Observing is what we do best, and we sit back, and watch the censorship purge continue on the internet.

How do you know an election is rearing its ugly head in the good ol’ USA? Simply watch the recent phenomenon of purging of the extreme sides of political discourse (mainly on the right).

The right wing extreme Christian brigades are getting a good dose of purging from the social media sites. Not going to name the names because everyone knows who they are, but the question is, is this purge by the social media companies justified?

To some extent, there is some justification and to the general element of freedom of expression there is not.

You see, a lot of these sites spewing their anti-Islamic vitriol are simply stuck in a never ending cycle of hatred of something they do not understand. It is the generalisation of all Islamic people as bad that is what they portray on a constant basis. This is their failing, because they have no reference point, no one they know is a Muslim, of which there are a myriad of types. The same could be said about any group or religion that is looked upon in a general fashion.

Not all immigrants are rapists, or drunken drivers seeking to run your daughter over, yet these sites portray this as a normal inevitable fact that is going to happen. There are no half measures in the articles these people spew out daily, they just label something as bad, then it is finished for them, they have no thoughts about how people are a constant changing bubble of elements, of facets, of humanity. If they stayed in a refugee camp for a day, and listened to the stories of horror many migrants have undergone, maybe they might change their minds.

Our satire has constantly played on this black and white approach, of this dehumanisation of whole swathes of people. What we do essentially is a mirror of the vitriol these sites spew out, and we show it to be what it is. We ourselves have been wrongly targeted for this approach, because the controlling faction workers/censors did not understand satire, or how we work. Satire and the element of parody can bring forth all that is hidden to most but it is wholly misunderstood by the ignorant and illiterate.

There is hypocrisy in the extreme left as much as the right of the political spectrum, and it is sometimes hard to weed the wheat from the chaff, but we see their virtue signalling, we see their fearmongering, we see their dehumanisation of whole swathes of populations simply on the trigger of single incidents.

Our take on religion is let people freely pray to whoever they wish, but don’t push it down our throats and don’t create unjustified division. That’s your business, that’s your conditioning from birth, and something you will ultimately deal with when you take your last breath on this physical plane.

The fractured nature of the internet today, societally speaking, is one that not only divides humanity with its extremities, but through banning things creates an underground grumbling hatred that will one day explode, and to be in the vicinity of the explosion when it happens, will be a fearful experience.

Does banning whole sites, voices on the internet make any difference? Well, the question should also be, where do you stop banning? Once you ban one website, where does it end? Many sites voice their own opinion on daily issues, will this be a Thoughtcrime in the future internet, only controlled by untouchable monopolies?

Even President Trump has trumped in with his viewpoint on the mass banning, but he does not seem to have any power to carry out anything, and is effectively a lame duck president, who has not achieved anything since his inauguration. Even Obama achieved a lot more than Trump, and could count the introduction of Obamacare as a major achievement which is still active today in the USA. Trump, with all his posturing about walls, North Korea is about as effective as an ashtray on a motorcycle.

Our observation is not a pleasant diagnosis of the whole sorry affair. The left is just as prejudiced, blinkered as the right. They all only have one point of view, they do not consider the multiple variables involved in evaluating groups, or single entities. This is possibly a symptom of the internet and social media itself where whole swathes of people can be discounted with an instant press of a button to block, or deletion.

Why not block the whole fucking internet? Who is going to be almighty judge of right or wrong human existence or thought? What makes you so virtuous as a human to judge one group as acceptable and another as not?

There is no answer, apart from allowing everything to exist, but this rule has now been breached on the internet, and this is the slippery road to certain defeat of humanity, because human discourse only moves forward by hearing all voices. If you cut off one side of a viewpoint, then there is only the other that exists, and humanity as a whole goes backwards — not forwards.