You bloody Democrats

You should have applied some of your many IQ points to determining whether Felix was an American at all. You know, he’s Russian.

The Greens have set the political tone in Germany for the last twenty years, and their biggest push is for the elimination of privately-owned cars, and the total breakup of all german industry.
Children are taught in German schools that their parents are evil for owning automobiles.

Of course the neurotic spaced-out German “Gutmenschen” view the Greens positively and therefore their success.

“European Social Democrats are far to the left of American Democrats” : total BS

AJM “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz artist.

But you had no beef with the Democrat morons who atom-bombed Japan, and fire-bombed Germany, and who then went into Viet Nam with agent orange, started the KKK, Jim Crow, and cheated their way into the WH each and every time.

Plus you have no beef with Anti-fa burning down cities so as to further the leftist “good fight”, reminding me of the lunatic anti-violence German commies soliciting funds for their “wars of liberation”

You bloody Democrats turn my stomach, your two-facedness, is disgusting beyon words.
Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

Petry resigned because she lost the power struggle in her party and decided to do what her rival and predecessor Lucke did, create her own party where she (and her husband) are still in-charge.

although having said that when you look at England’s case specifically the first bankers are people like

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

from a north Italian merchant family exiled over some internal conflict and Hugeunots like

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

i guess cos Jews had been expelled until recently.

#

when you read about this stuff the common thread is war
– princes want to fight a war
– war is very expensive
– funding war with direct taxation leads to rebellion
– wars fought on credit instead
-> banking mafia

so i’m thinking the development of a banking mafia is more a product of war than any particular ethnic group – even if a particular ethnic group ends up winning the competition for that niche

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#British_branch

#

tl;dr

all wars are banker’s wars cos they’re too expensive to be fought except on credit.

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

Meanwhile in Zimbabwe…

https://m.news24.com/Africa/News/as-economy-flounders-now-passports-run-short-in-zimbabwe-20190701

But they weren’t responsible for creating any of those things

Nah.

HyperNormalization.

…but had a negligible impact on broader European culture, society or the direction of history.

Well, except for creating banking, finance, and the international transatlantic (slave) trade, and spearheading the Reformation.

But other that that, you’re kinda right, the Jews did all that without at first inundating us with sexual deviance.

The political bias is the Overton window–defined however Silicon Valley wishes to define it.

Anything outside the window is “conspiracy theory” and/or “hate”.

This is the Orwellian nightmare–the elites seek to control thought to the point where the language no longer exists for the forbidden thoughts.

I searched Google for “least biased search engine” and the link at the top of the results had this Orwellian nugget as the third paragraph:

There is no algorithm at Google or Bing that takes politics into account. If you see what you deem to be biased results, it is due to authoritative sites linking to websites which pushes them higher up search.

The political bias you sense is an illusion. The real political bias is higher in the hierarchy.

All politicians are corrupt. At least Orbán delivers.

A crypto-Nazi party’s goal would be reviving the struggle for land in the east and instituting official anti-Semitism. Not buying that.

I meant they’ve made statements that could be construed as sympathetic to Nazism. That was why Frauke Petry resigned. But they certainly are not going to call for anti-Semitism openly.

Regarding eastward territorial ambitions, even if they had the desire and could muster up the will for such an undertaking, Germany doesn’t have the military power. If it tried it would have to fight the rest of NATO. That would be a very short war.

In Europe, people might be more superficially good-thinking on the surface than in the US, but dig a little deeper, and you are always a foreigner and you know it, unless you belong to a specific ethnic group that has a deep history with the European country

That is absolutely correct.

You’re citing extreme far-right European parties that are even to the right of the Republican Party.

Certainly untrue of the Danish People’s Party, Norway’s Progress Party, and the Sweden Democrats, the former two of which have been in coalition governments for years.

they were a power behind the scenes from the creation of the Bank of England in the 1600s but i agree they didn’t actually take over until much later – mainly because there used to be other equally or more powerful factions (landed aristocracy and industrial barons).

i don’t think the banking mafia took over completely until the 1980s (same time as the US imo).

Jews were irrelevant until the 19th century at the earliest

That’s a straw man argument.

While the negative effects of the dysfunctional relationship were indeed not felt for some time after the mid 17th century, the basis of that unhealthy relationship was in place as soon as Cromwell invited them (the Jewish people) back in.

I think ultimately it’s been an unhealthy relationship for both Anglo-Saxon and Jewish alike.

Proves my point completely. All of the people it lists were parasites who enriched themselves and other Jews but had a negligible impact on broader European culture, society or the direction of history.

Nothing to do with Britain anyway, which I was talking about.

Are you Australian?

Guilty as charged.

Henry Kissinger was viewed as the ultimate contemptible paragon of the German “Hofjude” by a fair amount of more left-wing Jews of Pale extraction in the US.

>Based on rhetoric rather than action, as they haven’t really been in position to take much action, AfD is obviously a crypto-Nazi party.

A crypto-Nazi party’s goal would be reviving the struggle for land in the east and instituting official anti-Semitism. Not buying that. They look at Islam as the main threat, not Jews and Russians. And even there, I don’t see any calls for mass extermination.

>It’s not correct that the US is more egalitarian than Europe on matters of race.

I think it depends on who you are. If you are African, yeah, sure, because of that mostly unique (Brazil is interesting because it has a lot of the issues America does on steroids) history. But if you are East or South Asian, it definitely is this way. Though you’ll always be “exotic” to some extent away from the big cities, you have the potential to be truly accepted on a day-to-day level in the United States. Provided you make a genuine, visible effort to assimilate, most legacy Americans are very good about letting others “becoming” American. In Europe, people might be more superficially good-thinking on the surface than in the US, but dig a little deeper, and you are always a foreigner and you know it, unless you belong to a specific ethnic group that has a deep history with the European country: Algerian harkis in France or Sikhs in Britain, for example.

(It’s when the new arrivals openly insult the locals not just as evil, but as their inferiors, while simultaneously demanding-not asking, demanding-ever higher levels of immigration that “legacy” non-bien pensant white Americans, always more resistant to enforced political correctness than Western Europeans, can get pissed off.)

Foreign policy in the sense of military interventionism is hardly an issue for most European countries; they are simply too small and couldn’t do it even if they wanted to. Of the handful of EU countries that can actually project power across the globe (basically just Britain and France) leftish parties are no different than the Democrats: anti-war in opposition and pro-war in power. Blair was a Laborite; Hollande bombed Mali.

As Mitelser said, to a European “hard right” parties are the ones I mentioned. The Tories and CDU are not considered “hard right” parties; even if they were, there’s no sense in which the Democrats are “far to the right” of them.

He is citing usual “hard right” European parties.
What else is supposed to be “hard right” in Europe?

along with their inability or unwillingness to enact comprehensive social welfare benefits (universal healthcare, maternity leave, family leave, parental leave, childcare, etc.)

The US-American population is too diverse for that.

Maybe in 1996. How exactly are the Democrats “hard right” compared to AfD, Front National, UKIP, Sweden Democrats, Lega Nord, FPO etc. pp?

You’re citing extreme far-right European parties that are even to the right of the Republican Party. They have little in common with the modern Democratic party. Segregationist, Jim Crow Democrats? Sure.

AfD, for example, has no equivalent in mainstream American politics. Based on rhetoric rather than action, as they haven’t really been in position to take much action, AfD is obviously a crypto-Nazi party.

At best the Dems might be considered center-left on economic issues; when it comes to social issues, especially those related to race/gender, Democrats in the US are in many cases far beyond anything that would be considered mainstream in Europe.

When you consider their foreign policy orientation, along with their inability or unwillingness to enact comprehensive social welfare benefits (universal healthcare, maternity leave, family leave, parental leave, childcare, etc.) the Democratic Party would be rightwing in the Western European context.

Social issues are about a lot more than just race. Besides, the US has a unique racial history. It let things fester for so long that it had to act quickly to prevent the country from coming apart at the seams.

It’s not correct that the US is more egalitarian than Europe on matters of race. Remember, black people used to flee to Europe to escape American racism. We have abundant historical accounts from writers, musicians, artists, sports figures, soldiers and others, that Europe was far more welcoming and hospitable to black people than the United States. That’s not to say that things haven’t changed. But a historical perspective is important.

Regarding ’empire’ I admit I’m not a big fan of them. I see them as a bad business and ‘control freakdom’ writ large.

Besides tending to be destructive to those forcibly incorporated into them, they also are often quite destructive to their creators in the end as well.

I’ve also sometimes thought that little (or should that rather be ‘mighty’?) Switzerland has often had the better idea in many ways all along.

Jews were irrelevant until the 19th century at the earliest

You’re nuts. Go educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_Jew

Not ridiculous at all to say it’s a US/UK project, bearing in mind, I’m not suggesting they are the ‘only’ one’s who’ve pushed the concept. Others to varying degrees have been involved as well in this European continentalization scheme.

Can’t speak so much for the Germans, but regarding France, Napoleon Bonaparte himself was quoted circa 1820 as saying:

‘Europe thus divided into nationalities freely formed and free internally, peace between States would have become easier: the United States of Europe would become a possibility..’

Going back earlier to the 18th century, George Washington in a letter to Lafayette is said to have used the term.

And while that is disputed it’s not in dispute that the London Times in the midst of the 1848 Revolutions published an editorial exhorting Europe to construct a continental super-state of itself modeled upon the United States.

On May 13, 1848 the US journal Littel’s Living Age republished the editorial and added its own commentary:

‘Suppose those European nations to have settled their governments, and then to have made a Federal Union of the whole, within which peace and free trade should be perpetual, as they are between our states. And then suppose the United States of America were invited to join with the United States of Europe, not in political connection, but on the basis of peace and free trade! We desire to prepare our readers for such a question..’

Whether it’s the ‘United States of Europe’ and, or, the ‘European Union’, or having a ‘parliament’ or ‘congress’, I don’t think the powers that be ultimately care. Just as long as it’s a continental super state for the ease of both its economic and political administration, in that order.

Anyhow, Europe should not feel ‘singled out’ in this as the US/UK has historically supported the same for most every continent. Whether it be Simon Bolivar’s ‘United States of South America’ during the first quarter of the 19th century or whilst still alive and a client state of the US/UK in 2009, Muammar Gaddafi’s ‘United States of Africa’.

It seems the idea (historically, at least) was that in time all these continental super-states would be joined together to form a global super-state called the ‘United States of the World’ [see ‘New Rome’ link below].

The ‘worker being worthy of his wages’ and those A-S power elites and hangers on involved apparently seeing themselves as having done the bulk of the work, it seems also the idea was that the US/UK would be the future world state’s central axis.

The Jewish power elites and their hangers on involved, amongst others to varying degrees, might have different ideas as to the specifics of this of course.

The Telegraph (Feb 2, 2009)

Muammar Gaddafi vows to create ‘United States of Africa’

The Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi vowed to create a ‘United States of Africa’ after his election as head of the African Union.

Colonel Gaddafi, 66, was elected to lead the 53-nation AU for a year in a closed-door vote during a summit in Addis Ababa.

Dressed in a gold robe and cap, he made clear his intention to push for an alternative “USA” – a plan he has outlined before and that has met with resistance among fellow African leaders.

“I hope my term will be a time of serious work and not just words,” he said in his inaugural speech.

“I shall continue to insist that our sovereign countries work to achieve the United States of Africa,” he said, admitting that African leaders were “not near to a settlement” on the issue.

“We are still independent states. It is your decision to respond to the call for unity, to push Africa forward towards the United States of Africa.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/one_day_on_the_model_of_the_united_states_of_america

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/4436541/Muammar-Gaddafi-vows-to-create-United-States-of-Africa.html

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

That in turn is simply a reflection of the long term dysfunctional relationship that has existed since the time of Cromwell between the A-S and Jewish peoples.

Jews were irrelevant until the 19th century at the earliest

yeah – i don’t think there’s much of that 3rd faction left in the elite (although it’s still there inside the mass) but if they’d won i think they would have ended up with a kind of maritime commonwealth: white commonwealth countries plus a few other places which were strong but not numerically overwhelming and inclined to wanting isolationist foreign policy e.g. Singapore, Japan.

long term dysfunctional relationship

re-reading Glubb’s “Fate of Empires” recently made me wonder if this isn’t the standard way empires die i.e. they over extend to the point where the empire is running at a loss and as a result require some kind of banking mafia shenanigans to pay the bills – and once you allow a banking mafia to take root you’re basically doomed.

i think the atlantic-empire faction supported the idea of a united states of europe but with the UK outside of it as a convenient aircraft carrier

(while an anti-American faction preferred absorption into the EU and a third more trad faction wanted to stay out of both the atlantic empire and the eu one).

Yes, I tend to think you’re right. You can see an echo of this with Brexit.

I think there was also historically the idea that the Anglo-Saxons while being separate from what we would call globalization today (it not mattering whether it be its ‘Capitalist’, ‘Communist’, or the ‘convergance’ of the two, ‘Multi-Culturalism’, in its manifestation) would also be on top of it as the ruling people with London (if not Jerusalem in a nod to ‘British Israel’) as the world capital.

I say ‘historically’ as almost needless to say there is a certain debate at present in regards to how much control within the Anglosphere A-S power elites and hangers on maintain in relation to Jewish power elites and their hangers on. That in turn is simply a reflection of the long term dysfunctional relationship that has existed since the time of Cromwell between the A-S and Jewish peoples.

i think the atlantic-empire faction supported the idea of a united states of europe but with the UK outside of it as a convenient aircraft carrier

(while an anti-American faction preferred absorption into the EU and a third more trad faction wanted to stay out of both the atlantic empire and the eu one).

On foreign policy maybe, as the US is a global empire now, its foreign policy is necessarily strongly interventionist. As the Democrats are controlled by the elite at least as much as Republicans, the Democratic party is a party in favor of endless wars to maintain American hegemony and to thwart potential foreign rivals. Also because the US elite mostly consists of jews and the rest are trying hard to out-zionist even the jews to show their unwavering loyalty to Israel, a focal point of US foreign policy will always be to “protect Israel” by wreaking havoc in the Middle East, destroying those regimes that may become dangerous to Israel.
In domestic policy? Nope, American liberalism is to the left of most traditional European leftist parties (social democrats) in many issues. Don’t mix up it with things like socialized healthcare, that is an economic issue and economically the dems are “right-wing” mostly. For example many European countries didn’t legalize gay marriage yet. Most European countries don’t have things like affirmative action and forced diversity hiring either.

I think it is ridiculous to say that it is a US/UK project when Franco-German elites have been far more supportive of it, certainly post Second World War.

But I think you might be interested to read Chapter 44 of Churchill’s Second World War memoirs, where he says that he thinks Coudenhove-Kalergi’s plans for a United States of Europe had much to recommend them

Are you Australian?

there’s a well-funded and media-supported centrist (aka globalist) faction promoting their platform (economic right + social left)(liberal democrat) and a suppressed but growing alternative (economic left+social right).

It seems logical that this would happen. In fact in most Anglophone countries the Old Left (up to the 1960s) was pretty much economic left+social right. The British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party, etc, more or less conformed to this model.

I think there’s always been a solid constituency in support of such a position. But from the late 60s on these parties abandoned that constituency altogether. They become economic left+social left and from there gradually moved towards being economic right+social left. That’s the current stance of the Labor Party in Australia, which makes them more or less identical to their opponents, the LNP. That’s also the stance of the Blairite wing of the British Labour Party. And economic right+social left is unquestionably the position of the Democrats in the US.

The economic left+social right constituency has been ignored and is widely assumed to no longer exist. But it does exist – what it lacks is any kind of leadership.

The strongest opposition party after the EP election is Gyurcsány’s new party that is also openly multiculturalist and is peddling the slogan of “United States of Europe” among others.

As you allude, the US and UK have long pushed this for Europe. The excerpted and linked 1898 US article below was indeed entitled ‘The United States of Europe’. To the writer’s credit he decries this.

‘The social formula of the future will be bitter protection of money interests, and local patriotism replaced by a ferocious individualism.’

The United States of Europe

“…you may be sure that the financiers will step forward and arrange among themselves an international understanding. The money centres once working in union, the governments will follow, then the people.

Was it not the “capitalists” of our country that instigated the insurrection in Cuba?

We will see a United States of Europe, united in finance, and many political questions which today appear without possible solution (because we insist on arguing on abstract ideas – patriotism, republicanism, “jingoism”) will be straightened out by financial necessities, as surely as the mountain snow melted by the sun runs by nature’s laws in the streams and rivers to the sea.

This new “union of states” will have all the attributes of our own. Where there is an even greater mixing of peoples, Asia and Europe having each contributed its contingent, they will develop the same financial ferocity and their politics will be the politics of money. Battles will be fought out at the Stock Exchange.

When Cleveland’s warlike message made American securities drop on the London markets, how we became suddenly pacific as by enchantment!

The social formula of the future will be bitter protection of money interests, and local patriotism replaced by a ferocious individualism.”

W T Stead, a close associate of Cecil Rhodes, wrote the below in 1880. It was published in the UK in 1899 within a book entitled The United States of Europe:

Question: “What is England’s mission abroad?”
Answer: “To maintain the European Concert – that germ of the United States of Europe – against isolated action…”

[pages 510 – 512 April, 1898 North American Review V 166, 1898]

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000677725

https://attackingthedevil.co.uk/steadworks/europa.php

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/one_day_on_the_model_of_the_united_states_of_america

The Democrats would be a hard right party in those places.

Maybe in 1996. How exactly are the Democrats “hard right” compared to AfD, Front National, UKIP, Sweden Democrats, Lega Nord, FPO etc. pp? At best the Dems might be considered center-left on economic issues; when it comes to social issues, especially those related to race/gender, Democrats in the US are in many cases far beyond anything that would be considered mainstream in Europe.

In both domestic and foreign policy, American liberalism is far to the right of the liberalism we find in Western Europe or even Canada. The Democrats would be a hard right party in those places.

The Green Party is powerful in Europe and part of many governing coalitions. They’re the top party in Germany right now. But they’re too radical for the United States. Even European Social Democrats are far to the left of American Democrats.

my take is only for Harris to win nomination – if the current rate of Dem purity spiraling keeps up i don’t see how Trump can lose the general.

Trump can and probably will lose. The Dem nominee would start out with about 200 electoral votes already baked in. To acquire the remaining 70, they would simply have to wrestle back the purple states Trump barely won. States that Hillary took for granted.

The dynamic is different this time around. If just the people who stayed home, believing Trump had no chance, actually vote this time (and they will), Trump loses.

Many of the Independents and even moderate Republicans who went for Trump last time are not likely to do so again. There is a great deal of Trump fatigue.

Just getting more black voters to the polls in the states Hillary barely lost would ensure a Trump defeat.

Trump isn’t going to sneak up on anyone this time. The Dems are going to launch a major get out the vote drive. It’s going to be ferocious.

That’s dumb. It’s also an example of moving the goalposts. It is not required that a “Red State” be 100% red to fit this characterization, only that conservatives have power in this area and that they act in the best interests of their constituents who elected them.

Assuming what you say has merit (it actually doesn’t; red states aren’t one-party dictatorships), what do you want them to do? Even the reddest state isn’t going to adopt an alt-right political program – a program that would be discriminatory and injurious and therefore unconstitutional. So what exactly is it you’re looking for? And why do you assume that red state equals alt-right or white nationalist?

You shouldn’t conflate conservatism with white nationalism or alt-rightism. As I recall, some alt-right types thought that Brett Kavanaugh was one of them. I even had to admonish toadying Chinese wannabee Daniel Chieh about that, explaining to the idiot that Kavanaugh venerates Brown v Board of Education. Well, it turns out that I was right as usual, as Brett Cavanaugh’s votes and opinions on the bench have been anything but alt-right.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Latest Opinion Protects Black Defendants Against Racist Prosecutors

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/brett-kavanaugh-clarence-thomas-racist-juries-mississippi.html

Republicans in congress have done essentially nothing to regulate media; it was the republican party who deregulated media ownership rules in the 1990s and abolished the Fairness Doctrine.

I wasn’t talking about deregulation, I was talking about decency standards.

H.R.310 – Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005

The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (S.193.ENR) is an enrolled bill, passed by both Houses of the 109th United States Congress, to increase the fines and penalties for violating the prohibitions against the broadcast of obscene, indecent, or profane language.[1] It was originally proposed in 2004 as the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004 (S. 2056/H.R. 3717); this preliminary bill was never passed. Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas sponsored both United States Senate bills; Senators Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), George Allen (R-Va.) initially co-sponsored the bill at its reintroduction in January 26, 2005.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Decency_Enforcement_Act_of_2005

The attempt to expand what is meant by “decent” has always come up against the sensibilities of conservative Republicans and bible belt types. It’s why there are no titties on American network television even though titties are of no consequence for the rest of the world. Hate speech, whether you like it or not, falls under that rubric.

Besides, is it conservatives or liberals who are actually doing the regulation of content in the current era? Can conservative reactionaries deplatform Vox if they get offended?

I think we’re talking past each other here. The pursuit of “decency” in broadcasting (and the Internet is a broadcast medium) is what entangles Nazis and white supremacists. They are engaged in hate speech, and hate speech is indecent. Again, it’s the same impulse that keeps titties out of American network television.

Can conservatives deplatform Huffington Post for supporting anti-Christian hate speech?

Are the so-called New Atheists liberals? I think not. Are you aware of the struggle underway between Christian apologists and atheist scholars such as the late Dorothy Murdock, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, etc.? There are literally thousands of YouTube videos, symposia, conferences and books attempting to debunk Christianity and the divinity of Jesus. It’s certainly not hate speech and HuffPost wouldn’t be the epicenter of any movement to demystify Christianity. HuffPost is vanilla stuff compared to the real anti-Christianity movements out there.

When was the last time ANY major Leftist channel was deplatformed on YouTube?

Are the leftist channels engaged in hate speech or are they fighting hate speech? Therein lies the difference.

It’s not surprising that you don’t know what you’re talking about here, as extreme Leftists often argue against exaggerated caricatures.

What makes you think I’m a leftist?

So, no. States like this don’t want to regulate businesses more than California, and they are more likely to be opposed to doing so than California, over all.

You continue to confuse deregulation with decency laws as mandated by the FCC.

Obscenity, Indecency and Profanity

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines indecent speech as material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.

Congress has given the FCC the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license or deny a renewal application. The FCC vigorously enforces this law where we find violations. In addition, the United States Department of Justice has authority to pursue criminal violations. Violators of the law, if convicted in a federal district court, are subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment for not more than two years.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

Deregulating to break up monopolies and spur competition is a recurring political motif of both parties. Right now ultra-progressive Elizabeth Warren has a proposal to break up the big tech companies. So even if Mitt Romney wants to deregulate Big Tech, that doesn’t mean he wants racist trolls shitting all over Internet platforms. For one thing, that violates the rights of the people who don’t want to see that shit and don’t want their kids exposed to it. Hate speech is not free speech. Do you understand? You can always create private forums and talk among yourselves. The problem is that you want to openly broadcast the hate speech far and wide, in order to recruit. Well, you’re going to meet resistance.

Alex Jones was deplatformed in a coordinated effort across multiple platforms within 24 hours.

Alex Jones said that Sandy Hook was a staged event and that the grieving families were actors. Sure, he deserved to be deplatformed. Ultimately, these are private companies that are trying to make money. If a groundswell of advertisers want a certain hate preacher gone, he’s going to go. That’s Capitalism 101. Are you a communist or something?

And where do you want to draw the line? Should child rapists and pedophiles not be deplatformed either?

There are few, if any, real Nazis anymore on these platforms and there are nearly innumerable examples of their content being removed along with content uploaders once they get noticed.

LOL. Anatoly Karlin is a Nazi and he’s on all the major platforms. He is the tip of the iceberg. Major Nazis like David Duke and minor Nazis like Karlin remain on these platforms. I can’t take you seriously if you’re unwilling to face reality.

As I said, these companies want as many users and content creators as possible. It takes a lot, and I mean a lot, for them to ban someone. They have to be cajoled an threatened. They are very reluctant because their valuation and market cap are directly correlated with their size and the traffic they generate. They will only make a move if they think they’re going to lose more money by allowing a Nazi to remain on their platform. Even then, it tends to be a superficial public relations ploy more than genuine action.

Keep your characterizations to yourself. SJWs are doing exactly what you describe now. Your kind only oppose regulation because you want to be the ones doing the regulation yourselves.

I’m not an SJW. Secondly, I think the issue is that people of your ideological persuasion don’t have the intellectual capacity to advance their arguments with rational, reasoned discourse. Usually, it’s because the ideas they are trying to advance have no basis in reality. Lacking anything real, racial slurs, pseudoscience and all manner of invective fill the vacuum.

Paradoxically, these people you are defending also happen to be the foremost promoters of censorship. Their blogs, YouTube channels and twitter accounts are all heavily censored and often wiped clean of all opposing opinion.

Besides, I almost never see you comment on these various HBD threads

I do comment from time to time, but only to point out that HBD is a ridiculous pseudoscience. I believe I’ve won every single debate here centered around HBD. Ultimately, it’s very hard to defend a fake science whose function is to try to mask racism.

I’ve owned you quite nicely in this comment reply.

LOL. Is this Res? Typically, you people are too dumb to understand what constitutes effective argumentation.

Which is why I propose government-funded alternatives.

See, this is how dumb you are. A government-funded platform would be far more restrictive. Compare the essentially unregulated Internet to the media that the government does regulate like TV and radio.

Can AT&T ban Nazis from using telephones?

Well, telephone conversations are private. Internet platforms are public. How can you not understand the distinction?

Oh, now that you bring up AT&T, let’s see…

AT&T Acceptable Use Policy

IP Services shall not be used to host, post, transmit, or re-transmit any content or material (or to create a domain name or operate from a domain name), that harasses, or threatens the health or safety of others. In addition, for those IP Services that utilize AT&T provided web hosting, AT&T reserves the right to decline to provide such services if the content is determined by AT&T to be obscene, indecent, hateful, malicious, racist, defamatory, fraudulent, libelous, treasonous, excessively violent or promoting the use of violence or otherwise harmful to others.

https://www.att.com/legal/terms.aup.html

And therein lies the difference between phone service and Internet service from a company that provides both.

This is what’s known as a coup de grace. In other words, I’ve decapitated you in this debate.

my take is only for Harris to win nomination – if the current rate of Dem purity spiraling keeps up i don’t see how Trump can lose the general.

A Cruz, !Jeb!, etc., presidency looks likely to have have been better on the border (even a Hillary presidency may have been better on immigration, objectively, than Blumpf the Clown-in-Chief).

time will tell but i’m not so sure – the best (and maybe only) thing about Trump is the insane reaction to him.

a lot of this reaction is objectively bad, for example the tech censorship and imo the NGO-funded flood at the border is an oligarch reaction to Trump but both may end up provoking a normie backlash.

Harris wins [in Nov. 2020]

A common prediction by many.

All premised on her winning lots of Black votes in Black-heavy Southern states.

I sincerely hope she doesn’t win.

My feeling (not prediction) is that Trump must lose for — owing to his failures, unreliability, lack of willingness to fulfill basic promises, and other problems. From the perspective of today, it does seem we were all wrong. A Cruz, !Jeb!, etc., presidency looks likely to have have been better on the border (even a Hillary presidency may have been better on immigration, objectively, than Blumpf the Clown-in-Chief).

Unfortunately, that means one of these twenty-or-so D-teamers has to win. And Harris may be the worst of the bunch.

update on my Dem primary predictions (as a hint to AK in case he wants to do a post debate update)

original take
– the money wanted Biden with Beta as backup
– the money least wanted Sanders
– Harris, Booker not black enough
– hispanics would think it was their turn after obama so not keen on voting black
conclusion
– Biden ahead but burn out over kid touching
– Beta heavily promoted by the money to block surging Sanders
– Beta wins
– Trump loses if no wall

new take
– similar foundation but different conclusions
– Biden burning out for other reasons (kid touching might still be killer blow)
– Beta is too lame and 20 years too late to replace Biden as Bill Clinton 2.0
– Sanders may have passed the point of too old so no surge
so
– the money promoting Warren to split Sanders vote
– the money may be forced to go with Harris for lack of a normie friendly white alternative
– Gabbard takes over from Sanders as most disliked by the money
conclusion
– Harris wins
– hispanics stay home
– Trump wins by a whisker even if no wall

(caveat: get the feeling Harris dabbles in dirty tricks – could backfire)

The leftists are saying…

i’d make a distinction between what i’d call trad left (economics) and nwo left (identity politics).

Who is right? One of the sides, both or neither?

The leftists are saying concentration camps are being built, that fascism is rising, that global warming is killing people. I see zero evidence of this.

On the other hand immigration numbers are increasing, censorship is increasing, white nations are becoming less white. I see a lot of evidence of this, this is hardly being covered up, it is being celebrated.

So of the two, it seems obvious who is correct.

so the MSM didn’t really attack him

they attacked him non-stop

I don’t know how you can describe the American media as communist. Even MSNBC was cheering on Trump when he bombed Syria. Only to an extreme rightwing kook is the American press liberal.

they’re not communist or liberal they’re anti-white on domestic policy and neocon on foreign policy (which is why they go easy on him whenever he does something neoconish).

Who is right? One of the sides, both or neither?

bit of both

the quadrants are made up of
– economic left/right
– social left/right

and the model that worked for a long time was two “center” parties which were
– economic right + social right (con)
– economic left + social left (dem)

but since around the 1980s the oligarchs funding politics and media wanted
– economic right + social left
and cos their economics hasn’t worked they caused a reaction pushing a plurality towards
– economic left + social right

so we’re in the middle of a realignment.

there’s a well-funded and media-supported centrist (aka globalist) faction promoting their platform (economic right + social left)(liberal democrat) and a suppressed but growing alternative (economic left+social right).

people on the trad left are down from realizing their parties have been taken over by the banks.

people on the right are down cos normies aren’t shifting in their direction as fast as they’d like (which given this is a race against time is a big deal).

Even MSNBC was cheering on Trump when he bombed Syria. Only to an extreme rightwing kook is the American press liberal.

You are just repeating the narrative that the left wing gatekeepers want you to believe. Liberals have always been pro war, the Bush protests were never really about war but about Bush, look how fast they vanished when Obama was warmongering. The lust for war from the left goes back all the way back to French Revolution (where the term left and right orginated from). Their hatred for Russia is a leftist hatred, they absolutely want conflict with a white nation.

Who is right? One of the sides, both or neither?

In a way both are right. Essentially both sides are depressed and pessimistic because the political actors who supposedly represent their interests have betrayed them.

The betrayal of those with actual conservative beliefs by allegedly conservative parties and institutions is obvious.

On the other side of the fence there’s a certain uncomfortable awareness that allegedly left-wing parties are actually owned lock, stock and barrel by bankers and billionaires. So anyone with actual left-wing beliefs has good reason to feel frustrated, angry and miserable.

Even those who subscribe to the Social Justice cult have some vague awareness that politicians and media who enthusiastically wave Rainbow Flags and waffle on about racism don’t actually give a damn about the people they pretend to care about. Decades of conversation after conversation about race hasn’t left blacks any better off. Decades of militant feminism hasn’t left women any better off.

No matter what your political allegiance you’re going to feel that those who promised you Utopia have delivered very little.

Not sure why the big tech companies get to spit in the face of about half their user base whom they actually depend on.

Maybe because they line up and present their faces?

You could be on to something there.

When you walk around with a sign on your back saying Kick Me you can hardly be surprised or outraged when you get kicked.

I found this thread that claims Philadelphia nearly escaped massive industrial disaster equal to Bhopal or Chernobyl (imagine tens of thousands gruesomely killed by cloud of hydrofluoric acid).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid#Health_and_safety

I know it is OT but OT thread seems to be dead and this is big and important if true.

What you think? Green scaremongering or real danger? Any chemical engineer in the house?

Watch this video above – there is something that was launched very high and far by the explosion. Very lucky that very large debris was not sent at the nearby tank holding the hydrofluoric acid. pic.twitter.com/UbkoKZayTm

— Torrance Ref Action (@TraaNow) June 22, 2019

"I mean like yes we all could have died in a cloud of acid vapor that would literally dissolve us from both the inside and the outside at the same time but otoh we wouldn't have had to watch Beto use Spanish as a tax rate question dodge so idk seems like a bit of a wash tbh" pic.twitter.com/iuUxZioWmq

— Gwen Snyder is uncivil (@gwensnyderPHL) June 27, 2019

(thread)

[CW: GRAPHIC]

Philadelphia just came perilously close to experiencing what could have been one of the most horrific industrial accidents in world history.

It's by the force of sheer luck are we not watching thousands of children die slow, painful deaths on CNN today. pic.twitter.com/JBzp6jqZIL

— Gwen Snyder is uncivil (@gwensnyderPHL) June 22, 2019

(thread, part 2) [CW: GRAPHIC]

This is part 2 of a thread on the parallels between the circumstances leading to the Bhopal tragedy– the most deadly industrial accident in world history– and the realities surrounding the Sunoco/PES refinery that exploded yesterday. https://t.co/rHLMbErBiV

— Gwen Snyder is uncivil (@gwensnyderPHL) June 22, 2019

(thread, part 3) [CW: GRAPHIC]

This is part 3 of a thread on the parallels between the circumstances leading to the Bhopal tragedy– the most deadly industrial accident in world history– and the realities surrounding the Sunoco/PES refinery that exploded yesterday.

— Gwen Snyder is uncivil (@gwensnyderPHL) June 23, 2019

(thread, part 4) [CW: GRAPHIC]

This is part 4 of a thread on the parallels between the circumstances leading to the Bhopal tragedy– the most deadly industrial accident in world history– and the realities surrounding the Sunoco/PES refinery that exploded yesterday.

— Gwen Snyder is uncivil (@gwensnyderPHL) June 23, 2019

What do you expect Trump to do? His agenda lacks a majority in both houses!

That’s about the very definition of a fight. You’ve got your resources, we’ve got our resources. Only our resources seem to be fake. Haha.

In the end, it’s all like Who, whom? all over again. Sorry to see the American spirit slips away. Freedom of speech as coded in law and respected in spirit by all is really nice.

Just couple hundreds of years ago, dissident speech means that you have to play the enemy of my enemy game.

Both sides are targeted by the campaigns of the centrists, though the right-wing one more because the left-wing one is closer to the current bunch of centrists.

I don’t think that the tech industry fiddling around with any website is going to have much of an impact on the Trump voters. Joe and Jane Sixpack are not checking on social media to see what others are thinking about Trump’s re-election…

What they could do is fool around with the actual election machines and vote tallies as they did in Florida for the last Governor’s election. Whole boxes of uncounted ballots kept turning up unexpectedly everytime they were ready to announce the winner. Of course, they were always Democrat leaning ballots…

The only way the Democrats were caught is that they got over confident and winded up with more ballots then voters actually registered in the district and you still had judges ruling “you must count every ballot”…this is what they could do…

So poll watchers must be at every polling place and very vigilant…

“The other Republicans were complaining about all the press coverage Trump was getting.”

A lot of it negative. The general election was nearly all negative for Donald Trump, with the press pulling out all the stops to help Hillary, including releasing a behind-the-scenes tape of Donald Trump talking dirty to Billie Bush*. Funny how Project Veritas can be banned for doing exactly what NBC did and got away with. Well, actually Veritas was doing real journalism while NBC was just trying to fix the election, so it’s not exactly the same I guess. Nice change of subject, though. The original poster was talking about media coverage in general, but you inappropriately focused on just the primary campaign and ignored the part of the election heavy with counterexamples to your claim.

“If you remember, Rubio decided that the only way to get the same free publicity as Trump was to go toe-to-toe with him in the insult game.”

Shows how stupid Rubio was. Trump wasn’t popular because he talked dirty. He was popular because he talked back to an unpopular establishment, which included guys like Rubio himself. The republican party has long catered to the fiscally conservative wing of the party while ignoring the more economically populist segment, even to the extent of fooling themselves into thinking the entire base of the party was unanimously for Wall Street deregulation, free trade, and tax cuts for the rich (nope, polls consistently revealed mixed feelings on these subjects).

“The Trump coverage was generally giddy. It was assumed he couldn’t win so the MSM didn’t really attack him. ”

That’s a retcon. They attacked him incessantly in the primary over numerous issues. They stepped it up during the general, but that can’t be used to claim they went easy on him during the primary, which they most certainly did not. Example: During the primary, the networks invited on an endless stream of “republican” strategists and other party operatives to denounce the man; in October 2015, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes interviewed Rick Wilson; his comment: the donor class must “put a bullet in him” [Trump]. The rhetoric coming from the media was extremely heated and biased – perhaps even dangerous considering the numerous violent acts it arguably inspired against republicans (rep. Scalise shooting). If they were ever giddy in the primary, it was because Trump was attacking other republicans, and they thought they could later use all those soundbites to help Hillary.

“I don’t know how you can describe the American media as communist.”

Well, they are certainly in the back pocket of the state, including its corporatist representatives at the head of the democrat party. They repeat all their talking points, directly coordinate talking points with party leaders (Carlson had a great segment a while back demonstrating Pelosi directing news coverage for MSNBC and CNN + an MSNBC producer was caught acting on behalf of the DNC to squash a news story), and they slime any democrat (Gabbard, Sanders) who defies their warmongering propaganda and corporate policies. “Communist”, although perhaps technically wrong, is probably still right in spirit, at least the authoritarian part.

“Even MSNBC was cheering on Trump when he bombed Syria. Only to an extreme rightwing kook is the American press liberal.”

Well, bombing Syria was a policy supported by much of the democrat party neoliberal interventionists, so it’s not really much of a stretch to call it liberal. Much of the media is clearly an arm of the democrat party at this point. Besides, I often hear Leftist kooks claiming the same media is “conservative”. Please. It’s only “conservative” if you define “conservative” as being in opposition to anything progressive extremists advocate. The media, for the most part, hold the same views as the democrat party leadership and people like Hillary Clinton.

“The reason the MSM has been so hard on Trump after his election is because they feel they were complicit in getting him elected.”

How is it the job of the media to tell people what candidates are good or bad? And how exactly is it wrong for people like me to want to have our own media and internet infrastructure in light of this damaging bias? Answer: It isn’t, but I’m sure you’ll think of something anyway so you can keep your ability to regulate our speech.

“Everybody knew Trump’s closet was bulging with skeletons. But virtually none of it came up during the election cycle.”

Oh, please. An enormous amount came out about that man during the general election: financial impropriety allegations; claims of mistreatment on the sets of his show; allegations he inflated his wealth; allegations that he harassed some airline attendant; other allegations of harassment made and then withdrawn; that Billie Bush tape … etc etc etc. You know what wasn’t talked about much? His involvement with Obama’s birth certificate. Reason: It was Hillary’s goon who originally floated that lie in 2008. The media was certainly willing to withhold criticism of Trump when they thought it would tangentially benefit their candidate, Hillary Clinton.

*A similar tape released of Hillary speaking, alleged to demonstrate her laughing about getting a guilty rapist off, received essentially zero traction in the media. Same for a plethora of other things caught on tape/print: her lies about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia; her laughing about the death of Qaddafi; her “vast right-wing conspiracy” days …

OT: RIP Justin Raimondo

Justin Raimondo, co-founder of https://t.co/gQTCCF2IBi, Dead at 67
Loses long battle with lung cancerhttps://t.co/gTDyORBD5F pic.twitter.com/A6R7r7fld0

— Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) June 27, 2019

You’re just frustrated because you’re Russian, and now you won’t be able to dictate the outcome of our elections with your massive funding, and your ability to dictate the outcome of congressional elections, and your hammerlock on all mainstream media, and…

Oh wait. Wrong number. Sorry.

Sure, it is the same product, because the unhappy people, who fail in their current society, and their desire to be a victim and not accept responsibility for their situation (and find a community of other whiners to give some social reality to help them to believe it more), is the same in these two cases.

Unhappy people with different self-perceptions, still desire the same political/psychological product to self-medicate from, but they need it to have slightly modified packaging – this is analogous to when you can sell the same shampoo to men and women, but need to modify packaging a bit. For women, you put the shampoo in a pink bottle, and for men with maybe something which does not contain pink. But it’s just lauryl sulfate either case.

If you ask anyone who comes from a beautiful city with a lot of tourism, first thing they complain usually is that they have too much tourism, and that tourists are overcrowding the city.

However, if you want to know where the funding comes from to restore their city, to create pedestrian zones, to preserve the beautiful historical architecture, to provide easy jobs for their residents, etc – the answer is the same tourists, who also result in the prioritization of a city’s aesthetics.

On the other hand, when your city is not popular enough with tourists – you can have lack of even political protection to stop oldest buildings in your city being destroyed for modern office buildings, let alone funding for high quality restorations of those buildings.

You people are blackpilled because you stay all the time in alt right internet bubble where you find nothing that gloom and despair (everyone hates us, everyone bans us, anarchists and communists run unchecked, Trump sold us, Jews control all, everyone is turning gay and transgendered, white race is being genocided, we are doomed).

Go visit some radical left sites (anarchist, communist and actual antifa types) and you will see the same (fascism is rising all over the world, all our comrades are now fascists, concentration camps are being built, global warming is killing us all, we are doomed).

anyone who associates with the American Left at this point is either dead ass stupid, or a fascist collaborator, and I don't think any of those women are stupid.

— BIE (black identity extremist) (@contrapopulist) June 27, 2019

Who is right? One of the sides, both or neither?

Not sure why the big tech companies get to spit in the face of about half their user base whom they actually depend on.

Maybe because they line up and present their faces?

The front runners in the election were always going to and will always get coverage. Trump was always the front runner and was always going to get coverage. He was not special in that regard.

The other Republicans were complaining about all the press coverage Trump was getting. If you remember, Rubio decided that the only way to get the same free publicity as Trump was to go toe-to-toe with him in the insult game. So the whole thing devolved into talk of penis sizes and other things I never thought I’d see in an American political campaign. Rubio would do a stand-up comedy routine on the campaign trail, mocking Trump’s “small penis.” It was wild. It did work in the sense that Rubio got more press coverage, albeit it was framed as getting into the mud with Trump. Only Trump could get away with that kind of behavior because he had been a clown and a fool for decades.

The pro-commie press’s negative coverage of Trump does not count as “free advertising”. They tried to bury him using every nasty trick in their book at the time.

The Trump coverage was generally giddy. It was assumed he couldn’t win so the MSM didn’t really attack him. They liked him because he was unscripted and good for their ratings. The reason the MSM has been so hard on Trump after his election is because they feel they were complicit in getting him elected. Everybody knew Trump’s closet was bulging with skeletons. But virtually none of it came up during the election cycle.

I don’t know how you can describe the American media as communist. Even MSNBC was cheering on Trump when he bombed Syria. Only to an extreme rightwing kook is the American press liberal.

I will carry on in the original manner:
– Swedes are known for the sense of humor.
– People from Southern Europe are famous for their stern attitude.
– People from the ex-Socialist bloc are extremely impressed by the Trumps and the Kushners / Murdochs of the planet. Hard work and high IQ took them were they are.

It was all a joke. Murdoch and Trump are two mounds of lard, and Kushner will soon morph into something similar. Their ability to drive a political movement is null. Were it not for boomers, their protestant tamers, and the relentless brainwashing through TV all through the eighties and the nineties, Trump would still bankrupt casinos today. Clinton was so loathed that she would have been defeated by almost any other Republican candidate.

Without sarcasm: The mainstream right is currently led by imbeciles. Their voters are automatons who don’t read, paper or website alike. There is no way that Trump voters would even pay attention to subreddits. It’s written text! Now, the muting of r/the_donald is likely a marketing move targeting the more likely users of Reddit, or the sort of people its managers want as users. It has no impact on elections. The reasons why Trump doesn’t come up with an alternative are many: he and his camp can’t do shit as business leaders or politicians, he doesn’t give a damn about written text, he think he will run again against someone as unpleasant as Hillary.

“Trump came in a close second in Iowa and then went on to win New Hampshire in a landslide. Once he did that, it was all over. The sheer momentum from those contests propelled him to the GOP nomination.”

That’s not true. The momentum was unstoppable after South Carolina, which was uncertain after his debate performance. John McCain also beat his opponent, W. Bush, in New Hampshire by 18 points but then lost South Carolina. This provided enough momentum to keep Bush in the race until he later finished off his opponent. Trump won the nomination due to South Carolina. Even then it was still much less certain that he would due to all the GOP sabotage plots, relatively large candidate pool, and negative media coverage he got afterward.

“Communists didn’t complain when Barack Obama got constant “free (wholly positive) press”

His mother-in-law lived with him in the White House for 8 years and these late night propagandists never mentioned it, not even once, despite that being comedy gold.

“There are no exclusively red states.”

That’s dumb. It’s also an example of moving the goalposts. It is not required that a “Red State” be 100% red to fit this characterization, only that conservatives have power in this area and that they act in the best interests of their constituents who elected them.

“Besides, it’s usually conservatives, rather than liberals, that want to regulate media.”

Republicans in congress have done essentially nothing to regulate media; it was the republican party who deregulated media ownership rules in the 1990s and abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Libertarian republicans have pushed the hardest in the press to prevent regulation, the disingenuous theatrics of Ted Cruz aside. I’m not sure what you are referring to, but it’s not unusual for extreme Leftists to argue against imagined caricatures, usually ones that make them feel morally superior, facts aside.

Besides, is it conservatives or liberals who are actually doing the regulation of content in the current era? Can conservative reactionaries deplatform Vox if they get offended? Vox was able to do that to Steven Crowder. Can conservatives deplatform Huffington Post for supporting anti-Christian hate speech? The left has tried doing exactly that to conservatives for years when they criticize Muslims, and they have had some success in that effort. Let me know the next time YouTube bans Sam Seder for using dehumanizing terms like “fool” and “stupid” in his video titles; same for TYT blurring out Donald Trump’s face. They sure didn’t have a problem banning BlackPigeonSpeaks while not being able to explain any content violations. When was the last time ANY major Leftist channel was deplatformed on YouTube? Same for payment processors, DNS service, and web search rankings.

“Utah is the reddest state. As a reflection of its mainstream social conservatism, Utah would want to regulate and censor the Internet more than California.”

Hmm. Question: Have they, though? Answer: No, because devotion to free-market capitalism > social conservatism in Republican Party leadership circles. It’s not surprising that you don’t know what you’re talking about here, as extreme Leftists often argue against exaggerated caricatures. Back here in reality, Utah is represented by a business libertarian senator – Mitt Romney – who has publicly derided Donald Trump’s so-called populist economics, demanding the GOP base return to tax cuts for the rich and deregulation. So, no. States like this don’t want to regulate businesses more than California, and they are more likely to be opposed to doing so than California, over all. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Utah were one of the more difficult states to regulate the internet in due to its libertarian business representatives.

“Alt-righters aren’t actually against censorship (if they were in charge they would censor the shit out of everything),”

Keep your characterizations to yourself. SJWs are doing exactly what you describe now. Your kind only oppose regulation because you want to be the ones doing the regulation yourselves. It’s called projection. You don’t want others stopping your authoritarian drive to censor your opponents, so you accuse others of wanting to do exactly what you are doing now. Leftist extremists have successfully lobbied to ban entire websites they don’t like; strong-armed advertisers away from content they don’t like (Tucker Carlson); blacklisted people from payment processors; doxxed people in supposedly mainstream outlets for making innocuous jokes (Reddit and Facebook); demanded Facebook ban jokes about them (Nancy Pelosi) – which they then did, never mind the obvious hypocrisy of allowing these Late Night propagandists to do exactly the same to Donald Trump for years … there are nearly countless news articles reporting this and few counterexamples of the right being able to do the same in return.

“they just want to control what gets censored.”

We normies want to prevent authoritarians like you from censoring our speech.

“So they would censor commercials featuring interracial families.”

I never said that or implied that. I would, however, bring our libel and slander laws up to UK standards so we could sue liars for defamation.

“But if some uneducated, delusional, scientifically illiterate so-called HBDer spews ignorant bile on video, that’s something that they don’t want to be censored.”

1) Did you catch that? The guy tacitly promoted censorship of something he got butthurt over. Like I said, it’s all projection. Regulate them (by preventing them from regulating you) or they will regulate your speech rights away because they are moral supremacist fanatics.

2) I’d be willing to wager that I’m far more educated than you. Besides, I almost never see you comment on these various HBD threads, at least not in length. It couldn’t be because you have limited knowledge of the subject, could it?

3) This makes no sense. I’m not arguing for censorship of political views, just arguing for preventing you from censoring me; that can be accomplished by the very same deplatforming of service providers guys like you supported or said nothing about when it happened + creating alternative service providers run by the state.

“The notion that these clowns are free speech warriors is laughable. Their ideology is full of so many gaping holes that they cannot survive in an atmosphere of unbridled speech.”

1) I’ve owned you quite nicely in this comment reply. What’s that saying about counting your eggs before they hatch?

2) Yeah, it’s not my side that has been doing the censoring. That’s yours buddy, and there are lots of examples.

3) If that’s true, then why is it my side that’s being banned – the normie side? Why do I see articles from left-wing sources stating my side is winning the internet? You don’t ban people who are losing the argument.

“This is just dumb. Despite what the uninformed joker Anatoly Karlin asserts, there’s no grand conspiracy to keep the ultra-rightwing or even white supremacists and Nazis from social media platforms.”

Alex Jones was deplatformed in a coordinated effort across multiple platforms within 24 hours. Even when you shove a gigantic counterexample into their face, they cannot acknowledge it.

“There are still Nazis and white supremacists on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.”

Sure, if you define Crowder as a Nazi. But actual Nazi content? No. In fact, a teacher recently had her account banned for posting Nazi documentary footage. There are few, if any, real Nazis anymore on these platforms and there are nearly innumerable examples of their content being removed along with content uploaders once they get noticed. Further, Amazon is also now banning politically incorrect content from their store. Unz had a long article on this. A left-winger who lies and distorts things? No, that can’t be.

“Far from participating in a conspiracy to deplatform these people, these companies actually have to be pressured and browbeaten to do so.”

Stop lying. The ADL has been pressuring, with success, these companies into banning content they don’t like for years; in fact, the ADL acknowledges that it advises all these various companies on what they consider “hate speech” as they have representatives on these “trust and safety” counsels. Example: Facebook banned Louis Farrakhan, a huge account with over a million followers, including celebrities.

“Far from participating in a conspiracy to deplatform”

Explain Alex Jones then. And Project Veritas. NBC can illicitly leak a tape of Donald Trump without being banned but Project Veritas can’t leak a conversation revealing potential Google malfeasance without getting censored across multiple platforms nearly simultaneously? Get outta here with that. That was a simultaneous, coordinated takedown across multiple platforms. And as one poster above noted, there have been wage-fixing conspiracies between these companies in the past, public knowledge, so it’s not like there isn’t already the president – not like they don’t talk each other. Merely squealing “conspiracy” doesn’t make it go away. And lots of mainstream conservative channels have been deplatformed from YouTube. Has TYT, Sam Seder, or any other major left-wing YouTube channel been taken down, ever – even temporarily?

“Rather than complaining, you people should keep your mouths shut and bask in the freedom these platforms give you that you can’t get anywhere else.”

Translation: Learn to love our censorship. No thanks. We should create alternative platforms where you don’t have any control. We don’t let the DNC control telephone conversation content, so we shouldn’t let Leftists control internet speech. We don’t need permission from sanctimonious, know nothings on what we are allowed to say or create. This guy’s ignorant, smug attitude should be enough to convince most conservatives of the need for an alternative structure. Who wants a guy like this in charge of your speech?

“The Internet, generally, has been good to you.”

… which is why they are trying to regulate it, something we don’t want. Do Leftists lack an ability to extrapolate current trends into the future and act on them, or is that only something they can do with climate change hysteria?

“Before the Internet, someone like Karlin could write his junk until he was blue in the face…”

… and they are working hard to make sure it goes back that way.

“If you must get mad, look to your ideological brethren who grossly abuse these freedoms, giving Big Tech no option but to act.”

There it is. He reveals himself again, and after ranting about the “alt-right” censoring speech, too. It’s clear he wants the ability for his side to regulate your speech; he even justifies it. His “abuse” is pretty much anything he disagrees with. That is why we need an alternative to his Big Tech.

“These are major publicly traded international conglomerates.”

Which is why I propose government-funded alternatives. You only oppose that because you want to retain the ability to censor my speech. No thanks. That shouldn’t be allowed.

“Exxon-Mobil doesn’t allow avowed Nazis and white supremacists. Why would Big Tech?”

1) Can AT&T ban Nazis from using telephones? No. In fact, there is legislation aimed at preventing that. So, why would we allow Big Tech? Why would we allow Big Tech to censor mainstream conservatives like Crowder? Why would we want to put that kind of power into your hands? We shouldn’t because any time an extremist like you shouted “Nazee” you could have us banned, even mainstream conservatives. You should NEVER be allowed that kind of power, especially after having abused it already.

2) That contradicts your previous statement about Nazis being on Twitter and elsewhere on social media. See what disingenuous, two-faced liars these Leftists are (beside being merely ignorant as I have demonstrated in my reply)? “I’ll say you can do something when I think that advantages my argument but watch me then immediately change my mind when I think it doesn’t”.

But if some uneducated, delusional, scientifically illiterate so-called HBDer spews ignorant bile on video

Its always funny when a Black person attempts to lecture any White group on science or literacy. I’ve never been in a single academic environment where you people weren’t in the bottom track or a liability when put in charge of anything whatsoever. Thanks for the laugh, ombongo.

Because even states of the deepest red hue don’t want anything to do with alt-right Nazi bullshit.

The only non-Nazis are those that don’t yet live close enough to Black people. Every one of us is a Nazi at heart as far as you people are concerned: including most Jews. Its the difference between supporting civilization and supporting its destruction and worst manifestation.

Despite what the uninformed joker Anatoly Karlin asserts

In typical nigger fashion, you appeal to science and then use ad hominem in place of argument in the same post. This is why you are who you are, children.

Far from participating in a conspiracy to deplatform these people, these companies actually have to be pressured and browbeaten to do so. And then they do so very reluctantly.

That’s what is called theory, negro. Its divorced from their rhetoric and action.

Rather than complaining, you people should keep your mouths shut and bask in the freedom these platforms give you that you can’t get anywhere else.

We’d offer you the same advice in regard to living free among us.

The Internet, generally, has been good to you.

The internet isn’t a private entity. It isn’t persuasive to make statements that imply that it is and that we should therefore be thankful of this entity’s “treatment”. Banning us is okay, It will work to our advantage in the near future. Banning is actually quite the political gift.

If you must get mad, look to your ideological brethren who grossly abuse these freedoms, giving Big Tech no option but to act.

“Abuse”? Abuse how? Free speech is free speech, however foreign a concept to an African.

Exxon-Mobil doesn’t allow avowed Nazis and white supremacists. Why would Big Tech?

You don’t know what the personal beliefs of the C suite and board at Exxon Mobile are, do you? Do you know where you are at the moment or who you are living among? It seems that you don’t.

This entire game is more of a show for you. What will happen down the road has been planned far in advance, and is in the public domain. That you don’t seem to have any concept of it is what leads me to believe that you do not know where you are or who you are living among. Any so called education that you have had has been a farce. You have the uppity impulse to lecture us on “keeping our mouths shut”, but it is you who should be doing anything else but this.

Trump got millions upon millions of dollars of free advertising

This is a bullshit narrative.

The front runners in the election were always going to and will always get coverage. Trump was always the front runner and was always going to get coverage. He was not special in that regard.

The pro-commie press’s negative coverage of Trump does not count as “free advertising”. They tried to bury him using every nasty trick in their book at the time.

This is spin meant to cover for the fact that the Press gave the communist candidates constant free positive propaganda that should count as campaign contribution, and then looked to bury the candidate that they despised on a partisan basis. The latter also being a type of campaign contribution to the democrats.

You may as well state that the Russia investigation, originating from the same Deep State connected machine to include the same State Media, was also “free advertising” for Trump.

We read the same bullshit when we read how “anti Israel” the press is after one minor criticism in the context of years of tacit and explicit support. Its meant to cover for just how biased the press is toward Israel, especially if we are going to take into account their historical negative-coverage approach to ethnonationalist nations other than Israel.

Communists are blind to the fact that the rest of the nation correctly views most of the MSM as a pro communist propaganda operation. Attempting to deceive (us or yourself) with the false accusation that Trump was a “media darling” and received free press as a front runner in a presidential election (nevermind that it was press that attempted to ruin him) will not change that reality.

Communists didn’t complain when Barack Obama got constant “free (wholly positive) press” in regard to his potential to be the first African American president and then was awarded countless laudatory magazine covers and awards since and to the present day. That’s “free press”.

If you are against “free press” for candidates, then I suggest you support a Bill that heavily fines media companies for any opinion writing on candidates whatsoever: positive or negative.

You won’t do that because the communists are already losing elections even when the press goes wholly in-the-bag for communist candidates.

Imagine if the nation was permitted to vote merely based on what the candidates stated and what the public discussed among themselves in regard to those candidates: all without partisan election interference by the MSM – many of the journalists owning more than one passport. I’m sure that prospect sends a shiver down your spine and given that context I’m sure that you will not have an issue going forwad with “free press”.

Great!

It’s tripling down on the failed strategy.

Demonize decent people, shout them down, shut them up…

And 2020 will be a landslide of historic magnitude.

A current Zero Hedge headline: “Twitter To Censor Trump Ahead of 2020 Election”. If censoring DJT’s favorite tinker toy doesn’t motivate ameliorative reactions on his part, then nothing will! Here his grotesquely ridiculous vanity is at stake!

Trump came in a close second in Iowa and then went on to win New Hampshire in a landslide. Once he did that, it was all over. The sheer momentum from those contests propelled him to the GOP nomination.

Trump was a clown, yes, but the media loved him. Unlike other politicians who regurgitate focus group tested talking points, Trump said whatever came to his mind, making him a media darling. As a consequence, Trump got millions upon millions of dollars of free advertising. Added to his already high name recognition, it was a killer combination. The MSM loves action and Trump was never boring.

Yang has none of those things going for him.

“So, obviously, the people who put their money where their mouths are don’t quite agree.”

They’ve been wrong before, and quite often. More than you might think, political correctness plays a role in people’s thinking, even when it comes to crucial financial decisions, an area you’d think would be free of this as the government can’t exactly tell people where to put their money or ask for the reason why they invested and be assured a truthful answer. Otherwise, so many people wouldn’t have lost their shirts in the Housing Crisis when it was obvious to me that racial minorities, a disproportionate number of defaults, couldn’t repay these things or even pay the adjusted rate when the teaser expired. Race is crucial here, and many (especially good whites) still buy into the flawed notion that policy counts in modern American elections; it does – sorta – but much less than tribal affiliation and affability. Personally, I don’t think Yang has any chance for the reason previously listed: No natural large racial constituency. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. I’m willing to put it at 95% that he doesn’t get the nomination, barring a freak occurrence like Sanders getting out of the race early on or dying along with a couple of the other leading candidates.

“I think Murdoch fixed up Myspace, and Kushner had some blog, so there’s your starting point.”

Not really, no. Both platforms could be deplatformed by the current internet infrastructure as it is all highly dependent on a few companies with existing infrastructure monopolies, huge financial backing, and no accountability; they can totally ban their political opponents if they want … and they already have. For instance, I could start a blog but Google could steal its domain name (Google has already done that), companies could refused to provide DNS protection (Cloudflare has already done that), WordPress could obliterate the comments section (they routinely do that), payment processors could blacklist you (routinely done) — and those are some of the less extreme measures: in the future, MasterCard could stop doing business with you if you support any policy they don’t like … it’s already happening in Europe and “rogue investors” are lobbying for it to happen here as well*. In fact, exactly that was attempted with GAB, among other victims. And YouTube routinely bans channels it doesn’t like while promoting Left-wing alternatives or ignoring their TOS violations (putting hateful, dehumanizing language in video titles); several popular conservative blogs have also been recently deplatformed (banned).

No, the only solution is for Red State legislatures to publicly fund alternatives by working with Chinese tech, as they are the only ones sophisticated enough and willing. The US government, California, and the entirety of the extreme Left must then be irrevocably deplatformed from their ability to censor their opponents. Afterwards, in order to keep this from happening again, Red States should deplatform these California companies for good. They are not needed anyway as most of the core innovation (search, imagine search, etc.) has already been done and Google mostly now gets by on ads with little new innovation; other companies have replicated their services just fine, so they are not needed.

*Government proxy hate groups like the ADL, SPLC or antifa would also attempt to doxx you and publicly shame you, ruin your life. They are getting increasingly hysterical with this; even mainstream conservatives are being targeted. Only separate infrastructures, separate countries where they are deplatformed will solve this.

A clown has just won Ukrainian presidential elections by a landslide. Some say another clown won in 2016 in the US. Why not in 2020?

The title is misleading. It implies that we had fair elections before.

This is what happens when you spend all day catering to neocons and the Breitbart crowd instead of actually fighting the culture war

In the past week, Yang has doubled in value from 6-7% chance of winning Presidency to around 12-14%: https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Give it up already. Yang’s chances of becoming President of the United States are no better than mine. And being under 35, I’m not running. Maybe I should give you another tutorial on how the US primary and caucus systems work.

On the site you linked a comic relief candidate like Yang is jumbled up with major players who actually have a chance. And you believe that? Seriously? Once again, no one becomes president without coming in first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire. It’s literally impossible. Yang is at less than 1% in the polls. Moreover, he has no organization, no money, no charisma, no experience (in fact, he’s clueless) no overarching theme and no compelling reason why anyone should vote for him. The dude is running for comedic purposes and you’re taking him seriously. WOW!

I think Murdoch fixed up Myspace, and Kushner had some blog, so there’s your starting point.

Those are some odd statements. As is well known, Murdoch bought MySpace, for a hefty sum, at the height of its popularity and then watched it take an epic nosedive once Facebook took off. Kushner might have run a blog once, who knows, but before Trump, he was best known for his acquisition of New York Observer, which was then a highly respected magazine.

So let me get this straight….you are gonna consent to be governed by the highly RACIALIZED HINDU-JAMAICAN POTUS Kamala Harris and her racist Hindu Attorney General Preet Bharrara….

This wouldn’t be happening if Red States had their own country where they could regulate their own internet without opposition.

There are no exclusively red states. On average, there’s probably a less than 10 point Republican advantage in the red states. Besides, it’s usually conservatives, rather than liberals, that want to regulate media. Utah is the reddest state. As a reflection of its mainstream social conservatism, Utah would want to regulate and censor the Internet more than California.

Alt-righters aren’t actually against censorship (if they were in charge they would censor the shit out of everything), they just want to control what gets censored. So they would censor commercials featuring interracial families. But if some uneducated, delusional, scientifically illiterate so-called HBDer spews ignorant bile on video, that’s something that they don’t want to be censored. The notion that these clowns are free speech warriors is laughable. Their ideology is full of so many gaping holes that they cannot survive in an atmosphere of unbridled speech.

Why aren’t they pushing for a constitutional convention to get this done?

Because even states of the deepest red hue don’t want anything to do with alt-right Nazi bullshit.

Do they like being being banned and mocked incessantly by Leftist bigots 24/7?

This is just dumb. Despite what the uninformed joker Anatoly Karlin asserts, there’s no grand conspiracy to keep the ultra-rightwing or even white supremacists and Nazis from social media platforms. Since these companies offer free services, the only real way to gauge their value is literally by counting the numbers of members or users they can attract. That’s why they allow anyone and everyone. It’s why they allow content that would be prohibited in regular media. There are still Nazis and white supremacists on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Far from participating in a conspiracy to deplatform these people, these companies actually have to be pressured and browbeaten to do so. And then they do so very reluctantly. That’s because they can monetize these people and their content, however idiotic that content is. Additionally, they don’t want to be accused of the political bias they are being accused of by Karlin.

Rather than complaining, you people should keep your mouths shut and bask in the freedom these platforms give you that you can’t get anywhere else. The Internet, generally, has been good to you. Before the Internet, someone like Karlin could write his junk until he was blue in the face but no one would ever read any of it because he would never get published. If you must get mad, look to your ideological brethren who grossly abuse these freedoms, giving Big Tech no option but to act. These are major publicly traded international conglomerates. Exxon-Mobil doesn’t allow avowed Nazis and white supremacists. Why would Big Tech?

Red States, meaning Pyiush Jindal and Nimrata Niky Randhawa Haley, are going to deprive Google and Microsoft, that is, Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai, of their income? Most importantly, are they going to admit that “massive Asian tech achievements” like Microsoft Office are equal to stuff you can get for free?

In “Bullshit jobs”, there’s a quote from a study saying that an IT worker produces, on average, about the same productivity gains that his salary costs. I think that some IT workers generate more than they cost, but all government purchases from private software companies are bringing the average down to zero net profit.

If Trump, Trump Jr, Kushner + Murdoch, Rothermere + Shapiro, Alex Jones are so cool, they would bring out their message, regardless of the an URL being deleted or moved. This is all r/The_Donald is – an URL. Nobody developed a personal relationship there in a 1-to-1 basis. It was too big to allow that. Therefore, that subreddit does not differ too much from classical media.

Moreover, if Trump, Kushner and Murdoch are these great business leaders, it shouldn’t be too difficult to provide an alternative website. I think Murdoch fixed up Myspace, and Kushner had some blog, so there’s your starting point.

However, I will admit it might not be their blandness (almost everyone on my list sells to people whose intellect is stuck at the age of 12), nor their incompetence. It’s more likely that the subreddit never mattered. I doubt Pennsylvania turned for Trump because the rustbelt toothless “6-pack-and-3-guns” were digging memes. Trump won because TV was on his side for 20+ years. Hillary’s presentation was mostly neutral until the year before the election. She did’t get the praises Michelle Obama got, and when she spoke, she wasn’t the brightest.

A decade ago, I was explaining to an US woman, who had been working Fridays as elected plankton in a 100% Democratic city council, that the US system uses education as a pretext, and doesn’t really respect people with education. I went “look at all those mathematicians, all making less than 80K”, and added “most people who run US seem to have nothing to say from their days in college, which is a sure sign they didn’t learn anything there”. I was thinking of the Bushes, who seem stupider than chairs.

And she says “well, these powerful people put their children in good schools, but their families are smart, and the children are able; look at Ivanka, she never got an A-“. But this women believed that 1. Trump was already running US, and 2. Ivanka actually did her homework by herself. The miracles of television! Reddit would never be able to distort reality that much.

I don’t think anyone is going to allow “fair elections” at all.

Too hot to touch? MSM outlets stand united in rejecting op-ed on Assange by UN expert on torture

The piece ends with a list of the media’s ‘big guns’, which Melzer says were offered the op-ed to publish but wouldn’t. The list includes the Guardian, the Times, the Financial Times, the Telegraph, the Washington Post, and Reuters. The text was subsequently published on Medium, a blogging website.

Let the pressitute towers burn as diversity hires, churnalists, interns and typebunnies die agonizingly and editors jump to their death to escape the flames while the melting fax machine spews out the last Deep State copy to be unfailingly printed tomorrow on the front page as “news” because there is a war that needs to be fixed.

Project Veritas has been “sonderbehandelt” off Vimeo too now.

Over-reliance on tourism isn’t healthy, ask any Italian.

simply made a country a very useful assembly plant for Germany

You’re arguing that Hungary’s economy is not diversifying enough, beyond manufacturing for Germany?

I think the only company of Hungary I use personally – Wizz Air. But this is a very competitive company in the airline industry.

Also it seems the tourist economy develops very rapidly in Hungary, with 31 million tourists last year. (Hungary receives more tourists than Russia, which is just insane, and lucky for Hungarians, at least economically.)

Why would you even bother talking about politics on those platforms? I saw this current purge coming as far back in the late 2000’s. Facebook, reddit etc were always shit even a decade ago before phones ruined every other site.
I always took the time to download and store on a few Terabyte drives everything I could in anticipation of it being banned. It was a good call too, considering nearly all of the major torrent sites have gone offline.

Yeah I finished that Brian Cartledge book on the the history of Hungary a while ago, it concluded with Orban’s first term describing him as a typical boring typical European centrist, which was described a good sign for Hungary’s future.

I found that a bit weird. From all accounts, Orban showed virtually no sign of the autocrat he’d become in his first term. Did Gyurcsány really screw things up so badly that his successors decided to give up on governing?

Native Born White American Race Revolt

FBI employee detected.

It was Hail Trump…no Heil Trump……..there are plenty of Black Power Salutes that can be found in Google images…..such as the one where a group Sheboon Cadets gave the Black Power Salute at West Point….

The Alt Right will get beyond Charlottesville because the situation will deteriorate for White Males exponentially on Nov 3 2020 and after……There is no other option at this point in time but a Native Born White American Race Revolt….A refusal to CONSENT to be governed by Hindu “American” Kamala Harris and her vicious Hindu Attorney General Preet Bharrara……..

Orbán had a plan to transform the Hungarian economy into some kind of first world economy back in 1998-2002. But after the Socialist/Free Democrat mismanagement of the economy 2002-2010, he seems to have given up on those dreams, and simply made a country a very useful assembly plant for Germany. As long as the German economy is booming (in particular their automotive industry, but other industries, too), Hungary is doing well either. As soon as their automotive industry runs into difficulties, Hungary’s economy will crash, too.

The current economic model is that the German car plants are producing something which could be (very moderately) taxed, to pay for the government (whose expenditures he keeps at the bare minimum*), while he steals the EU monies. That’s a great business model for his family. For the country… not so much.

*Here’s a quiz: you have to guess if the picture was taken in Chernobyl or in a Hungarian hospital. Enjoy!

https://index.hu/belfold/2019/06/22/csernobil_vagy_magyar_korhaz_egeszsegugy_kviz/

The only way to get the American people, or an American people in the case of the Civil War, to stop being naively and gullibly led into wars is to bring the fight to them.

Sherman’s march through Georgia and the Carolinas was meant partly to show the civilians, and the Carolinian soldiers in Lee’s army (who began deserting to go home), that war is devastation and that their government could not protect them. This strategy worked.

Otherwise, the lack of first-hand experience of the total effect of war has been a net negative for Americans.

However, we actually managed to become anti-war after the First World War. 100,000+ Americans died, very clearly for no good reason, and the American people saw that the effect Versailles was that our soldiers were used as cannon fodder for a bunch of Masonic freaks in Paris. As late as October of 1940, more than 95% of polled Americans said they were opposed to any American entry into a war in Europe.

But at that time, the American people were more homogeneous and less consumerist than they are now. They were far better human beings. Our entry into WW2 was the decisive turning point in making us into true “sheeple.”

No, as Sherman said, “This people deserves a monarch.” They deserve a harsh period of chastisement to break them into submission to the natural law again. Maybe then, and only then, can we stop being led into foreign war.

But the biggest problem may just be the fact that, as Eisenhower warned, we have a military-industrial complex that finds ways to subvert the will of people even when we don’t want war. And of course we also have lots of powerful Jews. That never helps.

However – Hungary’s economy is booming, at least for now.

In the first quarter, Hungary’s economy expanded an annual 5.3% and wage growth hit double digits. But investments are also buoyant, having surged by 25% in 2018, and the budget deficit is low and net external debt is falling. Productivity was also increasing, Nagy said

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-cenbank/risk-of-hungarys-booming-economy-overheating-is-very-low-central-banker-idUSKCN1TR26X

Overall, I believe I would be happy with the political leader, if I was Hungarian.

There’s also a lot of the kind of rogue corporate raiding which utilizes tax authorities and the police. One of the richest guys in Hungary is being squeezed out of his business, because they wanted to buy his factories. He kept getting tax audits and police investigations, last year hundreds of police descended on one of his petrochemical factories. Since the court system is at least partly under Orbán’s control, his chances are not very good even if he’s fully innocent, and most likely most businessmen are not fully innocent. (These investigations are basically harvesting some crime without a clear aim, similar to what was done to Trump during Russiagate.) I wouldn’t care much if it was a politically active oligarch financing Globohomo parties, but the motivation of Orbán is simply to help one of his associates, who is involved in the petrochemical industry, and they wanted to force the guy to sell his business. Now the guy decided that instead he’ll just close the factory.

I don’t really care for these very rich guys, but I don’t think this kind of blackmail is very beneficial to Hungary. Orbán’s associates and front men are usually not very good at operating these businesses, so the country is likely getting worse off in the long run.

He is extremely personally corrupt, in a particularly blatant way as he either isn’t smart enough or doesn’t care enough to hide it properly.

He doesn’t care that much really (things like that are not easy to hide in a country like Hungary anyway). The chief prosecutor is his old trusted guy, the police is controlled by the interior minister (a former career police officer and former national chief of the police), who is an old trusted ally of his too. Only the courts are not “his” yet, but if the prosecutors office refuses to prosecute the corruption of his cronies and the police departments also refuse to investigate them, they cannot sentence them when these cases aren’t reaching to the courts. As he has had a supermajority in Parliament in the last 9 yrs he was able to rewrite any laws at his whim, including the constitution, stuff the constitutional court with his people etc. The only real “check and balance” on his power is the EU basically. As long as the economy is doing well, the majority of the voters doesn’t care too much either. The opposition is the typical Western “globohomo” outfit, a new liberal (feminist, pro-LGBT etc.) opposition party is highly popular among the urban youth (and with those who are not so urban or young either, but influenced enough by social media) and also among Hungarians working in the UK and other Western countries. The strongest opposition party after the EP election is Gyurcsány’s new party that is also openly multiculturalist and is peddling the slogan of “United States of Europe” among others.

economic nationalism is here to stay(no undoing Chinese aggression)

So, Globohomo will now wage a Cold War against not only Russia, but also China. It just means fewer alternatives (like, no Chinese gadgets, if you fear your own secret police or tech giants, and not so much the Chinese secret police and tech giants, which are far away and so not very dangerous to you).

and it will be so much harder now for the USG to project military power abroad. White men will shrug off any new attempts to get them involved in any future military conflict abroad.

LOL

The easy little war against Iran looks pretty popular for the moment. If it doesn’t go well, it will get unpopular in due time, but by then the damage will have been done. And then in sixteen years another war will be sold to the American public, just as it took a mere sixteen years after the start (not the end; it’s still not ended properly) of the Iraq War for a military adventure to become popular again.

I thought you are in Hungary.