Connect with us

Culture and Religion

What are the options in dealing with Leftist censorship of social media?

Published

on

What are the options in dealing with Leftist censorship of social media

Aside from asserting they are a publisher and not a platform, what other steps can we take?

The metaphor of the frog in the pan of water is more than appropriate here. This week the burner was turned on high but not many noticed outside those who have been concerned about these developments. What began in earnest over a year ago with a multilevel attack on the right of self-defence has opened up to attempts by Socialist-Left in the suppression of free-speech. All of this from people who still like to pretend that they are ‘Liberal’. The question now is to develop plans to meet this threat on a number of different levels.

We are to be taken care of and controlled

There was a very prescient scene in an episode the original Star Trek series entitled ‘I, Mudd’. The crew had been kidnapped to a planet of androids. At a very dramatic point in the plot, the leader of the androids states that they will control humans by serving them.

SPOCK: I’m curious, Norman. Just how do you intend to stop them?
NORMAN: We shall serve them. Their kind will be eager to accept our service. Soon they will become completely dependent upon us.
ALICE 99: Their aggressive and acquisitive instincts will be under our control.

KIRK: The whole galaxy controlled by your kind?
NORMAN: Yes, Captain. And we shall serve them and you will be happy, and controlled.

[Our emphasis]

In essence, this is what the tech giants have brought us to. They have made social media ubiquitous to the point that everyone walks around staring at their telephones or gets their news from Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube. They have ‘served’ us to keep us under control.

It had to have been more than a coincidence that this threat from Socialist-Left became clear on the 75th anniversary of D-Day. That was a situation that clearly pitted Good Versus Pure Evil as Josh Hammer termed it over on the Daily Wire.

Some may say that was overly hyperbolic, but consider the threat we face. Google can alter it’s search results to favour the Socialist-Left by a few points. Facebook and Twitter can arbitrarily decide that the expression of the support of Liberty is somehow ‘racist’ or oppresses ‘marginalized communities’ and ban Conservatives for their Pro-Liberty viewpoint. YouTube can ban these expressions because they have harmed the broader community or whatever vague boilerplate they happened to be using at the time.

The Totalitarian Ten Percent

The Hidden tribes study highlighted the face that it’s really only a small portion of the population that verges into the insanity of the Far-Left. That study showed that those of that mentality comprise only 8% of the country. It was also indicated that only a small percentage have concerns over ‘Political correctness’ a figure that is trending downward.

These are the folks of the Far-Left imbued with the tyrannical ideals of collectivism. Granted they are only around 8%, we rounded up for the sake of alliteration. They are a small but extremely vocal minority that their incessant chatter and bleating drowning out the expressions of others of the rational majority. The fact is, most people have work to do or other things than to worry about than whether Steven Crowder insulted certain groups of socialists that worship the image of a mass murderer.

These are the folks with the media megaphone that try to tell the rest of the country what they should be concerned about on a daily basis, such as: Packing the Supreme Court, Abolishing the electoral college, Reparations and of course Late term abortion. Never mind that the rational majority has more important priorities such as limiting and already over-bloated government or merely getting through the day.

This has always been the case with the Socialist-Left. The self styled ‘Bolsheviks’ [Translated as ‘One of the Majority’] were a wing of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party that labels their opponents as the ‘Mensheviks’ [Translated as ‘Those of the Minority’]. The nation’s Socialist-Left has a mindset that they are the moral and intellectual elite because they tell themselves they are the moral and intellectual elite. AOC excused being factually wrong in asserting something about being morally correct. They don’t have to care if they have to use deception or morally questionable tactics since they are trying to save the planet or something.

First, they came for the gun owners

We’ve talked about this before, but it should be pointed out that this is really phase two in the Left’s assault on Liberty. Recall that it was a little more than a year ago that the liberty grabber Left dropped finally drop kicked the mask into the next century, beginning a full on assault against the basic human right of self-preservation.

One finds it hard to believe this was a spontaneous movement inspired by a particular tragedy. These have taken place over the years without a similar result. The fact that it occurred at the same time that the Left also finally admitting the obvious truth of being socialists [Check the OED definition of Left] wasn’t a coincidence.

The fact is the collectivist faith of socialism requires the government to have a monopoly on the use of force. It also requires a monopoly on speech, which brings us to the main part of the discussion.

What are our options in dealing with Leftist censorship of social media?

What do we do with a situation where a small minority controls the technology and their media echo chamber that asserts they are somehow the majority and even if they aren’t their ‘political correctness’ imbues them with the ‘right’ to rule over everyone else?

Their media echo chamber is rapidly shrinking with alternative voices and sources such as this site replacing their propaganda machinery. They cannot abide this loss of control, one of the last lifelines in holding onto their last vestiges of power. Their last strongholds are corporate entities steeped in the Kool-Aid of collectivism. It is at this point it time that we all must consider our options in meeting this threat.

A multi-level response

First, let’s take a page from the enemies of Liberty on the Left in how they went after the right of self-defence in phase I of their assault on freedom. In going after a fundamental human and civil right, they took at multi pronged approach: Demonetising the NRA a top defender of Liberty whilst also attacking our rights on a Federal, state and local level. This means meeting this threat to Liberty from the Left in the same manner.

The Local level means transitioning over to other media sources as well as alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google. These are a few examples:

Minds instead of Facebook

Parler instead of Twitter

Bit Chut or Full30 instead of YouTube.

Duck Duck Go or Start page instead of google

It means we need to start organizing, such as joining the American Conservative Movement.

Options on the Federal level: Platform or Publisher?

This is the primary question in this whole situation, for reference, this is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: 47 U.S. Code § 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Provides for the protection of platforms as opposed to publishers:

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

The corporate behemoths are taking advantage of the situation in that they want to be treated as ‘platforms’ while the acting as publishers. A decision has to be made, if they are merely platforms, they aren’t supposed to be censoring content no matter what kind of vague guidelines they create.

If they are publishers, legal actions can be taken against them. Clearly the situation in which they enjoy the best of both worlds has to stop.

Antitrust actions or breaking them up

While the Libertarian mindset chafes at this kind of option, there is something about monopolistic practices that are equally abhorrent. This type of option may be needed if the Platform or Publisher question is not resolved or doesn’t result in an optimal outcome.

Monopolies tend to discourage innovation and competition, something one has to consider in contemplating this course of action.

Finally, We do not want to have the government ‘regulate’ them

Most likely the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu never felt that he had to write down obvious truths of war such as not shooting yourself with Bow or doing what the enemy wants you to do. However, we are at a point where there are those who want to do this. The social media behemoths claim they want to be regulated, why is this the case?

Why are the corporate behemoths are clamouring to be regulated? As many have stated, this should be easy to understand since they have a number of reasons for this. One, most likely they would be in on writing the regulations to their advantage. Two, they would have the means to deal with the red tape and regulatory burden while upstart concerns would not, yielding them with a continued monopoly for years to come.

No, we don’t want the wolf regulating the hen-house and we don’t Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google regulating themselves and everyone else.

Make no mistake, these are difficult options

All of this brushes up against one’s libertarian sensibilities, but the publisher or platform question needs to be clarified. There is the question of monopolies not being healthy for Liberty and of course regulation of these behemoths should be off the table.

Consider one more point in all of this. These private entities are using ostensibly public infrastructure, created with taxpayers’ dollars. As well as all of this being akin to a public square of sorts, albeit with a private overlay. In essence, these entities brought this on themselves, pushing out competitors while enjoying special privileges in the Law. If the Platform or Publisher legal question isn’t resolved other considerations will have to be made.

The Takeaway

It has been said that the founding documents aren’t a suicide pact. Letting these essentially corporate monopolies run roughshod over our Liberty will mean an end to freedom. That dreadful result is not desirous of the Conservative or Libertarian mindset, no matter how principled the path leading up to it.

These are just some ideas and opinions on what we can do moving forward. It was not meant to be all-inclusive, rather is meant to ‘start a conversation’ on the Left’s incessant attacks on Liberty. These items may not be all we can do, but we must do something. It’s not hyperbole to say our freedom depends on it.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement
Click to comment

Culture and Religion

Ami Horowitz: What is the Muslim Brotherhood?

Published

on

Ami Horowitz What is the Muslim Brotherhood

For an organization that is so wide-reaching, so prominent, and so recognizable across the globe, very little is known about the Muslim Brotherhood by most Americans. They’re an 800-lb gorilla disguised as a harmless puppy that may occasionally bark or growl but can’t do any real damage. The more we learn about their decades of influence and planning in the United States, the scarier this puppy becomes.

Ami Horowitz did an incredible investigative piece on the Muslim Brotherhood, released yesterday by PragerU.

“The US has been a target of the Brotherhood for many years,” Horowitz reported. “Many of its members founded some of this country’s largest Islamic organizations, including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim American Society, among many others.”

But if you ask any of these groups about their affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, they claim there is absolutely no connection. This seems to be a universally told lie.

According to Horowitz, “While some of these groups deny current involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood, many of the same founders are still involved with these organizations and they seem to share the same philosophical underpinnings of the Brotherhood.”

They are working on multiple fronts inside the United States to subvert our culture, governance, and freedoms. To do this, they don’t just act against us. Sometimes, they actually use our own money in the process.

“The Holy Land Foundation was once the largest Islamic charity in the United States. It’s supposed organizational mission was to fund humanitarian programs for Arabs in the Palestinian territories. In reality, it was a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood to help finance Hamas as terrorist activities. In 2009, the founders of the organization were given sentences of between 15 and 65 years in prison for funneling 12 million dollars to Hamas. Among the unindicted co-conspirators listed by the prosecution was a who’s who of major U.S. Islamic leadership including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the North Islamic Trust Fund, and many others.”

They aren’t just raising money. They’re teaching people, converting them. One of their biggest targets are American jails. In prison, the Muslim Brotherhood literally has a captive audience. It is here they’re able to find people willing to act violently and who are ripe for becoming devoted members to the cause of both Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood itself.

What Ami Horowitz shows us in this 15-minute PragerU video should be considered nothing short of required watching for all patriotic Americans. You may not be concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood now, but you should be.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Imagine the Left being completely honest

Published

on

By

Imagine the Left being completely honest

The Left has to hide its core ‘value’ of forced wealth redistribution in order to survive, but imagine if the whole truth came out.

No one would support the Left’s socialistic slavery if it were truthful about its ideology of forced wealth redistribution. They will, however admit to some half-truths using the sin of omission to keep the rest under wraps. This is a look at what it would be like if they were completely honest about their socialist national agenda.

After all, these are people who disguise who they are with deliberately false labels. They can talk all they want about being ‘progressive’ or ‘Liberal’, but it’s all backward thinking with the antithesis of Liberty in having ‘the pedagogy of the paredón’ [execution wall].

Leftists weren’t socialists until suddenly they were.

It is really astounding that the Left expects their words to be taken at face value when their history has always been one of lies. For years they solemnly denied that they were socialists, even though the dictionary and their national agenda told a different story. Everyone was supposed to ignore their obvious denial of reality.

Then in a rare flash of honesty, they admitted what had been obvious for decades: They were socialists.

Lost in the accolades of their coming out of the red closet was the fact that they had been lying about their core values for years. It was positively Orwellian in how they switched without the slightest hint of guilt over their abject deception.

Leftist weren’t demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation.

Leftists certainly seem to have a talent for being able to lie while the truth is in front of everyone else. They used to parrot the lie that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ while absolutely demanding gun confiscation.

It was a bold-faced lie designed to assuage the objections to the Left’s demands for Intergalactic Background Checks or gun registration. We’re not supposed to worry our pretty little heads about the implications of these measures because this just wasn’t in the cards. It was an obvious lie, but the Left demanded that we accept it as the truth along with many others.

These days it’s to the point that the mere rumour of the possibility of a shooting or a particularly cutting remark to a Leftist politician is enough to bring forth this demand. Nevertheless, Leftists will still try to parrot this obvious lie, expecting it to be taken at face value.

Happy talk half-truths.

The national socialist Left would like to be lauded for those rare occasions when they are truly honest. In most cases it’s only part of the story with ‘happy talk’ about free health care, free college, free food, free housing, leaving out the justification over how other people are morally obligated to fund all the freebies.

That is by design, because those discussions delve into the messier aspects of socialism. The false promises, the forcible wealth redistribution, the oppression when the false promises become manifest, the rounding up of dissidents into gulags and concentration camps, the pedagogy of the paredón [execution wall].

The full implications of Leftist half-truths reveals why they keep them hidden, only emphasising the positive aspects of their socialist national agenda.

‘From each according to his abilities’ has to be done at gunpoint.

It should be no surprise that a man who advocated the ideas of a parasitical ideology would have stolen them from the ancient dialogs of someone else. Good old Karl Marx was aware of these ancient texts since he commented on them in his writings. Many others were experimenting – and failing with socialism well before he wrote his ‘manifesto’.

However, the man did phrase the essence of forced wealth redistribution with his:

‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’    Karl Marx

Leftists love to talk up the second part of that little ditty with the promise of all kinds of free stuff while leaving out how the ‘From each’ is supposed to be implemented. This is because other people’s money has to be taken by force.

Bernie Sanders gloated about cancelling student debt and making Wall Street pay for it, without mentioning why they are morally obligated to fund that freebie. He also failed to mention the economic implications of stealing of $1.6 trillion from some people simply because he wants to buy votes.

Where the Leftists truly honest, they would make sure everyone knows some people will be forced to pay for all of the ‘free’ goodies. Most people don’t have to worry about being at the wrong end of government gun, but they do have to worry about that taking of other people’s money sinking the economy.

The full implications of Medicare-for-All.

If there is one thing Leftists love more than being called Liberal, its being lauded for generously spending other people’s money. How they think that money is theirs to take can only be attributed to the distorted mentality of the collectivist mindset.

As reported by JD Rucker Bernie Sanders confirmed the ‘all’ in Medicare-for-All includes illegal immigrants Let’s complete the ‘logic’ of the left in this case and other entitlement issues.

The truthful implications of this are that he believes that everyone has a claim on the property of those who may happen to earn or have more than others. That government is more than a mere protectors of basic human rights, but should be the conduit by which wealth is equally distributed to all in the world.

Never mind that the prospect of free health care, free college, free food, free housing will have the entire world-beating down our ‘door’.

The Left wants everyone to be able to vote to steal other people’s money.

As in the previous example, we all knew what the Left wanted. It was a case of the Left finally coming out and admitting the truth. As reported on Townhall: Caught Red Handed: Despite Their Protests, Democrats Want Illegals To Vote. This is not just a case of the government obtaining the consent of the governed, it is one of the Left flooding the country with illegal invaders that will vote to have other people’s money redistributed to them. Couple this with the promise of free stuff for all who can come in over the border and the people who pay the bills will have lost control of their own country. It will be the end result of every democracy that will be inherently unstable.

If they can accomplish this, the national socialist left will have succeeded in taking the most stable and functioning systems of government and perverting it to one where the minority will be tyrannised by the majority. It will inevitably disintegrate as fewer people work to have their earnings stolen by others, shifting the burden to fewer and fewer until the whole system collapses.

Open borders and reparations for past sins.

Our final two examples – in more ways than one – we have Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking ‘What’s The Point?’ on the issue of enforcing Immigration Laws In U.S. as reported in the Daily Wire.

Then there is the story reported on the website Twitchy of an opinion piece from the New York Times that openly admits that the illegal invasion and reparations movement are meant to be penance for ‘our’ past sins.

The national Socialist-Left doesn’t see any point in borders or Enforcing Immigration Laws and that we must pay some form of penance for our past sins. Never mind that the people who committed these sins have long since passed or that the people benefiting weren’t the original victims. No, to those on the Left, we have committed the unpardonable crime of being successful and having the best system of government ever conceived.

The Takeaway.

The full extent of the truth of what the Left has admitted is almost too monstrous to contemplate. They have no qualms about forcibly taking property in order to buy votes and loyalty. They are perfectly willing to hand out goodies to anyone who will vote for them. Finally, they don’t believe in sovereignty and see the illegal invasion and reparations as a way of the innocent of today to pay for the collective sins of the past.

Thus whatever they do to the country to attain power for themselves is perfectly legitimate in their minds. It doesn’t matter to them if it leads to our destruction because we probably deserve it. It used to be said that certain foreign entities hated us for our freedom. In looking at the implications of the rare instances when the Left has been a little honest, it would seem they agree with that sentiment.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Demise of LifeWay: Changing times or because they peddled heresy? 

Published

on

Demise of LifeWay Changing times or because they peddled heresy

It’s not the best of times to be a book store in 2019. Amazon crushed much of the competition. Still, Lifeway remained the retail branch of the Southern Baptist Convention until its announced closure of all of its stores back in March. The brand will continue to operate online. The SBC is embattled with confusion and the influence of Social Justice Gospel at the celebrity pastor level. That confusion, created by various personalities, has not been lost on LifeWay. So the question of the day: is LifeWay consolidating because of changing times or because they peddled heresy?

It should come as a surprise to no one that LifeWay has peddled an enormous amount of heresy. I wrote, back in May, posing the question: why the Prosperity Gospel is still popular? In that column, I noted that Lifeway sells the Prosperity Gospel. But the Prosperity Gospel is far from the only heresy that they profited from. If not for Lifeway, would Heaven Tourism books have reached popularity enough to have made movies from it? Then, there’s mysticism because postmodernism is alive and well.

Pulpit and Pen has danced on the grave of LifeWay as they become a hollow seed of what they once were, claiming sole credit for their demise for being a primary influencer in the #the15 movement. The movement was launched against LifeWay by comments construed as elitist towards its customers in 2014 by Ed Stezter in response to concerns over John Piper’s cozy comments to the Pope. Evidently, a lot of congregations have turned their backs on Lifeway ever since. Pulpit and Pen notes, in their rejoicing, how the financial woes for LifeWay began in 2014 according to their financial presentation. A lot of churches used to consider themselves “LifeWay only” churches in terms of materials used, explains Randy White of First Baptist Church of Katy, Texas explained. He also expressed his displeasure with the heresy on their shelves in his decision to move his congregation away from them.

Amazon is powerful, but so is having a quality brand. People, especially in churches, will contribute to businesses that support their values. But LifeWay stopped doing that, instead selling any book that will bring in revenue regardless of their responsibility to the Lord as a faith-based entity. When enough people saw through “faith-based” branding of LifeWay, the company was left to the mercy of Amazon.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending