I always understood one end of canceling thanks to my father’s advice. He explained in the ’60s that college faculty who were fired for “communism” were actually fired for ordinary personal reasons. Unproductive faculty could be fired honestly. When the department head simply disliked the employee, he couldn’t write “I don’t like him” on an official form. He could write “communist” on an official form. Now the acceptable term is “fascist” instead of “communist”, but everything else is the same.
In journalism the modern version of canceling seems to have a larger purpose, which has gradually grown clearer as it happens more often. The cancels from MSNBC and NYTimes are the clearest of all.
Personalities who leave MSNBC or NYTimes by canceling are NOT heretical at all, and after they take their new “independent” positions in Rumble or Substack they simply continue spouting the same rigidly orthodox DNC doctrine. Same programming, different channel.
The same rule probably applies in the “other” direction though the “other” side has a sample size of one. Tucker was allegedly canceled by Fox, and now he’s saying the same RNC things he was saying at Fox.
Ping! These refugees aren’t asylum seekers. They’re missionaries, not refugees.
Their job is to INFECT the newer media with the same microbe that infects the old.
Long ago, when Jews were the oppressed class, they developed a healthy immune response against this type of infection. They learned to reject “converts” after too many of the “converts” turned out to be Christian missionaries.
Intel agencies on both sides used to apply the same standard for “defectors”. A “defector” had to pass a long series of hard tests to prove his genuine change of heart, and still remained encysted like a suspect microbe even after passing the test. He didn’t have as much freedom or power as he imagined.
If the new independent groups want to remain independent, they need to develop a similar immunity.
Of course it’s far more likely that the “independent” media like Substack are ALSO infiltrators at another level. Fox was always fake, and Murdoch didn’t bother to hide the fakeness. Partisan suckers on “both” “sides” believed the Shared Lie that Murdoch was a “right-winger”, contrary to everything in his career and statements.
The newer “independents” are trying harder than Fox to be legit-looking “independent” fronts for Deepstate.
So it’s up to the listener to apply the defector test to each alleged item of “information”. Does this agree with my own observations and experience? If so, it’s redundant and I don’t need it. If not, it’s fake and I don’t want it.
Polistra's Mill 