An Actual Fake MSM Interview of an Anarchist
Will forbidden ideas ever get a hearing in the mainstream media?
Here is a categorical statement for you:
Virtually all mainstream media throughout the West are heavily biased in favor of the left, the state, and all the other institutions of the Blue Church. They are the mouthpiece of the establishment and the (so-called) elites.
Anyone who is not aware of this is living is some sort of strange delusional state that I have difficulty even contemplating.
The bias runs even deeper than that, though. They are also biased toward the middle of the Overton Window. Debates in the MSM are always between the approved viewpoint and the approved opposition. Both of these are always well within the Window.
It is almost unheard of for a viewpoint outside the Window to get a hearing.
Recently, such an interview did take place, however. It took place in my head. The words just started flowing, as if I truly were hearing it live. So I quickly wrote it down.
It was in the style of Cathy Newman’s relentlessly mocked interview of Jordan Peterson. (I recall enjoying Karen Straughan’s take at the time, but that was just one of many reactions that nuked Newman in the aftermath.)
The fictional interviewer is called Karen Jones (and frankly, she isn’t even as repellent as Newman was). The interviewee is John Smith, an anarcho-libertarian.
Smith, being an anarchist (or voluntaryist, or whatever you’d like to call him), knows that involuntary governance is a moral problem…and that democracy does not solve that problem. (Not even our constitutional republican kind.)
Naturally, Jones is horrified by the suggestion that democracy is anything other than glorious and magical and perfect, and so that is what she focuses on…
Karen Jones:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. I’m Karen Jones.
Today in the studio we have John Smith.
Good morning, sir, and welcome the the program.
John Smith:
Thank you, Karen; it’s good to be here.
KJ:
Many people call you a “threat to democracy.” How do you respond to that charge?
JS:
Hmm. Well, Karen, from the way you phrased that question, I presume you are among the people who call me that.
KJ:
I’m just asking the questions, John.
JS:
Okay.
KJ:
I mean, you don’t deny it, do you? You really are against democracy.
JS:
Yes.
KJ:
Yes you deny it, or yes you are against democracy?
JS:
Both. I am against democracy, but I also deny that I am a threat to it. My approach is a peaceful one.
KJ:
Okay, but you oppose democracy, which is the foundation of any free society.
JS:
Is it?
KJ:
Is it what? The foundation of a free society? Of course it is.
JS:
That is what we’re told, yes.
KJ:
You don’t believe it?
JS:
You do?
KJ:
Yes, of course.
JS:
Why?
KJ:
What do you mean, why? No one has ever asked me that before.
JS:
Well maybe they should have. Why do you believe democracy is “the foundation of a free society.”
KJ:
Well, John, I guess because you are allowed to vote and run for office.
JS:
Those things make you more free, Karen?
KJ:
Of course. Would you rather go back to some sort of monarchy?
JS:
Democracy is an improvement on monarchy in some ways, Karen. But in many ways, it is just a continuation of the same thing, with majorities in place of monarchs.
KJ:
But we, the people, get to decide.
JS:
Who’s “we, the people?”
KJ:
We, John. The people.
JS:
Can “we, the people” think? Can “we, the people” choose?
KJ:
Yes, by voting.
JS:
But we don’t all vote for the same thing, do we?
KJ:
No, of course not.
JS:
Right, of course not. Because we’re not one single entity. We’re all individuals with different thoughts. We want different things. But democracy doesn’t let us make different choices. We all have to do what the majority wants.
KJ:
Of course, John. How else would we do things?
JS:
Can you think of nothing?
KJ:
Can you?
JS:
Yes. But before we talk about that, ask yourself—how free are you if you can be forced to do things that you did not choose?
KJ:
Freer than in a dictatorship. Is that what you want, John?
JS:
There is something you need to understand, Karen. You think that you are coming at this from a liberal, freedom-oriented position, and I from some sort of illiberal, anti-democratic position. As if being anti-democracy is automatically anti-freedom.
Actually, the reverse is true. I am the defender of real freedom here. Ask yourself, Karen—did you consent to be a part of this?
KJ:
No, I suppose not—not explicitly.
JS:
But consent is supposed to be explicit. Isn’t that pretty foundational to its definition?
KJ:
Not necessarily. I don’t make my husband sign a contract every time he goes to kiss me.
JS:
Well, congratulations for picking the most organic example—a relationship that operates primarily on consensus, and thus bears no resemblance to our relationship with government. But since you brought it up, let’s go with it…
You chose to marry your husband. Did you choose to be governed in the way we are governed?
KJ:
No, I guess not.
JS:
And if you told your husband that you did not want to be kissed at certain times—say, before your morning coffee—or in certain ways, would he stop?
KJ:
He would if he knows what’s good for him.
JS:
(chuckling)
Exactly. So even though you don’t always say it aloud, your consent really is fairly explicit.
Now what if your husband said, “Too bad if you don’t like it. I am going to keep doing it anyway.”? I know he never would, but just go with it…
KJ:
Then he wouldn’t be the man I married. I would divorce him.
JS:
Aha—so you can withdraw your consent. You see?
KJ:
Yes, I suppose you have me there. But you can leave the country if you don’t like it.
JS:
(smiling)
Let the record show that you just used the “Love It or Leave It” argument, Karen. But seriously, where would you go? The only other places all have a variant of the same arrangement.
That would be like your husband saying, “Fine, you can divorce me, but you will have to immediately marry some other guy just like me. You have no other choice.”
So we don’t really have the “consent of the governed,” do we, Karen? I mean, you aren’t given a choice.
KJ:
No, I suppose not, But you can vote. That’s where you get to choose.
JS:
Okay, so we vote, or we don’t vote. Maybe our guy wins, or maybe not…
KJ:
Guy OR GAL
JS:
Right, maybe our guy OR GAL wins, or maybe not. Maybe they propose policies we would have wanted, or not. Maybe those policies pass, or maybe the opposite policies pass. No matter what happens, we are going to be forced to do things we would never have consented to do willingly.
KJ:
That’s just the way it has to be.
JS:
Why? 400 years ago, monarchy was “just the way it has to be.” Is that really the ground you want to defend?
People consent when they buy shoes. People consent when they choose a home and a career. People consent to their relationships and their loves. Consent is the rule in everything EXCEPT government. Does that sound right to you?
KJ:
I’m not sure what to say.
JS:
It gets worse, Karen. Think about this whole voting arrangement. What is it, really?
A majority can make a minority do things they don’t want to do. A majority can make a minority give them money, or act in ways they would never have chosen if they were actually allowed to consent. Government gives them that power.
So the minority realizes that they must use those same levers. They’re given little choice. Force them before they force you. You want a Hobbesian war of all against all? There it is, right there. Does that sound like consent to you?
KJ:
Well, that’s all the time we have. I’d like to thank our guest, John Smith, for bringing us that interesting perspective.
What worries me is that minority are the true rulers, rather than the majority. They have access to power through wealth and they game the system. We don’t have any checks on them because they are private citizens.
Good interview! Although you forgot to imagine a producer, who would have cut off the interview before the halfway point. ;-p