The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Kirkpatrick Archive
The Great Twitter Purge—Corporate Cultural Marxists Overplay Hand?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
VoxHateGroup

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The long-rumored Twitter purge is finally underway. In the guise of confronting “violence,” accounts are being banned by the platform [Twitter Rolls Out New “Hate-Speech Guidelines, WND, December 18, 2017]. Among today’s victims: American Renaissance and its Editor Jared Taylor (you can follow both at Gab.ai).

Taylor was accused by Twitter of being “affiliated with a violent extremist group,” that is, “organizations that––whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform––use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.”

But as Taylor himself put it:

Not even our worst enemies say we are a ‘violent extremist organization.’ And if not AmRen, with what other violent group am I affiliated?

American Renaissance, of course, focuses on providing the journalism that should have followed the publication of The Bell Curve, were it not for the orchestrated Reign of Terror that drove the facts about race and IQ back underground. Twitter’s ban is particularly interesting because Taylor has been certified as “not an anti-Semite” by none other than the SPLC’s Mark Potok. But it has done him no good.

Others banned include:

Innumerable others have also been banned. But others remain. There seems to be no overall pattern to it. However, probably more will follow, as the platform has begun tracking users’ behavior “both on and off the platform” as one of the factors it examines when determining whether to ban an account or not [Twitter vs. Free Speech, by Chace Paulson, Capital Research Center, November 29, 2017. Emphasis added].

(Off the platform? Where will that leave President Trump—the Tweeter-In-Chief?)

Needless to say, Main Stream Media journalists/ PC Enforcers are cheering these actions.

Which is especially ironic given the MSM commissars’ supposed rationale for opposing “net neutrality.” Earlier this week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai rolled back the policy which forced Internet service providers to treat all content the same, a decision unpopular in the Main Stream Media. Author Aja Romano [Tweet her] moaned in Vox that the decision would open the door to “forced redirection, content-blocking, software-blocking, website-blocking… and censorship of controversial subjects” [Net neutrality is now officially on life support. Here’s what happens next, December 14, 2017]

But the very next day, Romano giddily promoted her support for corporate censorship, this time in the service of banning “Nazis” from Twitter.

[I]t’s kinda nice to keep the faith and hope for the best, especially as we come to the end of a tense and exhausting year. ‘Banning the Nazis’ in 3, 2, 1 days won’t make them any less pernicious or toxic offline. But if Twitter indeed follows through, its actions will hopefully, finally, be a sign that the site — a platform to which many of us have probably entrusted too much of our lives and friendship networks — has at long last established a clear, firm line when it comes to hate speech.

[Twitter is days away from finally banning the Nazis. Yes, really, December 15, 2017]

Of course, by “Nazis” Romano means any right-of-center white person. Today “Nazi” does not mean a supporter of the National Socialist German Workers Party or even a follower of the late George Lincoln Rockwell. Instead, “Nazi” is a kind of racial slur to identify and demonize all white people. As one the main groups involved in determining which users or will not be permitted is the Anti-Defamation League, it’s clear the main rationale behind Twitter’s policies simply anti-white hatred as such. [Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft Join Forces With ADL To Create ‘Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab,’ by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, October 10, 2017]

In fact, Twitter has plenty of “hate speech” remaining on the platform, even under verified accounts. Figures who openly and unironically call for “white genocide” and preach hate against whites are still proudly hosted [Why Is Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Allowing ‘Verified’ Users To ‘Promote Hate’ Against White People? By Chris Menahan, Infowars, November 16, 2017] Anti-white ideologue Tim Wise will never lose his verification, let alone his Twitter account, for his call to “destroy white Alabama” if the Roy Moore/Doug Jones race hadn’t gone his way.

This Purge is simply the culmination of steadily increasing repression by Twitter. Last month, Twitter changed its verification policies which governed the grant of the “blue checkmarks” used to identify public figures. The point of the checkmarks was simply to identify which account was the “real” account of a public figure who could otherwise be imitated. Thus, celebrities and politicians were obvious candidates, but activists such as Jason Kessler were also verified. This didn’t mean Twitter agreed with Kessler, it simply showed which account was actually him, the same as it showed which account was really John McCain or Barack Obama.

Nevertheless, after sufficient screaming from Leftist journalists, Twitter changed its policy. It now defines the following as reasons to remove verification:

Promoting hate and/or violence against, or directly attacking or threatening other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. Supporting organizations or individuals that promote the above.

But as the tech website The Register observes, what this really means is that Twitter is now imposing an ideological test.

In short: if you have a blue tick on your account, Twitter’s staff agree with what you say. If you have a blue tick withdrawn, Twitter staff no longer approve of what you say and have edited your account to remove their endorsement. The blue tick is no longer a mere “this person is definitely who they claim to be” verification of identity. Put another way, Twitter staff are using the tick as an editorial seal of approval.

[Twitter’s blue tick rule changes may lower the sueball barrier, by Gareth Corfield, November 21, 2017]

Thus one can properly interpret as every anti-white post from a verified user as essentially Twitter-endorsed. Mainstream conservative outlets are relatively sanguine about anti-white hatred, but even they can’t help but notice anti-Semites are permitted, as long as the anti-Semites in question are black [Twitter Refuses To Unverify Noted Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, by Amber Randall, Daily Caller, November 16, 2017].

Corporate Cultural Marxist repression won’t stop with Twitter. There also is a coordinated campaign to encourage further censorship across all other websites:

Nor, of course, will the purge stop with the “Far Right.” Indeed, even Twitter itself has promoted a call on its “moments” feature for President Trump to be kicked off the platform.

Does this mean there will be no patriots left on Twitter? Only time will tell; as of this writing, VDARE.com is still on Twitter, but who knows how long that will last?

In the short run, the Purge could strengthen the Conservatism Inc. pundits. As Scott Greer recently noted, the professional “conservatives” who constantly counter-signal President Trump and promote the likes of Jeff Flake and Evan McMullin don’t have a constituency within the GOP. Their constituency consists of donors and the Leftist journalists they shadowbox with on TV. [There is no GOP civil war, Daily Caller, November 20, 2017] There is always an incentive for a budding pundit to follow the likes of Ana Navarro or Jennifer Rubin, attacking the Right constantly while somehow still claiming to be a “conservative.”

But the Purge will hurt the conservative grassroots, invariably branded “trolls” for mocking the Narratives promoted by System journalists. These “trolls” serve a purpose. Trolling is a weapon of the weak; the value of all those anime avatars and Pepes who baited journalists and politicians in the Great Meme War of 2016—a.k.a. the presidential election—was that they revealed what System journalists actually believed and how extreme they really were.

Removing “trolls” won’t open the way up to respectful discussion; no System journalists are running to give VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow a respectful hearing, even though no pundit so accurately anticipated both the 2016 race and the future of American politics.

If Twitter is converted into a giant hugbox for corporate shills promoting pop culture franchises and journalists constantly agreeing with each other about everything important, free discussion in America will be weakened. It will be much harder for patriots to organize opposition to the demographic transformation of America. And it will make it that much harder for President Trump to stay in office.

Of course, those imposing this repression know all of this. Does Trump?

The more experienced among us have always recognized that the Beltway Right was never serious about winning anyway. In the end, it’s just up to us.

Still, in this instance, it’s just possible Twitter has overplayed its hand. To his great credit, when FCC Chairman Pai eliminated net neutrality, he also dismissed the MSM’s free speech howling by noting that Twitter is already “part of the problem,” accusing the company of using its “viewpoint to discriminate,” even citing the censorship of the Daily Stormer [FCC’s Pai, addressing net neutrality rules, calls Twitter biased, by Ginger Gibson, Reuters, November 28, 2017]. Earlier this month, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson and Mark Steyn, along with more Establishment conservative voices from the Hoover Institution, Manhattan Institute, and even National Review (in the person of its immigration beard Mark Krikorian) have argued that tech titans are natural monopolies that have an obligation to allow free speech.

The obvious response: to treat Twitter as a common carrier (which would guarantee freedom of speech). Legislation is being discussed.

It would also be nice if President Trump commented on the banning of many of his supporters.

But this is Trump—who can say he won’t?

James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 120 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. FKA Max says: • Website

    Shouted Down & Called “Hate Speech” in Charlottesville

    Jason Kessler
    Published on Dec 18, 2017
    When I said white people should be allowed to stand up for their interests Councilor Szakos joined the crowd trying to shut me down by calling white civil rights “hate speech”. Then the microphone was covered by cops who escorted me from the building.

    Fields said he was sorry and asked if people were OK, according to Young. When Fields was told someone had died, he appeared shocked and sobbed, Young said.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-james-alex-fields-charlottesville-20171214-story.html

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-fat-heather-heyer-hoax/#comment-2123417

    James Fields is Innocent!

    Jason Kessler
    Published on Dec 14, 2017
    I was in court for all the Fields, Goodwin, Preston & Ramos cases from Unite the Right. With new details about the car accident never released anywhere else.

    • Replies: @Cucksworth
  2. I do not have a Twitter account, and hardly ever read what is written there.
    The limited number of words one can write there preclude, in my opinion, any serious discussion.
    It therefore, I suppose, is just an expression of emotions.
    However, there is, or should be, freedom of expression, so I’m not in favour of suppressing the Twitter system.
    But I do have a question.
    Any time jews, or Israel, are/ is criticised the war cry ‘antisemitism’ is heard.
    Is this not inciting hatred ?
    Hardly ever this war cry is accompanied by arguments.

  3. helena says:

    I’m just wondering if the next step in World Word War 1 might be to refocus on the topics of discussion that are labelled hate and then list these in any appropriate situation as in: Please note the following topics of discussion will not be accepted – Statistics for violence or IQ by ethnicity, Jewish culture, Israeli politics, Islamic culture, Islamic politics.

    Because basically, the Marxists do not want any of these topics to be mentioned evah! And it is the silencing of discussion that the Right needs to highlight. Let the rest of the population make up their own minds whether these topics are Ist, Anti or Phobic.

  4. Amomynous says:

    How long before the ACLU is condemned, purged and charged with thought-crime by the “liberal mainstream media,” including the entire social media monopoly? After all, free speech was always an absolute with them. Is it still? Apparently no idea can stand on its own merits any longer; all must be vetted with respect to origin of authorship. Who says what evidently makes a big difference. Being stripped of one’s blue check mark is now the mark of Cain or the scarlet letter. How far back will this be going? The new age snowflakes will probably insist on a complete review of previous incarnations in past lives. It will be amusing to see the president of the United States stripped of tweeting rights whilst the claim is made that there is nothing political about the action.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  5. Realist says:

    Since Twitter is an enabler (part of the muscle) of the Deep State, the purges are no surprise.

  6. The growth of censorship: this article focuses, quite fairly, on the repression of so called “hate speech” by white people (ie “Nazi’s”). Naturally, “hate speech” is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
    My point is merely to note, that the current vulgar, naked, gutless censorship by Twitter & other MSM establishment DOGS is ultimately aimed at ALL anti-consensus, anti-elite views, whether left or right. Internet search engines now consistently suppress search results for such sites as the World Socialist Website. You may wish to argue whether they are a bit more/bit less active against one side or the other. Fine, but don’t forget:
    elites are less & less fearful of being caught censoring or suppressing freedom of expression.
    The attack on net neutrality is a major thrust in this campaign.
    This knife cuts BOTH ways: know your real enemy.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  7. Randal says:

    Twitter’s ban is particularly interesting because Taylor has been certified as “not an anti-Semite” by none other than the SPLC’s Mark Potok.

    Clearly not Taylor’s greatest moment, whatever he might think. Given the broad brush used by the likes of the SPLC, “not an anti-Semite” can safely be assumed to mean an active apologist for Israel and for jewish lobby interests.

    Nice to see he and Amren getting hanged together with the”antisemites” they pointedly refused to hang together with, entirely as predicted. There’s a satisfying sense of justice in that.

    as of this writing, VDARE.com is still on Twitter, but who knows how long that will last?

    Does it make sense for any supposedly conservative organisation to use (and therefore implicitly promote) an organisation explicitly on the other side? At what point does “subverting from within” become “being a chump for”?

    Resting hopes on “defining Twitter as a common carrier”, useful as that would be, seems pretty optimistic.

    Shouldn’t there be a concerted effort to exclusively support platforms run by non-leftists that make an explicit commitment to genuine freedom of speech?

    • Replies: @Barnard
    , @Anonymous
    , @MBlanc46
  8. fnn says:

    Yesterday’s Charlottesville City Council meeting:

  9. But if Twitter indeed follows through, its actions will hopefully, finally, be a sign that the site — a platform to which many of us have probably entrusted too much of our lives and friendship networks — has at long last established a clear, firm line when it comes to hate speech.

    Vacuous idiots. Why anyone has a Twitter account is beyond me.

    They don’t want you in their cool kidz club. Use an alternative platform if you must and let these morons live in their echo chamber.

  10. Notes on #TwitterPurge so far:

    1. There are theories that the reason Jared Taylor was banned was precisely to get rid of those genteel, soft-spoken Alt Righters who can actually convince higher IQ people with appeal to crime and IQ statistics. If so, this may presage imminent censorship for the HBD sphere in general, including Unz Review-affiliated accounts.

    2. That said, I suspect this is just another one of those 4d chess theories. Agree with Richard Spencer that choice of targets seems haphazard. After all, not only Jared was banned, but a whole range of people from the “But I’m Not Racist!” EDL to hardcore Neo-Nazi “groypers.” Meanwhile, the “stars” of the Alt Right, such as David Duke and Spencer himself, remain untouched. Cynical interpretation: Guys like Spencer attract a lot of drama – those punch gifs aren’t going to post themselves!

    3. Can’t vouch for its authenticity, but… list of people who might still be targeted, uncovered by /pol/ this February: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/great-twitter-purge/

    4. The commenter Hail has been keeping track of suspensions on my thread.

    Prominent cases to date: Jared Taylor/Amren; Michael Hill/League of the South; Hunter Wallace/Occidental Dissent; Matthew Heimbach/Traditional Worker Party; Britain First; English Defense League; Generation Identity; the Groypers and a few vanilla MAGA people.

  11. KenH says:

    Jared Taylor does great work, but for all his intelligence he hasn’t learned that it doesn’t matter how much you refrain from criticizing Jews or how hard you try to distance yourself from neo-Nazism, you will always be considered as one. Punch pulling on the JQ and mocking some of the extreme elements of the racialist right will win you no plaudits.

    Anti-white leftists live in a bipolar world where one is either an anti-white Bolshevik revolutionary or a Nazi. There is no in between or gray area for them. You’re either all in with the overthrow of Western (white) man and Western civilization or an enemy to be marginalized or destroyed.

    Any dissent from radical leftism invites punitive measures especially for white people. It’s not possible to agree to disagree anymore and live and let live, so this will lead to a hot civil war at some point, possibly sooner than later.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @MBlanc46
    , @Anonymous
  12. Joe Hide says:

    Say Mr. Kirkpatrick,
    That was a pretty good article
    Two thumbs up.
    (Will I be censored by Twitter for saying that?).

  13. Sowhat says:

    Gab.ai, as an alternative, works for me.

  14. wayfarer says:

    “Most People Don’t Even Realize What’s Coming!”

    • Agree: edNels
    • Replies: @Malla
  15. iffen says:

    focuses on providing the journalism that should have followed

    Ha-ha! Good one.

  16. Barnard says:
    @Randal

    Does it make sense for any supposedly conservative organisation to use (and therefore implicitly promote) an organisation explicitly on the other side? At what point does “subverting from within” become “being a chump for”?

    Unless you are typing this on an operating system you wrote yourself, you are doing the same thing. No one is claiming they are “subverting from within” by using Twitter, they are using a platform that has been widely adopted by the public in order to give their message the widest possible audience. Getting Twitter to engage in arbitrary bans like this bolsters the argument that they should be regulated like a utility.

    • Replies: @Randal
  17. Barnard says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Have any progressive extremists who have called for physical violence been banned? Scott Greer has pointed out at the Daily Caller that several account who have threatened to kill Ajit Pai are still active. I don’t think that much thought is going into it beyond they are leaving Duke and Spencer up because they are useful punching bags for the left.

  18. yeah says:

    I think what is needed a series of big class action lawsuits to be launched against the social media monopolies for defamation and libel. Let them prove in a court of law that those they accuse of hate speech are in fact guilty. Let us see how that pans out. If nothing else, at least the emperor will be revealed to be wearing no clothes. The chances of winning are 80%. They would have been 100% if the courts were not full of committed SJW types. But the let the legal and political battle begin.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @RobinG
    , @Alden
  19. Randal says:
    @Barnard

    Using an operating system does not remotely equate to choosing to use a particular messaging system. I don’t use Twitter or Facebook, and nor do many other people.

    No one is claiming they are “subverting from within” by using Twitter, they are using a platform that has been widely adopted by the public in order to give their message the widest possible audience.

    And in doing so they are further endorsing that particular platform and inherently thereby retarding the potential development of a non-leftist alternative.

    But admittedly, the move needs to come from groups higher up the food chain than Amren and Vdare. If moderate conservative groups don’t want to be the “fringe extremists” amongst the permitted voices on establishment outlets then they need to find ways to ensure voices to their right are protected.

    Getting Twitter to engage in arbitrary bans like this bolsters the argument that they should be regulated like a utility.

    Good luck with that. Which I don’t mean entirely sarcastically – it would be good if it can be achieved, but I doubt the climate is there to do so. The tide is running the other way.

    These leftist organisations mostly started out believing or pretending to believe in freedom of speech on liberal grounds, and have evolved with the rest of the left away from that supposed belief. So there need to be organisations to replace them run by people who actually will protect freedom of political expression, whether for reasons of principle or pragmatic commercial interests.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Randal

    Resting hopes on “defining Twitter as a common carrier”, useful as that would be, seems pretty optimistic.

    It certainly shouldn’t be the only approach but this will have to happen. Otherwise FB, Google and even ISPs will put all their customers in a tight, political straitjacket. Talking about money influencing politics. In the past they had to buy politicians and other influencers but now they’re mass-gagging the goyim directly. It’s pure desperation since the goyim have found new, decentralised ways to exchange information and that’s shattering the fake narratives Matrix.

  21. @Anatoly Karlin

    Or maybe Spencer and Duke are allowed to remain because the twitter people realize guys like this actually do more damage to their own brand with their poor optics (Nazi imagery, roman salutes, etc), and goofy statements. They are in effect allowed to hang themselves.

    OTOH Jared Taylor and AmRen guys conduct themselves with professionalism, avoid audio and visual references to anything traditionally related to “white supremacy” Nazism, or the KKK, and use extensive references to data that cannot be refuted. Of course they must be silenced.

    • Replies: @fnn
  22. Wally says: • Website
    @KenH

    said:
    ” … it doesn’t matter how much you refrain from criticizing Jews or how hard you try to distance yourself from neo-Nazism, you will always be considered as one.”

    Therefore, until the alleged & absolutely impossible ‘Nazi’ misdeeds of ’6M Jews, 5M other, & gas chambers’ are openly cast aside there will be no change. I mean none.
    I know it, you know it.
    Why is it that there are laws against discussing the ‘holocaust’ narrative?
    Because it cannot withstand rational, scientific scrutiny. Talk about “purging”.

    Exposing the fact that the essential basis for calling someone a ‘Nazi’ is based upon pure propaganda will do wonders.

    As is said:

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    http://www.codoh.com
    New eye opening video from CODOH:
    Probing the Holocaust, pt. 1

    https://codoh.com/library/document/4056/?lang=en

  23. Do not argue about what is or is not hate speech. There is no such thing. We have free speech or we don’t.

    In the end, it’s just up to us.

    There is not much “we” can do. Fortunately Imperial Zionist Washington is in steep decline. Keep your powder dry and pray for Russia, Iran and China.

    And teach your children
    It’s Okay to be white.

  24. Author Aja Romano [Tweet her] moaned in Vox that the decision would open the door to “forced redirection, content-blocking, software-blocking, website-blocking… and censorship of controversial subjects” …

    I hate to say it, but on this issue, she’s right. It’s discouraging to see so many self-described alt-Righters cheering on the abolition of net neutrality in the naïve belief that they are thereby somehow striking a blow against Fakebook, Shitter, and Goolag, when all they’re really doing here is enabling an even more powerful form of censorship. In fact, the end of net neutrality could even enable the system to create a national firewall, like what China and N. Korea have. They could physically block your access to sites like RT, Sputnik, or even Unz.com.

    The obvious response: to treat Twitter as a common carrier (which would guarantee freedom of speech).

    That would be a much better policy than canning net neutrality, but as another commenter put it, good luck with that.

  25. fnn says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    As fine a man as he is, Taylor, who has been promoting “race realism” since the early 1990s, made little or no progress until the so-called Alt-Right came along. Here’s what John Derbyshire wrote about the Amren conferences in 2007:

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/USPolitics/ronpaul.html

    A friend of mine, a brilliant, charming, and highly civilized man I shall call X, runs a fringe political group here in the U.S. He invited me to one of the group’s annual conferences. Not sure what to expect, I asked a mutual friend, name of Y, who had attended a previous year’s conference. “Well,” said Y, “there are a dozen or so people like X, thoughtful and well-informed — people you’d be happy to hang out with. And around them buzzes this big cloud of latrine flies.” I decided not to take up X’s invitation.

  26. How Politics of Diversity works.

    In the West, majority voices must be suppressed. In China, minority voices must be suppressed.

    http://www.returnofkings.com/143690/thousands-are-disappearing-in-chinas-real-life-1984-nightmare

  27. But apparently not a single Unz.com columnist.

    There’s two ways to look at it.

    Unz.com columnists are too powerful and well-known to be censored. Or nobody important knows who they are.

  28. Jason Liu says:

    How do people know that ISPs won’t block right wing content now that net neutrality is gone? Judging by what happens on social media, it’s the next logical step.

    • Replies: @nickels
    , @DFH
  29. MBlanc46 says:
    @Randal

    Yes, the ball is rather in our court to use non-SJW platforms. That would cut us off from trying to reach people who don’t already agree with us. But, perhaps they are already lost.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Randal
  30. MBlanc46 says:
    @KenH

    “Considered one” by our enemies. There’s nothing we can do to change our enemies’ minds. But by being rational ourselves, we have a chance to convince other rational people.

  31. Brabantian says: • Website

    The very youngest generation may be getting quite won over by the alt-right memes on 4chan etc … Here is Trump during a suprise pop-in with a group of Christian schoolboys from Alabama at the White House, this one gets into a photo with Trump … Sign for A-OK or Pepe the Frog?

  32. nickels says:
    @Jason Liu

    Of course that will happen.
    ANY independent viewpoint will be wiped.
    The elites lost control of the narrative and they’re desperate to get it back.

  33. dfordoom says: • Website
    @animalogic

    My point is merely to note, that the current vulgar, naked, gutless censorship by Twitter & other MSM establishment DOGS is ultimately aimed at ALL anti-consensus, anti-elite views, whether left or right.

    What really terrifies the elites is the possibility of a revival of the actual Left (as distinct from the Fake Left). They’re terrified that people might notice that the elites are waging a vicious class war against the non-elite classes.

    So anyone with genuine leftwing views can expect to be purged.

    The elites aren’t really worried by the alt-right, a tiny and politically entirely insignificant group. In fact they love the alt-right. The alt-right serves the Emmanuel Goldstein role admirably. Their real targets will be traitors on the Left. And that means anyone who is genuinely leftist.

  34. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sowhat

    Gab.ai, as an alternative, works for me.

    Gab is irrelevant. If you want to preach to the converted in a tiny rightwing echo chamber Gab is fine. If you want to reach ordinary people then Twitter is (or was) the way to do it.

    • Replies: @eah
  35. dfordoom says: • Website
    @yeah

    Let them prove in a court of law that those they accuse of hate speech are in fact guilty.

    Yes, that will work. I can really see the courts making a principled stand in favour of free speech.

  36. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    These leftist organisations mostly started out believing or pretending to believe in freedom of speech on liberal grounds, and have evolved with the rest of the left away from that supposed belief.

    Nobody actually believes in freedom of speech, except as a tactic. As a weapon. It’s the weapon of the powerless. Nobody who achieves actual power wants freedom of speech. When conservatives had power they hated freedom of speech.

    Politics is about power.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Randal
  37. An interesting aspect of the recent censorship is that you might think good capitalism requires serving every customer and hiring on merit, and that those who discriminate are only shooting themselves in the foot. I used to make this argument myself, but it’s apparently faulty. The threat of angering powerful customers outweighs the benefit of tolerating weak and despised customers. Now that censorship has been established as a normal business option we can expect venues who do not censor to be targets of suspicion. So it may be that we are going to need the government to step in and require information channels not to discriminate, just as UPS doesn’t care whether a package was sent by a racist or fascist, at least not in peacetime.

  38. eah says:
    @dfordoom

    Gab is irrelevant.

    At the moment yes: as a social media platform it is clearly inferior to Twitter — but that could change — I occasionally wonder what someone with money, connections, and strong iconoclastic leanings like Peter Thiel could do for Gab — with enough well-targeted investment, the Gab platform could be significantly and fairly quickly improved — then it could and would grow much faster — the barriers to entry for Twitter’s business (such as it is) are not high.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  39. DFH says:
    @Jason Liu

    The fact that I saw a lot of nationalists supporting the repeal of Net Neutrality (with silly non-arguments like ‘it’s what Google/John Oliver don’t want’ or ‘They censor the internet already) is really dispiriting, just for what it reveals about their critical thinking abilities.

    • Agree: utu
  40. dfordoom says: • Website
    @eah

    I occasionally wonder what someone with money, connections, and strong iconoclastic leanings like Peter Thiel could do for Gab

    People with money and connections want to keep their money and their power. They aren’t going to fund something that can, and will, be turned against them.

  41. gp says:

    Twitter is the worst thing ever invented. It’s like the Hollerith punch cards of the 21st century. Probably over 10% of what is reported as “news” today is trivial Twitter controversies. Avoid Twitter. Ignore Twitter and its meta-news-noise stew.

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    , @Anon
  42. So it may be that we are going to need the government to step in …

    I hope that was some kind of sarcastic joke there. “The government” is not on your side, Jack Daniels, and anyone with that name should well know that. Jack Daniels is from Tennessee.

  43. @Sowhat

    Spending 2-5 minutes reading an entire article works for me. Being able to claim that Peak Stupidity DOES! NOT! TWEET!, and that tweets are for 14 y/o schoolgirls .. priceless.

  44. @FKA Max

    The guy who was photographed driving the car was not James Fields. Why would he take his glasses off to do that when his glasses are on in every single picture of him?

  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @MBlanc46

    Moves are already afoot to ‘de-platform’ Gab, among others. Just look at what Anglin had to do to stay online. I don’t even know if he still is online.

  46. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Correct, except that the word ‘thousand’ should precede ‘vanilla’ in your final sentence. My twitter feed has been decimated, and it was pretty tame.

  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @KenH

    Joe Sobran said it long ago, after he himself was defenestrated. An ‘anti-semite’ is no longer someone who hates jews. It’s someone whom jews hate. Taylor can ponder this now.

  48. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Ron Unz believes in Freedom of Speech.
    As a matter of principle, not of power.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    “When it comes to an open internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” Pai said. “The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.”

    Good God, look at Twitter’s stock.

    https://www.reuters.wallst.com/reuters/next/chart/chartsgen2?symbols=TWTR.N&numberOfDays=90&width=286&height=178&realtime=0&scaleFactor=2&ChartsGen2=true

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  50. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    Nobody actually believes in freedom of speech, except as a tactic.

    No, this is overly simplistic and objectively untrue.

    Support for freedom of speech is complex and nuanced, and for sure most people in practice believe in “free speech except for….” (including many of those who claim to just believe in freedom of speech supposedly on principle).

    But there is certainly a constituency for a reasonably absolutist position on political freedom of speech. Just because most of the leftists who claimed to believe in freedom of speech when they thought they were weak turned out to be hypocrites doesn’t mean everyone is a hypocrite. Leftists are hypocrites by nature, in general. The reality is that enough conservatives accepted the arguments for freedom of speech for their political opponents that leftists were allowed to speak their views pretty freely, with the results we see now, that leftist social radicals and internationalists have pretty much taken over and are in the process of remoulding society to suit their own dogmas (and trying to change the old freedom of speech protections, both formal and informal, to suppress dissent).

    Politics is about power.

    No, it’s mostly about persuasion, by reason and by emotion and by well-funded propaganda and yes, sometimes by intimidation. Including persuading enough people to allow you to use brute power to suppress dissent without losing legitimacy. The left are well advanced now in the process of convincing enough of the population in countries of the US sphere to allow them to suppress dissent by brute force.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
    , @helena
  51. Randal says:
    @MBlanc46

    There’s obviously a valid argument that mainstream (leftist controlled) platforms are necessary in order to reach wide audiences, and that’s the reason for using the likes of Twitter for political advocacy groups like Amren and Vdare. The counter argument is that it supports those platforms and prevents the growth of new ones.

    There must be an element of “build it, and they will come”. Either free discussion is something people enjoy, or it isn’t. For sure, the first thing most people who claim to enjoy free discussion do upon finding a free space for such speech is try to exclude speech they really dislike from it – if I had a penny for every time I’ve seen, for instance, jewish or evangelical Christian supposed enthusiasts for a free speech forum come in and promptly start trying to exclude “nazis and “antisemites” and “holocaust denial” from it, I’d be much richer than I am.

    But in the end, the pleasure of being able to argue without watching your words and suppressing your real opinions is a real one, and as the likes of Twitter become ever more regulated, space must open up for that.

    It’s up to conservatives to create forums that are genuinely reasonably free (like Unz, and Gab, so we are told), not just mirror images of the leftist dissent-free zones of the mainstream, and give them sufficient support to exist and to grow.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Several times in the last few weeks, I have encountered situations where local government authorities and agencies have released information and directives on Facebook only.

    I’m not a member of Facebook, because I don’t like Facebook. But tell me why (given the above) Facebook shouldn’t be regulated as a public utility? Trying to reason with local government about why–perhaps–they should use their own websites (instead of Facebook) to release important information to the public is, well, like trying to reason with local government.

  53. iffen says:
    @Randal

    Leftists are hypocrites by nature, in general.

    No, this is overly simplistic and objectively untrue.

    Politics is about power.

    No, it’s mostly about persuasion, by reason and by emotion and by well-funded propaganda and yes, sometimes by intimidation. Including persuading enough people to allow you to use brute power to suppress dissent without losing legitimacy. The left are well advanced now in the process of convincing enough of the population in countries of the US sphere to allow them to suppress dissent by brute force.

    You made doom’s case.

    • Replies: @Randal
  54. Randal says:
    @iffen

    Leftists are hypocrites by nature, in general.

    No, this is overly simplistic and objectively untrue.

    Nope, it included the necessary weasel words that dfordoom failed to include.

    In general, leftists are hypocrites, and this has been demonstrated through my lifetime on several counts, not least their shameless turnaround on freedom of speech.

    You made doom’s case.

    Not the part I disagreed with.

    • Replies: @iffen
  55. iffen says:
    @Randal

    In general, leftists are hypocrites, and this has been demonstrated through my lifetime on several counts,

    In general, people are hypocrites.

    Your personal experience leads you attribute “bad” traits to your opposition and ignore the same for your side.

    It’s okay, we all do it.

    • Replies: @Randal
  56. Randal says:
    @iffen

    In general, people are hypocrites.

    Leftists being a subset of people, you, to use your own phrase, “made my case for me”.

    So, unless you are going to try to argue that leftists as a group are unusually unhypocritical, it appears we agree at least that my original assertion was correct, we just disagree over my implicit corollary that leftists are more hypocritical than non-leftists.

    Your personal experience leads you attribute “bad” traits to your opposition and ignore the same for your side.

    It’s okay, we all do it.

    Undoubtedly, but the fact that I noticed the particularly shameless hypocrisy of the left in particular over freedom of speech in particular is what is significant here.

    “Everyone does it” is a rather childish response to the valid criticism.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
  57. iffen says:
    @Randal

    we just disagree over my implicit corollary that leftists are more hypocritical than non-leftists

    Yes, this.

    “Everyone does it” is a rather childish response to the valid criticism.

    No. Your criticism is not valid, as you yourself point out. Whether leftist are “more” hypocritical has not been shown to be true.

    Accusing me of childish argument does not address the facts of the argument, but then you know that.

    shameless hypocrisy of the left

    Most leftists would not experience shame, that is something that you attribute to them.

  58. Jewish-run media Daily Beast lies.

    It says ‘Twitter bans white supremacists’, but in fact, what’s happening is Jewish Supremacists of ADL are pressuring Twitter to ban White National Liberationists who refuse to be cucky White Submissivists at the feet of Neocon Zionist overlords.

    Daily Beast says ‘white supremacists flee to safe space’, but in fact, they were forced out. They didn’t volunatily flee. They were more than willing to stay with Twitter and trade ideas and engage their rivals. It is the Jewish Supremacists who demanded Safe Space for Zionists and their globalist agenda on Twitter. No one fled to Gab. They were forced out of Twitter and signed up at Gab.
    Also, Gab is not a safe space. It is open to anyone who appreciates real free speech. It’s for people with the courage and thick skin to be confronted by others with contrary viewpoints. Gab does have some white supremacist types but they don’t get to force Gab to purge enemies of white supremacists. In contrast, Jewish supremacists get to force Twitter to purge enemies of Jewish Supremacism.

    So now,Twitter is one big safe space for Jewish Supremacists who push wars and imperialism. If Twitter really wants to ban Hate, it should purge all the Zionists and neocons.

    1. Twitter must purge the Zionist Neocons. Theirs is an ultra-violent organization that hates & oppresses Palestinians, wages Wars for Israel, and aids terrorists to destroy Muslim nations. Neocon-Imperialism under George W. Bush and Obama has killed a million Muslim lives.

    2. Twitter must purge those connected to the Pentagon & US military complex. This ugly beast is supremacist with jingoist talk of how the US is ‘exceptional’, implying America has license to invade any nation & meddle in world affairs. It is hateful & murderous.
    Alt Right has denounced US imperialism and takes pro-war stance. That is why Jewish Supremacists hate it. Alt Right hates it when Trump acts like an imperialist and threatens other nations. In contrast, Jews support only the jingoist and neo-imperialist side of Trump. Jews fear Trump will improve relations with Russia.

    3. Twitter must purge the Porn Moguls who feel contempt for women & use them as cumbuckets for evil men. The recent #MeToo Movement exposed evil male ‘patriarchy’. Pornography objectifies women as whores and toys for men to play with. Ponographers are misogynists. Since Jews run porn, it means jewish Moguls are the biggest haters of women.

    4. Twitter must purge all rap moguls who promote ugly music that celebrates drug trade, gangsterism, and murder and trashes womenfolk as ‘skanky bitchass hos’. This kind of culture has spread murderous hatred in the black community, destroyed families, and sent many to early graves. The violence in Baltimore and St Louis is the product of Jewish and black moguls promoting murderous and hateful attitudes via rap culture.

    5. Twitter must purge Homomaniacs who have gone far beyond the call for ‘gay rights’. They now demand Gay Rites as new religion and support the use of US capitalist-imperialism to convert the entire world to Worship of Holy Homo. They hate decency, family, tradition, and morality. Their hate any normal person who will not convert to the culture of degeneracy. But then, Homomania is a mere proxy of Jewish Supremacism.

    6. Twitter must purge ADL that hates BDS, a movement for justice for Palestinians. ADL is a hateful Jewish supremacist organization that demands that all US politicians hate Palestinians and criminalize BDS that pleads justice for Palestinians who suffered Nakba and now live under apartheid-occupation.

    7. Twitter must purge Jewish supremacists of MSM(like those at Daily Beast) who hate free speech, liberty, free flow and exchange of ideas and memes, and fair play. Jewish supremacists of the media rig the game so that their Zio-Homo narrative gets preferential treatment while counter-voices are suppressed. Jews use power of finance to push their agenda. Jews told Twitter, “big money for you IF you let ADL purge white national liberationists who refuse to serve as white submissvists at the feet of Jewish supremacists.”

    Daily Beast is merely a megaphone of Jewish Supremacists who push for more Wars for Israel. The real supremacism in America is that the 2% rules over the 98%.
    The ‘Twitter Purge’ is really ADL purge of those who see the reality of Jewish supremacist power and call out on it.

    • Agree: Mark Green
  59. Spencer will be banned. He is wrong.

  60. KenH says:

    The great Twitter purge is proof positive that if and when (more like when) hate speech laws ever get passed by Congress they will be selectively enforced only against white people who aren’t racial masochists. Inciting and fomenting hatred against white people, their history, traditions and icons will still be considered free speech.

    This is an example of big Jew and their SJW shock troops with the mask off. They are losing ground in the battle for hearts and minds and they know it.

    Christian bakeries are forced by the state and against their will to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals and lesbos or face stiff fines. Shitlibs go blind with rage and rail against private enterprise.

    But Twitter and other online social networking platforms can freely deny service to people espousing pro-white or right of center political opinions and shitlibs crow and celebrate. Shitlibs celebrate private property and private enterprise when it’s being used to discriminate against people they disagree with politically.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  61. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Ron Unz believes in Freedom of Speech.
    As a matter of principle, not of power.

    Ron Unz has no power. The political faction that has no power always believes in freedom of speech. The people who have the actual power never believe in freedom of speech. That’s how they keep power.

    Ron Unz is a great guy and I admire him. But the fact that he has principles is one of the reasons he has no power.

  62. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    The reality is that enough conservatives accepted the arguments for freedom of speech for their political opponents that leftists were allowed to speak their views pretty freely

    Which is why conservatives lost power. They gave their enemies a weapon to be used against them and then they were shocked when those enemies proceeded to use that weapon.

  63. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    It’s up to conservatives to create forums that are genuinely reasonably free (like Unz, and Gab, so we are told), not just mirror images of the leftist dissent-free zones of the mainstream, and give them sufficient support to exist and to grow.

    If these forums are genuinely reasonably free they will be taken over by SJWs.

    If you want genuine conservative forums you can only preserve them by banning SJWs. If you want a globalist forum you ban anti-globalists. If you want an anti-globalist forum you ban globalists. If you want a Christian forum you ban atheists. If you want an atheist forum you ban Christians.

    One day conservatives will figure out that they have to fight back and they have to be as ruthless as their enemies. Conservatives are addicted to the idea of playing fair. That’s why they always lose. But they console themselves with moral preening – we may have lost yet again but we lost honourably.

    • Replies: @Randal
  64. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    we just disagree over my implicit corollary that leftists are more hypocritical than non-leftists.

    The first thing to note is that the “leftists” who are currently destroying our civilisation are not leftists. They are globalists, they are paid by bankers and billionaires, they are the cheerleaders for global capitalism, they have no genuine leftist beliefs whatsoever and they have nothing but contempt for actual leftists. Look at Hillary Clinton. In what universe is Clinton a leftist?

    Actual leftists had principles. OK their principles were often foolish and wrong-headed but they did have principles. That’s why they got crushed when the New Left emerged. The New Left purged the Left of leftism.

    As for the charge of hypocrisy, I’d say that globalists operate in the real world. They’re evil but they understand how power works. The people who describe themselves as conservatives these days live in a fairy tale world.

    • Replies: @Randal
  65. dfordoom says: • Website
    @KenH

    The great Twitter purge is proof positive that if and when (more like when) hate speech laws ever get passed by Congress they will be selectively enforced only against white people who aren’t racial masochists.

    They will be selectively enforced against anyone who dissents from the Narrative.

    I suspect that the real targets will turn out to be people on their own side who prove themselves to be insufficiently reliable. The purging of “Nazis” is just a cover to give the crackdown some semblance of respectability.

  66. TheBoom says:

    This is an issue that likely will not involve Trump for quite a while. Trump is very egocentric and as long as he is not banned, he probably won’t care until the issue, like kneeling in football) has gone mainstream. Trump is very astute at picking cultural fights that easily emotionally resonate with middle America. I doubt social media censorship is in that category yet. Sessions will be too afraid to do anything anyway.

  67. AndrewR says:
    @Amomynous

    The ACLU is no friend of liberty. The way they handled the Loring Wirbel case shows us they wouldn’t really mind if all non-leftists are killed

  68. @gp

    Twitter is overcrowded that you never can get to the bathroom on time.

  69. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    Look at Hillary Clinton. In what universe is Clinton a leftist?

    Clinton is quintessentially leftist, objectively speaking and judging her by her actions. Two of the most basic elements of leftism are internationalism (globalisation, anti-nationalism) and social radicalism (promotion of the normalisation of homosexual activity, gay “marriage”, feminism, antiracism and all the rest of the ideological dogmas of political correctness). A third is being pro-big government.

    Clinton ticks all three of those boxes. The only major elements of traditional leftism she doesn’t espouse are pacifism and support for the working classes. As such she reflects a split in leftism that occurred in the late C20th. The left was always a rather uneasy alliance between the hardcore pragmatic promotion of working class interests and the intellectual radicalism of the ideologues. In the late C20th after the political setbacks for that leftist alliance in the Thatcher/Reagan years and the massive declines in manufacturing trade union power, the social radicals found they could ditch the working classes and replace them with “minority” identity groups.

    It’s absurd to claim that Clinton isn’t objectively leftist, just as it is to claim that the establishment parties of the so-called “centre right” aren’t equally leftist. They are all internationalist and socially radical, and have at the least surrendered to the big government agenda. That’s why we have mass immigration, open antiracist, feminist and pro-homosexual indoctrination, gay “marriage” and all the rest.

    You appear to be in complete denial of the sheer scale of the leftist triumph over US sphere societies that took place over the course of the C20th.

    Perhaps what you mean is that Clinton isn’t honest in her leftism, that she’s just doing it in order to get power. Well of course. She’s a politician and the business of politicians in liberal democracies is lying in order to get power. They are professional liars. But it’s not what she believes in her most secret and repressed heart that matters, it’s what she does, and that is pushing forward a grossly leftist political agenda.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  70. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    If these forums are genuinely reasonably free they will be taken over by SJWs.

    SJWs can make the most noise, but they will almost always lose the arguments on the issues, because their ideas are based upon dogma and not on reality. That’s exactly why they resort to banning.

    Twitter is the exemplar here.

    What matters is how resilient the management is in resisting calls for censorship.

    One day conservatives will figure out that they have to fight back and they have to be as ruthless as their enemies. Conservatives are addicted to the idea of playing fair. That’s why they always lose. But they console themselves with moral preening – we may have lost yet again but we lost honourably.

    There can be few strategies more foolish than openly appealing to brute force and might makes right when you are the weaker side. Which does not mean that there is not room for cynical ploys, underhand methods and all the rest of the machineries of power. But as far as speech is concerned, all you will achieve by your insistence on the non-existence of any principled basis for freedom of speech will be to finally undercut any remaining resistance (and yes, there is some) to open censorship by the currently dominant left.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
  71. iffen says:
    @Randal

    There can be few strategies more foolish than openly appealing to brute force and might makes right when you are the weaker side.

    It is not a matter of formal appeal; it is a matter of understanding reality and plotting political action based upon that reality. Your appeal to “honest argumentation” will get you to exactly where you are.

    • Replies: @Randal
  72. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @gp

    Hey, hey, hey.

    Hollerith punch cards were pretty darn useful for a while.

    ;)

  73. Randal says:
    @iffen

    It is not a matter of formal appeal; it is a matter of understanding reality and plotting political action based upon that reality. Your appeal to “honest argumentation” will get you to exactly where you are.

    The reality is that the tactic used successfully by the side that is currently on top, and that (among other things, obviously) comprehensively defeated the arguments you claim to espouse in order to get there, was precisely to appeal to principled freedom of speech.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @dfordoom
  74. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Randal

    Good point. Bottom line is that the SJWs (and other assorted narrative goblins) are only “on top” in carefully managed, restricted and censored environments. Their beliefs can’t survive the light of reason or logic.

    This is why they always resort to labels and/or censorship when challenged. I’ve yet to see a SJW watering hole – which are losing ground fast, lately – where even a modicum of substantial challenge is allowed. No man can “mansplain” the truth and no “internally misogynist” woman can question the doctrine. It’s a cult, basically, and Twitter, FB and Google will fail. Creating soft, low-info, retarded, padded rooms for the slow believers puts everyone else (fast, non-retarded, harsh and knowledgeable) in a hunter-killer mode. There’s no contest.

    • Replies: @Randal
  75. Randal says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes. SJWs are of course only a subset of the wider left, but they are particularly weak in debate because their views tend to be based upon emotion and on uncritically absorbed ideological dogmas, and their opinions held not for the purpose of understanding the world, but rather of signalling their own virtue and improving their own personal status.

    That’s why they need the protection of censorship, which in turn, as you say, contributes further to their inability to cope with competent dissent when they do encounter it.

    That’s another reason (along with those I gave in post 55 above) why conservatives should not follow the left in creating safe hidey-holes for people of their own views, but rather create the kind of places for genuinely open debate that can only be sustained by those with a strong principled dedication to genuine freedom of speech.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  76. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Randal

    SJWs are of course only a subset of the wider left, but they are particularly weak in debate because their views tend to be based upon emotion and on uncritically absorbed ideological dogmas, and their opinions held not for the purpose of understanding the world, but rather of signalling their own virtue and improving their own personal status.

    There’s no substantial difference between SJW and pro-immigration arguments. They are, simply put, indefensible in the bright light of the day and the cultists (and their handlers) know it. Their only play is to censor everyone else but that’s a loser proposition because “everyone else” is smarter, more informed and less sensitive than the goyim they’re relying on. They simply can’t win.

    This has happened before. Many times.

  77. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    Clinton ticks all three of those boxes. The only major elements of traditional leftism she doesn’t espouse are pacifism and support for the working classes.

    The one defining characteristic of leftism is that it sees class struggle as the one issue that really matters. If you don’t have that then you cannot be a leftist. Therefore Clinton cannot possibly be a leftist.

    Two of the most basic elements of leftism are internationalism (globalisation, anti-nationalism) and social radicalism

    Again I totally disagree. Social radicalism serves the interests of capitalism. The objective is a population that cares about nothing but money and sex.

    Internationalism is much more favourable to the interests of capitalism than it is to the interests of the Left.

    And remember, capitalists love big government. It’s so useful for destroying potential competitors.

    The Fake Left has managed to fool people into thinking that leftism has nothing to do with class. The Fake Left (which is almost all of the modern Left) is the party of the elites, for the elites. They’ve taken a far right ideology and convinced us that it’s a leftist ideology. They’ve taken the name of the Left but stripped away every vestige of actual leftism.

    • Replies: @Randal
  78. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    SJWs can make the most noise, but they will almost always lose the arguments on the issues, because their ideas are based upon dogma and not on reality.

    They have no interest in winning arguments. Their only interest is power. If you don’t ban them they take over. Once you let them in that’s what they do. If they can’t take something over they simply wreck it.

    • Replies: @Randal
  79. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    Well we are in danger of taking mere terminology too seriously here, but the origin of the terms left and right predates the modern usage of “capitalism” and modern ideas of “class”. The former dates back to the French revolution and was associated with those supporting revolution rather than the king, and the latter concepts to mid-C19th socialism.

    It’s true that socialism came to dominate the revolutionary causes in the late C19th and early C20th, and thus the term left came to be associated only with socialist class struggle when that was the main event in the early C20th, but it’s just narrow thinking to assume because of that that the broader aspects of left-wing radicalism were no longer part of the left. In fact, the story of the late C20th and early C21st, as I noted previously, has been precisely the resurgence of those other aspects of leftism to the detriment of the working classes.

    And remember, capitalists love big government. It’s so useful for destroying potential competitors.

    No, capitalists love regulation when it can be used against potential competitors, and government spending when it can be milked by them (but not when it benefits other people). Big government means primarily social and health welfare, state infrastructure spending and state education subsidies, which account for the lion’s share of all government spending. “Capitalists” like it when they personally are directly receiving it, and aren’t interested otherwise.

    The Fake Left has managed to fool people into thinking that leftism has nothing to do with class.

    The obsession with class is a particular ideological quirk of leftism in its socialist C19th-C20th form, based upon the nonsense written by the likes of Marx. Its relevance to politics was declining in the late C20th and has all but gone now, except as an occasionally useful term to roughly delineate particular interest groups (as I used it above), or for historical analysis purposes.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @dfordoom
  80. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    The reality is that the tactic used successfully by the side that is currently on top, and that (among other things, obviously) comprehensively defeated the arguments you claim to espouse in order to get there, was precisely to appeal to principled freedom of speech.

    They won because they were not foolish enough to believe in principled freedom of speech. They never believed in freedom of speech as anything other than a weapon. They were always ready and willing to shut down dissenting voices. I can recall way way back in 1977, forty years ago, when student radicals in Australia used violence to shut down lectures by the visiting British psychologist Hans Eysenck because they decided that his views on IQ were evil and racist.

    They never even pretended to believe in freedom of speech. They used Alinksy and Orwell’s 1984 as instruction manuals. They always made it clear that they interpreted freedom of speech as the freedom to express only approved opinions. Opinions approved by them. All other opinions were by definition Thought Crime and were to be ruthlessly suppressed.

    They never had the slightest intention of playing fair and they never pretended to do so. They were playing to win. They won because they never for one moment conceded that anyone had the right to a dissenting opinion. They won because they approached the struggle as a war. Conservatives approached the struggle as a game of cricket between gentlemen.

    • Replies: @Randal
  81. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    If you don’t ban them they take over. Once you let them in that’s what they do. If they can’t take something over they simply wreck it.

    Funny, because as far as I’m aware Unz doesn’t ban SJWs (I’ve certainly seen a few around, some of them quite prolific) and they’ve yet to show any signs of “taking over”.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  82. RobinG says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    “….crime and IQ statistics.”

    And what, this is supposed to be violent crime or something? But not white collar theft or global mass murder…. Because shyster lawyers, Wall St. bankers, Cheney, Rummy, AIPAC and all the neocons sure are a bunch of knuckle-draggers. ;(

  83. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    Well now we need to be careful regarding whom you are talking about when you say “they”. Some leftists certainly took the approach you describe, but by no means all of them, and the liberal wing of the left mostly didn’t. And it was that liberal wing which won over the uncommitted and determined the outcome.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  84. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    The obsession with class is a particular ideological quirk of leftism in its socialist C19th-C20th form, based upon the nonsense written by the likes of Marx. Its relevance to politics was declining in the late C20th and has all but gone now

    Yes, it’s not like we have today a class of rich people conducting a vicious class war against the lower classes.

    Class is actually more important today than ever before. But the elites have managed to distract us from that.

    Marx certainly wrote a good deal of nonsense. That doesn’t mean that class struggle isn’t real. Class struggle is the one reality that just won’t go away. But the one thing the elites understand very clearly is that their best strategy is Divide and Conquer. Divide the lower classes along racial, gender and sexual lines and they won’t notice that they’re all getting screwed by the elites.

    • Replies: @Randal
    , @anarchyst
  85. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    Well we are in danger of taking mere terminology too seriously here, but the origin of the terms left and right predates the modern usage of “capitalism” and modern ideas of “class”. The former dates back to the French revolution and was associated with those supporting revolution rather than the king, and the latter concepts to mid-C19th socialism.

    The confusion of terminology is a very real problem. Left and right, socialism and capitalism, liberal and conservative, they’re all terms that have little meaning today. Yesterday’s leftist is now a member of the far right even though his basic views haven’t changed at all. Today’s conservatives are all liberals. Capitalism in anything like a pure form no longer exists.

    That’s why I prefer to refer to our enemies as globalists or SJWs or simply the elites. Calling them leftists or communists or even liberals tends to muddy the waters (which suits the purposes of the elites extremely well – they don’t want us thinking clearly). And I prefer to describe myself simply as a dissident. Many years ago I was an Old School Leftist. My political views haven’t really altered. In today’s climate to describe myself as either left or right would be misleading and confusing.

    I think the alt-right made a huge mistake in choosing to include the word “right” in their self-description. It was a free gift to their enemies.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  86. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    Yes, it’s not like we have today a class of rich people conducting a vicious class war against the lower classes.

    Well no, we don’t, or at least that’s not any kind of useful description of overall trends in society. That’s just simplistic leftist “one percenter” tosh.

    Do rich people, and very rich people, and stupidly rich people, each have some interest in common, and do they look out for their own interests? Yes, obviously (and in many cases the interests of the various classes of rich people diverge). Are there interests in common to particular groups of non-rich people? Yes, obviously, but again few if any of them are common to all the “lower classes”. And of course many, perhaps most, who are not really rich don’t comfortably fall into anything that could honestly be termed “lower classes”.

    And certainly sometimes the interests of the super rich do indeed go strongly against those of some part of the “lower classes”, such as, for instance, the indigenous working classes, as when the upper classes import foreigners en mass to undercut the value of their labour, and deliberately suppress “racism” in order to disable resistance to said import. (And then people like you come along pretending to be advocates for the working classes and actually help the super rich suppress resistance to their attack on the value of the working classes’ labour by telling them that “racism is just a divide and rule ploy”, or some such poisonous absurdity.)

    That could at a stretch be described as a “war” upon the interests of a particular part of the lower classes by the super rich, I suppose, but it’s not remotely the explanation of everything that’s going on. In reality it’s just the normal jockeying for advantage in any society.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
  87. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    Funny, because as far as I’m aware Unz doesn’t ban SJWs (I’ve certainly seen a few around, some of them quite prolific) and they’ve yet to show any signs of “taking over”.

    Unz is a smart guy. He chooses his contributors carefully. They cover a wide range of views but I’m sure he has no intention of allowing his site to be swamped by hordes of SJW contributors. And Unz Review has moderated comments sections.

    Unz is actually a very smart guy. He maintains tight control but does so without looking like he’s doing so.

  88. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    Well now we need to be careful regarding whom you are talking about when you say “they”. Some leftists certainly took the approach you describe, but by no means all of them, and the liberal wing of the left mostly didn’t. And it was that liberal wing which won over the uncommitted and determined the outcome.

    And they won by being underhanded, unscrupulous and brutally realistic.

    If you’d asked one of those moderate liberals for their views on the subject he’d have replied that of course he believed in freedom of speech, except for…

    Also I think you’re underestimating the contribution to victory made by the hardliners with their never-ending policy of intimidation.

    • Replies: @Randal
  89. iffen says:
    @Randal

    If we can just get that safe space for Nazis, a real hidey-hole if you will, then we can move against the poisonous notion that says racism is a bad thing.

    • Replies: @Randal
  90. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    and actually help the super rich suppress resistance to their attack on the value of the working classes’ labour by telling them that “racism is just a divide and rule ploy”

    Mass immigration is a disaster for a whole bunch of reasons. It certainly reduces the value of the working classes’ labour. It leads to overcrowding and plummeting quality of life (Sydney is now just about unliveable for these reasons alone). It reduces social cohesion. It leads to infrastructure collapse. It destroys communities as people are forced to move further and further out in the suburbs. It makes family formation unaffordable by forcing up housing costs and depressing wages.

    It doesn’t matter what race the immigrants are. It’s a bad policy in and of itself.

    You can believe passionately that all races are equal (and I’m not saying that I either believe or disbelieve that) but if you have a brain you can still see that mass immigration is a very bad thing.

    Focusing on race just makes it easy for the globalists to portray all opposition to immigration as the work of evil white supremacist Nazis. It’s walking straight into the trap they’ve set. Australia with 100 million people, Canada with 100 million people, the US with a billion people – these would still be horrible places to live even if they were entirely white.

  91. RobinG says:
    @yeah

    How The Deep State Controls Social Media and Digitally Assassinates Critics
    #GoogleGestapo – Censorship & Crowd-Stalking Made Easy

    https://ahtribune.com/culture-media/1992-deep-state-social-media.html

    plus
    PragerU Takes Legal Action Against Google and YouTube for Discrimination

    LOS ANGELES — Prager University (PragerU) has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to stop Google and YouTube from unlawfully censoring its educational videos and discriminating against its right to freedom of speech.

  92. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    So to sum up:

    I believe the arguments for defending and promoting free speech (not just the bare minimum First Amendment stuff) on principle are strong in themselves, and also that it’s particularly important for conservatives, who are facing the threat of widespread censorship, to push these arguments as strongly as possible.

    You believe freedom of speech is nonsense, and a cynical ploy by which the weak persuade the strong to hold off from silencing them whilst they build up their own power.

    Currently conservatives are weak and leftists strong (as witnessed by the active threat of censoring conservatives by leftists, who are now strong enough relative to conservatives to do that).

    The consequence is therefore that both you and I should be loudly and strongly advocating freedom of speech arguments. Me because I believe in them, and you, having declared your belief that politics is about warring for power only and honesty is for the naïve, as a ploy to defend against leftist censorship until you are strong enough to do what the liberal left has done and abandon the pretence.

    On the other issues:

    Unz is actually a very smart guy. He maintains tight control but does so without looking like he’s doing so.

    Yes, he hasn’t made any absolutist commitment to no censorship that I’ve seen, but on the other hand all the information I’ve seen is that he asks his contributors to moderate with a “light touch”, and I’ve seen no evidence at all that he employs or advocates political censorship of comments, as for instance of SJWs. Have you?

    It doesn’t matter what race the immigrants are. It’s a bad policy in and of itself.

    This is incorrect both intellectually and emotionally.

    Intellectually, it’s correct to say that mass immigration is bad regardless of race, but it’s transparently incorrect to pretend that it doesn’t matter what race immigrants are. All other things being equal, mass immigration by those of a different race is far worse than mass immigration by those of the same race, especially as racial differences tend to go hand in hand with dramatic cultural differences.

    Emotionally, it fails to understand the importance of racial and ethnic and national solidarity on the visceral level. Yes, the left has managed to create a taboo about “racism” by falsely conflating it with hatred, with criminality and with nazis, basically, but that does not mean we should pander to that manufactured taboo, as you seek to do. By doing so, you destroy a major plank of the natural defence against mass immigration to any society and become an enabler for the rich and the political left seeking to break down society with mass immigration.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @dfordoom
  93. Randal says:
    @iffen

    Your particular obsession with prioritising protecting jewish concerns is indeed the reason why I regard you as part of the problems we face, and not part of any solution.

    • Replies: @iffen
  94. iffen says:
    @Randal

    I regard you as part of the problems we face, and not part of any solution.

    Nirvana.

    I am in complete agreement.

  95. helena says:
    @Randal

    “No, it’s mostly about persuasion,”

    yeah, persuading people to give up their power voluntarily. That’s a method of obtaining power; it’s still ‘about power’. Probably the underlying problem is exactly that; warriors no longer rule, propagandists do. (sword -> pen).

    • Replies: @Randal
    , @iffen
  96. Randal says:
    @helena

    yeah, persuading people to give up their power voluntarily. That’s a method of obtaining power; it’s still ‘about power’.

    Politics is the means to that end.

  97. iffen says:
    @helena

    yeah, persuading people to give up their power voluntarily

    Make them an offer that they can’t refuse a la Vito Corleone.

  98. anarchyst says:
    @dfordoom

    Henry Ford KNEW how to deal with “class struggle”..Pay your people well and create the modern middle-class…something that is not taught in business schools, even today…
    Henry Ford CREATED a market which had not existed when he paid his employees $5.00 per day. The average wage of the day was around $1.25 per day. Of course, the wall street types and the banksters howled that Ford’s wage rates would destroy capitalism. Guess what?? The OPPOSITE happened. Henry Ford knew one of the basic tenets of a truly free, capitalistic society, that a well-paid work force would be able to participate and contribute to a strong economy, unlike what is taught in business schools today–that wages must be kept to a bare minimum and that the stockholder is king. Our “free trade” politicians have assisted the greedy wall street types and banksters in depressing wages on the promise of cheap foreign labor and products. A good example of this is the negative criticism that Costco receives for paying its employees well above market wages. These same wall street types praise Wal-Mart for paying its employees barely subsistence wages while assisting them in filling out their “public assistance” (welfare) forms. Any sane person KNOWS that in order for capitalism to work, employees need to make an adequate wage. Unfortunately, this premise does not exist in today’s business climate.
    Henry Ford openly criticized those of the “tribe” for manipulating wall street and banksters to their own advantage, and was roundly (and unjustly) criticized for pointing out the TRUTH. Catholic priest, Father Coughlin did the same thing and was punished by the Catholic church, despite his popularity and exposing the TRUTH of the American economy and the outsider internationalists that ran it . . . and STILL run it.
    Our “race to the bottom” will not be without consequences. A great “realignment is necessary (and is coming) . .

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  99. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anarchyst

    any sane person KNOWS that in order for capitalism to work, employees need to make an adequate wage.

    That’s true. But in order to ensure that that happens several things are needed.

    Firstly we need to scrap the idea of free trade.

    Secondly we need to accept the reality that the business sector will not voluntarily pay adequate wages. They will have to be compelled to do so. Only government has the capability to do that. So we need a great deal of government intervention in the economy. We need to abandon the silly concept of a free market. There’s no such thing anyway. If the government doesn’t intervene you end up with monopolies, cartels, etc which distort the free market to the point where it isn’t a free market anyway.

    You need an economy that is to some extent a command economy, with the government making many of the decisions, but making those decisions that will preserve a semi-capitalist economy.

    They’re the sorts of moderate leftist (or centre-leftist) policies that I’ve always subscribed to. They’re the sorts of policies that just about everybody used to accept the need for.

    Governments today do interfere in the economy but they do so incompetently and corruptly and mostly in the interests of the capitalists. To avoid that you need a less corrupt political system. You need to abandon the naïve faith in representative democracy, a system which is inherently corrupt.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  100. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    You believe freedom of speech is nonsense, and a cynical ploy by which the weak persuade the strong to hold off from silencing them whilst they build up their own power.

    A glance at history suggests that this is so.

    The consequence is therefore that both you and I should be loudly and strongly advocating freedom of speech arguments. Me because I believe in them, and you, having declared your belief that politics is about warring for power only and honesty is for the naïve, as a ploy to defend against leftist censorship until you are strong enough to do what the liberal left has done and abandon the pretence.

    Yes. The important thing is that we should understand that it is merely a ploy. Our opponents have no intention of playing honourably. If we play honourably, we’ll lose. Every single time.

    I wish we lived in a world in which honesty and decency always triumphed and the bad guys always got their comeuppance. I’d love to think we could win merely by virtue of being the good guys and having right on our side. But we don’t live in such a world. Such worlds only exist in fairy tales and comic books.

    • Replies: @Randal
  101. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    Yes, he hasn’t made any absolutist commitment to no censorship that I’ve seen, but on the other hand all the information I’ve seen is that he asks his contributors to moderate with a “light touch”, and I’ve seen no evidence at all that he employs or advocates political censorship of comments, as for instance of SJWs. Have you?

    I haven’t seen any evidence that Ron intends to open up Unz Review to every SJW contributor who wants to come along and publish their SJW screeds here. His stated aim is not to provide an outlet for every point of view, but to provide an outlet for the points of view that are suppressed by the mainstream media.

    As for comments, he gives contributors the power to moderate comments. He asks them to use that power with wisdom and moderation. But if a bunch of SJWs decide to flood the comments section with thousands of trolling comments with the aim of making the site unworkable I’m quite sure Ron would be OK with that contributor taking the necessary action to prevent that from happening. He gives his contributors a big stick but asks them to use it only when absolutely necessary. But he still makes sure they have that big stick.

    • Replies: @Randal
  102. anarchyst says:
    @dfordoom

    I agree with you that a certain amount of “protectionism” IS a good idea, but must respectfully disagree with getting government involved in a “command and control” economy except for the “protectionism” aspect of trade. You are absolutely correct that we have NEVER had “free trade” but have had “managed trade” with the resultant cartels and shenanigans committed by multinational corporations and others that are deemed “too big to fail”. We are supposed to be living in a “representative republic”, NOT a “democracy”…
    Regards,

  103. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    The important thing is that we should understand that it is merely a ploy.

    No, that’s your view. I regard it as a legitimate end in itself. But in public you should be agreeing with me, while keeping your inner opinion on it for private conspiratorial discussions with those who are fellow enemies of freedom of speech, like iffen.

    I wish we lived in a world in which honesty and decency always triumphed and the bad guys always got their comeuppance. I’d love to think we could win merely by virtue of being the good guys and having right on our side. But we don’t live in such a world. Such worlds only exist in fairy tales and comic books.

    I don’t particularly want to reopen the debate on the merits of fee speech, since I think we’ve established neither will persuade the other and we ought to have reached a modus vivendi whereby you pretend to agree with me in public whilst silently intending to clamp down when your side has the power to do so, but you seem to be under the misapprehension that advocating freedom of speech is some kind of hippy “because it’s nice” position. It isn’t, it’s a matter of hard pragmatic reality and pure self-interest that a general societal respect for free speech as a value in itself is the only way to protect your own basic liberty without having to be the top dog all the time.

    That’s why the US First Amendment is worth having.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @iffen
  104. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    I haven’t seen any evidence that Ron intends to open up Unz Review to every SJW contributor who wants to come along and publish their SJW screeds here.

    The reference to above the line contributors is a red herring here.

    As for comments, he gives contributors the power to moderate comments. He asks them to use that power with wisdom and moderation. But if a bunch of SJWs decide to flood the comments section with thousands of trolling comments with the aim of making the site unworkable I’m quite sure Ron would be OK with that contributor taking the necessary action to prevent that from happening. He gives his contributors a big stick but asks them to use it only when absolutely necessary. But he still makes sure they have that big stick.

    There is a difference between political censorship and censorship honestly intended to preserve workability against organised disruption, and your attempt to conflate the two is again a diversion from the issue.

    Granted in the real world there can be a thin line between the two and it’s sometimes down to a personal decision to decide whether a particular contributor or group of contributors is causing more trouble than they are worth. That’s a subjective decision and most people find it difficult if not impossible to exercise such a decision without regard to their own political prejudices. The real world is messy like that (and what’s more the advocates of censorship for particular zealot groups – the Israeli/jewish lobbies are masters at this – often use trolling and provocation to try to get people saying things they don’t like banned on the basis that they are supposedly reducing the “effectiveness” of the forum).

    But again, I do not have the impression Unz sees any need to forbid or remove comments by SJWs merely because they express SJW views that he might disagree with, out of fear of them “taking over”. I assume he expects such people’s comments to be exposed to the ridicule they deserve (and that is often what we see, though some of them can hold their own even in free discussion). By and large, though, SJW types don’t feel comfortable in an environment where they can’t get people banned or censored for offending them. And he delegates power to censor to individual contributors when he trusts them to exercise it appropriately, I understand (but I have no inside knowledge here).

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  105. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    That’s why the US First Amendment is worth having.

    The US First Amendment is an illusion. In a world run by corporations it’s simply an irrelevance.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  106. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    And he delegates power to censor to individual contributors when he trusts them to exercise it appropriately

    Precisely. The power to censor can be used wisely and with moderation, and with subtlety. But it’s still the power to censor and it’s essential.

  107. iffen says:
    @Randal

    those who are fellow enemies of freedom of speech, like iffen.

    I am not an enemy of free speech. You can call me that if you want to, doesn’t bother me, just so I get the chance to dispute it.

    Unless I missed something, you live in the UK; you don’t have a 1st Amendment. I think your standing to tell me how I should think and feel about my 1st Amendment is limited.

  108. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    I think the alt-right made a huge mistake in choosing to include the word “right” in their self-description. It was a free gift to their enemies.

    Indeed, but nowhere near as great a gift as letting themselves be called fascists and even nazis by agreeing to call their enemies “antifa”.

  109. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts. The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living. It is clear also that thought is not free if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are perpetually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search.

    (Bertrand Russell)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  110. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Upon reflection, I would go Mr Russell one better on his last point: Not only are our arguments available only upon diligent search, they are consistently and comprehensively misrepresented and caricaturized in the mass media — one effect being that people believe that they have given a thorough hearing to arguments they haven’t even begun to hear.

    It is absolutely impossible to overstate the power of the mass media. Which is why our enemies will never give up an inch of it without a fight so ugly I believe very few have the stomach for it, and even fewer can afford the risk to personal and financial well-being that fight would entail.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  111. RobinG says:
    @Anonymous

    A very thoughtful comment.

    Since you are posting as Anonymous, may I ask why you spurn an online persona, and why you avoid the archive? The self-defense argument doesn’t persuade me. Unz software knows where you are. Couldn’t a real hacker also track you down? Is having a history of comments really less safe? Have you left obvious clues to your true identity?

    The anonymous posters come in every stripe: some troll with trash, others add valuable content. [In this respect they're no different from named writers.] My gripe is the confusion. With identifiable pseudonyms, you have a chance of knowing which ones are a waste of time, versus those that might have an original thought, i.e. value added. So I’m seriously asking for clarification.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  112. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @RobinG

    A comment should stand or fail on the merits of its own reason and logic. The anonymity allows the poster to make his case without fear or favour and the reader learns to examine everything that matters without expecting to be spoon-fed by a “trusted”, online handle. IMO, this is a crucially important frame of mind in the current world of decentralised learning and massively compromised “authority” voices.

    Just my 2 cents. I’m not the Anon you responded to.

  113. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @RobinG

    I am the person you responded to, and I do agree with the other anonymous; however that is not my reasoning.

    The minor reason is that I steer clear of extended vendettas this way, but the major reason I am unable to say. I’ve tried before but I can’t get past moderation with it. Not even sure if this will.

    I do miss being able to track my own content though. And I’m certainly not hiding from the staff at Unz.com, nor would I have any desire to.

  114. Alden says:
    @yeah

    Lawsuits like that would need millions of dollars and more importantly attorneys willing to risk their careers and their families careers to file those cases.

    It’s a great idea though.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.