I’LL ALERT THIS FOX TO MY NEWS IF YOU CATCH MY DRIFT

I just want to make you all aware that the comments section on FoxNews.Com is open, and it is totally BASED.

This just in from an article on a a recent (presumably black) murder of a cop:

They’re just letting this stuff go at this point.

So I mean, if you are feeling overly anxious and locked in your little space, then go on Fox and comment. Don’t just argue with other Alt-Righters.

Go spread our message of X-REME RACIAL HATE to innocents who have yet to hear the BAD NEWS about these KIKES AND NIGGERS.

Our most fertile group is Trump supporters. Always support Trump. Get a Trump avatar. Go on Fox or other right-wing sites and make explicit what Trump made implicit.

There’s an ALT-RIGHT RACE HATER born every minute. It is your duty to get out there and make it happen.

2015 was a breakthrough year for immigration patriots, both conservatives and what is sometimes called the #AltRight. As expected, 2016 is going to be a year of repression as the Left moves to simply prohibit discussion of the problems it has created.

It will start with the comment sections. The Guardian is moving to flat out prohibit comments on important issues, especially those that have to do with immigration.

Certain subjects – race, immigration and Islam in particular – attract an unacceptable level of toxic commentary, believes Mary Hamilton, our executive editor, audience. “The overwhelming majority of these comments tend towards racism, abuse of vulnerable subjects, author abuse and trolling, and the resulting conversations below the line bring very little value but cause consternation and concern among both our readers and our journalists,” she said last week.

[The readers’ editor on…handling comments below the line, by Stephen Pritchard, The Guardian, January 31, 2016]

Translation: Sometimes readers argue against journalists’ shilling for more immigration. This should not be allowed. After all, free speech is already illegal in Great Britain.

What’s especially amusing is this idea that fragile journalists’ feelings need to be protected. As Raheem Kassam notes at Breitbart:

Ms. Hamilton herself has written: “the Guardian took the decision to cut down the number of places where we open comments on stories relating to a few contentious subjects – particularly migration and race. The aim isn’t to stop comments appearing at all, but rather to enable us to manage them more effectively, keep a closer watch on the conversation, feed back what’s being said, and make sure the discussion is constructive and not abusive. We hope it’ll help us to be responsible hosts, essentially.”

The paper probably doesn’t quite get the irony of claiming that “Comment is Free” while dictating on what terms its readership should be able to discuss a topic, but this hasn’t stopped Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Pritchard stomping all over C.P. Scott’s legacy. His is often quoted as having said “Comment is Free but Facts Are Sacred”, but the entire quote is as follows:

“A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”

With its latest move, the Guardian is embracing its monopoly over its readership, especially in “what it does not give” – though in a growing market of news and opinion, it is a perhaps a false monopoly that will hasten the paper’s decline.

[Comment Isn’t Free: Guardian to CLOSE Comments On Articles About ‘Race, Immigration and Islam,’ February 1, 2016]

It won’t just be the comment sections. Rumors are already swirling that Twitter is preparing a massive purge of #AltRight and conservative accounts in order to turn its service into a giant liberal hugbox. They may have jumped the gun by removing the “verified” status for well known commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, promoting the #JeSuisMilo trend and ironically helping him gain thousands of followers.

But that’s probably only a delay. Leftists have it wrong when they say “corporate media” is only interested in making money. It seems they are far more interested in controlling speech, propping up the politically correct Narrative, and punishing dissent.

Whereas right-wingers tend to ask for open debate of subjects, the liberal agenda is to shut down all free speech and push their propaganda unhindered. We see this in the way governments censor speech, in the way left-wing “hacktivists” try to shut down the websites of those they disagree with and in the way sites are now closing down their entire comments sections.

Breitbart:

The internet was born open but is becoming closed everywhere. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the rush to shutter readers’ comments sections at major news organisations. Cheered on by intolerant, snobbish cultural elites, news organisations from The Verge to The Daily Beast have, in recent months, informed their readers to take their opinions elsewhere.

Dozens of progressive blogs and news outlets are following suit, citing “abuse” and “harassment” as the primary reasons they no longer want to hear the opinions of their readers. But that’s not what is really going on.

There was a time when comments sections were seen as the next step in a golden age of democratised communication, particularly by the political Left. “For the first time ever, we are thinking aloud, unfiltered by mass media gatekeepers,” wrote a former Hillary Clinton advisor in 2008. “Never before has the global discourse been so accessible, recursive, and durable.”

In 2009, the former online editor for the Washington Post wrote that despite their problems, readers’ comments allowed readers to “complain about what they see as unfairness or inaccuracy” and remind editors that they “do not always agree with journalists about what is important.”

The late Georgina Henry, former editor of the Guardian’s online commentary pages, wrote in 2010 that “journalism without feedback, engagement, dispute and opinion from below the line no longer feels complete to me.” Indeed, the Guardian was once so enamoured of its comments section that it ran a weekly feature, Below the Line, in which “delightful, prolific, or controversial members of  the Guardian comment community” were invited to profile themselves.

The rise of comments sections coincided with the rise of another high-minded idea: the Crowd. If TED talks from the early 2010s are to be believed, the Crowd was set to revolutionise government, end poverty, and cure cancer. In an age when the Crowd was going to fix the world’s problems, it stood to reason that they should fix public discourse as well.

But the era of Silicon Valley-led optimism is over, at least for the journalists and publications that once eagerly reported on it. Today, the tone is misanthropic, not utopian, and the Crowd – at least as it appears in the comment boxes – is portrayed not as saviour, but as a sort of barbarous horde at the gates of politically-correct progressive society.

“Vibrant online communities? Or cesspits of abuse?” asked the BBC in a recent feature on the closure of comments sections. “Alongside shouting, swearing and incivility, comments sections can also attract racism and sexism,” the article continued.

This refrain can be found in almost every left-leaning publication these days. The Pacific Standard: “Even if [comments sections] aren’t vile and psychologically damaging, most of them aren’t worth your time.” Brooklyn Magazine: “Most comment sections are vats of poison, filled with grammatically questionable rants at best and violent hate speech at worst.” The Atlantic: “Online comments are often ignorant, racist, sexist, threatening, or otherwise worthless. But you knew that already.”

…

It’s no accident that so many of the loudest voices against online comments sections are also political zealots. Jessica Valenti, Arthur Chu, Tauriq Moosa, Anita Sarkeesian: all have come out against comment sections. This isn’t an accident, of course. Psychologists have long been aware that political extremists have the most negative reactions to contrary information. Combine that with a disdain for free speech, a core cultural authoritarian value, and you get a frantic rush to remove the opinions of ordinary people.

But there are also more sinister, elitist motivations. A study conducted by The Washington Post and USA Today found that readers who viewed articles with comments sections were more likely to develop a negative opinion of the news media. Curiously, this effect was seen even when commenters praised the article in question. In other words, when the opinions of journalists and the opinions or ordinary members of the public are placed close together, it leads readers to question the competence of the mainstream media. What horror!

Another study found that reading assertive, aggressive comments could actually sway the opinions of readers. “Don’t read the comments,” warned Ars Technica, “they can make you mistrust real experts.”

It is incredible the way they switched that up. Free input was once good, now it is evil, because the people themselves are evil, and must simply be talked to without being allowed to express their own opinions.

It follows the larger trend of “shut it down” among the politically correct elite.

Liberals/Jews used to celebrate “freedom” when they were pushing free sex, drug use and porno. Now that they have all of these things in place, they have no interest in freedom as anything other than an abstract concept.

“Freedom” as allowing degeneracy or obscenity is a debatable concept, but the value of allowing free and open political discussion is not.

Being against free political speech is a clear indication that someone is wrong, that they are attempting to force you to believe what they want you to believe against basic objective realities.

The BBC has a piece up about how more and more news sites are shutting their comments sections down because they are losing control of their own narrative.

Vibrant online communities? Or cesspools of abuse? Have comments had their day?

The debate about comment sections on news sites is often as divisive as the comments themselves. Recently outlets such as The Verge and The Daily Dot have closed their comments sections because they’ve become too hard to manage. And they’re far from alone. Moderating comments is a full-time job (or several full-time jobs) at many news organisations. Officiating comments on a BBC News story requires knowledge of more than a dozen different disqualifying categories. Alongside shouting, swearing and incivility, comment sections can also attract racism and sexism. BBC Trending recently found evidence of the latter when looking at live streaming app Periscope.

For the record, I have never had a problem managing my comments section. Except for the thing with people calling for violence or violent acts, I let people say what they want, and it all seems to work out.

Our narrative controls itself because we are right. The only reason you would need to shut down comments is if you were pushing ideas which blatantly conflicted with reality. And of course, this is the case with all mainstream Jew media, and the reason that even those who still have comments sections engage in such heavy censorship.

Recently, liberal blog infowars.com has been considering shutting the bitch down because of all the anti-Semitism and racism their comments section is getting flooded with following the Jonestown massacre.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that multiculturalism cannot and will not work.

Whites who have had all of this Cultural Marxist insanity shoved down their throats over the past 50 years are starting to rebel against it.  I came across a story about a group of female Negro savages that ganged up on another Negro going to a job interview.  I would say that over 90% of the comments would be considered “racist” by the Jew media.  It shows that we are having an impact on the narrative.  Being labeled a “racist” is starting to lose its meaning.  The Jew run media has used the term so much that nobody cares if they are called this any longer.

Check out some of the comments I came across.

There are many other mainstream stories on Black violence where the comments section is flooded with all sorts of anti-Black comments much like the one’s shown above.  This is particularly true in the case of stories involving Black on White violence, which obviously happens far more frequently than White on Black violence.  In some cases, certain publications have chosen to shut down their comments section because of the overwhelming amount of so-called “racist” comments.

When you see the comments section of a mainstream Jew-run media site like a CBS affiliate looking like the comments section of a Daily Stormer article, you know that people’s perceptions are changing radically.