If an article makes you nervous, go ahead and hit ‘send’

This means you’re probably challenging some dubious authorized narrative or doing what the Powers that Be don’t want you to do.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind (Authorized Narrative) blows.

I’ve now decided Substackers, or any serious writer, should probably go ahead and hit “send” on any story that gives us butterflies prior to posting. These are the stories the world’s shadow rulers don’t want anyone to publish. 

Per my theory, our shadow rulers intentionally create trepidation about posting controversial stories, stories that challenge “authorized narratives” that are not supposed to be challenged.

In short, our real rulers want potentially threatening writers and posters to “self censor.”

I can provide an example from a story I just cross-posted from The Vigilant Fox’s Substack.

This particular Substack article listed the Top 10 stories from last week that were off limits to the mainstream press.

One of these stories was about a beautiful 15-month old toddler who died suddenly two days after receiving three childhood vaccines.

What made me nervous about cross-posing this Substack article was the editorial opinions I added. In my comments, I simply noted that I used to be in the camp that recoiled from the charge (intended to be a smear) that I was an “anti-vaxxer.” 

Yes, I am definitely against mandatory Covid vaccines, but this didn’t mean I was against all vaccines and, thus, should not be labeled an “anti-vaxxer.” 

But, as it turns out, I am becoming increasingly skeptical of the necessity of children getting all (or most) or these required vaccines. I guess this means I now could fairly be called an “anti-vaxxer.”

This, in fact, is what made me nervous before hitting the “send” button. I was now going on the record with a post that might forever label me an anti-vaxxer.

My view that I was anti-Covid vaccine was probably safe enough to post.  But to say I’m now starting to question the necessity of many required vaccines might be dangerous and harmful to me. 

I might experience blowback and face repercussions for publicly expressing my growing suspicion.

That is, like everyone, I intuitively sense speech that’s tolerable to express and speech that might go “a bridge too far.”

But I went ahead and hit “send” anyway … because I’ve decided the most important stories are the ones we’re not supposed to write or disseminate.

We should write and then post the stories that give us butterflies. We should do this because these are the stories or essays would-be totalitarians don’t want anyone to read and think about.

We all know what “The Current Thing” is … and Substack authors like myself know that if we go against The Current Thing we might face negative consequences.

For me, it might mean losing subscribers (which would mean losing future income) … or it might mean some person could share my opinions with other people who have the power to make my life more uncomfortable.

For example, someone might say to someone in my town: “Did you know that Bill Rice is against the chickenpox vaccine? He’s an anti-vaxxer.”

It would be much safer for me to simply self-censor and not say what I really believe. 

I believe millions of people apply this kind of mental calculation when it comes to the social media opinions they will not share. This, I’m certain, is one of the main objectives of the so-called Censorship Industrial Complex. 

By now, we all know hundreds of examples of writers or contrarian scientists or doctors who were punished in some way for writing or speaking thoughts that went against the authorized narrative. That message has been sent loud and clear.

However, we don’t know the number of people who were afraid to do this and, thus, self censored. This, by far, is the more diabolical (and significant) censorship technique.

An example/opinion I hope doesn’t sink my Substack

And the dissemination and enforcement of authorized narratives also works on some citizens who are probably perceived as being on “my team.”

For example, I’ve noted with interest (and alarm) the effort to vilify the presidential campaign of Ron DeSantis.

Not that long ago, Florida’s governor was considered a hero to those of us who thought the Covid protocols were illegal and even deadly, that these “emergency” mandates spread widespread misery in their wake.

Many of us thought DeSantis would be a serious candidate for president - just the type of politician the Anthony Fauci’s of the world did not want to head the executive branch of the federal government.

However, beginning a couple of months before DeSantis announced his presidential campaign, the “narrative” on DeSantis suddenly flipped.

The new narrative was that he was just another neocon politician and he definitely should not run for president. More specifically, this new narrative proclaimed that DeSantis was a threat to Donald Trump returning to the White House and he must be defeated at all costs.

I don’t know who sent out this memo, but it dang sure took and today - almost every day - we get headlines reinforcing the narrative that DeSantis is dangerous, incompetent and unqualified to be president.

(This article, from an affiliate of National Public Radio, was one of scores of “anti-DeSantis” articles re-published by Citizen Free Press in recent months).

For a while, I tried in vain to defend DeSantis and made posts stating that I admired him for going against conventional wisdom on Covid responses and standing up to woke companies like Walt Disney World.

For example, I often defended him at Zero Hedge, another site that had once celebrated DeSantis.

Judging from the responses my posts elicited from other Zero Hedge readers (perhaps including plenty of bots?), one would have thought I was defending Stalin. 

I’ve even thought about writing my own column on the strange phenomena of DeSantis going, seemingly overnight, from political rock star to Governor Grinch.

My views of DeSantis hadn’t changed, but the authorized narrative clearly had.

I could write that column but I now know if I did, I’d probably lose 100 subscribers who would perceive my writings as an attack on Donald Trump, who - per the narrative - must be elected to save the country.

For the record, I also think Trump was unfairly attacked from Day 1 of his presidency via preposterous and bogus narratives (like he was elected by Russian trolls). Trump himself was a victim of numerous bogus narratives.

Just writing a few “pro-DeSantis” paragraphs might finish me off as a Substacker …. Because I’m clearly going against the narrative that many of my MAGA readers probably believe is sacrosanct.

The “smart move” is to always ….  go along with the narrative even if you don’t believe it and even if you think the current narrative was created for nefarious reasons by whoever these people and organizations are who create the operative narratives.

Circling back to my commentary on a deceased little girl who should have lived until the age of 85, It would be the safe and smart career move for me to just say I’m against only the “Covid vaccine.”  I should keep to myself my view the vaccines she was required to get probably took her life.

The safe play is not challenging the authorized narrative …

The key question is should a writer always support the authorized narratives or should he say what he really thinks?

The “smart play” is simple … one should always support the authorized narrative. This might not guarantee career success, but it will definitely keep a target off your back and allow you to keep your current position … provided you don’t write the wrong things.

And all of us - somehow - know exactly what the “wrong things” are. Just put your finger up in the air and you can instantly feel which way the authorized narrative is blowing.

In my opinion, it takes zilch courage to go along with the accepted and safe narrative(s). If one thinks about it, going along with the authorized narrative is what we’re all supposed to do.

Those posts that make you nervous - that you know might upset the wrong people and cause you harm in some way - are the ones we better hope somebody keeps making.

Generally speaking, if you get butterflies right before you hit send on an article … you’re probably getting ready to post an article that might be serving a real public purpose.

All those butterflies are telling you is that you have gone against some entrenched narrative. But since society’s accepted narratives are often wrong and need to be challenged, I say go ahead and hit “send.”