The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Anglin Archive
Rand Paul Gets Suspended from YouTube, Defends Right of Private Companies to Do Anything to Anyone
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

After Rand Paul this week came out effectively calling for a Derp Revolution, he was given a suspension by YouTube for different comments he made earlier in the month about masks.

Responding to the ban, Paul said:

As a libertarian-leaning Senator, I think private companies have the right to ban me if they want to, but I think it is really anti-free speech, anti-progress of science, which involves skepticism and argumentation to arrive at the truth. We realize this in our court systems that both sides present facts on either side of a question and complete an adversarial process to reach the truth in each case.

YouTube and Google though, have become an entity so huge that they think they are the arbitrator of truth.

How can they be a private company and also a monopoly big enough to be the arbiter of truth?

How can a monopoly that contracts with the government and relies heavily on publicly-funded infrastructure to operate be a “private company”?

What difference does it even make? If your ideology requires you to lose on purpose, why would you not change your ideology?

Paul also said:

I will try to channel my anger, not in breaking these companies up but by publicly expressing my disagreement with them and publicly promoting other channels that offer free speech alternatives.

What alternatives?

Has he not heard of the Daily Stormer?

Any alternative exists only so long as the registrars allow it to exist. Unless you believe you’re going to survive on Tor, then you end up dealing with nations that are considered enemies of the United States just to be on the internet.

What’s more: I only saw these statements from Paul on Russia’s RT. The Western media does not appear to have even bothered to note what he said. So using the media as an outlet is also off the table – as evidenced by Trump’s situation (anyone who interviews him is banned from everything).

The only remaining option is to go out in the street and yell. Putting aside the fact that you will not reach millions of people there, as you would on the internet, you have established law that the Antifa are allowed to attack you for speaking in public, and if you defend yourself you will be federally indicted. Moreover, at this point, they can probably just arrest you for violating Virus Law.

There is no path to free speech outside of breaking the idiotic and pointless code of libertarian ideology.

Ideology is not philosophy, and it is not important. It is a boomer tool for simplifying things they find confusing, but the core of existence should not be about avoiding confusion.

We are made in the image of God!

We have the ability for rational thought!

We do not need to reduce systems to their component parts like dogs or rodents!

Seriously though: what do masks and mask law have to do with YouTube – if it is somehow not a de facto government entity?

Why do Republicans consistently support their own political disenfranchisement?

What’s going on?

(Republished from The Daily Stormer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Censorship, Rand Paul, Silicon Valley 
Hide 93 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. SteveK9 says:

    Rumble grows bigger and more important every day. Dave Rubin’s ‘Locals’ is partnering with them in the near future. People have to go and look for uncensored information. The new ‘samizdat’.

  2. SteveK9 says:

    Rumble is growing by the day. Dave Rubin’s ‘Locals’ company will be partnering with them shortly. People simply need to look for uncensored information. If they start to block the existence of these alternative (a la Parler), then we are going to have to get more aggressive, unless we want to live in a totalitarian state.

    • Replies: @Rahan
  3. aj54 says:

    would Rand Paul also believe that a private real estate firm could discriminate in housing? Or a restaurant turn people away at the door? Why should the free-speech violations of media companies be tolerated? “Private companies” that purport to ‘serve anyone’ should not be allowed to continue with marginalizing people who hold political views they do not agree with, and that also means science that has become politicized.

  4. TG says:

    Ah, the poor dogmatic purist libertarians. They just don’t get it. Not having any rules, means that the people with power will set the rules, and enslave you.

    Ultimately the end goal of ideologically pure libertarianism is feudalism, as they had it in 10th century Europe. All resources and lands were privately owned. The private landowners – the feudal lords – could offer bare subsistence wages to the peasantry, and require any service whatever – that they change their religion, or shave their heads, whatever – because it was private land and the lords got to lay down the ground rules for the people they allowed to live and work there. The peasants then got to freely choose to accept whatever the feudal lords offered, or refuse, and then they and their families would starve, because all land and resources were in private hands.

    Perfect freedom! And also perfect slavery!

    And if this doesn’t drive a stake into the heart of dogmatic pure libertarianism, I don’t know what will.

    It might be too late, but if we don’t start a mass push to regulate the big internet monopolies as common carriers, it’s over. Alternative internet providers sounds like a good idea but they don’t have the critical mass of market penetration and in the current environment they can and will be shut down or co-opted if they start to get a critical mass.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

  5. “Why do Republicans consistently support their own political disenfranchisement?”

    They still (amusingly) think that victory is around the corner, the next election will show the Leftists, that people will wake up one day and discover they really wished for Barry Goldwater’s reincarnation.

    • Replies: @MoanChomsky
  6. Obviously our corrupt congress will not bite the hand that owns them. All they would have to do is enforce existing anti-trust laws. Two cheers for Senator Paul. But fuck Senator Paul.

    Combinations in restraint of trade are not success stories. They are crime stories.

  7. Corvinus says:

    Disposable paper and cloth masks, both common choices during the coronavirus pandemic, may not be as effective in preventing the spread of COVID as other types of face coverings. But they do work. Of course, the quality of the mask is critical. So that is why Rand received the suspension.

    “How can they be a private company and also a monopoly big enough to be the arbiter of truth?”

    The Deep State is a murderous cabal. The Jews seek to destroy whites. The CDC will put anti-vaxxers into concentration camps. These and other similar statements are other than “true”. Now, I do agree that the Terms of Service policies for Twitter and YouTube are malleable and arbitrary. To me, there needs to be legislation on the matter to reign in their conduct. But, ultimately, it is their platform that one is using. Their property, their rules. That is why Alt Right leader Vox Day says “Build your own platform. Why use Big Tech at all? Starve the beast.”

    The bottom line is that free speech protections under our Constitution is reserved for people who are citizens of our nation, not artificial entities like companies. He even agrees that he can be banned–“As a libertarian leaning senator, I think private companies have the right to ban me if they want to”.

    “How can a monopoly that contracts with the government and relies heavily on publicly-funded infrastructure to operate be a “private company”?”

    You just answered your own question. Companies make contracts. They make their own deals. That is why they are “private”. Of course, companies receive their legal status to operate by way of the “public”, i.e. the government, that recognizes their legitimacy. Again, their property, their rules.

    “Ideology is not philosophy”.

    Ideology is a form of social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones. It is a system of ideas that aspires both to explain the world and to change it. When we espouse a particular ideology, we engage in philosophy as to what are our views and why we think that way.

    • Disagree: Fr. John
  8. Google is not a private company in a free economy. They are a fascist enterprise partnered with factions of the state. They have been from Day 0. Their origin is CIA sponsorship and their history is CIA partnership.

    How the CIA made Google by Nafeez Ahmed

    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

  9. Corvinus says:
    @TG

    “Alternative internet providers sounds like a good idea but they don’t have the critical mass of market penetration and in the current environment they can and will be shut down or co-opted if they start to get a critical mass.”

    It’s a GREAT idea, and that is why the marketplace enables it to flourish or flounder.

  10. Rahan says:
    @SteveK9

    Rumble is growing by the day. Dave Rubin’s ‘Locals’ company will be partnering with them shortly. People simply need to look for uncensored information. If they start to block the existence of these alternative (a la Parler), then we are going to have to get more aggressive, unless we want to live in a totalitarian state.

    • LOL: Josh Kenn, Polistra
  11. Does he understand the meaning of monopoly?

    As for banking, aren’t they bailed out by all taxpayers regardless of ideology?

    The problem of libertarianism is its worship of the individual overlooks the fact that there is a huge difference between the Big Individual who has billions, buys off puppet politicians, and controls the media and small individuals with no power.

    Big Individuals gain super-power to stick it to the small individuals, and the best bet for small individuals is to rely on the state as protection from big individuals. But US ‘conservatism’ taught small individuals that the state is the enemy and that Big Individuals are their friends. Well, that made the ‘liberals’ totally take over the state(ignored by conservatives) and it turns out Big Individuals love working with ‘libs’ to stick it to small individuals

  12. gottlieb says:

    A Libertarian at the end of Empire is akin to a bomb at the end of a fuse.

    The bandwidth is public. The public is owed remuneration for the profits earned by corporations that have stolen the public bandwidth through the creeping fascism that is public/private partnership and corporate supremacy that has turned the branches of the US government into empty vessels for the transfer of power from the public to the private.

    Control and Compliance is what it’s all about at this point as the billionaire class saves us from ourselves.

  13. Publius 2 says:
    @aj54

    Discrimination is allowed only if it’s against white people. In fact, anti-white discrimination is the law of the land since at least 1954. Whites don’t even have the right to private property or protection of their own children from being tossed off of the fourth floor at the mall by a deranged ape.

  14. Mr. Anglin has a pretty good point here. Moving to a new venue doesn’t help things much. They go after you funding mechanism. Credit Cards, Payment Processing, GoFundMe.

    The legal system is also fuxored.

    Michael Malice talks with Alex Jones about some of these issues.

    • Agree: V. Hickel
  15. Trinity says:

    Damn I thought I would hear the Marvin Gaye classic, What’s Going On and instead I get Trump’s annoying, whiny voice. Some great covers of the Marvin Gaye classic.

    Hall & Oates, H&O also did a bang up job on the Spinner’s classic, “I’ll Be Around.”
    Cyndi Lauper

    Cue: Every Kinda People by Robert Palmer RIP

    • LOL: Si1ver1ock
    • Replies: @AceDeuce
  16. How would Rand like it if the telephone company cut off his service because they don’t like what he is talking about on the phone? Would that be okay with him because it is a private company?

    Shouldn’t there be something in FCC regs about the fair transmission of information? Perhaps there once was, and it was thrown out with the Republicans’ “deregulation.” Also, hard to do anything without the break up of these monopolies.

    Muh free market and muh private companies. Race to the bottom.

    • Agree: Polistra
  17. @TG

    Great thought-provoking post.

  18. @TG

    But your post is really not a criticism of pure libertarianism but of oligarchy, which is what we have now. As for feudalism, to some extent that could be true, but then it might also be an improvement so state slavery. In a feudal system it was not like there were no options. There is always another lord with a better offer. The serfs were not only laborers but also the main part of the defense of the lord’s property. So it remains to be seen how long the big social media giants can afford to punish opposing opinions. I for one don’t use any form of social media although I do enjoy killing some time looking at you tube. There is actually some fairly conservative content there.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @True Aim
  19. Josh Kenn says:

    If Rand Paul was an honest man, he would not be a multi-term US Senator. The US Senate is a den of whores and vipers.

    It is time this “private company” shield nonsense was called out. It is insane.

    • Thanks: Trinity
    • Replies: @Franz
  20. Josh Kenn says:
    @SteveK9

    So the Jews are launching another controlled opposition platform? We don’t need anything a ((Rubin))) is selling.

    • Agree: Angharad
    • Replies: @anon
  21. Ron Coleman with Michael Malice covers similar issues (more boring that Alex Jones)

  22. Stogumber says:

    My understanding of libertarianism is somewhat different from the angle here debated. It is about how we want to change this present world. I support all the many enterprises who try to undermine the existing monopolies (most prominent, Gab). I also think that we have a real opportunity – not to become the new oligarchs, but to carve out a minority subculture for ourselves. Which is on the long run the most important step. The step from minority to majority is a later one , and less important.
    – But look at the alternative: Do you really believe that you will be more effective, if you fight the oligarchs by promoting state laws which oblige them to cater for us? Do you see this way as the more realistic way to success???

    • Replies: @Old and Grumpy
  23. Trinity says:

    How long has Rand Paul been in Washington? How long was Ron Paul in Washington? How long was Pat Buchanan milling around in Washington? What did Ronald Reagan actually accomplish that stopped the decline of America? What did Trump actually do to stop the decline of America? At least with the demsheviks there is no pretending anymore, they flat out tell you more or less that they want to take down traditional America aka White America. The repukes are like the old Washington Generals basketball team or Mike Tyson’s sparring partners, they are paid to take a beating.

    Paul is a (((sap))) just like the rest of his kind. Welfare recipients? Hell, the richest welfare recipients are in Washington, D.C. and it isn’t the 300lb Schlitz Malt Liquor drinking Black lady sitting on her porch.

    You wonder how long the repukes can keep PRETENDING like they are fighting the good fight without the dumbest of the dumb figuring out (((the game.)))

  24. Trinity says:

    I guess IF you can’t cut the mustard being a doctor in the real world or work for a living there is always a spot for you in the republican or demshevik party. Same job requirements for both parties.

  25. Yes, libertarians are stupid.

    However, Rand is just about the best we’ve got. At least he stood up to Lord Fauci.

    Consider also that the man has suffered a number of physical attacks.

    I watch Ron Paul’s morning show everyday and it’s great. I think Rand goes about as far as he can go without the Mossad taking him out.

    The entire Congress and Senate live in fear of the jews. There are not many men who are willing to openly fight against jewish tyranny.

    Republicans in general are cowardly filth, as you all know.

    • Replies: @MB
    , @Old and Grumpy
  26. anon[226] • Disclaimer says:
    @Josh Kenn

    I would add Malice to the (((list))).
    From nowhere to everywhere, quickly.

    5 dancing shlomos

  27. MB says: • Website
    @aj54

    “How can a monopoly that contracts with the government and relies heavily on publicly-funded infrastructure to operate be a “private company”?”

    It’s called fascism. Govt. control of the marketplace vs. outright ownership or communism. It’s all socialism though and Fakebook et all and their fakecheckers need to up their game or in a real world get called on their blatant discrimination, monopoly and hiding behind the “private company” label to avoid their constitutional violations. The govt. may not discriminate or censor and Fakebook needs to decide if they are going to be truly free enterprise or remain in cahoots with the govt.

    • Agree: aj54
  28. MB says: • Website
    @Robert Dolan

    “the Mossad taking him out”

    The Mossad, CIA, FBI or the latter’s amateur enforcement arm, Antifa or Black Lies Matter.

  29. AceDeuce says:
    @Trinity

    What was Marvin Gaye’s last single?

    “I Heard It Through The Carbine.”

  30. Jiminy says:
    @aj54

    Have a look at what is happening in France now concerning flu identity cards and police checks on patrons of restaurants and other areas where people gather. It appears that this will be the new normal in free countries.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @aj54
  31. I guess you could say, as many media people who are afraid to offend anybody do, that you have to admire him for sticking to his principles.

    A classic dodge. It sounds so nice and likely and impossible to argue with. Of course people who stick to their principles are admirable. Who could disagree?

    Hitler, I believe, stuck to his principles.

    And I am not comparing anybody to Hitler. I’m just using Hitler as a case study of the kind of person who stuck to his principles who one wishes could have been more wishy-washy.

    No, if you stick to bad principles, then your stick-to-it-ive-ness is a crime not a benefice.

    Fuck people who stick to dumbass wrong principles.

  32. ziggurat says:
    @SteveK9

    Jared Kushner has already fixed Rumble to ensure you cannot criticize the Jews.

    Trump Joins Rumble – Rumble Changes Terms Of Service to Ban ‘Anti-Semitic’ And ‘Hateful’ Speech

    http://www.renegadetribune.com/trump-joins-rumble-rumble-changes-terms-of-service-to-ban-anti-semitic-and-hateful-speech/

    Trump doesn’t do anything without Kushner’s approval. And Kushner doesn’t approve anything unless it’s good for the Jews.

    Try: Odyseey, Bitchute, Peertube

    • Replies: @ziggurat
  33. ziggurat says:
    @ziggurat

    I just checked and found that one guy is reporting Odyseey and Bitchute have censored some anti-Semitic content. But it sounds like the censorship maybe mostly for countries outside the USA, which have hate-speech laws.
    https://alt-right.com/2021/07/15/odysee-is-censoring-me-now/

    PeerTube should be more resistant to censorship, because it is a peer-to-peer service.

    Put simply, PeerTube allows anyone to set up their own video streaming site. This can run independently, but it can also be linked, or federated, with other PeerTube instances to create a broader reach. All with P2P steaming support.

    The idea behind PeerTube is to let creators regain control over their content. This helps to avoid censorship in the broadest sense of the word, and also “problems” that block videos for days on end.

    https://dimitrology.com/peertube-a-censorship-resistent-youtube-alternative/

  34. Franz says:
    @Josh Kenn

    It is time this “private company” shield nonsense was called out.

    Past time.

    Don’t geniuses like Rand understand that the government can outsource ALL communications tech to the “private sector” and in one year we’d be envying the lucky communist Germans under Stasi?

    Besides it’s not clear these tech giants are “private” in the honest sense, since everything from the early Internet (ARPAnet — 1969) was created with our tax dollars and a few bright operators just got lucky and flipped them into the private domain. Exactly the way Prison Industries bummed all their ideas from the Federal Prison system and charge ten times as much. It’s corruption.

    Privatization — An idea whose time has come — and gone.

  35. El Dato says:

    We do not need to reduce systems to their component parts like dogs or rodents!

    Actually we do.

    In this universe, “hard thinking” is literally hard – it takes exponential time in problem size (technically, problems that are interesting are mostly NP-hard)

    That why you have to reduce systems into parts with few interactions (i.e. simplify), and think about the smaller parts separately. This loses detail or fidelity but at least you get somewhere. The key is in throwing out the right things.

  36. @Corvinus

    You said:””Disposable paper and cloth masks, both common choices during the coronavirus pandemic, may not be as effective in preventing the spread of COVID as other types of face coverings. But they do work.”

    Only very certain type of masks can work on protecting from viruses. The protocol to use them properly imply to change it every two hours with a strict washing of hands and face. I have been working in a hospital for years, I have doctors as friends. Furthermore, you should wear glasses if you really want to be properly protected.

    These protocols are just impossible to implement for the general public. What would be the costs?

    First of having the number of masks for the population having to change it 4 time a day for a 8 hours work, plus masks in public transportation plus masks for shopping. I remind you that these masks must be properly installed a fit the visage of all races. As Johachim Son -Forget https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Son-Forget , a french deputy, radiologist in CHUV in Switzerland, specialized in brain said. The mask the French Government (usurpators for Blackrock and co) had acquired (with many scandals) were fit for asian who have different facial features. How would that work for children? Then masks must not be touched in any instances like all chirugists know, how would it be possible while we are obliged to touch our faces many time per hour and we can’t help it? How would it work for blue collars doing hard work and sweating? What would be the health cost of lacking oxygen? In France, the legislation stipulate that after two hours you should have an oxygene producing device…

    Second, who would pay for the masks? What would be the cost of having workers spend at (least!) 15 mn every two hours to change their masks?

    Facial masks for the general public is just a mean of social control…

    Second

  37. Thank you Mr Anglin for you very often relevant articles.

    In France the Libertarians are very rare. During the last years though, some free minded intellectuals started taking interest in the concepts but it is more in the European Anarchist tradition (which is very wide in it’s nuances, there even exist anarco-royalists) than conforting the ability of big business to rule the world.

    Anyway, from what I have understood from the work of the very excellent James Corbett, the GAFA are not really private entities:

    https://www.corbettreport.com/siliconvalley/

    Rand Paul should now that… Shouldnt’he?

    Respect

    • Replies: @Franz
  38. “…….Defends right of private companies to do anything to anyone”

    Yes. Why I could never support libertarians. They are exclusively about money “uber” all. That is the recipe for ruining a viable ,decent, safe society.

    I have, however, the greatest respect for Rand Paul, otherwise and actually consider him a Man among mice. What he’s been through and kept his cool, including his principles is rare for most of the so called conservatives clowns he has to work with. He doesn’t seem to realize that he’s in a Potemkin party of bogus conservative goons. Mitch “Mumbles” McConnell, for example, needs to be thrown out of the party forever, with Paul Ryan(now doing damage as a Fox employee) and Mitt Romney under each arm.

  39. Useful idiots, sad and pathetic, paraphrase Voltaire —

    I may not like you fucking my life up
    But I will fight to the death for your right to fuck my life up.

    (for as long as you keep paying my bloated salary anyway)

  40. Cuck is gonna cuck.

    Given the ubiquitous use of YouTube, Twitter and other social media by all levels of government, they should be treated as common carriers and required to carry all traffic, with exceptions for things like kiddie porn or snuff vids, but not much more than that should be subject to censoring.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  41. @Robert Dolan

    Soon all evidence of Paul taking on Fauci will be purged due to Paul promoting “false” science.

  42. Anonymous[421] • Disclaimer says:

    Libertardian dogma is a carefully cultivated blind alley of politics. Its adherents are programmed to blindly hate, and make weaker, all states, governments and governing in general because they supposedly stand in the way of private interests’ road to earthly heaven. LOL!

    In truth, their governments are shit precisely because they’ve been too weak and now they’re completely owned by those private cabals. Those governments are, without a doubt, squeezing them with ever-increasing strength but that strength is a product of previous weakness and ultimate surrender.

    It’s kind of amazing to see a supposedly legit political faction that’s ideologically opposed to having power. A person who doesn’t believe in states, governments and governing is incapable of gaining power. In terms of politics, hey’re a sterile, seedless GMO product (fruit, probably).

  43. @Stogumber

    I think the answer is to treat them like monopolies, and break them up. The real simple answer to tech company problem is to get off the internet. Not knowing what you do, what you think, and when you do anything will drive the “private” companies to financial ruin with little data to sell. Their government founding overlords, something I think Paul is missing in his rational, will be seriously mad. There is a reason they let the Pentagon’s creation go to the masses. However can we still function without the internet?

  44. Chris Moore says: • Website

    How can they be a private company and also a monopoly big enough to be the arbiter of truth? How can a monopoly that contracts with the government and relies heavily on publicly-funded infrastructure to operate be a “private company”? What difference does it even make? If your ideology requires you to lose on purpose, why would you not change your ideology?

    Paul has been programmed by the kosher elites of the “Jewish Century” to NOT see the Globalist conspiracy, or if he sees it, to demand the people simply ignore it, because “anti-Semitism.”

    The other possibility is that he too is corrupt. Either way, from the Bolsheviks to the Beatniks to the Boomers, we’re dealing with a century of tools and useful idiots.

  45. Anonymous[421] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    Exactly.

    The usual comparison with telephone monopolies of old is very apt. It’s telling that we all know that those telephone companies couldn’t have done what Jewkenberg and his ilk are doing now without getting burned to the ground. We’ve come a long way and not in the right direction. The stench of decay is overwhelming.

  46. So where are all of the conservative social platforms to compete with the liberal social platforms?

  47. @Jack Sparrow

    Sorry, but we don’t want our children living as serfs, and it’s adding insult to injury to say “hey, don’t worry, you can choose WHICH unassailably rich powerful and heartless man degraded and bosses you around. You can pick your ‘Lord.’ That’s freedom!”

  48. @Jiminy

    Right, so they’re not free countries.

  49. @Corvinus

    Oddly, YouTube is not removing videos that tout the health benefits of aromatherapy, crystal healing, essential oils, etc… and without any peer reviewed medical professional credentials to back them up (go figure!).

    So the ‘disinformation’ and ‘health impact’ excuses are suspect, regardless of what the truth is. And the truth is far from settled.

    There are several solid studies, conforming to accepted rigorous standards of research, that question whether widespread coerced or mandated use of masks is an effective or appropriate response.

    https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

    I admit that I’d like to see a definitive study conclusively showing that masks are useless… but I’d also like to think that I’m reasonable enough to accept valid results that uphold any conclusion, even if it’s not the one I wanted. I have reasons to object to the current use of masks that don’t have anything to do with their effectiveness.

    Sure, YouTube can do what they want. We have a nice loophole for private companies to enforce speech codes that achieve state aims without technically violating our supposedly inalienable rights. It’s as legitimate as the fine print in any contract, and just as dependent on the letter of the law rather than its spirit.

    • Replies: @Joe Paluka
    , @Corvinus
  50. anon[363] • Disclaimer says:

    Libertarianism has come to represent cowardice and refusal to take a stand on anything. Rand Paul is against the border wall and like most libertarians, believe immigration should not be restricted. They also do not believe in regulating pornography, drugs, monopolies, and pretty much anything else. There is a limit to everything. The problem with libertarianism is they take that no government thing to the extreme. There are only 2 things I agree with Rand Paul on: foreign policy(limiting wars) and government budget(esp. on eliminating pork). I also think he is probably one of a handful of politicians who are actually honest.

    It is way past time to clamp down on Big Tech. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon all need to be broken up. At a minimum, Google needs to be split from YouTube, with YouTube further split into several companies by region or genre. Facebook needs to broken up from all its past acquisitions esp. Instagram and Whatsapp. Microsoft needs to be broken up into several companies including Windows, Office, Skype, videogames. Apple needs to be broken up from Apple Store. Amazon needs to be broken up into several regional companies like the way we busted up AT&T.

    Our addiction to convenience and luxury is making us slaves to Big Tech and their masters on (((Wall Street))).

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  51. Hitmarck says:
    @SteveK9

    Dave – I only talk to chosen people -Rubin

    So stupid, that can’t be a troll

  52. aj54 says:
    @Jiminy

    the US is different than EU in that our States are sovereign entities, and can have different health rules and different levels of enforcement. We need to make sure it is always thus.

  53. WJ says:
    @SteveK9

    Rubin- gay and Jewish is going to save us?

  54. Why do Republicans consistently support their own political disenfranchisement?

    Why, that’s their (damned) role in the Uniparty: offer token resistance to shitlib radicalism then throw the fight. Observe how blithely unconcerned they are about being wiped out by invading illegals.

  55. Fr. John says:
    @TG

    This caricature of Feudalism

    (where most WHITE Christian Europeans were neither slaves, nor overworked- the number of holy days and festivals meant that there was MORE ‘down time’ under feudalism, than under the 40-hour work week!)

    is almost as incredulous as some war, last century killing @6 million agents provocateurs, as if they were all ‘guilty for no reason at all’…. Just sayin’.

  56. Fr. John says:
    @Corvinus

    “But they do work.”

    BOVINE EXCREMENT.

    I’m surprised to find COVIDIOTS on UNZ.

    I thought you had more informed readers….

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @The Alarmist
  57. What Youtube is doing to Rand Paul goes with the idea that if you’re a bit of a nuisance, they just ignore you in hope you’ll just go away. Once you get to the point where you’re really annoying them, they will try to shout you down and call you names. In the next stage, you’re exposing their lies, you’re endangering their enterprise and they have nothing to counter your arguments with, they decide to shut you down and ban you.

  58. @Sollipsist

    “Oddly, YouTube is not removing videos that tout the health benefits of aromatherapy, crystal healing, essential oils, etc… and without any peer reviewed medical professional credentials to back them up (go figure!).”

    Youtube doesn’t care about whether the above things are true or not, those above things are harmless to them, they’re like flat earth worshipper videos or girls showing cat videos. As long as it makes money for them and doesn’t threaten to blow the lid off certain government/UN/internationalist propaganda, they leave it alone.

  59. Corvinus says:
    @Sollipsist

    https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

    Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.

    The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained. Economic analysis suggests that mask wearing mandates could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP (32, 34).

    Models suggest that public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high (39). We recommend that mask use requirements are implemented by governments, or, when governments do not, by organizations that provide public-facing services. Such mandates must be accompanied by measures to ensure access to masks, possibly including distribution and rationing mechanisms so that they do not become discriminatory. Given the value of the source control principle, especially for presymptomatic people, it is not sufficient for only employees to wear masks; customers must wear masks as well.

    “Oddly, YouTube is not removing videos that tout the health benefits of aromatherapy, crystal healing, essential oils, etc… and without any peer reviewed medical professional credentials to back them up (go figure!).”

    Not an applies to oranges comparison.

    “So the ‘disinformation’ and ‘health impact’ excuses are suspect, regardless of what the truth is”.

    You mean like when some people state as fact that “The Deep State is setting up anti-vaxxer concentration camps” or “The Jewish cabal is seeking to control us with their made up COVID-19” or “The CDC is the Devil Incarnate”?

    “We have a nice loophole for private companies to enforce speech codes that achieve state aims without technically violating our supposedly inalienable rights.”

    What exactly is this loophole?

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  60. Corvinus says:
    @Fr. John

    See, you are the epitome of a poster here who is incapable of or refuses to engage in critical thinking. Will you always be a slave to your confirmation bias?

  61. Franz says:
    @Bugey libre

    Paul should now that… Shouldnt’he?

    He should.

    ARPAnet came in in 1969 and the government owned and controlled it all.

    By the late 70s businesses were allowed to use it for various things. It got easier to use as more people added to it, especially Apple in the 80s, but I’ve never seen any evidence the government has let go of the infrastructure. Civilians are allowed to use it but it was never made private.

    • Replies: @Bugey libre
  62. @Fr. John

    In the early days of COVID Clown World, the press played up the term COVIDIOTS as those sceptical of the overreaction to what has proven to be a bad flu season. The continuing unfolding of facts suggests the COVIDIOTS are those who drank the Kool-Aid®️, like you.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  63. Publish a newspaper. Then all you have to worry about are Yankee soldiers smashing your printing press or stealing it and handing it over to a Yankee.

  64. Jokem says:
    @aj54

    I think Dr Paul said they had the right to ban him, so the implied answer to your question is yes.
    I believe the point Dr paul was making is, they do not have the right to call it what it isn’t.

    • Agree: Rich
  65. @Franz

    Thank you Franz,

    So how is it that he doesn’t mention it? Are the fear of the Security State and big business enaugh?

  66. @Corvinus

    The loophole is that private companies get the corporate personhood benefit of free speech, and also the freedom (as private company) to curtail speech at will. Sure, it may be just a total coincidence that YouTube permits speech that the government approves of, and removes opposing speech with regularity. Maybe the money and favors that go between the two have no impact on content curation…

    It’s an excellent valve for widely disseminating state-approved speech while blocking alternative speech. It’s outsourcing censorship and propaganda in such a technically appropriate way that, as we saw with Rand Paul, even its victims admire how nicely it avoids being literal censorship — even when it obviously is, for all intents and purposes.

    • Thanks: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  67. Smith says:

    Libertarians are retarded, what else is new?

  68. gsjackson says:

    I think under current constitutional law it’s an easy enough matter to characterize these companies as state actors and bring them under the reach of the First Amendment. They are doing the state’s business, and they make that very explicit. I analyze the constitutional law in a blog post — The Tech Totalitarians and Free Speech.

    http://theconstitutionstrikesback.com/

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  69. Darb says:

    Brandon Smith wrote a good article on corps and free speech a while back. About how all these massive corps were/are heavy funded with public money.

    https://alt-market.us/there-is-a-solution-to-big-tech-censorship-but-no-politician-will-touch-it/

    ‘Corporations ARE NOT free market structures. They are, in fact, government chartered and government protected monopolies. They are SOCIALIST creations, not free market creations, and therefore they should not exist in a free market society at all.’

  70. Anonymous[129] • Disclaimer says:

    For a legislator, Paul’s a well-meaning ignoramus. Under the constitution, the relevant law is Article 19, supreme law of the land with which US law at all level is obligated to come into conformity. General Comment 34 removes any residual ambiguity with interpretive guidance. Article 19 acknowledges your right to seek and obtain information, and your freedom of expression. The US has made a binding commitment to respect, protect, and fulfill these rights and freedoms. The state has to respect the right in its own actions. The state has to protect the right from derogation by non-state actors. So US government censorship is a dual dereliction of state duty. The state is designating discourse for censorship, and the state is actively inducing non-state actors to derogate your rights.

    Right-wingers have been effectively brainwashed into knee-jerk hostility to world-standard law. That’s one of the triumphs of Wisner’s wurlitzer, because the International Bill of Human Rights beats hell out of your obsolete revoked toilet paper bill of rights. You government is shit, not worth petitioning. You need to go over the government’s head to the world, and this is how you do it.

  71. They will fight for their right to censor you to the death, like they will fight to the death to force vaxx on everyone, on all the children, and all the babies in their cribs. Now, how do you stop that?

    • Replies: @Bugey libre
  72. Corvinus says:
    @Sollipsist

    Thank you.

    How would a law be crafted to close this loophole to guarantee a private company to enable their customers or patrons on their property–whether it be tangible or virtual–to say whatever they wanted without fear of reprisal, considering there is no absolute right to absolute free speech and taking into account past legal precedent? However, one does have the liberty to speak their mind openly and freely, understanding there will be positive and negative consequences. Furthermore, there are alternative sites like Gab that enables unfettered speech, so the marketplace of idea, however limited, is open.

    “It’s an excellent valve for widely disseminating state-approved speech while blocking alternative speech.”

    You mean speech that may be preferred by a particular presidential administration. It assuredly works in the converse–companies opposing a current government’s “acceptable free speech” by enabling or expanding alternative speech.

    You make an interesting point about corporate personhood. I do support a constitutional amendment to rid it once and for all. If I may indulge…

    The Founding Fathers understood the power that corporations possessed, as evident by the British East India Trading Company monopoly over the Thirteen Colonies. As a result, they took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare by the government.

    No where in the Constitution does it state that corporations = citizens, or that money = free speech. Citizens means natural person. There is political free speech reserved for American citizens, i.e. real people. Corporations are artificially created entities. That is, economic rights for corporations would be conferred through state charters and Congress. Under the law, a corporation’s “personhood” status is a legal fiction we employ as a convenience to facilitate trade and commerce.

    In Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the Supreme Court ruled that “a corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it”.

    Fast forward to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), which in part served as a foundational piece for Citizens United. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that public corporations, like private citizens, have due process and equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment.

    Now preceding every Supreme Court case entry is a headnote, or summary. The court reporter, a former railroad executive named J.C. Bancroft Davis wrote, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment, which forbids the State to deny to any person within its juris- diction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does”.

    The question of whether corporations were persons within the context of the 14th Amendment, however, was NOT explicitly decided. The Supreme Court NEVER ruled whether corporations were “citizens” and thus afforded political rights. Since 1886, the Supreme Court (and Congress) has reiterated this assumption that corporations are entitled to constitutional protections.

    After the ruling in Santa Clara, “company speech” would focus on businesses being able to sue or to be sued for contract violations, liability of their products, protection for their intellectual property (trademarks and patents), or objections to laws that regulated their practices. That is, their “voice” was strictly related to economic matters.

    When it came to influencing government policies through political matters like hosting rallies and funding campaigns, state governments and Congress had enacted several laws in the early and mid-1900’s prohibiting such practices, with the Supreme Court upholding that legislation. That is, “company speech” was barred in politics.

    So what about media companies? Are they not “artificially created entities”? Here these corporations are unique. The Supreme Court in media cases has tailored its rulings under the “Freedom Of The Press” clause and in citizen cases has tailored its rulings under the “Freedom Of Speech” clause. That is, it renders an opinion based on previous cases and past precedents in the appropriate area. Since 1936, twenty-six cases have made it clear that people who work for companies that produce and distribute free speech (e.g. newspapers, books, television shows, films, artistic and educational materials) may be sued as an employee, not a citizen.

    Not surprisingly, corporations sued in federal court to contest the Federal Election Campaign Act as a violation of their First Amendment. They argued that as a collection of people who owned property, the Constitution applied to them.

    Part of the law imposed mandatory spending limits on Congressional candidates. This provision was struck down as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo. It ruled that spending money to finance campaigns is a form of constitutionally protected free speech and that candidates can spend an unlimited amount of their own money in the process. Contribution limits, disclosure rules, and public financing availability, however, were upheld.

    This distinction between contributions and spending remains a linchpin of campaign finance law.

    Regarding case law, state courts since the early 1900’s upheld state laws regarding corporations and political rights. The Supreme Court had historically let these rulings stand. In 1978, several corporations sued in Massachusetts state court seeking to spend money to publicize their opposition to a graduated income tax for individuals. The state supreme court ruled these companies were prohibited by law from making contributions to influence the outcome of a vote that did not “materially affect their assets and holdings”, i.e. no direct monetary interest.

    In a controversial 5-4 decision (1st national Bank of Boston v. Bellotti), the Supreme Court overturned the Massachusetts law. Essentially, this case expanded corporate personhood. The majority decision stated it:

    was hypocritical to ban corporate support or opposition of proposals while still allowing them to engage in lobbying activity…with no compelling interest for the government to limit corporate speech when it also protects individual speech…since they are one in the same.

    Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative, wrote a bitter dissent. He mentioned the dubious headnote in the Santa Clara case–it has yet to be settled if corporations are people! He argued:

    companies are artificially created entities under the law, and therefore not granted the rights of natural persons…It is reasonable to conclude that companies pose special dangers to the political sphere…and treating corporate political spending as the 1st Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is confusing metaphor with reality.

    Fast forward to the controversial Citizens United case. In a controversial 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled, using the rationale of Buckley and Bellotti, that corporations have no spending restrictions on messages that support or oppose candidates (“soft money”), so long as they are not coordinated with political parties or candidates. The minority opinion centered on the political content of the good (the film) in relation the the BCRA, NOT the economic right of Citizens United to produce a good.

    In Citizens United, three issues were addressed:

    01) a company, as an “artificial entity” (that is, deriving its legitimacy by a legislature) whose function is economic in nature is entitled to the political rights as “natural persons” (that is, citizens of a nation as specified by the criteria of a legislature) under the Constitution;

    02) “free speech” is simply “free speech”, rather than “economic free speech” or “political free speech” -and-

    03) “free speech” protections for companies override the historical impact of corporate monied interests in politics.

    In December 2011, Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) proposed a constitutional amendment in response to the Citizens United case. The purpose is “to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures”.

    • Replies: @Bugey libre
    , @Sollipsist
  73. @Commentator Mike

    Hello

    Tomorrow, there will again be millions of people in the street of France because, whatever the MSM tell you, that is what is going on. Demontrations won’t solve the problem but it empowers the people and We meet again after these long months of house arrests, curfews, useless masks, asocial distancing. Funily enaugh, no ‘cluster’ of contamination have been noticed anywhere.

    Localy, we are trying to organise. Nationaly, there are resistance organisation to live without their inhuman restrictions. Doctors who disagree with the dictatorial rules (we have among the harchest in the world right now) can give consultations outside of the box. If we can’t go have a drink in terrasses, people organise free terrasses, bring drink, close to the empty official ones. In two hours, in the very area where I live, people will meet in the house of a retired couple who has decided to invite all those who want to organise on the local level.

    As to the forced vaccination of children… We are just waiting and for my part, never will they touch my daughters… Ready to fight.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  74. @anon

    The real solution to multiple issues is to make what passes for advertisement today, illegal.

    Advertising today is professional lying. The rules for advertising need to be changed to reflect what the original intent was – to inform the population about the benefits of a product or service. What passes for advertising today rarely lists a specification but usually has some half naked women in the scene and regardless of what the product is the message of the advert is you will be sexy or smart or some other intangible if you purchase the product.

    Change the advertising rules and the revenue stream for Google, Facebook, etc dry up significantly.

    Next, address an environmental issue with the packaging on products. For example, there should be an industry standard glass bottle for soda and another for beer, so that those bottles can be recycled by any soda or beer manufacturer by simply removing the label. Coke no longer gets their unique bottle AND make everything returnable. No more plastic and no more cans. Same goes for all forms of packaging – a standard shape and size(s) regardless of the producer for any class of product. This would make all similar products look alike on a shelf and the producers would be left with stating their benefits on the containers as opposed to the mental mush that appears there now. Suppliers would reduce their advertising spending and increase their R&D on the product because now the product quality becomes the primary factor in sales.

  75. @Corvinus

    Interesting comment, thank you.

  76. anon[730] • Disclaimer says:

    Europeans evolved in high trust environments. One aspect of this is the assumption that other people are on your team — play by the same rules, have the same goals, work in the best interest of the group. Self-sacrifice is part of any organized grouping, so Paul is willing to take the personal hit for the greater benefit of the group (the preservation of “their” freedom over his). But whose group? In this multicultural hellscape, non-Whites don’t think they are on your team, so they don’t play by your rules. They’ll cheat you, act hypocritically, and disenfranchise you at every opportunity with no consideration to your freedom because you aren’t part of “their” group. Paul’s tiny brain is confused by genetic programming maladaptive to the current age.

  77. @Bugey libre

    Thanks. I wish you all the best in your protest. The thing I find about the anti-vaxxers is that they criticise but don’t offer any solutions to the pandemic (if there even is one). The societal change required (and not just regarding Covid response) is massive and on all levels. But what’s going on in France is a start. An alternative health authority, separate form the WHO/government run one would also help, and generally alternative institutions of all sorts.

    • Replies: @Bugey libre
  78. @Corvinus

    Thank you! Very thorough and detailed, I wasn’t at all familiar with the precedents before Belotti. I thibk I especially need to look deeper into the history of the East India Company.

  79. @Jokem

    Rand is one of the least bad in the Senate and we’ll support his re-election. But his defense of bullying lying traitors’ “right” to manipulate, twist, and control our public debate and punish/exclude people with the “wrong” views … well, that’s Schmuckery at its finest.

    Rand: do what it takes to win and protect us. Stop apologizing for your avowed enemies’ abuses if you really want to defeat them. Otherwise you’ll never preserve a modicum of freedom, physical safety, order, and cultural cohesion/trust in part of the “USA” as it separates or collapses. Stop kissing the ass of the plutocrats and perverts who want us dead or subjugated. Stop defending their “right” to brainwash our neighbors and children.

    Rand’s priorities should include prohibiting purported “social-media” from censoring, deranking, deplatforming, demonetizing etc. based on content. Make the executives personally liable for large fines when their corporations are caught doing any of that. Make them criminally responsible if necessary. If that makes their overpaid “jobs” less satisfying or more risky, oh well — there are plenty of people to step into those positions.

  80. @gsjackson

    You may be right, gsjackson, and I’ll be glad to read your linked article. Litigation to establish that principle could be worthwhile, at least in some of the USA’s federal appellate-court “circuits.”

    But that’s still an attempt to adhere to “The Constitution”, which has long been largely irrelevant to our legislators, executives, and the judges who so deferentially “review” and rubber-stamp the abuses of the first two branches.

    We need to stop fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

    Whether the “social-media” bullies, liars and censors are “state actors” or not, it’s time to go after them hard. Levy devastating fines directly on the executives of these corporations for deranking, deplatforming, demonetization based on content. Change the law to prosecute and imprison the execs as well, if they still won’t stop.

  81. @Jokem

    Well, I feel better now. We’ll let them censor and abuse us and prevent Americans from hearing different viewpoints and evidence, but at least we won’t let them call it something it’s not. Whew.

  82. What difference does it even make? If your ideology requires you to lose on purpose, why would you not change your ideology?

    Or drop ideology altogether. But Sen Paul is acting from principle. That’s a little harder to jettison.

    At least for honest folk. Give him a break. Or at least an out.

    Ideology is not philosophy, and it is not important. It is a boomer tool for simplifying things they find confusing, but the core of existence should not be about avoiding confusion.

    I was not aware that Marx, Nietzsche, Proudhon, Bakunin, and the like were “boomers”. That very word is a red flag.

    Besides, how is liberty any different from race, which younger (pseudo-)rightists use to simplify things they also find confusing? This is true of almost any factor used in isolation to others.

    People here freeze up when I point out that Jews support the teaching of evolution in public schools, and were instrumental in making it the law of the land, contrary to the wishes of many, in some places a majority of, voters. “This does not compute. Correct and reenter data.”

    To quote Mr Anglin, “If your ideology requires you to lose on purpose, why would you not change your ideology?”

  83. @Commentator Mike

    Hello Mike,

    I guess you don’t understand my native language but there are organisations lead by prominent doctors, professors, scientists with concrete actions, courage, abnegation here.

    https://reinfocovid.fr/
    https://bonsens.info/
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFaPzuoXcACu7jplePDfXmA

    And more especially with lawyers who are really doing a good job helping whose in health care summoned to be injected or losing their job. There are many actions in justice even though we know our country has been hijacked by Anglozionist’s interests. There is even … a Rabbi!! like this one, Rav Dynovisz:


    “delivrance shall come from France”.

    But the actions starts with people around you at the grassroot level.
    Take care, thank you

    • Thanks: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  84. As with any ideology, pushed to an extreme, free market capitalism starts to produce absurdities.

    This became evident even in the heyday of the ideology — the late nineteenth century. It became obvious that railroads had to be regulated; they simply had too great a stranglehold on the producers who relied on the choo-choo to get their goods to market. Hence the Sherman anti-trust act, the Interstate Commerce Commission, tariffs, etc. Whatever the principle, left unregulated, railroads simply had too much control of a vital element of the national life.

    The same argument applies today to the great internet outlets. The corner bar and the letter to the editor column is dead; we communicate with each other via Facebook, Twitter, whatever. Therefore, if they are permitted to censor those communications, we are as effectively deprived of free speech as the Nebraska farmer of 1880 was deprived of any means of selling his goods if he wouldn’t pay whatever rate the railroad chose to set.

    …and like our forefathers, we can be as much for the free market as we please — but we’re just going to have to make an exception when it comes to Facebook et al. They — like the Union Pacific et al of yore — are just too damned powerful.

  85. BuelahMan says:
    @SteveK9

    Rumble is not a free speech outlet. The change was made when Trump signed on.

    Go peddle the BS elsewhere.

  86. Well, before there is no chance to inform my friends here anymore, if you wish to stock up on Ivermectin, here is a list of doctors who will prescribe it:

    https://www.exstnc.com

  87. @Bugey libre

    It won’t work : the issue has no good side. It is all shades of grey everywhere that change as often as clouds do. Will they try to kill people with the vaccine, as so many demonstrators fear, or will they rather send stronger and stronger variants to kill off first those who refuse the vaccine as the chances are far greater that they are opponents? France has all of a sudden declared itself to be more Zionist than the US and any protest against anything from the system is now classified as antisemitism as Judaism has become the de facto state religion of the Republic and as the Catholic church who never lost its ascendency as the deep French superego has repeatedly asserted that their own authority to speak in the name of God is derived from the Jewish one. Whatever protest against any kind of oppression is against God and therefore against God’s people even though there might be no Jews involved in what is protested against.

    • Replies: @Bugey libre
    , @Bugey libre
  88. @Francis Miville

    Bonjour Francis

    One thing is already working. The peopel gather in the streets whatever their confession is, their political outlook, their socio-economic background (yesterday, an old anarchist from the CNT, a Traditionalist Catholic, walking almost side by side without any animosity). We meet again, have meaningfull conversation, share in joy, transforming our anger in confidence. Natural immunity is therefore enhanced, personnaly and collectively. This my experience in real life. Information is also shared everywhere. At the end of the demos, people brought drinks to share, asking nobody about political affiliation.

    Yesterday, while riding collectively from our area to the place of demonstration, a woman informed us that her daughter in law, a nurse affected to a so called ‘covid’ service has said that at the present moment, there were only two people hospitalised with so-called covid (the symptoms of the ‘delta variant’ are, as said by Ouest France, those of hay fever) and that they both had been inoculated. The Hospital management has forbade them to tell outside that “vaccinated” people were hospitalised.

    this kind of information is wildly circulating everywhere now, not just on the web, where every day there are more and more testimony as to the fallacies spred by the usurpators in politic, health, fake science etc… More and more people share about the victims of the Bourla or Bancel’s poisons unreported by pharmaco-vigileance which is demonstrably inept at this point.

    God (or whatever we may call it) is the Living and every time people get closer to objective truth, the more they can act on reality in a meaningfull, effective way.

    At our level, we are starting to organise to face the totalitarian state on concrete proposal, no idealism here, just pragmatism.

    Take care

  89. @Francis Miville

    Bonjour Francis

    One thing is already working. The peopel gather in the streets whatever their confession is, their political outlook, their socio-economic background (yesterday, an old anarchist from the CNT, a Traditionalist Catholic, walking almost side by side without any animosity. We meet again, have meaningfull conversation, share in joy, transforming our anger in confidence. Natural immunity is therefore enhanced, personnaly and collectively. This my experience in real life. Information is also shared everywhere. At the end of the demos, people brought drinks to share, asking nobody about political affiliation.

    Yesterday, while riding collectively from our area to the place of demonstration, a woman informed us that her daughter in law, a nurse affected to a so called ‘covid’ service has said that at the present moment, there were only two people hospitalised with so-called covid (the symptoms of the ‘delta variant’ are, as said by Ouest France, thos eof hay fever) and that they both had been inoculated. The Hospital management has forbade them to tell outside that “vaccinated” people were hospitalised.

    this kind of information is wildly circulating everywhere now, not just on the web, where every day there are more and more testimony as to the fallacies spred by the usurpators in politic, health, fake science etc… More and more people share about the victims of the Bourla or Bancel’s poisons unreported by pharmaco-vigileance which is demonstrably inept at this point.

    God (or whatever we may call it) is the Living and every time people get closer to objective truth, the more they can act on reality in a meaningfull, effective way.

    At our level, we are starting to organise to face the totalitarian state on concrete proposal, no idealism here, just pragmatism.

    Take care

  90. True Aim says:
    @Jack Sparrow

    “There is always another lord with a better offer.”

    Never go full libertarian.

  91. MoanChomsky says: • Website
    @American Citizen

    I disagree, Citizen. I think the right will take the country back- and honestly I have mixed feelings about that. Specifically, it is the leftist abandonment of their once righteous Free Speech Movement that will lead to the return of the right wing. I applaud Rand Paul for not fighting left wing extremism with right wing extremism. He takes the high path here, and though I’ve been critical of some of his antics in the past- he is the very voice of reason in this circumstance.

    The OP seems very insightful, although I would suggest that ideology has been around for alot longer than the boomers. For instance the Nazis had ideology of both a political and religious nature. Eg militant Christian nationalism of the Marxism/Jewish hating variety. Hitler had his gay socialist cofounder (Rohm) killed during the Night of the Long Knives in ’34, along with all the other socialist leadership. militant Christian nationalism also happens to be our ideology in the USA- which is why we changed our national motto to align with the Nazi one during our 2nd Red Scare. Gott Mit Uns = God [is] With Us ~= In God We Trust. There are differences, though. The German Evangelical Party was Hitler’s choice to unify all the Protestant churches. Only the Confessing Church rebelled. Yet in the USA, Evangelicals *love* Jews more than any other peoples, according to a large poll on the matter. Maybe they are just embarrassed about the Holocaust, I don’t know. The commonality is that both in Germany and the USA< they are the most loyal to their party than any other movement / denomination / church. Which is why Hitler chose them.

    We don't have a religious monoculture here though – while they were 97.5% Christian, we are only around 70%. But the undying loyalty of Evangelicals is another reason that the right-wing will resume control of our nation next election. Assuming some idiots don't get too impatient and pull a Hitleresque "Beer Hall Putsch".

    That is also assuming that Communist China doesn't reduce their gargantuan loans to the USA- triggering a divestment cascade that would actually destroy our nation and lead to civil war among the poor while the rich move to less violent regions.

    Its pretty sad that the same "assassin" and also the same weapon that destroyed the Soviet Union also managed to destroy the USA. We don't even know we are dead yet. Let me clue you in: a debt to GDP ratio of over 77% is fatal to an economy. We are at 130%. The assassin's name was Osama bin Laden, and his weapon of choice was cowardice-fueled military overspending. Obamacare only further immersed us in toxic debt. So in some sense, it doesn't rally matter if the right or left takes the executive, or any branch of government. We are living on borrowed time. Time that the Communists, for whatever reason, deemed worthwhile to gift us with. Its odd, but apparently xenophobic socialism outperforms militant semi-xenophobic capitalism, as measured by China's economic dominance compared to our economic frailty. Good game Saudi Arabia. China- best of luck to you guys.

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Anglin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.