Censorship Du Jour

Feb 12, 2025

(Originally published at propagandainfocus.com)

Why were the Blue Coats continually serving up an entree no one requested?

Now that the US presidential election is over, I’d like to share my simple conspiracy theory with you. Don't worry; my theory is general and not an intricate matrix. I sincerely believe the Democratic Party and the political establishment that supports them wanted Trump (the man I call Trauma Dump) to win.

The Democratic Party machine, the people who make decisions behind the scenes, did not want Harris to win. They didn't expect her to win. They selected her not to win. The undemocratic manner in which they selected her helped create an environment in which it was impossible for her, a fairly unpopular candidate in the first place, to win.

"That's crazy!" one might say offhand in reaction to this theory, but it's not crazy when you realize they were making more money; they were doing better economically overall when the Orange Man was in power. It's the Loser Wins game, also known as negative chess (or suicide chess). Their bottom line was better when he was in office, and when it comes down to it, flowery rhetoric aside, they are bottom-line type of people.

For those who are reflexively skeptical of my Throw in the Towel Theory (TTT) about the 2024 Democratic presidential campaign, perhaps the theory should be placed within the context of my overall political views. I am part of a growing population who considers the red coat versus blue coat paradigm utterly insulting to all nice minds. In recent years, more and more people have come to refer to the "uni-party" or "the two-party illusion." I operate within a framework that views the two parties as one party pretending to be two. No matter who wins — the party, pretending to be two parties, wins. If you can accept, or at least consider this framework, the TTT will make some, if not perfect, sense.

CNN is the perfect example of the bottom line being injured when The Orange Man went away (of course, not entirely, but from the presidency, where his effect is maximal). In the absence of Trump, their viewership went through the floor. There was a similar story in the New York Times in the world of print media. With viewership and readership down, nothing would be better than returning the man who weaponized the term "fake news" to the highest executive office. "Orange Man Bad" was a flourishing industry. The end of his first term represented the end of a gravy train for the people who pretended to despise him the most.

After a 4-year sabbatical, the re-election of Trump represents the revival of a cash cow. Fueled by ample Trump Derangement Syndrome, the "Orange Man Bad" industry is being hotly reinstated.

This article, however, is not about Trump Derangement Syndrome or the "Orange Man Bad" industry that is its reflection. It is not about my theory (conspiracy theory) that the Democrats intended to lose in the 2024 presidential election. Well, it's not about the entire theory; it's more particularly about a segment of evidence that supports that theory -- the strange pro-censorship push by popular Democrats starting with gratuitous statements by Obama in 2022, leading up to a rash of similar remarks in the final weeks leading up to the 2024 election.

Do you remember the interval to which I am referring? Leading Democratic Party figureheads, in sequence, came out of the woodwork to advocate for censorship measures to help rein in what they have deemed an out-of-control online environment. What they all advocated for was tantamount to what comedian, pundit, and former guest on The Bassline, Stef Zamorano(1), sarcastically calls "Common Sense Censorship."

In the remarks I'm about to highlight, you will notice their comments sharply indicate a reference to censorship and other dictatorial measures, but they refrain from using the word frankly -- censorship. Exclusion of that word seems to be one of the rules of their incantation. They want to do censorship but don't want to be labeled as the censors.

Of course, the Covid event ushered in a new era of censorship. Those who dissented from the Branch Covidian narrative were character assassinated, "canceled," and de-platformed, more or less in that order. Search engines were re-engineered to direct people to smear jobs of previously celebrated doctors and scientists. Even everyday internet pedestrians and certifiable non-celebrities were being flagged, and their accounts were suspended for using certain keywords. The algorithms seemed to be recalibrated in advance of the event. Any mention of "Covid," "vaccines," "mRNA," "lipid nanoparticles," and the like would get flagged, and if the person persisted -- suspended and then de-platformed. Peak censorship was when people who gave firsthand accounts of their own personal adverse reactions and vaccine injuries were subsequently flagged for "misinformation." Private companies, with their own investments in the pharmaceutical industrial complex, were censoring at the behest of the federal government.

Example 1

Thus, Covid censorship happened and was mostly disregarded along with every other transgression of the emerging biosecurity state.

Then, in 2022, the Michael Jordan of politics, Barack Obama -- The "I Have a Drone" President -- appeared at Stanford University to do what he does best: soft soap his audience. He walked directly to the podium, and promptly launched into a speech focused on "disinformation."

April 21, 2022, was the date. The event was co-hosted by the Freeman Spogli Institute and Stanford Law School Cyber Policy Center. The topic was "Disinformation's Threat to Democracy."

Obama, still the most recognizable and influential Democratic party figurehead, was in good form. He was incredibly charming while simultaneously infantilizing his audience. He made the interesting choice of beginning his speech by quoting moralist and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, author of "Moral Man and Immoral Society."

His oratory came across as a primer to prepare us, the subjects of neoliberal technocracy, for the measures that must be implemented. As always, protection was the pretext. Like the so-called war on drugs, the so-called war on terror, and the biosecurity state that emerged in response to Covid -- it's for our own good.

He warned, "Our brains aren't accustomed to taking in this much information this fast, and a lot of us are experiencing overload." He went on a moment later to praise Anthony Fauci, of course making no reference to the various examples of profound misinformation for which he (Fauci) was responsible.

I trust you to review and examine Obama's 2022 Stanford speech independently (2). I will, however, point out that it lacks substance in explaining exactly the mechanism by which someone is harmed by "disinformation." It failed to mention outright the implemented censorship measures but implied they were necessary. He made no reference to the outright collusion between government and private social media corporations, as highlighted by Missouri v. Biden (3).

Example 2

Then it was Hillary Clinton, the loser (through the electoral college), the first time Trump won in 2016. Was it just me, or was it a strange decision to decide that the time to release a new autobiographical book was in the weeks leading up to the 2024 presidential election?

In addition to her book, she made it a point to promote censorship in every venue where she appeared (4). She even made remarks suggesting we should consider criminal prosecution of disinformation spreaders (5). Sounds rather draconian, does it not?

Example 3

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) -- the next-generation Democrat, also made it a point to appear on television in the weeks leading up to the election to champion censorship. Like Obama and Clinton, she was hypervigilant in her concern about disinformation.

In the same manner as her progenitors, violating of our First Amendment rights was not even a passing concern. She spoke as though the need to control disinformation was something that we would all intrinsically understand and agree upon (6). Is echoing an increasingly tyrannical establishment the only “free speech” we are afforded now?

Example 4

I would be remiss if I failed to mention the Democratic Party Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates themselves, Harris and Walz respectively. They, too, went out of their way to serve up the entree that nobody ordered -- censorship on a platter. Why did they use decisive moments on the campaign trail to advocate for censorship, again without using the term?(7)

Independent of each other, they indicated they were poised to be a dynamic duo of censorship and repression if elected (which they were not going to be).

What prompted these recognizable, highly influential Democrats to promote censorship in the lead-up to this polarizing election? Liberal, conservative, third party, whatever --" we need more censorship" is not a top 10 item for any American voter, especially one who believes in upholding Constitutional Amendments.

If you view these pro-censorship statements issued by prominent Democrats in compilation, it's likely to leave you scratching your head. It may compel you to ask, "Did the Democrats truly intend to win the 2024 election?"

If you remain skeptical of my TTT of the 2024 US presidential election, you are well within your right and I am not in the least bit offended. By no means are you obligated to corroborate my loosely constructed conspiracy theory. But I would then like to ask you what you think was the reasoning behind the odd pro-censorship statements issued by leading figureheads in the Democratic Party leading up to the 2024 election. The censorship push by the Dems was idiosyncratic, and the item I chose to highlight in this particular article was just one of a litany of strange moves on their part.

It becomes less strange, however, when you look at things in terms of the objectives of capitalism. In capitalism, creating and running a successful, profitable business is not a small achievement. Yet, even more outstanding than a profitable business is being industrious enough to create an entire new industry. No longer fledgling, but now well underway -- "Orange Man Bad" has gone from being a novelty to being the only game in town for oligarchs who prefer more than anything to continue the project of making profit hand over fist.

It's a rather absurd situation. But the good news is that it has resulted in a convenient simplifying of the political landscape. If you show up to a protest in opposition to Trump, you no longer need to remember a series of elaborate, hard to remember chants. All you have to do is repeat: " Orange Man Bad! Orange Man Bad! Orange Man Bad! Orange Man Bad!" ad infinitum, and in doing so, you will achieve unity.