[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Why do you keep bringing up Hannity and Infowars? Please show me where I used information from them?

...

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

This is by far the most important post to this thread in the past couple of weeks and I’m afraid a few here are so caught up in their petty foolishness that they don’t realize it.

You see, this has nothing to do about you liking/ despising Alex Jones (I for one am not a fan of his continuous blathering and yelling), rather, about a mass effort to shut a voice down.

Believe it or not, Alex Jones is one of the ALL TIME GREATEST multi-level marketers in the history of multi-level marketing! The content of his radio show attracted listeners and the listeners supported Alex Jones by purchasing whatever product he was shelling.

Alex created his pyramid by placing station owners and station managers under him (in his down line). Any products sold to listeners calling a number attached to a specific station, that owner / manager go a cut of the pyramid profits. It got to where so much money was rolling in, Alex Jones was no longer having to pay for the Air Time.

It’s important to understand the difference between advertisers: beer companies, hotel chains and your local grocery store. These were not the types of companies supporting or buying airtime on stations when the Alex Jones Show was on. Instead, it was companies with product names you don’t see on store shelves, but products we’re familiar with: nale vitality, do it yourself home water filtration systems, six month supply of MRE’s for a family of four...these were the type of products advertising on the show.

Outside the Over-The-Air terrestrial radio waves, Alex Jones had multiple podcast (5) on iTunes, Spotify, a FB page and YouTube channel that the masses flocked to......and with a concerted effort, the current social media platforms took it all away in a single day.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND......a single platform didn’t shut Alex Jones down because of something he said and then after some backlash and bad press, the other platforms decided to flex their self righteousness.

NO NO NO......it was a concerted movement —COLLUSION— to shut Alex down and it’s simply WRONG!!!! Once you start with Alex Jones, it’s not that far from shutting down church service webstreams or preaches podcasts. News Papers are slowly dying and for some reason FREEDOM OF THE PRESS isn’t transitioning to social media platforms.

So why was Alex Jones shut down?

The elections are coming up and the left is desperate.

No worries......because of Alex Jones, someone is currently creating a new platform that the left will have no control over.

And for those of you who think I’m crazy......just look at the BILLIONS of dollars FB lost over the past couple of weeks due to people leaving FB in droves.

Another way to say it, the very group of people who would vilify you for refusing service to gays, people of color or religion are the same individuals applauding Alex Jones being shot down......the fact they don’t understand the difference is the DIVISION of America!!!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Because you can go back to the beginning of this thread and you won’t find me banging the drum for anyone.

...

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Speaking of our President:

“This election is about your families and your values and what kind of country you want to leave for your children. This election is about keeping America safe, keeping America strong, keeping America proud and keeping America free!”

[ilduclo]

AZ Republicans Get Their Roger Stone Ratf*ck On

https://www.wonkette.com/this-is-you...n-james-okeefe

[ilduclo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=863342626

Mr.Rape Face

 

raper
Incumbent
Assumed office
October 6, 2018
Nominated by Donald Trump
Preceded by Anthony Kennedy
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
In office
May 30, 2006 – October 6, 2018
Nominated by George W. Bush
Preceded by Laurence Silberman
Succeeded by Vacant
White House Staff Secretary
In office
June 6, 2003 – May 30, 2006

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

thank you for what??

For showing with your own words that I’m not banging the drum for anyone!

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

...

This is what you offer......what a freaking joke!!!

I do a recap of the week and because I quoted our President......that’s banging a drum?

Using your logic -???- quoting Crooked Hillary somehow isn’t banging the drum for her?

I was presenting both sides, but clearly you only see it one way......and this is why Democrats and the FarLeft are loosing!!

And this......

Originally Posted by evollove

There are around 310 million Americans. Two major parties. Your generalizations of about one of them is getting boring.

evollove responds with a census report?

Do you not think that America realizes that “We Must Disobey-We Must Disrupt “ and ANTIFA as being associated with the Democratic Party?

YES — it’s mostly associated with the FarLeft, but when Crooked Hillary opens her mouth saying the Democratic Party cannot be civil unless they have the power, America recognizes that as being mainstream Democrat and America voted two years ago they wanted NO PART of that......and I believe they will soon do so again!!!

I noticed how neither one of you addressed Hillary’s statement???

Oh - I wasn’t banging the drum-drum for Alex Jones, just pointed out that it’s bad JuJu when social media platforms silence content.

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

“crooked hillary”

DEADBEAT DONALD

What would have happened if the FBI Investigation of Judge Kavanaugh revealed that the Judge set up a server in his bedroom closet so he could avoid detection from our Government?

What if the FBI discovered that Jusge Kavanaugh sold uranium to Russia?

What if Judge Kavanaugh and his wife received payments from Russia?

......Mueller might have something then!!!!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

What if the FBI discovered that Jusge Kavanaugh sold uranium to Russia?

are you serious or are you trolling?

no, by this question i do not mean “you are objective and impartial” (wtf)

i just mean: are you just jerking people’s chains here? or are you really that ignorant to continue with this “hillary sold 20% of american uranium to russia” bullshit you drank with your breitbart & hannity & tucker carson koolaid?

because yes that 2nd option would make you deadbeat donald’s little drummer boy.

if you’re just trolling though—well played, funny guy.

here. please read something written by grownups, for grownups, in that far-left commie rag, forbes magazine:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#61e805147b55

[tesla69]

“I unfortunately always felt the day would come when alternative media would be scrubbed from major social media sites,” Anti-Media’s Chief Creative Officer S.M. Gibson said in a statement to me. “Because of that I prepared by having backup accounts years ago. The fact that those accounts, as well as 3 accounts from individuals associated with Anti-Media were banned without warning and without any reason offered by either platform makes me believe this purge was certainly orchestrated by someone. Who that is I have no idea, but this attack on information was much more concise and methodical in silencing truth than most realize or is being reported.”
It is now clear that there is either (A) some degree of communication/coordination between Twitter and Facebook about their respective censorship practices, or (B) information being given to both Twitter and Facebook by another party regarding targets for censorship. Either way, it means that there is now some some mechanism in place linking the censorship of dissident voices across multiple platforms. We are beginning to see smaller anti-establishment alternative media outlets cut off from their audiences by the same sort of coordinated cross-platform silencing we first witnessed with Alex Jones in August.

[ilduclo]

Don’t be fooled by Bannon’s split with Trump. He’s leading a Trumpian onslaught to undermine European democracy itself

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-europe-trump

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

while Communism is decidedly oriented towards the future, and to the construction of a future society, that Fascism is oriented towards a timeless present, and is devoid of a future orientation.

I'd say it depends how rigid you want to be about something being future oriented. Certainly the Futurists were (needless to say) future-oriented but even they ultimately looked back to Rome as their underlying model for their 'new' society - just as the Nazis may have looked forward to a Master Race, but saw that too as a revival of a kind of Northern European pagan/folkloric past. So while it's too simple to say fascism is devoid of any future orientation, it does seem to always define that future as a rebirth of something from the past. Which I suppose is the very definition of any re-birth. At its core Fascism is a pallngenetic movement but that doesn't stop it also being future orientated.

Being dialectical, Communism is always future orientated.

The only political ideology which might conceivably exist in a 'timeless present' is laissez faire Capitalism, or maybe some branches of Libertarianism.

In any case, Stanley spoke of the white working class as feeling victimized and blaming their problems on minorities, and said that white workers failed to unite their cause with that of the other oppressed peoples of the Progressive movement's "intersectionality" deal, without examining the severely anti-proletarian nature of the Democratic party's policies on international trade agreements and illegal immigration.

I agree. Intersectionality has nothing to do with working class interests. A member of the black or LGBT community can also be a member of the bourgeoisie or an aristocrat, in the way that a member of the working class simply cannot. That's not to say the Working Class should ever seek to separate itself from a member of any of those groups if they happen to be working class, regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation. Talk of a White Working Class only muddies the water by forcing an unnecessary rift between people with shared class interests and ultimately relegates class politics to the same level as identity politics.

He did, however, point to Putin's Russia of today as a possible template for the United States of tomorrow, which I am concerned has a degree of validity.

The stand off will likely be between an anti-democratic globalist system (typified by the EU, DAVOS, etc) an anti-democratic nationalist system (typified by Russia, China, etc) and an anti-democratic theocracy (typified by Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

I only wish those of his ilk could see what is obvious to me, that the Bernie sanders movement and the Donald trump movement of the 2016 election cycle were two sides of the same coin, which should have recognized that fact and, if possible, joined forces.

I agree. And you can add the Brexit movement to that, and to some degree the rise of Jeremy Corbyn. I don't think they could've ever realistically joined forces but I do think, in their very different (and often conflicting) ways, we might ultimately come to see them as representing what may end up being the last gasp of any kind of meaningful democracy.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

Your only point of disagreement with me seems to be about the future orientation of Fascism, in which case I concede the argument. Your observation about a globalist/nationalist/theocratic anti-democratic (authoritarian) triad also seems astute, with my worry being that the US will end up in the nationalist camp with Russia and China (Oceania/Eurasia/East Asia?). I certainly hope we're both wrong about the future prospects for democracy in the world.

I was really only trying to nuance Stanley's argument, rather than disagree with yours, but anyway.

I see Trump as largely irrelevant in all this. The really interesting thing will be who succeeds him, either from the Conservative/Right, Liberal/Left or some other axis that's yet to emerge. The obvious fear amongst his opponents is that he's defining the beginning of something, but I tend to think he's more a chaotic convulsive interregnum merely marking the end of a Boomer inspired Progressive/Neo-Liberal experiment, that's been rejected by those largely from that generation who felt increasingly alienated by it. I'd say the same thing about Brexit. But, for all the studies looking at how millennials are thinking politically, we really have no idea. My feeling though is that Sanders probably arrived onto the scene two elections too early and watch out for Steve Bannon, or anyone who might emerge in his image.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

Just a further couple of points:

One important aspect of Fascist ideology is the idea of corporatism, the liquidation of the class struggle into an inter-class union of employers and employees based upon commonality of nationality, race, or whatever. This appears, to me, to be very similar to the "Intersectionalty" ideology of the current political orthodoxy in elite US circles, as demonrail666 has pointed out. It also haa a clear antecedent in domestic US politics in the "Jim Crow," system of the Southeastern US in the early 20th Century, which was also a product of the Democratic Party.

Further, the "Politically Correct" crowd are part of the Globalist elite, as mentioned by demonrail666 regarding the EU, Davos, etc. So, the current situation may be seen as a massive struggle by "commoners" to preserve their liberties in the face of assaults by elites on an intercontinental scale. Thus the severity of the struggle.

I think there are parallels between intersectionality and fascism but I now consider the thinking (for want of a better word) behind much of what it stands for to be so muddled and contradictory and essentially self-defeating that I exhaust myself knowing where to even start with it. Fascism at least has a logic, as does Communism, Free Market Capitalism, Classical Liberalism and all the other grown-up ideologies. They at least allow for a rational argument either for or against them. Identity politics is like a shouting child, whose shouts only become louder and more impassioned the more you try to reason with it. The tragedy is that so-called adults gave it a voice to begin with, so now we're not only doomed to having to listen to it but even adjust our lives according to its imbecilic demands.

--

See? This is what happens when I'm deprived of football for a week.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I think there are parallels between intersectionality and fascism but I now consider the thinking (for want of a better word) behind much of what it stands for to be so muddled and contradictory and essentially self-defeating that I exhaust myself knowing where to even start with it. Fascism at least has a logic, as does Communism, Free Market Capitalism, Classical Liberalism and all the other grown-up ideologies. They at least allow for a rational argument either for or against them. Identity politics is like a shouting child, whose shouts only become louder and more impassioned the more you try to reason with it. The tragedy is that so-called adults gave it a voice to begin with, so now we're not only doomed to having to listen to it but even adjust our lives according to its imbecilic demands.

the thing with identity politics is that it’s always been there though. tribalism is the constant of what the marxists like to call the barbaric stage of society. even in the so-called logic of fascism there is a core of irrationality and identity politics—blood and race. so il duce invades ethiopia, adolph exterminates the jews and subjugates the slavs, etc. the english royal family thus changes their german names to windsor. so very ethnic.

communism ignored ethnicity and look at what happened: the breakup of yugoslavia gave us a long bloody civil war and ethnic cleansing. the soviets split back into their republics and it hasn’t been as popular to talk about the bloodbath in the caucasus but that mess will continue for at least another century.

the enlightenment and classical liberalism glossed over the expansion of empires that justified their conquests on the bases of ethnicity. france in algeria, belgians in the congo, england all around the globe, the dutch in indonesia and south africa, spain and portugal in the americas, continental genocide, the slave trade, etc. sure there were economic interests at stake but those were justified on the basis of ethnic or religious arguments. the white man’s burden, the advancement of christian civilization, manifest destiny vs. the wild irish, the beastly negro, the primitive indian, etc etc etc. and it was always a man’s world.

at the same time many of the modern republics rose from ethnic / nationalists impulses out of the old empires. greeks freed from the turks, ireland freed from england, finland out of russia or was it sweden? etc etc.africa is still figuring it out but let’s not forget rwandan machetes. latin america is a bit different, too long to get into it, but it was the creoles (whites) lording it over brown people—so, ethnic. now catalonia wants to break free again. scotland might try again. every ethnic group is looking to separateas the world becomes more integrated. laugh at alvin toeffler all you want but he saw this coming.

do i find identity politics appealing? as a global mongrel, i certainly do not. but that’s also based on my identity no? hahahaha. well, everyone is a mongrel really if you ask me, but many find the label repugnant/insulting. dumbfucks love racial purity and hate science.

but anyway, identity politics has lived longer and harder than any modern political ideology. everyone believes they’re the chosen people, or beyond that, simply “the people”, and the rest are just barbarians, bar bar bar, barking unintelligible words, or you know what, merely animals—let’s put them to work.

intersectionality etc is merely the current way of describing those on the receiving end of the ethnically centered and gendered power systems that haven been with us since the dawn of time. i find it absurd and logical at the same time. it’s a form of resistance, but it goes nowhere.

the talk of white working class you find so objectionable is precisely what’s going on here: the white working class left out of the feast of globalization embracing identity politics. it really is an ethnic voting block.

when will this end? i have no fucking idea. but it’s been with us since the dawn of our species. and none of the grownup political ideologies have properly grappled with it.

my hopes are of course on liberalism, not in the “left liberal” sense that came to be in america but on the broader one that gave us modern democracy, human rights, economic freedom, and protects the individual from collective oppression, updated for our time. the full promise of the enlightenment.

the unavoidable march of globalization might be delayed but can’t be stopped. it’s been inevitable since we left africa, and the only real question is what are the values that will shape it.

[ilduclo]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Identity politics

I read the words "identity politics" as just a right wing complaint that suddenly all these pesky brown people, gays, disabled folks and women are demanding a place at the debate and decision table. That's just inclusivity, moving more closely to what the founding documents for this country profess (acknowledging that we've never attained the goals.) But, WTF, we can fucking aspire to the rhetoric, can't we?

[ilduclo]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The tragedy is that so-called adults gave it a voice to begin with

damn, that's some fucking ugly ideology you got there, rail

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

I read the words "identity politics" as just a right wing complaint that suddenly all these pesky brown people, gays, disabled folks and women are demanding a place at the debate and decision table. That's just inclusivity, moving more closely to what the founding documents for this country profess (acknowledging that we've never attained the goals.) But, WTF, we can fucking aspire to the rhetoric, can't we?

I believe everyone has the right to speak. The problem with Identity Politics (capital A capital P) is that it prioritises certain groups over others and prohibits the critique of certain positions through de-platforming, the introduction of 'safe-spaces', etc.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the thing with identity politics is that it’s always been there though. tribalism is the constant of what the marxists like to call the barbaric stage of society. even in the so-called logic of fascism there is a core of irrationality and identity politics—blood and race. so il duce invades ethiopia, adolph exterminates the jews and subjugates the slavs, etc. the english royal family thus changes their german names to windsor. so very ethnic]


communism ignored ethnicity and look at what happened: the breakup of yugoslavia gave us a long bloody civil war and ethnic cleansing. the soviets split back into their republics and it hasn’t been as popular to talk about the bloodbath in the caucasus but that mess will continue for at least another century.

the enlightenment and classical liberalism glossed over the expansion of empires that justified their conquests on the bases of ethnicity. france in algeria, belgians in the congo, england all around the globe, the dutch in indonesia and south africa, spain and portugal in the americas, continental genocide, the slave trade, etc. sure there were economic interests at stake but those were justified on the basis of ethnic or religious arguments. the white man’s burden, the advancement of christian civilization, manifest destiny vs. the wild irish, the beastly negro, the primitive indian, etc etc etc. and it was always a man’s world.

at the same time many of the modern republics rose from ethnic / nationalists impulses out of the old empires. greeks freed from the turks, ireland freed from england, finland out of russia or was it sweden? etc etc.africa is still figuring it out but let’s not forget rwandan machetes. latin america is a bit different, too long to get into it, but it was the creoles (whites) lording it over brown people—so, ethnic. now catalonia wants to break free again. scotland might try again. every ethnic group is looking to separateas the world becomes more integrated. laugh at alvin toeffler all you want but he saw this coming.

do i find identity politics appealing? as a global mongrel, i certainly do not. but that’s also based on my identity no? hahahaha. well, everyone is a mongrel really if you ask me, but many find the label repugnant/insulting. dumbfucks love racial purity and hate science.

but anyway, identity politics has lived longer and harder than any modern political ideology. everyone believes they’re the chosen people, or beyond that, simply “the people”, and the rest are just barbarians, bar bar bar, barking unintelligible words, or you know what, merely animals—let’s put them to work.

intersectionality etc is merely the current way of describing those on the receiving end of the ethnically centered and gendered power systems that haven been with us since the dawn of time. i find it absurd and logical at the same time. it’s a form of resistance, but it goes nowhere.

the talk of white working class you find so objectionable is precisely what’s going on here: the white working class left out of the feast of globalization embracing identity politics. it really is an ethnic voting block.

when will this end? i have no fucking idea. but it’s been with us since the dawn of our species. and none of the grownup political ideologies have properly grappled with it.

my hopes are of course on liberalism, not in the “left liberal” sense that came to be in america but on the broader one that gave us modern democracy, human rights, economic freedom, and protects the individual from collective oppression, updated for our time. the full promise of the enlightenment.

the unavoidable march of globalization might be delayed but can’t be stopped. it’s been inevitable since we left africa, and the only real question is what are the values that will shape it.

There's too many points here to address individually but a lot of what you say (most of which no reasonable person could disagree with) hinges on the idea that Identity Politcs is just a politics that acknowledges peoples identity. Of course, pretty much all politics does that, but the kind of politics I'm talking about is more specific than that. I'm talking about a particular kind of Marxism that emerged after 68, which replaced its emphasis on class and economics with 'oppression' and culture. This was welded to ideas about power from people like Foucault which gives rise to this strange topsy-turvy world we see now, where the daughter of a banker at Harvard can tell an unemployed guy from the rust belt to check his privilege. Where the 'Left' are willing to fall behind a politician if they say the right thing about an oppressed group, regardless of the fact their neo-liberal economics are essentially Reagonomics/Thatcherism on steroids - and unquestionably do more damage to the oppressed people of the world than someone who might innocently miss-apply a gender pronoun.

The world is in a seriously dangerous state right now so we need to be serious about it. Identity Politcs just seems like a frivolous distraction to me. Decadent in the broadest sense of the word.

[GravitySlips]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I believe everyone has the right to speak. The problem with Identity Politics (capital A capital P) is that it prioritises certain groups over others and prohibits the critique of certain positions through de-platforming, the introduction of 'safe-spaces', etc.



There's too many points here to address individually but a lot of what you say (most of which no reasonable person could disagree with) hinges on the idea that Identity Politcs is just a politics that acknowledges peoples identity. Of course, pretty much all politics does that, but the kind of politics I'm talking about is more specific than that. I'm talking about a particular kind of Marxism that emerged after 68, which replaced its emphasis on class and economics with 'oppression' and culture. This was welded to ideas about power from people like Foucault which gives rise to this strange topsy-turvy world we see now, where the daughter of a banker at Harvard can tell an unemployed guy from the rust belt to check his privilege. Where the 'Left' are willing to fall behind a politician if they say the right thing about an oppressed group, regardless of the fact their neo-liberal economics are essentially Reagonomics/Thatcherism on steroids - and unquestionably do more damage to the oppressed people of the world than someone who might innocently miss-apply a gender pronoun.

The world is in a seriously dangerous state right now so we need to be serious about it. Identity Politcs just seems like a frivolous distraction to me. Decadent in the broadest sense of the word.

Couldn't agree more with this!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

where the daughter of a banker at Harvard can tell an unemployed guy from the rust belt to check his privilege. .

i’ll reply to the rest later but this jumped at me because i think you’re missing the point of what you’re arguing against. well at least in an american context.

first since you said harvard it reminded me of henry louis gates getting arrested in his house for “disorderly conduct” after being questioned for breaking into his own house, HAVING PROVEN ALREADY IT WAS HIS HOUSE. sure sure, he said some unpleasant things, but it was his first amendment right and he was not prosecuted because there was no case against him.

...later another cop called him a jungle monkey...

second, yes, money confers privilege, but in some circumstances race erases it

e.g., just quickly googled some terms and blam

https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/14/new...ing/index.html

i dont know who this hypothetical or actual daughter of a banker might be, or in what circumstances she would say but, but money is not everything

last, here an english journo explains how/why you might be missing the point:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ucation-income

ok, monday morning, gotta run... the rest later

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I believe everyone has the right to speak. The problem with Identity Politics (capital A capital P) is that it prioritises certain groups over others and prohibits the critique of certain positions through de-platforming, the introduction of 'safe-spaces', etc.

ive never run into a campus safe space, but the idea of it reminds me of what used to be the gay bar, where gay people could go and be who they wanted to be without fear of violence of persecution. these days i suppose in big cities nobody gives a shit, but there is a terribly made documentary called “small town, gay bar” which illustrates the ongoing plight of gay people in the unsafe space that is the american south. just because it is terribly made and it’s overly repetitive and too long it does not mean the subject is bad. it’s a great subject actually which is why i watched it completely and know it’s overly repetitive and too long. it’s because the subject matter is great.

anyway, we all want society to be a safe space and thatks why we have rules of conduct and laws and police etc.

but again the problem is a little bit like what i mentioned above. if yuo’re a black person in america, a routine interaction with the police is not safe...

see, even an encounter with a fellow student in a university campus can be threatening... if yuo’re black andfall asleep i your own dorm, a white student will call the cops on you

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...called-police/

read the whole list of “while black” situations listed there. a child selling lemonade in front of her own house was the latest i recall.

but see, if you take a knee during the national anthem to protest unjustified killings of black people by police... the wingnuts start crying “identity politics!”

i know that you’re addressing a very narrow definition of the term, but that academic definition is not what we’re experiencing here on an everyday basis.

[!@#$%!]

now DEADBEAT DONALD is refusing to pay the million dollars he offered for charity if elizabeth warren proved she had native american ancestry.

ha ha ha ha deadbeat donald always lying