Soon to be former British Prime Minister Theresa May slammed internet tech giants for allowing “terror ideology” (she couldn’t say Islam) to breed online. May said:
“We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the Internet and the big companies that provide Internet-based services provide. We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning.”
So now it’s Internet’s fault for a 1400 year old ideology, or maybe it’s the Russians? Free speech be damned.
What May forgets to mention is that she spent the last six years as Homeland Secretary flooding the country with these very same people that she now wants to use as an excuse to crack down on your free speech.
What absolute insanity. After a major terrorist attack the first idea this halfwit has to protect the country is “let’s regulate the internet”? Seriously? How about keeping those who ideologically oppose Western values OUT of Britain?
The truth is that these corrupt politicians will brand any speech that goes against their treasonous agenda as “hate speech”.
The real alternative would be to embrace Anglo Saxon traditions of freedom and remove speech laws. You know, trust your people.
There’s a huge market opportunity for platforms that allow people to express the obvious. Political realignment would follow as populism sweeps out these failed “leaders”. Problems could be solved.
What May asks for would mean that Anglo Saxons will be kept under thumb, their country flooded with foreigners ad nauseam, thus rendering any future ethnic populism or ancient traditions mute. Problem solved, right?
Adam Smith in “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” (1759) explains why these plans always fail. He said the central planers fail because people never organize they way the central planners expect. Self determination and self interests always ruin their plans as people organize themselves in their own vision. Later in “The Wealth of Nations” he refined this idea further with the “invisible hand” explaining that people pursuing their own self interests always outdo the central planners or the “do-gooders.”