A Black Pigeon in the Coalmine: Corporate Censorship Casualties Continue Climbing

pigeons-2098451_1920.jpg

Popular YouTuber BlackPigeonSpeaks, known for his well-spoken, scripted dialogues against mainstream media and other left-wing cultural phenomena, was banned from the platform yesterday without so much as a warning.


It would be remiss of me to not let you know that he has, since, after a successful appeal, had his account reinstated, but it speaks to a harrowing reality we have come to find ourselves in. BPS, a man of some significant standing in the YouTube community, saw his channel sitting at approximately 500k subscribers. Naturally, when his account was terminated, he had the pull and the traction to gain the attention necessary to appeal.

The question I must ask is: How many people, like Pigeon, are being censored via algorithm right now, without anyone but the creators and the small communities that follow them, to care about it? This on a platform supposedly about empowering creators and supporting free expression?

I have seen reports filter in over the past few days of history channels, channels doing political analysis, channels who speak out about the rise of the far right, all getting censored or banned because of this latest wave of strikes against channels, due to the excessive and, frankly childish — at least in this author’s opinion — demands of Carlos Maza to censor Steven Crowder for referring to Maza as literally the very terms he calls himself openly, while also poking fun at Maza’s lisp.

For those interested in my take on Maza, Crowder, and that mess of a situation, please see the article from last Friday.

Some see this step as a call for alarm. Independent journalist Tim Pool seems convinced, or at the very least terrified of the possibility, that we seem to be approaching a point we may not be able to recover from politically.

Following the censorship issue, Pool openly addresses the “milkshake attacks” on others in the very streets now applauded on social media, the very same attacks that Vox’s Carlos Maza encouraged others to take part in, uncertainty has been growing about how much longer it will be before milkshakes become something else.

This also comes after British talk-show host, radio host, and comedian Jo Brand saying that she feels “Milkshakes are pathetic” and also to “why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?”

Of course, many have been quick to defend Brand’s statements, calling her a Comedian whose free speech should be protected, and “viewed within the context of the comedy programme she was on” — even when insinuating that the violence being done on people isn’t enough and should be escalated.



While I personally find her remarks distasteful in the extreme, I do not deny her the right to her comedy, as doing so would make me a hypocrite, a step that I wish others were more consistent on.

What I do find rather troublesome is this growing sentiment among people, that physically assaulting others at all, in any way, is acceptable behavior. Another would-be pundit, and former executive of the Happy City charity, Ruth Townsley, was sacked from her job after tweeting that she, too, would have liked to see acid thrown at politicians.

To return to Pool, in referencing popular American cartoonist Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, Tim makes note of an article explaining a scenario in which Adams spoke about the politics of persuasion in regards to climate change, only to be torn into by a critic who attempted to lambaste him over him admitting his ignorance on climate change, and then later having said critic rebuked by someone else.

Of note in the article, Adams mentions :


“Your first reaction might be along the lines of thinking my critic is nuts, or has low reading comprehension. But neither is likely to be the case. The critic is (I assume) totally normal. This sort of hallucination happens to all of us on a regular basis. But we can only see it clearly when it happens to others. 

Don’t be smug that you can clearly see how deluded the critic is. The point is not about this one person. The point is that sometimes this one person is you. And me. No one is exempt. It’s just easier to see the phenomenon in others.”

Therein, I think, lies the main problem of this phenomenon.

Unchecked cognitive dissonance, due to the desire to maintain a progressive ideological orthodoxy, is poisoning the well of our public discussions, and is leading the charge on these censorship campaigns, whipped into a stir-crazy frenzy by the media elite who grow scared of the competition that is killing their business models.

It can be easy, far too easy, to get so caught up in the fight with those you disagree with, that you abandon your own principles. Even when you have your ignorance or your hypocrisy challenged, you are more likely to avoid grappling with it than you are to actively accept the criticism and try to change, preferring to dig in and continue the fight.

Of course, it hardly helps when you swim in the sort of circles that tell you constantly that absolutely everyone you’re arguing with is literally the worst thing imaginable. Seeing the number of people that doubled down after the Covington Scandal should’ve been a fair warning to everyone paying attention that the media no longer cares about honesty.

With respect to Maza, Crowder, Vox, and the others who are being banned and censored, I will finish saying only this: The more you allow a fundamentally dishonest medium to delude you, to sell you lies, or worse, control your very business model, the worse this problem inevitably will become. The “authoritative sources” on media have been shown to be willing to lie and manipulate narratives, all for the sake of harming their competition, and bolstering their own numbers, and voices within them, some of the very same calling for censorship, are also encouraging violence against others.

We cannot let these sorts of authoritarian hypocrites who have abandoned all ethical standards; who have burned all trust with the public to the ground, to hold sway over our public dealings. To do so is to invite a populist uprising, the resulting fall-out of which would be nothing short of utterly disastrous. We’ve already had a taste, and most in the media have found it utterly revolting. I caution any who are actually interested in their own future successes, not to encourage another spoonful of their own medicine.