A conservative blog by an anonymous right wing academic announced that it had been suppressed, shortly after he was outed. And then, predictably, the announcement of censorship was itself censored. The original announcement of the end read:
I hesitated in writing this, but I have two choices at this point: 1) open political activism including this blog, 2) my career. I don’t want to get into too many details here, but I was given this choice…. I want to thank everyone from the bottom of my heart for reading, commenting and encouraging me to continue. Thank you all for your messages of support of my efforts, which will now be at the grass roots level only. I want to make it clear that in no way am I burned out (almost 3 years now I have kept a consistent pace). In fact, I am more energized than ever. I also do not blame my employer. They are doing what they see is in the best interest of the institution.
Which was promptly revised to:
Due to yet anther media inquiry by a lefty ‘journalist’ pretending to be middle-of-the-road, let me just be clear that I work for the best employer there is, and this will help me do my job better. I made this decision on my own. And that’s all there is to it.
“I was given a choice” disappeared from the blog.
This is theocracy: In theocracy, the state enforces the rule of the priests, that no one can disagree with the priests, and the priests endorse the state, the high priesthood being Harvard and the federal bureaucracy, such as the secret science manufactured by the EPA.
If the theocracy is diffuse, rather than having all power concentrated in a single high priest, pope, or holy King, an unintended side effect of theocracy is that in the course of coercing the rest of society the theocracy coerces itself to become ever more extreme.
Over time, a theocracy tends to become ever more extreme, and the more extreme it becomes, the faster it becomes extreme, forming a political singularity until anti theocratic reaction ends it, as with Pinochet or the Thermidorian reaction, or until a single leader takes total power in the theocracy, as with Stalin, who can unilaterally set the orthodoxy of the theocracy without himself being coerced.
Stalin is often interpreted as the originator of the great terror, but that is not how Russian history looks to me. Rather, my interpretation of events is that the state under the Czars started leaning moderate left, which led to the state leaning immoderate left, which led to the overthrow of the Czars by social democracy, which continued to lean ever further left leading to communist coup against social democracy, and the state continuing to lean ever further left, until it started to look like the state would wind up murdering every single Soviet subject for failure to be sufficiently left, and at this point Stalin seized despotic power in order to halt the terror. We don’t see Stalin urging the party to commit terror. Instead, we see him publishing papers such as “giddy with success” intended to persuade the party to calm down and ease up. It looks to me that the Soviet terror was the spontaneous outcome of the natural dynamics of theocracy, and despotism was needed to break the cycle of extremism leading to ever greater extremism. Stalin saved the party from murdering everyone in the Soviet Union including party members, or rather saved the party from murdering everyone in the Soviet Union especially party members
The French revolution shows all these tendencies. Under the monarchy, rightism was repressed, for example the doctrine that the races of man were separate species became dangerous to one’s career. The suppression of rightism and the encouragement of leftism lead to the collapse of the monarchy, and eventually to the terror, which led to the red terror, which was ended by the Thermidorian reaction.
The first amendment was intended to prevent this kind of problem, but the first amendment is now being worked around in various ways: For example speech gets defined as money, making campaign finance laws applicable as happened to Kirk Shelmerdine. Admission to better universities requires the plausible appearance of left wing views, and students are from time catechized, and need to give politically correct answers in those catechisms. Businesses are subject to discrimination lawsuits if they employ people who disapprove of affirmative action – it is not sufficient that a business practice affirmative action, it must do so sincerely believing in the rightness off affirmative action.
And, as with the commerce cause, the more grounds that have been discovered to set aside the first amendment, the more grounds that will be discovered – a problem that cannot be remedied until both sides have had their turn being suppressed. There will never again be support for the first amendment until the left has experienced a Sulla or a Pinochet.