---

Previous waves of censorship have hit the “Online Right” particularly hard such as the 2017 backlash to the Trump presidency and the covid saga.

As the war drum beats ever louder, we must remember that war and threats to national security are permanent states of exception that a regime can use to ram through all manner of draconian laws and limits to free expression. So, it’s important to prepare for what comes next instead of only reacting after the fact.

Previous episodes of censorship may have acted as a filtering process.  Thanks in large part to covid, “the Regime” has the technical and regulatory frameworks to cancel people. We can also thank the pandemic for allowing the Regime to know who is and is not susceptible to trusting their narrative.  Rest assured, the list of dissenters has already been drafted and names noted of the rotten apples that must be tossed out of the barrel. 

In an essay, Morgoth explores a hypothetical scenario where “the Regime” can claim that those naysaying the “war effort” are a danger to national security and can therefore be dealt with accordingly.  The essay explores the options facing the Online Right, dissenters who speak out online, in an era of heightened geopolitical tension and national security risks.

The following is a summary of the thought-provoking essay ‘The Online Right’s Kobayashi Maru Test’ by Morgoth.  We encourage you to read the full essay which can be found HERE.

The recent interview between Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin drew criticism from Western elites, who labelled Carlson a traitor and a useful idiot.  Many commentators mocked the notion of betrayal, pointing out the influence of financial interests on these elites.  However, as the geopolitical climate worsens, there is a growing concern about what happens when politicians view dissenters as traitors.

During times of war, regimes can enact draconian laws and limit free expression in the name of national security.  This threat is compounded by the increasing censorship regulations being rolled out in many countries, allowing governments to censor online content.

By sheer coincidence, all across the Five-Eyes nations bloated regulation charters are currently being rolled out to ensure that governments can censor whomever they wish online. In Britain, an example of such regulation is the Online Harms Bill. In the European Union, it’s called the Digital Services Act, and in Australia the Australian Communications and Media Authority. America is still relatively free of overt state censorship but that is small recompense when private corporations will happily oblige in gagging the populace on behalf of the intelligence bureaucracy.

While the Online Right, a loosely connected group of commentators, opposes the ruling regime, they may find themselves on the wrong side of power during a crisis.

Choosing to oppose the regime during a time of war could be seen as a danger to national security, and influencers who reach a large audience may face particular scrutiny.  In this delicate scenario, it becomes difficult to maintain neutrality or support for the regime, and dissenters risk being labelled as threats.  The pandemic has allowed the regime to identify those who are susceptible to their narrative, further enabling them to control and censor dissenting voices.

As tensions escalate, the rhetoric becomes more extreme, and dissenters may face a Kobayashi Maru scenario (a term borrowed from ‘Star Trek: Wrath of Khan’), where their options appear limited.

A few responses by the Online Right to this scenario emerge: aligning with external enemies against the Western regime; hoping for internal changes through destabilisation, keeping a low profile to avoid suspicion, or reluctantly supporting the regime out of loyalty to the military.

Morgoth describes these responses under the headings: Third Worldist, Destabiliser Enjoyer, Keep Your Head Down and The Reluctant Shill.

However, regardless of the chosen stance, the regime will capitalise on the conflict to crush its internal enemies and justify its actions in the name of national security.

This new era of censorship has already impacted the Online Right, with previous waves of censorship silencing many voices.

It is, therefore, crucial to anticipate and prepare for the future rather than reactively respond to the repeated suppression of dissent.