Why "Censorship Intellectuals" Serve the Status Quo
It has been noted, most famously, by Paul Johnson, author of his book The Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky, that intellectuals serve the status quo. As if it were their mental flaw, they show great deference to people in power. Instead of using their minds for thinking, they rent their brains out to the highest bidder, as human calculators, in order to cook up reasons justifying the elite’s worldview.
According to French philosopher Foucault, writing in his book Les Intellectuels, intellectuals are people seeking universal solutions, i.e., solutions that apply to everyone, everywhere. But more often than not, these intellectuals end up reprogramming—through media and education—the desired behaviors of human beings, thereby overriding human nature.
Intellectuals have never struck me as particularly intelligent, nor as very knowledgeable people. It’s not that they don’t know a lot, it’s that the things they know aren’t so. Both left-wing and right-wing intellectuals come across as homosexuals, the one more open, the other more in the closet, but both of them suffer great psychological pains living quietly under the rule of their belligerent mothers.
And many intellectuals are plainly autistic. They have not experienced practical life.
The university, the Alma Mater, where most intellectuals find employment, if they ever do, forms the substitute dogmatic mother long after their real mother’s death. And it is at the most elite of these universities, such as the Ivy League clique in the USA, where the elite intellectuals craft the stories, narratives, and beliefs they wish to imprint onto the general public.
But when ordinary people puncture through the incoherent and often boring and illogical stories born of academic minds, the people are called conspiracy theorists.
Indeed, James Murphy, professor of Government at Dartmouth College, argued for as much during his latest appearance at the Budapest Danube Institute. Funded by Premier Orbán of Hungary, this institute is supposed to be a right-wing conservative think tank, but the guests on the roster keep parroting a CIA-approved “permissible conservatism”.
Murphy wants to design counter-narratives to work against viral social media posts that expose the wrongdoings of the government. He realizes that arguments in defense of some ideological hoo-haw don’t work against first-person witness accounts.
According to Murphy, January 6 really was Trump’s attempt at overthrowing the State. It wasn’t. According to Murphy, Joe Biden really won the election honestly. He didn’t.
Although U.S. secret services have been meddling with every election around the world wherever it mattered—famously getting Soviet man Yeltsin elected to the Kremlin so U.S. corporations could rob the Russian people blind—he wants to believe U.S. secret services would never meddle with elections at home, even though the CIA previously killed John F. Kennedy to avoid pulling troops out of Vietnam (a highly lucrative war business at the time).
And so, intellectual men like Professor Murphy are guilty of the crimes they project onto others. He supports made-up stories that go viral on social media, and now wants to counter the truth (the election was stolen) with emotional-laden, psycho-propagandistic counter-narratives, namely by manipulating people’s perceptions.
The end-effect of the counter-narratives shall be clear: more division. Only the most gullible people still believe Joe Biden, a demented fool, won the election without cheating. And it is these gullible people who will fall for Professor Murphy’s counter-narratives. The media propaganda will become more insidious, and though ordinary people won’t be able to explain it to themselves, they will feel something is off. And they will tune out.
Hitler famously said that making a lie big enough will make people believe it. He was wrong. People don’t know how to argue against big lies, so they stay quiet. That doesn’t mean people believe the lie. They don’t. Likewise, people may not know how to dissect the psycho-propagandistic lies of the Ivy League intellectuals and their media henchmen, but that doesn’t mean they will believe the news. They won’t.
Men like Professor Murphy, lusting for power, believe only expert debate can produce real knowledge, and that, therefore, the common people’s opinions ought to be dismissed. Herein lies the fatal flaw of intellectualism. Intellectuals are inherently deferential to power and must ignore the flaws in their own thinking. They care so much about being the ‘expert’, they have to look down on the people.
The media elites will begin to wage an ever more aggressive war on the common people. They will attempt to disqualify the ordinary person’s thinking abilities. And they will fail. The intellectuals as per Murphy admit they just want to win arguments by controlling people’s stories, and that means by controlling the news and by controlling social media.
Censorship is about to get extremely harsh in the West. But it won’t stop the spread of the truth. I am convinced, the truth will accelerate, for the lies have become a house of cards.