It turned out that a world in which even the President of the United States can be punished for wrong views is already here. The previous year was the year of the pandemic, and 2021 is likely to be the year of censorship. We should get used to the idea that the current system of social networks, the core of the Internet, allows two young billionaires to do almost whatever they want with us. "If fascism comes to America, it will be called liberalism," Ronald Reagan once said.
It doesn't matter how we feel about Donald Trump, but the blocking of the account of the current President of the United States, which had 88 million subscribers, is nothing more than an attempt on the freedom of speech guaranteed to Americans in their sacred constitution. In addition, we see a disregard for the electoral preferences and views of the 74 million voters who voted for Trump two months ago. Two billionaires want to show us that the era that passed under the slogan "We the people" is over, and now they are democracy, and I want to ask the question: how many votes and in what election did Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey get?
Add censorship to the fire
To begin with, social media was created as a place for the free exchange of opinions. Politicians, public figures and government agencies were encouraged to communicate with citizens not through the media, but directly. For politicians, such a platform was supposed to be, first of all, Twitter, but it turned out that they have the right to speak on it only if their position coincides with the position of the platform owner.
"I do not share your beliefs, but I am ready to die for your right to express them" this phrase attributed to the Voltaire seems today to be a complete abstraction. Two young billionaires showed us a different approach: "I do not share your beliefs, and therefore I will block your account to limit your right to express them."
Do not believe the claims that the reason for the blocking of Trump's Twitter page was the incitement of protest sentiments in the society. When the president posted a video with a peace message urging compatriots to go home, the platform banned the post from being "liked" or shared.
Trump's next peace statements did not fit into the image created by the Democrats and the media friendly to them, so the punishment followed: the closure of an account with 88 million subscribers.
It is clearly visible that someone wants to stir up the mood in the United States on the eve of Joe Biden's inauguration, and this someone is not Trump or Republicans. Attention should be paid to the U-turn of the President-elect, who, before the start of the riots, spoke of a desire to reconcile the Americans, and then chose a tough course and called the opponents rabble. This is a serious mistake, because the new head of state is responsible for bringing society together.
In 2020, Biden lacked the courage to condemn anti-fascist protests and unrest under the slogan "Black lives matter", and now he lacks the wisdom and prudence to show respect for his rival and his 74 million voters. From the point of view of the main opponents of the United States, Russia and China, the situation looks ideal: they can demonstrate to the world that America is a brawl in the Capitol and unceremonious censorship. Behind the first is a group of citizens overwhelmed by emotions, and seemingly serious politicians, journalists and businessmen are to blame for the radicalization of moods and the use of censorship. How are these people better? They condemn the "guests" of the Capitol, but earlier they were not only unable to condemn the riots that swept the entire country, which turned into arson of ordinary Americans' shops, looting and murders, but even justified them, and now they say that "these two situations cannot be compared."
Many scholars of European history see the source of fascism in the system created after the First World War. In turn, during the entire period following the end of the Second World War, fascism was portrayed in politics as a sleeping monster, capable at any moment again to become a threat to our civilization and freedom. It turned out, however, that in the shadow of this struggle against fascism, step by step, day after day, another, left-wing fascism was developing, which does not tolerate any views other than its own, dreams of imposing its ideology on the world, and everyone who does not agree with it, seeks to be imprisoned, punished, destroyed, blocked, in a word, removed from public space.
Why do we need democracy if the conservative has the right to vote?
It is no coincidence that the Washington Post gave up the mask of objectivism and called for the immediate removal of Trump from the presidency. "Every second of his preservation of broad powers carries threats to public order and national security," it points out in an editorial comment.
I wrote it "for a reason" because it is in this edition that you can find Anne Applebaum's ideological texts. In her latest book, the publicist openly questions the raison d'être of democracy in an environment where politicians who do not like her and her husband Radosław Sikorski (ex-head of the Polish Foreign Ministry) win.
"If people are able to vote for someone like the apparently moronic Trump, who does not understand anything and expresses himself only with slogans mixed with racist slogans, or Duda (Andrzej Duda) raving about the European Union, one should ask the question whether democracy is possible and is it needed" writes Applebaum.
So in reality the "brave new world" looks like this. Tolerance - yes, but only to the views of a minority, and the majority can be fought, regardless of who it is represented by - Catholics, Whites, heterosexuals or conservatives. Love - yes, not for our neighbor, but for ourselves and our comrades. Respect - only on condition that we agree in opinion, otherwise we will shut you down, block you, and, if necessary, destroy you.