Protect Election Integrity — Censor Anyone Who Questions the Election

Protect Election Integrity — Censor Anyone Who Questions the Election. By Daniel Greenfield.

Last week, Google’s YouTube announced that “supporting the integrity” of the election required it to censor anyone alleging that “widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election”.

By historical presidential election, Google meant this one. Democrats are still free to allege that they would have won in 2000 or 2016, if it hadn’t been for the chads or the Russians. …

The cultural Marxists love to change the meanings of words to suit their political agenda (the prime example being “racist”, which did a 180 since 1990 in the hands of the left):

Election integrity, like fact checking, is one of those curious terms whose meaning was ‘Orwellianized’ in the last decade. Fact checking used to mean media organizations checking their facts before they published a story. Now the media has mostly done away with internal fact checking and uses fact checking to describe its efforts to censor conservative media.

Election integrity traditionally meant verifying the integrity of the process, but is now being used to mean silencing anyone who questions the integrity of the election. In both cases a term that meant protecting the integrity of an internal process has been turned inside out to mean covering up for the corruption of the internal process by censoring its outside critics.

We know the election in 2020 wasn’t fair. But was it free?

One basic difference between free and unfree societies is that free societies have internal checks and balances, while unfree societies only have external ones. A free society assures the integrity of its elections and its facts by keeping its facts and elections open to examination, while an unfree society protects its processes against outside criticism by threatening its critics.

American elections now happen under the grim shadow of networks of organizations that vow to “protect election integrity” by making sure that Americans aren’t “misled” by “disinformation”. …

It’s easy for conservatives to laugh off such corruption … but legally treating lefty views as embodying truth and facts and conservative views as representing disinformation has serious consequences.

The left are so much more serious about politics. They live by its consequences; in many cases it’s how they get their money. People on the right tend to have better things to do in life, and have happier lives, so politics is more of an afterthought. Sigh. So much of big picture politics boils down to personality types — character is destiny!