact that the LJ is independent from the ALA matters. It has a long history, going all the way back to Dewey, and is still read by mainstream librarians, no? The circulation of it is 45k vs 51k for American Libraries, which is roughly equal.
You are right..for a long time Library Journal was the official journal but then it became more of a book reviewing source and separated from the Association. American Libraries is the official journal. And yes, you would think the editors and writers at LJ would have the same principles but given your experience it seems not so. TBH LJ is paywalled and expensive and not as influential as it once was. American Libraries is now bimonthly and not a place where letters to the editor even get printed. The advent of digital publishing seems to have eroded the back and forth that used to exist. I've left comments on various blogs and get no feedback. This is a very interesting conversation as what you observe is that the diffuse nature of communication in the field means there is no leading voice as there was pre-Internet.
"The field is mostly white (abt 70%) ."
Yeah, bust open that "bigger space" to let in poor downtrodden minorities who have been mercilessly excluded from library work.
We have worked to recruit people who reflect the communities they serve. That only makes sense when some communities have linguistic differences. The pay is not great, so it is a challenge. Ideally a community (or university's) librarians would reflect the community with which they work.
Unfortunately, librarians are forced to be credentialed by schools of library science which, along with all other disciplines within the university, have been captured by neo-Marxist ideology.
I teach in one. I teach library history. Until the 1960s Black people were not allowed to use public libraries in Florida. I have readings on that. It wasn't right to do that and teaching about it isn't Marxism, it is just what happened.When Japanese children were in camps during WWII librarians took children's books.
Great. Must be very fulfilling work.
I didn't mean to imply you and every librarian is engaged in the neo-Marxist struggle for . . . what . . . the liberation of oppressed minorities and dismantling systems of oppression. Librarianship is good, honest work. When I had the romantic notion that librarians were custodians of literature and apostles of literacy and spent their time turning people on to great books, I used to want to become a librarian and was poised to enroll in an MLS program, but I got sidetracked by English literature.
I was in English Literature and got side tracked by librarianship! Librarians do have this tradition and I think the attention goes to liberation issues which needed to be done but isn't all that we do, One example would be books for children. Until special Task Forces were created to award books about Black children or Latino children-- books given awards were not attentive to their different world. We expanded opportunity.
I still find the modern day fixation that characters in books need to match the immutable characteristics of a reader a very strange, somewhat racist, and probably damaging perspective.
My son was a huge fan of Dora & Diego on TV growing up, without being Hispanic. One of my favorite books growing up was To Kill a Mockingbird, which was told through the eyes of a young girl. Jim was my favorite character in Huckleberry Finn. Yet I'm neither female or black.
It seems to me that the focus should be on outstanding stories that transcend the life of the reader and evoke shared aspects of humanity.
The academic shift from promoting the "melting pot" to the "salad bowl" theory of assimilation has done a lot to impair social cohesion by encouraging cultural separatism. We'd get along better if we strived for greater uniformity in culture, rather than diversity.
Note: this doesn't mean 'white' or 'European'. The musical Hamilton may be one of the best examples of that type of uniformity in action (apart from the racist casting requirements).
It has been my experience that librarians only care about burning/banning books, but they're largely indifferent about the free flow of information and speech
Not all of us!
You must have taken your MLS prior to 2000.
Yes, but I teach so still have these values.
Indifferent or politically orthodox.
The American Library Association? They probably only signed that so they can justify the types of materials they want elementary school children to have available to read. 😂
The Library Bill of Rights statement was established in 1939 after the banning of Grapes of Wrath.
https://thecensorshipfiles.wordpress.com/the-grapes-of-wrath/
The fact that our universities have become breeding grounds for neo-Marxist revolutionaries has complicated the question of censorship in libraries. It is more complicated than the mere "banning of books" when you have a cadre of revolutionary zealots using libraries as propaganda outlets.
Talk about a timely subject; here's an item from the 10/10/22 NY Post:
https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/librarians-go-radical-as-new-woke-policies-take-over-experts/
Here's a quotation from the article that ought to activate some almonds, attributed to an anonymous library worker:
“'It’s all about the ALA here,' he said. 'They’re the boss. Libraries want to be accredited by the ALA so they do whatever they say. They’ll enact their policies across the board and it’s insufferable. Librarians are some of the most dangerous people in society. They are very well-organized and they communicate very well. Libraries are lost. They are rotten to the core. So much money has been dumped into them by organizations with agendas.'”
Libraries are not accredited. There are guidelines but these are based on community input.
Yes, funding has come to ALA from progressive organizations, but this is mainly for special projects like setting guidelines for incarceration institutions. We elect a president every year. Some are open about their politics. Most are not. Our president this year is from New York so likely reflects that city's ethos. But next year we have a new president.
It's good to know there's some diversity of political opinion among librarians. Is there any resistance to the politicizing of librarianship, getting librarians to join this foolish moral crusade pushing the politics of "liberation" and the amateur psychoanalysis of children with the foregone conclusion that kids might be suppressing their inner opposite sex?
Library Boards--elected by communities-- are the policy makers on these issues. So citizen involvement is where there would be these discussions. Same as School Boards. There are policies in place that provide requests for reconsideration of library materials.
They don't seem to have been asked to sign.
I hate to tell you this....but many librarians today are not the librarians of yesteryear.
There has been a lot of blame laid on librarians for being too stern over the years, too staid. So yes, there has been an effort to make an image change and to broaden appeal. In my early years librarians worked with reading lists of the books we thought people should read to be self-educated. As publics changed librarians went along. Helen Haines was once who guided us: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_E._Haines
Not in my small town...you can find all the OC books, woke trans authors and new Trump hit books but not much religious work or conservative authors.
I would suggest that the books that are in your library are popular and in demand and the books that people want to read and the books you can't find either don't exist or have a very limited audience. Libraries have limited space and also are subject to the laws of supply and demand.
Most libraries will buy a book you request or do an interlibrary loan.
Good point.
PC*
Can you request titles? I think it might be that these are not requested? Or people have given up and decided not to bother looking?
Without absolute free and uncensored speech, we have nothing. Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", because he knew -- as hopefully more people will wake up and appreciate before it's too late and they are forced to discover it the hard way -- that once the power to silence is granted, there is nothing preventing that power from one day suddenly being taken away from your preferred group by another, at which point you will find yourself an instant Enemy of the State. NOTHING is more important than totally unrestricted speech. The antidote to bad ideas is better ideas -- not silencing, de-platforming, and de-personing those with whom you may disagree.
Good journalism defeats rotten journalism. Alas, the good journalism is off-limits to 90 percent of the public. Or they don't know it's out there.
Doesn't make the hunger for it any less real; thank goodness.
There's actually a huge market for it. Ironically (or revealingly), the big advertisers don't want to support sites that deliver real journalism. Substack has grown because of this demand.
Substack is where mediocre journalism goes to become mediocre propaganda.
You must have lots and lots of 'friends' on F*book.
What are 'friends' and what is Facebook?
And where feldspar goes to work on his material
Substack is where excellent journalists (many people not journalists by training) go to try to debunk excellent propaganda.
Hi. Evelyn Beatrice Hall is the true author of the quote.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
Our politicians, Big Tech, Big Finance, Big Education, government bureaucrats, military/industrial complex and the Intelligence community are running scared and fear losing their stranglehold on the system which provides their power and supports their corruption. The red line for any true American should be our Constitution/Bill of Rights. Agree entirely with the Westminster Declaration.
Censorship is a crime against humanity. It prevents humanity from learning the truth.
I thought humanity can't handle the truth.
Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t learn it though.
Signed: Lee Trembley, dental lab technician, US.
The war on free speech could also be called a war on reality which I think is the true driving force behind the hysterical demand for censorship. Corrupt powers will always crack down on dissent when they feel their power slipping. It perfectly explains the need to silence Assange and others who have pulled back the curtain on government misconduct. “Nothing to see here” is designed to maintain an illusion. More easily done when speech is criminalized.
Just sent a comment to the WD website. Surely there should be a way for more us to sign!
Not if it is a PR exercise for these media attention seekers.
"We write as journalists, artists, authors, activists, technologists, and academics to warn of increasing international censorship that threatens to erode centuries-old democratic norms."
The argument from authority is such a drag. How about writing as citizens or people?
The only thing I would add, is there should be a place for "citizens of the world" to sign onto the Declaration. We should have millions of people demanding from our world leaders to stop this.
I did not read this as an argument from authority, but as a timely statement from a large number of people with vastly different backgrounds to encourage a wide audience to understand the depth of the problem and offer some real measures to solve that problem. There is an appeal to reason and principles that is not only refreshing, but crucial at this point. If Joe Smith writes this who will read it? The problem is very real and very concerning.
"If Joe Smith writes this who will read it?"
That's so sad I can't begin to respond. Let us worship our celebrity intellectuals and pray that when they speak for us they are heard and don't embarrass us.
I see Taylor was at the Chiefs game today…….
Um, my take on 'worship our celebrity intellectuals' is it's that's what's driven us into the state we now find ourselves in?
Celebrities garner the attention of media because of their popularity, not for their ability to reason.
Intellectuals get more attention than many deserve for their practice of critical thinking and can communicate their reasons for their beliefs yet their motivations may be as entirely selfish as the next in line.
Politicians fall entirely into both camps.
I signed. although you cannot see it..and I agree with you
(?) 'Argument from Authority' ("Joe's argument must be right because he's the department head, while Mary is only a manager") is a logical fallacy, but you've misused the phrase here. None of the Westminster Declaration's defenses of free speech take this form. On the contrary, they all cite logically relevant reasons. The only appeal to authority is to the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution; but pointing out what's legal by citing a relevant law isn't a logical fallacy. Neither is the signatories' attempt to provide a thumbnail group identification of themselves. Not only is this self-identification not an illegitimate appeal to authority, it isn't even an argument, fallacious or otherwise.
Totally agree. The inclusion of job titles here is egotistical and unnecessary. Remove them.
Just because one is able to collect mass digital signatures does not mean collecting mass digital signatures is necessarily a good thing.
I think the idea is to let the true authorities know that people with an audience are making a case against censorship.
How about letting everyone know that lots of us nobodys are making a case against censorship?
Everybody's against censorship. It's like being against mosquitos or impetigo. This Westminster thingy is a publicity stunt and vanity project by a group of misfits and outcasts looking to create an issue that might, just might, explain to the members of the group (the Westminsters) doing all the declaring just how they became misfits and outcasts in the first place.
It's a declaration in search of a problem to address and an audience to harangue and it has been created by a group of people who are really demanding an explanation as to how it came about that one day they left the house and in the course of that day discovered they had become misfits and outcasts. I'm sorry, it's not a pretty picture, but there you have it.
Read the following sentence:
"We recognize that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship."
It's not a declaration, it's a cry for help. The discordant tone of that sentence---declarative though it is---fills me with melancholy.
Even among misfits you’re a misfit. Sincerely, Yukon Cornelius.
"Everybody's against censorship" in your dreams.
The National Coalition Against Censorship asks, "Should government control, even ban, speech that 'incites religious and ethnic hatred'? Many governments in Europe do: they have not only criminalized hate speech, they are actively prosecuting – and occasionally convicting – artists, curators and writers accused of stirring anti-Muslim or anti-Christian hatred." You can add "speech that incites hatred of trans-sexuals and homosexuals."
The "hate speech" exception to free speech is of course rejected here in the US thanks to our First Amendment. That's a good thing, considering that "hate" is a human emotion and can be prompted by just about anything, and "incitement" implies a cause-and-effect relationship between whatever might be judged "hate speech" and--one is left to suppose--physical violence against these groups. A good-sized contingent of annoying people have rejected the adage "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
I'd say the constitutional workaround called "deplatforming" is also a form of censorship perpetrated by non governmental entities.
We've had to contend with censorship from these NGOs more than we have had to be wary of the USG, at least until the pernicious concept of "misinformation" control arose.
Just do it!
It provides their gaslighting with a cosmopolitan sheen.
Too many people, across the entire political spectrum, either did nothing or sang the praises of "hate crime" and "hate speech" legislation when they began to appear as "punitive solutions" all those many years ago, and helped lay the foundation for the CIC we see today. We still see those disgusting terms used to great effect today. It's almost funny seeing them whine about being "censored" or "de-platformed" now, as if the toxic dross would never land on, or harm them. Those of us that spoke out against them back then were labeled as cranks, or worse. It's all too late now; the Two Minutes Hate is now part of our DNA.
"We still see those disgusting terms used to great effect today," like people being jailed and fined for it.
This Censorship business is a truly pressing issue, as Western governments/elites in particular are pushing the envelope as far as possible. How can you ban someone from flying a Palestinian flag and still call yourself a "liberal democracy"? This War on Free Speech is also a War on Reason.
I totally agree.
Here in France we are not allowed to assemble or carry Palestinian flags. I have a feeling this is going to backfire very soon. The French have never been backward at coming forward. Waiting and arranging.
I posted the link on X. Maybe some of my 29 followers will repost it. 😏