A statement about more people focusing on the content (rather than side issues) of my column lately has led to an out of hand comment section over on Enrico Uva’s Quote of the Week. The comments are mainly people* complaining about “censorship” on Science2.0, supposedly especially occurring at my column here.

[* Not surprisingly, all people whose comments I removed, mostly crackpots, one schizophrenic that talks to aliens, who I remove because she is a stalker (nothing more vicious than rejected love).]

Simple minds who have swallowed hook, line, and sinker a pseudo-democratic doctrine that justifies murdering all over the world in the name of such flimsy excuses as “war on drugs” and to mass incarcerate one's own people, destroying the lives of those who dare to try alternatives and misinforming the rest, they come here and scream “censorship” when some unknown bloggers remove a few comments to ensure that the comment sections are informative to readers. This is so ridiculous that I hereby retract my previous justification for removing garbage.

I just started the whole writing adventure then and felt the need to justify something that should not be justified, as all such can do is inherently supporting the view that there is some sort of ill defined “free speech”, perhaps especially on the internet, which could not be further from the truth, as I will outline below with my experience of real censorship as a good example.

I then already wrote:

I did not sign up for participating in pseudo-democratic façade painting, giving the masses the feeling that they have a say, that internet somehow gives them the long awaited glorious path to some misconceived freedom instead of being the next evolutionary stratum that will enslave the sub-systems like it usually and quite inevitably happens in any by evolution emerging layer. I am not paid for stabilizing a playground where a certain part of the population may abreact their energies so the real shit can go on undisturbed.

But afterward I wrote about pseudo-science, somewhat in order to appease the usual progressive type of science blogger. Here is the only reason that should be pointed out for deleting comments:

I delete whatever the hell I feel like** deleting, period.

[** I never delete because of “dissent”, nor because of the F-word, as long as comments stay clear of, say, racism, i.e. if they go unfairly against others who are already discriminated against etc. Important is whether comments are useful to the readers I like to attract. If there was "dissent", it wasn't argued scientifically enough. If you feel that I have overlooked the deeper level of your argument, write your own pieces. Such is a mature response, like I have done here for example after I felt that Ethan Siegel did not properly respond to my comment on his blog.]

No justification is necessary when it comes to so called “censorship”, because such presupposes a free speech that simply does not exist. Censorship is when substantial criticism is effectively silenced. Now consider this, those of you who are enraged about my moderation of comment sections:

- While having published quite a number of peer reviewed papers, all my critical work has been effectively censored although it is written to a higher standard than the work that gets accepted. None of my criticisms of certain methods in the field of nanotechnology for example have passed the peer review system in proper ways. While being able to use the methods to participate in constructing false knowledge, I am censored from speaking out for many years now and my career has suffered accordingly. I could be a professor leading a large research group for many years now if it was not for censorship - real censorship.

- Even my straight physics articles are not linked to anymore on any science site out there since I ventured to speak out against primitive anti-China propaganda. Just one or two articles pointing out to progressive science bloggers, who claim to be for secularism and science being considered in politics, that the Chinese leadership is full of secular scientists, is enough to be banned even from being looked at on topics like black hole physics or nanotechnology.

- I am not linked (let alone on the blog roll) even by those bloggers who are supposedly critical about some of the establishment science, say crackpots like P. Gibbs or P. Woit, who after having had a few passable arguments against string theory hype years ago now resorts to poo-pooing modern cosmology because he isn’t able to grasp the many world interpretation or the multiverse. I dare to criticize naïve scientism, for example that much “science outreach” is mere trying to sell mediocre books, trying to get speaking engagements and so on, reducing science to a niche market to be exploited. I dare to speak out against distortions of science, regardless whether they are from global warming deniers or from cheerleaders for unenlightened scientific substitute religion. I dare to insist on reason, yet am painted as a traitor for daring to touch on science priests like Tyson, and subsequently ignored, i.e. effectively removed from the discourse, i.e. "censored". Substantial criticism is censored all across the blogosphere by right wing crackpots and left wing pseudo progressives alike, while racist, misogynous crackpottery a la Lubos Motl is linked to in order to claim openness.

- The IEET does not publish my articles anymore although they claim to be all about Ethics of Emergent Technology, precisely what I write about! One reason is that I exposed pseudo-science in academia, which the big guys there find “unprofessional”.

- The pre-print archive has black listed me; not just the linking to this science column when it writes about pre-prints, but they do not even allow me anymore to post pre-prints of already accepted peer review journal articles in my field of nanotechnology! This while people who are obvious pseudo-scientists (like the one I outed) still post their garbage prominently on that very same archive.

- And lastly much more that real existing censorship prohibits me from writing about without suffering severe consequences that I am not willing to take just for the entertainment of silly know-nothings who use the internet as a convenient gutter.

So, to all those who accuse *me of all people* of censorship: If you were not so simpleminded and actually cared about the core of what "censorship" is while having a grain of reason in you, you would take your stupid heads out of your dark stinky holes and start supporting me, for example putting links to my articles on sites etc! That you instead scream censorship *at me of all people* confirms that your comments are much too silly for having a place anywhere near my articles.

And again: Wake up kids. This is the real world, also the internet. “Free speech”? If you think that I can just write what I really think here on my science column, think again!