If You Censor In Your Private Life, You Don't Deserve Free Speech In Your Political Life

Show me an activist who fights censorship in public, and I’ll show you someone who censors in private.

And this is their typical excuse:

“Free speech only applies to public discourse and political speech — not to personal matters between private individuals in private spaces! This is my group — I can do what I want with it! I don’t owe you membership. I don't owe you my friendship! I don't owe you any communication at all!”

There is a pandemic of hypocrisy in this world, and it infects even the “good guys.” Even those who are getting censored BY the government and big tech are turning around and censoring their OWN GROUPS on social media. They get pounded by the ban‑hammer for criticizing someone more powerful than them — like Dr. Fauci or Israel — and then, as soon as they get any power of their own, they bring that very same hammer down upon anyone who criticizes THEM.

And chances are 99% that you, dear reader, are doing this in your personal life.

If someone in your Facebook/Whatsapp/Telegram group points out a flaw in your reasoning, or says anything that contradicts your beliefs and “mission,” you ban them. If your friend tells you you’re wrong — about anything — you threaten to stop being their friend. And if they persist in arguing, you make good on your threat. You hang up the phone, slam the door, smash the Block button.

When someone says something you don’t like, you censor them.

When you have no power, you don’t censor — because you can’t. But wherever you do have power, you exercise it in the same way that tyrants do it to you. You become a tyrant as soon as you get the chance.

If you don’t respect freedom of speech when you have the power, why the heck do you think you deserve it for yourself when someone else has the power?

You don’t, actually.

“They who censor shall be censored.”
— The Bible (paraphrased)

Free Speech Is a Principle, Everywhere

Most people’s “support” for free speech is purely strategic. Their side is getting censored, so free speech matters to them... now. But they never believed in free speech as a principle, because they don’t understand why it’s a principle.

Free speech has a reason for existing, and the reason is the same across all spheres and scales of interaction. It doesn’t change or go away if you expand or shrink the scale or move to a different location. The reason why free speech is essential transcends context: the open flow of communication is essential to epistemic integrity, no matter where it takes place or who the parties are.

If you force someone to stop talking, you will no longer hear whatever information they are trying to convey. This is physics. If they’re not talking, you can’t hear them. If you can’t hear them, you can’t learn what they’re informing you about. You stay ignorant. This happens just as much in a chat window with your cousin on Messenger or a private group you run, as on national television. In both instances, you are premeditating your own ignorance.

If we were a farm family, holding council on where to erect the new barn, this is a private matter, and thus, according to your concept, not everyone has the right to speak. But everyone should get a chance to speak, because everyone might have INFORMATION that’s crucial to the decision‑making. And you don’t know what info someone might have until they TELL you. Until then, it’s an unknown unknown. You have to let everyone speak in order to make sure you’ve solicited as much knowledge as possible before coming to the decision. And if you are a leader who doesn’t do that, then you have no wisdom, and shouldn’t be a leader.

The perils of censorship are present in ANY debate, no matter whether it’s public or private. And therefore, the principle of free speech applies too. If you respect it, you will thrive. If you disrespect it, you will make mistakes that could have been avoided.

“But free speech comes from the 1st Amendment!”

No, it doesn’t. It comes from existence. We have the right to free speech because we exist. It comes from Nature and Nature’s God.

Do you think free speech was included in the Bill of Rights because it’s a good principle — or do you think it’s a good principle only because it’s in the Bill of Rights? Is it good because it’s codified, or was it codified because it’s good?

If the only reason you believe in free speech is because a piece of paper says you have to, then you don’t really believe in it. You’re just following the rules. You're a good rule-follower. Congratulations!

But if a piece of paper with rules is your motivation for "supporting" free speech, then your "support" disappears the moment the paper gets repealed or bypassed with a “national security” excuse. Whether it’s expedience or rule‑following, your “support” is based in something other than the principle — something selfish, something fragile, something you can be persuaded to betray if the winds of power shift.

If you complain about censorship in politics, but you practice censorship in your own life, then you are a hypocrite and you have no right to complain. We are losing free speech in our public life BECAUSE so many of us have stopped deserving it, and have earned censorship karma by censoring in our own spaces.

Case Study: Derrick Broze and Dissident Censorship

I recently got kicked out of a Telegram group run by Derrick Broze, the leader of the “Conscious Resistance” movement — someone whose activism is all about defeating censorship and authoritarianism. He kicked me out for disagreeing with him, thus revealing himself as a censorious authoritarian himself.

Do you see the irony?

The excuses are always the same. They use the exact same language that’s been used against them by the establishment they’re fighting:

• “It’s just moderation — not censorship!”
• “You have freedom of speech — not freedom of reach!”
• “This is MY group, I’m the admin, I decide what stays and what goes!”
• “You don’t have the right to say whatever you want in someone’s house!”
• “If you have things to say, go start your own group!”

These are the arguments that were hurled at them during Covid, the Biden regime, the January 6th persecutions, the gender ideology wars, the climate change debate, and everything else. Derrick himself was a front‑line soldier during the plandemic, getting hit with these excuses on a daily basis. And now he turns around and uses them. On me. Word for word. When he couldn’t justify it anymore, he resorted to: “I’m not censoring you,” while doing the very thing.

If even the “Conscious Resistance” becomes authoritarian, if even the people who get daily reminders of how evil censorship is turn around and copy it, then humanity isn’t learning. The “better world our hearts know is possible” can’t materialize, because even the people who say they want it are modeling the opposite.

The Spirit of Censorious Authoritarianism

The common denominator in all these problems is the spirit of censorious authoritarianism: the idea that you can make something wrong by simply not listening to its arguments, refusing to debate it, and expelling its proponents. The idea that you can reject an idea without even knowing how it works yet.

Censorious authoritarianism is a disease afflicting the broad spectrum of humanity, including those people who consider themselves dissidents. They complain when the government censors them, then turn around and censor each other. I’ve also been blocked by other famous dissidents, like Caitlin Johnstone, Jennifer Bilek, and several others, for the “offense” of disagreeing with them in public.

If you’re cutting off someone’s ability to communicate, then you are acting in the spirit of censorship, and spiritual loyalty is independent of power level. A person with an affinity for a particular spirit, when they have a low level of power, can be expected to follow that same spirit at any power level they might come into.

If you “Ban” and “Block” people on Facebook and Telegram, you will do the same to newspapers and journalists and political activists… if only you get the power to. Because that’s your spirit. You believe that the way to win an argument is to cut off your opponent’s ability to keep arguing. If you believe this nonsense as an activist, you will believe it as an official. You don’t recognize the value of open communication for its own sake. You don’t get why it’s necessary.

While blocking does not constitute the maximum degree of censorship possible (because the target can still go and talk to other people), it does constitute the maximum degree that you have the power to cause. The block button is the most powerful censorship weapon to which the regular peasant has automatic access. And by using it, you are using the maximum censorship power at your disposal.

If you’re currently using your maximum power to censor, it’s reasonable to assume that you’d continue to do so, no matter how high your power climbs. You’re currently being restrained not by your conscience, but merely by your capability.

A person’s spiritual loyalty is independent of their power level. So even if you’re a regular peasant, and you block/ban people for disagreeing with you, then you’ve already demonstrated loyalty to the spirit of censorship over that of communication, and the only factor distinguishing you from an Umbridge or a Stalin is your power level — not your spirit.

And it doesn’t matter if you support free speech and open dialogue on 99 out of 100 topics. If you have 1 topic where you’re a censorious authoritarian, that spirit has a home in you, and you’re still batting for Team Bad.

You Cannot Win an Argument by Ending It

And so, my question is: “Why do you deserve free speech at all?”

Why do you?

You don’t.

If you’re ready to admit error and change course, then repeat after me:

“I cannot win an argument by ending it.”

Write that on the chalkboard 50 times, like Bart Simpson.

“I cannot win an argument by ending it.”
“I cannot win an argument by ending it.”
“I cannot win an argument by ending it.”

Shutting people up does not prove them wrong. This is as true in private as it is in public. And if you don’t practice it in private, then you don’t deserve it in public, and you are what’s dragging our civilization into tyranny.

Stop.