What's new

Alex Jones and Social Media Censorship

Criticizing Soros as part of the same criticisms of the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc. is a perfectly valid critique. Claiming that he is paying off caravan members or a member of a pedophile ring is not.

I think you're in it over your head, and don't know what you're swimming in. Amazing to me..... sometimes.... but I should not be.... that someone who is intellectually committed to a cause, as you are, mostly for the value of the ideas as you see them, simply will not see the damage fake advocates of your ideals are doing to your beloved ideals.

My true Marxist friend, who was the first to drop whatever his interest or activity was at the moment, to do something to help others, was truly grieved by the Statist betrayal of the dream. His version of it, as a Native American/European by ancestry, was not too far from the old lore of the "Indians". Love of the Earth, oneness with nature, belief in "good medicine", and a sort of "tribal" community that held this world's goods in the common needs. I never could get him to see the reason why private property, as Blackstone wrote, was essentially the same thing as the right to life.

An individual living and working in a tribal social system simply did not see the need for a mansion on the hill, and there was no protection for "property" beyond the willingness of your tribal brothers to defend it against others.

Historically, Marxism has largely been a tool in the hands of a few "oligarchs" who lived and thought but little different from megabillionaires. Like all the other "tools" trundled out to placate the ignorant masses, it becomes simply another lie used to disenfranchise the huddled masses of dupes.

Globalism, as it is now being run out as a grand agenda, is no different. The distinctions between "oligarchic" or "party" rule, defined by a small inclusive set of "better people" or "experts" or "moneyed interests", and tyranny, simply get lost when the jackbooted thugs, the troops or the "police" go out on the street to enforce the "law".

The compact that is "The American Experiment" is on the whole, an attempt to make tyranny more difficult to create. It attempted to use people's nature to limit their power by dividing the government into supposedly balancing departments.

All that is gone with today's politics. The interests have almost reached an ability to exert cohesive power against the people regardless of what the common people can do. The method used to overcome "limited government" has been ideological..... and that is exactly what you with all of your abilities.... are so deeply committed to.

If you go with the flow in the progressive movement today, you are being used methodically to effect the exact opposite of what you want.

We have in this country today, however, a critical mass of ordinary folks who have the true dream of liberty, and it appears to me that even the extended system of public education, party propaganda press, and scientific methods applied to manage the public discourse and context.... mind control exerted through societal norms as well as indoctrination.... are failing to control the direction of choice.

The determination of the mainstream media and other "deep state" managers to run this country down from an "exceptional" place for human opportunity to a "compliant" cartelist monopoly with a peasant populace like those medieval castles of the dark ages, is now seen more for what it is.

Like a herd of cows that has been rounded up and worked routinely, we need more prodding, more horsemen whooping and hollering, to get us into the pens. The progressive "managers" have lost their patience, and their methods are creating a public stampede away from the fake nirvana of a few bales of hay proffered to get us to comply.

oh damn. The tyrants will have to go to plan B/.

But the tyrants still don't get it. Google and other internet giants, are teaming up with the Chinese Red Army, under Chairman Xi, who loves Mao and Rockefeller and my cuz Maurice Strong and their ilk, to run out a top-down totally regulated "community" where dissidents can be efficiently identified and deplatformed, if not rounded up in little police wagons. Oh yes, we need some "authorities" to police our private conversations, to be sure that no renegades can ruin our paradise of perfectly reformed peasants/.

For 180 years the "progressive" leadership has paid a lot of attention to the tolerances of the masses, seeing the need to keep them in good humor. But, too bad, the current leadership has gone amok. It will not be pretty.

Something like the American Revolution is brewing.

I don't think Alex Jones is particularly a sharp tool. I've wondered if he isn't a deliberately encouraged wackadoodle foil to be used to make American rebels look bad. Who knows. Who could ever really know. But without a lot of people who feel disenfranchised and who resent the Lordly Nobles' lack of common sense and conspicuous privilege, he'd be nothing in the first place.

Taking him off of the social platforms is direct evidence he is genuine, however unbalanced. Now people will be willing to go find him where he is, where ever he is, and believe him more.

Unless the progressives can see the necessity for ditching Hillary and a lot of other problematic talking heads, your dream is lost.
 
I think you're in it over your head, and don't know what you're swimming in. Amazing to me..... sometimes.... but I should not be.... that someone who is intellectually committed to a cause, as you are, mostly for the value of the ideas as you see them, simply will not see the damage fake advocates of your ideals are doing to your beloved ideals.

I read through your rant, and looked for a reason to connect it to what I said. I saw nothing.
 
A closer look at the "stealth politics" engaged in by American billionaires. I am against "rich people buying political favor".

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...h-politics-america-100-richest-what-they-want

"Our new, systematic study of the 100 wealthiest Americans indicates that Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg et al are not at all typical. Most of the wealthiest US billionaires – who are much less visible and less reported on – more closely resemble Charles Koch. They are extremely conservative on economic issues. Obsessed with cutting taxes, especially estate taxes – which apply only to the wealthiest Americans. Opposed to government regulation of the environment or big banks. Unenthusiastic about government programs to help with jobs, incomes, healthcare, or retirement pensions – programs supported by large majorities of Americans. Tempted to cut deficits and shrink government by cutting or privatizing guaranteed social security benefits."

....... billionaires who favor unpopular, ultraconservative economic policies, and work actively to advance them (that is, most politically active billionaires) stay almost entirely silent about those issues in public. This is a deliberate choice. Billionaires have plenty of media access, but most of them choose not to say anything at all about the policy issues of the day. They deliberately pursue a strategy of what we call “stealth politics”.


We have come to this conclusion based on an exhaustive, web-based study of everything that the 100 wealthiest US billionaires have said or done, over a 10-year period, concerning several major issues of public policy. For each billionaire we used several dozen carefully selected keywords to find all publicly available information about their specific talk or actions related to any aspect of social security, any type of taxation, or anything related to abortion, same-sex marriage, or immigration policy."

Red, you really need to take a closer look at your information.

I think this study is deliberately false. If you could even know who the billionaires are.....

People who hold real estate empires don't report their holding to anyone. The file tax returns, but most of their assets are privately-held companies. The companies file tax returns too. There are places these people can go to make their wealth less visible.... offshore banks, offshore companies...… lots of trusts, lots of "foundations".... and you should not believe anybody really even knows.....

Then, you always love to pick the obviously biased reports that agree with your dreams. Don't believe people with such obvious axes to grind.

A possible majority of "our" billionaires might be on the rolls of the CFR, though many opt to keep their names off the public release list. The CFR is a sort of inclusive club, organized with the intent to draw leaders into the elite interest conversation and make them more or less willing to go with the flow. It has always been a prime tool for the tyrants of "globalism".

Of course, a lot of billionaires and other leaders really don't want to be seen leading the progressive charge. They have their cash cows and they are content to milk them. But that does not mean they are cohesively opposing the agenda. More like it means they know better than stick their heads out the window of the train or in any other way expose themselves to risk.

All that does not mean at all that there are not various factions or interest groups within our societal leadership. It is the exception, sometimes, that proves the rule. Trump is a maverick, and he is building some significant elite support, expressly by being inclusive of the globalists in his cabinet and other lines of influence. He is willing to play with Xi and Putin or anyone else.

All he wants is some good sense applied to things …. well, his version of "good sense". He will make a good deal with any fake idealistic politician, and he could likely be persuasive even with the most innocent of fakes.

It would be better if we all could see the good sense in limiting the power of government, to reduce the scale of corrupt interests trying to manage the world.
 
I read through your rant, and looked for a reason to connect it to what I said. I saw nothing.

the first sentence and the last put it concisely enough for a four-year old. you're deliberately blind.

how you can work through all the tedious offerings on your blog is beyond me. Here. I will pull out the point. All the other stuff is filling..... some might consider it to be an attempt to offer support for the claimed point....

you're lost. You can't see the damage done by fake manipulators especially with lots of money to pay for stuff, to the valid ideals ascribed within you system of belief.

Unless you are willing to cull the fakes out of your cause, you will fail.
 
the first sentence and the last put it concisely enough for a four-year old. you're deliberately blind.

Still not sure what "ditching Hillary" has to do with criticizing Soros for legitimate reasons instead of conspiracy theories.
 
Still not sure what "ditching Hillary" has to do with criticizing Soros for legitimate reasons instead of conspiracy theories.

OK. So for some folks, the common thread is loosely the objectionable methods, or the personal ambition evident.

I look at abstract issues like, in philosophical jargon, the "arrogance of power". In pure philosophy, that term refers to someone exerting power beyond any contestable scope. It is the person who can defy law and get away with it. It is the gang leader on the street who can kill anyone in his gang he wants to, without anyone in the gang being willing to be the next obvious victim.

Hillary is well-proven to be operating on that principle. Dems need to throw her out and in fact to make it a point to prosecute her for her crimes, or they will continue to lose respect from even their own base. As it is right now, the extremist on the left are going for broke just trying to force their obvious lack of good sense, lack of respect for law, and a whole boatload of other unbalanced mentalities, on the public. No way. It's a fail. A big FAIL.

Dems should join Americans as a whole, in absolutely rejecting Soro's methods and aims. Pretty sure he's gone over the line of our law. He is the prime example of why we need a government that can't be jacked by anyone.

Not to say there are not some others.
 
Dems need to throw her out and in fact to make it a point to prosecute her for her crimes, or they will continue to lose respect from even their own base.

List of crimes with actual evidence, please.

Dems should join Americans as a whole, in absolutely rejecting Soro's methods and aims. Pretty sure he's gone over the line of our law.

Well, as long as you're sure, who needs evidence?
 
List of crimes with actual evidence, please.



Well, as long as you're sure, who needs evidence?

If you didn't see Hillary Clinton answering questions on TV about her official use of her private equipment located in her private property, you are beyond hope for having any reasonable discussion. Pres. Obama has the temerity to send official messaging there as well, and then denied it publicly. Hillary was silly enough to ask for clarification about whether she wiped her server before delivering it per the legal warrant during the "investigation". Silly Hilly laughed and said "What do you mean.... did I wipe it with a cloth?"

The crime involved several felonies under National Security laws, and impudent defiance of the FOIA requirements for public documents. She meant to run a lot of stuff under the radar where our public could find out about it. The Red Chinese Army had a little outfit that got in it, and bugged it so everything was forwarded to their office. As a result, 19 US intelligence operatives within China were arrested and executed.

And Silly Hilly is still laughing. She is so beyond respect, you nor anyone else can or should even try to defend her.

You are yourself evidencing the mental impairment I described above, which is quite common to sociopaths as defined by people who in some sense consider themselves above the law. "Arrogance of power" is the impudent disregard for the feelings or interests of others less powerful. Impudent retorts mocking a simple reference to the need for care are of that kind.

Of course I can't track Soros nor do I think we have legal resources even with the FBI or CIA tracking him and all of his activities, but neither have I seen any sort of claim advanced that he is simply a public spirited benefactor obdurately concerned about being fair and honorable. He is a dedicated ideologue perhaps, but even if he doesn't believe in his own rhethoric or stated purposes, he is certainly trying to exert disproportionate power in this world.

There is no reason to believe he is concerned about obeying any laws. Like many progressives influenced by the philosophical foundatioins of secularism and globalism, he simply is likely to believe his cause justifies his means or methods, so long as he can assert he's doing "good".
 
If you didn't see Hillary Clinton answering questions on TV about her official use of her private equipment located in her private property, you are beyond hope for having any reasonable discussion.

Were you to prosecute Hillary for this crime, you would need to prosecute every member of Congress who sent a sensitive email to her at the domain @clintonemail.com. They don't want to open that can of worms.

The Red Chinese Army had a little outfit that got in it, and bugged it so everything was forwarded to their office. As a result, 19 US intelligence operatives within China were arrested and executed.

You think there was list of CIA assets on an email server used by the State department?

You are yourself evidencing the mental impairment I described above, which is quite common to sociopaths

Well, aren't you the charmer? Regarding mental impairment, I'm not the one claiming there are lists of CIA intelligence assets on State department computers.

There is no reason to believe he is concerned about obeying any laws. Like many progressives influenced by the philosophical foundatioins of secularism and globalism, he simply is likely to believe his cause justifies his means or methods, so long as he can assert he's doing "good".

I have noticed no differential in the willingness to use ends to justify means between progressive and regressive politicians. Just today, we had ample proof in the attempt to discredit Mueller with false sexual harassment charges.
 
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/25/alleged-google-email-compares-ben-shapiro-jordan-p/

What's your guy's thoughts on this?

Google, Facebook, Twitter all have political bias and go about exactly how Thriller would. There's clearly a political censorship going on and there's clearly scare tactics and sensationalism being used.



I should mention Crowder getting the hammer too. (Watch his hate speech isn't a real video lol)

In recent years, concern has grown over what many people see as a left-of-center political bias at colleges and universities. A few months ago, Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor of business at Brooklyn College, published a study of the political affiliations of faculty members at 51 of the 66 liberal-arts colleges ranked highest by U.S. News in 2017. The findings are eye-popping (even if they do not come as a great surprise to many people in academia).
Democrats dominate most fields. In religion, Langbert’s survey found that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 70 to 1. In music, it is 33 to 1. In biology, it is 21 to 1. In philosophy, history and psychology, it is 17 to 1. In political science, it is 8 to 1.


Instead of discussing things, people just want to shut things down, especially if it's not what they believe in. To me, this type of mentality is very dangerous.

Check out this clip from Joe Rogan's podcast.

 

People have hurt feelings because their more dangerous lies are not profitable.

Google, Facebook, Twitter all have political bias and go about exactly how Thriller would.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter don't want to be sued or lose members, because that affects their revenue stream.

There's clearly a political censorship going on and there's clearly scare tactics and sensationalism being used.

Yes, the people using sensationalism and scare tactics, as well as many promoting the spread of disease, are being shut down. You object?
 
Back
Top