The Nancy Pelosi Video Outrage is the Biggest Call for Censorship in All of Human History

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
May 27, 2019

The media is going all out, publishing thousands of articles about these Nancy Pelosi comedy clips that they claim must be censored to protect democracy.

The media’s recent push for censorship, surrounding two videos of Nancy Pelosi, represents the biggest call for censorship in all of human history. The significance of this situation simply cannot be overstated.

The Situation

There are two separate videos of Nancy Pelosi involved in this ostensible controversy.

The first is a video posted to Facebook that shows Nancy Pelosi speaking somewhere. We’ll call this “Clip #1.” The person who made the video slowed it down to make her look stupider than she already looked. It is fair to say that this footage was “doctored,” however, it was clearly done for the purpose of parody, to mock Nancy Pelosi. Typically in America, we have been allowed to mock politicians on the internet.

The second video was shown on the Lou Dobbs show and was subsequently posted on Twitter by Donald Trump. We’ll call this “Clip #2.” This video contains short clips of Nancy Pelosi speaking, highlighting various stutters and errors she made throughout the speech. Nothing about the sound or video was “doctored,” it simply contains jump cuts highlighting different things she said. It is obvious to anyone that these are jump cuts. It is very straightforward.

Here is Clip #1, featured in a Washington Post video demanding that it be banned:

Here is Clip #2 from Donald Trump’s Twitter account:

Everything to be Banned

The media is reporting on both of these clips at the same time, and purposefully confusing the two. They are demanding that both the slowed-down clip and the clip containing the jump cuts be banned from the internet.

Clip #1, where Pelosi’s speech was slowed down, has already been banned from YouTube. This is apparently setting the standard that parody clips of Democrat politicians are not allowed on YouTube, because they could lead to people thinking negatively of Democratic politicians, which could affect American elections. Facebook has so far refused to ban that clip, and the media is going completely nuts demanding that they must ban it. I am sure that they will eventually ban it, and that they are simply playing a game where they pretend to hold out until the media successfully manages to give the impression that huge numbers of people are demanding this censorship action.

Twitter has not responded to the media’s calls to ban Clip #2. But the fact that the media is demanding this is simply beyond the pale. There can be no claim that this was “doctored.” It is not parody. It is simply a series of awkward moments highlighted in a speech. What would banning this mean? That you cannot highlight parts of a Democrat politician’s speech at all? Or just that you cannot highlight parts of a Democrat politician’s speech that make them look stupid?

Ultimately, in combining these two clips into a single thing that needs to be banned, they are trying to implement a blanket ban on any content that shows Democrats in a negative light. Parody will be banned along with highlighting anything a Democrat does that makes them look bad. Just to follow this to its logical conclusion: this would theoretically mean that not only could you not edit an image of a Democrat politician to make them look stupid, but also that you could not take a freeze frame of a Democrat politician from a speech if that freeze frame made them look stupid.

Edited Image: This will be banned under these new censorship rules. 

Out of Context Freeze Frame: This will also be banned under these new censorship rules.

What they are going for – and have partially achieved already, with the YouTube ban – is effectively an outright ban on any memes involving Democrat politicians.

“Manipulation and Fake News”

The claim is that parodying or highlighting things a Democrat politician said that make them look bad is “manipulating elections.”

Hany Farid, an alleged expert on this issue, who I cited on Sunday in an article about this censorship campaign, said the following with regards to these Pelosi clips:

The threat of manipulated video of any form remains significant because of the declining level of discourse, particularly on social media, the public’s seemingly inability or lack of interest in distinguishing between real and fake news, and our willingness — in fact eagerness — to believe the worst in people that we disagree with.

So the official position of the establishment is that the public is utterly stupid – in fact, purposefully stupid – and so it is necessary to force-feed them information, because otherwise they will get confused and vote for the wrong politicians.

There are several staggeringly obvious questions to be asked when you start hearing things like that:

  • Why do we have a universal suffrage democracy in the first place if the masses of people are incapable of processing information and making decisions based on that information?
  • If people are so stupid that they cannot be trusted to handle information, and so information needs to be force-fed to them so that experts can decide the way that they vote, then is this even a ‘democracy’ at all, or is it rule by media?
  • In admitting that information outlets have to carefully curate everything that the public is exposed to in order to shape their voting habits, are you not openly admitting that this ‘democracy’ is a farce to begin with?

Apparently, however, we are not going to be having any conversations about what implications the media controlling and curating all information available to the public have on the core concept of Democracy.

But surely, we need to have a conversation on just how far this goes?

Just How Far Does This Go?

If people are actually so stupid that their brains are incapable of processing parody or realizing that a clip containing jump cuts is not an entire speech, then what else are they incapable of processing?

I know that these new rules only apply to Democrat politicians, but we must ask: are people capable of understanding that Alex Baldwin, who plays Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live, is not actually Donald Trump?

SNL also features actors playing Democrat politicians.

How are we supposed to believe that these stupid voters, who Mr. Farid warns us need all of their information curated for them by experts, are able to understand that Saturday Night Live is not real life?

It’s a legitimate question. I am not sure if there is even any argument to be made that SNL parodies are not at least as “dangerous to our democracy” as the two Nancy Pelosi clips in question.

How about this clip of Trump singing “Everybody Refuses to Call Sean Hannity”?

Again, I understand that these rules only apply to Democrats, but it is possible that one of these drooling, idiotic voters who has no concept of reality and no interest whatsoever in understanding reality could see this clip of Trump singing, and vote for Trump because they think he is a funny person.

It goes without saying that any and all memes that insult Democrats will be banned under these new rules the media has formulated in response to these Pelosi clips, as memes that paint Democrats in a negative light could change voting patterns.

The bottom line here is that the media is jumping on these Nancy Pelosi clips arbitrarily. They could have chosen any combination of parody clip and mash-up and said “the voters are too stupid to be exposed to this” and used it as a justification for an act of censorship that will justify literally any other form of censorship.

The standard is already in the process of being set. YouTube banned one of the clips and the media isn’t going to stop throwing a fit until Twitter and Facebook also vow to ban the clips. They can then point to any content which is parody or otherwise designed to make Democrats look bad, and demand that it be banned.

We are looking at probably 100 million people being censored under this brutal new censorship regime that the media is implementing. It is simply astonishing. I had believed that they would go slower, but apparently, after Trump’s surprise win in 2016, they are determined to make sure that every single election in the future goes exactly how they plan for it to go.

Please share this article with every normie conservative you know so that they remember it when the censorship monster comes for them. 

Top Comments

  1. Is there any chance that talking about the invalidity of universal suffrage will enter the public discourse?

  2. Why the fuck did men let women vote?! Faggots. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for women in cages.

  3. Leftists are motivated by feelings of inferiority. They don’t want any group under the microscope because they don’t want to be evaluated. They feel justified in any lies that result in themselves taking over control of every aspect of your life - for your own good.

    This was posted recently. It is a quote from CS Lewes

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive . It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience .

  4. So the corporate media oligarchy is adding Democrats (or at least prominent establishment Democrats) to the already-lengthy list of “sacred objects” that must not be mocked under the foundational tenets of the progressive religion. The Tribe and their so-called “Holycost” are at the top of the list, of course – you can get 5 years in prison in the UK for mocking the Tribe of Supreme Victims – but Negroes, other non-Whites, and practitioners of various sexual fetishes/ paraphilias are important sacred objects as well. Mockery of these groups also counts as blasphemy, though of a considerably lesser degree.

    What the (((media))) are actually doing here is invoking a rule against blasphemy – or perhaps lèse-majesté. Given the frequent semitic attempts to characterize right wing/ pro-White speech as “violence,” they might even consider this sort of harmless mockery to be desecration of a core element of systematic semitism.

    They don’t want to come right out and say “You CANNOT mock these people, goy! NOT ALLOWED!”, though, so they’re attempting to obscure the process by reviving the long-discredited semitic canard of “muh fake news” as cover.
    Hence the “need” to conflate the parody video with the Trump-promoted video that is simply a series of Pelosi gaffes played straight. The message is that any deviation from image that the corporate media portrays of a prominent individual is simply unacceptable. Truth or falsehood in objective terms is irrelevant – it’s deviation from the narrative that matters.

    Note also that Trump seems to have given up on his earlier (and successful) hijacking of the “fake news” forced meme.

    There’s another aspect of the Trump part that may not be immediately obvious – the dissemination of evidence of “gaffes” by politicians needs to be under centralized media control. When the (((media))) narrative attacks a politician for a so-called “gaffe,” all it means is that they need a reason to justify negative coverage of that person, so they repeatedly play some clip that makes them look bad. This is relatively easy to do to anyone in public life who has hundreds (or often thousands) of hours of public speaking, all of it on video. The underlying reason for the attack may have something to with the actual content of said “gaffe,” or it may be entirely unrelated – it doesn’t really matter. But to have someone other than an officially-designated member of the “news” media oligarchy searching for – and weaponizing – these sorts of “gaffes,” which might then spread organically… that dilutes their power. Simply not done, you know.

    “Doctored” is pretty good rhetoric, though. Gotta remember that. From now on, never point out that a video promoted by the establishment “news” media is “edited in a misleading fashion” or anything like that. Always call it out as “doctored.”

  5. If the jewish CEO of youtube who wants to censor, she should start with her own fucking face:

  6. Gosh gee I’m sure glad we have Mr Farid from Buttfuckistan here to tell us white people how stupid we are. Diversity reslly does make us stronger and democracy is great!

  7. Allin says:

    But this was OK?

    Or how about an entire fucking TV show while the president is in office?'s+my+Bush#id=1&vid=2ed55f0b7cc507fe0d29913b7cf00527&action=click

    Not that I like GWB, he was the sucker of neo-con Jew cock.

Join the discussion TGKBBS

44 more replies