Censorship Is Good for Business

Alex Berenson published his extensive list of sources on COVID mortality on Kindle. Amazon immediately censored him:

Of course, lockdowns are good for business so Amazon censors anything that threatens profits.

I’m telling you, friends, the government is not an interesting category any more. Look at the riots. The government is completely disempowered. And even when the governor of your state allows you to open your restaurant, people still won’t come because they have been brainwashed for months and haven’t been allowed to hear anything but lies and exaggerations.

The NYTimes published some mildly un-PC op-ed yesterday, and already a bunch of angry snowflakes – that are in no way connected to the government – is ensuring that the newspaper toes the ideological line in the future.

I see absolutely no significant difference between the way the USSR in the 1970s responded to mildly un-PC articles and this.

14 thoughts on “Censorship Is Good for Business”

  1. “I see absolutely no significant difference…”

    Two qualifications:

    1) the legitimacy of the state is no longer essential to this project as political/social/economic power now flows horizontally through dispersed private institutions and actors rather than vertically from a party central committee that controls state institutions. However, as you rightly observe, the government is “disempowered” in the face of powerful private actors who have proved very willing and able to subvert any traditional democratic norms and institutions they find disagreeable: today’s western state remains fully sovereign only in a formal sense when compared to 20th century states.

    2) no physical gulag, yet


  2. I feel like the argument that businesses want to keep the lowdown as long a possible to profit a little off. If the proles don’t have money, they can’t spend them, ergo, businesses can’t profit, even the big ones, in the long run. Something else is happening but I’m not sure what.

    Which NYT op ed article is the un-PC one? It almost sounds like an oxymoron.


    1. It isn’t “businesses.” It’s one very specific corporate behemoth that delivers stuff to your door when you can’t go shopping.

      The article is by some fellow called Tim Cotton who says the military should be used to stop the riots. This is the point of view that the absolute majority of Americans (and even a plurality of Democrats) supports, by the way.


    2. Big businesses can survive longer than small businesses because they have more money. After the lockdown ends they will face less competition. If proles don’t have money, they can always be given money with something like ubi.


      1. Exactly. UBI is a transfer of taxpayer money to Facebook, Amazon, etc. This is why it’s so enormously popular among Silicone Valley folks.

        Kai-fu Lee talks about it pretty well in AI Superpowers.


    3. “Something else is happening…”

      Yes, it’s bigger than short-term profits. Keeping the contemporary state caged in the face of political threats from those who want to see a reassertion of national state sovereignty over manufacturing, trade, immigration, social policy and so on is the larger field of play.


      1. I absolutely want the reassertion of nation-state sovereignty over all these things. Not because the nation-state model of governmentality is paradisiacal and problem-free – nothing is – but because I think the alternative is worse. And it’s not my imagination. We are seeing the alternative right now. I think we can confidently say that having gangs of roving marauders that the state can’t control and the elites are egging on to keep the public suitably terrified is worse.


        1. “because I think the alternative is worse…”

          state sovereignty allows at least the possibility of some popular restraint over elite power through democratic institutions and through the persuasive power of common cultural norms — and that’s why sovereignty must be undermined at all costs by globalized capital, international institutions, and all their running dogs (to borrow that wonderfully graphic Chinese expression)



    1. The video is an ad from Russian authorities created because of Putin’s last project of changing the Russian constitution to ensure staying in power for life. The last words are “will you choose such Russia? Determine the future of the country. Vote for constitutional changes.” And the text describes adding the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman to the constitution.


    2. Crazy fucks. Like Russia has no greater problems than gay couples wanting to adopt. They have thousands of homeless children living in the streets and being exploited in horrific ways.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.