Stefan Molyneux gives us his take on the release of the Mueller report and the more long-term implications of the left’s desire for more and more 3rd world immigration, both legal and otherwise.
In America, the public is given zero information on the “Weimar Republic,” the period in Germany post-WWI that led to the rise of the NationaI SociaIists in 1933.
This is deliberate. The period holds too many secrets to the modern world.
Dr. Steven Turley has a bit of fun taking down the Elite Media Monoculture now that we know the Muller report has landed with a resounding thud, like so many “homeless” cow pies in San Fransisco.
Donald Trump Jr. has an editorial at The Hill in which he examines the fight that the right has to fight against the tech oligarchs and the power they have over what you see and what you don’t. The traditional conservatives have been reluctant to take up this battle because they adhere to the old idea that censorship can only be put in place by the government. But in the age of the internet and global digital communication, we see that this is most certainly not the case. As the internet has become the primary means of communication we can see that those who control the platforms have power as great or even greater than governments have previously had. Thus we must begin to change our view of what really constitutes censorship in a digital age and how to secure the freedoms of the people from those with vast amounts of wealth and power.
As Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives becomes ever more flagrant and overt, the old arguments about protecting the sanctity of the modern public square are now invalid. Our right to freely engage in public discourse through speech is under sustained attack, necessitating a vigorous defense against the major social media and internet platforms.
I certainly had my suspicions confirmed when Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, “accidentally” censored a post I made regarding the Jussie Smollett hoax, which consequently led to me hearing from hundreds of my followers about how they’ve been having problems seeing, liking or being able to interact with my posts. Many of them even claimed that they’ve had to repeatedly re-follow me, as Instagram keeps unfollowing me on their accounts.
While nothing about Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives truly surprises me anymore, it’s still chilling to see the proof for yourself. If it can happen to me, the son of the president, with millions of followers on social media, just think about how bad it must be for conservatives with smaller followings and those who don’t have the soapbox or media reach to push back when they’re being targeted?
Thanks to a brave Facebook whistleblower who approached James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, we now know that Mark Zuckerberg’s social media giant developed algorithms to “deboost” certain content, limiting its distribution and appearance in news feeds. As you probably guessed, this stealth censorship was specifically aimed at conservatives.
When considering any information or story from The Elite Media Monoculture nowadays it is sadly evident that you must begin with the assumption that they are lying to you to advance an agenda or to achieve some unstated goal. These two videos show us an example of manipulation of movie box office numbers and reviews to prop up a movie that had the bad luck to hire a star who is a man-hating harpy who doesn’t know how to keep her mouth shut. It looks very much as though the ticket sales were not great and that Disney may have been trying to boost the sales under the table without anyone noticing.
A New Zealand Senator publishes a statement that reminds us it is the religion of Islam that has been attacking the West and its people for many decades and that therefore it is not surprising that some of that violence will come back to them as a result. It’s not the standard media or elite narrative, but it is human nature to strike back against ongoing violence. Importing millions of 3rd world people who have no intention of peacefully integrating themselves into modern cultures is certainly asking for trouble.
It should be noted that some on the right suspect that this attack is a false flag designed to call into question the views of nationalists and those who oppose open borders and unlimited immigration from non-western nations, and certainly The Elite Media Monoculture has wasted no time pushing the standard narrative of the evil and badthink of the right.
It may also be that people are coming to see that this media message is indeed a narrative that is intended, not to inform, but rather to propagandize the populations of the West into giving up their native lands to what is essentially a long drawn out invasion. And if that is the case then this incident will have very little lasting impact other than to create even more doubt about the motives of those in government and the media and their loyalty to our culture and civilization.
In the end, Darwin seems to endorse a communitarian ethic moderated and informed by reason (my emphasis):
In the case of the lower animals it seems much more appropriate to speak of their social instincts, as having been developed for the general good rather than for the general happiness of the species. The term, general good, may be defined as the rearing of the greatest number of individuals in full vigour and health, with all their faculties perfect, under the conditions to which they are subjected. As the social instincts both of man and the lower animals have no doubt been developed by nearly the same steps, it would be advisable to take as the standard of morality, the general good or welfare of the community, rather than the general happiness; but this definition would perhaps require some limitation account of political ethics. (145)
This argument appears to be a critique of English philosopher J. S. Mill’s argument for ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’ as the yardstick of morality. Instead, Darwin is advocating something remarkably close to the ancient principles of political philosophy, as notably expounded by Aristotle (whose background as a biologist actually informed his politics): the organization of society so as to enable the community’s collective flourishing, with individual roles and social goals appropriate according to the individual’s and the species’ particular biological nature (in the case of man, that of a rational social animal).
Personally, I believe the ancient republican principles are overwhelmingly superior to the modern and would endorse an Aristotelian-Darwinian political philosophy as particularly appropriate to our scientific age.
The ideas of Locke and Rousseau — extolling equality, rights, and the popular will as ends-in-themselves — have led to perpetual confusion among our people and to our inexorable collapse since the beginning the twentieth century. In 1914, we essentially dominated the world and made up a third of human population. Before 2100, a blink of an eye in historical let alone evolutionary terms, we will have lost control not only of our colonial empires but even of our own homelands, being reduced to minorities in not only North America but even Western Europe. We will make up less than 5 percent of the global population. The triumph of liberal-democracy’s individualist and egalitarian principles have coincided with Europeans’ evolutionary suicide.
History has traditionally been written by the political winners, and this was especially true in the days before the growth of the Internet weakened the total monopoly of our establishment media.
These were some of the thoughts that gradually crossed my mind during the middle part of the 2000s as I discovered some remarkable anomalies while creating my content-archiving website, a system intended to provide convenient access to millions of articles from America’s most influential publications of the last 150 years. Since I had never really studied American history, my views were generally quite conventional ones, formed from a mixture of the History 101 classes I had taken and what I had casually absorbed over the years from all the newspapers and magazines that I read.
Many of the most frequent names I encountered in America’s prestigious and respectable periodicals of the past were reasonably well known to me, but others were not. It was a strange feeling to see the overwhelming presence of writers who were either completely obscure or else whom I had always regarded as denizens of the disreputable radical fringe, distributing their angry mimeographed tracts on street corners, rather than respected figures regularly gracing the pages of The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, and The Nation. My comprehension of the past was obviously mistaken.
Take the case of John T. Flynn, probably unknown today to all but one American in a hundred, if even that. Given my much broader ideological explorations, I had sometimes seen him hailed as an important figure in the Old Right, a founder of the America First Committee, and someone friendly to both Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society, though falsely smeared by his opponents as a proto-fascist or Nazi-sympathizer. This sort of description seemed to form a consistent if somewhat disputed picture in my mind.
So imagine my surprise at discovering that throughout the 1930s he had been one of the single most influential liberal voices in American society, a writer on economics and politics whose status may have roughly approximated that of Paul Krugman, though with a strong muck-raking tinge. His weekly column in The New Republic allowed him to serve as a lodestar for America’s progressive elites, while his regular appearances in Colliers, an illustrated mass circulation weekly reaching many millions of Americans, provided him a platform comparable to that of an major television personality in the later heyday of network TV.
To some extent, Flynn’s prominence may be objectively quantified. A few years ago, I happened to mention his name to a well-read and committed liberal born in the 1930s, and she unsurprisingly drew a complete blank, but wondered if he might have been a little like Walter Lippmann, the very famous columnist of that era. When I checked, I saw that across the hundreds of periodicals in my archiving system, there were just 23 articles by Lippmann from the 1930s but fully 489 by Flynn.
Much of Flynn’s early prominence came from his important role in the 1932 Senate Pecora Commission, which had pilloried the grandees of Wall Street for the 1929 stock market collapse, and whose recommendations ultimately led to the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other important financial reforms. Following an impressive career in newspaper journalism, he had moved over to The New Republic as a weekly columnist in 1930. Although initially sympathetic to Franklin Roosevelt’s goals, he soon became skeptical about the effectiveness of his methods, noting the sluggish expansion of public works projects and wondering whether the vaunted NRA was actually more beneficial to big business owners than to ordinary workers.
As the years went by, his criticism of Roosevelt Administration turned harsher on economic and eventually foreign policy grounds, and he incurred its enormous hostility as a consequence. Roosevelt began sending personal letters to leading editors demanding that Flynn be barred from any prominent American print outlet, and perhaps as a consequence he lost his longstanding New Republic column immediately following FDR’s 1940 reelection, and his name disappeared from mainstream periodicals. However, he still authored a number of best-selling books over the years sharply attacking Roosevelt, and after the war his byline occasionally surfaced in much less mainstream and influential publications. A decade ago the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute republished a couple of Flynn’s books, and a lengthy introduction by Prof. Ralph Raico sketched in some of this background.
One of the things that is most irritating about The Elite Media Monoculture is their smug ability to put themselves beyond the reach of the normal person. The live in places you don’t, they send their kids to schools you can’t afford, they work in fields that you don’t have access to. And most annoying of all is that their preaching in newspapers and on their websites has, at least up till now, been immune to the feedback that the rest of us take for granted. Well no more. As of now, we have Gab’s Dissenter.
Dissenter is a browser plug-in that creates a comment section for any page on the internet, even those that have purposely avoided having one. So now you can talk back to the left even when their sites don’t allow it. Get Dissenter Here.
There were more than a thousand left-stream media layoffs earlier this week. The cuts took place across the spectrum of left-stream media and included cuts at HuffPo, BuzzFeed, Yahoo News, among others.
The finger-pointing has thus far been aimed at Facebook and Twitter, but wounded leftstream media warriors are irked by a reminder of their own callous response to massive Obama-era coal industry job losses.
The DC Caller reported earlier this week:
BuzzFeed, Yahoo and other major outlets cut loose more than 1,000 jobs Wednesday in what analysts think is a broadside against journalists. There is also concern Facebook is indirectly responsible for the massacre.
Verizon Media, which owns Yahoo and the Huffington Post, is slashing roughly 800 jobs, or 7 percent, of its global workforce across the organization. BuzzFeed also announced a move to cut 15 percent of its workforce, including jobs in journalism. Other media outlets followed suit.
Digital outlets on the local, national and global level are struggling to keep up in an environment where information is shared for free across a slew of social media platforms, according to Eric Schiffer, the CEO of Patriarch Equity, which focuses on pre-IPO startups in Silicon Valley.
“Facebook and some of the other big tech agitators have acted like rat poison for journalist jobs. When you can get your news for free from a platform, it decimates the firms that are putting out high quality reporting,” Schiffer told The Daily Caller News Foundation. This wave of layoffs could be the beginning of something big, he said.
Personally, I don’t like to celebrate anyone losing a job . . . unless it’s Hillary Clinton and the job is one she expected was hers: President of these United States. But I am only human and do enjoy a dash of well-earned schadenfreude.
#learntocode is hilarious because just last year #journalists were hitting unemployed coal miners with the same energy, and now that the tables have turned they can't take the banter 🤣 pic.twitter.com/J8lUTW2r1N
Tucker Carlson is one of the few in the official media who seems to have a clear view of what is really going on in the country, and also in the rest of the developed world with regard to the vast culture war that is currently underway. That war can be seen in many areas of our world today; politics, art, entertainment, finance, foreign policy and on and on. It is not simply a war between left and right. Those labels seem inadequate to describe the process that we are seeing today given that the battle lines have Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the line.
No, the fight is between globalist elites who want centralized control of everything in their hands vs nationalists who want local sovereignty and local control of their own destinies, whatever that might mean to them. We see this play out now daily with the corrupted institutions on the side of the globalists and the people fighting back using alternative and social media, protests and elections to turn the tide away from the global elites. This fight will go on for some time until in the end one side or the other wins. Tucker Carlson seems to understand this and recently put out this commentary on his show. AmRen reports on the story below. Worth reading the whole thing for an in-depth analysis.
Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, January 11, 2019
Fox News commentator has raised the ire of Conservatism, Inc.
The conservative movement is uniquely hobbled. First, its supposed leaders are less committed and militant than its followers. Second, it may be the only political movement in America that tries to dissuade followers from productive action, rather than inspiring them to fight. This explains why prominent conservatives are attacking Tucker Carlson for his powerful monologue blasting America’s governing establishment.
Mr. Carlson criticized Mitt Romney for his recent Washington Post op-ed against President Donald Trump, but the attack was a springboard for a larger critique of America’s elite. He suggested that unwavering support for a “finance-based economy” and an “internationalist foreign policy” is destroying the country. “Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot,” declared Mr. Carlson.
Instead of focusing on increasing the quantity of “stuff,” Mr. Carlson suggested “happiness” is a better goal for national policy. However, America’s leaders are indifferent to the well-being of its citizens.
We’re ruled by mercenaries who feel no permanent obligation to the people they rule . . . they’re just passing through. They have no skin in this game and it shows. They can’t solve our problems, they don’t even bother to understand our problems.
Mr. Carlson argued there is a direct connection between economic policy and the health of families. He said that families are collapsing both among black, inner-city Democrats and white, rural Republicans. “Stunning out-of-wedlock birthrates, high male unemployment, a terrifying drug epidemic,” Mr. Carlson added, describing some of the problems Americans face. Meanwhile, our rulers either don’t see problems or just ignore them: “It’s easier to import foreign labor to take the place of native-born Americans who are slipping behind.”
Mr. Carlson made no explicit defense of white interests. However, he did highlight the racial caste system embedded in the American government and economy: “They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities based purely on how we look.” “There’s nothing less fair then that,” he added, “though our tax code comes close.”
Mr. Carlson said Republicans should oppose “some people getting special treatment” with “everything they have.” He argued Americans should want “a fair country” and a “cohesive country,” “a country you might recognize when you’re old.” “A clean, orderly stable country that respects itself.” He concluded by warning that though libertarians and some conservatives may charge that any kind of intervention in the economy is “socialism,” socialism is likely to be what Americans will get “very soon” unless the American Right grapples with the real problems people face.
In response, several conservative or libertarian critics accused Mr. Carlson of promoting victimhood politics. They instead propose something best called “anti-politics,” arguing that Americans should not mobilize against the establishment because people are responsible for their own problems. Using the state to pursue private interests is mistaken or even immoral.
The Red Moon Journal
You must be logged in to post a comment.